[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Renewable energy, batteries, etc. was: LEDs R Us

Subject: Re: [OM] Renewable energy, batteries, etc. was: LEDs R Us
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:29:30 -0400

On 10/25/2015 5:12 PM, ChrisB wrote:
Quoting that article, Chuck, leads me to the supposition that you
believe that human activity underlies the current levels of CO2 in
the atmosphere:

I believe that that is largely true. However, it appears that hydrothermal vents are much more prevalent than previously thought. Hydrothermal vents emit methane and bacteria exist that convert methane to CO2. But other bacteria exist that can do the opposite. Also, as the ocean warms (and it is warming) it should be emitting dissolved CO2 as it warms. So, I think the true answer is unknown and also unknowable. But, yes, I think humans are largely responsible for the increase of CO2 since pre-industrial times.

that we are responsible for global warming and
climate change.  If that were true, I’d say that that was progress .

Sorry, that's a step too far. It was the Google guys who decided they couldn't reverse climate change using renewable energy sources. If I actually believed in anthropogenically caused global warming (call it what it really is) I'd be distraught at that finding because it would mean there is no near term solution to the "problem". But I don't believe there's a problem or, at least, a significant problem. Ask yourself why do you believe. The only reason to believe is that the science itself *demonstrates* that it's a problem by applying the science to a prediction of what will happen. The IPCC has been trying to do that for about 25 years and has failed miserably every time.

Here's the latest stuff... climate models of temperature anomalies (both hindcast and projected) compared to actual observed temperature anomalies. <http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/> They can't even get the hindcast numbers correct and the variance grows with time into the future. HADCRUT4 is the Hadley Climate Research Unit's measure of ground temperatures (That's the CRU of Climategate). UAH is the University of Alabama at Huntsville's satellite record of the lower troposphere. Both actual temperature records are running along well below almost all of the model projections. And this has always been the case.

The IPCC has never gotten it right. If they can't get it right for 5 or 10 years why should I believe the "science" for 25, 50 or 100 years away? Most people believe the "science is settled" meme. Most don't know that water vapor is far more important as a greenhouse gas than CO2. The role of clouds and water vapor is still a mystery. Most people believe the greenhouse analogy. But the earth is far from a greenhouse. Most people don't know that the role of CO2 alone is very limited. The threats from global warming are not from CO2 alone but the knock-on effects... warming permafrost releases methane, higher temperatures create more water vapor, etc., etc. That's why the computer models are so complicated. But, even as complicated as they are they are still filled with fudge factors for things they don't know how to compute or know how to compute but can't because of time constraints.

Believing a climate modeler and the correctness of his output is, IMHO, worse than believing someone who says he can predict the stock market 5, 10, 25, 50 or 100 years away. Predicting the stock market is probably a more tractable problem.

Once you throw out the models the only indication of climate change is that the earth has most assuredly warmed in the post-industrial period. But the amount and rate of warming is rather unremarkable. There's nothing in the recent historical record that cant be found in the earlier historical record and well before CO2 began its significant increase. Well, aren't the levels of CO2 highly correlated with the rise in temperature. Actually, no.

I've rambled on too long already. To me the real mystery is why anyone believes this stuff. Follow the grant money I guess.

Chuck Norcutt


On 25 Oct 15, at 20:36, Chuck Norcutt
<chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Back in 2007 Google charged a couple of engineers with finding a
way to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a
coal fired plant.  Google shut down the project in 2011 after the
engineers declared that it couldn't be done with known technology.
You can read about it here

Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz