2011 Climate Events: A time of troubles

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:44 PM GMT on December 26, 2011

Share this Blog
13
+

2011 Climate Events: A time of troubles

I was asked last week what I thought the greatest science breakthrough of the year was. I’m not so good at those questions, and I know that the potential Higgs Boson glimpse will be at the top of most lists. Fundamental, perhaps, but it is definitely not at the top of the list in my little world. If I were to speculate on most important, I would look at fields that are more biological than physical – or maybe in routine energy production rather than high energy particle physics. But, I am old, slow and uninteresting, and I really don’t understand the significance of the Higgs Boson – so I will talk about a few of the breakthroughs or realizations that have influenced how I think about the climate problem.

At the top of my list is a synthesis which was published in 2011, though the results of that synthesis came at the end of 2010. This is the report Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. This report is a collection and evaluation of knowledge that has been around for a while. The message from this report is that once released from its geological reservoirs, i.e. fossil fuels, carbon dioxide hangs around in the atmosphere for millennia.

I think it is safe to say that many people in the field of climate science and climate policy have anchored their thinking around the idea that carbon dioxide has a lifetime in the atmosphere that is on the order of a century or so. Therefore, our policy options, including the idea of stabilizing the amount of carbon dioxide at some value, relied upon this potential self-healing that relied on carbon dioxide going back into the oceans and soil. I remember reading in a magazine in 1968 about carbon dioxide and global warming, and many scientists at that time felt that the ocean would safely absorb both heat and carbon dioxide. As we have taken more data and increased our understanding of the processes that govern the exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and ocean, we can now state with high confidence that the carbon dioxide we release today will be around for a very long time.

The consequence of this synthesis is that we have a certain amount of carbon dioxide we can release if we want to stabilize the atmosphere at a value that we might imagine limiting the global-average surface warming to approximate 2 degrees Celsius. The amount posed in the report was 1 trillion tons, and we are pretty much there. (Rood blog on a trillion tons, collection of Rood blogs on stabilization) Broader conclusions that I draw from this report are that we have to prepare for more than 2 degrees Celsius warming, and that if we want to stabilize carbon dioxide at levels that limit warming to, say, something less than 4 degrees, then we are going to have to figure out how to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

As I wrote in my last entry we are currently accelerating our emissions. In the last couple of weeks we have seen Canada withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol. Canada is probably more typical than atypical, adherence to the Kyoto Protocol would require Canada to reduce their emissions 6% below 1990 emissions and they are currently 30% above that level. Canada has large tar sands resources, and looks to developing these resources as fuel. The current Keystone Pipeline controversy is about a pipeline to get crude oil products from Canada to refineries in the U.S. If this form of oil energy is opened for broad commercial exploitation, then it will be opening up a form of energy that, carbon dioxide emission wise, is more polluting than coal. But the pressure for energy, for jobs, for a growing economy, for wealth is high. The Keystone Pipeline has been tied into recent U.S. federal budget and tax bills. The climate advocacy group 350.org is organizing protests against the pipeline. (Here’s how to join the protest.)

This brings me to the final piece of news that rises to most important for 2011; namely, the effective politicization of climate change in the U.S. The Keystone Pipeline entanglement with unemployment and extension of the payroll tax reduction is forcing a decision that strongly impacts climate policy with short-term political and economical issues. There remains an attack in congress on the development of climate services. Like the Keystone Pipeline short-term budget bills are entangled with a prohibition on climate services, which prohibits the emergence of climate services and imperils current capabilities. In Texas we see censorship and suits to prohibit the mention of climate change in a report that discusses sea level rise in Galveston Bay. This placing of climate change in tension with short-term economic priorities motivates a series of decisions that assure continued rising emissions. This attack on climate science and other bodies of scientific knowledge that are in conflict with what people want to believe or need to believe in order to support some other behavior is a fundamental threat to U.S. leadership in science and technology.

Troubles: Some years ago my youngest sister and I went to a small village in France where some relatives had come from in the early 1800s. We were able to find civil records and departure of people from this village to the U.S. There were letters of reference written by the mayor assuring anonymous people in the U.S. that the person referenced in the letter was of good character and a good worker. People left during times of “the troubles.” The current times are very troubling for those concerned about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. I will again teach my class on climate change problem solving in winter 2012. And I will focus on the world four degrees warmer – and what that will mean.

r

A couple of personal vanity links.

SETI Tribute to Bob Rood

Rood 2005 piece Christmas at the 7-11

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 187 - 137

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

187. cyclonebuster
6:52 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
<>img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
186. ncgnto25
5:58 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Gee, sorry people, 3 typos and and incomplete sentence in the previous. post #184.
I should have read some of the posts after Neapolitan's challenge. I guess people know him here.
Member Since: October 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 51
185. cyclonebuster
5:56 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


How can telling someone their pet project will not work be, in any way, encouraging?


Psssst what's the pressure at the top back end? Remember the flow doesn't oppose the exit there.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
184. ncgnto25
5:33 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Thanks for challenging me, Neapolitan. I knew someone from the extreme left or right would get in here quick. And with all the arguments of the extreme side of the debate. Nice going.

You say:
That's never happened. True ice ages take between 5,000 and 20,000 years to get ramped up. There have been short cooldowns brought on by major volcanic eruptions and cometary impacts, but historical cooldowns and warmups have been long-duration events.

First here is a blog from Dr.Jeff Masters-ever hear of him?
The Science of Abrupt Climate Change: Should we be worried?
By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.
Climate Change ResourcesHot Topics


Dr. Jeff Masters' Climate Change Blogs
Introduction

We generally consider climate changes as taking place on the scale of hundreds or even thousands of years. However, since the early 1990s, a radical shift in the scientific understanding of Earth's climate history has occurred. We now know that that major regional and global climate shifts have occurred in just a few decades or even a single year. The most recent of these shifts occurred just 8200 years ago. If an abrupt climate change of similar magnitude happened today, it would have severe consequences for humans and natural ecosystems. Although scientists consider an abrupt climate change unlikely in the next 100 years, their understanding of the phenomena is still a work-in-progress, and such a change could be triggered instantly by natural processes or by human-caused global warming with little warning.

The National Academy of Sciences--the board of scientists established by Congress in 1863 to advise the federal government on scientific matters--compiled a comprehensive report in 2002 entitled, Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises. The 244-page report, which contains over 500 references, was written by a team of 59 of the top researchers in climate, and represents the most authoritative source of information about abrupt climate change available. Most of the material that follows was taken from this report.

This one alone takes out several of your challenges.

You say:
1.Second, there have been previous drivers of warm and cold cycles: Milankovich cycles, variations in solar insolation, massive volcanic activity, and so on. What's important to note is that regardless of cause, the environment and those living in it at the time have had to adapt under pressure or vanish; such global changes have never been, nor ever will be, simply.

Not so simply according to Dr. Masters.

2. Because in earth's historical climate changes, mankind wasn't around to throw off the balance. That is, we weren't here artificially releasing over a few centuries carbon that took millions of years to be naturally sequestered. IOW, any comparisons that fail to take the role of fossil fuels into account are faulty.

Dr. Masters says the abrupt changes could happen by natural causes or climate warming.
You really miss a point rooted in logic. Every time it got warm, it then got cold again. Why? Nobody has really solved that question yet.

97% in polls?? Maybe the ones you CHOOSE to listen to. I couldn't find that, but then I don't consider MSNBC to be a reliable source-or Rush Limbaugh or any other hate media. There is considerable passion on both sides of the debate. The biggest thing I can see is we may feel strongly about a belief in meteorology, but new stuff pops up every so often to give us pause and think how little we still know.


You say:
One thing so many proponents of Keystone--including many GOP Presidential wannabes--seem to forget is that the tar sands are in Canada; any oil from it is, therefore, imported in every sense of the word. Yes, Canada is our ally, for now. But claiming it'll reduce imports is a misstatement. On a larger not, however, extracting usable oil from tar sands uses three times as much energy as other sources, and is therefore three times as filthy--and that doesn't even count the horrific environmental devastation at the source, or the specter of leak-prone pipes running through the aquifer, or the fact that by their own admission, once built the Keystone pipeline will provide 50--count them, 50--full-time jobs. Hardly worth nudging us into catastrophe, if you ask me.

From the official website:

Benefits of Keystone XL Are Certain

TransCanada believes Keystone XL will ultimately be approved, as it is too important to the U.S. economy and its national interest. As well, Keystone XL remains the best option for producers to supply crude oil to U.S. Gulf Coast Refineries.
The U.S. consumes 15 million barrels of oil each day and imports 10 to 11 million barrels per day. Industry forecasts predict oil consumption will continue at these levels for the next two to three decades, so a secure supply of crude oil is critical to U.S. energy security.
Keystone XL is shovel-ready. TransCanada is poised to put 13,000 Americans to work to construct the pipeline - pipefitters, welders, mechanics, electricians, heavy equipment operators, among other jobs - in addition to 7,000 manufacturing jobs that would be created across the U.S. Additionally, local businesses along the pipeline route will benefit from the 118,000 spin-off jobs Keystone XL will create through increased business for local goods and service providers.
TransCanada looks forward to concluding the U.S. regulatory review process and beginning the important work of building Keystone XL. The safe and reliable operation of our pipelines and infrastructure has been TransCanada's priority for 60 years. This same commitment will drive us forward in the years ahead.



My take:
Time for you to wake up to the real world, and look around you. 50 jobs to build the pipeline, transport oil, refine it, etc. etc. And you want to be taken seriously?? If we don't get off foreign oil, we really risk too much in this political climate. Do you forget the 1974 oil embargo. It stopped us in our tracks, yet you have forgotten-or are too young to remember it? If it happened today, where would we be? Don't even say it can't-it already did once. Iran is making noises along that line right now. By whose own admission? Proponents of the pipeline? Do you really believe people on both sides of any issue are above representing themselves as proponents of an issue and then chopping that issue down to lessen its apparent validity? Again, the side of the coin YOU wish to believe. Horrific devastation?? How dramatic. With all of the environmental regulations already in place, it should be reasonably safe. But, can we, as a nation, afford to not take every step to make us self sufficient? Of course nothing is risk free, and you know it. I know, here comes the gulf spill. Failure to follow established regulations. Where does it say that we stop progress because we might make a mistake? And this progress HAS to include a move away from fossil fules at the earliest possible point. EVERYBODY on both sides of the issue feel the need to adopt the most extreme point of view possible to make their point. You are certainly proof of that. Nudging us into catastrophe?? How sensational.

You say:
There are several untruths in this statement. Please do some research, and get back to us. Looking at Solyndra and claiming that solar doesn't work is like using the sinking of the Titanic to prove that boat travel is impossible.



My research:
24 June 2011—A photovoltaic cell that reaches record-breaking efficiency could make solar energy competitive with fossil fuels, says the company that created the cell.

Alta Devices, a start-up in Santa Clara, Calif., presented research at the 37th IEEE Photovoltaic Specialist Conference, in Seattle, this week that claims its thin-film gallium-arsenide cell can convert 27.6 percent of the sunlight striking the cell into electricity, under standardized conditions. Since the paper was submitted, the company says it has upped the efficiency to 28.2 percent. That beats the previous record of 26.4 percent for a solar cell with a single p-n junction, which was the first improvement in years over 26.1 percent. Both numbers, according to Alta, were independently confirmed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Scientists have figured out a way to greatly increase the efficiency of solar cells, which could help make solar energy a viable alternative to fossil fuels. However, MIT's Technology Review highlights a political tug-of-war between China and the United States that could actually make the photovoltaic technology too expensive to market. As a result, energy that should be globally affordable in the near future might just be out of reach.

Just this past week, PhysOrg reported that researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) had finally crafted a solar cell with a extetnal quantum efficiency (EQE) value of over 100 percent. Basically, EQE measures the rate of energy flowing out of a solar cell divided by the rate of light flowing into it.

This shouldn't be confused with a solar cell putting out more energy than it takes in, as this would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. But for non-phycists, the takeaway is that, with these new developments, solar cells should eventually be able to do their job a lot better.

Researchers achieved this thanks to some inventive applications of zinc oxide, lead selenide, and a touch of gold: This new type of solar cell achieves roughly "114 percent external quantum efficiency", according to PhysOrg. Here are the bare details from PhysOrg, detailing what it means for green, naturally sustainable energy.

My statement:
There are a couple articles on solar. I stand corrected on the percentage. Note also that this was 6 months ago and states it was the first advance in years. I believe I erroneously used the 114% figure. However, the bottom line remains that, even with these advancements, they are initial improvements and we are years, and maybe decades away from a commercially viable form to take its place providing for the energy needs of the nation. 'Needs of the nation' is a huge thing you do not take into account. Our appetite for power, whether right or wrong (and I believe our 'need' for 'THINGS' is absolutely ridiculous), is not going away voluntarily. I have sold to 'green companies' here in New Mexico-Abengoa in Portales has been shut down for a long time. They are finally beginning to move, but they admit they are moving slowly. For you to use the BANKRUPT Solyndra, after over a HALF BILLION DOLLAR subsidy from our government, your money and mine, if absolutely hysterical. There is no bigger proof out there that the technology is nowhere near ready. And our government did everything they could to make it go. Your analogy of the Titanic does not hold water. (Couldn't resist)

I want to go into one other issue-cap and trade. What an excellent economic way it is to begin to cut back on emissions. Anybody who has studied economics as I have has to agree. Unfortunately, politicians have again made this a contentious issue. The right feels the left would put restrictions that are economically too stringent and go way further that external cost vs. internal cost would indicate. So they are afraid to let a good idea go further because of fear it will go to the extreme. The left is pushing it strongly because they feel it will enhance their vote from the environmentalists, and as a result, would push for standards too strict. If they could just agree on an economically feasible solution. But again, politics.....

This has been fun. My main point still remains. In a perfect world, where everybody got along, and would work together to progress toward a cleaner environment. The real world demands a different approach, and I sure don't see any way to change that in the short run. Therefore, we need to satisfy both sides of the equation-the demands and needs of the population of the US and the world, vs. the very real need to clean up our act. The extremeists on both sides need to move toward a common sense goal for the world and for the US. This will never happen here in the US until we get totally rid of the two party system as we have it and is so jealously protected by the 2 parties themselves. Both sides promote the extremism by half truths and outright lies. Ferreting out these half-truths and lies is time consuming and difficult. But listening to Fox or MSNBC is certainly not the way to do it. Also, it is almost impossible to break into politics without being a card carrying, 100% believer in one party. You just cannot raise the money to make a difference without party support. So we get nowhere....



Member Since: October 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 51
183. JupiterKen
4:18 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting AlwaysThinkin:


You do realize you're just encouraging him right?


How can telling someone their pet project will not work be, in any way, encouraging?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
182. AlwaysThinkin
4:10 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
.


You do realize you're just encouraging him right?
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 394
181. cyclonebuster
12:54 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
The pressure available due to the kinetic energy at 6 mph is .55 psi. This is from Pascal's fluid flow equations. I have used these equations quite often in my 50 years as a Mechanical Engineer. You have either misunderstood Dr. Willoughby or he is incorrect. Please take my previously suggested advice and speak with someone who understands fluid flow. I will not attempt to help you any further. Best of luck (you'll need it).


I guess professors of Meteorology and hurricane dynamics know nothing of fluid flows. LOL!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
180. JupiterKen
12:47 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
The pressure available due to the kinetic energy at 6 mph is .55 psi. This is from Pascal's fluid flow equations. I have used these equations quite often in my 50+ years as a Mechanical Engineer. You have either misunderstood Dr. Willoughby or he is incorrect. Please take my previously suggested advice and speak with someone who understands fluid flow. I will not attempt to help you any further. Best of luck (you'll need it).
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
179. cyclonebuster
12:32 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
@ Cyclonebuster - OK...let me if I understand you correctly. You contend that:

1. One end of the tunnel is positioned at the depth where the pressure is 33 bar (~330 meters below the surface). This is your force F1.

2. The other end of the tunnel is positioned at the depth where the pressure is 2 bar (~20 meters below the surface). This is your force F2.

3. F1 is greater than F2 so the tunnel flows due to a pressure differential of 31 bar or ~456 psi and the gulfstream flow is not even needed; it is a bonus.

Is the your explanation?


Negative,it flows because of the Kinetic Energy contained in the flowing water of the Gulfstream which the tunnel entrance opposes since the tunnel is anchored to the sea floor.

Have you spoken to Dr. Willoughby yet?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
178. JupiterKen
12:23 PM GMT on January 03, 2012
@ Cyclonebuster - OK...let me if I understand you correctly. You contend that:

1. One end of the tunnel is positioned at the depth where the pressure is 33 bar (~330 meters below the surface). This is your force F1.

2. The other end of the tunnel is positioned at the depth where the pressure is 2 bar (~20 meters below the surface). This is your force F2.

3. F1 is greater than F2 so the tunnel flows due to a pressure differential of 31 bar or ~456 psi and the gulfstream flow is not even needed; it is a bonus.

Is the your explanation?
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
177. cyclonebuster
12:38 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
re 172



Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005


Really not according to this graph.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
176. Neapolitan
12:36 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting snowballing:
Global Warming end of year report......

Temperatures are below Hansen%u2019s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario C
Global temperatures are declining this century
Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005
Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996
Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years
Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
Winter snow extent is increasing, and has been near record highs in recent years
Temperatures in Texas show no increase since 1895
Drought in Australia is at historic lows
Drought in the US is well below the mean
Severe tornadoes are on the decline in the US
US hurricane strikes are on the decline
Intense hurricanes are on the decline
Polar Bear populations have tripled
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled
USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895

Link

Yeah, I saw that laughable link earlier. I started to go through and respond line by line, but I was laughing too hard to keep going. US Hurricane strikes are on the decline? What's that got to do with anything? Polar bear populations have tripled? In some regiuons, yes, but not overall. Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled? What does that have to do with anything? "Global temperatures are declining this century? No, they're not.

EDIT: I removed the graphs as they had expired.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
175. cyclonebuster
12:31 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
re 172 Some decline.


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
174. cyclonebuster
12:25 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
re 172



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
173. cyclonebuster
12:14 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
Quoting snowballing:
Global Warming end of year report......

Temperatures are below Hansen%u2019s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario C
Global temperatures are declining this century
Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005
Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996
Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years
Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
Winter snow extent is increasing, and has been near record highs in recent years
Temperatures in Texas show no increase since 1895
Drought in Australia is at historic lows
Drought in the US is well below the mean
Severe tornadoes are on the decline in the US
US hurricane strikes are on the decline
Intense hurricanes are on the decline
Polar Bear populations have tripled
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled
USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895

Link


Oh! That's the "Real Science" link you posted. They forgot the word "Fiction" on the end of it. Nice Cherry Picking Data though. Let's check out NOAAS trends on this!

Here is one for you more coming.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
172. snowballing
12:09 AM GMT on January 03, 2012
Global Warming end of year report......

Temperatures are below Hansen’s zero emissions after 2000 Scenario C
Global temperatures are declining this century
Sea level has been declining for several years, and is lower now than it was in 2003
Arctic ice extent and area is the highest for the date since 2005
Temperatures in western Greenland last year were the coldest since 1996
Temperatures in Antarctica have been declining for 30 years
Antarctic ice has been increasing for 30 years
Winter snow extent is increasing, and has been near record highs in recent years
Temperatures in Texas show no increase since 1895
Drought in Australia is at historic lows
Drought in the US is well below the mean
Severe tornadoes are on the decline in the US
US hurricane strikes are on the decline
Intense hurricanes are on the decline
Polar Bear populations have tripled
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear populations have tripled
USHCN raw thermometer data shows that the US has been cooling since 1895

Link
Member Since: December 7, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 32
171. Some1Has2BtheRookie
11:17 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


The current POTUS is conservative? Good Lord, you really must be a Chairman Mao fan. As far as being desperate because of my handle, my choice is merely satire, because your comments are so ridiculous that it's obvious you were experimenting with certain substances at one point in your life.


Was G.W. Bush a conservative? Well, more of a conservative than the average Democrat?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
170. NASCARfanatic
11:15 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Troll Alert: NeapolitanFan and NeapolitansHugeDong

Please report, flag, and ignore.
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 9
168. cyclonebuster
9:26 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


You are terribly wrong. The inlet dynamic head is .55 psi or .081 bar at 6 mph. Your tunnel concept is utter garbage. I have suggested three times that you contact someone with knowledge of fluid flow to correct your misunderstandings. You have shopped your tunnels on many websites/blogs and all have said you do not understand flow basics. I give up.


Sorry you can't comprehend the concept of conservation of energy in the pipe and how that energy is transferred to all the walls within the pipe including the exit instantly.I guess you have just proven Pascal wrong.

Call Dr.Willoughby and speak to him such as I did. Here is his phone number 1-305-348-0243.

Link

Sorry it is you that needs further tutoring. Give the professor a call.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
167. JupiterKen
9:21 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


LOL! "ANY" pressure difference flow occurs. If there were no pressure difference then no flow would occur. That is why I placed the tunnel in the Gulfstrean opposing the 6 mph current so I can create that pressure difference across the whole structure once submerged.


You are terribly wrong. The inlet dynamic head is .55 psi or .081 bar at 6 mph. Your tunnel concept is utter garbage. I have suggested three times that you contact someone with knowledge of fluid flow to correct your misunderstandings. You have shopped your tunnels on many websites/blogs and all have said you do not understand flow basics. I give up.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
166. cyclonebuster
9:15 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


The 33 bar pressure at the inlet depth does not provide any flow at the surface. The only flow at the surface is from the .55 psi velocity head and that will be significantly reduced by a factor of at least two due to entrance, pipe friction and bend losses. The flow due to this 1/4 psi will be of little significance. Your tunnel will not work.







Also, we are not at the surface at the tunnel outlet we are still 5 to 10 feet below the surface.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
165. cyclonebuster
9:04 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


The 33 bar pressure at the inlet depth does not provide any flow at the surface. The only flow at the surface is from the .55 psi velocity head and that will be significantly reduced by a factor of at least two due to entrance, pipe friction and bend losses. The flow due to this 1/4 psi will be of little significance. Your tunnel will not work.







LOL! "ANY" pressure difference flow occurs. If there were no pressure difference then no flow would occur. That is why I placed the tunnel in the Gulfstrean opposing the 6 mph current so I can create that pressure difference across the whole structure once submerged.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
164. JupiterKen
8:54 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Correct 33bar... Plus the Kinetic energy of the Gulfstream at the inlet.


The 33 bar pressure at the inlet depth does not provide any flow at the surface. The only flow at the surface is from the .55 psi velocity head and that will be significantly reduced by a factor of at least two due to entrance, pipe friction and bend losses. The flow due to this 1/4 psi will be of little significance. Your tunnel will not work.





Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
163. Neapolitan
6:41 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting martinitony:


You're response to N25 is same old BS you always attempt to put over on the board. There can be no rationalization of the Obama Keystone position. Better the devil you know and we know Canada won't likely be using the money to support terrorists who wish to kill us. Not building the pipeline won't reduce our oil usage one drop, but we know every drop produced in Canada will be burned somewhere, most likely China.
Comparing Solyndra to the Titanic is actually laughable because Solyndra might truly be solar panel's Titanic. Solar panel use only finds its economic basis from government subsidies which you fail to mention. This has been happening on a worldwide basis. Reduce the subsidy and even Chinese companies begin to fail. Being a socialist, you wouldn't be aware of what has happened to almost every solar panel related stock on an international basis as subsidies have been reduced since the financial crisis.
By the way, NeopolitanFan is not really a fan of yours. You probably aren't aware of that because your head is stuffed so far up your.... That may have something to do with your world view.

The "Obama Keystone position" is not my own; the current POTUS is a borderline conservative who is nearly as thrilled about receiving Big Energy dollars as those on the right who are more open about it. No, I--and hundreds of thousands of others--are against the pipeline, both for the reasons I outlined and others. We don't need it, we don't want it, and it'll do nothing but hasten our demise while further stuffing the pockets of the pro-pollution crowd.

I don't subscribe to the destructively cynical "Why should we do anything if they're not?" way of "thinking". That is, even if China and other emerging economies elect to do nothing to mitigate CO2 emissions, I don't believe for one second we Americans should throw up our hands and engage in an insane rush to destruction. Not sure how that got to be a GOP plank, but it certainly seems to be one.

Can I assume that since you're against government subsidies for solar, you're also against the billions that go to the hugely profitable oil and gas industries? If you are against them, that takes you out of lockstep with the rest of the radical right. But if you're for them, that makes you a bit of a socialist yourself, no? Mind telling us which it is?

I'll ignore the ad hominem at the end, as I ignore the childish sockpuppet "NeapolitanFan". Though I have to admit: when someone is desperate enough to make my handle part of their own, I know I'm on the right track.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
162. cyclonebuster
6:27 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


Correct what? You agree that the pressure at the inlet is .55 psi? .55 psi does not equal 33 bar.


Correct 33bar... Plus the Kinetic energy of the Gulfstream at the inlet.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
161. JupiterKen
6:24 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Correct,that energy is transferred everywhere instantly within the tunnel including the exit at the top and the interior walls. Pascal proved it in his theory of hydraulics.That force doesn't apply where F2 is because the water outside the tunnel flows past the exit up at the top. Hence F1 > F2.


Correct what? You agree that the pressure at the inlet is .55 psi? .55 psi does not equal 33 bar.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
160. cyclonebuster
6:09 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:


Please explain how you calculate the 33 bar pressure and for that matter the other pressures also. If it is due to the water depth, it will not produce any work (flow) as it only the column weight of the water.

The only force available at depth is due to the kinetic energy (velocity head) produced by the 6 mph water speed. This results in a force of ~0.55 psi at the inlet ( rho * v * v /2g which is (1 * 8.8 * 8.8 / 2 * 32.2)= 1.202 feet of water).



Correct,that energy is transferred everywhere instantly within the tunnel including the exit at the top and the interior walls. Pascal proved it in his theory of hydraulics.That force doesn't apply where F2 is because the water outside the tunnel flows past the exit up at the top. Hence F1 > F2.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
159. martinitony
5:59 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:


You've asked many good questions, and brought up many good points. Allow me to address a few of them:

"I cannot agree with the conclusions that Dr. Rood has reached. There are several factors I feel he has not taken into account."

It's hugely important to note that Dr. Rood is far from the only person to make any conclusions; 97% of climate scientists polled tend to agree with Dr. Rood.

"Why, then, does he say that almost all of the warming in the last 50 years is man induced?"

There are a number of reasons that show a human "fingerprint" on the current warming: there's more fossil fuel-derived carbon in the air and in ocean corals, there's less heat escaping to space, the thermosphere is shrinking, the tropopause is rising, the stratosphere is cooling; nights are warming at a more rapid pace than days, and so on. We humans are emitting around 30 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, or 950 metric tons per second. That stuff is a known GHG, and it's not simply vanishing.

"Did the natural cycle of the planet, as documented many times over, just decide to stop when we began emitting higher and higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Why were we warming before that?"

Couple of things. First, no previous warmup happened at anywhere near the speed of the current one. One of the most hugely disruptive events to our biosphere we can find in the fossil record, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, saw temps rise by about 6.C over the course of 200 centuries; we've risen 1/6th of the way in less than 150 years. Now extrapolate.

Second, there have been previous drivers of warm and cold cycles: Milankovich cycles, variations in solar insolation, massive volcanic activity, and so on. What's important to note is that regardless of cause, the environment and those living in it at the time have had to adapt under pressure or vanish; such global changes have never been, nor ever will be, simply.

"He postulates that the warming will continue to increase for an indefinite period of time. Why would this time be different?"

Because in earth's historical climate changes, mankind wasn't around to throw off the balance. That is, we weren't here artificially releasing over a few centuries carbon that took millions of years to be naturally sequestered. IOW, any comparisons that fail to take the role of fossil fuels into account are faulty. A normal person doubles in height from the age of two to the age of eighteen. That's natural. But if a person starts taking steroids and hormones and doubles in height from the age of, say, 42 to 58, that's artificial. And one can't say, "Well, he grew before, so what's the big deal?"

"At no point did I read of a reference to any attempt to find out what may have caused the earth to go from warming to ice age, sometimes in a matter of just a few years"

That's never happened. True ice ages take between 5,000 and 20,000 years to get ramped up. There have been short cooldowns brought on by major volcanic eruptions and cometary impacts, but historical cooldowns and warmups have been long-duration events.

"So called alternative energy resources are, unfortunately, not efficient yet. Solar companies are going under and part of that has to be their approximately 14% efficiency level that has not improved for over 20 years. Wind-not even close and the wind farms are eyesores and a danger to wildlife, along with being inefficient."

There are several untruths in this statement. Please do some research, and get back to us. Looking at Solyndra and claiming that solar doesn't work is like using the sinking of the Titanic to prove that boat travel is impossible.

"We need the Keystone Pipeline. Come on, let's be real. If we do not build it, it does not mean we will cut back our imports of oil by the amount of oil we could produce"

One thing so many proponents of Keystone--including many GOP Presidential wannabes--seem to forget is that the tar sands are in Canada; any oil from it is, therefore, imported in every sense of the word. Yes, Canada is our ally, for now. But claiming it'll reduce imports is a misstatement. On a larger not, however, extracting usable oil from tar sands uses three times as much energy as other sources, and is therefore three times as filthy--and that doesn't even count the horrific environmental devastation at the source, or the specter of leak-prone pipes running through the aquifer, or the fact that by their own admission, once built the Keystone pipeline will provide 50--count them, 50--full-time jobs. Hardly worth nudging us into catastrophe, if you ask me.

"Nature has it's checks and balances-rest assured, she will get us in the end if we do not take care of her."

Very true. And as witnessed these days--most alarmingly in 2011--she's on the way to doing so.

(I wrote this in a hurry; please forgive any grammatical/syntactical errors.)


You're response to N25 is same old BS you always attempt to put over on the board. There can be no rationalization of the Obama Keystone position. Better the devil you know and we know Canada won't likely be using the money to support terrorists who wish to kill us. Not building the pipeline won't reduce our oil usage one drop, but we know every drop produced in Canada will be burned somewhere, most likely China.
Comparing Solyndra to the Titanic is actually laughable because Solyndra might truly be solar panel's Titanic. Solar panel use only finds its economic basis from government subsidies which you fail to mention. This has been happening on a worldwide basis. Reduce the subsidy and even Chinese companies begin to fail. Being a socialist, you wouldn't be aware of what has happened to almost every solar panel related stock on an international basis as subsidies have been reduced since the financial crisis.
By the way, NeopolitanFan is not really a fan of yours. You probably aren't aware of that because your head is stuffed so far up your.... That may have something to do with your world view.
Member Since: July 29, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 970
158. JupiterKen
4:56 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:


F1 at depth is 33 atmospheres at the entrance in cooling phase. In non cooling phase F1 at the entrance is 2 atmospheres. F2 at the surface is 2 atmospheres at the exit. The flow rate is 6 mph at all three locations. The flow rate per unit of volume is dependent upon the area of the the tunnel inlet and tunnel outlet. The flow rate is shown here.



Please explain how you calculate the 33 bar pressure and for that matter the other pressures also. If it is due to the water depth, it will not produce any work (flow) as it only the column weight of the water.

The only force available at depth is due to the kinetic energy (velocity head) produced by the 6 mph water speed. This results in a force of ~0.55 psi at the inlet ( rho * v * v /2g which is (1 * 8.8 * 8.8 / 2 * 32.2)= 1.202 feet of water).

Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
157. NeapolitanFan
4:18 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
The Global Warming alarmist report card:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
156. Patrap
3:52 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
"I believe" the Changing atmosphere from Fossil Based Fuel Burning is making the trends and drivers behave in a ever changing and increasingly unknown fashion.

More WV and more latent heat drives a ever chaotic System, to extremes.


Were actually Terra-forming a new and different atmosphere in a Grand Experiment.


We're a fragile Bubble of Intelligence and Beauty.

Changing the recipe of our Bubble's Basic makeup is not a very good idea.

It has consequences.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129409
155. Neapolitan
3:46 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting ncgnto25:
Before I start, I am an independent that loathes BOTH parties as being self serving at the citizens expense. There is no agenda here.
...


You've asked many good questions, and brought up many good points. Allow me to address a few of them:

"I cannot agree with the conclusions that Dr. Rood has reached. There are several factors I feel he has not taken into account."

It's hugely important to note that Dr. Rood is far from the only person to make any conclusions; 97% of climate scientists polled tend to agree with Dr. Rood.

"Why, then, does he say that almost all of the warming in the last 50 years is man induced?"

There are a number of reasons that show a human "fingerprint" on the current warming: there's more fossil fuel-derived carbon in the air and in ocean corals, there's less heat escaping to space, the thermosphere is shrinking, the tropopause is rising, the stratosphere is cooling; nights are warming at a more rapid pace than days, and so on. We humans are emitting around 30 billion metric tons of CO2 each year, or 950 metric tons per second. That stuff is a known GHG, and it's not simply vanishing.

"Did the natural cycle of the planet, as documented many times over, just decide to stop when we began emitting higher and higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Why were we warming before that?"

Couple of things. First, no previous warmup happened at anywhere near the speed of the current one. One of the most hugely disruptive events to our biosphere we can find in the fossil record, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, saw temps rise by about 6.C over the course of 200 centuries; we've risen 1/6th of the way in less than 150 years. Now extrapolate.

Second, there have been previous drivers of warm and cold cycles: Milankovich cycles, variations in solar insolation, massive volcanic activity, and so on. What's important to note is that regardless of cause, the environment and those living in it at the time have had to adapt under pressure or vanish; such global changes have never been, nor ever will be, simply.

"He postulates that the warming will continue to increase for an indefinite period of time. Why would this time be different?"

Because in earth's historical climate changes, mankind wasn't around to throw off the balance. That is, we weren't here artificially releasing over a few centuries carbon that took millions of years to be naturally sequestered. IOW, any comparisons that fail to take the role of fossil fuels into account are faulty. A normal person doubles in height from the age of two to the age of eighteen. That's natural. But if a person starts taking steroids and hormones and doubles in height from the age of, say, 42 to 58, that's artificial. And one can't say, "Well, he grew before, so what's the big deal?"

"At no point did I read of a reference to any attempt to find out what may have caused the earth to go from warming to ice age, sometimes in a matter of just a few years"

That's never happened. True ice ages take between 5,000 and 20,000 years to get ramped up. There have been short cooldowns brought on by major volcanic eruptions and cometary impacts, but historical cooldowns and warmups have been long-duration events.

"So called alternative energy resources are, unfortunately, not efficient yet. Solar companies are going under and part of that has to be their approximately 14% efficiency level that has not improved for over 20 years. Wind-not even close and the wind farms are eyesores and a danger to wildlife, along with being inefficient."

There are several untruths in this statement. Please do some research, and get back to us. Looking at Solyndra and claiming that solar doesn't work is like using the sinking of the Titanic to prove that boat travel is impossible.

"We need the Keystone Pipeline. Come on, let's be real. If we do not build it, it does not mean we will cut back our imports of oil by the amount of oil we could produce"

One thing so many proponents of Keystone--including many GOP Presidential wannabes--seem to forget is that the tar sands are in Canada; any oil from it is, therefore, imported in every sense of the word. Yes, Canada is our ally, for now. But claiming it'll reduce imports is a misstatement. On a larger not, however, extracting usable oil from tar sands uses three times as much energy as other sources, and is therefore three times as filthy--and that doesn't even count the horrific environmental devastation at the source, or the specter of leak-prone pipes running through the aquifer, or the fact that by their own admission, once built the Keystone pipeline will provide 50--count them, 50--full-time jobs. Hardly worth nudging us into catastrophe, if you ask me.

"Nature has it's checks and balances-rest assured, she will get us in the end if we do not take care of her."

Very true. And as witnessed these days--most alarmingly in 2011--she's on the way to doing so.

(I wrote this in a hurry; please forgive any grammatical/syntactical errors.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
154. ncgnto25
1:56 PM GMT on January 02, 2012
Before I start, I am an independent that loathes BOTH parties as being self serving at the citizens expense. There is no agenda here.
I believe we are affecting the climate. However, I cannot agree with the conclusions that Dr. Rood has reached. There are several factors I feel he has not taken into account.
We have been in a warming phase since the end of the little ice age around 1800. Why, then, does he say that almost all of the warming in the last 50 years is man induced? Did the natural cycle of the planet, as documented many times over, just decide to stop when we began emitting higher and higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases? Why were we warming before that? This natural trend, that has seen cycle after cycle in the history of the world seems to be totally ignored in this publication.
The second point I would like to make is that at the end of each 'warming' phase the earth has gone through there has been an ice age. Why? This is not addressed at all by Dr. Rood. He postulates that the warming will continue to increase for an indefinite period of time. Why would this time be different? At no point did I read of a reference to any attempt to find out what may have caused the earth to go from warming to ice age, sometimes in a matter of just a few years. Is it possible that at a certain point the warming somehow disrupts the earths natural heat transfer oscillations, both Pacific and Atlantic mainly, and that somehow causes the ice ages? (I thought this way before that stupid movie). It does seem likely that there might be some connection. Is it possible that warming triggers another response from the environment that scientists are unable to predict? While unlikely, it also cannot be ruled out. Dr. Rood, I would be very interested to read studies including these variables.
We do, as people of the earth, need to address the situation.The world has never seen 7 Billion people. How can the earth support that many people without industrialization? The United States needs to be the leader in attempting to clean up our act, but we can only lead the world from a position of strength as a country, economically and politically. Simply mandating emission standards alone is counter productive to the economy of the United States, and without a strong economy we cannot lead. We need to balance, as best we can, the internal and external costs of our actions toward the environment. I wonder already if we have not passed the point of no return to fiscal sanity. We could cut our emissions by 50% immediately and it would not make a hill of beans difference to the climate if the rest of the world did not do likewise. Even if the world did, I truly believe it would not make much difference. There needs to be common sense agreement between the parties to provide the resources that we need now to remain a leader, while also working toward cleaning up our environment. So called alternative energy resources are, unfortunately, not efficient yet. Solar companies are going under and part of that has to be their approximately 14% efficiency level that has not improved for over 20 years. Wind-not even close and the wind farms are eyesores and a danger to wildlife, along with being inefficient. Nuclear? The knee-jerk reaction to the Japan crisis took care of that politically. It took an earth changing event to bring that one down. Also, concerns about waste storage. No energy source is going to be anywhere near 100% safe. We need the Keystone Pipeline. Come on, let's be real. If we do not build it, it does not mean we will cut back our imports of oil by the amount of oil we could produce. We will still use the same amount of oil. The 700,000 to 1 million barrels a day that would be realized would only reduce our imports by that much and put thousands of American Workers back to work. Plus, with the political climate in the world (Iran is a big concern), we need to be much more self sufficient. What about natural gas? Why are we still messing around with Ethanol from corn? Sugar cane provides much better results. Oh, yeah, political reasons (can't vary from the party line or I won't be reelected), and neither side is moving to fix this. But, we need to redouble efforts to reduce emissions efficiently. We will never do this with the political system so widely polarized. I have come to the conclusion that we need to vote Congress out-lock stock and barrel for 2 or 3 election cycles until they get the message to start working for us again. That means anyone with an I for incumbent next to their name. A new president every 4 years until they get the idea. (Anyone really looked at Gary Johnson? He did a heck of a job in New Mexico for 8 years-a Republican elected by large margins in a heavily Democratic state. Now he is Libertarian-interesting!) Nature has it's checks and balances-rest assured, she will get us in the end if we do not take care of her.
Member Since: October 5, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 51
153. Neapolitan
11:56 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Once again, Oss, you make this far too easy.

"Ah yes! You continue to do a great job of misdirection,,,, as usual."

In what universe is telling the truth "misdirection"? Rookie simply linked to a more recent article by the very author you quoted. It seems to me that knowingly using outdated reference materials is "misdirection". I'm sure I can find some science articles from the 1940s extolling the wonders of tobacco smoking; could someone posting refuting data from the 1980s be accused of misdirection?

"What does the author of an article have to do with the science?"

Perhaps not much to those pursuing an agenda, or unsure how science works. But there is expertise and there is quackery, and never the twain shall meet.

"Did he do the research? NO"

So, Rookie shouldn't have cited him, but it's okay for you to have done so?

"Did you understand what the research was actually about? Obviously not."

Not sure how you arrive at such a conclusion. One would have to maintain an unhealthily large ego to assume that they alone are privy to understanding.

"Just look at the cut and paste that many provide here. I don't think more than 2 that post here supporting the CAGW have had a thought of their own."

I believe the number to be much larger than two, but even if not, that's still two more than deny AGW. That is, one can scan WUWT or other similarly silly sites at any given time and know that within the hour someone will post here the contents of the breathless headlines found there.

"Look at the X persons tribute to AGW support. Total deception and rubbish, but cut and pasted from the training site accordingly. Do you think it/he/she or other, did it on their own? I just have to laugh at it sometimes."

Not sure who "X person" is (or who they are), but I don't see much "cut and paste" being used here. I think that what you're misinterpreting as "cut and paste" is just repetition of the truth. Case in point: if someone comes on this forum and claims for the 400th time that clouds are a forcing mechanism because that's what Spencer says, someone else will be sure to come on here and explain for the 400th time how that's not true--and they'll likely use the same words and the same graphs and the same citations to demonstrate that. That's not cut and paste; that's just common sense; does every defense need to be new and unique to be effective? If so, why?

I dunno, Oss; it seems you have chosen to resort to ad hominems. Sorry to see that; it's so very unproductive.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13725
152. greentortuloni
8:23 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting overwash12:
I am talking about the main issues, Same sex marriage,abortion... That people keep making a big deal about that have no bearing on how a country is to be run! If you extinguish all that tell lies we would have no politicians!


I agree with you mostly, then. When I say I am conservative, I mean that I am deperatly for a small government that exists only to preserve the freedoms and rights of individuals.

However, from the morals point of view, the current 'right' is not about freedoms ir is about forcing one way of life onto others.

From the financial point of view, I don't necessarily disagree with the basic stance of cutting costs. I just think that it isn't as easy as everyone thinks it is. For example, cut program x out of the budget and, assuming that program x was in fact done with the buy American principles, what happens? That revenue is lost to companies, who don't hire, etc.. The money may be returned to taxpayers who spend it anyway.. but like as not, they are buying Chinese goods anyway. If that money goes back to the rich, some of it is reinvested in the US and some flows overseas into the 'booming' BRIC+7 markets.

Further, I think tax descreases for the rich simply don't work. The idea that the rich are 'job creators' is valid only to a certain extent. having been involved in a lot of start up environments, job creation is about mentality, culture and lack of corruption much more than about capitol.

The idea of economic darwinism improving AMerica is false. America isn't made better by having a population who aren't educated, or are educated at home by people who think science is a four letter word (synz?), neither is it made better by people struggleing to survive at survival level jobs without health care or hope for the future. If that is your American dream, you can leave me out.

I say all this as a concervative who loves the idea of strapping on my guns (so to speak) and fighting the world on my own terms. It's jsut that as I've gotten older, I've seen past the ideals to the reality and if the ideals don't function, they aren't really ideals.

Finally and then I'll shake off this hangover and start work: there is also the huge technological gap that is looming. Soon there work be work for most people, period. Free labor markets end when people are displaced by technology (robots). Do a little web surfing and you can see where it is coming. The world needs a new system and soon. Neither capitolism nor socialism is the answer. Capitolism is a fever that burns until its detrius suffocates it. Socialism is control-stagnant. I'm betting on small world cooperatism at the moment, only because it is the only method I know of that seems to work in similar scale systems.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
151. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:30 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Ah yes! You continue to do a great job of misdirection,,,, as usual.

What does the author of an article have to do with the science? What a sorry methodology you pursue. It shows.

Did he do the research? NO

Did you understand what the research was actually about? Obviously not.

Just as I pointed out. Learn how to learn and there is no substitute for formal education to learn how to do such.

Just look at the cut and paste that many provide here. I don't think more than 2 that post here supporting the CAGW have had a thought of their own.

Look at the X persons tribute to AGW support. Total deception and rubbish, but cut and pasted from the training site accordingly. Do you think it/he/she or other, did it on their own? I just have to laugh at it sometimes.

So many well trained, trainees from such indoctrinated regurgitators as represented on this blog.

And many think the Borg was just a SyFy thought from Gene. It, as many other things he brought to the future, is more real that most think. Just look in this blog on any day of the week.

The fallacy has been exposed and the empire is in demise. LOL!!!


Misdirection? Seriously?!?! All I did was show a more current article by the exact same author as the one in your link. How is this a misdirection? Perhaps it is merely an inconvenient truth for you to endure, yet again?

If he did not do the research, then why did you use him as a source in your link? LOL! He is the author of both articles. Yours and mine. Should you wish to provide a link to the ones that did the actual research, then why did you not do so? I would have responded in kind. Yet, another inconvenient truth!

"Just look at the cut and paste that many provide here." - Yes, I did see that you cut and pasted from the URL address bar of another website for your post. The URL address bar is also known as the Command bar (IE) and the Navigation Tool bar (FF). I, personally, always use the "copy and paste" method. There is absolutely no need to "cut" from the URL address bar. Why would you want to do so?

"learn how to learn" - Here you go with that most ridiculous statement again! If you do not have the ability to learn already, then how do you learn how to learn? You can certainly fine tune your learning skills but, how can one learn how to learn? You cannot learn anything unless you already have the ability to learn. I cannot even think of a good analogy for that one! Die, so that you know how to die?????? Live, so that you know how to live?????? Breath, so that you know how to breath????? Have a bowel movement so that you know how to have a bowel movement?????

Should you be the product of a formal education then I believe you have very strong grounds for multiple lawsuits! I will even testify on your behalf! Should I be you, I think I would start with my first grade teacher and work all the way up the line!

Ossqss, you are becoming too weird, even for me. Normally I relish in the weird but, you and George Noory take weird to the extreme. AH! A good analogy? Be weird so that you know how to be weird? ... Where is the shepherd? At least he has some sense!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
150. Ossqss
3:44 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


The author of that article is Quirin Schiemeier and he wrote that in 2007.

Here is a more recent article by Quirin Schiemier, December 4, 2011 - Three-quarters of climate change is man-made - Well, he is about 3/4 correct, this time.


Ah yes! You continue to do a great job of misdirection,,,, as usual.

What does the author of an article have to do with the science? What a sorry methodology you pursue. It shows.

Did he do the research? NO

Did you understand what the research was actually about? Obviously not.

Just as I pointed out. Learn how to learn and there is no substitute for formal education to learn how to do such.

Just look at the cut and paste that many provide here. I don't think more than 2 that post here supporting the CAGW have had a thought of their own.

Look at the X persons tribute to AGW support. Total deception and rubbish, but cut and pasted from the training site accordingly. Do you think it/he/she or other, did it on their own? I just have to laugh at it sometimes.

So many well trained, trainees from such indoctrinated regurgitators as represented on this blog.

And many think the Borg was just a SyFy thought from Gene. It, as many other things he brought to the future, is more real that most think. Just look in this blog on any day of the week.

The fallacy has been exposed and the empire is in demise. LOL!!!



Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8188
149. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:07 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting overwash12:
I am talking about the main issues, Same sex marriage,abortion... That people keep making a big deal about that have no bearing on how a country is to be run! If you extinguish all that tell lies we would have no politicians!


Correct, overwash12. I would feel the desperate need to start with the politicians. I certainly may as well start with those that tell the biggest lies and do so on a more frequent basis. After that, I am starting with my ex sister-in-law. From there? Who knows? ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
148. iceagecoming
2:24 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Ice-breaking Russian ship gets OK to deliver fuel to Nome

Friday, December 30, 2011 9:10 p.m. CST

By Yereth Rosen

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (Reuters) - An ice-breaking Russian tanker won an exemption from U.S. maritime law on Friday allowing it to deliver fuel to the isolated Alaska city of Nome, the state's two U.S. senators announced.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted a Jones Act waiver to the Russian ship, the Renda, which is scheduled to deliver diesel fuel and gasoline to the Alaska city of 3,600 people, the senators said.

Senator Mark Begich said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano responded to pleas for a Jones Act exception to help alleviate what could be a serious winter fuel shortage.

"This is great news for Nome residents who either faced a long, cold winter or soaring energy costs," Begich said in a written statement.

"This decision also recognizes Nome's key strategic position adjacent to the Bering Straits as well as the Coast Guard's need for maintained facilities to monitor our northern border," he said.

If successful, the voyage will provide the first ever marine delivery of petroleum products to a western Alaska city in winter, officials said.

Nome, which has no outside road connections and relies on marine vessels or aircraft for shipment of goods, missed its last regular fall delivery of 1.6 million gallons of fuel.

The problem was attributed to bad weather, including a severe November storm that was considered the worst to hit northwestern Alaska in decades.

With the onset of winter, Nome is now ice-locked, Begich said. The U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker Healy, which is more powerful than the Russian ship, is scheduled to guide the tanker into Nome, he said.

The Renda is carrying about 1 million gallons of Arctic-grade diesel that was loaded in Korea and is scheduled to pick up 300,000 to 400,000 gallons of gasoline at the Alaska port of Dutch Harbor, said Mark Smith, chief executive of Vitus Marine, the Anchorage-based company that arranged for the Russian ship to make the special delivery.

But in order for any foreign-flagged ship to deliver product from one U.S. port to another, a Jones Act waiver is needed, Begich said.

The Renda is currently about 150 miles south of Attu, the last island in Alaska's Aleutian chain, Smith said. It is expected to reach Dutch Harbor on about January 2, where U.S. Coast Guard safety inspections will be conducted as well as gasoline loading, he said.

The expected date for arrival in Nome is the second week of January, Smith said.

Senator Lisa Murkowski said the Jones Act waiver was an important milestone, but that much more needs to be done to make the delivery a success.

"Today is an important step in providing certainty to the Seward Peninsula region, in terms of heat and affordable heating prices through the winter, but it is only a step. We literally have hundreds of miles to go before resolution," Murkowski said in a statement.

The Renda, owned by the Russian company RIMSCO, is an ice-class vessel certified to travel through four feet of ice. The Healy, the Coast Guard's most powerful icebreaker, has been diverted from its journey to home port in Seattle in order to assist the Renda's delivery.

(Editing by Dan Whitcomb and Peter Bohan)

Link



With the help of the Healy smashing through an estimated 300 miles of ice blocking the way to Nome, the Renda is expected to reach the city in early January, Francis said. If the ships are unable to reach shore, the Renda may use a hose more than a mile long to deliver fuel. Before that can happen, though, the Renda will have to first pass a Coast Guard inspection in Dutch Harbor and a fuel transfer plan will have to be in place, Francis said. Only then will the Renda and Healy set out for Nome, she said. Meantime, the Coast Guard will continue to conduct reconnaissance flights to look for ridges in the sea ice and other characteristics that might make it more difficult to break through, Francis said. Coast Guard C-130s had flown over the ice taking pictures, she said

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/12/24/134084/winte r-fuel-delivery-by-sea-to.html#storylink=cpy


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
147. iceagecoming
2:00 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Citrus growers escape harm from freezing temperatures
BY COURTENAY EDELHART Californian staff writer
cedelhart@bakersfield.com | Wednesday, Dec 28 2011 06:17 PM

Last Updated Wednesday, Dec 28 2011 06:21 PM

Kern County citrus growers dodged a bullet this month, suffering little to no damage to groves despite one of the coldest harvest seasons in years.

Since Nov. 1, Bakersfield has had 19 nights during which temperatures dipped to 32 degrees or lower, according to the National Weather Service. That's the point at which fruit can freeze, causing irreparable harm.

The season included two long stretches of consecutive days of overnight freezes, Dec. 3-11 and Dec. 19-27.

"It's stretches like that, when it's that long, that are just devastating to ag, and those temperatures were just in the urban area of Bakersfield out by Meadows Field. In the outlying areas it was even colder," said National Weather Service Meteorologist Kevin Durfee.

This is a critical time of year when citrus growers are harvesting their fruit. The harvest season generally begins in late summer and continues through the winter.

Growers were aware the cold weather was coming after the National Weather Service issued a freeze warning. Most took precautions.


Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 26 Comments: 1094
146. cyclonebuster
1:19 AM GMT on January 02, 2012
Quoting JupiterKen:
@ cyclonebluster - OK "tutor" us all on your tunnels:

What is the value of F1 and F2?

What is the predicted flow rate? You may express the flow volume per unit area or any other manner of your choosing.

If you cannot provide this basic data, you have zero proof of viability.


F1 at depth is 33 atmospheres at the entrance in cooling phase. In non cooling phase F1 at the entrance is 2 atmospheres. F2 at the surface is 2 atmospheres at the exit. The flow rate is 6 mph at all three locations. The flow rate per unit of volume is dependent upon the area of the the tunnel inlet and tunnel outlet. The flow rate is shown here.

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
145. overwash12
10:14 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I agree with all but the last statement you make, overwash12. The government had better worry about the personal choices of the individual. My choice may be to extinguish all that tell lies. Eventually, I will even have to kill myself. ;-) I may also wish to extract silver from x-ray film at my house. I choose to not tell my neighbors that I will be releasing cyanide gas into the air as a part of this process. But hey! I am only trying to make a little extra money and I not stopping you from doing so, in your own way.
I am talking about the main issues, Same sex marriage,abortion... That people keep making a big deal about that have no bearing on how a country is to be run! If you extinguish all that tell lies we would have no politicians!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
144. Some1Has2BtheRookie
9:58 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting overwash12:
I didn't agree with the last administration's wars and economic policies and certainly don't agree with this one either! My point being,neither one did or is doing anything to correct the problems! You don't fix an economic disaster by increasing the debt fourfold! I am conservative in economics and I don't think the gov't needs to worry about the personal choices of the individual...


I agree with all but the last statement you make, overwash12. The government had better worry about the personal choices of the individual. My choice may be to extinguish all that tell lies. Eventually, I will even have to kill myself. ;-) I may also wish to extract silver from x-ray film at my house. I choose to not tell my neighbors that I will be releasing cyanide gas into the air as a part of this process. But hey! I am only trying to make a little extra money and I not stopping you from doing so, in your own way.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4764
143. overwash12
9:36 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:



Today's regime? 'They' do nothing? Most of the problems are due to the last 'regime'. Crying about being blamed is a feeble retort to actual guilt. It's like a murderer saying 'oh, sure, blame the murderer'. Like it or not, the current regime inherited not only an economic nightmare but a set of politicians that make lega nord look professional.

To wit, look at the crybaby 'right' crying about global warming being a liberal plot to take over world. These are the 'adults' mind you.
I didn't agree with the last administration's wars and economic policies and certainly don't agree with this one either! My point being,neither one did or is doing anything to correct the problems! You don't fix an economic disaster by increasing the debt fourfold! I am conservative in economics and I don't think the gov't needs to worry about the personal choices of the individual...
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
142. Patrap
5:10 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
There are now 354 Day's until the 2012 Winter Solstice.

Enjoy your Sunday.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 427 Comments: 129409
141. greentortuloni
5:03 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting overwash12:
Like today's regime,they do nothing when they are in charge and nothing when they aren't! Oh,except blame the right wings for the problems.



Today's regime? 'They' do nothing? Most of the problems are due to the last 'regime'. Crying about being blamed is a feeble retort to actual guilt. It's like a murderer saying 'oh, sure, blame the murderer'. Like it or not, the current regime inherited not only an economic nightmare but a set of politicians that make lega nord look professional.

To wit, look at the crybaby 'right' crying about global warming being a liberal plot to take over world. These are the 'adults' mind you.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
140. NeapolitanFan
2:46 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Where's the warming? SSTs have fallen in the past millenium even with "dreaded" CO2 increasing substantially:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
139. overwash12
1:58 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting greentortuloni:


Funny also that it is the liberals who, by and large, are the one's who want to do something to fix global warming. It is the conservatives who complain about the problem being too tough, that the solutions are not practical, how it will take away their lifestyle... whine whine whine, parasite parasite parasite = today's conservatives.
Like today's regime,they do nothing when they are in charge and nothing when they aren't! Oh,except blame the right wings for the problems.
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1497
138. JupiterKen
12:16 PM GMT on January 01, 2012
@ cyclonebluster - OK "tutor" us all on your tunnels:

What is the value of F1 and F2?

What is the predicted flow rate? You may express the flow volume per unit area or any other manner of your choosing.

If you cannot provide this basic data, you have zero proof of viability.
Member Since: May 3, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 306
137. greentortuloni
8:17 AM GMT on January 01, 2012
Quoting overwash12:
One reason is the vast majority of the non-producers fit into the liberal's mind-set! Look at the majority of the wall street protesters,they be bitchin' cause they want somebody to hand them everything on a silver platter instead of actually workin' for a livin'! Is that misinformed enough for y'all! Have a wonderful New Year!!! Love everybody!


Funny also that it is the liberals who, by and large, are the one's who want to do something to fix global warming. It is the conservatives who complain about the problem being too tough, that the solutions are not practical, how it will take away their lifestyle... whine whine whine, parasite parasite parasite = today's conservatives.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220

Viewing: 187 - 137

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.