Shocker on CBS: Earth 'Not As Warm...As the Climate Models Predicted'
Well, it seems that not everyone is sure that "climate change" is really "climate change". Maybe they just need to admit they really do not have enough data to say, and approach it from some other direction if it is really a concern. Not being a scientist, I can be open to a discussion about why increased CO2 may be a problem, since it also goes in hand with wiping out the worlds largest carbon sink (amazon basin forests). There may be issues that could need addressing, just not at the point of a spear, screaming in rage and fear..take note climate change aficionados..your approach needs some tweaks.
:)
I find the ones on the Milankovitch data to be the most interesting... they show some interesting correlation with cyclical phenomena that keep lining up VERY nicely... much better than anything Gore or any other Warmites claim.
Facts have absolutely nothing to do with it.
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=n...
Enjoy!
England deforested their country because wood was abundant; when the woods were gone, they developed coal (with a boost, literally, from development of the steam engine to pump water out of mines.)
When the coal was depleted, they turned to oil, hydro and wind.
You can advocate 'jumping to the Next Big Thing,' but if it's not commercially economical, you ain't gonna convert enough people into "believers" to make dat happen!
But good luck trying!
They looked at the abstracts of several thousand papers which contained phrases like "global warming" and "climate change". They tried to categorize them in terms of whether they indicated man was involved.
Only about 34% of the cherry picked papers indicated human causation in the abstract. Of that 34%, 97% (yes, there's the 97%, indicated that it was caused by humans).
So it was 97% of papers, not scientists and they were cherry picked.
From the study you could also accurately say that: "In a survey of papers with the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming' only 33% of the abstracts expressed an opinion that it was caused by humans."
It seems that much of the temperature data is adjusted or selected to give the desired result. Hence they have plenty of data. Too much, in fact, so much that they throw away the "bad" data. Oh, and they sifted through about 10,000 scientists to find their agreeable 76.
The agenda is for governments to gain control of the energy sector.
http://www.texanhomeenergy.com/
you are probably aware of the contrast between the homes of Al Gore in Tennessee and George W Bush in Crawford Tx.
a. bogus according to the original source.
b. intentionally so to gain more funding for research according to the same source,
c.Listed by one of the chief originators as not to be taken as factual without a huge amount of additional study.
How much did Al Bore contribute?
The sand was sort of off-white in color.
The rock that may have saved my life was where I fell to the right when my right leg got sucked in just over the knee.
Those could not be just loose rocks on top of the sand.
They must have been projections from a rock mantle with sediment sand on top of it.
At least that's my theory about an incident way back in the 70s.
Yikes! I just looked at the start of my last post.
"Of long heard of--" That's "I've," of course.
One day there may be spell checkers that catch typos of bad grammar.
SMRs are a good idea. I wish people could understand how many operating hours the Navy has on reactors, and how few incidents (none), even after a 688 ran into an undersea mountain at speed. .
Hopefully, some of the ideas like free stream river power and small modular reactors will get a push from a renewed interest in distributed power. My military background made me uncomfortable with the idea of an ever broadening, linked power system, as that makes the entire nation vulnerable to sabotage. It looks like some people in the power industry have the same concerns, and are now leaning more in favor of a more distributed power network.
Will Butanol run in both Otto cycle and a Diesel cycles, or is it more of an additive? I am unfamiliar with its use in internal combustion engines, but understand what it is.
Free stream turbines seem like a pretty good idea. The waterways are very well understood and mapped, making the power predictable, and fresh water is a lot more benign than seawater. Water density makes it a whole lot better get power out than wind. A 1 MW free stream turbine is ~9ft in dia., depending on the water speed. A 1 MW wind turbine is enormous. We did some work designing generators and/or converters for Free Flow Power and two other free flow turbine companies a few years ago (names escape me). They all seem to have run into capital problems. Still a lot of equipment for utility-scale power. Not sure if any municipalities have looked into it. Their price point is consumer-use, not generation-level, and a lot easier to show a return.
As I recall, the glitch in SVO fuel was engines that wouldn't start at low temperatures, even with the proper injectors. The solution was relatively simple: carry a small amount of diesel to get the engine started, and use engine heat to warm the SVO fuel lines.
A more exotic approach to the diesel substitution idea is the use of butanol (heavy alcohol) as an additive. Even though of SVO-like viscosity, butanol allows engine start even in temperatures that are difficult for straight diesel. Butanol is practically the ideal fuel, with energy content near that of gasoline, and raising both the octane and cetane numbers, making it a friendly additive for either gasoline or diesel engines. The challenge is getting production cost down.
Not sure about being able to produce enough. That is probably something to look into.
Still think you are still missing my point. I am NOT advocating replacing diesel with SVO. I am simply pointing out its technical feasibility and low cost / very modest technical hurdles to implement, at least relative to any other renewable. My point is that the renewables zealots refuse to advocate simple options because they are not sexy, in favor of wind turbine, solar farms and electric cars. None of which is practical in a comprehensive manner.
They are just a bunch of argumentative hand-wringing zealots who want to claim everything the present establishment has is bad to get their undeserving hands on the steering wheel.
We need wind power - what about the birds
Hydroelectric is clean - what about the fishes and rivers. Release the Waters!
Solar is the answer - Don't cut down any trees for the farms, and you cannot shade the desert!
All rely on electric vehicles for transportation, with an order of magnitude battery problem, and zero infrastructure. You point out the need to change diesel engines. Yes; however, SVO-diesel does not require any substantive infrastructure change to fuel distribution, the grid, the vehicles or how we operate the vehicles. Again, I am not advocating to do this, only the ignorance of the zealots pining away for esoteric options.
I spent three days at Camp Cosby by the Coosa River with my kid and others as a supervising adult on a school outing back in the 90s. Nothing looked new there but it wasn't closed.
Creating a fictional camp may be an option for you.
Thank God for that blessed rock!
There's a Coosa River White Water Festival.
Below is a helpful start for Bama white water research.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=alabama+whi...
Load more comments...