|
Post by slh1234 on Sept 3, 2009 16:44:31 GMT
See where the rubber meets the road there are quite a bit of alternatives to "fossil fuels". But the issue is the current obsession with CO2. Only combustion provides the power efficiently enough to create real power. Anyone hear of gasification? works great, is proven over 100 year old technology, can be done nearly pollution free. But it wont be accepted because it's principle output is CO2. There was a story a while back about a company in Conn. USA that bought a foundry plant, it is electric. They are converting house hold trash into producer gas by heating it in the foundry's crucible. All the heavy metals sink to the bottom of the pot producing a clean burning gas. Mostly comprised of methane, hydrogen, and CO. All are flammable. The gas is collected and burned in a generator. The plant produces an EROI of 40%. Coal, wood, hay, or any organic can be used in a producer gas facility. So fuel would be abundant. I don't know all the details, but I know that Tulsa, Oklahoma tried the trash burning power pont. It didn't work out efficiently, and I think some or all of it has now been shut down. I think it has also been tried in some other cities but has not yet worked out. In the area around Tulsa, since grass grows so thick and tall, I thought maybe sources such as lawn clippings might make a significant source of power, but others on here have disagreed stating that it still lacks the power density to replace much of the power requirements. I'll let them address those points again.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 3, 2009 16:51:26 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Sept 3, 2009 18:32:45 GMT
More on the DTR variations from the IPCC AR4 report: You'll notice that the above excerpt refers to five studies within two paragraphs on a very specific aspect of climate change. The IPCC report summarizes the results of thousands of studies on climate change, which overwhelmingly support the AGW hypothesis. There are studies of satellite measurements showing an increase in the atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands between 1970 and 1998, studies showing an increase in the amount of down-dwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse effect, studies detailling the amount of forcing from the sun, volcanos, pollution as well as greenhouse gasses, and thousands of studies detailing the impacts of the warming on the oceans, ice sheets, atmospheric circulation, biological ranges and changes in seasons. You really have to be in denial to cherry-pick a finding or two, ignore the explanations for it and then state that it overturns the findings of thousands of other studies. This is great. Proving that the cosmic effect on cloud formation is very valid. Ah, no. Perhaps you aren't a native english speaker and misunderstood this. This is about the effect of air pollution on the amount of sunlight reaching the ground. It has nothing to do with the cosmic ray cloud formation hypothesis, which has yet gain ground in the scientific community because the evidence to support it (observed correlation between clouds and amount of cosmic rays) doesn't exist.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 3, 2009 21:03:15 GMT
More on the DTR variations from the IPCC AR4 report: You'll notice that the above excerpt refers to five studies within two paragraphs on a very specific aspect of climate change. The IPCC report summarizes the results of thousands of studies on climate change, which overwhelmingly support the AGW hypothesis. There are studies of satellite measurements showing an increase in the atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands between 1970 and 1998, studies showing an increase in the amount of down-dwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse effect, studies detailling the amount of forcing from the sun, volcanos, pollution as well as greenhouse gasses, and thousands of studies detailing the impacts of the warming on the oceans, ice sheets, atmospheric circulation, biological ranges and changes in seasons. You really have to be in denial to cherry-pick a finding or two, ignore the explanations for it and then state that it overturns the findings of thousands of other studies. From what you are saying here if people water their gardens at the weekend it will show a local weekend pollution effect. I imagine it will also show a weekend higher air temperature effect since there is now more water in the atmosphere and you get higher highs due to local green house effects but may get increased cloud cover elsewhere or cooling of the earth due to the cold water poured on the hot earth. We already know that one of the most natural substances on earth, without which we would all eventually perish is already labeled a pollutant by the 'scientists'. Water cannot be so far away given the devasting ability it has to warm our earth. But apparently if we seek to find information about the cooling ability of dry atmospheres on earth and how that has been observed to have changed as other atmospheric products have changed we are somehow cherry picking data and in denial Or maybe my english skills are just not up to understanding the science revealed by the models?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 3, 2009 21:32:03 GMT
More on the DTR variations from the IPCC AR4 report: You'll notice that the above excerpt refers to five studies within two paragraphs on a very specific aspect of climate change. The IPCC report summarizes the results of thousands of studies on climate change, which overwhelmingly support the AGW hypothesis. There are studies of satellite measurements showing an increase in the atmospheric absorption of longwave radiation in the CO2 absorption bands between 1970 and 1998, studies showing an increase in the amount of down-dwelling longwave radiation from the greenhouse effect, studies detailling the amount of forcing from the sun, volcanos, pollution as well as greenhouse gasses, and thousands of studies detailing the impacts of the warming on the oceans, ice sheets, atmospheric circulation, biological ranges and changes in seasons. You really have to be in denial to cherry-pick a finding or two, ignore the explanations for it and then state that it overturns the findings of thousands of other studies. From what you are saying here if people water their gardens at the weekend it will show a local weekend pollution effect. I imagine it will also show a weekend higher air temperature effect since there is now more water in the atmosphere and you get higher highs due to local green house effects but may get increased cloud cover elsewhere or cooling of the earth due to the cold water poured on the hot earth. We already know that one of the most natural substances on earth, without which we would all eventually perish is already labeled a pollutant by the 'scientists'. Water cannot be so far away given the devasting ability it has to warm our earth. But apparently if we seek to find information about the cooling ability of dry atmospheres on earth and how that has been observed to have changed as other atmospheric products have changed we are somehow cherry picking data and in denial Or maybe my english skills are just not up to understanding the science revealed by the models? The only people in denial anymore are the folks promoting AGW. They are in total denial of emperical evidence and enamoured with the models. Well, the models have tripped on the runway, so stop thinking with your little head and think with the mind that you were blessed with. When someone makes a statement that there was no MWP, one can for sure dismiss the person who made such statement as one who is in la la land somewhere, but certainly not on earth. When one can make a statement that water vapour is not important to be able to model, one is in la la land again. I don't know where those types of folks got their education, but it obviously must have been in Jamacia or some such place. To ignore the largest greenhouse gas, and then ohhhhh....who knows? Shaking head at the deniers of reality.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 3, 2009 23:29:09 GMT
From what you are saying here if people water their gardens at the weekend it will show a local weekend pollution effect. I imagine it will also show a weekend higher air temperature effect since there is now more water in the atmosphere and you get higher highs due to local green house effects but may get increased cloud cover elsewhere or cooling of the earth due to the cold water poured on the hot earth. We already know that one of the most natural substances on earth, without which we would all eventually perish is already labeled a pollutant by the 'scientists'. Water cannot be so far away given the devasting ability it has to warm our earth. But apparently if we seek to find information about the cooling ability of dry atmospheres on earth and how that has been observed to have changed as other atmospheric products have changed we are somehow cherry picking data and in denial Or maybe my english skills are just not up to understanding the science revealed by the models? The only people in denial anymore are the folks promoting AGW. They are in total denial of emperical evidence and enamoured with the models. Well, the models have tripped on the runway, so stop thinking with your little head and think with the mind that you were blessed with. When someone makes a statement that there was no MWP, one can for sure dismiss the person who made such statement as one who is in la la land somewhere, but certainly not on earth. When one can make a statement that water vapour is not important to be able to model, one is in la la land again. I don't know where those types of folks got their education, but it obviously must have been in Jamacia or some such place. To ignore the largest greenhouse gas, and then ohhhhh....who knows? Shaking head at the deniers of reality. Maybe but i doubt the grain yield in your area will suffer much this year www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-38_metric_e.html
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2009 0:01:27 GMT
Radiant: The corn yield will be zero unless these temps can hold for another 50 days. Soybeans.....not sure. They need at least 30 days. Even the wheat...which is normally done by now, only 20% of the crop statewide harvested, and in my area, where it was so wet this spring/early summer, there are no fields harvested as of yet. The biggest concern is that at this time of year,for small grains, is harvest weather shrinks daily.
I do hope that these temps stick around. The warmest spell we have had all summer.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 4, 2009 8:06:55 GMT
Radiant: The corn yield will be zero unless these temps can hold for another 50 days. Soybeans.....not sure. They need at least 30 days. Even the wheat...which is normally done by now, only 20% of the crop statewide harvested, and in my area, where it was so wet this spring/early summer, there are no fields harvested as of yet. The biggest concern is that at this time of year,for small grains, is harvest weather shrinks daily. I do hope that these temps stick around. The warmest spell we have had all summer. OK I agree i was wrong What you say stacks up against various local reports in ND, with quite a few of them reasonably dramatic in terms of insufficient growing days to ripen the crops as forcast for a few months now.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 4, 2009 12:25:28 GMT
Radiant: The corn yield will be zero unless these temps can hold for another 50 days. Soybeans.....not sure. They need at least 30 days. Even the wheat...which is normally done by now, only 20% of the crop statewide harvested, and in my area, where it was so wet this spring/early summer, there are no fields harvested as of yet. The biggest concern is that at this time of year,for small grains, is harvest weather shrinks daily. I do hope that these temps stick around. The warmest spell we have had all summer. OK I agree i was wrong What you say stacks up against various local reports in ND, with quite a few of them reasonably dramatic in terms of insufficient growing days to ripen the crops as forcast for a few months now. Empty bellies will force people to deal with the limitations of the AGW faith that has been adopted with so much fervor.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 4, 2009 12:36:24 GMT
Radiant: The corn yield will be zero unless these temps can hold for another 50 days. Soybeans.....not sure. They need at least 30 days. Even the wheat...which is normally done by now, only 20% of the crop statewide harvested, and in my area, where it was so wet this spring/early summer, there are no fields harvested as of yet. The biggest concern is that at this time of year,for small grains, is harvest weather shrinks daily. I do hope that these temps stick around. The warmest spell we have had all summer. Watch for the Sept. 9 report from Lanworth: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=cdc37f49-a12b-4710-8d92-f41326abfc58 . " With much of the Corn Belt and upper Midwest pollinating late this year, corn yields may be less than many observers, including USDA, have been projecting. That's what Lanworth, a relatively new agricultural analytical firm, has been telling its clients this summer. Lanworth combines frequent satellite imagery with intensive ground verification, knowledge of historic crop rotation and yield patterns, and computer-based simulations to project planted and harvested acreage and yield for corn, beans and wheat in the U.S. and South America. The Chicago-based firm provides clients -- grain companies, ethanol companies, financial funds, large farmers -- with biweekly reports, and it releases summaries to Bloomberg subscribers ahead of USDA's monthly crop production report. " Continued at link.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Sept 11, 2009 2:37:47 GMT
Rebuttal to Greenpeace AGW Claim appears on Fox NewsUnresolved Problems Segment: Climate change and wildfires: Truth or myth? "The environmental group Greenpeace alleges that California wildfires are spreading more quickly because of global warming. The Factor invited AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi to evaluate that claim. 'Over the past two years,' Bastardi said, 'California has been very dry because the Pacific Ocean cooled and the globe cooled. So 'global cooling' is actually a cause of drought in California. Temperatures are coming down over the past ten years.' Bastardi theorized why so many people and governments place unquestioning faith in the "global warming" hypothesis. 'People haven't been confronted with the facts. You have to look at the facts, go arm yourself, and you make the call.' www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=2424#4Added 9/11/09
The interview segment has been posted as of 9/11/09 (courtesy of YouTube) to AccuWeather.com, together with Joe Bastardi's open letter to viewers:global-warming.accuweather.com/ for Friday, September 11, 2009. (Note that Greenpeace declined an offer to participate.)
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Sept 11, 2009 12:47:34 GMT
Radiant: The corn yield will be zero unless these temps can hold for another 50 days. Soybeans.....not sure. They need at least 30 days. Even the wheat...which is normally done by now, only 20% of the crop statewide harvested, and in my area, where it was so wet this spring/early summer, there are no fields harvested as of yet. The biggest concern is that at this time of year,for small grains, is harvest weather shrinks daily. I do hope that these temps stick around. The warmest spell we have had all summer. Watch for the Sept. 9 report from Lanworth: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=cdc37f49-a12b-4710-8d92-f41326abfc58 . " With much of the Corn Belt and upper Midwest pollinating late this year, corn yields may be less than many observers, including USDA, have been projecting. That's what Lanworth, a relatively new agricultural analytical firm, has been telling its clients this summer. Lanworth combines frequent satellite imagery with intensive ground verification, knowledge of historic crop rotation and yield patterns, and computer-based simulations to project planted and harvested acreage and yield for corn, beans and wheat in the U.S. and South America. The Chicago-based firm provides clients -- grain companies, ethanol companies, financial funds, large farmers -- with biweekly reports, and it releases summaries to Bloomberg subscribers ahead of USDA's monthly crop production report. " Continued at link. Any corn harvest updates yet? The obsessions of AGW believers, and their domination of news, means less real information is discussed about things that are actually significant.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Sept 11, 2009 13:01:59 GMT
Watch for the Sept. 9 report from Lanworth: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=cdc37f49-a12b-4710-8d92-f41326abfc58 . " With much of the Corn Belt and upper Midwest pollinating late this year, corn yields may be less than many observers, including USDA, have been projecting. That's what Lanworth, a relatively new agricultural analytical firm, has been telling its clients this summer. Lanworth combines frequent satellite imagery with intensive ground verification, knowledge of historic crop rotation and yield patterns, and computer-based simulations to project planted and harvested acreage and yield for corn, beans and wheat in the U.S. and South America. The Chicago-based firm provides clients -- grain companies, ethanol companies, financial funds, large farmers -- with biweekly reports, and it releases summaries to Bloomberg subscribers ahead of USDA's monthly crop production report. " Continued at link. Any corn harvest updates yet? The obsessions of AGW believers, and their domination of news, means less real information is discussed about things that are actually significant. Just out: www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/free/news/template1&paneContentId=5&paneParentId=70104&product=/ag/news/topstories&vendorReference=0353b2fa-34a2-481b-912d-1cb46058ad3a . Looks like a good year for Corn, Soy, and Wheat, although there is still some uncertainty and minor differences among the various estimates. The weather can still play a role in this. "The report is likely to be called bearish when futures trade resumes at 9:30 CDT this morning." Here's the full USDA report for all tracked crops: usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/CropProd/CropProd-09-11-2009.txt
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 11, 2009 18:12:30 GMT
Rebuttal to Greenpeace AGW Claim appears on Fox NewsUnresolved Problems Segment: Climate change and wildfires: Truth or myth? "The environmental group Greenpeace alleges that California wildfires are spreading more quickly because of global warming. The Factor invited AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi to evaluate that claim. 'Over the past two years,' Bastardi said, 'California has been very dry because the Pacific Ocean cooled and the globe cooled. So 'global cooling' is actually a cause of drought in California. Temperatures are coming down over the past ten years.' Bastardi theorized why so many people and governments place unquestioning faith in the "global warming" hypothesis. 'People haven't been confronted with the facts. You have to look at the facts, go arm yourself, and you make the call.' www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=2424#4Added 9/11/09
The interview segment has been posted as of 9/11/09 (courtesy of YouTube) to AccuWeather.com, together with Joe Bastardi's open letter to viewers:global-warming.accuweather.com/ for Friday, September 11, 2009. (Note that Greenpeace declined an offer to participate.) That is a well written article by Joe Bastardi <<SNIP>> In the end, for me its all about getting the weather right. 1 day, 1 week 1 year or whatever. That is the bottom line.
What I opine about global warming is not because this is my goal...to be in this debate, it's a by product of the work I put in to do what I was made to do..forecast the weather. But I will not run, nor bow down to people who simply wish to destroy the chance to get the right answer in this debate, for IT IS ABOUT THE WEATHER! it's that simple.
<<SNIP>> There speaks a forecaster who is repeatedly undergoing validation.
|
|
|
Post by sentient on Sept 12, 2009 4:58:13 GMT
And that would about make it a "wrap".
|
|