PE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> Waste Based Society

Poll

Who is more Incoherent?

MKing
7 (87.5%)
RE
1 (12.5%)

Total Members Voted: 7

AuthorTopic: Waste Based Society  (Read 37466 times)

Offline Golden Oxen

  • Golden Oxen
  • Contrarian
  • Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 4768
    • View Profile
Re:Interesting commenter
« Reply #660 on: July 25, 2013, 07:49:17 AM »
I hope so, I'm still long silver.

I can understand your bullish stance on silver. In my opinion silver's role as both "Poor Man's Gold" and it's status as the metal of the future in so many different fields electonics, medicine, catalysts, water purification etc. are finally going to converge and set off a fireworks show to remember.

Have been unable to buy silver at anything close to spot, so I have been aggressively adding to my positions in the pure silver miners. The valuations are absurdly cheap and are a great way to buy silver in the ground at a substantial discount. Fraught with much risk of course, but What Isn't these days.

Good luck with your position, can assure you I am rooting for you.  :exp-grin: :exp-grin: :exp-laugh: :exp-laugh:

                                                             
Carson City Silver Trade Dollar
Carson City Silver Trade Dollar
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 08:12:17 AM by Golden Oxen »
Golden Oxen

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1396
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: jdwheeler
« Reply #661 on: July 25, 2013, 08:00:50 AM »
Evolution is a strange and wonderful thing. Maybe we evolve to move out into the stars, maybe we don't. But it seems reasonable to me that for every minute we spend contemplating our demise, we dedicate the same amount of time to dreaming about what could be, should we so desire.
Amen!!

Quote from: jdwheeler42
Oh, please, Dyson spheres are so overrated.  Helio-stationary solar power satellites are the way to go.

Small potatoes. Only by harnessing the full power of the local nuclear furnace can we say we are effectively utilizing what our solar system provides.
Hardly small potatoes.  Helio-stationary means you put them in place around the Sun, inside Mercury's orbit.  You balance the Sun's gravity with the Solar wind to keep them in place.  You beam out the energy with tightly focused lasers, or use it to generate antimatter.  Eventually you build enough of them to make almost make a couple hemispheres that just leave a narrow band open along the ecliptic but capture the rest of the Sun's energy.

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
I present you a THREE YEAR OLD ARTICLE TO SHOW YOU the Oil Industry is the MAIN FORCE behind Climate Change Denial in order to AVOID LIABILITY for the damage they have caused and continue to cause. Fossil Fuels need to be BANNED!
The oily operators behind the religious climate change disinformation front group, Cornwall Alliance


By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 19, 2010 at 7:27 am

Watch their absurdly paranoid video asserting environmentalism is “without doubt one of the greatest threats to society” today

Defenders of the dirty energy status quo, particularly the lobbyists and politicians associated with the oil and coal industry, have repeatedly trotted out a group of evangelical leaders known as the Cornwall Alliance to counter the growing sentiment in the evangelical community that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to God’s creation. Cornwall declares that true Christians believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”  In this repost, Wonk Room exposes the Big Oil funding behind the Cornwall Alliance


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/06/19/206237/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/?mobile=nc

Extraordinary find, AG. Thanks.

Call these bastards out, name names, and shame publicly.

This is quite true, but unfortunately only part of it.

I like to call it the mushroom treatment:  "Keep 'em in the dark, and feed 'em shit!"

Behind big oil is the banksters (Rockefeller, Rothchild, Morgan, Warburg, et al).  They are also behind major enviormental organizations.  They fund, found, take over and eventually control (mostly through intermediaries) the more strident voices on all "sides" of these issues;  and through their control of media and foundations, strangle reasonable alternative dialogue.  They also control and manipulate most relevalent data sources, as they are the true directors of uber goverments (UN, EU, NATO, etc), most national goverments, NGO's, universities and foundations.  Thus we are left with zealots, mostly chosen by banksters on both "sides", talking past each other while obscuring the truth.  Currently they seem to want a stalemate in USA.  They could pick a "winner" by heavily funding that "side" in a media and PR campaign that is fed info and money by their foundations.  It is quite similar to their historical habit of funding both sides in major wars, and choosing the winner by the level of funding.

Is it the year of the horse, or the horsemen?

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
European Investment Bank Cuts Lending to Fossil Plants, Supports Renewables 
Tildy Bayar, Associate Editor, Renewable Energy World
July 25, 2013

LONDON -- The European Investment Bank (EIB), the world’s largest public financial institution, has announced that, effective immediately, it will no longer finance most coal-, lignite- and oil-fired power stations in an effort to help Europe meet its climate targets.
The announcement comes on the heels of a similar announcement by the World Bank, which has said it will provide support for coal-fired power stations in developing countries “only in rare circumstances.”

In a meeting this week, the EIB’s board of directors voted to adopt an emissions performance standard (EPS) for energy projects that will screen out those emitting more than 550 g of CO2 per kWh, effectively blocking investment in fossil fuel plants that have not implemented emission reduction technologies. Coal plants may still receive funding if they co-fire with biomass or put combined heat and power (CHP) or carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies in place.

The board said the standards, adopted after an eight-month consultation with over 80 industry groups, national bodies and individual companies, are designed to reinforce support for investment in renewable power generation and energy efficiency across Europe. Richard Willis, EIB press officer, told REW that the move “brings up to date our ongoing focus toward renewables and reflects how we see our main focus on investment in the years ahead.” Green groups such as the WWF have welcomed the move but said it doesn’t go far enough, and some Member States had reportedly pushed for more stringent standards to be implemented immediately.

“When considering at what level to set the EPS we looked at the nature of emissions across a range of technologies,” Willis said. “We’ve set a standard unanimously agreed by all Member States which fully reflects current policy, but the guidelines haven’t been issued yet because we were asked that we would review and also tighten the limited exceptions that are in place to make sure we focus primarily on renewables, grids and energy efficiency.”

Full Story Here:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/european-investment-bank-cuts-lending-to-fossil-plants-supports-renewables


Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
CSP (Concentrated Solar Power 24/7 non-intermittent) on a ROLL!
« Reply #664 on: July 25, 2013, 11:26:11 AM »
CSP Key Players Focus on the Desert

Power generation in hot, dry areas makes CSP a viable solution for desert applications. By expanding into process heat and enhanced oil recovery, the concentrating solar technology is running full steam ahead. :multiplespotting:

Jennifer Runyon, Managing Editor, RenewableEnergyWorld.com
July 25, 2013 |

New Hampshire, USA -- By the end of 2013, the largest solar power plants in the world will be generating power from the sun and they won't be using photovoltaic (PV) technology.

Brightsource's 277-MW Ivanpah in California, Areva's 250-MW project in Rajasthan, India and many others are all set to come online by the end of the year. The 100-MW Shams 1 project commenced operation in Abu Dhabi in March. "The outlook for CSP has never been brighter," said Alison Mason, Director of Marketing at SkyFuel.

CSP technology captures solar energy through troughs or mirrors (also called heliostats), which are set on trackers and concentrate the sunlight to generate power. Mainly used in utility-scale power generation projects, the technology also holds promise for other applications, including process heat and enhanced oil recovery operations (see sidebar on page 44). To date, however, the technology has struggled to gain ground.

Back in 2010, thousands of megawatts of CSP projects were in the works, but that number was slowly pared down as developers of large utility-scale solar projects switched their technology from CSP to PV because of dropping PV panel prices. Nonetheless, today there are almost 12 GW of CSP projects in some form of development all over the globe and 2.7 GW of operating plants worldwide.

Worldwide Geographical Markets and Applications

CSP companies are targeting sun-drenched countries that have solar incentives on the books, said Mason. She said traditional oil-producing countries are "investing heavily in CSP to free up their oil for sale." In addition, she said SkyFuel is targeting "all markets with incentives for CSP" and named Italy, Turkey, the United States, India, China, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, South Africa, and Chile" as good examples of such markets.

Areva Solar is also targeting the MENA (Middle Eastern and North Africa) countries. According to Jayesh Goyal, Global Vice President at Areva Solar, India will play a big role in CSP adoption, as well. "Like Saudi Arabia and other progressive energy markets, India is a global leader in its commitment to the advancement of the solar energy industry, including CSP," he said. India's National Solar Mission calls for the country to install 20 GW of solar energy by 2020. In addition to Areva's 250-MW plant, Goyal said that there are "two more RFP's in India expected this year for a total of 300 MW of new capacity."

"We have our eye on a number of promising markets," said John Van Scoter, President and CEO at eSolar. With GE as a partner, eSolar has muscle behind its technology, and Van Scoter said that the company has been "active in promoting Integrated Solar Combined Cycle (ISCC) projects in major markets." The technology allows a power plant to generate solar power when the sun is shining but switch over to natural gas or coal when solar power can't be produced. "Interest for the ISCC technology has been strong from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Turkey and Australia," he said.

Hybrid plants such as these are able to provide firm, dispatchable power, explained Van Scoter, which increases its attractiveness to utilities and "improves CSP's cost competitiveness," he added. Areva's Goyal agreed, explaining that his company is installing its Compact Linear Fresnel Reflector (CLFR) solar steam generators at a coal plant in Australia. He said that the CLFR technology would increase plant output by up to 44 MW and do so at a lower cost than building a standalone 44-MW plant.

CSP technology can also be coupled with energy storage, one of the hottest topics in the renewable energy industry this year. Plants that include energy storage with molten salt can store solar power and dispatch it in the early evening and into the night. Tex Wilkins from the CSP Alliance thinks this application could make PV, which is often viewed as a threat to CSP, a complimentary technology. "The ability of CSP with storage to dispatch its power to the grid in the early morning and evening can combine with daytime PV to spread out the use of solar power from the time people get up early in the morning until they go to bed late at night," he explained. Wilkins said that in five years most CSP plants will include energy storage. Van Scoter from eSolar said in five years he expects that most CSP projects will include molten salt or ISCC technology."There is also a high potential for projects involving industrial process heat,  :icon_mrgreen: EOR and desalination," he said.

All CSP experts said that utilities are just beginning to recognize CSP's value - a renewable energy able to provide base load, dispatchable power. According to SkyFuel's Mason, "This attribute of CSP is its main differentiator from PV and wind, and will ensure its increasing uptake in the power market."

Second Page of the above article here:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/07/csp-key-players-focus-on-the-desert?page=2

An EXCELLENT and highly informative comment: :icon_study:

Thomas Blakeslee

July 25, 2013

These steam plants have tough competition from concentrating photovoltaic (CPV). Steam generation is not very efficient and already pretty highly evolved. Photovoltaic is evolving quickly and has already reached 43.6% efficiency in prototypes. Soitec just built a CPV plant in California that gets 30% overall system efficiency. Their use of the land is very efficient at about four acres per megawatt. The land can still be used for grazing or agriculture and no water is needed except for cleaning. Moore's law is pretty hard to beat so I think solar thermal has already been beat by CPV.

http://www.soitec.com/en/technologies/concentrix/sustainability/




Yeah...Sure... We just HAVE TO HAVE fossil fuels and their "fabulous, irreplaceable and let's not forget cheap!" high energy density in order to produce Industrial Process Heat....BULLSHIT!

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
Snowleapard saiid
« Reply #665 on: July 25, 2013, 11:55:30 AM »
Quote
They could pick a "winner" by heavily funding that "side" in a media and PR campaign that is fed info and money by their foundations.  It is quite similar to their historical habit of funding both sides in major wars, and choosing the winner by the level of funding.

There are no winners in our climate change catastrophe, only survival or extinction.

Business as usual won't do a thing to thwart the effects of CO2 build up that will NOW take over a 1000 years to dissipate and we have YET to see the baked in effect of our polluting in the environmental inertia pipeline for more than half a century. Consider the pollution that has occurred since 1963 and you begin to get an idea of how serious (and well beyond real politik power games and mindfuck) our situation is.

Quote



Making Things Clearer: Exaggeration, Jumping the Gun, and The Venus Syndrome[/b
15 April 2013
James Hansen

I "retired" so that I can focus my time better on (1) climate science, (2) communications thereof, and (3) policy implications. I will do this via research published in the scientific literature and translations for a wider audience.

I have had the good fortune of my research being reported by top science writers: Walter Sullivan on the first major climate paper that my colleagues and I published1, Richard Kerr2 on my congressional testimony in the late 1980s, and Justin Gillis3 on my retirement. Their articles raised some issues and queries, which are relevant to the task of getting the public to understand the urgency of effective policy actions.

1. Exaggeration?

I have been told of specific well-respected people who have asserted that "Jim Hansen exaggerates" the magnitude and imminence of the climate threat. If only that were true, I would be happy.

"Magnitude and imminence" compose most of the climate story.

Magnitude. CO2, the dominant climate forcing on the long run, will stay in the climate system for millennia. The magnitude of the eventual climate response to increasing CO2 depends especially on climate sensitivity. Our best evaluation of climate sensitivity comes from Earth's paleoclimate history, via comparisons of periods with differing climate forcings.a

Unfortunately, paleoclimate data show that our early estimates of climate sensitivity were not an exaggeration. This is made clear in a paper4 in press at the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (world's oldest scientific journal). The journal issue containing our paper will not appear until this summer. However, the publishers have allowed us to make available a nearly final version of the paper on the arXiv website for preprints.

This paper concludes, among other things, that climate sensitivity is in the upper half of the range that has usually been estimated. Furthermore, slow feedbacks, such as change of ice sheet size and methane emissions, make the sensitivity still higher.

Before the paper is published we will write a summary for a broader audience.

Imminence. Recently a smart young person told me that she tends to discount global warming as a concern, because of prior assertions that we only had 5 years or 10 years before disastrous consequences -- and her observation that not much has changed in the past 5 years.

That exposes another communications problem. Scientists did not expect sea level rise of meters or "a different planet" in 5 or 10 or 20 years. In 2005 (AGU meeting) I noted that we needed to get on a different global emissions path, with decreasing emissions, within 10 years -- not because dramatic climate change would occur in 10 years, but because otherwise we will build into the climate system future changes that will be out of our control.

Climate effects are occurring already and are generally consistent with expectations. The perceptive person should notice that the climate dice are now loaded. However, changes so far are small compared with what will happen if we are so foolish as to continue down the path of extracting and burning every fossil fuel we can find. See below.

2. Jumping the Gun

It has been said that I reach conclusions before the evidence warrants them. Two examples suffice to illustrate the predicament that we face.

Late 1980s.

Dick Kerr colorfully titled a 5-day scientific meeting after my 1988/89 congressional testimonies as "Hansen vs. the World on the Greenhouse Threat"2. Yet one of the participants told him "if there were a secret ballot at this meeting on the question, most people would say the greenhouse warming is probably there."

Scientific conclusions are based on integration of multiple sources of information: climate changes observed today, Earth's history, basic theory, models, etc. Interpretation inherently involves assumptions and subjectivity, yet valid conclusions are possible.

Communication of developing science might be affected by the phenomenon of scientific reticence.5 In the 1980s I could shrug off criticism with "It's just a logical, well-reasoned conclusion that the greenhouse is here now,"2 go back to research, and let nature clarify matters.

Today it is different. The science is much clearer. And we are running out of time.

Today. I was recently at a meeting that included many of the top researchers in climate change. There was universal agreement about the urgency of the climate crisis.
Certainty of our predicament follows from basic considerations including: (1) huge inertia and thus slow response of key parts of the climate system, especially the ocean and ice sheets, and improving observations by Argo floats and gravity satellites that confirm trends and the existence of further change in the pipeline, (2) long lifetime of any ocean warming that is allowed to occur, (3) millennial time scale that fossil fuel CO2 will stay in the climate system, (4) paleoclimate confirmation of the magnitude of the eventual climate response to large CO2 increase.

These scientists, people who know what they are talking about, were not concerned about jumping the gun, but rather about whether the race might already be over. So they were considering the potential for air capture of CO2, in effect geo-engineering to counteract our unintended geo-engineering.

What's wrong with this picture? We can pass from "jumping the gun" to unavoidable deleterious consequences without passing through demands for common sense policy actions? Let's come back to this matter after "The Venus Syndrome".

3. The Venus Syndrome

I get questions from the public about the Venus Syndrome: is there a danger of "runaway" greenhouse warming on Earth leading to Venus-like conditions? Related questions concern specific positive (amplifying) feedbacks such as methane hydrates: as warming thaws tundra and destabilizes methane hydrates on continental shelves, thus releasing methane, won't this cause more warming, thus more methane release, thus more warming -- a runaway warming?

Amplifying feedbacks.Let's consider a positive climate forcing (say a solar irradiance increase or CO2 increase) that causes a unit of warming. Let's ask how this unit warming will be amplified by a very strong feedback, one that increases the initial warming by 50%. The added warming of 0.5 induces more feedback, by 0.5×0.5 = 0.25, and so on, the final response being ....
[/size]

Please read this informative, no bullshit, solid science based article here. This is not about power games; this is about science and facts:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf

MKing,
I ask you to take seriously this scientific data and if you are in disagreement, especially about the Venus Syndrome thing that seems to give you heartburn, please show us something besides a 600 millon year time scale chart to base your conclusions that the planet is COOLING on. That dog won't hunt.  ;)

Online Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3860
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Waste Based Society/AG sez
« Reply #666 on: July 25, 2013, 01:53:00 PM »
AG:
Quote
I like to call it the mushroom treatment:  "Keep 'em in the dark, and feed 'em shit!"

Behind big oil is the banksters (Rockefeller, Rothchild, Morgan, Warburg, et al).  They are also behind major enviormental organizations.  They fund, found, take over and eventually control (mostly through intermediaries) the more strident voices on all "sides" of these issues;  and through their control of media and foundations, strangle reasonable alternative dialogue.  They also control and manipulate most relevalent data sources, as they are the true directors of uber goverments (UN, EU, NATO, etc), most national goverments, NGO's, universities and foundations.  Thus we are left with zealots, mostly chosen by banksters on both "sides", talking past each other while obscuring the truth.  Currently they seem to want a stalemate in USA.  They could pick a "winner" by heavily funding that "side" in a media and PR campaign that is fed info and money by their foundations.  It is quite similar to their historical habit of funding both sides in major wars, and choosing the winner by the level of funding.

Absolutely. This is political, and perhaps tangential, but I came across it today and found it telling, specifically about how motivated, moneyed interests can collude to advance their agenda-- as if ALEC weren't enough:

Inside Groundswell: Read the Memos of the New Right-Wing Strategy Group Planning a "30 Front War"

Ginni Thomas, Allen West, and a crew of conservative activists and journalists have formed a hush-hush coalition to battle progressives—and Karl Rove.

Believing they are losing the messaging war with progressives, a group of prominent conservatives in Washington—including the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and journalists from Breitbart News and the Washington Examiner—has been meeting privately since early this year to concoct talking points, coordinate messaging, and hatch plans for "a 30 front war seeking to fundamentally transform the nation," according to documents obtained by Mother Jones.

Dubbed Groundswell, this coalition convenes weekly in the offices of Judicial Watch, the conservative legal watchdog group. During these hush-hush sessions and through a Google group, the members of Groundswell—including aides to congressional Republicans—cook up battle plans for their ongoing fights against the Obama administration, congressional Democrats, progressive outfits, and the Republican establishment and "clueless" GOP congressional leaders. They devise strategies for killing immigration reform, hyping the Benghazi controversy, and countering the impression that the GOP exploits racism. And the Groundswell gang is mounting a behind-the-scenes organized effort to eradicate the outsize influence of GOP über-strategist/pundit Karl Rove within Republican and conservative ranks. (For more on Groundswell's "two front war" against Rove—a major clash on the right—click here.)

One of the influential conservatives guiding the group is Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, a columnist for the Daily Caller and a tea party consultant and lobbyist. Other Groundswell members include John Bolton, the former UN ambassador; Frank Gaffney, the president of the Center for Security Policy; Ken Blackwell and Jerry Boykin of the Family Research Council; Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch; Gayle Trotter, a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum; Catherine Engelbrecht and Anita MonCrief of True the Vote; Allen West, the former GOP House member; Sue Myrick, also a former House GOPer; Diana Banister of the influential Shirley and Banister PR firm; and Max Pappas, a top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Rest of the article--
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/07/groundswell-rightwing-group-ginni-thomas

May not be yer cuppa joe-- but I found it fascinating and worrisome.
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -  Louis Brandeis

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
THIS is what HAPPENS if we burn ALL the fossils fuel reserves we have.
« Reply #667 on: July 25, 2013, 02:18:09 PM »
Storms of My Grandchildren - Hansen


Quote
One implication is that if we should "succeed" in digging up and burning all fossil fuels, some parts of the planet would become literally uninhabitable, with some time in the year having wet bulb temperature exceeding 35°C (950F).

At such temperatures, for reasons of physiology and physics, humans cannot survive, because even under ideal conditions of rest and ventilation, it is physically impossible for the environment to carry away the 100 W of metabolic heat that a human body generates when it is at rest14.

Thus even a person lying quietly naked in hurricane force winds would be unable to survive. Temperatures even several degrees below this extreme limit would be sufficient to make a region practically uninhabitable for living and working.

The picture that emerges for Earth sometime in the distant future, if we should dig up and burn every fossil fuel, is thus consistent with that depicted in "Storms" -- an ice-free Antarctica and a desolate planet without human inhabitants.

Although temperatures in the Himalayas may have become seductive, it is doubtful that the many would allow the wealthy few to appropriate 6 this territory to themselves or that humans would survive with the extermination of most other species on the planet.

At least one sentence in "Storms" will need to be corrected in the next edition: even with burning of all fossil fuels the tropical ocean does not "boil". But it is not an exaggeration to suggest, based on best available scientific evidence, that burning all fossil fuels could result in the planet being not only ice-free but human-free.  :o

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1396
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Epic Storms
« Reply #668 on: July 25, 2013, 02:57:31 PM »
Hey, if you don't have enough to worry about, here's another: hypercanes

The good news is they are purely theoretical, requiring ocean temperatures about 25 deg F higher than the highest ever recorded.  The bad news is that they could have eyes up to 190 miles wide, winds up to 500 mph, storm surges up to 60 feet, and extend up into the stratosphere, damaging the ozone layer.

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
MKing said
« Reply #669 on: July 25, 2013, 04:23:40 PM »
MKing said

Quote
To be honest, some of those people know so little they certainly CAN'T be industry folks. So now you have to argue that industry hired people who don't know much about the oil and gas business to be oil and gas plants?

You have that exactly inverted. Genuine experts are never recruited to operate as propagandists. The bribed experts may write a puff piece for fossil fuels ridiculing the mere thought of any other energy source having such a high energy density but it is the propagandists that carry the ball multiple times to the public in such web sites as TOD in the form of talking points, emotional hot buttons and wedge issue divide and conquer tactics.

I never said TOD was about serious scientific inquiry. I said it was a propaganda front. Of course they PRETENDED to be a source of serious scientific inquiry. That didn't make it so. and most of the reading public could never tell the difference anyway.   

Most people just don't have the reading comprehension skills or the ability to keep from getting glazed over eyes wading though real scientific papers with reams of data comparisons. And their ARE plenty of free abstracts out there of dull, deep scientific, peer reviewed papers that make mincemeat out every bit of mendacity the fossil fuel industry has ever put out. It just takes patience. Most people are too lazy so the term 'Popular Science' means, in our society, Mendacious Pie in the Sky.

How did TOD deal with people that knew what they were talking about? Censorship. You don't need to be an oil expert to know some pain in the ass is countering your 100 times repeated propaganda point about the number of holy high energy density joules per cubic centimeter of enthalpy refined gasoline has.

The George C. Marshal Institute NEVER attacked the science directly or peer reviewed climate science. Oh NO! They used the Wall Street journal, The new York times, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science, ETC. to brainwash the public with the idea that a DEBATE was going on in the science so the public would be seeded with doubt.

No, it's not ONE BIG CONSPIRACY but it is one big money flowing spigot for a lot of propagandists going to bat for big oil in order to preserve big oil profits. It's not personal, just business that the fossil fuel industry is the main driving force behind climate change denial. They will lose their ASS and POWER over governments if fossil fuels go the way of the dinosaurs.

Since when was objective scientific inquiry deemed "groupthink"? Sure, I'm sure Big Oil wants this climate change science to go away (it's bad for business  :evil4:) so naturally it is expected that the climate change science will be presented as a difference of opinion. That's why propagandists prefer public forums like TOD to discussing with scientists the merits of climate science global climate change predictions.

Your argument about choice of cigars makes this whole thing out to be a matter of taste, not human survival.

I beg to differ. Tough luck for the fossil fuel industry that they don't have a viable business model. I understand their reticence to face reality but they are just shooting themselves in the foot by using mendacious propaganda to keep the public confused. 

As to the dyson sphere energy harvesting technology comparison with the aviation advances from the 18th century pre-aviation days to the Wright Brothers to the present, do the math on the percentage of the sun's energy that reaches us now as compared to the total output. Thinking BIG is just fine but escape velocity of seven miles per second with chemical rocketry in comparison with the Wright brothers is a difference of 40 mph versus 25,200 mph (630 multiples of the velocity).

All the energy that has ever arrived on earth from the sun for the last 4.5 billion years, and probably for several million years into the future, does not remotely approach one 630th of the total energy output of the sun. But it's a fun thought experiment. The distance from my eye to my finger is less than the distance to Alpha Centauri but I don't think we'll get there any time soon.

Quote
Think big Agelbert, it is what some humans still do! I have said it already, I'm right with ya, crude oil is obsolete, it just doesn't know it yet!

Believe me, I do. And I'm glad you agree about big oil. :emthup: :icon_mrgreen:
Those darn dinosaurs get bitten in the tail and it takes them a while to figure out something is eating them alive!

Quote
600 million is not meaningless. 600 million through the present is important to the configuration of our continents, the explanation for how more powerful biologics than use altered the planet in far more drastic ways, the configuration of the plates gives us clues as to the obvious change we are facing as one day San Francisco arrives in Alaska to glorious fanfare and celebration!

Sure, from the point of view of plate tectonics, a 600 million year old time scale is important. But I'm talking about atmospheric green house gas dynamics.

Quote

If people wish to get all worked up over change, of any type, I say it is a free country, let them. I only object when they want to use it as just another mechanism (like peak oil) to scare people around to their point of view not just to agree with them, oh no, but to force compliance to their demands. I demand you pay taxes on this! I demand you stop that behavior! Such fear schemes just smack of fascism, hard core religious fundamentalism, the raging desire of humans to control others.

But that's just the point. Big oil DEMANDS that we continue paying their subsidy swag which is nothing but a giant tax on the commons for corporate profit. And that doesn't simply "smack" of fascism, it IS fascism.

If you don't feel in any hurry to ban fossil fuels, you should at least side with the logical view that they shouldn't receive a nickel in subsidies. Yeah, I know you don't dig giving all that green to renewables.  ;) :icon_mrgreen:

Quote
But the past 50 million years, sure, I like that time as well. Iceball Earth! Interspersed with warm earth. And humans would be hysterical no matter which side of those temperature changes our current civilization sat on, because becoming hysterical over change is what humans do, the direction of the change doesn't matter, only that it exists. I think it has something to do with our view of mortality, change implies we die one day, and people are inherently unhappy with that concept.

The reason I jumped up and down about the 600 million year time frame is that just about everything here, including 99% of the life forms, had nothing to do with present earthlings prior to the Permian extinction, which was 125 million years ago. The fantastic variations in oxygen and nitrogen percentages as well as the not fully developed ozone layer made any climate temperature averages not relevant to our present day climate.

Iceball  to hothouse earth has been accurately modeled by Russell and we know it is orbital changes and axis tilt, not atmospheric gas composition, that triggers glaciation with a stable atmosphere.

As to the ferns, did you ever do the math on the energy required for the pressures and temperatures it took to make coal and oil out of ferns and other living matter?

The laws of thermodynamics cannot be gotten around. The amount of energy that was packaged in these high energy density fuels took millions of years to get the job done. Entropy took some of it out but the job got done. To release it in a couple of centuries is the PETM triggers all over again. 

It may be "scary" but, just like a large Near Earth Object hitting us or some other frightening scientific reality, it behooves us to take it seriously. It wasn't until after dinosaurs exited that this planet started to have climate dynamics we can point at and say, okay, if this much CO2 is there, this much methane is going to cut loose and these are the positive and negative feedback loops as observed in the PETM. The problem is the CO2 gigatons being pumped out in the PETM took over a 1000 years at a slower rate than we are presently pumping. This is hard boiled scientific data, not scaremongering.   

You will see a REAL drama queen performance by the Oil Pigs when the subject of using ALL the fossil fuel subsidy money for Renewable Energy devices and infrastructure gets serious discussion. THEN you'll here some BIG TIME "WE ARE ALL GONNA DIE"  hysterics from the fossil fuel industry which is quick to scream SOCIALISM, PINKO COMMIE EVIL, or FORCED FASCISM when it's for bioremediation or Renewable Energy subsidies but are quiet as a mouse about their HUNDRED YEARS OF FASCIST FORCED TAXATION on we-the-people.  :evil4:




Quote
Once upon a time there was a scientist named Hansen. He postulated a given temperature increase even if all humans stopped emitting CO2 that afternoon. Humans instead choose to continue to pump out CO2 at higher and higher rates than ever before. And the temperature result? It stayed lower over the following two decades than what Hansen claimed would happen with no emissions.

FALSE STATEMENT! Shame on you. The anomaly observed up to 1975 has not been explained BUT the models are QUITE accurate since then. If you want to wallow in that brief period after WWII until 1975, go for it. But those generalizations you are using are defamatory. And as to climate science models, let's talk Russell and tell me about data discrepancies or algorithm problems, not INNUENDO.

That was a fun rant!  Do I get my drama queen trophy now?
Food fight smiley 1
Food fight smiley 1
 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 09:57:15 PM by agelbert »

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
Surly said,
« Reply #670 on: July 25, 2013, 04:35:13 PM »
Quote
By Climate Guest Blogger on Jun 19, 2010 at 7:27 am

Watch their absurdly paranoid video asserting environmentalism is “without doubt one of the greatest threats to society” today

Defenders of the dirty energy status quo, particularly the lobbyists and politicians associated with the oil and coal industry, have repeatedly trotted out a group of evangelical leaders known as the Cornwall Alliance to counter the growing sentiment in the evangelical community that anthropogenic climate change is a threat to God’s creation. Cornwall declares that true Christians believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human contribution to greenhouse gases is causing dangerous global warming.”  In this repost, Wonk Room exposes the Big Oil funding behind the Cornwall Alliance


http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/06/19/206237/the-oily-operators-behind-the-religious-climate-change-disinformation-front-group-cornwall-alliance/?mobile=nc




Extraordinary find, AG. Thanks.

Call these bastards out, name names, and shame publicly.


Thanks Surly. I'll keep at it. The rabbit hole is deep. It's tricky to spot these camouflage experts always pretending to be on the side of the angels. It's also hard to follow the money on the internet but that's where the truth is hidden. 

Offline Snowleopard

  • Waitstaff
  • ***
  • Posts: 459
    • View Profile
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #671 on: July 25, 2013, 04:39:57 PM »


Please read this informative, no bullshit, solid science based article here. This is not about power games; this is about science and facts:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130415_Exaggerations.pdf


I did read it.  It was a summary meant for press releases rather than the "scientific" paper, that has apparently not been published yet. 

It is unusual to find myself in agreement with MKing. 

Quote
Once upon a time there was a scientist named Hansen. He postulated a given temperature increase even if all humans stopped emitting CO2 that afternoon. Humans instead choose to continue to pump out CO2 at higher and higher rates than ever before. And the temperature result? It stayed lower over the following two decades than what Hansen claimed would happen with no emissions


I find it hard to take seriously those making extreme climate predictions based on increasing CO2, when they failed to predict the current failure of temperature to respond to rapidly increasing CO2 over the last decade.  Is it possible nature has a negative feedback loop they hadn't counted on??

When i see untested hypothesis of unlikely things like a "Venus Syndrome", i recall some posts i recently read by the Archdruid.  Since i am in substantial agreement with him regarding this type of hypothesis, rather than paraphrase, i'll quote him directly:


Quote
Since the future can’t be known in advance, attempts to predict it have to rely on secondhand evidence.  One proven way to collect useful evidence concerning the validity of a prediction is to ask what happened in the past when somebody else made that same prediction.  Another way is to look for situations in the past that are comparable to the one the prediction discusses, in order to see what happened then. A prediction that fails either one of these tests usually needs to be put out to pasture; one that fails both—that has been made repeatedly in the past and failed every time, and that doesn’t account for the way that comparable situations have turned out—ought to be sent to the glue factory instead.


http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/07/asking-hard-questions.html

Quote
The difference between what actually happens and the whole range of current fantasies about instant doom can be summed up in a single phrase: negative feedback.

That’s the process by which a thermostat works: when the house gets cold, the furnace turns on and heats it back up; when the house gets too warm, the furnace shuts down and lets it cool off. Negative feedback is one of the basic properties of whole systems, and the more complex the system, the more subtle, powerful, and multilayered the negative feedback loops tend to be.  The opposite process is positive feedback, and it’s extremely rare in the real world, because systems with positive feedback promptly destroy themselves—imagine a thermostat that responded to rising temperatures by heating things up further until the house burns down. Negative feedback, by contrast, is everywhere.

That’s not something you’ll see referenced in any of the current crop of fast-crash theories, whether those fixate on financial markets, global climate, or what have you. Nearly all those theories make sweeping claims about some set of hypothetical positive feedback loops, while systematically ignoring the existence of well-documented negative feedback loops, and dismissing the evidence of history.  The traditional cry of “But it’s different this time!” serves its usual function as an obstacle to understanding: no matter how many times a claim has failed in the past, and no matter how many times matters have failed to follow the predicted course, believers can always find some reason or other to insist that this time isn’t like all the others.

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2013/06/imperfect-storms.html

CO2 is still rising dramatically.  World temperature stopped rising between 1999 & 2003 depending on whose figures you choose (and assuming you can believe any).  Some indicators are now showing declining temperature, though that trend is not clear yet. 

Correlation does not prove causation, but it's lack strongly suggests the opposite:  ie. that CO2 was likely NOT the cause of recent warming.    Short of claiming that black geoengineering programs caused the CO2 and temperature correlation disconnect (which would be DAMN hard to prove) i'd say that duck is dead.

I'm not discounting a climate catastrophe ahead.  Many previous changes in climate were preceded by weather volitility and we certianly have that now.  There are indications in the sun's behaviour that suggest a cyclically cooling is coming.  Some who see this predict anything from a return to the early 70s to a new Younger Dryas period, or even a return to ice age.  Given the sucess of human climate prediction thus far i'd say we just don't know.

Is it the year of the horse, or the horsemen?

Offline agelbert

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3223
    • View Profile
Snowleapard said
« Reply #672 on: July 25, 2013, 05:03:48 PM »
Quote
It is unusual to find myself in agreement with MKing. 

No it isn't. Since I have read your posts, you have been a climate change denier. You have consistently refused to argue the science of Earth's energy budget, GHG absorbtion frequencies or black body energy absorbing characteristics.

And, yeah, it's not a published paper. I did not say it was. I said it was a no bullshit, solid science based article.

If you have specific problem with Russell's climate modeling or the PETM heating mechanism, let's hear it. But by going on about the corrupt left right thing and the Rockeffelers, you are perpetuating the corrupt and poisonous status quo by avoiding the central issue.

And that is that BIG OIL wants the "CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL" factual science to GO AWAY.


You, JUST LIKE THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY,  do too. WHY?

Quote
they failed to predict the current failure of temperature to respond to rapidly increasing CO2 over the last decade. 
That statement is incorrect and I have the charts to prove it HERE: Shame on you!

http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/forum/index.php?topic=559.msg27545#msg27545

Quote
Given the sucess of human climate prediction thus far i'd say we just don't know.


The Tobacco Strategy

The scientific community has established that the burning of fossil fuels is significantly and negatively changing earth’s climate; however, the fossil fuel industry is challenging this in order to protect their profits. They are using a strategy which is not new and was previously used first by the tobacco industry and then by the chemical industries with regard to acid rain, the ozone hole and DDT. Since it was used for the first time by the Tobacco Industry, Naomi Oreskes coined the term “The Tobacco Strategy” in her book entitled “Merchants of Doubt”.


The Tobacco Strategy is predicated upon buying time by sowing doubt. Given enough time, the truth must prevail so it is impossible to win these battles and the Contrarians are fully aware of this. However, if the inevitable is delayed by several decades, that is several decades of profit in the coffers of the industries that sponsor this strategy. Thus, profit is the motive and “The Tobacco Strategy” has been shown to be a very profitable strategy.

Sowing doubt is extremely easy since there is always a lack of certainty in the scientific community. Scientists state hypotheses and develop evidence to support the hypotheses but can never state with 100% certainty that a hypothesis is true. However, even when the confidence expressed by the scientific community is established to be 98%, there remains a two percent uncertainty with which doubt can be sowed among the gullible public.

The scientific community itself is manipulated to sow doubt against itself. There are always elements in the scientific community on the fringes who oppose mainstream science and these scientists, oftentimes with legitimate scientific credentials, are recruited to write pseudoscientific articles and give lectures to the unwary. Sham institutions such as the CATO Institute and the Heartland Institute are created to give the pseudoscience a facade of legitimacy.

In addition to the scientists on the fringe that are recruited, there unfortunately are those that prostitute themselves for financial gain. The financial gain is significant since these scientists knowingly embark upon a cause which ensures them of a negative legacy.

As discussed earlier, the Tobacco strategy is not new and has been used several times in the past. There is thus a wealth of experience from which to draw upon and unfortunately it is being used by the Climate Change Contrarians with consummate perfection. Unfortunately, the consequences of using this strategy to argue against Climate Change will be far more serious than past “Tobacco Strategy” campaigns.

Robert J. Guercio, October 11, 2010

*The information and ideas for this blog come from the book “Merchants of Doubt” by Naomi Oreskes


http://www.theenvironmentsite.org/the-tobacco-strategy/



It was in the sixties today in Vermont this 25th of July. That is EVIDENCE of GLOBAL WARMING. But some fossil duel tool out there will try to twist it. I'll explain the loopy jet stream from lowered equator to the poles temperature gradient if you like.

Or you can keep pretending it's all one big conspiracy to take your SUV away. You'll be singing a different tune in a couple of years (from snowleapard to hot snowleapard).

Laugh all you want. No one can stop this shit now. Have a nice day.
 
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 05:26:07 PM by agelbert »

Online Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 3860
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #673 on: July 25, 2013, 05:44:28 PM »
AG,
Quote
It's tricky to spot these camouflage experts always pretending to be on the side of the angels. It's also hard to follow the money on the internet but that's where the truth is hidden. 

I read the article some hours ago, but I believe they said that the registry for their website is disguised under a series of shell companies for the express purpose of discouraging the curious  from following the money and identifying just WHO is underwriting this project...

I would like to think that devout evangelical Christians could not be convinced that despoiling the earth could be good, but the snake oil is potent stuff.
"We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." -  Louis Brandeis

Offline jdwheeler42

  • Global Moderator
  • Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 1396
    • View Profile
    • Going Upslope
Re: Waste Based Society
« Reply #674 on: July 25, 2013, 07:07:20 PM »
CO2 is still rising dramatically.  World temperature stopped rising between 1999 & 2003 depending on whose figures you choose (and assuming you can believe any).  Some indicators are now showing declining temperature, though that trend is not clear yet. 

Correlation does not prove causation, but it's lack strongly suggests the opposite:  ie. that CO2 was likely NOT the cause of recent warming.    Short of claiming that black geoengineering programs caused the CO2 and temperature correlation disconnect (which would be DAMN hard to prove) i'd say that duck is dead.

Why can't you buy SPF 10000 sunblock?

Because after a while, for all practical purposes, it's absorbing all it can.

SPF 2 Sunblock absorbs 50% of the sun's radiation; SPF 4 75%; SPF 6 84%; SPF 8 88% SPF 10 90%

So the sequence for each additional 2 SPF units, you are getting 25%, 9%, 4%, and 2% more of the sun's rays blocked.

CO2 is the same way with trapping radiated heat from the Earth.  It's already trapping almost all it can.  NASA has even done studies showing that the planet is almost completely dark in the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs.  So the fact that we're not getting additional warming doesn't mean that the CO2 didn't cause the original warming.

And even if temperatures are leveling off and CO2 is absorbing all it can, does that mean we're scot-free?  No way!  So many other things influence climate: water vapor levels, reflectivity, plant cover, smoke, sulfur dioxide, dust, volcanic eruptions, to name a few.  You can't just look at one factor, or a few years, and declare a trend.

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
459 Views
Last post August 24, 2012, 04:57:08 AM
by Golden Oxen
5 Replies
489 Views
Last post August 28, 2012, 02:13:13 PM
by Surly1
0 Replies
321 Views
Last post September 10, 2012, 12:35:31 AM
by agelbert