Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Climate Wars to come

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Lore » Fri 15 Apr 2016, 21:22:39

It's just that Palin's understanding of climate changes verges on the idiotic as compared to Bill Nye.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby onlooker » Fri 15 Apr 2016, 21:39:21

Lore wrote:It's just that Palin's understanding of climate changes verges on the idiotic as compared to Bill Nye.

And that Palin is on the roll of the monied interests. Most politicians are.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Satori » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 08:23:27

hmmm
a degree in journalism vs a degree in engineering ???

oh wait
Palin was 1/2 governor of Alaska
that should count for something :lol: :lol: :lol:

seriously though
Grandma Palin should be home baby sitting her kids illegitimate children :P
User avatar
Satori
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 08:55:41

Satori wrote:hmmm
a degree in journalism vs a degree in engineering ???

oh wait
Palin was 1/2 governor of Alaska
that should count for something :lol: :lol: :lol:

seriously though
Grandma Palin should be home baby sitting her kids illegitimate children :P


You entirely miss my point. Neither of them are scientists or climate researchers, therefore everything they say on the subject is something they were told by someone else that they are just repeating. Because Sarah Palin says things you disagree with and Bill Nye says things you agree with has no baring on the fact that both of them are just parroting someone else.

There are a handful of climate scientists who disagree with AGW and a large number who agree, to have an honest discussion the people doing the interviews would have invited actual climate scientists on both sides of the issue to explain their positions and why they believe they have drawn the correct conclusions.

Instead they selected two well known non-scientists to represent the two sides, allowing each of them to rely on rhetoric and clever word play rather than actual studies and verifiable science done by themselves.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby onlooker » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 09:01:21

In a way it is like us here on Peak oil.com also. However, I can only speak for myself but my assertions are based on the rather impressive scientific consensus on AGW. I think it is becoming quite difficult to factually discount that warming is happening and that it is mostly caused by Man. As for how fast and how bad, that is I think still open to discussion and more scientific analysis. We are though already experiencing pretty dramatic climate events and trends.
"We are mortal beings doomed to die
User avatar
onlooker
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 10957
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 13:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Satori » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 17:37:24

Tanada
I understand your point entirely
and you are correct,
neither are climate scientists
but when presented with the same set of facts
who is MUCH more likely to process the information correctly?
have you ever heard a Palin speech ?
can you say word salad?
something ain't right with that chick :P

I do have to give her props though
for being a great source of amusement and entertainment
and for her hill billy family?
it would take a years worth of Jerry Springer shows :lol:
User avatar
Satori
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon 29 Oct 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Lore » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 18:44:05

Tanada wrote:
Satori wrote:hmmm
a degree in journalism vs a degree in engineering ???

oh wait
Palin was 1/2 governor of Alaska
that should count for something :lol: :lol: :lol:

seriously though
Grandma Palin should be home baby sitting her kids illegitimate children :P


You entirely miss my point. Neither of them are scientists or climate researchers, therefore everything they say on the subject is something they were told by someone else that they are just repeating. Because Sarah Palin says things you disagree with and Bill Nye says things you agree with has no baring on the fact that both of them are just parroting someone else.

There are a handful of climate scientists who disagree with AGW and a large number who agree, to have an honest discussion the people doing the interviews would have invited actual climate scientists on both sides of the issue to explain their positions and why they believe they have drawn the correct conclusions.

Instead they selected two well known non-scientists to represent the two sides, allowing each of them to rely on rhetoric and clever word play rather than actual studies and verifiable science done by themselves.


Big difference. Palin just spouts nonsense off the top of her head. Bill uses the actual science to back up his arguments.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby ennui2 » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 21:26:12

I wish the left would not harp on the "Big oil knew" argument because it is an attempt to avoid accepting personal blame, sort of like the war on drugs only going after drug dealers and not dealing with demand. The public have been well-informed about AGW for decades now and it hasn't dampered demand. So we're really not in a position to push all the blame on big oil because having been told about it, we still keep on truckin'.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Lore » Sat 16 Apr 2016, 21:48:50

Its not about personal responsibility. It's about corporations paying out to defraud the average citizen.

Like the tobacco industry as long as you had them saying there is nothing to worry about it gave smokers an excuse to neglect the evidence. It wasn't till people had the ability to sue on that evidence did the industry begin to change its tune.

Once everyone agrees that a problem does exist and is getting worse day-by-day, then maybe a positive response can be made as to actually doing something about it.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 06:11:57

pstarr wrote:IMHO both sides are ginning up the actual science to further their own agendas/cause.

For instance the dailykos/climateprogress article on big oil lies is disingenuous (big word for lying lol). It wants to claim the oil companies new their work was heating the planet. But that is BS.

The 50-year old claim (in the old oil company advertisement) refers to waste heat (a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion) melting glaziers. But waste heat barely contributes to greenhouse warming. Otherwise temperatures would have risen faster during a period of lower thermal efficiency (early in the industrial age, when more waste heat generated) than in decades when thermal efficiency has increased energy-use efficiency and reduced waste heat.

How could the waste heat from burning 85 million barrels of oil a day and the equivalent of 78mbd of coal plus 58mbd of natural gas not be a contributing factor. All three waste from 33 to 67 percent of their energy as heat out the exhaust stack or radiator. That is a lot of hot air and double what we were releasing back in 1975. The mass of the atmosphere is known so it would not be hard to do the math. That heat may not be the primary cause of global warming but it is certainly a factor or contributor.
Or to look at it another way. CO2 maybe what keeps the waste heat from radiating out into space but the exhaust gasses from burning fossil fuels is the source of the excess heat we need to get rid of.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Cog » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 07:10:10

Waste heat is negligible compared to what the sun does every day from sunrise to sunset in heating the atmosphere. Comparable to throwing a pebble in the ocean and trying to measure the effect on sea level rise.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13416
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 07:20:00

vtsnowedin wrote:
pstarr wrote:IMHO both sides are ginning up the actual science to further their own agendas/cause.

For instance the dailykos/climateprogress article on big oil lies is disingenuous (big word for lying lol). It wants to claim the oil companies new their work was heating the planet. But that is BS.

The 50-year old claim (in the old oil company advertisement) refers to waste heat (a byproduct of fossil-fuel combustion) melting glaziers. But waste heat barely contributes to greenhouse warming. Otherwise temperatures would have risen faster during a period of lower thermal efficiency (early in the industrial age, when more waste heat generated) than in decades when thermal efficiency has increased energy-use efficiency and reduced waste heat.

How could the waste heat from burning 85 million barrels of oil a day and the equivalent of 78mbd of coal plus 58mbd of natural gas not be a contributing factor. All three waste from 33 to 67 percent of their energy as heat out the exhaust stack or radiator. That is a lot of hot air and double what we were releasing back in 1975. The mass of the atmosphere is known so it would not be hard to do the math. That heat may not be the primary cause of global warming but it is certainly a factor or contributor.
Or to look at it another way. CO2 maybe what keeps the waste heat from radiating out into space but the exhaust gasses from burning fossil fuels is the source of the excess heat we need to get rid of.


The math is not hard but I don't have time to look up the exact figures right now. I know it has been posted somewhere on the board in the last decade but in outline it goes like this. The Earth gets heat at the surface from three sources, incoming solar energy is the primary source. The second most concentrated source is radiation in the core of the planet that drives hot springs, geysers and volcanoes to release heat at the surface. The third is chemical energy released by chemical digestion or oxidation. 99+ percent of the energy released as heat at the surface comes from the sunlight striking our planet. In very general terms something like 15 quadrillion BTU of heating takes place and 14.99 Quads is from the sun.

BTW when you are talking about burning fossil fuels you can not count just the ejected waste heat that goes up the stack. All of the chemical energy from combustion is released into the environment, we just get useful work out of some of it before it gets released. Use a small car for an example, 65 percent of the heat value of the fuel ends up either escaping directly with the exhaust gasses or heating the water or air that is used to cool the engine. What about the other 35 percent? Well it does useful work by making the car move, but to do that there are gear losses that heat the transmission and differential gear box, there is wind resistance that creates friction heating the surface of the car and the air that carries away that heat. There is heating of the rubber tires as they bend and flex and have friction with the road surface being driven upon. Most of all there is the heating of the brake pads and disc/drum mechanisms as the direct method of safely stopping the car. While you got 35 percent useful work out of every gallon of gasoline you burned all 100 percent of the BTU's in that gasoline ended up as waste heat in the environment.

What the heck, I went ahead and did a quick google search, here is the statement from the Max Planck Institute, a physics research organization.
Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2). The average heat flux of a human body, about 100 Joules per second (i.e. 100 Watts per person) represents only a few percent of the energy flux produced by our power supply systems in industrial countries. The human body’s heat flux is part of the natural energy budget, since the carbon contained in our food would be emitted as carbon dioxide by other creatures if not by ourselves. It is thus negligible. Compared to radiative forcing through greenhouse gas emissions which has already amounted to 3 Wm-2 and is supposed to steadily increase, we do not change global climate significantly through the heat we produce by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium.


http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/communicati ... e-climate/
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 08:50:05

Tanada wrote:[

BTW when you are talking about burning fossil fuels you can not count just the ejected waste heat that goes up the stack. All of the chemical energy from combustion is released into the environment, we just get useful work out of some of it before it gets released.

Point taken.

What the heck, I went ahead and did a quick google search, here is the statement from the Max Planck Institute, a physics research organization.
Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

But was not that 10,000 in balance? All of our industrial fossil fuel use is the additional and if CO2 keeps it from escaping it is cumulative year on year. The CO2 may also be disrupting the balance of the original 10,000 units by a factor larger then our direct heat input but I have to think a fire burning 200 million barrels of oil each and every day has to show up somewhere.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 11:04:44

vtsnowedin wrote:
Tanada wrote:[

BTW when you are talking about burning fossil fuels you can not count just the ejected waste heat that goes up the stack. All of the chemical energy from combustion is released into the environment, we just get useful work out of some of it before it gets released.

Point taken.

What the heck, I went ahead and did a quick google search, here is the statement from the Max Planck Institute, a physics research organization.
Is waste heat produced by human activities important for the climate?

No. The sun provides almost 10,000 times as much energy to the Earth’s surface per time unit and unit area, namely 242 Wm-2, as we emit into the atmosphere or waters through industry, transport, housing, agriculture and other activities by using fossil fuels and the nuclear fuel uranium (0.03 Wm-2).

But was not that 10,000 in balance? All of our industrial fossil fuel use is the additional and if CO2 keeps it from escaping it is cumulative year on year. The CO2 may also be disrupting the balance of the original 10,000 units by a factor larger then our direct heat input but I have to think a fire burning 200 million barrels of oil each and every day has to show up somewhere.


The sunlight is not at a constant strength when you are talking about differences in the 1:10000 range of variation, sunspots can cause several times that much variation.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 11:20:12

T is of course right that the direct waste heat from burning fossil fuels is tiny compared to solar energy.

But I think it was Ugo Bardi who figured out that if you project economic growth of 2or 3% (can't remember which, but it wasn't a big number) out a few centuries, even that small amount gets big enough through exponential growth to become significant, eventually (but still just a few centuries) getting big enough to be hotter than the sun, just from that waste heat and even if all energy came from non-ff renewables.

It was a demonstration of how we have to get of the limitless growth cycle at some point in the not-too-distant future even if we manage somehow to get completely off of ffs. (This was on the old Oil Drum, so should be findable by searching their archives).
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby ennui2 » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 11:21:31

Lore wrote:Like the tobacco industry as long as you had them saying there is nothing to worry about it gave smokers an excuse to neglect the evidence. It wasn't till people had the ability to sue on that evidence did the industry begin to change its tune.

Once everyone agrees that a problem does exist and is getting worse day-by-day, then maybe a positive response can be made as to actually doing something about it.



People have been raising alarm bells about AGW since when? Mid to late 90s at least. At what point did the scientific community reach consensus? Probably some time BEFORE Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. If Big Oil didn't fuel its denial machine, then, do you think people would really change their behavior? Considering that people still smoke, I don't think some of the coulda-shoulda-woulda logic behind this makes sense.
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 3920
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 10:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 12:21:36

ennui2 wrote:
Lore wrote:Like the tobacco industry as long as you had them saying there is nothing to worry about it gave smokers an excuse to neglect the evidence. It wasn't till people had the ability to sue on that evidence did the industry begin to change its tune.

Once everyone agrees that a problem does exist and is getting worse day-by-day, then maybe a positive response can be made as to actually doing something about it.



People have been raising alarm bells about AGW since when? Mid to late 90s at least. At what point did the scientific community reach consensus? Probably some time BEFORE Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth. If Big Oil didn't fuel its denial machine, then, do you think people would really change their behavior? Considering that people still smoke, I don't think some of the coulda-shoulda-woulda logic behind this makes sense.


During the Midwest drought of 1988 I remember hearing on the news that James Hansen, NASA scientist, was testifying before congress on global warming. That was the year we hit 350 ppm of CO2, seems like forever ago now.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 17 Apr 2016, 15:41:12

In 1965, LBJ's administration issued an official report on the potential of damaging climate change.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/LBJ-climate-1965.html

From the report--again, this is the mid-'60's:

Within a few short centuries, we are returning to the air a significant part of the carbon that was extracted by plants and buried in the sediments during half a billion years

‘Through his worldwide industrial civilization, Man is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical experiment. Within a few generations he is burning the fossil fuels that slowly accumulated in the earth over the past 500 million years’

‘By the year 2000 the increase in CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate.’

‘The climate changes that may be produced by the increased CO2 content could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.’
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: Subpoenaed Into Silence on Global Warming

Unread postby rdberg1957 » Mon 25 Apr 2016, 00:28:03

It is one thing to sell a product that is harmful. It is another to do research which shows it is harmful (knowledge), bury the research and lie about what you know. That is fraud.
User avatar
rdberg1957
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 172
Joined: Fri 28 Jul 2006, 03:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests