Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel

[John21652]

- The Sequel: February 19th 2011

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted by a wide margin — 244-179 — to defund the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The $13-million cut, which garnered support from some Democrats, is part of the House’s budget for 2011. It now goes to the U.S. Senate.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It’s always amusing to hear the greenies talk about fusion power—which is basically plasma physics. And plasma physics is a branch of MHD.

They seem to think fusion power would be easy, which it ain’t. Magnetic confinement fusion, for instance, has been described as “attempting to hold Jell-O with rubber bands”. So maybe they just didn’t bother to understand the tech and science issues involved.

No, sorry, but you’re wrong.

Fusion power is so easy … all you need is a Harry Potter Jeffries Tube. And some bubble stuff. And some post-production glowinthedark special effects.

And there you have it … clean fusion power.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Quote of the Week:
“It will, without doubt, have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate,
inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of
the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable
barrier of ice, has been during the last two years greatly abated. This affords ample proof that new
sources of warmth have been opened, and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be
more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them,
not only interesting to the advancement of science, but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the
commerce of distant nations.” Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society, on 20 November 1817 to
their Lordships of the Admiralty. The referenced period covered the reduction of ice in the prior two
years, one the infamous Year Without a Summer 1816 . It was in the Dalton Solar Minimum, a time of
unusual cold and snow in middle latitudes. [From ICECAP]

source: www.sepp.org TWTW 1/29/11

This is important because it tells us that these phenomena are cyclical. They repeat at various intervals … all normal and natural. They have occurred in the past, as recorded and will occur in the future.

 

[John21652]

From The Independent -

Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson

  *"World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson has  been described as a 'force-of-nature intellect'. He's also one of the  world's foremost climate change sceptics. In this email exchange, our  science editor, Steve Connor, asks the Princeton scholar why he's one of  the few true intellectuals to be so dismissive of the global-warming  consensus"*

Dyson makes the following points in an email exchange with an Independent journalist -

First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world.
…

Sixth, summing up the other five reasons, the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.
…

Unfortunately the global warming hysteria, as I see it, is driven by politics more than by science. If it happens that I am wrong and the climate experts are right, it is still true that the remedies are far worse than the disease that they claim to cure.

…

And finishes by giving the journalist a right old fashioned bollocking for misleading readers and for his lack of journalistic scepticism.

The whole point of science is to encourage disagreement and keep an open mind. That is why I blame The Independent for seriously misleading your readers. You give them the party line and discourage them from disagreeing. With all due respect, I say good-bye and express the hope that you will one day join the sceptics. Scepticism is as important for a good journalist as it is for a good scientist.

 

[Eugenius]

They seem to want only wind power (which is expensive and kills a lot of birds) and solar which only works in daytime.

I don’t understand your point about solar. The batteries powered by solar energy can obviously be used when the sun is not shining.

 

[Eugenius]

Public outcry.
Historically there has been a direct correlation between MPG rating being mandated and the number of deaths in accidents.
For every MPG mandated, there was a corresponding increase in deaths.
As to the high mileage of a vehicle in the early 80’s, emmisions standards came into vogue about that time. The government mandated it, and the cars suddenly dropped MPG’s as a result.

Say what? Can you provide some supporting information for this? I want better MPG from my car for financial reasons.

 

[Raskolnikov]

From The Independent -

Letters to a heretic: An email conversation with climate change sceptic Professor Freeman Dyson

  *"World-renowned physicist Professor Freeman Dyson has  been described as a 'force-of-nature intellect'. He's also one of the  world's foremost climate change sceptics. In this email exchange, our  science editor, Steve Connor, asks the Princeton scholar why he's one of  the few true intellectuals to be so dismissive of the global-warming  consensus"*

Dyson makes the following points in an email exchange with an Independent journalist -

First, the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world.
…

Freeman Dyson’s position on Climate change should be clarified. He does not so much oppose the idea that the atmosphere is warming, nor that the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas have contributed to this. However, he has qualified the idea in a few ways. One, foe course as your article mentions, he has criticized the ability to accurately predict climate behavior, and that we don’t know nearly enough about the climate to attempt to make detailed predictions. He has also claimed that, while there is warming, that it is not a global phenomenon. He also argues that exaggeration of the effects of global warming “take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health,…” He is also quite critical of the scientic community’s exclusion of opposing viewpoints, as well as of the occasional lack of transparency among some scientists researching the issue.

I like Dyson, and mostly agree with his position on the subject. Of course, Dyson certainly not dismissive of global warming or anthropogenic global warming, but has argued for the allowance of competing viewponts on the issue rather than the exclusion of all dissenters, or “heretics,” a word he proudly ascribes to himself.

Anyone interested might consider reading his article “HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY” in which he expounds on his “heresies” regarding climate change. You skeptics I suspect might especially enjoy it:

edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Say what? Can you provide some supporting information for this? I want better MPG from my car for financial reasons.

In real life, the only way you can improve gas mileage , better MPG, is to reduce the weight of the car. Engine technology is about as good as it is going to get and still keep the car reasonably priced. So if you reduce the weight of the car, the engine will not have to work as hard and the engine will burn less fuel. Thus: better gas mileage.

The only real way, in real life, to reduce the weight of the vehicle is to make the car structurally flimsier.

A flimsy car just doesn’t have the structure that a sturdier car has, and so in a collision, whether with a stationary object or another vehicle, the flimsy car and its occupants suffer.

So basically, a lighter, flimsier car will suffer more damage than a heavier, sturdier car.

And if you have a family and need to haul children and “stuff” around, you will need a larger, and thus by definition a heavier, sturdier vehicle, whether it is an SUV [bascially a truck converted to haul people] or a full size car [they have pretty much stopped making station wagons because the heavier station wagons reduce the corporate average fleet economy [or whatever CAFE stands for], … so a collision between a heavy vehicle and a light vehicle results in the light vehicle suffering more damage.

So, to get more mpg, you end up having to accept higher casualties in crashes.

What makes the overall situation worse is that the mandated safety equipment [air bags and stronger bumpers] make the car heavier. Additional air pollution abatement also make the car heavier.

Adding weight also reduces the economy, so the gas mileage suffers.

There is no nice way.

Take a look at some of the new really efficient cars. The passenger compartment is so close to the front of the car, that the driver is extremely vulnerable in a crash.

But they did get the weight down.

But if you crash into a truck that has stopped at a traffic light, when you rear end the truck, your face will be the first thing that impacts the truck. There is no crush room at all in them.

And they are so light, that if you are driving in a strong wind, you will get blown right off the road.

The ORIGINAL Volkswagen Beetle got great gas mileage … in the 1950’s and 1960’s. But VW could not fit all of the mandated anti-pollution under the hood as the years went by and the requirements got stricter. Those early cars easily got 45 mpg.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

I don’t understand your point about solar. The batteries powered by solar energy can obviously be used when the sun is not shining.

What batteries?

The MAJOR shortcoming with solar and wind power is that the energy storage devices are not commercially viable. For a house, you will need a whole room full of batteries that require constant monitoring and maintenance.

Which is why commercially sized solar and wind systems need a spinning reserve.

Take a look at places like the Netherlands and Spain.

They have worked at it and they can’t get it to work.

Unless you live so far off the grid that nothing else is available and you build your own boutique system, … but apart from those DIY boutique systems, nothing really practical has emerged so far.

Even with hybrid cars, we can’t build the batteries here in the USA because of the hazardous metals in the batteries; we have to import the batteries from Korea. We are willing to let the Koreans pollute their own country, but not here.

They keep working and keep developing … but they are basically selling futures. Some day … with just a little more work … but brilliant whiz bangs have tried everything, and so far … no joy.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

If this thread is down to two posters it is because they are arguing over personal issues. That sort of cuts others out, don’t you think?

When the debate gets down to how much pollution an SUV produces compared to an ordinary car, well, that’s being pedantic. SUVs. like cars, come with many different engineering configurations and so the debate is peurile. meanwhile, according to AGW theory, humans are doing a lot of other things besides drive cars that is causing the world to heat up. That debate, contrary to popular opinion, isn’t yet complete. Too many have staked their reputations one way or the other and they wont give up easily.

This article, in The Hindu, informs us that Indian scientists think around 40% of warming, if any, is due to cosmic rays. The article is pertinent because India’s own R.K. Pachauri is IPCC chairman. He wont give up easily.

Meanwhile, Kimmielittle has started this thread to see what comes next. It would seem that good stewardship of the environment is her cause celebre, as it should be, because that is Catholic doctrine. However, my question is and has been for a long, long time, how can the world recieve ‘good stewardship’ when such a great proportion of the world’s population lives in urban centres and therefore is disassociated from the natural world? Human’s have successfully built for themselves a more secure, predictable environment, but it is an artificial one, lived on and inside concrete dwellings with artificial climates… Are we destined, because of this, to rely on big ugly environmental bureacracies to carry out our ‘good stewardship’ and do our thinking for us? And because of our new and improved human condition, which includes a detachment from the natural world, are we therefore more prone to ‘propoganda’ spewed forth by those same bureacracies?

Interesting article in The Hindu and interesting comments.

Clearly AGW is NOT totally due to human activity. Rao proves that.

But the actual percent due to cosmic rays is also not known. Rao merely proves that cosmic rays cause some of it.

Nobody really knows what percent of warming is due to human sources.

It’s really all just speculation.

Could be zero.

The major source AND sink of carbon dioxide is the ocean, after all.

And we are just in the very early stages of learning about the impact of cosmic rays on the Earth.

It was only a very few years ago that people looked at you funny if you even mentioned “sun spots” … and yet sun spot cycles have been documented for hundreds of years. We are in the 24th or so numbered sun spot cycle.

The Chinese have accurate solar observation records going back at least to 781BC and solar sun spot recordings to perhaps BC 206.

Source: “East Asian Archaeoastronomy” by Xu, Pankenier and Jiang

So, even though sun spots have been recorded for more than 2000 years, if you mentioned them in public, people would look at you funny. In fact, I raised the subject of sun spot cycles with the SCIENCE EDITOR of a MAJOR news publication just a few years ago, and they said that sun spots had zero credibility. [Actually, they were much more insulting than that.]

Basically, we know very little about our planet and the things that impinge on it. And people are busy making stuff up in order to attempt to account for some of the lack of real science.

In addition to the sun spot “controversy”, and the cosmic ray controversy, there is also the issue of “naturally occurring organohalogens”, which the prevailing scientific opinion said did not exist. Until Dr. Gordon Gribble proved that they did and identified more than 4000 of them. There is even now a periodic international conference on Naturally Occurring Organohalogens.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Getting timed out.

Get a copy of “It’s the Sun, Not Your SUV … CO2 Won’t Destroy the Earth” by John Zyrkowski. With the forward by Peter Dietze, who is an IPCC Reviewer.

Important stuff and everyone needs to read up and get the insights into the various discussion points.

 

[John21652]

Opinion - The Telegraph's columnists inform and entertain with their analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics. - The Telegraph

 

[Monte_RCMS]

And now, it looks like nobody wants the “electric car”:

lucianne.com/thread/?artnum=599848

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A new issue of TWTW was just released:

www.sepp.org click on The Week That Was

 

[John21652]

Sick Sick Sick

Some respond to Japan earthquake by pointing to global warming

The warmists are trying to link climate to earthquakes. Start your car and cause an earthquake somewhere else, seem to be the message!!

What drivel…

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK - re the safety of nuclear power, which was discussed at the beginning of this thread, well you guys have convinced me that nuclear power is safe, there will never be any more tragedies such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and…oh, wait a minute. Isn’t there an ongoing problem with a nuclear power plant in Japan? I mean, the backup cooling system didn’t work, radiation is being released, and almost 200,000 people have been told to seal themselves up in their houses.

It’s not safe, guys. IT IS NOT SAFE.

For the first time in my life I’m going to say it:

I TOLD YOU SO.

 

[LittleSoldier]

OK - re the safety of nuclear power, which was discussed at the beginning of this thread, well you guys have convinced me that nuclear power is safe, there will never be any more tragedies such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and…oh, wait a minute. Isn’t there an ongoing problem with a nuclear power plant in Japan? I mean, the backup cooling system didn’t work, radiation is being released, and almost 200,000 people have been told to seal themselves up in their houses.

It’s not safe, guys. IT IS NOT SAFE.

For the first time in my life I’m going to say it:

I TOLD YOU SO.

Edit: I was too fast in posting. There are problems in FIVE nuclear power plants in Japan.

 

[Ender]

OK - re the safety of nuclear power, which was discussed at the beginning of this thread, well you guys have convinced me that nuclear power is safe, there will never be any more tragedies such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and …

For a little perspective on the Three Mile Island “tragedy”: the excess radiation exposure was equivalent to what one would receive on a round trip flight from New York to LA or from getting an X-ray. That this incident is generally perceived to be a tragedy shows the effectiveness of the anti-nuclear propaganda we’ve wallowed in for decades.

Ender

 

[LittleSoldier]

For a little perspective on the Three Mile Island “tragedy”: the excess radiation exposure was equivalent to what one would receive on a round trip flight from New York to LA or from getting an X-ray. That this incident is generally perceived to be a tragedy shows the effectiveness of the anti-nuclear propaganda we’ve wallowed in for decades.

Ender

Or perhaps it shows that data released to the public does not tell the entire truth. I’m not saying that what was said about Three Mile Island by “official sources” was not true because I don’t know. I’m simply pointing out the possibility.

Are you implying that the problems Japan is experiencing with its nuclear power plants are not emergencies? That the radiation that has been released is not a problem? That it is equivalent to your examples given above but no more dangerous? I think the next several weeks will prove to be very interesting.

And I hope to God that I am wrong about this. But I don’t think I am.

 

[vz71]

It’s not safe, guys. IT IS NOT SAFE.

For the first time in my life I’m going to say it:

I TOLD YOU SO.

After a 9.0 quake and a tsunami, nothing is safe.

Several thousand people died from the tsunami sweeping through a town.

Perhaps we should revise the statement…
TOWNS ARE NOT SAFE.
I TOLD YOU SO.