We have no storage system, or will we for decades.
We cannot convert atmospheric CO2 into liquid fuels to supply our transport needs, as mass action is against us. We could at a pinch get a reasonable using nuclear and sea water DIC, generating fresh water and hydrocarbons, but running atmospheric CO2 and wind/sunlight hydrocarbon conversion is impossible.
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by AK
[...] running atmospheric CO2 and wind/sunlight hydrocarbon conversion is impossible.
Nonsense!
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by omanuel
Link correction: http://tinyurl.com/6bco8qr
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by daveandrews723
Several of Sagan’s tools refer to hypotheses. But the warmists claim their CAGW belief is beyond hypothesis, that it is a proven theory, unchallengable now. They will go down kicking and screaming until the last nail is put in the coffin of their “theory.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Next time Rohrabacher starts to talk to Judith about Mars in one of these congressional hearings, I think it will be hard for her to suppress a giggle.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by rls
Joshua
What was the complete, in context, Niger statement in the state of the union address?
Richard
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
I’d call this a critique of GCMs, but they’ll be a later installment:
http://scienceofdoom.com/2014/11/01/natural-variability-and-chaos-three-attribution-fingerprints/
In a study he looked at, they did this:
# model runs with GHG forcing
# model runs with “other anthropogenic” and natural forcings
# model runs with internal variability only
And then kind of calculated the difference. He also mentioned model drift. Seems that should be solved.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by David L. Hagen
<b>Einstein's Razor</b>
<a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein" rel="nofollow">"Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.” </a>
Occam's razor is helpful but insufficient.
Occam's "simplest" solution - eg CO2 - is inadequate. <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/08/an-empirical-review-of-recent-trends-in-the-greenhouse-effect/" / rel="nofollow">Emissivity is not behaving as IPCC expects.</a>
We need a sufficient model - that incorporates both natural and anthroprogenic causes, which is skillful, and which can be validated.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Peter Davies
Joshua wonders how I reached my conclusion that John’s solution is more likely to cause more harm than good. As Bob Ludwick has said, the evidence that John has used in reaching his conclusions has not been properly addressed by orthodox climate science and I suspect that Joshua himself would not be able to identify this evidence either.
My belief or opinion is simply based on the likely damage to the Western economies if decarbonisation were to be implemented, to the exclusion of the developing nations, which presumedly will be allowed to continue their industrialisation policies unhampered by such restrictions.
My “solution aversion’ is partly based on this damage that would likely occur if John’s solution (you asked what it was: its decarbonisation) were implemented and for this reason my response is considered to be on topic. My other reason for “solution aversion” is the apparent lack of reliable data on current global warming trends and the poor peer review processes that have taken place in the climate science field so far.
I would prefer to see you exercise your excellent logic auditing skills more on the warmist dogma such as that put out by John and others, because if you don’t, I would have to conclude that your bias is showing.
↧
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by ordvic
Nice!
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Greg Cavanagh
One must also have faith in, and give due credit, to the reader.
Yes, any given item you read on the net isn’t known as a truth or a lie. It could be either, or neither. The web is full of statements. The more you read around the net, the more you learn. Eventually you will find lists of common fallacies, and some lights will start coming on for the reader.
It’s a slow and haphazard leaning method, but overall I think ROM is correct. Society will begin to take ownership of itself and what it is fed.
In this new web based Gutenberg revolution, any given individual may not seem the wiser. It’s the societal difference that ROM is pointing at.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by omanuel
Xenon isotope data from Jupiter’s He-rich atmosphere:
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by PA
Well, yeah.
From an engineering perspective a theory is only as good as it’s useful (falsifiable) predictions.
No one really cares about theories that don’t make useful (falsifiable) predictions since they aren’t useful. Theories that make useful (falsifiable) predictions that aren’t correct – are failed theories and no one cares about them either.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Ragnaar
Mars icecaps, global warming:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/abs/nature05718.html
Peer reviewed science.
“They believe changes in albedo should be an important part of future studies on atmosphere and climate change.”
↧
Comment on Week in review by rls
Pokerguy
Federal spending as %GDP under Bush 2001-2008 was slightly lower than under Clinton. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesglassman/2012/07/11/the-facts-about-budget-deficits-how-the-presidents-truly-rank/
↧
Comment on Week in review by aaron
Thanks.
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by Rud Istvan
Beth, ‘wonders never cease’. God help is all…from Eureka prizes!
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Danny Thomas
Ragnaar,
Please walk me thru this as best you can. Where I am now is albedo is a synonym for “reflectivity” or a “coefficent of reflectivity”. At this point, projections are for an approximate projected warming on earth of about 2C. Is the .65C increase in the temp on Mars (based on the Corrigendum) from between “1970’s to 1990’s” somehow to be extrapolated to some equivalent here? There are many other factors in the differences between atmospheres so I’m expecting that to not be the case. Hope you don’t mind that I asked.
Ya’ll are my proxy for a class on climate change as I’m not in a position to attend one at this time, so if I’m speaking out of turn let me know.
Oh, and is this change on Mars anthropogenic? We’ve stirred up the dust up there ya know. (Very poor attempt at a CC joke). Sighs expected.
↧
Comment on Week in review by rls
Pokerguy
There appears to be no reason to go back to the draft; people today have the freedom to choose to serve and there are no sectors of the population being hurt. Recruits are coming mostly from middle and upper income families and represent the races equitably. http://freakonomics.com/2008/09/22/who-serves-in-the-military-today/
Richard
↧
Comment on Sagan’s baloney detection rules by RiHo08
ROM
Do you have any opinions as to who will mimic Martin Luther and his The Ninety-Five Theses in the post-internet/www era.
Are there likely iconoclasts who summarize and articulate the abuses of a current paradigm? As science has many subsets, perhaps a single individual is too much to ask for although Albert Einstein played such a role.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
