What Happened To Global Warming, it's NOT!! - Page 14

alevin · #**157** 11-16-2009, 08:06 PM

Here''s a review of a recent peer-reviewed pub for you Buster, came to my inbox today. Buy some chapstick, it'll help (maybe).
http://www.cbbulletin.com/365067.aspx

Buster · #**158** 11-16-2009, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alevin

Here''s a review of a recent peer-reviewed pub for you Buster, came to my inbox today. Buy some chapstick, it'll help (maybe).
http://www.cbbulletin.com/365067.aspx

Thanks

phil · #**159** 11-16-2009, 10:19 PM

I'm all behind the nuclear power option. It's cheaper and cleaner than any other, and more cost-effective.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4095658.stm

Then again, I'm also for emissions caps. They go hand in hand.

nnuut · #**160** 11-17-2009, 02:58 AM

Half right is better than all wrong!!

Do you really think Cap and Trade is a good idea?

phil · #**161** 11-17-2009, 03:11 AM

Yeah. In the long run, it is a good idea to go forward with it. A lot of other countries are far ahead in developing the technology to cut both oil and coal consumption.

Those wind farms, while not esthetic, do a really great job of cutting overall costs for electricity. Only one country, Sweden, has almost a completely clean electrical production means via hydro.

I remember going to the Irish coast down south and telling our guide that I thought that this was a great place to put some windmills. He looked mortified and told me that it would ruin the view.

I think they've started building them there now. There, and the North sea have tons of energy potential. Here, we have tons of sites, and a pretty good grid. It's a good start.

The other part of the equation is biofuels and synthetic fuels. Now, it's possible to make completely synthetic jet fuel.

I'm not completely behind coal to jet fuel, it's dirty, but it would definitely cut outlays to the Gulf.

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Sec...8861233599122/

Also Sasol out of S. Africa.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...100-ctl-s.html

Show-me · #**162** 11-17-2009, 03:15 AM

Nuclear is the way to go. I have one request, make them all the same with interchangeable parts. One model system, make it simple so that everyone knows how to work on each others plant. It will cut down on cost for engineering, training, parts, etc.

Show-me · #**163** 11-17-2009, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Show-me

Nuclear is the way to go. I have one request, make them all the same with interchangeable parts. One model system, make it simple so that everyone knows how to work on each others plant. It will cut down on cost for engineering, training, parts, etc.

OMG, I'm sounding like a socialist. I'm going to bed.

nnuut · #**164** 11-17-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Show-me

OMG, I'm sounding like a socialist. I'm going to bed.

I don't think you sounded Socialistic!! At least you have read through the BS in the Cap and Trade TAX and Control Plan and recognized it for what it is. With all the plans to Tax us and tax us it might not be such a good idea for me to retire in 43 days. Nah, it will be OK, Obama will take care of my family, he will TAKE and TAKE and TAKE until there is nothing left. I hear there are some new brands of CAT FOOD that are really tasty?

nnuut · #**165** 11-22-2009, 12:01 PM

My-O-My !!!!!! How about that?

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

Sat Nov 21, 2009 1:22 PM EST
David Stringer, Associated Press Writer

LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.
More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.
The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

ones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.
One of the colleague referred to by Jones — Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University — did not immediately respond to requests for comment via telephone and e-mail.
The use of the word "trick" by Jones has been seized on by skeptics — who say his e-mail offers proof of collusion between scientists to distort evidence to support their assertion that human activity is influencing climate change. http://www.climateaudit.org/
"Words fail me," Stephen McIntyre — a blogger whose climateaudit.org Web site challenges popular thinking on climate change — wrote on the site following the leak of the messages.[more]
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/1...climate-debate

CountryBoy · #**166** 11-22-2009, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Show-me

Nuclear is the way to go. I have one request, make them all the same with interchangeable parts. One model system, make it simple so that everyone knows how to work on each others plant. It will cut down on cost for engineering, training, parts, etc.

I agree nukes are the way to go, given the inherit disposal problems, but all sources have some problems, it's all give and take.

A lot of that makes since regarding commonality between plant design, but you have to worry, that innovation and future efficiency is not left out of the equation and if there is a glitch in the design, that doesn't show up for a period of years, you may have to pull a lot of generating capacity off line and that could easily curtail manufacturing, depending on the time required to correct the problem.

That's why I'm not real sure that our agriculture is headed in the right direction either. It's great that we are so productive, but we depend on only a handful of seeds for all our entire produce production. I would like to see more flexibility and variety in our seeds, so that one disease will not wipe out an entire crop.... say corn.

Just a thought

nnuut · #**167** 11-22-2009, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CountryBoy

I agree nukes are the way to go, given the inherit disposal problems, but all sources have some problems, it's all give and take.

A lot of that makes since regarding commonality between plant design, but you have to worry, that innovation and future efficiency is not left out of the equation and if there is a glitch in the design, that doesn't show up for a period of years, you may have to pull a lot of generating capacity off line and that could easily curtail manufacturing, depending on the time required to correct the problem.

That's why I'm not real sure that our agriculture is headed in the right direction either. It's great that we are so productive, but we depend on only a handful of seeds for all our entire produce production. I would like to see more flexibility and variety in our seeds, so that one disease will not wipe out an entire crop.... say corn.

Just a thought

I agree to a point, but kind of sounds like Hitler and the Volkswagen, "OK folks this is your car you can't change it".
New innovations in Nuclear Power Generation are still happening, and with the tremendous time lag of new construction it is probably a better idea to allow equipment and process changes that increase output and lessen the waste, to a point, everything can be improved on.