Driver to drive?

On Mar 10, 12:24 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com>
wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 12:02:47 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 7, 7:04 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

On Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:56:07 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terr...@earthlink.net> wrote:

John Fields wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 21:14:07 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 7, 12:20 am, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink..net
wrote:
John Larkin wrote:

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 14:53:52 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

The part that is working hard on setting up its own personal global
extinction.

Insanely absurd, unless you always trust extrapolation and always
ignore feedbacks.

   If he doesn't understand a simple aluminum electrolytic, how can he
claim to understand the so called global warming?

Michael Terrell doesn't appreciate that you can make better
electrolytic capacitors with tantalum than aluminium.

---
I don't think that's a valid extrapolation since all he claimed was that
you don't understand simple aluminum electrolytics.

  True.  I do know the difference, and where not to use a tantalum.
Its just his usual half assed attempt to cover the fact that he's
incompetent.

  He still can't remember that I have both of his .ieee and Google
accounts filtered so he's becoming senile, as well.  That is probably
why he's 30 or more years out of date.

That's why I say SHUN Slowman.

   He should be us>ed to it, by now.  People have shunned the loser his
whole life.  He makes Rodney Dangerfield look like the life of the
party.
Nice to see Jim enjoying himself with his fan club.

---
It's good to see us _all_ enjoying ourselves, but it's not a fan club.

It's more like a party where we get to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Sloman
(sorry, Graham but we don't have to wear blindfolds.

No, and you wouldn't do any worse if you were wearing blindfolds. If
you don't understand what you see, your eyes aren't all that useful.

It'd be more fun if you were like a pińata, but a pińata is full of fun
toys and candy, not shit.
---

Kids do prefer toys and candy to the kind of stuff adults value. If
they are well brought up, they don't describe things that they ought
to appreciate as shit, but you were brought up in Texas.

None of them have an ounce of sense,

---
Geez, both Jim and I are running businesses and making money,  and
Michael is rebuilding computers and giving them away, pro bono, to old
folks like you, while being severely handicapped.

From what I can see of your "products" and Jim's, the fact that you
both are making money reflects a certain lack of sophistication in
your customer base. From time to time I've been asked to present my
designs as John Larkin does - as insanely good and so forth - but I've
never been good enough at keeping a straight face to make that kind of
exaggerated claim. Which is not to say that I haven't come up with
clever solutions to specfic problems, merely that I've always been
able to see how they could have been made even better.

And what are you doing?

Job hunting, with little prospect of success.

Nothing but fighting with people whom you say have no sense.

Not so much fighting as exposing their pretensions.

That makes no sense to me.

You aren't really equipped to see sense.

If you want to make a point, and make it believable, then propose it and
back it up with data instead of worthless opinion.

You think I'm going to take you seriously?

Or, if your audience is senseless, save everyone some grief and don't
respond at all.
---

That is what I ought to do, but I'm bored.

so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit.

---
Oh, and now you're a judge of wit?

Aren't we all?

In the first place, your command of the written language isn't good
enough that the subtlety of 'wit' is available to you and, in the second
place, you seem to consider 'wit' a more deliciously devious way to
issue an insult than a coarse, "fuck you".

Your vocabulary has suddenly expanded or - more likely - you've
plagarised something from someone who can write. Possibly me.

As far as "In the first place" goes, you wrote:

"so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Unless I'm mistaken, you should have written:

"so they are free to admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

True. You do get excited about typo's.

Feel free to respond by whining about that your language skills aren't
that great but that you still have something to say and, hopefully, you
won't trip up on that, as well.

And, as far as second place goes, figure it out for yourself.

Ran out of inspiration? There's not a lot of it around in Texas, and
you don't seem to have access to what is available.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[John Fields]

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 9, 10:41 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:19 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:13:12 -0500, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

[snip]

His attention span isn't all that long, and the only discussion I've
been involved in about aluminium electrolytics is the recent one with
you, which was actually about the difference between aluminium and
tantalum electrolytics,

---
Speaking about attention spans, the discussion wasn't about the
difference between aluminum and tantalum electrolytic capacitors, it was
about your using 30 year old data in presuming present-day aluminum
electrolytic capacitor leakage current is bad enough to preclude their
being used in RC timers with long timeouts.  
---

a point that you don't seem to understand any
too well either, since you only posted data on aluminium
electrolytics.

---
It wasn't incumbent on me to post anything else, since the point I was
making was related to old aluminum electrolytic capacitors, new aluminum
electrolytic capacitors, and stupidity.  

JF  

Now!  Now!  Don't give Slowman a boost and elevate his ranking from
imbecile to stupid.  He's definitely imbecile level.  But I will be
gracious and allow that his imbecilic actions may be due to senility
;-)

Jim Thompson gives advice to one of his intellectual equals - the West
Virginia red-neck counseling the Texas red-neck, as if Jim had wisdom
to impart, and John was capable of learning anything.

It's either comical or pathetic - possibly both.

---
Well, you certainly don't know anything about chip design, like Jim
does,

I respect Jim's skills as a chip designer, not that I've been too
impressed with those chips of his that I have got to use.

---
Well, being as haughtily narcissistic as you are, one wouldn't expect
you to be impressed with anything which you thought originated in
someone else's mind.

Not only that, using his chips probably caused you to have to think a
bit about what you were doing, an exercise which I'm sure is
uncomfortable for you, so of course you blamed him for your discomfort.
---

He certainly
doesn't know much about anything else, and he has a touching in faith
in the correctness of his comical opinions on subjects outside of
electronics.

---
What I find comical is that here you are, preaching about how bad
everyone else is, and yet you can barely put a sentence together without
making one stupid mistake or another. "touching in faith"???

You're a laughingstock.

And, on top of that, Jim's still working, has raised a nice family,
lives in a nice house, and has all of the accoutrements which would
indicate he knows what he's doing away from the workbench.

You, on the other hand...

Well, why even go there?
---

or radio transmitter facility design, like Michael does,

Again, Michael may be the world's greatest expert on radio transmitter
facility design, but he doesn't seem to know much outside of this
rather narrow expertise.

---
As usual, according to you, anyone who criticizes you knows nothing
outside of a small area of expertise which you niggardly give them
credit for while you, of course, know everything there is to know about
everything else.
---

or even how to properly use the lowly 555, like I do,

Since the proper way to use the 555 is to throw it in the waste bin,
your boasted skill is just evidence that you haven't kept up with
modern electronics.

---
I, at least, know the difference between a modern aluminum electrolytic
capacitor and a 30 year old one, and if the proper place for a 555 is
the waste bin, then I'm sure you must be more familiar with them than
you admit.
---

plus you're impossible to teach,
That may be your impression, but in fact what you are saying is that
I'm not susceptible to your silly ideas, no matter how enthusiastic
you may be about infecting other people with your misconceptions

---
Nope; what I'm saying is you're impossible to teach.

Can't you read?

Time and time again, once you've made your position known, re. anything,
you won't budge from that position no matter how untenable it proves to
be.
---

so all that leaves you with is rehashing your salad days here,
reliving those fond old memories of not falling into the pitfall of
using leaky old aluminum electrolytics when those groovy tantalums are
sooo much better.

We all see the world in the way that makes us feel comfortable.

---
Are you included yourself in that mix or is that niche reserved for mere
mortals?
---

Your perceptions, like Jim's, don't have much to do with reality,

---
I'd say our perceptions are much closer to reality than yours in that we
can at least acknowledge errors that we make instead of fabricating
epicycle upon epicycle in order to hide them.
---

but if that's what you need to protect your vulnerable little ego, go ahead
an enjoy yourself.

---
Funny, but I'm not the one who tries to save face by forever feigning
perfection, so I get to enjoy myself by not having to forever be on
guard.
---

It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:58:59 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

Nice to see Jim enjoying himself with his fan club.

---
It's good to see us _all_ enjoying ourselves, but it's not a fan club.

It's more like a party where we get to play pin-the-tail-on-the-Sloman
(sorry, Graham but we don't have to wear blindfolds.

No, and you wouldn't do any worse if you were wearing blindfolds. If
you don't understand what you see, your eyes aren't all that useful.

---
It's a question of being able to stick the pin where one chooses as
opposed to missing the mark, and what's to see? Very little.
---

It'd be more fun if you were like a pińata, but a pińata is full of fun
toys and candy, not shit.
---

Kids do prefer toys and candy to the kind of stuff adults value. If
they are well brought up, they don't describe things that they ought
to appreciate as shit, but you were brought up in Texas.

---
Where we're taught to call shit 'shit' regardless of the complaints
issuing from the turd.
---

None of them have an ounce of sense,

---
Geez, both Jim and I are running businesses and making money,  and
Michael is rebuilding computers and giving them away, pro bono, to old
folks like you, while being severely handicapped.

From what I can see of your "products" and Jim's, the fact that you
both are making money reflects a certain lack of sophistication in
your customer base. From time to time I've been asked to present my
designs as John Larkin does - as insanely good and so forth - but I've
never been good enough at keeping a straight face to make that kind of
exaggerated claim. \

---
I can see why, since what you present here from time to time often
causes me to laugh out loud.
---

Which is not to say that I haven't come up with
clever solutions to specfic problems, merely that I've always been
able to see how they could have been made even better.

---
Like using a tantalum electrolytic capacitor when aluminum would have
been perfectly adequate?
---

And what are you doing?

Job hunting, with little prospect of success.

---
Nothing new there...
---

Nothing but fighting with people whom you say have no sense.

Not so much fighting as exposing their pretensions.

---
Funny.

A pretender calling others pretenders.
---

That makes no sense to me.

You aren't really equipped to see sense.

---
It's hard to see what isn't there.
---

If you want to make a point, and make it believable, then propose it and
back it up with data instead of worthless opinion.

You think I'm going to take you seriously?

Or, if your audience is senseless, save everyone some grief and don't
respond at all.
---

That is what I ought to do, but I'm bored.

---
And boring.
---

so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit.

---
Oh, and now you're a judge of wit?

Aren't we all?

---
No.
---

In the first place, your command of the written language isn't good
enough that the subtlety of 'wit' is available to you and, in the second
place, you seem to consider 'wit' a more deliciously devious way to
issue an insult than a coarse, "fuck you".

Your vocabulary has suddenly expanded or - more likely - you've
plagarised something from someone who can write. Possibly me.

---
If it was from someone who can write it couldn't possibly have been you.
---

As far as "In the first place" goes, you wrote:

"so they are free admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

Unless I'm mistaken, you should have written:

"so they are free to admire one another's pathetic
attempts at wit."

True. You do get excited about typo's.

---
When you're the author, that's about all the excitement there is.
---

Feel free to respond by whining about that your language skills aren't
that great but that you still have something to say and, hopefully, you
won't trip up on that, as well.

And, as far as second place goes, figure it out for yourself.

Ran out of inspiration? There's not a lot of it around in Texas, and
you don't seem to have access to what is available.

---
Can't figure it out, huh?

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 06:52:12 -0700 (PDT), bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

---
Actually, I'd need to find someone who has mastered gibberish.

JF

 

On Mar 10, 2:26 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 16:31:20 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 9, 10:41 pm, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 11:57:42 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 9, 6:19 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:
On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:13:12 -0500, John Fields

jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:39:22 -0700 (PDT), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

<snip>

It is not as if you need my good opinion, not that
you seem to be in any way equipped to earn it.

---
???

Perhaps you'd like to rephrase that in comprehensible English?

Perhaps you'd like to find someone who has mastered English to
interpret it for you?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 09:42:08 +0000, Raveninghorde
<raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:

[snip]

If this kind of weather repeats you'll know it's cooling:

http://www.wnem.com/news/18885556/detail.html

Those poor "widows" ;-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:22:49 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote:

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions, but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

It appears to me that this point depends on obstacles that are political
more than scientific.

For example, nuclear waste can be safely dumped under a deep "Southwest
USA" salt dome.
For second place example, I consider that depths of a used-up uranium
mine are good enough for safe disposal. (And I say that those saying
"not good enough" are "close enough to 'luddites' ").

Just drag the authorities and other NIMBYs kicking and screaming into the
21st century and quit using the shortcomings of 1950's technology to do
your scare-mongering.

Ask Japan (29% of its electricity is nuclear) or France (77%(!!) of its
electricity is nuclear) how they've been doing it safely and efficiently
all of this time.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Eeyore]

Rich Grise wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:

I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions, but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

It appears to me that this point depends on obstacles that are political
more than scientific.

For example, nuclear waste can be safely dumped under a deep "Southwest
USA" salt dome.
For second place example, I consider that depths of a used-up uranium
mine are good enough for safe disposal. (And I say that those saying
"not good enough" are "close enough to 'luddites' ").

Just drag the authorities and other NIMBYs kicking and screaming into the
21st century and quit using the shortcomings of 1950's technology to do
your scare-mongering.

Ask Japan (29% of its electricity is nuclear) or France (77%(!!) of its
electricity is nuclear) how they've been doing it safely and efficiently
all of this time.

France has a new Generation 3+ ( as they call it ) reactor that produces 1.6GWe.
The first 2 are already in build, the first in Finland, the second in France.
They've had some teething problems with the builds but that's only to be expected
for a new design. They already have export orders from China and EdF who recently
bought the formerly British nuclear operator plan to build 4 in the UK. A US
version is also available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Pressurized_Reactor

"The main design objectives of the generation 3+ EPR design are increased safety
while providing enhanced economic competitiveness through evolutionary
improvements to previous PWR designs scaled up to an electrical power output of
1650 MWe. The reactor can use 5% enriched uranium oxide fuel, optionally with up
to 50% mixed uranium plutonium oxide fuel.[3] The EPR is the evolutionary
descendant of the Framatome N4 and Siemens Power Generation Division KONVOI
reactors.[4]

The EPR design has several active and passive protection measures against
accidents:
Four independent emergency cooling systems, each capable of cooling down the
reactor after shutdown (ie. 300% redundancy).
Leaktight containment around the reactor.
An extra container and cooling area if a molten core manages to escape the
reactor (see containment building).
Two-layer concrete wall with total thickness 2.6 meters, designed to withstand
impact by airplanes and internal overpressure.

The EPR has a design maximum core damage frequency of 6.1 × 10–7 per plant per
year.[5]

The Union of Concerned Scientists has referred to the EPR as the only new reactor
design under consideration in the United States that "...appears to have the
potential to be significantly safer and more secure against attack than today's
reactors." [6]


Graham

 

[Eeyore]

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:

On Mar 9, 1:34 am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Bill Slomanwrote:
http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

And the relevance of this to today's situation is ?

Whatever happened then could

COULD

play out - in reverse

IN REVERSE ?

- now, and perhaps
in appreciably less than 100,000 years.

100,000 YEARS ?

Unexplained effects are always worrying.

How do you sleep at night ?

Graham

 

[bw]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbe8h.gp0.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <33cuq4pnuo2ab67sd634en214fmof04123@4ax.com>, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:55:57 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:e45tq4ho7b19cppfjlce70873d5lha7g0l@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it. ^^^^^^

Actually, I'm against it too ...

See? What I said.

Um, John? Since when have you EVER associated myself with "they", i.e.,
The
Warmingists?

My objection to widespread fusion power is simple to see with some
multiplications and a couple of centuries use. In fact, Sloman
understood
my statement correctly. That's scary, John.

The sun dumps about a kilowatt per square meter of heat onto us.

With clear sky and sun near zenith, that figure is roughly correct.
Worldwide average is more like 235 watts per square meter including
absorption in the atmosphere (Kiehl-Trenberth), as high as 250 according
to one disputing Kiehl-Trenberth.

The surface area of the earth is about 5e14 m^2, about 100,000 m^2 per
person.

What about when population hits 9 billion? Prepare for 1 person per
56,000 square meters.

Not that I am against fusion or other nuclear power, but some of these
numbers here appear to me to need corrections that may show us enough heat
that maybe we need to prepare for it.

So if everybody consumes a kilowatt, which is unlikely, the relative
energy is insignificant.

It looks to me as if the world is burning fossil fuels at a rate
accounting for 6.4 or more gigatons of carbon per year. Coal produces 8
kilocalories per gram burned,

No coal is 27 kJ per gram. You are saying coal is 32. Oil is about 36 kJ per
gram.

natural gas produces about 11, and oil about

or a little over 10. Let's say overall average 9 for the sake of argument
- probably a bit on the low side. And when combustion is incomplete,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will get oxidized in the ozone layer
and by urban tropospheric ozone and nitrogen oxides within years to a few
decades - so I consider heat from full combustion to be reasonably
truthful.

6.4 gigatons/year * 1 E+15 grams per gigaton * 9 calories per gram *
4.19 watt-seconds/calorie * 1 year/31557600 seconds = about 7.65 E+9
watts.

EIA already has all of this
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

Divide that by current global population of maybe 6.6 billion people,
looks like current global energy usage is 1.15 kilowatts per person, plus
the little bit that nuclear energy amounts to.

Power is expressed in Watts. Energy in Joules.

With the widely-spouted figures of USA having 5% (or less) of global
population and 20% of global energy consumption, I figure USA having
energy consumption of 4.6 kilowatts per person.
Somehow, I have impression of Europeans having less, maybe 3 KW per
person even with "western" lifestyle.

All industrialized populations have about the same specific energy
consumption, it's a function of technology.

Maybe the worry is should we get a prosperous industrialized planet with
average inhabitant being a member of a society sufficiently
industrialized/"westernized" to have average energy consumption of 2 KW
per capita. Keep in mind that a major fusion power industry will allow
billions to drive electric cars!

I would prepare for 9 billion people consuming 2KW apiece on average, or
18 terawatts, 1.8 E+13 watts. Possibly 10 billion people consuming (even
if indirectly) 2.5 KW each, amounting to 2.5 E+13 watts.

Then again, with Earth surface area being 5.1 E+14 square meters,
finding more-alarmist figures for direct thermal heating likely later
this century only finds approaching .05 watt per square meter.

Should the truth end up being double this, that is still 1/15 of a
figure that has been tossed around a fair amount for effect of CO2
increase as of a year or two ago.

Even with correction of a bad number, I would favor nuclear options such
as fusion to reduce CO2 production.

Fusion is not available. Nuclear fission could displace some fossil
consumption, but nothing will reduce total CO2 production until the total
population begins to decrease for other reasons.

 

[bw]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbps4.s4r.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <38brq451mhjpdho2mdqhhg43bqpb8r3643@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn't have one."

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade during
peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and
the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.

There is no real "uptick" since surface temp data are corrupted by UHI
effect. See Pielke, et al 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 112.
This paper also shows other errors in surface data.
Amundsen-Scott, Halley and Vostok stations have good surface temperature
data. They all show NO warming at all since records began 50 years ago.

(snipped future speculations)

 

[Martin Brown]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 04:22:49 +0000, Don Klipstein wrote:
bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote:
On Mar 4, 1:31 am, Rich Grise <r...@example.net> wrote:
I wonder why all warmingists seem to be against Nuclear energy - it's got
ZERO EMISSIONS! Maybe just the terror of the unknown that all ignorant
savages have?

It also has some small CO2 emissions in building the infrastructure and
looking after the waste products. But at the preset time it is by far
the least worst option for serious amounts of power generation.

Big problem now is that we have a supply of pure terrorists so that any
nuclear reactor will have to be built to withstand a 1kt yield kinetic
energy round combined fuel air bomb (a la 9/11). I know UK nuclear sites
have no fly zones and I expect they do have air defences now.

Perhaps warmingists know enough physicis to be aware that nuclear
fission produces radioactive nuclear waste, which emits alpha, beta
and gamma rays. An ignorant savage like Rich may not appreciate that
these constitute emissions, but the more sophisticated may understand
that nobody has yet worked out an entirely satisfactory way of
disposing of this waste in a way that can be guaranteed not to foul
the world we leave to our children.

Decay rates of the worst species are fairly rapid. But you would still
not want to stand near high level nuclear waste for a very long time.

It appears to me that this point depends on obstacles that are political
more than scientific.

For example, nuclear waste can be safely dumped under a deep "Southwest
USA" salt dome.

Salt or anhydrite layers in geologically stable regions should be OK.
You really don't want it to encounter any ground water for at least a
few millennia.

For second place example, I consider that depths of a used-up uranium
mine are good enough for safe disposal. (And I say that those saying
"not good enough" are "close enough to 'luddites' ").

An old uranium mine is the last place to put the waste. Uranium is a
very common element - what is rare is to find it in economically
mineable concentrations. It is the source of radon gas that escapes into
homes.

Once it has been through the fuel cycle it is full of nasty neutron rich
soluble radioactive hot fission products you don't want loose in the
environment. Natural abundance uranium is fairly harmless - we used to
demonstrate U in tap water to visitors until the suits complained. Water
companies who were customers didn't like people seeing it.

Just drag the authorities and other NIMBYs kicking and screaming into the
21st century and quit using the shortcomings of 1950's technology to do
your scare-mongering.

Ask Japan (29% of its electricity is nuclear) or France (77%(!!) of its
electricity is nuclear) how they've been doing it safely and efficiently
all of this time.

Japan had one of the most insanely stupid criticality accidents ever at
the Tokaimura plant in Ibaraki. Japanese people do not have accidents.
Anzen-dai-ichi (roughly translated : safety is number one)

http://www.japannuclear.com/files/Criticality%20Accident%20at%20JCO%20(1999).pdf

Despite this claim the (sanitised) report of the accident makes
frightening reading. They would probably have got away with it (and most
likely were doing) if the fuel had been ordinary 5% enriched civil
reactor grade. A full English transcript of the timeline of events is
online but unchecked for technical accuracy at

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/tokai.html

Like in the UK they renamed the failing plant shortly afterwards.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <zhTrl.1479$%u5.110@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>, James Arthur wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article <tdsmq4d25ce63l7ahcp7k7q9s2u0bnu6kq@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:18:24 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.
When's the next ice age due?
If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles.
Which might kill a billion people and wipe out a good chunk of a
million species.


Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.
And the plants love the CO2 we're feeding them.

Just a few or several months ago I asked for how much has plant growth
improved as a result of the atmospheric CO2 uptick since the Industrial
Revolution.

As best as I can remember, it's 7% or about that according to someone
giving an answer and probably providing a cite.

How much has their growth rate increased in the past century, when
atmospheric CO2 concentration increased about 35-36%?

- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.electronics.design/browse_thread/thread/62d221af29522b15/d8cfc2d356dff907?hl=en&lnk=gst&q=About+6.2%25+in+the+last+20+years#d8cfc2d356dff907
"About 6.2% in the last 20 years according to this article:
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586

"Sorry, this article is no longer available"

Hey, that outpaces CO2 ppm increases, doesn't it?

I might be wrong about over what period plant growth increased that 7%
I said or how much, but...

Mauna Loa 2007 annual average CO2 383.55 ppmv

Mauna Loa 1987 annual average CO2 348.93 ppmv

That's a 9.9% gain in CO2 over the 20 most recent years I quickly found
data for.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/maunaloa.co2

6.2% gain of plant growth for 9.9% CO2 gain is better than I thought was
the case, but it did not stop CO2 from rising.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <jfv0r41jc043i48vvjdivnc836oo7a1dtp@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 5 Mar 2009 05:57:18 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <tdsmq4d25ce63l7ahcp7k7q9s2u0bnu6kq@4ax.com>, John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 05:18:24 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <locmq4tbuacer9il8f9dpn11sicrs5484o@4ax.com>, D from BC wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

When's the next ice age due?

If not for AGW, good chance within a few millennia. We have probably
already averted it and then some.

If not for AGW, a century or two from now could easily repeat the
"Little Ice Age" of 2-3 centuries or so ago, with noticeable downturn in
first half of 22nd century appearing likely on basis of MAO and longer
term sunspot cycles.

Which might kill a billion people and wipe out a good chunk of a
million species.

Should we set new global surface and/or lower
troposphere temperature highs at those times when we should be repeating
"little ice age" as a harbinger of "next real ice age", then we end up
being shown that AGW is for real and that we have given ourselves warming
that will probably persist through the next several millennia and
probably be reinforced to multi-mega-year highs by the time the
"should-be-coming next ice age glaciation" would end maybe 90,000 or so
years from now.

And the plants love the CO2 we're feeding them.

Just a few or several months ago I asked for how much has plant growth
improved as a result of the atmospheric CO2 uptick since the Industrial
Revolution.

As best as I can remember, it's 7% or about that according to someone
giving an answer and probably providing a cite. (IIRC and the usual
similar "horse puckey disclaimers"). From atmospheric CO2 increase
around 35% from the 280 ppmv having some consideration being
"pre-Industrial-Revolution-baseline") as of when I asked the question
resulting in that answer.

7% increase of plant growth from 35% increase in atmospheric CO2
concentration? For a simple approximation at a mathematical relationship,
I see log(1.07)/log(1.35) indicating plant growth rate being proportional
to atmospheric CO2 concentration raised to the .23 power, though I suspect
such power to increase towards unity when our planet is/was "more CO2
starved" and to correspondingly decrease when atmospheric CO2
concentration increases past the 370-380 ppmv or whatever that was
relevant to 7% increase of plant growth that I remeber (how correctly?)
being result of increase from pre-industrial-revolution-"baseline" that
was/"was" 280 ppmv.

That's a great calculation for people who don't believe in evolution.

What makes you think I don't believe in evolution?

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <gp6hhm$m5f$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbe8h.gp0.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <33cuq4pnuo2ab67sd634en214fmof04123@4ax.com>, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:55:57 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:e45tq4ho7b19cppfjlce70873d5lha7g0l@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it. ^^^^^^

Actually, I'm against it too ...

See? What I said.

Um, John? Since when have you EVER associated myself with "they", i.e.,
The
Warmingists?

My objection to widespread fusion power is simple to see with some
multiplications and a couple of centuries use. In fact, Sloman
understood
my statement correctly. That's scary, John.

The sun dumps about a kilowatt per square meter of heat onto us.

With clear sky and sun near zenith, that figure is roughly correct.
Worldwide average is more like 235 watts per square meter including
absorption in the atmosphere (Kiehl-Trenberth), as high as 250 according
to one disputing Kiehl-Trenberth.

The surface area of the earth is about 5e14 m^2, about 100,000 m^2 per
person.

What about when population hits 9 billion? Prepare for 1 person per
56,000 square meters.

Not that I am against fusion or other nuclear power, but some of these
numbers here appear to me to need corrections that may show us enough heat
that maybe we need to prepare for it.

So if everybody consumes a kilowatt, which is unlikely, the relative
energy is insignificant.

It looks to me as if the world is burning fossil fuels at a rate
accounting for 6.4 or more gigatons of carbon per year. Coal produces 8
kilocalories per gram burned,

No coal is 27 kJ per gram. You are saying coal is 32.

I was thinking of the figure for pure carbon. I forgot that coal is not
pure carbon. The correction would be saying 8 kilocalories per amount of
coal having 1 gram of carbon.

Oil is about 36 kJ per gram.

Vegetable oils (esters of fatty acids and glycerol) achieve at least
that, at 9 calories per gram. Hydrocarbon oils achieve more.

CRC Handbook (43rd edition) says six figures ranging from 18,910 to
19,510 BTU per pound for crude oil from 5 various USA states and Mexico.
4 figures for fuel oil range from 18,510 to 19,376 BTU/pound. Divide by
1.8 to get calories per gram. After that multiply by 4.19 to get joules
per gram. This means 43 to 45.4 kilojoules per gram.

natural gas produces about 11, and oil about
or a little over 10. Let's say overall average 9 for the sake of argument
- probably a bit on the low side. And when combustion is incomplete,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will get oxidized in the ozone layer
and by urban tropospheric ozone and nitrogen oxides within years to a few
decades - so I consider heat from full combustion to be reasonably
truthful.

6.4 gigatons/year * 1 E+15 grams per gigaton * 9 calories per gram *
4.19 watt-seconds/calorie * 1 year/31557600 seconds = about 7.65 E+9
watts.

EIA already has all of this
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

Divide that by current global population of maybe 6.6 billion people,
looks like current global energy usage is 1.15 kilowatts per person, plus
the little bit that nuclear energy amounts to.

Power is expressed in Watts. Energy in Joules.

Oops, I slipped there. Would have been correct to say rate of energy
consumption, probably what I meant to say.

With the widely-spouted figures of USA having 5% (or less) of global
population and 20% of global energy consumption, I figure USA having
energy consumption of 4.6 kilowatts per person.
Somehow, I have impression of Europeans having less, maybe 3 KW per
person even with "western" lifestyle.

All industrialized populations have about the same specific energy
consumption, it's a function of technology.

Maybe the worry is should we get a prosperous industrialized planet with
average inhabitant being a member of a society sufficiently
industrialized/"westernized" to have average energy consumption of 2 KW
per capita. Keep in mind that a major fusion power industry will allow
billions to drive electric cars!

I would prepare for 9 billion people consuming 2KW apiece on average, or
18 terawatts, 1.8 E+13 watts. Possibly 10 billion people consuming (even
if indirectly) 2.5 KW each, amounting to 2.5 E+13 watts.

Then again, with Earth surface area being 5.1 E+14 square meters,
finding more-alarmist figures for direct thermal heating likely later
this century only finds approaching .05 watt per square meter.

Should the truth end up being double this, that is still 1/15 of a
figure that has been tossed around a fair amount for effect of CO2
increase as of a year or two ago.

Even with correction of a bad number, I would favor nuclear options such
as fusion to reduce CO2 production.

Fusion is not available. Nuclear fission could displace some fossil
consumption, but nothing will reduce total CO2 production until the total
population begins to decrease for other reasons.

I was thinking of what would happen later this century, when fusion may
be available and may enable global per capita energy usage rate to
approach current Western levels with 9 or 10 billion people.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <stbcr4p5n2dmelbhlv1nu652hdj2lps3ch@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Tue, 10 Mar 2009 03:51:20 +0000 (UTC), don@manx.misty.com (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

In article <h2tpq4d9tk7n7rvfuohgc6nf5tee5dairf@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:01:53 +0100, "Bill Sloman"
bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

http://sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5918/1187

Martin van Calmhout - a formidable Dutch science journalist - reviewed
this article in Science in yesterday's Volkskrant. One of the authors -
Henk Brinkhuis - is a professor at Utrecht.

It talks about a 5C drop in global temperature over 100,000 years some
34 million years ago during the Eocene-Oligocene Climate Transition.

The paper is based a new technique for recovering paleolthic
temperatures, by measuring the the relative concentrations of
particular organic chemicals in the cell wall of single cell fossils,
which allowed the authors to clarify what what actually going
on during the transition, when the Antartic ice-sheet seems to
have made its appearance

The authors can't come up with an explanation for why it happened
as fast as it did. Explanations for the transition do exist, but they
seem to envisage a slower cooling.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/nature06853.html

No doubt the denialists will blame the sun, as usual.

Regarding cooling since 2000:

/quote

This is nothing like anything we’ve seen since 1950, Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn’t have one.

The "recent cooling" is from 4 causes:

1. Lack of El Ninos greater than the century-scale-greatness one of 1998

2. About 14 months ago we were in the bottom of a La Nina that was to a
small extent the most severe in 20 years

3. The "Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation" has a significant effect on
global temperature and has a period around 60-70 years, and that
peaked either with the 1998 El Nino or with the warm times of the
middle of the decade that we are about to exit.

4. We have recently gone past peak of a sunspot cycle of period around 80
years, and maybe also of one of period 2 or 2-plus centuries.

None of these factors seemed to be allowed for in the climate models
and the models did not predict cooling for the next 30 years.

The major El Ninos and La Ninas should be mere blips on post-1978 global
temperature trend within another decade. Any cooling over the next decade
or two would have only the AMO and sunspot cycles to credit.

Should we have any global warming at all from now to 2030 or 2035, watch
out for what happens in the following 30 years or so that will have the
next upswing half of the AMO and a majority of the next upswing in the 80
year cycle of solar output.
I would worry about 2035-2070 achieving .2-.25 degree C/K per
decade warming, for .7-.875 degree addition to the roughly .4 degree boost
of the past decade from 1961-2000 average.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

If this kind of weather repeats you'll know it's cooling:

http://www.wnem.com/news/18885556/detail.html

That article mentions wind-blown chunks of ice and snow in an area that
often has snow this time of year, and Saginaw Bay actually normally has
ice on it this time of year.

Saginaw Bay as a whole, at last report, had ice cover close to normal,
with a fair balance between areas running high and areas running low
compared to normal:

http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS58DPTCT/20090309180000_WIS58DPTCT_
0004261730.gif

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <gp6hve$q5s$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbps4.s4r.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <38brq451mhjpdho2mdqhhg43bqpb8r3643@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn't have one."

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade during
peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and
the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.

There is no real "uptick" since surface temp data are corrupted by UHI
effect. See Pielke, et al 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 112.
This paper also shows other errors in surface data.
Amundsen-Scott, Halley and Vostok stations have good surface temperature
data. They all show NO warming at all since records began 50 years ago.

In the past decade or two, the AMO has shifted the warming northward, in
addition to the trend for global temperature to change more where the
positive feedback is greater - in and near the Arctic.

Meanwhile, NASA's GISS has satellite observations of surface temperature
of rural regions, to add correction factors to surface data for urban heat
islands and other surface station irregularities.

Global surface temperature statements include oceans, which have 70% of
the world's area and no urban heat islands and much less than land of
other issues in temperature measurement.

Meanwhile, we have two interpretations of MSU satellite data for lower
tropospheric temperature trend. The less-warming one of those, the UAH
one, is noted to be checked against radiosondes in parts of the world that
have them. UAH still shows warming.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[bw]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngre7mg.47q.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <gp6hhm$m5f$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbe8h.gp0.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <33cuq4pnuo2ab67sd634en214fmof04123@4ax.com>, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 4 Mar 2009 17:55:57 -0600, "Tim Williams"
tmoranwms@charter.net> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote in
message
news:e45tq4ho7b19cppfjlce70873d5lha7g0l@4ax.com...
If someone
invented a clean, cheap source of, say, fusion energy, they'd be
against it. ^^^^^^

Actually, I'm against it too ...

See? What I said.

Um, John? Since when have you EVER associated myself with "they",
i.e.,
The
Warmingists?

My objection to widespread fusion power is simple to see with some
multiplications and a couple of centuries use. In fact, Sloman
understood
my statement correctly. That's scary, John.

The sun dumps about a kilowatt per square meter of heat onto us.

With clear sky and sun near zenith, that figure is roughly correct.
Worldwide average is more like 235 watts per square meter including
absorption in the atmosphere (Kiehl-Trenberth), as high as 250 according
to one disputing Kiehl-Trenberth.

The surface area of the earth is about 5e14 m^2, about 100,000 m^2 per
person.

What about when population hits 9 billion? Prepare for 1 person per
56,000 square meters.

Not that I am against fusion or other nuclear power, but some of these
numbers here appear to me to need corrections that may show us enough
heat
that maybe we need to prepare for it.

So if everybody consumes a kilowatt, which is unlikely, the relative
energy is insignificant.

It looks to me as if the world is burning fossil fuels at a rate
accounting for 6.4 or more gigatons of carbon per year. Coal produces 8
kilocalories per gram burned,

No coal is 27 kJ per gram. You are saying coal is 32.

I was thinking of the figure for pure carbon. I forgot that coal is not
pure carbon. The correction would be saying 8 kilocalories per amount of
coal having 1 gram of carbon.

Oil is about 36 kJ per gram.

Vegetable oils (esters of fatty acids and glycerol) achieve at least
that, at 9 calories per gram. Hydrocarbon oils achieve more.

CRC Handbook (43rd edition) says six figures ranging from 18,910 to
19,510 BTU per pound for crude oil from 5 various USA states and Mexico.
4 figures for fuel oil range from 18,510 to 19,376 BTU/pound. Divide by
1.8 to get calories per gram. After that multiply by 4.19 to get joules
per gram. This means 43 to 45.4 kilojoules per gram.

Yes, 44 kJ is the number I use. I erred in somehow thinking you meant
vegetable oil.

natural gas produces about 11, and oil about
or a little over 10. Let's say overall average 9 for the sake of
argument
- probably a bit on the low side. And when combustion is incomplete,
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons will get oxidized in the ozone layer
and by urban tropospheric ozone and nitrogen oxides within years to a
few
decades - so I consider heat from full combustion to be reasonably
truthful.

6.4 gigatons/year * 1 E+15 grams per gigaton * 9 calories per gram *
4.19 watt-seconds/calorie * 1 year/31557600 seconds = about 7.65 E+9
watts.

EIA already has all of this
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/energyconsumption.html

Divide that by current global population of maybe 6.6 billion people,
looks like current global energy usage is 1.15 kilowatts per person,
plus
the little bit that nuclear energy amounts to.

Power is expressed in Watts. Energy in Joules.

Oops, I slipped there. Would have been correct to say rate of energy
consumption, probably what I meant to say.

With the widely-spouted figures of USA having 5% (or less) of global
population and 20% of global energy consumption, I figure USA having
energy consumption of 4.6 kilowatts per person.
Somehow, I have impression of Europeans having less, maybe 3 KW per
person even with "western" lifestyle.

All industrialized populations have about the same specific energy
consumption, it's a function of technology.

Maybe the worry is should we get a prosperous industrialized planet
with
average inhabitant being a member of a society sufficiently
industrialized/"westernized" to have average energy consumption of 2 KW
per capita. Keep in mind that a major fusion power industry will allow
billions to drive electric cars!

I would prepare for 9 billion people consuming 2KW apiece on average,
or
18 terawatts, 1.8 E+13 watts. Possibly 10 billion people consuming
(even
if indirectly) 2.5 KW each, amounting to 2.5 E+13 watts.

Then again, with Earth surface area being 5.1 E+14 square meters,
finding more-alarmist figures for direct thermal heating likely later
this century only finds approaching .05 watt per square meter.

Should the truth end up being double this, that is still 1/15 of a
figure that has been tossed around a fair amount for effect of CO2
increase as of a year or two ago.

Even with correction of a bad number, I would favor nuclear options
such
as fusion to reduce CO2 production.

Fusion is not available. Nuclear fission could displace some fossil
consumption, but nothing will reduce total CO2 production until the total
population begins to decrease for other reasons.

I was thinking of what would happen later this century, when fusion may
be available and may enable global per capita energy usage rate to
approach current Western levels with 9 or 10 billion people.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I've done the same thing for decades. Following generations will adapt to
available resources.

 

[Don Klipstein]

In article <1f5br410bt8u81fv5ntsaj93hipbiv0c1n@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde wrote:

On Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:40:34 +0000, Martin Brown
|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

The theory of AGW is also based on observational data. Even sceptical
scientists admit that it is not possible to balance the global energy
equations for the Earth after about 1970 without including GHG forcing.
Crucially we have satellite data of the solar flux so you cannot
magically handwave away the recent warming trend by pretending that the
sun somehow got brighter.

I've been arguing for a while that the solar minimum would lead to
cooler climate.

Now even NASA are stasrting to repsond to the solar minimum:

http://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/view....B.9%20CCMSC.pdf

Incomplete link.

I plug phrases from below into Google and can't find the paper - only

http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=
display&thread=509

and http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/68781-solar-cycle-24-a-6.html

Is there a way to find the whole article?

/quote

B.9 CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF THE MINIMUM OF SOLAR CYCLE 23

1. Scope of Program

In 2009, we are in the midst of the minimum of solar activity that
marks the end of Solar Cycle 23. As this cycle comes to an end we are
recognizing, in retrospect, that the Sun has been extraordinarily
quiet during this particular Solar Cycle minimum. This is evidenced in
records of both solar activity and the response to it of the
terrestrial space environment. For example:
Causes – Solar output


* Lowest sustained solar radio flux since the F 10.7 proxy was
created in 1947;
* Solar wind global pressure the lowest observed since the
beginning of the Space age;
* Unusually high tilt angle of the solar dipole throughout the
current solar minimum;
* Solar wind magnetic field 36% weaker than during the minimum
of Solar Cycle 22;
* Effectively no sunspots;
* The absence of a classical quiescent equatorial streamer
belt; and
* Cosmic rays at near record-high levels.

/end quote

SNIP

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

 

[bw]

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngre997.47q.don@manx.misty.com...

In article <gp6hve$q5s$1@news.motzarella.org>, bw wrote:

"Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
news:slrngrbps4.s4r.don@manx.misty.com...
In article <38brq451mhjpdho2mdqhhg43bqpb8r3643@4ax.com>, Raveninghorde
wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 14:08:39 -0800 (PST), Richard Henry
pomerado@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:27 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:26:05 GMT, Jon Kirwan

j...@infinitefactors.org> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 10:39:22 -0800 (PST), bill.slo...@ieee.org wrote:

Ravinghorde:
Me, I blame the sun as usual. Solar cycle 24 is very late.

But you are a denialist, and addicted to explanations wihich don't
produce useful predictions.

Caught snipping context with malicious intent to misdirect, Raving
goes on to "just pick something to blame" because it is proximate in
time. A logical fallacy he's apparently blind to. Besides, we have
satellites that have been monitoring insolation from space and the
decline below "normal" minimums is less than 0.04% -- 5 times less,
roughly, than the existing human forcing which exists today.

Your reply is crafted -- Raving's suggestion grasps from ignorance.
"Why did the crops fail? Was it because I didn't give enough alms
this year, as the priest tells me?" I'd have hoped that we'd moved
beyond that with general education.

Jon

As usual you are missing the point.

my quote was:

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson
of
the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since
then
had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This
current cooling doesn't have one."

The important point is that he says the AGW crowd don't have an
explanation for current global cooling.

The "current global cooling" is, so far, no more significant than the
"global cooling" that occurred about 2000 or about 1990.

I might agree with you - I'm not convinced that global temperature is
significant or meaningful at all. However it is a parameter much loved
by the AGW lobby.

However in AGW theory ever increasing CO2 should give ever increasing
temperature. So even stable temperature is in fact a decrease from
this supposed rising trend of about 0.2C. Given that the increase is
around 0.6C in 30 years that appears significant.

High side of the recent past uptick is .19-.2 degree C per decade
during
peak 2 or so of past 3-plus upswinging decades when effects of AMO and
the 80 year cycle of solar output were favoring upswing.

There is no real "uptick" since surface temp data are corrupted by UHI
effect. See Pielke, et al 2007, Journal of Geophysical Research, vol 112.
This paper also shows other errors in surface data.
Amundsen-Scott, Halley and Vostok stations have good surface temperature
data. They all show NO warming at all since records began 50 years ago.

In the past decade or two, the AMO has shifted the warming northward, in
addition to the trend for global temperature to change more where the
positive feedback is greater - in and near the Arctic.

AMO oscillates with a known period. See Sutton & Hodson, SCIENCE 2005 Volume
309: 115-117
There is no NET positive feedback, there can't be. All natural feedbacks
contain links to threshold limits.

Meanwhile, NASA's GISS has satellite observations of surface temperature
of rural regions, to add correction factors to surface data for urban heat
islands and other surface station irregularities.

Global surface temperature statements include oceans, which have 70% of
the world's area and no urban heat islands and much less than land of
other issues in temperature measurement.

Meanwhile, we have two interpretations of MSU satellite data for lower
tropospheric temperature trend. The less-warming one of those, the UAH
one, is noted to be checked against radiosondes in parts of the world that
have them. UAH still shows warming.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

I don't dispute that some good data exist showing short term regional
warming. Regional warming is not global warming. Carbon soot is likely
causing northern ice melting. There is just not enough satellite data to
confirm century scale proxy data.
I do see that most of the pre-satellite surface temperature data is
corrupted and must be rejected.