Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Global Warming 'Skeptic' Never Really Was - Media's portrayal of scientist wrong Capitol Confidential ^ | 8/4/2012 | Tom Gantert http://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/17305 The mainstream media is celebrating a physicist who allegedly did a U-turn on his global warming views and now says humans are the cause. Except Richard Muller had already said in 2008 that man was a cause of global warming. Nonetheless, the San Francisco Chronicle, for example, reported July 31: “The hot issue of global warming got hotter Monday when a UC Berkeley physicist, once a loud skeptic of human-caused climate change, agreed not only that the Earth is heating up, but also that people are the cause of it all.” Never mind that in an interview almost four years ago with the environmental magazine Grist, Muller said man was a cause of global warming. Grist: What should a President McCain or Obama know about global warming? Muller: The bottom line is that there is a consensus — the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] — and the president needs to know what the IPCC says. Second, they say that most of the warming of the last 50 years is probably due to humans. You need to know that this is from carbon dioxide, and you need to understand which technologies can reduce this and which can’t. Roughly 1 degree Fahrenheit of global warming has taken place; we’re responsible for one quarter of it. If we cut back so we don’t cause any more, global warming will be delayed by three years and keep on going up. And now the developing world is producing most of the carbon dioxide. Even Muller appears to have forgotten what he said in 2008. In his July 28 New York Times op-ed, Muller says he came to this conclusion in 2011. “Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.” Muller didn’t respond to a question in an email about the discrepancy concerning when he came to believe in human-induced global warming, but responded to another question about his credentials. Muller co-founded Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST), which released a study this month. Muller is not a climatologist. Many who support global warming have attacked the credentials of critics who were not climatologists. For example, in 2009, Bill Chameides, the dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment, wrote an op-ed for The Huffington Post saying those who doubted global warming were “non-experts” because they were not climatologists. Chameides wrote: “Have you noticed that a new kind of scientific expert has been born? It is the non-climate scientist ‘climate scientist,’ better known in the trade as the NCSCS. ... What is a[n] NCSCS? It is someone who is not a climate scientist but is nevertheless happy to speak authoritatively about the alleged scientific errors being made by the real climate scientists. A dead ringer for a[n] NCSCS is one who begins with words to the effect of: ‘I am not a climatologist, but. ...’ ” Chameides didn’t respond to an email asking how Muller’s testimony should be viewed since Muller is not a climatologist. Muller defended his credentials when asked about not being a climatologist: “I don't know what the definition is. It is unfortunate that this field seems to emphasize credentials rather than science.” Muller also forwarded citations of his published works on climate that “have appeared in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.” John Christy, a climatologist and a professor at The University of Alabama-Huntsville, said Muller has been on record in the past “promoting human-induced global warming.” “I sat next to Muller at a (U.S.) House hearing last year,” Christy said in an email. “Nothing he said gave me the feeling he was a ‘skeptic.’ I also find his result that greenhouse emissions, to him, are the only thing that can cause slow warming in global temperature when such changes have occurred down through the centuries, i.e. before the BEST record begins. Climate variations have been around long before the mere 250 years of the BEST dataset.”
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Didn't Adolf Hitler apply social Darwinism to economics as well as politics on a massive scale? Fiofrst few of 86,000 Google hits on social darwinism and adolf hitler Social Darwinism www.mrdowling.com/706-socialdarwinism.htmlCached - Similar Adolf Hitler's racial theories were based on social Darwinism. “The stronger has to rule and must not mate with the weaker,” Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. “Only the ... Adolf Hitler www.angelfire.com/ia/totalwar/Hitler.htmlCached - Similar You +1'd this publicly. UndoHitler also discussed Social Darwinism, saying that the German people were superior in all aspects to those of other nations. Adolf Hitler was released from ... Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust www.trueorigin.org/holocaust.aspCached - Similar You +1'd this publicly. UndoPhoto: Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler review SS troops during Reich Party Day ... straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and ... Social Darwinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_DarwinismCached - Similar You +1'd this publicly. UndoSocial Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts . of the Völkisch movement and, ultimately, of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. --- On Mon, 7/30/12, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Actually, as far as I know, the only time Darwinian evolution was applied to economics was in the late 19th century so-called social Darwinism. That was the opposite of socialism. It was Ayn Rand style capitalism. In my opinion it was a silly abuse of the theory. An oversimplification. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
How would carbon nanotubes be off topic? http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html#rules The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and Potapov among others.) Currently it has evolved into a discussion on taboo physics reports and research. SKEPTICS BEWARE, the topics wander from Cold Fusion, to reports of excess energy in Free Energy devices, gravity generation and detection, reports of theoretically impossible phenomena, and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. BTW, can I get in on that $100 bet? I doubt you'll get banned. Kevmo --- On Sun, 7/29/12, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Sunday, July 29, 2012, 4:19 PM PS. Quite frankly, I have a lot of things that I would like to post about Carbon Nanotubes. But since, I find that topic to be slightly off-topic, I refrain from doing so.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed: I consider you to be one of the reliable experts on Cold Fusion, primarily because of the website you put together, lenr-canr.org. Have you put together anything similar when it comes to Evolution or Global Warming? I'm not aware of it if you have. I regularly recommend your lenr-canr website for CF. Do you have such a one-stop shop recommendation for Global Warming? Do you have evidence behind your claim it is obvious to me that no cheating of any sort occurred. This whole story was ginned up by people opposed to climatology? My interest in evolution is primarily on the abiogenesis focus. Do you have such a one-stop shop recommendation for looking into abiogenesis? Kevmo --- On Mon, 7/30/12, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Monday, July 30, 2012, 6:36 PM Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: I do not believe in any of your so called Experts. Especially when these so called Experts have been caught red-handed manipulating data. I have heard people say that about cold fusion hundreds of times. They claim that FP cheated, that the data was fake, that no one replicated, etc., etc. It is not true of cold fusion and it is not true of climatology. I have read the memos and looked at the data you refer to. I am no expert in climatology but it is obvious to me that no cheating of any sort occurred. This whole story was ginned up by people opposed to climatology, just as the anti-cold fusion propaganda was invented by people opposed to that subject for political reasons. Ditto every argument in the mass media opposed to evolution. It is all ignorant horseshit. It is anti-science, anti-intellectual, repackaged premodern superstitious NONSENSE. I have heard it all before. (Almost all -- you are the first person I have ever seen claim that Darwinism is socialistic. Many others claim it is capitalistic. As I said, both claims make about as much sense as saying that Ohm's law is erotic and trigonometry is tragic.) You are gullible. You jump to conclusions. You buy into lies and propaganda spread by people with an agenda. You think you know more about complex scientific subjects than distinguished experts do, but you are mistaken. God knows I have encountered HUNDREDS of people like you who imagine they know something about cold fusion when they know nothing. I am sick to death of such people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413 Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of global warming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for days. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp *2nd Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India* Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet. Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are toys. We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent them from achieving an acceptable life stile. I am not ready to accept the verdict of scientists that depend upon government funds for support without far stronger proof. The statement that the science is settled should ruffle everyone's feathers. This is total nonsense and any scientist that makes such a statement is ignorant. Just consider how many of the laws of physics have been modified and over turned over the years. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I tend to agree with Bruno’s statement: “… how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.” During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation; although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno’s statement. Dr. Telford’s main complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs, and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small ‘adjustments’ in the variables. Just how good the current models are is definitely a debatable issue… Telford designed, built and then flew his instrumentation on aircraft thru clouds to get real-world data to help him validate his theoretical models for cumulus clouds. He always was skeptical of trying to model things on a global scale. Current science is still working on understanding enough of what happens in the atmosphere to generate accurate models… but one is still faced with the fact that Bruno brought up… that all the models in the world are at best only a guideline when we don’t have enough detailed historical data, AND accurate details of all the processes at work which affect the atmosphere, AND secondary and tertiary effects which have not been anticipated, AND accurate data over the relevant timeframe of hundreds or even thousands of years with which to test the models. Perhaps scientists will discover ways to tease out some of those details by creative means, like looking at CO2 levels in ice cores, but there are still very significant unknowns which make it difficult to build accurate global models. Point… I just read a recent paper on this topic and nearly every sentence
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least temporally come true. I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong. I guess that if we wait long enough this will happen some day. If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few that do. This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs. And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy. I predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years. A volcano will erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean currents as important. How many additional major processes of nature are left out due to lack of knowledge? I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due to the rest of us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists. They are human but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities. The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me. They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to emerge. As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling. I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough for now. It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413 Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of globalwarming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation fordays. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp 2ndDay of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet. Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are toys. We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent them from achieving an acceptable life stile. I am not ready to accept the verdict of scientists that depend upon government funds for support without far stronger proof. The statement that the science is settled should ruffle everyone's feathers. This is total nonsense and any scientist that makes such a statement is ignorant. Just consider how many of the laws of physics have been modified and over turned over the years. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I tend to agree with Bruno’s statement: “… how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.” During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
**The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies. If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected. As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer. The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This price is an unfunded consequence of global warming. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least temporally come true. I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong. I guess that if we wait long enough this will happen some day. If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few that do. This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs. And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy. I predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years. A volcano will erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean currents as important. How many additional major processes of nature are left out due to lack of knowledge? I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due to the rest of us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists. They are human but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities. The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me. They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to emerge. As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling. I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough for now. It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413 Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of global warming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for days. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp *2nd Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India* Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet. Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are toys. We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before we condemn
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for essentially ever. Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions and when we leave for the stars it will be as well. An interesting discussion can be found in this link: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/ The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of nearby super nova explosions. It is interesting reading that might become the accepted explanation in the future. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies. If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected. As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer. The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This price is an unfunded consequence of global warming. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least temporally come true. I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong. I guess that if we wait long enough this will happen some day. If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few that do. This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs. And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy. I predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years. A volcano will erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean currents as important. How many additional major processes of nature are left out due to lack of knowledge? I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due to the rest of us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists. They are human but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities. The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me. They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to emerge. As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling. I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough for now. It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413 Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of globalwarming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation fordays. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp 2ndDay of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past. It is clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400 I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for essentially ever. Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions and when we leave for the stars it will be as well. An interesting discussion can be found in this link: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/ The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of nearby super nova explosions. It is interesting reading that might become the accepted explanation in the future. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies. If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected. As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer. The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This price is an unfunded consequence of global warming. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least temporally come true. I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong. I guess that if we wait long enough this will happen some day. If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few that do. This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs. And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy. I predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years. A volcano will erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean currents as important. How many additional major processes of nature are left out due to lack of knowledge? I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due to the rest of us being able to see the dirty laundry of the climatologists. They are human but pretend to be among the Gods which is beyond their abilities. The statements of Gore and others that the science is settled truly angers me. They have an economic or political agenda and do not want the real facts to emerge. As a science minded person, I find such a statement appalling. I could go on for a long time exposing pseudoscience of this nature, but enough for now. It ceases to be real science as soon as it refuses to be challenged. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 2:29 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_monsoon-2012-is-it-the-worst-in-six-decades_1722413 Monsoon 2012: Is it the worst in six decades? This is a predicted result of global warming. Then this is a secondary consequence of global warming… 10% of the world’s populations lose power, water, and transportation for days. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/01/world/asia/power-outages-hit-600-million-in-india.html?_r=1hp 2nd Day of Power Failures Cripples Wide Swath of India Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
The historical records seem to support the supernova effect quite well. I remember a TV show on PBS where they have found that the pan evaporation rate has increased over the years and if I recall correctly there was a large jump in the rate when the aircraft were banned from the sky after the World Trade Center attack. This drop was attributed to loss of reflection of incoming light due to the lack of jet streams. The cloud experiment at CERN demonstrated that cosmic rays nucleate cloud formation much greater than the models predicted. The CERN directors wanted the scientists to keep the information private and not draw any conclusions as related to global warming. Had this experiment supported man made global warming in any fashion they would have trumpeted the news all over the place. The parallels to LENR suppression can be easily seen. Our favorite scientist tormentors act in a similar fashion. We need to let science work in the proper manner and separate from politics. The nonsense about scientist having a consensus that global warming is man made and thus must be solved at any cost is reprehensible. Reminds me of the old trick of declaring a dangerous enemy to get folks on the same trail. How did we ever allow science to be used in this manner? Dave -Original Message- From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 6:10 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past. It is clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400 I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for essentially ever. Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions and when we leave for the stars it will be as well. An interesting discussion can be found in this link: http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/08/24/cern-experiment-confirms-cosmic-ray-action/ The discussions by this blogger support global warming as a consequence of nearby super nova explosions. It is interesting reading that might become the accepted explanation in the future. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 4:32 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies. If the decision is to pump unlimited amounts of CO2 into the air through the use of coal fired electrical production, all the results of that design must be anticipated, prepared for, funded, and expected. As a case study, the power deficit in India was worsened this year by a weak monsoon that lowered hydroelectric generation, spurred farmers to use pumps to irrigate their fields long after the rains would normally have come, and kept temperatures higher, keeping air conditioners and fans running longer. The cost of this event was in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. This price is an unfunded consequence of global warming. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 10:11 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Of course there will be many predictions of these programs that at least temporally come true. I recall the time after Katrina when it was stated that they indicated that there would be many more dangerous hurricanes to hit the USA, but that turned out to be wrong. I guess that if we wait long enough this will happen some day. If you want to be considered a profit, make a million predictions and then forget about the 990,000 that do not happen while you concentrate upon the few that do. This is what I see as happening with regard to these programs. And, in any case, a curve fit projection has a modest amount of future accuracy. I predict that the world is on a warming path and that there will a major earthquake within the next 20 years. A volcano will erupt that caused air traffic problems in the next 10 years. I could go on, but I think you can see my point. For many years the guys running the programs did not even consider ocean currents as important. How many additional major processes of nature are left out due to lack of knowledge? I suspect that a lot of the damage done by Climategate was due
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
In the climate cycle of the earth, microorganisms gradually take carbon out of the air and store it in the shallow ocean for about 100,000 years. This causes an ice age. Increased Solar heating that comes from the earth's 100,000 year orbital perturbations, warm the average temperature of the oceans above the oceanic carbon release point, and this trigger ends the ice age in less than 100 years. We should be entering a new ice age in terms of orbital dimming of solar radiation, but human activity is causing ocean warming which is triggering amplified carbon based heating effect supported by a positive feedback type of rapid release of carbon from the permafrost and the ocean. See page three from this document for some revealing graphs. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf I believe that the cosmic ray effect mentioned in this thread might be more rightly associated with solar fast particle output. This in turn would rightly find effect with the nominal solar orbital perturbations in the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles The Earth's orbit is an ellipse. The eccentricity is a measure of the departure of this ellipse from circularity. The shape of the Earth's orbit varies in time between nearly circular (low eccentricity of 0.005) and mildly elliptical (high eccentricity of 0.058) with the mean eccentricity of 0.028. The major component of these variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years (eccentricity variation of ±0.012). A number of other terms vary between components 95,000 and 125,000 years (with a beat period 400,000 years), and loosely combine into a 100,000-year cycle (variation of -0.03 to +0.02). The present eccentricity is 0.017. The 100,000-year problem is that the eccentricity variations have a significantly smaller impact on solar forcing than precession or obliquity and hence might be expected to produce the weakest effects. The greatest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, while the theoretical forcing is smaller at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. However, observations show that during the last 1 million years, the strongest climate signal is the 100,000-year cycle. The resistance to these ideas about disruption of the carbon cycle is both emotionally and commercially based. If the consequences arising from this situation are properly recognized and accounted for, said consequences may well be mitigated with minimal resources. As always, it is better to think with your head than your heart or your pocketbook. Cheers: Axil On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The historical records seem to support the supernova effect quite well. I remember a TV show on PBS where they have found that the pan evaporation rate has increased over the years and if I recall correctly there was a large jump in the rate when the aircraft were banned from the sky after the World Trade Center attack. This drop was attributed to loss of reflection of incoming light due to the lack of jet streams. The cloud experiment at CERN demonstrated that cosmic rays nucleate cloud formation much greater than the models predicted. The CERN directors wanted the scientists to keep the information private and not draw any conclusions as related to global warming. Had this experiment supported man made global warming in any fashion they would have trumpeted the news all over the place. The parallels to LENR suppression can be easily seen. Our favorite scientist tormentors act in a similar fashion. We need to let science work in the proper manner and separate from politics. The nonsense about scientist having a consensus that global warming is man made and thus must be solved at any cost is reprehensible. Reminds me of the old trick of declaring a dangerous enemy to get folks on the same trail. How did we ever allow science to be used in this manner? Dave -Original Message- From: Finlay MacNab finlaymac...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Aug 1, 2012 6:10 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Except that temperatures are rising faster at night than during the day There may have been many reasons for temperature changes in the past. It is clear that the current rise in temperature is due to a reduced flux of infra red light re-radiating into space at a constant temperature, not a change in the flux of visible light irradiating the earth. -- To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides From: dlrober...@aol.com Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2012 17:38:22 -0400 I suspect that global warming is a real process that has been around for essentially ever. Before we arrived on the scene it was at work on occasions and when we leave for the stars it will be as well. An interesting discussion can
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
maye is it, like LENR rejection by sciencence administration, a consequence of bad governance, linked to weak georvernment, free market. in france when the big two tempest of 99 crossed and devasted the country, electricity was reconnected quite quickly by the state company, strongly controlled by the politicians. today the rate of breakdown of the grid have exploded, because of renewable intermitent, and government abandon. many break are caused by simple lack of maintenance 2012/8/1 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com **The failure of the Indian electric grid basically stems from the inability of government to adapt to a unexpected situation. In this era of global warming large excursions from the norm will become business as usual. In the recent case, the Indian Government, failed to provide for sufficient reserve capacity to handle all possible contingencies.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Correction required: If you say you know you only damage your *credulity* as a LENR applications expert. Should read If you say you know, you only damage your *credibility* as a LENR applications expert. On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:06 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Jed said: I think that is nonsense. It will take 5 or 10 years to develop the vehicle because that is how long it took Toyota to develop the Prius, and there will be far more incentive -- and pressure -- to develop cold fusion. Once cold fusion begins to replace conventional cars, the changeover will be swift for various reasons I spelled out in the book. The half-life of a modern car is about 4 years. Once half of the fleet is gone, gas stations will go out of business and the owners will be forced to abandon the others. So it will take 4 to 6 years to replace all cars. 99% of all cars are replaced every 8 years now, so this will not call for much extra production or resources. 1. Andrea Rossi July 29th, 2012 at 1:21 PMhttp://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/?p=679cpage=1#comment-290431 Dear Neri B.: 1- For cars applications you have to go through series of certifications and tests by the carmakers. It will take no less than 20 years. 2- Yes, the Hot Cats will be validated 3- the electric power production is close, after the high temp. has been reached Warm Regards, A.R. Axil says: Amazing: You now claim to know more about the Rossi reactor than Rossi does. Putting a nuclear reactor into a car is more involved than putting in a hybrid battery assist add-on onto a gas based combustion engine. What evidence supports your conclusions about LENR based transportation, or is your opinion based on enthusiasm and wishful thinking? Your position might well be based on a defense of the conclusions as prophecy contained in your book against the hard earned hands on reality of the LENR business that Rossi has gained in his recent work experience. In my view, the certification of LENR's general use by a untrained customers and untrained service personnel is a major delay factor in the time it takes to field consumer based LENR products. How many nuclear capable engineers man the world’s auto service and inspection stations? These products must be judged by the certifiers of product safety to be crash, tamper and moron proof and legally air tight from a product liability standpoint. We have no idea at this juncture what this all takes in terms of effort and time to market. If you say you know. you only damage your credulity as a LENR applications expert. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You missed the significance in this important sentence of my post regarding social engineering: *“All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the farmer for liquid fuel production.”* Ah. I get it. You are suggesting that an obsolete (or obsolescent) technology may improve in the face of potential competition from a new technology. Yes, that does happen. Sailing ships improved in the 1840s, partly in competition with steamships, and partly by borrowing technology from them. Nowadays, conventional automobile engine efficiency is improving partly in competition with hybrid technology. In this case, however, cold fusion is so much better than any liquid chemical fuel that I doubt any improvement to liquid fuel will delay the introduction of cold fusion. Various factors such as technical glitches may slow down cold fusion, but I doubt this particular factor will. For one thing, this form of liquid fuel would require a lot of expensive RD to perfect, and I doubt any venture capitalist would fund this knowing that cold fusion will soon arrive. It would be like improving a vacuum tube computer after transistors were invented. Elimination of farm waste will save 5000 lives a year from food poisoning and a $trillion in medical bills. This advantage in itself is worth delaying introduction of LENR in transportation products. There is not a single driver who would take this into account when making a decision to purchase a car! There are no manufacturers who would be so stupid as to delay the introduction of cold fusion powered cars because of this. Any delay competing would be fatal. Selling a liquid fuel car in a cold fusion world would be like trying to sell a wind-up record player to customers who want iPods. Anyway, According to Rossi, it will take 25 years to develosp LENR for transportation and 35 more years to replace all the old vehicles. I think that is nonsense. It will take 5 or 10 years to develop the vehicle because that is how long it took Toyota to develop the Prius, and there will be far more incentive -- and pressure -- to develop cold fusion. Once cold fusion begins to replace conventional
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Warming hits 'tipping point' Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting - The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian, Thursday 11 August 2005 07.36 EDT A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today. Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying tipping points - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures. The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today. The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming. He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years. Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards. When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply, said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing. In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming, said Dr Viner. Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter. But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture. It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said. Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases. If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide, he said. There's still time to take action, but not much. The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time. In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed: Don't blame me for your lack of clearly stating what's in your head! With as many scientific papers that you've read, I would have hoped that you'd be much more careful when trying to make a case in this kind of a technical forum. not everyone here is as up to speed on topics being discussed, so please try to be clear so as not to leave any room for misunderstanding. And now that I know that you were referring to the likelihood of a 'super volcano' happening in our lifetime, as I said, I agree. However, the problems we are talking about here will likely take much longer to manifest than our lifetime. and I think we're about the same age. In fact, you state that the timeline which some experts claim all this devastation might happen is a few hundred years! I would agree with that, but then, it has nothing to do with our 'lifetime'; the timespan here that would need to be considered is much longer. and in that case, the likelihood of a moderate to large volcanic eruption is only increasing. Another point re: what you said here, Iverson wrote: For all natural disasters, their size/destructiveness is inversely proportional to their frequency of occurrence; i.e., the more destructive they are, the less often they occur. Jed responded: Perhaps that is true of disasters caused by single, discrete event such as a large earthquake, tsunami, or meteorite strike. It is less true of disasters that occur as a series of events, or that can be triggered at any one of thousands of different locations, rather than in one geological fault. A good example is a virus crossing the species barrier, such as the 1918 influenza pandemic, or AIDS. The chances of this have been increased by various factors such as increased human population density, invasion of wilderness areas by people (which probably caused AIDS to cross the barrier), and bad techniques in agriculture such as crowding chickens together and allowing them access to wild birds. Jed, I was specifically talking about disasters caused by the natural geologic forces which play out on a global scale - NOT about the spread of disease, overpopulation and crowded chickens. good grief! Sometimes too much knowledge just confuses the issue and leads to irrelevant statements. Something can be factually accurate but not relevant to a discussion. RE: the statement that, In other words, human activity in the near term and on the time scale in question will greatly outweigh natural processes. I take issue with the 'will greatly outweigh' part of that sentence, but, we'll just have to agree to disagree since, in my reasonably informed opinion, there are too many unknowns when dealing with climate science. I'll elaborate further in response to a posting by Bruno Santos. Why do you feel it necessary to attack me by comparing me to the cold fusion Wikipedia editors? I actually worked for several years at a scientific organization that did atmospheric research, so although that was many years ago, I am at least somewhat knowledgeable about the *science*. And frankly, I think you exhibit some of the same characteristics as those editors. that you are so damn sure that you not only have read the professional literature, but that you fully understand it as well, and that anyone who even suggests a more *moderate view* must be uninformed. I expect better from you. -Mark
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Le Jul 30, 2012 à 11:12 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com a écrit : If you say you know you only damage your credulity as a LENR applications expert. Freudian slip. :) Eric
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I tend to agree with Bruno's statement: . how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet. During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q= http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation; although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno's statement. Dr. Telford's main complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs, and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small 'adjustments' in the variables. Just how good the current models are is definitely a debatable issue. Telford designed, built and then flew his instrumentation on aircraft thru clouds to get real-world data to help him validate his theoretical models for cumulus clouds. He always was skeptical of trying to model things on a global scale. Current science is still working on understanding enough of what happens in the atmosphere to generate accurate models. but one is still faced with the fact that Bruno brought up. that all the models in the world are at best only a guideline when we don't have enough detailed historical data, AND accurate details of all the processes at work which affect the atmosphere, AND secondary and tertiary effects which have not been anticipated, AND accurate data over the relevant timeframe of hundreds or even thousands of years with which to test the models. Perhaps scientists will discover ways to tease out some of those details by creative means, like looking at CO2 levels in ice cores, but there are still very significant unknowns which make it difficult to build accurate global models. Point. I just read a recent paper on this topic and nearly every sentence of the quoted scientists' had at least one variety of weasel-word (like the word 'could', or 'might'). As I have said in a previous post today, and a number of times over the years, a good scientist is VERY careful about the words they use. and there's a reason for that. -Mark From: Bruno Santos [mailto:besantos1...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I read the literature. That is why I know that what you state is wrong. And for two reasons: 1 - Insurance companies and epidemiologists have good, reliable data. Climatologists don't. It is not their fault, is it just impossible to have good data on the large periods of time required to study planets climates. You see, just a few decades of reliable data isn't enough when we know that the climate changes in scale of thousands of years. 2 - When an insurance company gathers all information, they can test their hypothesis with what happens in the real world and see if it works. That is how you know that smoking makes a difference in people's lifespans, but other things don't. Epidemiologists can test on actual living beings how diseases spread. Now, tell me, how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet. Large, complex phenomena are easier to study when it is based on the law of the large numbers. That is precisely what happens with insurance and epidemiology, but not with climate. There is no reality check in climate. Those predictions based on large number of (bad) data are tested on scenarios that are in a computer. I am an economist, and we have the same problem. We do have good prediction models, they are quite sophisticated, but not totally reliable. Otherwise, one would not see economic crisis, economic downturns nor unemployment. And I am pretty sure that economic data is far more accurate than climate ones. Economists cannot test hypothesis in a lab. Neither can climatologists. But that was not even my point. I believe that anthropic global warming is possible, even probable. I just don't care, because the alternative, poverty, is far worse. 2012/7/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate. It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global warming theory! However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Excellent Post from Mark and Bruno that highlights this Global Warming debate. But you are spitting against the wind with Jed. There is no reasoning with him as he has already made up his mind. In Jed's mind, AGW definitely occurs and it is going to result in a Huge Environmental Catastrophe. Why how could it not be so - a bunch of experts said so; and these experts definitely do not fudge their data. (Even when they have been caught red-handed fudging the data.) Why, a bunch of Experts on the web have documented all the bad bad bad effects of global warming, so it definitely is true. Forget the reality, forget all the facts, the experts have spoken, therefore it must be true. I have a name for that blind adherence It's called Religion. At least I do not pretend that my beliefs are based on faith - a religion.. Jed still think he is objective. LOL. So Jed, you are so convinced about the truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my question. Have you read Darwin's The origin of Species and The Descent of Man. Maybe after you read it, you will come to realize the fantasy that Darwin has foisted on you. LOL... Jojo - Original Message - From: MarkI-ZeroPoint To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 4:35 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I tend to agree with Bruno's statement: . how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet. During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation; although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno's statement. Dr. Telford's main complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs, and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small 'adjustments' in the variables. Just how good the current models are is definitely a debatable issue. Telford designed, built and then flew his instrumentation on aircraft thru clouds to get real-world data to help him validate his theoretical models for cumulus clouds. He always was skeptical of trying to model things on a global scale. Current science is still working on understanding enough of what happens in the atmosphere to generate accurate models. but one is still faced with the fact that Bruno brought up. that all the models in the world are at best only a guideline when we don't have enough detailed historical data, AND accurate details of all the processes at work which affect the atmosphere, AND secondary and tertiary effects which have not been anticipated, AND accurate data over the relevant timeframe of hundreds or even thousands of years with which to test the models. Perhaps scientists will discover ways to tease out some of those details by creative means, like looking at CO2 levels in ice cores, but there are still very significant unknowns which make it difficult to build accurate global models. Point. I just read a recent paper on this topic and nearly every sentence of the quoted scientists' had at least one variety of weasel-word (like the word 'could', or 'might'). As I have said in a previous post today, and a number of times over the years, a good scientist is VERY careful about the words they use. and there's a reason for that. -Mark From: Bruno Santos [mailto:besantos1...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I read the literature. That is why I know that what you state is wrong. And for two reasons: 1 - Insurance companies and epidemiologists have good, reliable data. Climatologists don't. It is not their fault, is it just impossible to have good data on the large periods of time required to study planets climates. You see, just a few decades of reliable data isn't enough when we know that the climate changes in scale of thousands of years. 2 - When an insurance company gathers all information, they can test their hypothesis with what happens in the real world and see if it works. That is how you know that smoking makes a difference in people's lifespans, but other things don't. Epidemiologists can test on actual living beings how diseases spread. Now, tell me, how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From Jojo I already know the answer to my question. While I know this was addressed specifically to Mr. Rothwell... Let me just say that I know I ain't perfect. There are many gaps in my formal education. There are many mysteries of the universe I'd love to solve, or at least get a better handle on. Fortunately, there might have been a few that I think I might have gotten some handle on. But more importantly, I have tried to come to terms with the fact that an infinite number will always remain beyond my reach. But one thing I do know. Already knowing the answer to any question I might entertain is a surefire way of not just learning anything new - but not wanting to learn anything new. The latter matter is a devastating one. It's a path that leads one straight to dogma. Where's my kill file. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: In Jed's mind, AGW definitely occurs and it is going to result in a Huge Environmental Catastrophe. Why how could it not be so - a bunch of experts said so. . . If I had said any of that stuff, I would not believe me either! So Jed, you are so convinced about the truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my question. Have you read Darwin's The origin of Species and The Descent of Man. . . . You know, there has been other research in this field since 1859. Several other biologists * have made observations that support the theory, and they have modified and expanded it. Perhaps you should look at some of the later work, rather than judging it by the first paper alone. many people who criticize cold fusion look only at the first paper by Fleischmann and Pons, which is admittedly not convincing. I think it is better to look at the totality of evidence. - Jed * When I say several biologists in this instance, I mean all of them.
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Well, I think we've beat that horse enough for awhile. it certainly is an issue that generates quite a bit of heated debate, but I think many on this list are probably tired of the issue for now. including me! -mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:04 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: In Jed's mind, AGW definitely occurs and it is going to result in a Huge Environmental Catastrophe. Why how could it not be so - a bunch of experts said so. . . If I had said any of that stuff, I would not believe me either! So Jed, you are so convinced about the truth of Darwinian Evolution. Answer my question. Have you read Darwin's The origin of Species and The Descent of Man. . . . You know, there has been other research in this field since 1859. Several other biologists * have made observations that support the theory, and they have modified and expanded it. Perhaps you should look at some of the later work, rather than judging it by the first paper alone. many people who criticize cold fusion look only at the first paper by Fleischmann and Pons, which is admittedly not convincing. I think it is better to look at the totality of evidence. - Jed * When I say several biologists in this instance, I mean all of them.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
This is not very encouraging. I hope that the books are not being cooked to get action by governmental agencies. Sometimes the authors leave out a very important part of the data if it does not support their political plans. An example is the talk of a large portion of the ice melting on Greenland this year as compared to normal. They fail to reveal the fact that the melting is only skin deep relative to the mass of ice. If you ask experts, I am sure they will concede that it would take many, many years for the ice to melt if the present conditions persist. We need unbiased science in this field. There are far too many people incapable of looking at the situation without extreme emotional responses. It is easy to see why both sides of the argument feel that way since time to act appears important. But the lives of poor peoples are important as well and their quality of life should be considered before energy is made scarce. Our interest in LENR appears to be the solution to most of the ills, so lets kick some butt and get it into production. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 2:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Warming hits 'tipping point' Siberia feels the heat It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting The Guardian, Thursday 11 August 2005 07.36 EDT A vast expanse of western Sibera is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today. Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying tipping points - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures. The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today. The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across. Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming. He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years. Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards. When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply, said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing. In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions. These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming, said Dr Viner. Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws. Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world. The permafrost is likely to take many
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet. Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are toys. We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent them from achieving an acceptable life stile. I am not ready to accept the verdict of scientists that depend upon government funds for support without far stronger proof. The statement that the science is settled should ruffle everyone's feathers. This is total nonsense and any scientist that makes such a statement is ignorant. Just consider how many of the laws of physics have been modified and over turned over the years. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I tend to agree with Bruno’s statement: “… how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.” During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation; although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno’s statement. Dr. Telford’s main complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs, and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small ‘adjustments’ in the variables. Just how good the current models are is definitely a debatable issue… Telford designed, built and then flew his instrumentation on aircraft thru clouds to get real-world data to help him validate his theoretical models for cumulus clouds. He always was skeptical of trying to model things on a global scale. Current science is still working on understanding enough of what happens in the atmosphere to generate accurate models… but one is still faced with the fact that Bruno brought up… that all the models in the world are at best only a guideline when we don’t have enough detailed historical data, AND accurate details of all the processes at work which affect the atmosphere, AND secondary and tertiary effects which have not been anticipated, AND accurate data over the relevant timeframe of hundreds or even thousands of years with which to test the models. Perhaps scientists will discover ways to tease out some of those details by creative means, like looking at CO2 levels in ice cores, but there are still very significant unknowns which make it difficult to build accurate global models. Point… I just read a recent paper on this topic and nearly every sentence of the quoted scientists’ had at least one variety of weasel-word (like the word ‘could’, or ‘might’). As I have said in a previous post today, and a number of times over the years, a good scientist is VERY careful about the words they use… and there’s a reason for that. -Mark From: Bruno Santos [mailto:besantos1...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:46 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I read the literature. That is why I know that what you state is wrong. And for two reasons: 1 - Insurance companies
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSTm6cZjO14feature=BFalist=PLF48ACB853C81076A Methane Hydrates: Natural Hazard or Natural Resource? Ice cores from Antarctica show that the last five 100,000 year’s long ice ages ended in less than a human lifetime. A trigger event produced a sharp and sudden increase in global temperature. The trigger event happened in three stages. This implies that the triggering event was characterized by a cascade of a number of sequential positive feedback loops. IMHO, this trigger is the release of carbon from multi layered reservoir like carbon storage structures in the oceans. The oceans of the world contain 10,000 gigatons (*ten trillion,,,* 10e13,,, *ten to the thirteen,,,* 1,*000,000,000,000)* of Methane Hydrates. This accounts for twice as much sequestered carbon as is locked up in all the buried fossil fuels currently sequestered on earth. If ocean temperatures and levels continue to raise, and more ice that also contain CO2 continues to melt, massive amounts of methane gas could be released from this 10,000 gigaton reserves of frozen methane that are currently locked in the world’s shallow ocean hydrate deposits and permafrost. Passing this ocean temperature tipping point would result in a rapid cascading global warming event that would be far worse and more rapid than scientists’ current estimates. And the rise of global temperatures would happen in 50 years more or less. Just in the last few year, the parts per million level of methane in the atmosphere as gone through the roof. We could now be seeing the start of a major release of carbon from the world’s oceans. Cheers: Axil On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:18 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Good post Mark. I have heard that the global climate models have a multitude of variables that are not defined by real life processes or that assume clearly inaccurate initial values when tied to know processes. Most of us have used curve fitting programs in the past and know that you can get a perfect fit with enough variables to work with. We can then brag about how well our curve matches the data. The problem occurs when we attempt to project this perfect curve fitted function into the future. It is not uncommon at all for the inaccuracies to build up exponentially with time since our model is not based correctly. It is my understanding that this is what occurs when the climate models are projected. I read somewhere that they intentionally limit the time frames and rerun the models after a moderately short time lapse to keep its projections within reason. Apparently we have been experiencing a modest cooling period worldwide (relative to expectations) that could not be explained by the models but the guys running them tend to keep that quiet. Also, the effect of clouds has been a dog for them to incorporate into the models in a way that makes sense. Further complicate this by the results of the Cloud experiment performed by CERN and you realize that these models are toys. We need to think long and hard about our response to the warming trend before we condemn many of the worlds poor to harsh conditions and prevent them from achieving an acceptable life stile. I am not ready to accept the verdict of scientists that depend upon government funds for support without far stronger proof. The statement that the science is settled should ruffle everyone's feathers. This is total nonsense and any scientist that makes such a statement is ignorant. Just consider how many of the laws of physics have been modified and over turned over the years. Dave -Original Message- From: MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Jul 31, 2012 4:36 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I tend to agree with Bruno’s statement: “… how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet.” During grad school I worked at the Atmospheric Sciences Center of the University of Nevada System under Dr. James W Telford, http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=as_sauthors=Telford,+James+W His expertise was cloud microphysics and atmospheric instrumentation; although most of his papers were theoretical in nature, he also made contributions to instrumentation. And the reason for his work on instrumentation goes to the point of Bruno’s statement. Dr. Telford’s main complaint about GCMs (global climate models) is that they were way too simplistic, and did not have enough real-world data about some key elements at work in the atmosphere with cloud and surface albedo. There are numerous GCMs, and many are prone to a very wide range of outcomes depending on very small ‘adjustments’ in the variables. Just how good the current models
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Akira wrote: By the way, leaving the scientific climate debate aside, statistically speaking, even if we're currently warming, or even if global temperatures will keep increasing for some more time, we're actually overdue for a new ice age. I'm serious. This is the Vostok ice core temperature record, popular in both sides of the climate change debate: http://i.imgur.com/leXtv.png The last few ice ages rather quickly followed short periods of warm climate called interglacial periods. What exactly causes ice ages is still pretty much unknown. Have a look at where we are currently. Interesting read Akira... Could be that the current global warming would lessen the deepness of the next ice age... and from the looks of that chart, we're there... so take your pick, is it easier to grow food in hot weather, or freezing weather? Either way, what's going to happen on a global scale is going to happen and not much we can do about it... other than prepare. -mark iverson
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Hmm... I don't know where the worry is. I looked at the map you linked and entered 80m, and it seems to me very minimal land is getting submerged even with an 80m rise is ocean water. Hardly the environmental catastorphe that extremists like Jed would like us to believe. And based on the latest projections, the worst case scenario is a rise of a few feet. And to make my point even clearer to Jed, let me recount a study I happened to read a few decades back, in the 80s about a U.N. study that concluded that the entire Human Population at that time (2 billion) can be fed and sustained by an area the size of Texas. Today, we have 6 Billion, so it stands to reason we can be fed and sustained by an area 3 times that of Texas. What this means is that in the worst case scenario, the US midwest region alone can feed and sustain a great majority of the current world population. Hardly the envrironmental catastrophe; certainly not overpopulation. Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. Jojo . - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:25 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I hope that this does not happen for all of our sakes. It may be too late for us to avert this scenario. I was driving down I-95 recently and somehow I set my GPS to show elevation above sea level. I was amazed at how most of that highway would be under water if all the ice melted around the world. The sea level would rise 80 meters just in term of ice melt. More sea level rise would happen when the ocean is expanded through increased sea temperature rise after all the ice is gone.. http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/ this tool shows that most of I-95 would be deep underwater together with all the big east coast cities. It is amazing. This tool only goes up to 60 meters in sea level rise though. Cheers: Axil On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 10:10 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jojo, I think the evidence is that global warming is very real. The main question to some is whether or not it is mainly the result of our intervention as opposed to natural causes. The earth never remains constant in temperature for long and it is better to be warming than cooling in my opinion. It appears that LENR is the cure for any ills generated by us and it has plenty of time to do the task if the accepted timetables are correct. There is however reason to worry that the present warming phase might help precipitate a dangerous cooling period as melting ice changes ocean currents. Some refer to this as a form of tipping point that might be crossed in the near term. I hope that this does not happen for all of our sakes. It may be too late for us to avert this scenario. Dave -Original Message- From: Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Jul 29, 2012 8:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides They can relocate to highlands. Bangladesh has some high lands you know. Oh!, my heart bleeds for Florida. If people want to live near coastal areas, then they should bear the consequence. I am tired of bailing out homes destroyed in hurricanes. No, I am saying that Global Warming is not real. But I am giving you a chance to see the fallacy of your position by saying that even if you are right, it not as bad as you make it out to be. It might even be good for humankind. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Even if Global Warming raises Ocean Level a few feet (Which is the worst case scenario.) it won't submerge Bangladesh. But even if it does, it's about time they relocate anyways. There're on borrowed time with their yearly occurence of flooding anyways. Where would they relocate to? Do you have any idea what a few feet would do to other cities and Florida?!? Again, I must say, I find it astounding that you agree the phenomenon may be real, but you think it will cause no great harm. Saying that impoverished people in Bangladesh should move elsewhere is callous. This is like saying that avian influenza might cross the species boundary to people but it will not cause much harm, and even if does kill
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From Jojo, Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. And You're not expressing your personal beliefs down the Collective's throat either? You strike me as feeling quite threatened by all this AGW talk. It really bothers you doesn't it. Tell me Jojo, in your worst nightmare scenario, where AGW could possibly win not the scientific battle, but the political battle and the majority begins to believe in AGW ramifications, and lawmakers start to implement some of the suggestions AGW scientists have recommended we do. How would the ramifications of such a policy change affect you personally? Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Again, I appreciate the fact you've come out of the closet in a really big and flaming way within the Collective in regards to your personal beliefs on AGW and whatnot. But does the premise of AGW really threaten your beliefs on such matters that much? It's not like anyone here is forcing you to marry a particular belief possessing a gender you disapprove of. Certainly, a few in the Collective disagree with you... your belief on the AWG matter, but that's not the same thing as putting a shotgun to your head and saying it's my way or the hi-way. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Every step would be progress in technology, and would ultimately lower the cost of energy. Unfortunately, I fail to see how every measure or technology proposed so far is aimed to ultimately lower the cost of energy. Which one would not? There are only a few technologies being developed: solar, wind and geothermal, plus steps to improve efficiency. The cost solar and wind has fallen drastically, to the point where they are putting pressure on conventional sources. It is difficult to imagine that improving efficiency would be carried out to the extent that it ends up costing more than it is worth, given the abysmal efficiency of most machinery. As one expert put it: There is so much low hanging fruit in most industries, it bops you on the forehead the moment you walk into a plant. It is like looking for oil in Saudi Arabia in 1950. An expert from the U.S. showed up there, looked out from his hotel and started pointing to places to dig wells. He did not even have get into a jeep and take a drive. Even in Japan, where people have been paying attention to efficiency for decades, they have found they can reduce electric power consumption by 10% to 20% with no reduction in quality of life or industrial output. They did this in response to the Fukushima disaster. Actually, (leaving aside every political / governmental implication) I am getting the opposite impression: everything seems directed toward decreasing global emissions by making energy more scarce and expensive, or in other words decreasing wealth in the western world . . . I have not heard of such policies. A tax on carbon will only move money around. It will no make energy much more expensive or less expensive. It will level the playing field and give solar and wind some of the advantages oil and coal have from incumbency and government support. replies take much time to write; please don't get offended if I cut more or less large portions of them when I reply for the sake of discuss things quicker. You are supposed to do that. It is part of the Rules here, which are more like guidelines than actual rules. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo, what do you worship ? Harry On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans to adapt to it. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
NO, I am not forcing down my beliefs, I am correcting a grave misinformation. If I was mentioning Intelligent Design and implying that those who do not believe in Intelligent Design were all somehow biased and stupid, everybody in this forum would be all over my case. But that my friend is what Jed is doing with his incessant talk of Global Warming, Darwinian Evolution and all other leftist socialist ideas. Take his opening post on this thread. He implied that those of us who do not believe in AGW are somehow biased and do not accept the facts. That's the load of bullcrap that I find offensive in many of Jed's posts (as well as yours.) My friend, this is a science forum. I come here to get away from all the religious, political, and social controversies. I find it disconcerting that many here have taken up this forum for their own personal agenda. Especially when the rules categorically says otherwise. We always know that certain topics are controversial and you would be all over me criticizing me if I so much as mention Intelligent Design. NO!!! That won't happen - you say. Well, it already happened. A simple comparison between the treatment of cold fusion and the treatment of Intelligent Design elicited such strong emotions from this group from no less than our esteemed doctor Peter Gluck. And I have been the reciepient of such foul language that you wouldn't want your children to hear. Yes, you despise what I believe; but don't worry, I feel the same way about yours. But why do you feel it is your right to spew such stupidities in this forum? I asked you to stop posting those topics because they are in clear violation of the rules and the response I get is Rules are guidelines and We will do what we want. If anarchy and strongman dictatorship is what you want in this forum; that is exactly what you will get. But I value this forum that I do not want that to happen. Hence, my constant appeal to moderation. Jojo PS. By Strongman Dictatorship; I mean the attitude of some who have been here long to feel that they can dictate the rules of this forum. The prevalent belief that since they were here first, they can do anything even up to and including violation of the rules. In elementary school, we have a name for those children - we call them Bullies. And when a group of old timers do that to those they don't agree with; that's called a gang of bullies. It's nice to know certain members of vortex have not graduated from these childish tendencies. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 8:00 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides From Jojo, Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. And You're not expressing your personal beliefs down the Collective's throat either? You strike me as feeling quite threatened by all this AGW talk. It really bothers you doesn't it. Tell me Jojo, in your worst nightmare scenario, where AGW could possibly win not the scientific battle, but the political battle and the majority begins to believe in AGW ramifications, and lawmakers start to implement some of the suggestions AGW scientists have recommended we do. How would the ramifications of such a policy change affect you personally? Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Again, I appreciate the fact you've come out of the closet in a really big and flaming way within the Collective in regards to your personal beliefs on AGW and whatnot. But does the premise of AGW really threaten your beliefs on such matters that much? It's not like anyone here is forcing you to marry a particular belief possessing a gender you disapprove of. Certainly, a few in the Collective disagree with you... your belief on the AWG matter, but that's not the same thing as putting a shotgun to your head and saying it's my way or the hi-way. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans to adapt to it. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) Removal of moisture from atmosphere using large compressors condensors for use in irrigation/drinking also requiring lots of LENR HP 3) Removal sequestration of CO2 from atmosphere either as limestone deep in the ocean or under land requiring lots of LENR HP And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. Obama can just instigate an ocean front tax for property owners to pay for the projects... With the large decrease in manufacturing costs from LENR, industry can now afford to foot the tab for atmospheric cleanup. This will preserve world's current investment in ocean front property and lead to much less death and destruction caused from relocating billions of people. It will also keep all of us engineers busy... On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans to adapt to it. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: But that my friend is what Jed is doing with his incessant talk of Global Warming, Darwinian Evolution and all other leftist socialist ideas. Darwinian evolution is a leftist socialist idea?!? Are you serious? Again, I have to ask, is that supposed to be a parody? There is nothing remotely political about the organizing principles of biology. This is like saying that Newton's laws of motion are capitalistic, or Ohm's law is pornographic. I have heard of people being opposed to evolution because of their religious ideas, but this is the first time I have heard of someone who thinks it is socialistic. This is mind boggling. I think I will add you to my kill file. Actually, as far as I know, the only time Darwinian evolution was applied to economics was in the late 19th century so-called social Darwinism. That was the opposite of socialism. It was Ayn Rand style capitalism. In my opinion it was a silly abuse of the theory. An oversimplification. It is not widely believed today as far as I know. I do not know any biologists who took it seriously. It was sort of like taking Einstein's relativity and claiming it is justification for anthropological cultural relativity. The two are completely unrelated, except for the name. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo wrote, inter alia: *A simple comparison between the treatment of cold fusion and the treatment of Intelligent Design elicited such strong emotions from this group from no less than our esteemed doctor Peter Gluck. And I have been the reciepient of such foul language that you wouldn't want your children to hear.* Jojo, I don't remember the exact discussion, however The comparison ID vs CF is forced and has nothing real in it. ID is a florishing idea with many friends and high level enemies as militant atheists, while CF is simply ignored and the attacks against it are occasional. *Now please tell what foul language have i used against you?* *And can you explained what do you mean by esteemed* My hypothesis re you is that you are a conflictual person and you want to impose your ideas on the colleagues in this forum. A matter of style, i don't like conflicts except in playing chess. If I have understood well, you are performing some experimental work in LENR; wouldn't it better to focus on it? And if you don't ;like the subject of a message or it is not interesting for you simply delete it. Peter On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** NO, I am not forcing down my beliefs, I am correcting a grave misinformation. If I was mentioning Intelligent Design and implying that those who do not believe in Intelligent Design were all somehow biased and stupid, everybody in this forum would be all over my case. But that my friend is what Jed is doing with his incessant talk of Global Warming, Darwinian Evolution and all other leftist socialist ideas. Take his opening post on this thread. He implied that those of us who do not believe in AGW are somehow biased and do not accept the facts. That's the load of bullcrap that I find offensive in many of Jed's posts (as well as yours.) My friend, this is a science forum. I come here to get away from all the religious, political, and social controversies. I find it disconcerting that many here have taken up this forum for their own personal agenda. Especially when the rules categorically says otherwise. We always know that certain topics are controversial and you would be all over me criticizing me if I so much as mention Intelligent Design. NO!!! That won't happen - you say. Well, it already happened. A simple comparison between the treatment of cold fusion and the treatment of Intelligent Design elicited such strong emotions from this group from no less than our esteemed doctor Peter Gluck. And I have been the reciepient of such foul language that you wouldn't want your children to hear. Yes, you despise what I believe; but don't worry, I feel the same way about yours. But why do you feel it is your right to spew such stupidities in this forum? I asked you to stop posting those topics because they are in clear violation of the rules and the response I get is Rules are guidelines and We will do what we want. If anarchy and strongman dictatorship is what you want in this forum; that is exactly what you will get. But I value this forum that I do not want that to happen. Hence, my constant appeal to moderation. Jojo PS. By Strongman Dictatorship; I mean the attitude of some who have been here long to feel that they can dictate the rules of this forum. The prevalent belief that since they were here first, they can do anything even up to and including violation of the rules. In elementary school, we have a name for those children - we call them Bullies. And when a group of old timers do that to those they don't agree with; that's called a gang of bullies. It's nice to know certain members of vortex have not graduated from these childish tendencies. - Original Message - *From:* OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 8:00 PM *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides From Jojo, ** ** Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. ** ** And You're not expressing your personal beliefs down the Collective's throat either? ** ** You strike me as feeling quite threatened by all this AGW talk. It really bothers you doesn't it. Tell me Jojo, in your worst nightmare scenario, where AGW could possibly win not the scientific battle, but the political battle and the majority begins to believe in AGW ramifications, and lawmakers start to implement some of the suggestions AGW scientists have recommended we do. How would the ramifications of such a policy change affect you personally? ** ** Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: 3) Removal sequestration of CO2 from atmosphere either as limestone deep in the ocean or under land requiring lots of LENR HP I have a chapter on how to reverse global warming in my book. What we may need is reverse combustion. You convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen, release the oxygen, and bury the carbon, either as solid (like coal) or as hydrocarbon (synthetic oil). Whichever is cheaper. A liquid might be easier to deal with, for the same reason oil is more convenient than coal. However, I not think this is necessary. A much simpler solution is available that has many other benefits. We can use large scale desalination to grow crops and forests in some desert areas. Then we sequester the deadwood from the resulting climax forests. Depending on the forest it takes 50 to 100 years to reach climax, so there is no rush. I estimated approximately how much land and how many desalination plants this would take. The numbers are not that high. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed, I agree. There are MANY solutions to our current problems if energy becomes inexpensive. I was thinking bury the CO2 as CaCO3 as mother nature does but oils would probably work also. It think any/all of these solutions are a much better idea than walking away from a coastal catastrophe. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: 3) Removal sequestration of CO2 from atmosphere either as limestone deep in the ocean or under land requiring lots of LENR HP I have a chapter on how to reverse global warming in my book. What we may need is reverse combustion. You convert CO2 into carbon and oxygen, release the oxygen, and bury the carbon, either as solid (like coal) or as hydrocarbon (synthetic oil). Whichever is cheaper. A liquid might be easier to deal with, for the same reason oil is more convenient than coal. However, I not think this is necessary. A much simpler solution is available that has many other benefits. We can use large scale desalination to grow crops and forests in some desert areas. Then we sequester the deadwood from the resulting climax forests. Depending on the forest it takes 50 to 100 years to reach climax, so there is no rush. I estimated approximately how much land and how many desalination plants this would take. The numbers are not that high. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I wrote: Then we sequester the deadwood from the resulting climax forests. Depending on the forest it takes 50 to 100 years to reach climax, so there is no rush. I mean we bury the deadwood underground. Perhaps we should first bake it, to make charcoal, putting the water and other components back into the ecosystem. There is no point to doing this until the trees all grow to their final height and begin dying off from old age. While they are growing, they are sequestering carbon and releasing oxygen. After they die, most of the carbon goes back into the air, unless you bury the wood where it never rots. That is to say, unless you turn it into peat or coal. Naturally, some of the wood can be harvested for lumber or other human purposes. As long as it is not burned or rotted, the carbon would remain sequestered. I propose using small, quiet, robots the size of insects to harvest the dead wood a few grams at a time, and then fly to convey it to an open pit where it can be baked and then buried. I do not want giant machines doing this because that would be disruptive. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I'm thinking about starting a contruction business for Houses that can from float up to 100 ft. above the foundation. Another idea is to start building and/or re-introduce amphibious cars and/or House Boats. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so lets start making plans to adapt to it. /HTML
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com wrote: I agree. There are MANY solutions to our current problems if energy becomes inexpensive. We should pick the solution that is cheapest, or that produces the most profit. I think growing wood will remain profitable long into the future. I expect to see wheat and other food grown in indoor farms, and meat grown in vitro, but it is a little difficult to imagine lumber grown in indoor farms. Wood for wood pulp might be, but I doubt there will be much of a market for paper products, except packaging. I do not think there will any market for naturally extracted oil. Oil from wells, that is. Synthetic oil for plastic feedstock made on site will be cheaper, safer, and more convenient. I was thinking bury the CO2 as CaCO3 as mother nature does but oils would probably work also. I do not think that nature buries CO2. I think it would escape over the long term (thousands of years). Also, you want to recover the O. There may be a shortage of that in the atmosphere. Nature has buried C (coal) and various C+H compounds (oil). With the right geology, oil stays underground indefinitely. I suppose the best place to bury it would be where we found it, in Texas and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps it would be very expensive and difficult to force the oil back into solution with the rocks underground in Texas. I wouldn't know. I am just speculating. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the nations of the earth. The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development. The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans to adapt to it. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion movement. A movement that would have you worship rocks and trees and rivers and animals. Personally, I find this attempt to browbeat me into this pantheistic movement quite offensive. And that is exactly what Global Warming Extremist are trying to do. You've mischaracterized the legitimate concern of many that there will be negative repercussions of climate change as their browbeating you into submitting to pantheism. This is getting silly. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I wrote: I was thinking bury the CO2 as CaCO3 as mother nature does but oils would probably work also. I do not think that nature buries CO2. . . . Ah. I misunderstood. You are saying bury it as calcium carbonate, not as a gas. Well, whatever is cheapest and most convenient. There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. I doubt the earth will export foodstuffs to Mars. That would be exporting carbon and water. It seems a lot easier to grow food locally. Fresher and tastier. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
On 7/30/2012 3:27 PM, Chemical Engineer wrote: It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) 3) ... And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. I at first missed the word cities So had a brief vision of thousands of (will be) former beach dwellers now looking at the ocean with closed circuit TV, from the bottoms of their 100 foot tall cast cement silos, while huge pumps howl to keep their patches of sand dry. Keeping Manhattan dry -not to mention Brooklyn and Staten Island!- will surely be easier, but just as surely totally uneconomical. But I think you are showing a certain dry humor... About your point 1): Cooling that much water a few degrees would require dumping that heat, and the waste heat from the cooling process (think thermodynamics laws), somewhere. If not back in the water, then into the atmosphere. Wild guess: 30 degree air temp rise, world-wide? But I can see a barrage of pumps near important coral reefs, pulling cold water up from the depths for a local effect. Wait, the water's rising, they'd have to put the reefs on jacks. Never mind, we are so screwed. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
The profit motive can change the way farmer’s think about their waste streams including all sorts of manures produced by domesticated farm animals and farm crop residue like easily gathered corn stover: i.e. from a nuisance to a lucrative profit center. All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the framer for liquid fuel production. The removal of animal waste can be completely automated on the farm for rapid conversion to $3 a gallon biodiesel. The advantage of process heat from cold fusion is that the reactor is safe, inexpensive, and small. Animals could be selectively bred for their effective production of waste. A 5,000 gallon tank holding biodiesel can be filled automatically on the farm by a computerized waste handling system. This fuel could be sent to local filling stations or a nearby airport or the farmer could even setup a roadside fuel station and avoid all the middle man profit taking. In general, LENR will work to decentralize energy production and liberate energy producers and users from the oppression and control of the multi-national monopolies. For the farmer, one of the most important outputs of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process (MSOP) is biochar. In traditional methods of biomass fast pyrolysis, this char is used to fire the bioreactor and is turned into CO2. When nuclear energy from LENR is used, biochar can be saved and reapplied back to the soil. This will immediately and rapidly reverse climate warming from CO2. First off, Biochar is charcoal created by pyrolysis of biomass, and differs from charcoal only in the sense that its primary use is not for fuel, but for biosequestration or atmospheric carbon capture and storage. Charcoal is a stable solid, rich in carbon content, and thus, can be used to lock carbon in the soil. Biochar is of increasing interest because of concerns about climate change caused by emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). Carbon dioxide capture also ties up large amounts of oxygen and requires energy for injection (as via carbon capture and storage), whereas the biochar process breaks into the carbon dioxide cycle, thus releasing oxygen as did coal formation hundreds of millions of years ago. If the production of biochar is tied to the high profits from liquid biofuel production, huge amounts of the stuff will be generated on the farm as a result of our insatiable desire for liquid fuels. Biochar can sequester carbon in the soil for hundreds to thousands of years, like coal. Modern biochar is being developed using pyrolysis to heat biomass in the absence of oxygen in kilns and MSOP is an analogous process. High efficiency MSOP is now possible now the Rossi's Hot-Cat can provide 1000C process heat to the farm market. However, to the difference of coal and/or petroleum charcoal, when incorporated into the soil in stable organo-mineral aggregates does not freely accumulate in an oxygen-free and abiotic environment. This allows it to be slowly oxygenated and transformed in physically stable but chemically reactive humus, thereby acquiring interesting chemical properties such as cation exchange capacity and buffering of soil acidification. Both are precious in clay and /or nutrient-pore and/or nutrient depleted soils. Biochar can be used to sequester carbon on centurial or even millennial time scales. In the natural carbon cycle, animal waste or plant matter decomposes rapidly after the plant dies, which emits CO2; the overall natural cycle is carbon neutral. Instead of allowing the plant matter to decompose, pyrolysis can be used to sequester some of the carbon in a much more stable form. Biochar thus removes circulating CO2 from the atmosphere and stores it in virtually permanent soil carbon pools, making it a carbon-negative process. In places like the Rocky Mountains, where beetles have been killing off vast swathes of pine trees, the utilization of pyrolysis to char the trees instead of letting them decompose into the atmosphere would offset substantial amounts of CO2 emissions. Although some organic matter is necessary for agricultural soil to maintain its productivity, much of the agricultural waste can be turned directly into biochar, bio-oil, and syngas. Biochar is believed to have long mean residence times in the soil. While the methods by which biochar mineralizes (turns into CO2) are not completely known, evidence from soil samples in the Amazon shows large concentrations of black carbon (biochar) remaining after they were abandoned thousands of years ago. Lab experiments confirm a decrease in carbon mineralization with increasing temperature, so ultra-high temperature charring of plant matter increases the soil residence time and long term soil benefits of high temperature biochar. Terra preta soils are of pre-Columbian nature and were created by the local farmers and caboclos in Brazil's Amazonian basin
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I wrote: There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to 400 years would be fast enough. It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the same time producing something useful. I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, burying some, using some to build wooden houses. I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a new wife, often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Worried about sea level rise? Just pump seawater up into the middle of Antartica, it will freeze and reduce sea level and no need to desalinate. The central Arctic never gets warm enough for ice to melt, at best it sublimes (like Greenland apart from a surface melting about every 150 years, one of which is happening now). But all this sea level concern appears overblown. There is nothing in current trends to suggest any anomalous or accelerated rise in fact last 5 years it has almost stopped: http://milo-scientific.com/pers/essays/gwfig4.php Most of the Holocene was warmer than the last 2000years, and sea levels were frequently higher, it is no surprise that it is rising coming out of the little ice age that ended about 200 years ago. In recent decades there has been about 25% of sea level rise caused by ground water abstraction for agriculture (0.8mm/year out of about 3mm) - but the current 3mm/year rise is no faster than it was 70 years ago before CO2 driven global warming supposedly became a factor, so underlying sea level rise is likely lower than it was 70 years ago. http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/hiding-the-inconvenient-satellite-sea-levels-where-is-the-water-going/sea_level_rise/ On 30 July 2012 21:20, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 7/30/2012 3:27 PM, Chemical Engineer wrote: It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) 3) ... And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. I at first missed the word cities So had a brief vision of thousands of (will be) former beach dwellers now looking at the ocean with closed circuit TV, from the bottoms of their 100 foot tall cast cement silos, while huge pumps howl to keep their patches of sand dry. Keeping Manhattan dry -not to mention Brooklyn and Staten Island!- will surely be easier, but just as surely totally uneconomical. But I think you are showing a certain dry humor... About your point 1): Cooling that much water a few degrees would require dumping that heat, and the waste heat from the cooling process (think thermodynamics laws), somewhere. If not back in the water, then into the atmosphere. Wild guess: 30 degree air temp rise, world-wide? But I can see a barrage of pumps near important coral reefs, pulling cold water up from the depths for a local effect. Wait, the water's rising, they'd have to put the reefs on jacks. Never mind, we are so screwed. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 16:20:49 -0400 David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 7/30/2012 3:27 PM, Chemical Engineer wrote: It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) 3) ... And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. I at first missed the word cities So had a brief vision of thousands of (will be) former beach dwellers now looking at the ocean with closed circuit TV, from the bottoms of their 100 foot tall cast cement silos, while huge pumps howl to keep their patches of sand dry. Somebody, somewhere, mentioned that because cities are constantly being re-worked, ocean levels will, if they rise, simply cause the re-working to shift away from the sea side. There won't be any disaster or even noticeable inconvenience. No, I don't care if Bangladesh sinks beneath the Global-Warmed ocean. And Anthony Watts et al (at Wattsupwiththat.com) have pre-published a study showing that if you use sites to measure temperature that conform to the ISO standard, the increase since the 70s works out to about .135 degrees C, not the .350 C that NOAA claims. And things like 'Climategate' make me think that a lot of the so-called 'Climate Scientists' are more interested in getting grants and ego boosts than they are in real science. And don't forget the mass media which likes to trumpet anything they think will draw readers, which equals higher rates for ads. As WUWT points out constantly and humorously, the idiotic stories about polar bears stuck on melting ice floes, and tornadoes increasing (they have actually decreased in recent years), are apparently irrestistible to the ad-revenue-lusting mass media. Not to mention the poor boobs who have turned 'Global Warming' (or is it Climate Change, or is it Climate Disruption) into a pathetic religion. What a circus.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Such interplanetary geoengineering is not a good idea. Please leave mother nature alone in terms of the amount of carbon we can get our hands on. The real long term danger to humankind is the next ice age. JoJo is right, if we use all our CO2 reserves now, we will not be able to stop the new onslaught of the next ice age. There are chlorinated fluorocarbons that can do the job instead of CO2 to manage global warming but IMHO, the best way to manage the climate is through the carbon cycle. The disagreement in this tread is at its heart, how to best manage the climate, and with the dawn of the LENR age such grand things are possible. Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. What mars needs is more water, it has enough carbon in its atmosphere in the form of CO2. It also needs a protective magnetic field, and LENR can help power this high energy particle radiation deflection system. We need to direct water bearing asteroids to Mars to provide this water. And LENR can help in doing this job too. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to 400 years would be fast enough. It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the same time producing something useful. I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, burying some, using some to build wooden houses. I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a new wife, often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Axil, You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the nations of the earth. The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development. The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making plans to adapt to it. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:54 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Indeed it is getting silly Silly how people jam their beliefs of AGW down your throat. There is NO AGW. But even if there was, as many people said here, I'd rather have it warmer than colder. Colder weather is more an environmental catastrophe than weather that is warmer a few degrees. Once again, this is not about environmentalism per se. This is an occultic pantheistic movement, nothing more than the worship of Mother Earth. Jojo - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:44 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Le Jul 30, 2012 à 12:36 AM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com a écrit : Reality check people. Environmentalism and Global Warming hoopla is not about catastrophe or overpopulation or unsustainability. It's about a growing pantheistic religion
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. I agree, no need to over-engineer. Seems like even with a new ice age LENR will make living in the snow ice cozier. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Such interplanetary geoengineering is not a good idea. Please leave mother nature alone in terms of the amount of carbon we can get our hands on. The real long term danger to humankind is the next ice age. JoJo is right, if we use all our CO2 reserves now, we will not be able to stop the new onslaught of the next ice age. There are chlorinated fluorocarbons that can do the job instead of CO2 to manage global warming but IMHO, the best way to manage the climate is through the carbon cycle. The disagreement in this tread is at its heart, how to best manage the climate, and with the dawn of the LENR age such grand things are possible. Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. What mars needs is more water, it has enough carbon in its atmosphere in the form of CO2. It also needs a protective magnetic field, and LENR can help power this high energy particle radiation deflection system. We need to direct water bearing asteroids to Mars to provide this water. And LENR can help in doing this job too. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to 400 years would be fast enough. It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the same time producing something useful. I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, burying some, using some to build wooden houses. I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a new wife, often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: No, I don't care if Bangladesh sinks beneath the Global-Warmed ocean. If you mean that, you are an inhuman monster. This is like saying you don't care about the ~50,000 people who die from filthy water every week, most of them children under age 5. At the risk of invoking Goodwin's law, such statements remind me of what people in the U.S. said during the Indian wars of the 1870s, and later in the 1930s and 40s. They said: Who cares if a bunch of filthy, uneducated Jews and Gypsies are killed off. They have been killing those people in Europe for centuries, and they always will. By the way, it is not true that people in the U.S. or German were unaware of the Holocaust as it was happening. Everyone in my family knew about it, because they were killing off our European relatives. The ones who escaped told us. Everyone knew. And things like 'Climategate' make me think that a lot of the so-called 'Climate Scientists' are more interested in getting grants and ego boosts than they are in real science. Climategate is an absurd myth. A lot like the myth that cold fusion was never replicated, or that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the CIA. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
If the history of natural disasters has taught us anything, its that the inherent powers that get unleashed over this planet make even the most powerful human inventions look like a pitiful whimper. The energy released just by the lateral blast of Mount St. Helens was estimated at 24 megatons thermal energy (7 by blast, rest through release of heat) (http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2000/fs036-00). The landslide moved 3.7 billion cubic yards of material, and destroyed 4 billion board feet of timber all in a matter of MINUTES; and Mt. Saint Helens was a PUNY eruption when looking at historical volcanic evidence The following discovery was reported in Nature magazine, July 26th: -- CNN -British researchers say they've discovered a massive rift valley beneath the Antarctic ice sheet that rivals the Grand Canyon in depth and is contributing to ice loss on the continent. If you stripped away all of the ice here today, youd see a feature every bit as dramatic as the huge rift valleys you see in Africa and in size as significant as the Grand Canyon, the lead researcher, Robert Bingham, a glaciologist at the University of Aberdeen, said in a press release. Fausto Ferraccioli, Bingham's co-author and geophysicist from British Antarctic Survey, said the valley allows warmer ocean waters to contact glacial ice, contributing to the melting seen on the continent. What this study shows is that this ancient rift basin, and the others discovered under the ice that connect to the warming ocean, can influence contemporary ice flow and may exacerbate ice losses by steering coastal changes further inland, Ferraccioli said. The work of the researchers was reported this week in the journal Nature. The valley is in West Antarctica, which is losing ice faster than other parts of the continent, the researchers say. -- In addition, here on the west coast of America, magma chambers have been creeping towards the surface for decades, and in some areas like Mammoth Lakes, the releases of so much carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide gas from that magma have killed large areas of forest. The concentrations of gasses were so high in one campground, that the public outhouses were closed because there was some risk of becoming unconscious if you were in that enclosed space too long. I dont know how much, but when magma chambers go from tens of kilometers in depth to a few kilometers, they have to increase the land surface temperatures significantly. And what about the rate of heat entering the oceans from hydrothermal vents and magma chambers approaching the ocean floor??? The monitoring stations that various science organizations have put all over the planets oceans have not been operating long enough, and have a limited sensitivity to determine just how consistent the hydrothermal vents have been over a much longer timeframe. Magma plumes in the mantle and crust are continually moving (over hundreds of years) and are more likely the cause of the temperature changes which might be causing the periodic occurrences of ice ages. IMHO, there are so many unknowns, and the magnitude of the energies at work inside and above this planet are such that trying to make any *definitive* conclusions as to why average sea or atmospheric temps might be changing, is just a best guess at this point And any attempts by humans to stabilize the ocean temps as ChemE suggests, although admirable, is probably insignificant compared to the inherent processes happening in the planet -Mark From: Chemical Engineer [mailto:cheme...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 12:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) Removal of moisture from atmosphere using large compressors condensors for use in irrigation/drinking also requiring lots of LENR HP 3) Removal sequestration of CO2 from atmosphere either as limestone deep in the ocean or under land requiring lots of LENR HP And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. Obama can just instigate an ocean front tax for property owners to pay for the projects... With the large decrease in manufacturing costs from LENR, industry can now afford to foot the tab for atmospheric cleanup. This will preserve world's current investment in ocean front property and lead to much less death and destruction caused from relocating billions of people. It will also keep all of us engineers busy... On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I regret the tremendous waste of money which
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I am not sure where a guy can hide if a 1 mile thick glacier bears down upon his nice warm LENR heated home. Many times our actions end up making the overall situation worse since we do not know the consequences associated with them. Dave -Original Message- From: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. I agree, no need to over-engineer. Seems like even with a new ice age LENR will make living in the snow ice cozier. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Such interplanetary geoengineeringis not a good idea. Please leave mother nature alone in terms of the amount of carbon we can get our hands on. The real long term dangerto humankind is the next ice age. JoJo is right, if we use all our CO2 reservesnow, we will not be able to stop the new onslaught of the next ice age. Thereare chlorinated fluorocarbons that can do the job instead of CO2 to manage globalwarming but IMHO, the best way to manage the climate is through the carboncycle. The disagreement in this treadis at its heart, how to best manage the climate, and with the dawn of the LENR agesuch grand things are possible. Pick an optimum parts permillion CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR canenable this sort of climate management. What mars needs is more water,it has enough carbon in its atmosphere in the form of CO2. It also needs aprotective magnetic field, and LENR can help power this high energy particle radiationdeflection system. We need to direct water bearingasteroids to Mars to provide this water. And LENR can help in doing this jobtoo. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: I wrote: There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to 400 years would be fast enough. It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the same time producing something useful. I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, burying some, using some to build wooden houses. I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a new wife, often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:19:34 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: No, I don't care if Bangladesh sinks beneath the Global-Warmed ocean. If you mean that, you are an inhuman monster. You have to have priorities. Mine are for my own people. If you really care about the miseries of the entire planet, I don't see how you remain sane. By the way, it is not true that people in the U.S. or German were unaware of the Holocaust as it was happening. Everyone in my family knew about it, because they were killing off our European relatives. The ones who escaped told us. Everyone knew. My relatives died in the Holocaust too, and everybody knew, but nobody cared - still don't. Many of my German relatives were blown to bits by Allied terror bombing; others in Sileisa were murdered by Red Army troops. There are even Holocaust deniers who say that not so many Germans died, and there are disgusting Holocaust abstainers who don't care that Germans died, and even inhuman Holocaust advocates! who say my relatives had it coming. -- Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
*Just pump seawater up into the middle of Antartica, it will freeze and reduce sea level and no need to desalinate.* Antarctica is the problem, The average Anicteric temperature will eventually get above freezing and no ice will form there. While there is ice in Antarctica, the global temperature will stay relatively cool. The ocean currents will move cold water to cool the world until all the ice is gone. After this ice has all melted, look for the average global temperature to rise very fast since where will be no store of cool remaining on earth. If CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere in exponentially increasing amounts, all the ice will certainly melt, it’s just an matter of when and how fast. The parts per million that will lead to an ice free world is somewhere between 1000 to 2000 Parts per million CO2. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Worried about sea level rise? Just pump seawater up into the middle of Antartica, it will freeze and reduce sea level and no need to desalinate. The central Arctic never gets warm enough for ice to melt, at best it sublimes (like Greenland apart from a surface melting about every 150 years, one of which is happening now). But all this sea level concern appears overblown. There is nothing in current trends to suggest any anomalous or accelerated rise in fact last 5 years it has almost stopped: http://milo-scientific.com/pers/essays/gwfig4.php Most of the Holocene was warmer than the last 2000years, and sea levels were frequently higher, it is no surprise that it is rising coming out of the little ice age that ended about 200 years ago. In recent decades there has been about 25% of sea level rise caused by ground water abstraction for agriculture (0.8mm/year out of about 3mm) - but the current 3mm/year rise is no faster than it was 70 years ago before CO2 driven global warming supposedly became a factor, so underlying sea level rise is likely lower than it was 70 years ago. http://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2011/10/14/hiding-the-inconvenient-satellite-sea-levels-where-is-the-water-going/sea_level_rise/ On 30 July 2012 21:20, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.com wrote: On 7/30/2012 3:27 PM, Chemical Engineer wrote: It seems to me that if LENR is real and scalable and we have approx 50 years to turn things around, some new industries that should arise, based upon sound scientific data are: 1) Cooling of oceans to stable, pre-industrial temperatures using evaporative cooling, etc requiring lots of LENR pumping HP, which is now virtually free 2) 3) ... And big ass LENR pumps for all the cities to keep the water out until 1-3 are effective. I at first missed the word cities So had a brief vision of thousands of (will be) former beach dwellers now looking at the ocean with closed circuit TV, from the bottoms of their 100 foot tall cast cement silos, while huge pumps howl to keep their patches of sand dry. Keeping Manhattan dry -not to mention Brooklyn and Staten Island!- will surely be easier, but just as surely totally uneconomical. But I think you are showing a certain dry humor... About your point 1): Cooling that much water a few degrees would require dumping that heat, and the waste heat from the cooling process (think thermodynamics laws), somewhere. If not back in the water, then into the atmosphere. Wild guess: 30 degree air temp rise, world-wide? But I can see a barrage of pumps near important coral reefs, pulling cold water up from the depths for a local effect. Wait, the water's rising, they'd have to put the reefs on jacks. Never mind, we are so screwed. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer.
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
All dire predictions are not warranted. the ocean levels are NOT going to rise overnight! That is absolutely absurd. people will have PLENTY of time to know what is happening and to relocate to avoid being affected. -mark From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: No, I don't care if Bangladesh sinks beneath the Global-Warmed ocean. If you mean that, you are an inhuman monster. This is like saying you don't care about the ~50,000 people who die from filthy water every week, most of them children under age 5. At the risk of invoking Goodwin's law, such statements remind me of what people in the U.S. said during the Indian wars of the 1870s, and later in the 1930s and 40s. They said: Who cares if a bunch of filthy, uneducated Jews and Gypsies are killed off. They have been killing those people in Europe for centuries, and they always will. By the way, it is not true that people in the U.S. or German were unaware of the Holocaust as it was happening. Everyone in my family knew about it, because they were killing off our European relatives. The ones who escaped told us. Everyone knew. And things like 'Climategate' make me think that a lot of the so-called 'Climate Scientists' are more interested in getting grants and ego boosts than they are in real science. Climategate is an absurd myth. A lot like the myth that cold fusion was never replicated, or that the 9/11 attacks were conducted by the CIA. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Given the fact that the fastest glacier moves 30m/day I would place my igloo on a LENR boosted sled On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:29 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I am not sure where a guy can hide if a 1 mile thick glacier bears down upon his nice warm LENR heated home. Many times our actions end up making the overall situation worse since we do not know the consequences associated with them. Dave -Original Message- From: Chemical Engineer cheme...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:19 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. I agree, no need to over-engineer. Seems like even with a new ice age LENR will make living in the snow ice cozier. On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Such interplanetary geoengineering is not a good idea. Please leave mother nature alone in terms of the amount of carbon we can get our hands on. The real long term danger to humankind is the next ice age. JoJo is right, if we use all our CO2 reserves now, we will not be able to stop the new onslaught of the next ice age. There are chlorinated fluorocarbons that can do the job instead of CO2 to manage global warming but IMHO, the best way to manage the climate is through the carbon cycle. The disagreement in this tread is at its heart, how to best manage the climate, and with the dawn of the LENR age such grand things are possible. Pick an optimum parts per million CO2 level:(350? ….The way climate is now) and keep it there). LENR can enable this sort of climate management. What mars needs is more water, it has enough carbon in its atmosphere in the form of CO2. It also needs a protective magnetic field, and LENR can help power this high energy particle radiation deflection system. We need to direct water bearing asteroids to Mars to provide this water. And LENR can help in doing this job too. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote: I wrote: There might be market for carbon or carbon compounds on the Moon or Mars for all we know. We might send millions of tons a day up by space elevator and dispatch it around the solar system. I doubt that will happen, but you never know. This may sound utterly impractical. You might think the gigantic mass of material involved makes it out of the question. Think again. We know the approximate mass of material, and it is not so gigantic. We have already moved that mass of carbon compounds. We just have to move it again. The mass of carbon or carbon compounds that we would ship to Mars (or whoever wants to buy it) would be roughly equal to the mass of coal and oil that has been mined and shipped around the earth since 1800. That is a lot, but not an unthinkable amount. I think it takes ~50 supertanker deliveries per day to move oil around the world. A space elevator terminal dispatching 50 supertanker-sized loads of carbon compounds or wood to other planets would be expensive and large, but not much bigger than than a major port such as Savannah, Georgia. It would be operated entirely by robots. If you were to extract carbon from the atmosphere, and then keep dispatching carbon compounds on something like this scale for 200 to 400 years, you would reverse the effects of the combustion from the beginning of the industrial revolution. You would do it at a profit. I hope 200 to 400 years would be fast enough. It might be more profitable to simply export the remaining coal from the earth, or to extract carbon from other sources in the solar system. However, the purpose of would be to reverse global warming while at the same time producing something useful. I suppose we would use a combination of techniques. Selling some carbon, burying some, using some to build wooden houses. I predict that people will want to live in wooden houses far into the future, with wooden furniture, even after other synthetic materials become available. Wood looks nicer. People like traditional materials. Japanese people will want tatami made from natural rice straw and rush far into the future. Why wouldn't they? It smells nice. New tatami is a pleasure to sit on. As they say, to live a pleasant life you should get new tatami and a new wife, often. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago ( Ma) of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm, and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 carbon fixation plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the nations of the earth. The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development. The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take place well into the present mid-west to make room for the new coast line of the American nation. All US citizens will be affected except some grain farmers in Kansas. Stop wasting money to improve New York City infrastructure like the 10 billion dollar water system improvement, the 20 billion dollar subway extension, and the 100 billon dollar world trade center rebuild. That entire infrastructure will soon be under 300 feet of sea water. This is true for all the cities on the east and west coasts and the gulf coasts. We know the flood is coming; it is no surprise, so let’s start making
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If the history of natural disasters has taught us anything, it’s that the inherent powers that get unleashed over this planet make even the most powerful human inventions look like a pitiful whimper. That is the wrong lesson. It is a false lesson. Look at the number species wiped out by humans in the last 100 years. Look at the amount of topsoil washed down the Mississippi. Look at the effects of blacktopping a huge portion of North America. Look at invasive plants such as kudzu in the U.S. south. Heck, look at a Google map of any portion of the East Coast of the U.S. and the changes cities and towns have made on the landscape. People are making tremendous changes to the earth. Nearly all the changes are deleterious, and some are unprecedented disasters. People are causing tremendous effects on the earth, such the desertification in Asia and Africa. This is far worse than volcanic action or hurricanes. I think that nearly all of these problems can be fixed, or ameliorated. The effects can be reversed; the earth can be restored. This will add tremendously to everyone's quality of life. But we cannot do anything unless we first acknowledge there is a problem, and we start looking for solutions. Saying that nature is worse or claiming that we are not having an effect will lead to unthinkable disasters. In Japan, in the 1950s and 60s they allowed horrendous pollution in cities all across the country, and even in beautiful rural towns such as Minamata. They were blind to the problems this caused. It killed thousands of people, and blighted the lives of millions of others. It made everyone miserable. People were resigned to it. They thought this was the price of progress. That was nonsense. It was easy to stop this pollution. It cost practically nothing. In many cases, it was more profitable to stop polluting and to recover the wasted materials than it was to keep polluting. All that suffering. All those wasted lives, blighted land, dead wildlife. For nothing! Because people were stupid, blind and inhuman. Because they did not care about suffering. They had no imagination and no vision of how things might be improved. Not because they put profits ahead of human lives -- because they THOUGHT they were putting profits ahead of lives!! They let ignorance, stupidity, greed and waste ruin their lives and destroy the nation. To no purpose at all. No one benefited, not even those who thought they were benefiting. That is the history you want to re-run. That is what happens when you turn a blind eye to global warming and pollution, and you say it does not matter if people in Bangladesh suffer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
That is an amazing level of carbon dioxide occurring during the period 500 Ma. Do you have an estimate of how much of the available carbon was required to reach that level? In other words, what would be the concentration seen if all of the carbon reachable by man in the form of fossil fuels were to be burned? Have we located and burned 10% of the carbon at our disposal? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Various proxymeasurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxidelevels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotoperatios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observedon fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less preciseestimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence forvery high CO2 volume concentrations between 200 and 150 millionyears ago ( Ma) of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm.In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued tofall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligoceneextinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its currentform, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm, and there isgeochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about20 Ma. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was theprimary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation. Low CO2 concentrationsmay have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 carbon fixation plants, which increasedgreatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Axil, You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the nations of the earth. The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development. The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location of the transplanted new capital through emanate domain. Eminent domain in the US is the compulsory purchase for federal or state government use. It is an action of the state to seize a citizen's private property, expropriate property, or seize a citizen's rights in property with due monetary compensation, but without the owner's consent. Eminent domain will need to take
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed, I think Mark is just pointing out that nature has the power to veto anything that we do in a moment. If one of the super volcanoes erupt, many of us will be toast. One large asteroid and ... We should attempt to make things better as you suggest as long as our effort do not lead to a worse environment than the one we are trying to improve. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If the history of natural disasters has taught us anything, it’s that the inherent powers that get unleashed over this planet make even the most powerful human inventions look like a pitiful whimper. That is the wrong lesson. It is a false lesson. Look at the number species wiped out by humans in the last 100 years. Look at the amount of topsoil washed down the Mississippi. Look at the effects of blacktopping a huge portion of North America. Look at invasive plants such as kudzu in the U.S. south. Heck, look at a Google map of any portion of the East Coast of the U.S. and the changes cities and towns have made on the landscape. People are making tremendous changes to the earth. Nearly all the changes are deleterious, and some are unprecedented disasters. People are causing tremendous effects on the earth, such the desertification in Asia and Africa. This is far worse than volcanic action or hurricanes. I think that nearly all of these problems can be fixed, or ameliorated. The effects can be reversed; the earth can be restored. This will add tremendously to everyone's quality of life. But we cannot do anything unless we first acknowledge there is a problem, and we start looking for solutions. Saying that nature is worse or claiming that we are not having an effect will lead to unthinkable disasters. In Japan, in the 1950s and 60s they allowed horrendous pollution in cities all across the country, and even in beautiful rural towns such as Minamata. They were blind to the problems this caused. It killed thousands of people, and blighted the lives of millions of others. It made everyone miserable. People were resigned to it. They thought this was the price of progress. That was nonsense. It was easy to stop this pollution. It cost practically nothing. In many cases, it was more profitable to stop polluting and to recover the wasted materials than it was to keep polluting. All that suffering. All those wasted lives, blighted land, dead wildlife. For nothing! Because people were stupid, blind and inhuman. Because they did not care about suffering. They had no imagination and no vision of how things might be improved. Not because they put profits ahead of human lives -- because they THOUGHT they were putting profits ahead of lives!! They let ignorance, stupidity, greed and waste ruin their lives and destroy the nation. To no purpose at all. No one benefited, not even those who thought they were benefiting. That is the history you want to re-run. That is what happens when you turn a blind eye to global warming and pollution, and you say it does not matter if people in Bangladesh suffer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
*That is an amazing level of carbon dioxide occurring during the period 500 Ma* The estimates are 6000 ppm, but we won’t be able to get to this level unless we kill most of the plant life on the land and in the sea( this is possible as in Soylent Green …a 1973 dystopian American science fiction film). On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: That is an amazing level of carbon dioxide occurring during the period 500 Ma. Do you have an estimate of how much of the available carbon was required to reach that level? In other words, what would be the concentration seen if all of the carbon reachable by man in the form of fossil fuels were to be burned? Have we located and burned 10% of the carbon at our disposal? Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:42 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Various proxy measurements have been used to attempt to determine atmospheric carbon dioxide levels millions of years in the past. These include boron and carbon isotope ratios in certain types of marine sediments, and the number of stomata observed on fossil plant leaves. While these measurements give much less precise estimates of carbon dioxide concentration than ice cores, there is evidence for very high CO2volume concentrations between 200 and 150 million years ago ( Ma) of over 3,000 ppm and between 600 and 400 Ma of over 6,000 ppm. In more recent times, atmospheric CO2 concentration continued to fall after about 60 Ma. About 34 Ma, the time of the Eocene-Oligocene extinction event and when the Antarctic ice sheet started to take its current form, CO2 is found to have been about 760 ppm, and there is geochemical evidence that volume concentrations were less than 300 ppm by about 20 Ma. Carbon dioxide decrease, with a tipping point of 600 ppm, was the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation. Low CO2 concentrations may have been the stimulus that favored the evolution of C4 carbon fixation plants, which increased greatly in abundance between 7 and 5 Ma. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 5:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote: Axil, You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 4:01 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides As the ice recedes, there will be a redistribution of land area among the nations of the earth. The US and China will lose a goodly amount of coastal land area. The Kingdom of Denmark will be the biggest winner. Greenland is an autonomous country within the Kingdom of Denmark and will be ice free and ripe for new development. The countries abutting the Arctic Ocean will also be winners because their northern most territories will now be ice free and usable for development The ice free Antarctic continent is an international zone and will be off limits to all nations because of international treaties restricting all national development. Because of this, useable land surface area will be greatly reduced for the use of the world’s population. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Excellent post Axil. You captured my sentiment precisely. It really moronic to try to continue to waste money on places that are borrowed time. Or to waste money on steps to stop it. Global Warming may be scary to some, but to me, I believe it will be good for mankind in the medium to long term, as it would open up more farm land. Jojo - Original Message - *From:* Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent:* Tuesday, July 31, 2012 2:43 AM *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides I regret the tremendous waste of money which will occur all over the world that sea level rise is going to cause. There is a thousand trillion dollar loss just in valuable east coast US real estate value and infrastructure. We should stop dumping good money after bad into these soon to be flooded areas. The coming flood overhangs all national and local decision making or at least it should. The US government should think about relocating Washington DC to higher ground rather than dumping more improvements into that doomed town. I think Harrisburg PA is the right elevation at 450 feet above sea level for the new capital. All the present land owners will have to be moved to somewhere else because their houses and farms will be granted over to the US government for the new location
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Vorl Bek vorl@antichef.com wrote: You have to have priorities. Mine are for my own people. If you really care about the miseries of the entire planet, I don't see how you remain sane. This makes no sense. These are technical problems. If you find a technical solution your own people you can apply just as easily to everyone else in the world. You can make more profit selling the solution to everyone. Indeed, unless you solve the problems for everyone, you solve them for no one. The world is small and the pollution from China and plastic in the Pacific will affect everyone. Technology is not a zero-sum game, where someone wins only if someone else loses. Do you think that when people in the third world have cell phones and e-books and access to all the libraries on earth, that will somehow hurt you, or prevent you from having a cell phone? Do you think than indoor food factories in India will take bread from your table? There is enough solar and wind energy to give everyone on earth as much energy as Americans and Europeans now consume. (And to give Europeans five times more than they now consume.) Everyone wins. Everyone benefits, except coal miners and oil executives. With cold fusion we will have enough energy to vaporize every planet in the solar system without any measurable reduction in the available fuel. Resources in the solar system are available in unlimited quantities. We have enough to give every person thousands of times more money, energy, power over nature and knowledge than we now command. The only thing we lack is knowledge and the will to act. As Arthur Clarke said, we are like cave men freezing to death on top of a coal bed. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I think Mark is just pointing out that nature has the power to veto anything that we do in a moment. If one of the super volcanoes erupt, many of us will be toast. One large asteroid and ... Super volcanoes are unlikely. The largest asteroid imaginable can probably be detected ahead of time and deflected. It might take a space elevator, trillions of dollars, and the efforts of 100 million people, but I am certain we could do it, if only we have enough time, and the will to act. A space elevator on that scale would soon pay back far more spectacularly than the Transcontinental Railroad did. We have the power to stop nearly every catastrophe than can occur, from asteroids to another outbreak of bird influenza (like the 1918 pandemic). We have reduced pollution by a large margin already -- by a factor of 10 or more in many industries. Factories that used to produce tons of pollution per day now produce a few kilograms. There is no technical reason to think we cannot eventually reduce it by a factor of a thousand. Or that we cannot root out and destroy every invasive species, and fix every eroded stream and river. The physical power that we will soon command in robots will exceed the combined muscle power of humans, animals and insects on earth. As Francis Bacon said, knowledge is power: Man as the minister and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as his observations on the order of nature, either with regard to things or the mind, permit him, and neither knows nor is capable of more. . . . Knowledge and human power are synonymous, since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect. For nature is only subdued by submission . . . What J.F.K. said with regard to the cold war and the nuclear arms race applies equally well to global warming, pollution, and other problems caused by our technology: First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. If you doubt that, you have learned nothing from history, and you have no imagination. Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Fleischmann and a handful of other scientists handed us the keys to unimaginable wealth and control over nature. Try to be worthy of this gift. At least *try* to use it to solve our problems, instead of passively watching while cities flood and people die for no reason. Because of simple technical problems that we should have fixed decades ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jaro has myopic tunnel vision (mixed metaphor?) with thoughts of a warmer climate making more farmland or making cold areas more hospitable to humans. Below is a list of the disadvantages of global warming that I found on a website. Any advantages from global warming are far outweighed by these disadvantages. Disadvantages of Global Warming Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate. Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from flood and evacuation. Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification. Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages. Water shortages in already water-scarce areas. Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages. More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophic storms. Increased disease in humans and animals. Increased deaths from heat waves. Extinction of additional species of animals and plants. Loss of animal and plant habitats. Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions. Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs. Increased air pollution. Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants. Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, and avalanches. Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets. Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes. Increased acidity of rainfall. Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity. Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting from increasingly large disasters.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:04:35 -0400 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: This makes no sense. These are technical problems. If you find a technical solution your own people you can apply just as easily to everyone else in the world. Sounds terrific. If people like you want to make sure the Bangladeshis are swimming in ecats instead of salt water, be my guest. Do you think that when people in the third world have cell phones and e-books and access to all the libraries on earth, that will somehow hurt you, or prevent you from having a cell phone? Do you think than indoor food factories in India will take bread from your table? I don't know what you are going on about. You seem to equate a lack of interest in someone's problems as enmity toward them or fear of them. I don't care if they have cell phones or food factories or whatnot. Their problems or successes don't interest me, and the need you seem to have to get people to be interested in Bangladeshis seems bizarre to me.
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed, Let me rebut just a few of your statements. Jed: Look at the number species wiped out by humans in the last 100 years. The number of species wiped out by one single ice age, or even a small asteroid impact are far greater than the numbers due to man's effects. Which is a perfect example of the point you missed to see. namely, that the *energies at play* inside and outside this planet are far more powerful than anything man has or will build in the near future. You are too emotionally connected to this topic to see my point. I was specifically responding to a point ChemEng made about using LENR to try to stabilize ocean temps. as is clear in my statement: any attempts by humans to stabilize the ocean temps as ChemEng suggests, although admirable, is probably insignificant compared to the inherent processes happening in the planet. I was NOT making any claims or judgments about the morality of trying, and was not turning a blind eye' to ANYTHING, contrary to your emotionally charged statements! My impression is that your immediate reaction is emotional, and that results in your missing the point the person is trying to make. Calm down. If you want to talk about man's effects on the planet, then one needs to keep in mind the differences, namely, man's effects are potentially caused by billions of small contributions, whereas the earth's contributions are from sheer size or area, and occasional global/natural disasters. BOTH determine the overall state/conditions, and definitively identifying and accurately measuring ALL natural contributions has not yet been achieved; which goes to my point about the newly discovered rift valley being a significant contributor of the Antarctica's ice melt; at least on that side which is seeing the most melting. Jed: Look at the effects of blacktopping a huge portion of North America. You exaggerate a bit too much. 'huge portions'? I would take that to mean at least 10%, maybe 20%. Surface area of the earth: 510,072,000 km^2 (Wikipedia) - land: 148,940,000 km^2 (29.2 %) - water: 361,132,000 km^2 (70.8 %) Surface area of US: 9,830,000 km^2 This site, http://mb-soft.com/public3/asphalt.html has total asphalt/concrete/asphalt roofing/etc. in the US to be 100,000 mi^2, which is 259,000 km^2. Percentage of asphalted surface area in US (259,000/9,830,000) * 100 = 2.6%; As a percentage of the planet's land surface: 0.17% ( land only) As a percentage of the planet's surface area: 0.05% (land and water) If anyone has an asphalted percentage for the entire planet, please post it. As a percentage of the US, 2.6% might be 'huge' in your mind, but far from it in mine. And when considering the global scheme of things, even smaller. In addition, the US is by far the most developed nation as far as infrastructure so it is the worst case; the vast majority of the planet's land mass is either barren, or in undeveloped countries which have little or no infrastructure. Again, I wasn't turning a blind eye as you stated. I'd appreciate a little more careful reading of my postings so I don't have to waste time correcting your emotionally errored statements. -mark iverson From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:44 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If the history of natural disasters has taught us anything, it's that the inherent powers that get unleashed over this planet make even the most powerful human inventions look like a pitiful whimper. That is the wrong lesson. It is a false lesson. Look at the number species wiped out by humans in the last 100 years. Look at the amount of topsoil washed down the Mississippi. Look at the effects of blacktopping a huge portion of North America. Look at invasive plants such as kudzu in the U.S. south. Heck, look at a Google map of any portion of the East Coast of the U.S. and the changes cities and towns have made on the landscape. People are making tremendous changes to the earth. Nearly all the changes are deleterious, and some are unprecedented disasters. People are causing tremendous effects on the earth, such the desertification in Asia and Africa. This is far worse than volcanic action or hurricanes. I think that nearly all of these problems can be fixed, or ameliorated. The effects can be reversed; the earth can be restored. This will add tremendously to everyone's quality of life. But we cannot do anything unless we first acknowledge there is a problem, and we start looking for solutions. Saying that nature is worse or claiming that we are not having an effect will lead to unthinkable disasters. That is the history you want to re-run. That is what happens when you turn a blind eye to global warming and pollution
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Dave, thank you! Your unemotional, scientific mind got my point exactly… Yes, we should be concerned and do what we can within reason… wasteful programs or research are just taking resources from other needed problems. -mark From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 2:58 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jed, I think Mark is just pointing out that nature has the power to veto anything that we do in a moment. If one of the super volcanoes erupt, many of us will be toast. One large asteroid and ... We should attempt to make things better as you suggest as long as our effort do not lead to a worse environment than the one we are trying to improve. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Jul 30, 2012 5:44 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: If the history of natural disasters has taught us anything, it’s that the inherent powers that get unleashed over this planet make even the most powerful human inventions look like a pitiful whimper. That is the wrong lesson. It is a false lesson. Look at the number species wiped out by humans in the last 100 years. Look at the amount of topsoil washed down the Mississippi. Look at the effects of blacktopping a huge portion of North America. Look at invasive plants such as kudzu in the U.S. south. Heck, look at a Google map of any portion of the East Coast of the U.S. and the changes cities and towns have made on the landscape. People are making tremendous changes to the earth. Nearly all the changes are deleterious, and some are unprecedented disasters. People are causing tremendous effects on the earth, such the desertification in Asia and Africa. This is far worse than volcanic action or hurricanes. I think that nearly all of these problems can be fixed, or ameliorated. The effects can be reversed; the earth can be restored. This will add tremendously to everyone's quality of life. But we cannot do anything unless we first acknowledge there is a problem, and we start looking for solutions. Saying that nature is worse or claiming that we are not having an effect will lead to unthinkable disasters. In Japan, in the 1950s and 60s they allowed horrendous pollution in cities all across the country, and even in beautiful rural towns such as Minamata. They were blind to the problems this caused. It killed thousands of people, and blighted the lives of millions of others. It made everyone miserable. People were resigned to it. They thought this was the price of progress. That was nonsense. It was easy to stop this pollution. It cost practically nothing. In many cases, it was more profitable to stop polluting and to recover the wasted materials than it was to keep polluting. All that suffering. All those wasted lives, blighted land, dead wildlife. For nothing! Because people were stupid, blind and inhuman. Because they did not care about suffering. They had no imagination and no vision of how things might be improved. Not because they put profits ahead of human lives -- because they THOUGHT they were putting profits ahead of lives!! They let ignorance, stupidity, greed and waste ruin their lives and destroy the nation. To no purpose at all. No one benefited, not even those who thought they were benefiting. That is the history you want to re-run. That is what happens when you turn a blind eye to global warming and pollution, and you say it does not matter if people in Bangladesh suffer. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I believe you are the one being myopic. None of these effects you mentioned below have been tied to any thing remotely associated with Warming. Like you said, You got it from the Web. And we all know that the Web contains all sort of correct information. There is absolutely nothing false or incorrect from information you get on the web, right? OK Whatever! Jojo - Original Message - From: Jeff Driscoll hcarb...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jaro has myopic tunnel vision (mixed metaphor?) with thoughts of a warmer climate making more farmland or making cold areas more hospitable to humans. Below is a list of the disadvantages of global warming that I found on a website. Any advantages from global warming are far outweighed by these disadvantages. Disadvantages of Global Warming Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate. Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from flood and evacuation. Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification. Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages. Water shortages in already water-scarce areas. Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages. More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophic storms. Increased disease in humans and animals. Increased deaths from heat waves. Extinction of additional species of animals and plants. Loss of animal and plant habitats. Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier or higher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions. Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs. Increased air pollution. Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants. Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, and avalanches. Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets. Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes. Increased acidity of rainfall. Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity. Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting from increasingly large disasters.
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: None of these effects you mentioned below have been tied to any thing remotely associated with Warming. That is incorrect. Everything on the list has been associated with global warming by experts. That does not mean the experts were correct or that these effects really will be caused by global warming. I have some doubts about ocean circulation, for example. Like you said, You got it from the Web. And we all know that the Web contains all sort of correct information. There is absolutely nothing false or incorrect from information you get on the web, right? I usually get my information from books written by experts, rather than from the web. I never accept information from anonymous sources such as Wikipedia unless I can confirm it with something written by a bona fide expert who signs his or her real name. I can vouch for the claims listed here. They have been associated with global warming by various experts. As I said, I doubt that some will follow, but others clearly will, and it takes no special expertise to see that. Many are happening already. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed wrote: Super volcanoes are unlikely. For someone who is so keen on reading history, this statement is a bewilderment to me. Surely you realize that the SCIENTIFIC evidence for volcanic eruptions far more powerful than M.S.Helens is well established. If what you are referring to is how likely it is to happen *in our lifetime*, then I might agree. For all natural disasters, their size/destructiveness is inversely proportional to their frequency of occurrence; i.e., the more destructive they are, the less often they occur. However, it wouldn't surprise me if one of the larger historical volcanic eruptions triggered a mini ice age. The point being made here, so it can't be missed is, people were NOT present in any significant numbers, or at all, when ALL PREVIOUS MAJOR CLIMATIC CHANGES OCCURRED, WHICH MEANS, THE EARTH DOESN'T NEED OUR HELP! SHE IS PLENTY POWERFUL ENOUGH TO CAUSE MAJOR CHANGES ALL BY HERSELF, AND SHE WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO LONG AFTER WE'RE GONE. It is perfectly clear and irrefutable, that there are NATURAL forces which have been operating over hundreds of thousands of years, and probably ever since the planet formed, which cause this planet to have regular, periodic changes to its climate. all with no human help whatsoever. You can be sure that those forces are still present and working today!! Are we helping to initiate those climate changes with our CO2/thermal pollution and other man-made effects? Probably, but contributing how much compared to the natural processes?? The largest asteroid imaginable can probably be detected ahead of time and deflected. It might take a space elevator, trillions of dollars, and the efforts of 100 million people, but I am certain we could do it, if only we have enough time, and the will to act. I agree that we most certainly should be able to detect them, and NASA has had programs to catalog all NEO objects larger than 1km. However, deflection is much more difficult. but at what cost for something that might not happen in 1 years? You want to spend $1T on that? Sorry, that's absurd. in 200 years we'll have deep space asteroid detection satellites and space-borne vehicles that could fly out to meet the asteroid when it is still far away, and nudge it gently, but continuously so that its trajectory is altered enough so that by the time it gets to earth, it is far enough deflected to not affect the earth in a signif way. and all for a fraction of the $1T . no, that is what I mean by wasteful spending. It will make sense sometime in the future though. Getting back to my point about the magnitude of natural disasters, the Tunguska event leveled a 2000-kilometer area (a much greater area than St. Helens did, mind you) and the object is believed to have been only 30-50 *meters* in diameter (speed X mass). That's if you don't buy the speculation that it was an unintended mishap from Tesla's testing one of his devices! Also, an impact by a 10 km asteroid on the Earth is widely viewed as an extinction-level event, likely to cause catastrophic damage to the biosphere. Depending on speed, objects as small as 100m in diameter are *historically* extremely destructive. -Mark Iverson From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 3:41 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, I think Mark is just pointing out that nature has the power to veto anything that we do in a moment. If one of the super volcanoes erupt, many of us will be toast. One large asteroid and ... Super volcanoes are unlikely. The largest asteroid imaginable can probably be detected ahead of time and deflected. It might take a space elevator, trillions of dollars, and the efforts of 100 million people, but I am certain we could do it, if only we have enough time, and the will to act. A space elevator on that scale would soon pay back far more spectacularly than the Transcontinental Railroad did. We have the power to stop nearly every catastrophe than can occur, from asteroids to another outbreak of bird influenza (like the 1918 pandemic). We have reduced pollution by a large margin already -- by a factor of 10 or more in many industries. Factories that used to produce tons of pollution per day now produce a few kilograms. There is no technical reason to think we cannot eventually reduce it by a factor of a thousand. Or that we cannot root out and destroy every invasive species, and fix every eroded stream and river. The physical power that we will soon command in robots will exceed the combined muscle power of humans, animals and insects on earth. As Francis Bacon said, knowledge is power: Man as the minister and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as his observations on the order of nature, either with regard to things or the mind, permit him, and neither knows nor is capable of more
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I do not believe in any of your so called Experts. Especially when these so called Experts have been caught red-handed manipulating data. There is no integrity in the Global Warming research world. These experts lie to advance an agenda. My dog has more credibility than these experts, at least my dog does not lie. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: None of these effects you mentioned below have been tied to any thing remotely associated with Warming. That is incorrect. Everything on the list has been associated with global warming by experts. That does not mean the experts were correct or that these effects really will be caused by global warming. I have some doubts about ocean circulation, for example. Like you said, You got it from the Web. And we all know that the Web contains all sort of correct information. There is absolutely nothing false or incorrect from information you get on the web, right? I usually get my information from books written by experts, rather than from the web. I never accept information from anonymous sources such as Wikipedia unless I can confirm it with something written by a bona fide expert who signs his or her real name. I can vouch for the claims listed here. They have been associated with global warming by various experts. As I said, I doubt that some will follow, but others clearly will, and it takes no special expertise to see that. Many are happening already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate. However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week, how can we expect to make accurate previsions regarding climate in the distant future? Brazil is far from leading the state-of-the-art research in climatology, but a few scientist here have made good points against the hysteria of anthropic global warming. The best point, in my opinion, is that we just lack information on how the sun behaved during the past climate changes. It seems to me that the sun is quite important when we are talking about temperature. Many good scientists are not very fond of the theory that more CO2 means higher temperatures, but rather the opposite, that increases in temperature provoked spikes of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I am always worried when I hear about scientific consensus, but specially in a field where proof is something still distant and computer-model based. What worries me is that poor countries need to increase their emissions in order to get richer. And we know for a fact that poverty not only plagues mankind, but also have a very real and powerful negative effect on the environment. Forests are being cut down and many rivers are polluted worldwide because poor people can't avoid using these resources but in a unsustainable way. CO2 might disrupts climate, but poverty certainly destroys the environment. Just my opinion, but it seems rather illogical to take actions on something that* might* be true to make something that is *certainly* bad happen. Make no mistakes, CO2 emissions controls will put a halt in economic development. There is no development without cheap and abundant energy. And today cheap and abundant energy comes from carbon. 2012/7/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: None of these effects you mentioned below have been tied to any thing remotely associated with Warming. That is incorrect. Everything on the list has been associated with global warming by experts. That does not mean the experts were correct or that these effects really will be caused by global warming. I have some doubts about ocean circulation, for example. Like you said, You got it from the Web. And we all know that the Web contains all sort of correct information. There is absolutely nothing false or incorrect from information you get on the web, right? I usually get my information from books written by experts, rather than from the web. I never accept information from anonymous sources such as Wikipedia unless I can confirm it with something written by a bona fide expert who signs his or her real name. I can vouch for the claims listed here. They have been associated with global warming by various experts. As I said, I doubt that some will follow, but others clearly will, and it takes no special expertise to see that. Many are happening already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net wrote: Jed wrote: “Super volcanoes are unlikely.” ** ** For someone who is so keen on reading history, this statement is a bewilderment to me. Surely you realize that the SCIENTIFIC evidence for volcanic eruptions far more powerful than M.S.Helens is well established. If what you are referring to is how likely it is to happen **in our lifetime**, then I might agree. Yup. That's what I meant. What did you think I meant? Do you suppose I have not read books on geology, and I am not familiar with super volcanoes? Please give me some credit for doing my homework. When you read a brief comment by someone, it is a mistake to assume they meant something stupid when it just as likely they had something sensible in mind. For example, when Obama recently said you didn't build that, the statement was taken out of context (by erasing the previous sentences) so that some people thought that refers to the small business. It is obvious he meant you did not build the roads and other infrastructure around your place of business. For all natural disasters, their size/destructiveness is inversely proportional to their frequency of occurrence; i.e., the more destructive they are, the less often they occur. Perhaps that is true of disasters caused by single, discrete event such as a large earthquake, tsunami, or meteorite strike. It is less true of disasters that occur as a series of events, or that can be triggered at any one of thousands of different locations, rather than in one geological fault. A good example is a virus crossing the species barrier, such as the 1918 influenza pandemic, or AIDS. The chances of this have been increased by various factors such as increased human population density, invasion of wilderness areas by people (which probably caused AIDS to cross the barrier), and bad techniques in agriculture such as crowding chickens together and allowing them access to wild birds. The point being made here, so it can’t be missed is, people were NOT present in any significant numbers, or at all, when ALL PREVIOUS MAJOR CLIMATIC CHANGES OCCURRED, WHICH MEANS, THE EARTH DOESN’T NEED OUR HELP! No one has missed that point. Anyone with a 6th grade level understanding of geology and dinosaurs knows that the climate has changed radically. (6th graders tend to know a great deal about dinosaurs.) All climatologists are aware of this fact. They base their theories and predictions on previous examples of naturally occurring climate change in the distant past, and in more recent examples such as the effect of the Krakatoa explosion. Are we helping to initiate those climate changes with our CO2/thermal pollution and other man-made effects? Probably, but contributing how much compared to the natural processes?? According to climatologists, short term, potentially disastrous changes caused by people are occurring at greater speed and amplitude than the natural processes that are likely to occur over the the next few hundred years. In other words, human activity in the near term and on the time scale in question will greatly outweigh natural processes. You seem to assuming that the experts are unaware of what you wrote here. That it did not occur to them. I suggest you read more of the professional literature. You will see that they thought of this long ago. That does not prove they are right, but it proves that you have not carefully considered their arguments. You remind me of the people at Wikipedia who declare that cold fusion researchers never thought to check for recombination, or they never calibrated, so that is why the experiments are all in error. I suggest you review the literature first to see if your own assumptions are right before posting them. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate. It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global warming theory! However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . . I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion: Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he or she smokes and other factors. However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20 years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year. Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the future, but they cannot. Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From Jojo: I do not believe in any of your so called Experts. Especially when these so called Experts have been caught red-handed manipulating data. There is no integrity in the Global Warming research world. These experts lie to advance an agenda. And Koch founded climate skeptic think tanks don't have an agenda of their own? My dog has more credibility than these experts, at least my dog does not lie. Certainly not to your face he/she wouldn't. Oh N! No way! http://cheezburger.com/2708457472 Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** I do not believe in any of your so called Experts. Especially when these so called Experts have been caught red-handed manipulating data. I have heard people say that about cold fusion hundreds of times. They claim that FP cheated, that the data was fake, that no one replicated, etc., etc. It is not true of cold fusion and it is not true of climatology. I have read the memos and looked at the data you refer to. I am no expert in climatology but it is obvious to me that no cheating of any sort occurred. This whole story was ginned up by people opposed to climatology, just as the anti-cold fusion propaganda was invented by people opposed to that subject for political reasons. Ditto every argument in the mass media opposed to evolution. It is all ignorant horseshit. It is anti-science, anti-intellectual, repackaged premodern superstitious NONSENSE. I have heard it all before. (Almost all -- you are the first person I have ever seen claim that Darwinism is socialistic. Many others claim it is capitalistic. As I said, both claims make about as much sense as saying that Ohm's law is erotic and trigonometry is tragic.) You are gullible. You jump to conclusions. You buy into lies and propaganda spread by people with an agenda. You think you know more about complex scientific subjects than distinguished experts do, but you are mistaken. God knows I have encountered HUNDREDS of people like you who imagine they know something about cold fusion when they know nothing. I am sick to death of such people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the framer for liquid fuel production. The removal of animal waste can be completely automated on the farm for rapid conversion to $3 a gallon biodiesel. . . . Are you suggesting that cold fusion might be used in this process? I do not understand what business model you have in mind. What possible use would there be for biodiesel -- or any other liquid chemical fuel -- in a world with cold fusion? You might as well try to sell whale oil! We will use cold fusion directly to power transportation and other applications that now use liquid fuel. It may take longer to convert aviation, because the engines are the most complicated, and mission critical. That is only a small fraction of total liquid fuel consumption. It can easily be met with the remaining sources of oil, for 20 or 30 years or so until cold fusion jet aircraft engines are developed. In conclusion, LENR can get us back to the sustainable farming practices that nurtured mankind even in the earliest and most wholesome days of our civilization as well as remediate global warming. Actually, premodern agriculture was destructive in may parts of the world, especially in the middle east. It was not sustainable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
it is still far away, and nudge it gently, but continuously so that its trajectory is altered enough so that by the time it gets to earth, it is far enough deflected to not affect the earth in a signif way… and all for a fraction of the $1T … no, that is what I mean by wasteful spending. It will make sense sometime in the future though… ** ** Getting back to my point about the magnitude of natural disasters, the Tunguska event leveled a 2000-kilometer area (a much greater area than St. Helens did, mind you) and the object is believed to have been only 30-50 * *meters** in diameter (speed X mass). That’s if you don’t buy the speculation that it was an unintended mishap from Tesla’s testing one of his devices! Also, an impact by a 10 km asteroid on the Earth is widely viewed as an extinction-level event, likely to cause catastrophic damage to the biosphere. Depending on speed, objects as small as 100m in diameter are **historically** extremely destructive. ** ** -Mark Iverson ** ** *From:* Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, July 30, 2012 3:41 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides ** ** David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: ** ** Jed, I think Mark is just pointing out that nature has the power to veto anything that we do in a moment. If one of the super volcanoes erupt, many of us will be toast. One large asteroid and ... ** ** Super volcanoes are unlikely. The largest asteroid imaginable can probably be detected ahead of time and deflected. It might take a space elevator, trillions of dollars, and the efforts of 100 million people, but I am certain we could do it, if only we have enough time, and the will to act.* *** ** ** A space elevator on that scale would soon pay back far more spectacularly than the Transcontinental Railroad did. ** ** We have the power to stop nearly every catastrophe than can occur, from asteroids to another outbreak of bird influenza (like the 1918 pandemic). We have reduced pollution by a large margin already -- by a factor of 10 or more in many industries. Factories that used to produce tons of pollution per day now produce a few kilograms. There is no technical reason to think we cannot eventually reduce it by a factor of a thousand. Or that we cannot root out and destroy every invasive species, and fix every eroded stream and river. The physical power that we will soon command in robots will exceed the combined muscle power of humans, animals and insects on earth.* *** ** ** As Francis Bacon said, knowledge is power: Man as the minister and interpreter of nature, does and understands as much as his observations on the order of nature, either with regard to things or the mind, permit him, and neither knows nor is capable of more. . . . ** ** Knowledge and human power are synonymous, since the ignorance of the cause frustrates the effect. For nature is only subdued by submission . . . ** ** What J.F.K. said with regard to the cold war and the nuclear arms race applies equally well to global warming, pollution, and other problems caused by our technology: First examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it is unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable, that mankind is doomed, that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade; therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable, and we believe they can do it again. ** ** If you doubt that, you have learned nothing from history, and you have no imagination. ** ** Newton, Darwin, Faraday, Fleischmann and a handful of other scientists handed us the keys to unimaginable wealth and control over nature. Try to be worthy of this gift. At least *try* to use it to solve our problems, instead of passively watching while cities flood and people die for no reason. Because of simple technical problems that we should have fixed decades ago. ** ** - Jed ** **
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I read the literature. That is why I know that what you state is wrong. And for two reasons: 1 - Insurance companies and epidemiologists have good, reliable data. Climatologists don't. It is not their fault, is it just impossible to have good data on the large periods of time required to study planets climates. You see, just a few decades of reliable data isn't enough when we know that the climate changes in scale of thousands of years. 2 - When an insurance company gathers all information, they can test their hypothesis with what happens in the real world and see if it works. That is how you know that smoking makes a difference in people's lifespans, but other things don't. Epidemiologists can test on actual living beings how diseases spread. Now, tell me, how do climatologists do this, bearing in mind that the results should take thousands of years to appear? They test their hypothesis in computer models, which are not quite the same thing as the reality yet. Large, complex phenomena are easier to study when it is based on the law of the large numbers. That is precisely what happens with insurance and epidemiology, but not with climate. There is no reality check in climate. Those predictions based on large number of (bad) data are tested on scenarios that are in a computer. I am an economist, and we have the same problem. We do have good prediction models, they are quite sophisticated, but not totally reliable. Otherwise, one would not see economic crisis, economic downturns nor unemployment. And I am pretty sure that economic data is far more accurate than climate ones. *Economists cannot test hypothesis in a lab. Neither can climatologists. * But that was not even my point. I believe that anthropic global warming is possible, even probable. I just don't care, because the alternative, poverty, is far worse. 2012/7/30 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate. It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global warming theory! However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . . I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion: Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he or she smokes and other factors. However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20 years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year. Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the future, but they cannot. Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
*Are you suggesting that cold fusion might be used in this process? I do not understand what business model you have in mind.* You missed the significance in this important sentence of my post regarding social engineering: *“All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the farmer for liquid fuel production.”* When you want somebody to do something, you must provide an *economic incentive* to *motivate *the individual to follow that policy. This is a policy in spirit like *cap and trade*, but for farmers and ranchers. Elimination of farm waste will save 5000 lives a year from food poisoning and a $trillion in medical bills. This advantage in itself is worth delaying introduction of LENR in transportation products. Anyway, According to Rossi, it will take 25 years to develop LENR for transportation and 35 more years to replace all the old vehicles. Many poor people will not switch to LENR in this first adapter time frame due to lack of capital and must continue to use gas in old cars and trucks. Then there are those who will wait to see how reliable the new LENR transportation products are. So LENR might take 60 years or more to replace the old technology. As a first line LENR advocate, you lack the patience necessary for a proper assessment of both the most probable and most advantageous course of future events. Cheers: Axil On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the framer for liquid fuel production. The removal of animal waste can be completely automated on the farm for rapid conversion to $3 a gallon biodiesel. . . . Are you suggesting that cold fusion might be used in this process? I do not understand what business model you have in mind. What possible use would there be for biodiesel -- or any other liquid chemical fuel -- in a world with cold fusion? You might as well try to sell whale oil! We will use cold fusion directly to power transportation and other applications that now use liquid fuel. It may take longer to convert aviation, because the engines are the most complicated, and mission critical. That is only a small fraction of total liquid fuel consumption. It can easily be met with the remaining sources of oil, for 20 or 30 years or so until cold fusion jet aircraft engines are developed. In conclusion, LENR can get us back to the sustainable farming practices that nurtured mankind even in the earliest and most wholesome days of our civilization as well as remediate global warming. Actually, premodern agriculture was destructive in may parts of the world, especially in the middle east. It was not sustainable. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
I think Axil is just having fun. I suspect he is a grad student in physics somewhere trying to see how many people he can rope into his hypotheticals. Eric Le Jul 30, 2012 à 2:14 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com a écrit : Axil, You speak of ice receding as though it is inevitable. My major worry is that the present heating will trigger an ice event. I guess we could use the old ice core data to determine the typical length of time between heating and the following ice age which would be a far worse catastrophe. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: You missed the significance in this important sentence of my post regarding social engineering: *“All that is required is to delay the powering of transportation using LENR to provide an economic incentive to the farmer for liquid fuel production.”* Ah. I get it. You are suggesting that an obsolete (or obsolescent) technology may improve in the face of potential competition from a new technology. Yes, that does happen. Sailing ships improved in the 1840s, partly in competition with steamships, and partly by borrowing technology from them. Nowadays, conventional automobile engine efficiency is improving partly in competition with hybrid technology. In this case, however, cold fusion is so much better than any liquid chemical fuel that I doubt any improvement to liquid fuel will delay the introduction of cold fusion. Various factors such as technical glitches may slow down cold fusion, but I doubt this particular factor will. For one thing, this form of liquid fuel would require a lot of expensive RD to perfect, and I doubt any venture capitalist would fund this knowing that cold fusion will soon arrive. It would be like improving a vacuum tube computer after transistors were invented. Elimination of farm waste will save 5000 lives a year from food poisoning and a $trillion in medical bills. This advantage in itself is worth delaying introduction of LENR in transportation products. There is not a single driver who would take this into account when making a decision to purchase a car! There are no manufacturers who would be so stupid as to delay the introduction of cold fusion powered cars because of this. Any delay competing would be fatal. Selling a liquid fuel car in a cold fusion world would be like trying to sell a wind-up record player to customers who want iPods. Anyway, According to Rossi, it will take 25 years to develosp LENR for transportation and 35 more years to replace all the old vehicles. I think that is nonsense. It will take 5 or 10 years to develop the vehicle because that is how long it took Toyota to develop the Prius, and there will be far more incentive -- and pressure -- to develop cold fusion. Once cold fusion begins to replace conventional cars, the changeover will be swift for various reasons I spelled out in the book. The half-life of a modern car is about 4 years. Once half of the fleet is gone, gas stations will go out of business and the owners will be forced to abandon the others. So it will take 4 to 6 years to replace all cars. 99% of all cars are replaced every 8 years now, so this will not call for much extra production or resources. I get a feeling Rossi does not understand some of the fundamentals of business and technology. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Look in the mirror Jed, YOU ARE the person you claimed to be disgusted of. Tell me the truth. Have you even read Stephen Meyer paper on Specified Complexity, or Frank J. Tipler's The Physics of Immortality. Both documents contain hard hard science and hard hard hard math that would make your head spin. Tipler's book contains so much hard math that it would be incomprehensible to a large majority of readers in this forum. I already know the answer to my question. You haven't and you never will because you have already decided in your mind a long time ago that you will not consider any evidence that points to Intelligent Design or that points to the existence of God or immortality. You are just like Bob Parks, only you do not realize it. Get real Jed, you are not as objective as you delude yourself to be. At least I have read documents on Darwinian Evolution (Have you even read Darwin's The origin of Species or The descent of Man?), but you will not even consider anything remotely connected with Intelligent Design. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:36 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides You are gullible. You jump to conclusions. You buy into lies and propaganda spread by people with an agenda. You think you know more about complex scientific subjects than distinguished experts do, but you are mistaken. God knows I have encountered HUNDREDS of people like you who imagine they know something about cold fusion when they know nothing. I am sick to death of such people. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
That's pure Balonium Jed, and you know it. Straw man argument. Utterly useless and pointless. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 9:18 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Bruno Santos besantos1...@gmail.com wrote: Do we have a climatologist here? That would help the debate. It would help if people would first read a credible, expert account of global warming theory! However, I have to say that I have my doubts when it comes to predictions by these experts. You see, we do not have any credible scientific model for weather prediction that works for periods longer than a week . . . I do not like to be harsh, but that is a prime example of a mistake made by an amateur critic who has not read the literature. You completely misunderstand the technical issue. What you are saying is similar to this assertion: Life insurance companies have actuarial tables predicting how long a person is likely to live, based on present age, sex, the person's weight, whether he or she smokes and other factors. However, a life insurance agent cannot tell me whether I will live another 20 years. I might be run over by a bus tomorrow. I might die of cancer next year. Therefore, life insurance is a scam. They pretend they can predict the future, but they cannot. Needless to say, that is nonsense. You can predict the remaining lifespan of a large group of people, even though it is impossible to predict the lifespan of any given individual. Large scale complex events involving many elements are sometimes more predictable than individual events with fewer causes and less complex causes. That is counter-intuitive but it happens with many natural phenomena, including climate, epidemiology and so on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Le Jul 29, 2012 à 1:51 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com a écrit : Regarding global warming, I have no doubt it is real. To those who have doubts Concerning doubts about global warming and the connection to greenhouse gases, I think there are fewer and fewer credible voices attempting to claim that this is an open question. I am reminded of the opposition to tobacco regulation that was mobilized by vested interests on the weak basis that there were questions about the link between smoking and cancer. In retrospect it is pretty clear that the main issues in that debate were not scientific but about something else altogether. I think anyone who has fought steps to address global warming and who can feel embarrassment (not everyone can) will indeed feel embarrassed for having put a stake in the ground on such an indefensible position. Others, who cannot feel embarrassment, will probably just put the episode behind them and move on to the next front in the culture wars. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jed, there is so much scattered baloney in your post that needs to be corrected; but I refuse to drag Vortex-l down the pithole of irrelevant off-topic posts. Please post your comment in a different forum so that I can answer it. Jojo PS. I can't resist; so let me ask you this. What exactly is so bad with a little global warming. Seems to me that a few degrees rise in average global temperature should open up more land for year round planting increasing the food supply for the world. Sure a bunch of retrograde European Cities will be submerged, but it's about time they abandon those locations anyways. Those who cry Global Warming is a disaster are simply worshiping at the altar of Environmental Pantheism - that is; the worship of the Environment. There is no Global Warming caused by mankind; and even it there is; what's so bad about it. I try to develop cold fusion because I refuse to give some more money to terrorist ragheads, rather than a concern for Global Warming. - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 4:51 AM Subject: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides See: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story It is nice to see a scientist persuaded by the weight of evidence. That does not often happen. It will not be the beginning of the end in the cold fusion battle until you start to see similar headlines about major scientists endorsing cold fusion, especially scientists funded by people whose interests will be hurt if cold fusion succeeds. I wonder if that will happen. I hope it does. Regarding global warming, I have no doubt it is real. To those who have doubts, rational or not, here is what I say: Every step that is proposed to deal with this problem is beneficial in its own right. Every step would be progress in technology, and would ultimately lower the cost of energy. So what difference does not make if global warming is not real, or if it isn't caused by human activity? It is in our best interests to act as if it is. Long before the germ theory emerged, people understood that keeping houses, dishes, and water supplies hygienic will reduce disease. The Greek goddess Hygieia was the goddess of health, cleanliness, and sanitation. Along the same lines, any sensible person should recognize that reducing energy, reducing pollution and increasing efficiency will improve our lives whether or not it actually helps reduce the extreme weather and increased temperatures we are experiencing. You don't have to know about germs to realize intuitively that clean water is better for you, and it tastes better too. Anyone familiar with the technical details knows that most technology is inefficient and could easily be improved, with large cost benefits. For example, the best practices at the data centers operated by Google make them far more efficient and cheaper per byte than competing data centers. See: http://www.google.com/about/datacenters/ Details about the efficiency techniques are made freely available by Google, as a public service. Others should imitate them. It is economic lunacy not to imitate them! I am aware that some have argued that alternative energy is a bad idea because money would be better spent elsewhere. I know enough about energy that can dispute that with some authority, especially when I see the idiotic investments that we made in other categories, such dot-com fiascos and building far too many gigantic houses for people who cannot afford them. Naturally, investments in solar must lead to creative destruction such as Solyndra. That is regrettable but it is unavoidable. Let us be honest and admit frankly that if cold fusion succeeds, it will lead to creative destruction on a far larger scale. It will destroy the entire alternative energy sector -- solar and wind. Following that, it will destroy the conventional energy sector: oil, coal and nuclear. This will make trillions of dollars of infrastructure and investments useless, practically overnight. This will put millions of people out of work. That's what I am hoping for. That's the best outcome. That is the down-side to cold fusion. It is dreadful, but the up-side has more benefits than the down-side has problems. We have to be cold and calculating. We also have to take steps to alleviate the human misery this will cause, as best we can. It is like deciding to invade Normandy in 1944, knowing full well that thousands will die and it will cause heartbreak that never heals. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Concerning doubts about global warming and the connection to greenhouse gases, I think there are fewer and fewer credible voices attempting to claim that this is an open question. I am reminded of the opposition to tobacco regulation . . . Well, there have been *some* credible voices. More to the point, some of the people here doubt the existence of global warming, and I want to make it clear that I respect their views. My point is, it is in our best interests to assume it is real act accordingly -- even if it is not real. That is not true of some other potential crises. What I really want to say here is on topic. I do not think we are near the turning point for cold fusion yet because you do not see articles like this in the mass media where big-name scientists come out and say I assumed cold fusion is not real but now I believe it is real. The only story like that was on 60 Minutes and the scientist was Rob Duncan. Duncan was a shot in the arm for cold fusion. He Kimmel have done a lot of good. If we had 10 or 20 more of his caliber it would be a tremendous benefit. I do not see that happening anytime soon. But there is always hope. I hope that some leading Korean scientists associated with KAIST come on board as a result of the upcoming ICCF conference. Rob Duncan is one of the few scientists I know who is open minded and prepared to be persuaded by the weight of evidence. Such people are so rare in science, they become famous for that reason alone. They are all supposed to be like that, but that is mere mythology. Duncan and the others at U. Missouri are influence by the founder of that institution: Thomas Jefferson, one of the most open-mined thinkers in history. They model their attitudes on his. He set directives, and they take those directives seriously. They told me that. Jefferson had many grave personal faults, such as the fact that he sold his own children into slavery. But he had a towering intellect and he did a lot of good. Still, I prefer Franklin. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: ** Jed, there is so much scattered baloney in your post that needs to be corrected; but I refuse to drag Vortex-l down the pithole of irrelevant off-topic posts. Then don't. I suggest you comment only on the parts relating to cold fusion. I am not sure what to make of this: What exactly is so bad with a little global warming. Seems to me that a few degrees rise in average global temperature should open up more land for year round planting increasing the food supply for the world. Sure a bunch of retrograde European Cities will be submerged, but it's about time they abandon those locations anyways. Those who cry Global Warming is a disaster are simply worshiping at the altar of Environmental Pantheism . . . Is that supposed to be joke, or a parody? Sarcasm? It is sometimes difficult to tell on the Internet. If you are serious, then I think you have no business accusing me of writing baloney. Global warming bad enough to submerge any European city will also submerge entire nations such as Bangladesh. The sea level is uniform worldwide. This will be the worst environmental disaster imaginable, short of a large meteorite. It would kill the largest number of people and other species in recorded history. It may open up land in Canada perhaps but it will destroy far more arable land than it opens. The impact you see this year on U.S. agriculture will be world-wide, leading to starvation on an unprecedented scale. If you do not believe global warming is real, that is -- at least -- a viable argument. But to argue that it is real, it will submerge cities, and it will open up some land while it destroys other land, yet it is nothing to worry about . . . that is crazy. That is irrational. Even the extreme right wing in the U.S. does not make that claim. The coal industry does, of course. Hence the Greening Earth Society. What else can they say? - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo sez: ... Please post your comment in a different forum so that I can answer it. . I've noticed that you occasionally couch your posts-of-disapproval, pertaining the posting content of others you disagree with, in terms of how their posts are dragging Vortex-l down into a pithole of irrelevant off-topicism. You've certainly targeted some of my OT posts in your cross hairs on more than one occasion. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the stated opinion on Global Warming, er... I mean Climate Change, it seems to me that you may have misunderstood the nature of some of the on-going Vortex-l discussion. Global warming has occasionally been, please excuse the pun, a hot topic that has been discussed here. So, I'm wondering... why is it that when you decided to become an honorable contributing member of the Vort Collective that somehow topics, such as climate change have somehow now become taboo? But then, you go ahead and express your opinion on the matter anyway... which is fine I might add. Nevertheless, it does sound just a tad hypocritical to me. Actually, IMO, I think you're just trying to stir up the pot a little within the Collective. It's been kind of boring here lately. Rossi hasn't put his foot in his mouth in a while, so there's not much to discuss other than some real interesting nerdy techno stuff such as Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields ...and whether protons are nothing more than EM pegged at frequencies higher than the highest gamma frequencies. That, BTW, is a fascinating premise! I wonder if there is a way to falsify it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Le Jul 29, 2012 à 3:43 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson orionwo...@charter.net a écrit : Actually, IMO, I think you're just trying to stir up the pot a little within the Collective. If anyone is guilty of stirring the pot, it was me. My apologies. I knew my comment would be inflammatory to some. I couldn't help myself. I think as people living in the modern world we have to learn to separate our political commitments from our scientific ones, something that is not always being adequately done. I take great pleasure in forcefully making what I perceive to be factual assertions if I don't think they'll be well-received. I think Churchill did as well, although he did a much better job of being inflammatory. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
You illustrate the kind of extremism and hyperbole that characterize the debate over Global Warming? Submerge Bangladesh? Get REAL Even if Global Warming raises Ocean Level a few feet (Which is the worst case scenario.) it won't submerge Bangladesh. But even if it does, it's about time they relocate anyways. There're on borrowed time with their yearly occurence of flooding anyways. Worst Environmental Disaster? Get off your kool-aid. A rise is average temperature of a few degress will open up huge swaths of land in Temperate regions to year-round agriculture. Global food production will double and triple due to this. The balance favors more land recovered than land lost to flooding. OH!!!, I get it, you believe your own propaganda and think global temperatures will rise 20 degrees, right? OK ... Whatever TAX ALL CARBON PRODUCTION! Shut down all Carbon producing power plants! Let's tax breathing while we're at it. Humans produce a lot of Greenhouse gases by simply breathing. The argument that it is best to treat Global Warming as real is fallacious. Addressing this non-existent problem is not something that will cost us a little; on the contrary, it will cost us a lot. A lot more human suffering and deaths will increase food costs, less agricultural land available, less availability of living space. You see, I am not harping against Global Warming. I am harping at the religion of Environmentalism. This Pantheistic worship system that treats plants and animals and rocks and rivers and the environment to be more precious than human life and well-being. This is the undertone that I find repulsive in your baseless promotion of Global Warming. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:21 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Is that supposed to be joke, or a parody? Sarcasm? It is sometimes difficult to tell on the Internet. If you are serious, then I think you have no business accusing me of writing baloney. Global warming bad enough to submerge any European city will also submerge entire nations such as Bangladesh. The sea level is uniform worldwide. This will be the worst environmental disaster imaginable, short of a large meteorite. It would kill the largest number of people and other species in recorded history. It may open up land in Canada perhaps but it will destroy far more arable land than it opens. The impact you see this year on U.S. agriculture will be world-wide, leading to starvation on an unprecedented scale. If you do not believe global warming is real, that is -- at least -- a viable argument. But to argue that it is real, it will submerge cities, and it will open up some land while it destroys other land, yet it is nothing to worry about . . . that is crazy. That is irrational. Even the extreme right wing in the U.S. does not make that claim. The coal industry does, of course. Hence the Greening Earth Society. What else can they say? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Sometimes, you have a penchant for eliciting a chuckle or two from me. Yes, Global Warming has been a recurrent theme of discussion in Vortex-l; yet that does not mean it is a valid on topic post. Clearly, it is off-topic based on Rule 2 of this forum. Just because you and Jed like to discuss a myriad of these off-topics does not make it right. I have been the only one who have been vocal in criticizing these off-topic posts for good reason. Vortex-l is not suitable for large volumes of communications. If Vortex-l is converted into a format that allows these off-topic post to be posted without infringing on other people's limited bandwidth and space; you will find that I will be more vocal in discussing these off-topic posts with you. My issue is not with the off-topic post per se; but it is with the increasing difficulty that these off-topic posts introduce. It is quite selfish for both of you and Jed to incessantly engage in these activities to the detriment of others who find Vortex-l to be a useful place to advance Cold Fusion knowledge. I have said this before both publicly and privately to the guilty parties, but it seems a few want to monopolize this place and drag it down the pits. I beg you, please exercise some restraint in this matter. Jojo PS. Quite frankly, I have a lot of things that I would like to post about Carbon Nanotubes. But since, I find that topic to be slightly off-topic, I refrain from doing so. - Original Message - From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 6:43 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jojo sez: ... Please post your comment in a different forum so that I can answer it. . I've noticed that you occasionally couch your posts-of-disapproval, pertaining the posting content of others you disagree with, in terms of how their posts are dragging Vortex-l down into a pithole of irrelevant off-topicism. You've certainly targeted some of my OT posts in your cross hairs on more than one occasion. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the stated opinion on Global Warming, er... I mean Climate Change, it seems to me that you may have misunderstood the nature of some of the on-going Vortex-l discussion. Global warming has occasionally been, please excuse the pun, a hot topic that has been discussed here. So, I'm wondering... why is it that when you decided to become an honorable contributing member of the Vort Collective that somehow topics, such as climate change have somehow now become taboo? But then, you go ahead and express your opinion on the matter anyway... which is fine I might add. Nevertheless, it does sound just a tad hypocritical to me. Actually, IMO, I think you're just trying to stir up the pot a little within the Collective. It's been kind of boring here lately. Rossi hasn't put his foot in his mouth in a while, so there's not much to discuss other than some real interesting nerdy techno stuff such as Polarizable vacuum analysis of electric and magnetic fields ...and whether protons are nothing more than EM pegged at frequencies higher than the highest gamma frequencies. That, BTW, is a fascinating premise! I wonder if there is a way to falsify it. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
From Jed: ... Let us be honest and admit frankly that if cold fusion succeeds, it will lead to creative destruction on a far larger scale. It will destroy the entire alternative energy sector -- solar and wind. Following that, it will destroy the conventional energy sector: oil, coal and nuclear. This will make trillions of dollars of infrastructure and investments useless, practically overnight. This will put millions of people out of work. That's what I am hoping for. That's the best outcome. That is the down-side to cold fusion. It is dreadful, but the up-side has more benefits than the down-side has problems. We have to be cold and calculating. We also have to take steps to alleviate the human misery this will cause, as best we can. It is like deciding to invade Normandy in 1944, knowing full well that thousands will die and it will cause heartbreak that never heals. Cold fusion, whatever the phenomenon will eventually be called, would appear to be a technologically disruptive event of enormous proportions. It would be a major event for the future of human civilization. I believe this has been a premise you have been predicting and have written about for quite a long time. Based on your desire to read a lot of fascinating history pertaining to the follies mankind has been responsible for instigating against Nature and against its own best self-interests, I'm sure you have done a lot of thinking and research on the matter of how disruptive Cold Fusion could possibly be. Nevertheless, I'm going to disagree just a tad here and suggest Cold Fusion may not be as disruptive as you fear. We may be able to string it out just a tad. Yes, I most certainly agree that the technology will be disruptive - how could it not! ... However, based on how slow Rossi, DGT, and other unnamed competitors seem to be. trying to get their own dog-and-pony show on the road, I'm left with the suspicion that CF technology at present continues to be wrought with so complexity and ignorance that it's going to take a lot more time than most within the Collective would think is an appropriate amount of time. I predict some on this list, particularly enthusiastic newcomers, are going to simply lose patience and give up, claiming it's all just a bunch of hogwash. Granted I could be wrong. I've often been wrong in the past. However, based on how slow Rossi co, DGT, and others seem to be puttering along, just trying to get out of the starting gate... I remain hopeful that progress is being made. I want to be clear on that point. But we must learn patience. It's possible the shift towards a CF based energy technology may not end up happening that fast and/or disruptively. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
On 2012-07-29 22:51, Jed Rothwell wrote: It will not be the beginning of the end in the cold fusion battle until you start to see similar headlines about major scientists endorsing cold fusion, especially scientists funded by people whose interests will be hurt if cold fusion succeeds. To be honest, I personally see more things in common between AGW (with emphasis on the 'A') skepticism and LENR research than you're implying. Both are not supported by the scientific consensus, for example. [...] Regarding global warming, I have no doubt it is real. To those who have doubts, rational or not, here is what I say: Every step that is proposed to deal with this problem is beneficial in its own right. Yes, global warming per se is real, and I think few doubt that by now (by the way, there are chances we might reach a record ice minimum this year). However, whether that is natural or man-made, caused in part or totally by human CO2 emissions or other factors instead, or its actual magnitude, that's a different matter. Whether that is really a problem, an even different one too. Every step would be progress in technology, and would ultimately lower the cost of energy. Unfortunately, I fail to see how every measure or technology proposed so far is aimed to ultimately lower the cost of energy. Actually, (leaving aside every political / governmental implication) I am getting the opposite impression: everything seems directed toward decreasing global emissions by making energy more scarce and expensive, or in other words decreasing wealth in the western world, often with the undertones of this being some sort of compensation for the environmental pollution caused so far by the West and for the poor being poor in underdeveloped countries. So what difference does not make if global warming is not real, or if it isn't caused by human activity? It is in our best interests to act as if it is. Are you suggesting that even if current theories about AGW were completely wrong, we should adhere to them for greater good? I couldn't disagree more with this. By the way, leaving the scientific climate debate aside, statistically speaking, even if we're currently warming, or even if global temperatures will keep increasing for some more time, we're actually overdue for a new ice age. I'm serious. This is the Vostok ice core temperature record, popular in both sides of the climate change debate: http://i.imgur.com/leXtv.png The last few ice ages rather quickly followed short periods of warm climate called interglacial periods. What exactly causes ice ages is still pretty much unknown. Have a look at where we are currently. I can't help but wonder what will happen when, after we will have done everything possible no matter the cost to mitigate the possible consequences or prepared for the hypothetical runaway global warming event which never happened so far in the geological record, the next inevitable ice age will occur. I think *that* will be a global disaster and it's likely to happen at some point. [...] Let us be honest and admit frankly that if cold fusion succeeds, it will lead to creative destruction on a far larger scale. It will destroy the entire alternative energy sector -- solar and wind. The renewable energy sector would be completely obliterated, and as I've written several times in the past I expect that much resistance will come from it if cold fusion will ever prove to be commercial viable. Following that, it will destroy the conventional energy sector: oil, coal and nuclear. This will make trillions of dollars of infrastructure and investments useless, practically overnight. The oil industry will not perish as quickly as you think in my opinion. Cheap, unlimited energy means that there will be an increasing demand for oil-derived products where wealth, life quality will increase. This can be expected to happen almost everywhere in the world (contrarily to the current efforts aimed to equalize global wealth) once LENR goes commercial. Over time this would counterbalance the losses in the fuel sector. However this is assuming that plastic won't be replaced by aluminum, the most abundant metal in the Earth crust which is sort of expensive to work with due to the energy required to extract and process it. Then only a fraction of the current market will remain, but still oil companies won't likely disappear for a long time. Nuclear fission energy is already doomed, both because it is getting more and more expensive, mainly for safety reasons, and because of strong social pressure. Coal perhaps... might still end up being useful during the next ice age to avoid CO2 depletion and decreasing albedo, who knows :) Cheers, S.A. By the way Jed: your posts are very long and replies take much time to write; please don't get offended if I cut more or less large portions of them when I reply for the sake of discuss things quicker.
RE: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo sez: ... ...This Pantheistic worship system that treats plants and animals and rocks and rivers and the environment to be more precious than human life and well-being. This is the undertone that I find repulsive in your baseless promotion of Global Warming. ... Pertaining to the opinion of those who believe in mankind's God-given right dominate the planet in whatever way they deem is suitable to their own self-interests, I'm glad to see that you have come out of the closet. It's better that way. Excuse me while I go pet Zoey. I confess she has me on a tight schedule. I was thinking of heating up a couple of rocks, too. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Even if Global Warming raises Ocean Level a few feet (Which is the worst case scenario.) it won't submerge Bangladesh. But even if it does, it's about time they relocate anyways. There're on borrowed time with their yearly occurence of flooding anyways. Where would they relocate to? Do you have any idea what a few feet would do to other cities and Florida?!? Again, I must say, I find it astounding that you agree the phenomenon may be real, but you think it will cause no great harm. Saying that impoverished people in Bangladesh should move elsewhere is callous. This is like saying that avian influenza might cross the species boundary to people but it will not cause much harm, and even if does kill some people, they will be mostly poor and the world is overpopulated anyway. And besides, the last time that happened in 1918, it did not have much effect. It infected only one fifth of the population and killed only ~50 million people. It was no worse than WWII. See: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/influenza-epidemic/ - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides
They can relocate to highlands. Bangladesh has some high lands you know. Oh!, my heart bleeds for Florida. If people want to live near coastal areas, then they should bear the consequence. I am tired of bailing out homes destroyed in hurricanes. No, I am saying that Global Warming is not real. But I am giving you a chance to see the fallacy of your position by saying that even if you are right, it not as bad as you make it out to be. It might even be good for humankind. Jojo - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 7:42 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Koch founded climate skeptic changes sides Jojo Jaro jth...@hotmail.com wrote: Even if Global Warming raises Ocean Level a few feet (Which is the worst case scenario.) it won't submerge Bangladesh. But even if it does, it's about time they relocate anyways. There're on borrowed time with their yearly occurence of flooding anyways. Where would they relocate to? Do you have any idea what a few feet would do to other cities and Florida?!? Again, I must say, I find it astounding that you agree the phenomenon may be real, but you think it will cause no great harm. Saying that impoverished people in Bangladesh should move elsewhere is callous. This is like saying that avian influenza might cross the species boundary to people but it will not cause much harm, and even if does kill some people, they will be mostly poor and the world is overpopulated anyway. And besides, the last time that happened in 1918, it did not have much effect. It infected only one fifth of the population and killed only ~50 million people. It was no worse than WWII. See: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/influenza-epidemic/ - Jed
