This is a continuation of a remarkable thread that has now received 10,000 comments running to well over a million words. Unfortunately its size has become a problem and this is the reason for the move.

The history of the New Statesman thread goes back to December 2007 when Dr David Whitehouse wrote a very influential article for that publication posing the question Has Global Warming Stopped? Later, Mark Lynas, the magazine’s environment correspondent, wrote a furious reply, Has Global Warming Really Stopped?

By the time the New Statesman closed the blogs associated with these articles they had received just over 3000 comments, many from people who had become regular contributors to a wide-ranging discussion of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change, its implications for public policy and the economy. At that stage I provided a new home for the discussion at Harmless Sky.

Comments are now closed on the old thread. If you want to refer to comments there then it is easy to do so by left-clicking on the comment number, selecting ‘Copy Link Location’ and then setting up a link in the normal way.

Here’s to the next 10,000 comments.

Useful links:

Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with 1289 comments.

Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.

The original Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs thread is here with 10,000 comments.

4,522 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs: Number 2”

Pages: « 179 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 8991 » Show All

  1. 4151
    Brute Says:

    Do you guys know about this?

    Agenda 21

    http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

  2. 4152
    tonyb Says:

    Brute 4151

    I posted a pile of stuff about Agenda 21 some 18 months ago. See link 16 onwards in my article here;

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/crossing-the-rubicon-an-advert-to-change-hearts-and-minds/#comments

    tonyb

  3. 4153
    James P Says:

    I see that Mark Lynas, the man who helped trigger this entire thread, is having difficulty with the IPCC. Welcome to the Dark Side, Mr L… :-)

    http://www.marklynas.org/2011/06/new-ipcc-error-renewables-report-conclusion-was-dictated-by-greenpeace/

  4. 4154
    Brute Says:

    On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/16/on-the-hijacking-of-the-american-meteorological-society-ams/#more-41788

  5. 4155
    Ian (stargazer) Walsh Says:

    Hi Guys…A blast from the past…. I took part as ‘Stargazer’ on the ‘original’ two threads.

    I see that allot of the ‘original’ posters are still here, Brute, Tonyb, etc.

    I just had to say OMG about Mark Linas…. I just hope that he can give us enough time to see that we do indeed have a point (several infact) to make

    And to wish Mark a ‘revealing journey’

  6. 4156
    tonyb Says:

    Hi Ian

    It’s interesting to watch Mark going through the sceptical thought processes. He appears a straightforward person to me who despite his background never seems to have examined the science properly.

    He even admitted he just accepted the hockey stick at face value because he wanted to believe the message it gave out.

    Lets see if Mark continues his journey

    tonyb

  7. 4157
    Brute Says:

    REPORT: Climate change ‘researchers’ caught padding sea level data…

    http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/

  8. 4158
    manacker Says:

    Welcome back, Stargazer.

    Max

  9. 4159
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    The article you cited on the latest red herring on sea level shows that the trend among the climate “faithful” now appears to be defensive rather than offensive.

    Back in the heady days of “rapid” warming and awards of Nobel Peace Prizes and an Oscar, everything was rolling along beautifully.

    But then all those thermometers, even the ones next to AC exhausts and asphalt parking lots, started showing that the warming had stopped!

    Even worse, the newly installed comprehensive ARGO measurements showed that the ocean had cooled instead of warming since they were installed in 2003!

    At the same time satellite and radiosonde measurements have shown that the “fingerprint” of greenhouse warming, the tropospheric hot spot, is simply not there!

    Now even the extremely dicey satellite altimetry sea level measurements have shown a slowdown in the rate of rise. Oops!

    So, for the temperature, we now have “cooling from human aerosols is masking the underlying GH warming from human CO2? (Hmm…data, please).

    In the case of the ocean cooling, there was no real explanation, except at first to say that previous measurements had a “warming bias”, which might make the ARGO measurements look like cooling (OUCH!) and then to write it off as a “speed bump”.

    The missing “hot spot” is salvaged by stating that the thermometers were off, so let’s use wind shear data to reconstruct temperatures that will again show a hot spot (HUH?).

    For the sea level readings that are no longer playing along we now have this new “isostatic red herring”.
    The mind boggles at the imagination displayed by the faithful in defending their dogma against the facts.

    Is it any wonder that rational skeptics become even more skeptical?

    Max

    PS Too bad that Peter is no longer with us to comment on these developments.

  10. 4160
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    It may interest you to know that IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri has rejected the recommendation to include a conflict of interest policy for authors of the new IPCC AR5 report.
    http://climateaudit.org/2011/06/18/pachauri-no-conflict-of-interest-policy-for-ar5/#more-13886

    Max

  11. 4161
    Brute Says:

    Max,

    I believe that Peter Martin is now as disgusted with the warmists scientists as we have been all along.

    He’s realized that he has been duped for all this time and his pride will not allow him to admit that he’s been hoodwinked.

    I’ve been reading this morning about the UK removing two thirds of their money from the Eurozone. There are a myriad of reasons behind the collapse of the Euro, but as someone who lives there……I wanted your sense of the cause(s).

    I’d have thought all of those green jobs would have increased revenues across the board and created a new “green prosperity” across the land. I’ve heard very little about how green technology has saved the day (sarcasm).

    Your thoughts?

  12. 4162
    Brute Says:

    Max,

    RE: 4160…………conflict of interest

    Mrs. Brute and I watched a James Bond movie last night starring the most recent actor to play 007 (Craig?).

    Anyway, the villain was this guy/organization that was buying up land in third world countries under the guise of “saving the environment”…………….Surreptitiously he was locking up vast tracts of land (calling them eco-parks) and clandestinely drilling for oil and profiting from the logging/mineral rights.

    The writers must have used Al Gore/Pachauri and other real life enviro-saviors as a model to develop this character.

    The most poignant scenes were when fawning do-gooder Liberals fell for this big-lie………….donating vast sums of money to fund the “enviro-park” movement.

    Life imitates art…………..(or is it the other way around?)

  13. 4163
    peter geany Says:

    Brute I think you will find it is the UK’s private Banks removing their money, or put more realistically they are reducing their exposure. They can’t help but do this, as it is obvious to all but our Politicians that the Euro is finished in its current form.

  14. 4164
    Brute Says:

    Yes, Peter……….this is the story that I was reading.

    UK banks abandon eurozone over Greek default fears

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financialcrisis/8584442/UK-banks-abandon-eurozone-over-Greek-default-fears.html

  15. 4165
    Brute Says:

    EU euro Debt Crisis – Lending merry-go-round – Overton Window

  16. 4166
    tempterrain Says:

    Brute,

    So the UK bankers have removed 2/3 of their money from the Eurozone and that means that everyone else should now realise that climate scientists are worthy of nothing but their disgust?

    Well, if you don’t mind, I think you need to find someone else to discuss these kind of issues with. Someone who thinks that banks such as Barclays allow their financial decisions to be made by the Hadley Climate reasearch centre, and they, in turn, ask Barclays staff to write their climate research papers.

  17. 4167
    Brute Says:

    Gee Pete, (Tempterrain), you seem somewhat “miffed”.

    Things aren’t working out very well for you and your enviro-socialist buddies…….

    Hey, maybe you can explain why Greece can’t meet its electrical consumption requirements.

    Maybe you can regale us all with your pontificant explanation of why the “free” electricity hasn’t met the Greek people’s electrical needs.

    You remember don’t you? The “free” electricity that falls from the Utopian Socialist skies.

    Greece faces power outages due to austerity strike

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_GREECE_FINANCIAL_CRISIS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-06-20-06-03-47

  18. 4168
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    The U.S. Congressional letter to Ban Ki Moon asking him to use his influence to implement a “rigorous conflict of interest policy” for the IPCC, as was recommended by the IAC review of the IPCC in 2010, is posted over at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc. blog.
    http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/061711_Broun%20Letter%20to%20UN%20re%20IPCC%20Conflict%20of%20Interest.pdf

    This comes after the IPCC leadership under its Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, rejected the implementation of such a policy at the recent IPCC session in Abu Dhabi in May.

    One should read the attachments to the letter to find out why IPCC does not want this policy implemented.

    Max

  19. 4169
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    I’ll have to catch up on the latest 007 flic. Thanks for tip.

    Yeah. Things really do not look good for the “dangerous AGW” crowd.

    More revelations of bogus info in IPCC reports surface, just as Pachauri rejects a conflict of interests policy for the IPCC.

    It almost looks like an intentional self-destruction.

    And the “lack of warming” continues with 2011 almost half over, despite CO2 increase to record levels.

    The question now is, “will IPCC be disbanded or simply become totally irrelevant?” (And, “when will this happen?”)

    Max

  20. 4170
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    Re 4161

    My thoughts on the Euro are two-fold.

    Living in Switzerland it’s great to cross over into France or Germany for shopping with a Euro at Fr.1.20 (when it was Fr. 1.60 just a bit more than a year ago).

    On the other hand, EU citizens are moving to Switzerland in waves, because of the higher salaries here. Switzerland signed the “open borders” agreement with the EU a few years ago, so we are getting construction workers from eastern European EU countries and doctors, economists, professors, etc. from Germany and France. Despite this influx, unemployment here remains below 5%.

    The influx has caused a housing boom, which locals fear may become a “bubble”.

    The export industry here is hurting though, as is the tourist sector.

    But everyone I talk to here is very happy that Switzerland did not vote to join the EU a few years ago and has resisted political pressure (mostly from the left parties) to reconsider joining, let along being part of the Euro. Many citizens of all 4 bordering countries have expressed a desire to join Switzerland (rather than the other way around).

    The EU powers that be (led by Germany and France) have just decided to hold off transferring the latest piece of a 100 billion Euro bail-out package to Greece until they see real signs of economic reforms there (reducing costs, privatizing government-owned businesses, etc.) – meanwhile the Greeks, led by the unions, are demonstrating against cost-cutting reforms, rioting and smashing windows, etc. and the socialist PM, Papandreou, is caught between a rock and a hard spot.

    Under pressure from the EU last year (at the time of the first “Greek crisis”), the Swiss National Bank spent almost 100 billion Francs buying Euros at Fr. 1.50 to “help out” (that’s almost two times the total annual federal budget of Switzerland). This decision is now being questioned, as it has obviously not worked and people are asking why Switzerland should be bailing out the EU in the first place.

    So you see that, while not directly impacted here by the latest Euro crisis, there will undoubtedly be an indirect impact if it gets much worse.

    Max

    .

  21. 4171
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    Re 4161 –part 2

    You asked if I knew the causes for the Greek crisis.

    I am no expert on this, but here is one analysis of this, based on what I have been able to read here.

    Over the years Greece (the poorest EU member) benefited from EU membership and the Euro, with rapidly increasing wages and salaries, generous retirement packages, bloated government bureaucracies and government-owned businesses. As was the case in Spain and Portugal, there seemed to be a race to “catch up” with the richer member nations, such as Germany and France.

    But Greece has always had deficits in its balance of payments, with imports more than twice the value of exports and, most recently a trade imbalance of around 15 billion Euros per year.

    With the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the USA in September 2008, most nations (including Greece) gave large government guarantees – or bailouts – to their own backs to prevent a ripple effect. (Switzerland did the same for UBS, for example.) In doing this, the already bloated Greek government became a major owner of all the risky deals hidden in the banks’ balance sheets. The government also handed out stimulus packages to try to jump-start the economy (as was also done unsuccessfully in the USA). Of course, the economy did not recover and the already overextended government became unable to pull itself out of the crisis without external help.

    So, in summary, Greece chronically spent more than it earned, its government and government-owned enterprises grew rapidly, as did wages and salaries, and when the international financial crisis and resulting economic slump caused by the Lehman collapse hit, the Greek government did all the wrong things to make matters even worse.

    That’s just my assessment based on what I can read here.

    Max

  22. 4172
    Brute Says:

    Max,

    The Socialist’s appetite for other people’s property/wealth is as deep as the Mariana Trench.

    The Liberals in the US Congress are using similar language regarding the US debt limit today as Hansen/Gore use in their global warming histrionic fits. They claim irreparable damage and looming catastrophe if the amount of money they are permitted to borrow is not increased.

    The thing is, the “deadline” passed without incident a couple of months ago. The new “deadline” is August 1st (it seems the primary doomsayer, Treasury Secretary Timmy “Turbo Tax” Geithner, seems to have recently “found” some “extra” money to keep us going until then).

    Funny thing that………….I’ve always wondered how there can be a “debt limit” when every time they reach the “limit”, the congress increases it.

    No matter the amount, the Liberals will always spend more……..it’ll never be enough to satisfy their voracious appetite to waste in addition to bribing their cronies to vote themselves gifts from the treasury.

  23. 4173
    tempterrain Says:

    The problem with you right wing types is, generally speaking, you are too fixated on money whereas in reality it is nothing more than a piece of paper , or even a binary digit in a computer database. You’ve got to ask yourself just what money actually is and what it is for.

    Essentially its no different than the points that are used in baby sitting circles. The idea behind these circles is that children are looked after, enabling their parents to go out, rather than for any one individual or couple to accumulate a huge amount of points. Obviously, if that were to happen and none of the other parents had any points left in their account it would make sense for the club to create and hand out new ones to all circle members. Otherwise, even though babies still needed to be looked after and sitters were willing to do the sitting, there would be no available points to enable the system to work.

    A unit of currency is just another variable in the workings of a country’s or world’s economy.

  24. 4174
    Brute Says:

    The problem with you right wing types is, generally speaking, you are too fixated on money whereas in reality it is nothing more than a piece of paper , or even a binary digit in a computer database.

    That’s why I exchange my “pieces of paper” for commodities.

    Speaking of worthless paper……………how is the carbon credit scam going Pete?

    How much air do you own at this point?

  25. 4175
    manacker Says:

    PeterM

    You commented (4173) to a discussion Brute and I were having about the causes and current status of the Greek financial crisis:

    The problem with you right wing types is, generally speaking, you are too fixated on money whereas in reality it is nothing more than a piece of paper , or even a binary digit in a computer database. You’ve got to ask yourself just what money actually is and what it is for.

    The Greek financial crisis is primarily about “money”. Of course, it is also about a Greek government (under both parties) that has chronically overspent and built up a vast bureaucracy, a society that has allowed chronic corruption at all levels, a handful of superrich Greeks that do not pay their share of taxes, etc. (and a whole bunch of other social and political factors), but the primary issue is about “money” (or lack thereof). [At least the Greeks can’t blame “climate change”!]

    But in a sense you are right. “Money” alone will not solve the Greek problem. Unless the Greeks carry out the (probably painful) reforms, the next financial injections will not do much good.

    Max

  26. 4176
    Brute Says:

    I’ve read that “many” Greeks refuse or somehow find loopholes to avoid paying taxes.

    Has anyone given any thought as to why that would be?

    Possibly they have become disgusted with a government that robs them of their wealth only to “redistribute” it to indolent lay abouts that refuse to work and provide for themselves?

    I had a guy that I caught stealing from me (my company). I put a stop to it.

    Maybe the average, hard working Greek citizen is simply tired of having his property stolen………..

  27. 4177
    tempterrain Says:

    Brute,

    Every group can accuse other groups of theft. Proudhon famously said “Property is theft”. I would suggest that most sensible people, these days, would reserve the term for law breakers. So, while no-one likes paying tax, if it’s decided by governments who derive their legitimacy from democratic elections that certain tax rates apply its for everyone to comply with the rules.

    The Germans are good at rules and compliance. The Greeks less so, it would seem. I don’t have that much experience of the country, but we do read even doctors there can ask for their fees in cash. If that’s true its they who are the thieves breaking the law, and , yes, Max is right. That issue does need to be tackled.

  28. 4178
    James P Says:

    yes, Max is right

    Have you framed that yet, Max? :-)

  29. 4179
    manacker Says:

    James P

    I fell off my chair.

    Max

  30. 4180
    Brute Says:

    Proudhon famously said “Property is theft”.

    That’s great Pete……..are you now idolizing Anarchists? (Worse still he was French).

    Tell ya what Pete……..you “donate” your home to the government if that’s what you believe. Maybe they’ll gather up a half dozen bums to “share” your home. You guys can “collectively” be professional malcontents.

    We’ll see how fast you become a property rights advocate.

  31. 4181
    manacker Says:

    Brute

    Looks like your Supreme Court has concluded that the jury is still out on CO2 and climate change:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/24/the-supremes-recommend-the-supreme-skeptic/

    ”The court, we caution, endorses no particular view of the complicated issues related to carbon-dioxide emissions and climate change,” reads the 8-0 decision, delivered by the court’s acclaimed liberal, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Makes sense to me.

    Max

  32. 4182
    tempterrain Says:

    Brute,

    The French and American revolutions, (didn’t they help you lot out in that?) were almost contemporaneous, so you do share a similar sort of republican history which I’m quite envious of. I’d be much happier celebrating something like the fall of the Bastille that Liz’s birthday. We do get a holiday for that in Australia still. And didn’t the French make that nice statue you have in NY bay?

    So what the big problem with the French for you guys?

    BTW Proudhon did say he was an Anarchist, but if you actually look at what he was arguing for, that doesn’t quite mean what I think most people would think it meant.

  33. 4183
    manacker Says:

    PeterM and Brute

    We don’t have a Frenchman on this blog to defend himself, but as a “neutral Swiss” let me comment.

    The American Revolutionary War and the later French Revolution had similar origins: both were revolts against oppressive, autocratic monarchies.

    Both occurred during the “age of reason”, but the American Revolution was able to withstand efforts of being taken over by radical extremists, which the French Revolution was unable to do. As a result, there was no “reign of terror” in the early American confederation of states. Unlike France, which has always been ruled centrally (and is to this day), the individual American states (originally separate colonies) were much more powerful than the federal government. The US Constitution was a masterpiece (still is, after all these years) – the French Revolution developed no equivalent document. There was no group of leaders in France of the same caliber as the US “founding fathers”, such as Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin, Madison and the others. There was also no “Bonaparte” in America, who later crowned himself emperor “Napoleon” (Washington declined to become a “king” – let alone “emperor”).

    The fact that pre-Revolutionary France helped the nascent USA in its struggle against Britain was simply an extension of a centuries-old French-British conflict (my enemy’s enemy = my friend).

    So there were many differences (including luck and distance from the seat of the monarchy) that made the US revolution turn out basically differently than the one in France.

    Brute may have different opinions on this, but those are my brief thoughts, having read a bit about both revolutions.

    Max

  34. 4184
    Brute Says:

    Max,

    I’m impressed by your knowledge of US history.

    The American revolution was a walk in the park in comparison to the sadistic orgy of blood that was the French revolution……….mob rule……..

    Yes, at the time there was consideration of making Washington king………wisely, he declined.

    They were great men of character……..

  35. 4185
    Brute Says:

    Must be a fluke or a “regional anomaly”…….(chuckle)……..

    Just curious Pete…….does global warming causes both weaker AND stronger hurricanes?

    Does global warming cause more frequent AND less frequent hurricane occurances?

    REPORT: Global hurricane activity at historical lows…

    http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

  36. 4186
    Brute Says:

    ‘Asia pollution’ blamed for halt in warming…

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/04/us-climate-sulphur-idUSTRE7634IQ20110704

    We’ve come full circle……

  37. 4187
    Brute Says:

    A peer reviewed admission that “global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/

  38. 4188
    Brute Says:

    Mark Lynas: ‘You mustn’t believe the lies of the Green zealots. And I should know – I was one’ — ‘What I believed about env. issues had little, if any, basis in science’

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010981/You-mustnt-believe-lies-Green-zealots-And-I-know–I-one.html

  39. 4189
    peter geany Says:

    Brace Brace Brace DAGW is about to crash !!!!!! A mini ice age is coming for 50 years. We now know this as the Metro (tacky give away paper many commuters into London read each morning) is telling us we are in for 50 years of server winters worse that the last 3.

    It doesn’t matter what these morons are told, we either are going to fry, or freeze. Can they not see our climate will be roughly the same but with some extra cold bits and possibly fewer extra warm bits, just as all my life it has been the same with some extra warm bits and fewer really cold bits during the 90′s.

    Brute, it would be nice to have PeterM’s take on all this but I guess it was always going to be difficult for those of his ilk once some of the real scientists (many of whom had been holding back out of some sort of false sense of duty perhaps) had to bow to what has been obvious to most for many years.

    The real battle now is with our useless politicians, who in the main are only interested in themselves and will only backtrack, no matter how obvious if it causes no loss of face, a big problem for the likes of the Lib Dims and especially for our dopey PM David Cameron who has made a big deal out of climate change.

    Also of note is a couple who are suing a wind turbine operator over noise as they have had to move out of their house. Interesting times.

  40. 4190
    T.o.D. Says:

    There´s something i´ve been wondering about. It´s not about co2, although the greenhouse effect would be a factor in the end result. My question is simply this; how much HEAT is put into the atmosphere every day by human technology? All the electric circuits have resistance, and so get HOT. Most IC engines are barely 30% efficient, and all the wasted energy is lost as HEAT to the atmosphere ( or the sea in the case of some boat engines…) through the radiators and exhaust gas. How much oil do we burn every day? If something like 70% of that energy goes to nothing more than wasted HEAT because of inefficient engine design, how much HEAT does that equate to, HEAT WHICH GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE ATMOSPHERE EVERY DAY AS A RESULT OF HUMAN TECHNOLOGY ??

    All our machines get HOT. we have LOTS of machines, LOTS of horrifically inefficient ENGINES… seems to me that all equates to LOTS OF HEAT resulting from human activity… of course this wouldn´t be a problem if it was all radiated into space, but if there is an atmospheric greenhouse effect then it seems to me that we are almost certainly warming the atmosphere, directly, with ALL our inefficient technology.

    Maybe it´s insignificant compared to the amount of energy received from the sun, but i would be interested in the numbers if anyone has them… How much oil/petrol/diesel/coal/uranium/plutonium is burned every day and how much HEAT ENERGY does this release into the atmosphere? How much electricity is consumed every day and how much HEAT is produced by all the resistance in all the electronic circuitry using it? Even electricity from solar and wind farms is going to end up heating resistors, and so heating the atmosphere eventually…

  41. 4191
    Brute Says:

    T.o.D.,

    I suggest that you study heat transfer/thermodynamics and then consider the scale of the earth, the sun and the universe.

    The heat produced by cars/factories/television sets………or the heat produced in the history cars/factories/television sets wouldn’t even register in comparison to the immensity.

    As has been stated above, “scientists” now admit (begrudgingly) that human activity (human generated heat/CO2) are dwarfed in comparison to the natural processes (although they will still demand buckets full of taxpayer monies to “study” the prospects).

  42. 4192
    T.o.D. Says:

    @ Brute.

    cheers for the response… i do have a basic understanding of thermodynamics and heat transfer… and as i said in my question, i´m aware that the heat generated by human activity is probably insignificant compared to solar input and geological output… but i would still like to know the approximate numbers, if anyone has them… math was never my favorite pastime but numbers are nice to think about sometimes… it would be good to have some idea of the actual ratio of man made heat to solar/geo heat effecting the atmosphere on a daily basis, even if it is only a best guess… insignificant maybe, but interesting nonetheless… so if anyone can provide some estimates or links to sites that can….

  43. 4193
    peter geany Says:

    T.o.D Firstly I echo Brute’s comment on the scale of human active as compared to the earths energy budget. I would just add that we could burn all the oil and coal in one year and it would still make very little difference to the worlds energy budget.

    As an engineer I would just like to set the record straight on your view of horribly inefficient engines. Some modern Diesel engines run at 60% efficiency. Thats not horrible. Modern heavy duty truck engines as well as being mandated as almost zero emissions (ignoring CO2 that along with H2O is the byproduct of combustion) are around 50% efficient. More efficiency could easily be obtained if our regulators used a modicum of intelligence when mandating harmful emission levels, rather than the arbitrary cuts they make every three years that have departed from any rational relationship to public health.

    In terms of hydrocarbon combusted it is often more efficient in real terms to power your trains by diesels than electricity off the grid, especially if it comes from gas and coal. Electrification was always implemented when designed to either provide more power and speed or shift harmful emissions from cities to out of town power stations. It was never for reasons of efficiency which is a recent invention of the green movement and Politicians.

  44. 4194
    T.o.D. Says:

    @peter geany

    even if you´re right in saying that burning ALL the coal and oil in a year wouldn´t make a difference to the worlds temperature, i have to point out that it almost certainly would make the place stink for a while, at least… but anyway…
    turbo diesels are my engine of choice, the only ones with even a half decent efficiency… but to my mind 60% isn´t all that great… not really… and it makes me laugh when people claim that electric cars have zero emissions… what about the power station making the electricity? eh? but you already know this so maybe i´ll just shut up now… would still like to know those totals though… just out of interest you know… guess i´ll have to dig out the numbers from somewhere myself…

  45. 4195
    manacker Says:

    Brute, T.o.D. and Peter Geany

    An interesting thing about the Kaufmann et al. study (beside the fact that it is based on very sketchy data and a lot of even dicier assumptions) is that it really does not give aerosols (Chinese or otherwise) that much weighting regarding the recent “lack of warming” (i.e. observed slight cooling).

    As I read it, aerosols are given a radiative forcing of -0.06 W/m^2 while changes in solar activity are given -0.18 W/m^2, or 3x the radiative forcing of the aerosols.

    So the Chinese may not be able to keep us from frying by polluting the air their citizens have to breathe – at least not without the help of the sun.

    Max

  46. 4196
    peter geany Says:

    T.o.D I think you will find the actual figures rather elussive to find, with a wide variation. I’m not prepared to quote any as a result. I don’t think there has been a serious attempt to update the numbers as it is debateable how useful they would be given they are so vast.

  47. 4197
    manacker Says:

    peter geany

    I have some recent estimates from the World Energy Council on the remaining “proven reserves” of coal, oil and natural gas as well as the “inferred possible total resources in place” for each.

    Based on these figures I have estimated that burning all the “inferred possible total resources in place” would increase atmospheric CO2 levels to a bit more than 1,000 ppmv (from today’s 390 ppmv).

    On this basis and using the observed warming from 1850 to today, the increase in CO2 from 1850 to today, together with the IPCC assumptions a) that the CO2/temperature relation is logarithmic, b) that all other anthropogenic forcing components beside CO2 (aerosols, other GHGs, land use changes, other surface albedo changes, etc.) cancel one another out, and c) that natural forcing (solar) was only 7% of the total, one arrives at a warming of 2C from today until all fossil fuels are consumed.

    I can show you this calculation, if you are interested.

    I have not calculated the total net energy that is involved with a 2C average global temperature rise, but this could be estimated.

    The amount of energy released from burning all the fossil fuels could also be estimated.

    I’ll see if I can come up with something in the next day or so.

    Max

  48. 4198
    James P Says:

    T.o.D.

    “Maybe it´s insignificant compared to the amount of energy received from the sun”

    I think it is. I don’t have all the figures, but on a clear day at middle latitudes you can reckon on at least 1kW/sq.m from the sun, or a Gigawatt per sq.km, or 240TW (240 x 10^12 watts) falling on the UK on a sunny day. Say there are a million vehicles on UK roads, on average, at any one time, and say they generate roughly 30kW each – that equates to 30GW, or 30 x 10^9 watts, which is 1/8000 of the sun’s input. Power stations produce up to 60GW and non-electric heating maybe the same, but even with a few aeroplanes and diesel trains thrown in, we’re unlikely to get anywhere near 0.1% of what the sun can do.

    This is why the old-fashioned ‘black radiator in a glass box’ type solar panels were quite effective, even though I have seen recommendations for solar PV panels to drive auxiliary heaters in water tanks, which must be the most inefficient and expensive way of pre-heating water yet devised! (without a feed-in subsidy, that is).

  49. 4199
    James P Says:

    Peter G

    I thought 50% was about the maximum efficiency for conventional engines? Not sure how that translates to g/Kwh for a given fuel, but I’m sure you’ll put me right!

  50. 4200
    James P Says:

    Kwh = kWh (!)

Pages: « 179 80 81 82 83 [84] 85 86 87 88 8991 » Show All

Leave a Reply

*Required


eight + = 13

© 2011 Harmless Sky Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha