Tuckerfan, I must admit to some confusion. You say:
Una describes her qualifications as follows
And Una says on her public profile that she is a:
…which is way cool, but doesn’t help me a lot.
So, she is not a meteorologist, she is not a climate scientist, and she is not an expert on the “root causes” of global warming … Tuckerfan, exactly which qualifications are you discussing? What am I missing here?
w.
[QUOTE=intention]
Tuckerfan, I must admit to some confusion. You say:
Una describes her qualifications as follows
And Una says on her public profile that she is a:
…which is way cool, but doesn’t help me a lot.
So, she is not a meteorologist, she is not a climate scientist, and she is not an expert on the “root causes” of global warming … Tuckerfan, exactly which qualifications are you discussing? What am I missing here?
w.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I said I was not an expert on the “root causes or potential root causes of AGW theory.” This means I am not a person who will be able to debate everything from net solar radiation flux to wind patterns to therm-influenced sea swelling to population growth estimates. What I am an expert on is the power generation industry, especially fossil, biomass, and other combustion power plants. I have also worked with the coal mining industry, railroads, shipping, OTR trucking, the automobile industry, the pulp and paper industry, brewers, aluminum and steel makers, hydro plants, and a variety of manufacturing firms making consumer products. I am very familiar with the issues and the players involved in AGW and have written some things on the subject in the past. I have had a few books and about 30 papers published on energy and the environment, more if you count thinly-disguised marketing papers that really have little scientific merit. I have taught University courses, and not as a TA. I have worked with or been to more than 600 power plant units in 13 or 14 countries, and about 2/3 of all the major electrical generation sites in the US. Over many years I have spoken with people from minimum-wage mud hogs out in the coal yard to research scientists to billion-dollar CEOs of international mining concerns about global warming.
However, what I am saying is even with all that nice practical experience I’m not an expert on global warming and debating and comparing and contrasting the various root causes, potential influencing factors, sources and magnitudes of experimental error, etc. I’m guessing that Tuckerfan is positing that given my experience in the area the fact that I do not think that AGW is a “crock of shit” is important. While I am flattered in his confidence in my judgment, I am not now, nor do I ever, hold myself out as an AGW expert, just someone who’s pretty familiar with a critical component of it.
So let’s be crystal clear here - I am not entering a debate on here, or disputing anyone’s points contrary to AGW theory. I have neither the time nor inclination to re-enter that particular discussion. I am not holding myself out as an AGW expert on this message board. In fact, I reckon most folks find my specialized knowledge fairly useless and quaint. Whatever the case, I am not in this argument.
Notice that brazil84 has not denied that he is a paid shill.
[QUOTE=vibrotronica]
Notice that brazil84 has not denied that he is a paid shill.
[/QUOTE]
Now that’s funny. For the record, I’m not a paid shill.
Thanks, Una, much appreciated. A very interesting career indeed.
w.
[QUOTE=The Flying Dutchman]
And why is biodiesel different than diesel carbon emissions wise ?
[/QUOTE]
In case this isn’t obvious:
Diesel fuel is dug up from underground, so burning it adds new CO2 into the atmosphere. The carbon in biodiesel is taken from the atmosphere (by plants), so making and burning biodiesel doesn’t add any new CO2 to the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=scr4]
In case this isn’t obvious:
Diesel fuel is dug up from underground, so burning it adds new CO2 into the atmosphere. The carbon in biodiesel is taken from the atmosphere (by plants), so making and burning biodiesel doesn’t add any new CO2 to the atmosphere.
[/QUOTE]
Diesel doesn’t add any new CO2 to the atmosphere either. All we are doing is rectifying the serious and worrying historical atmospheric CO2 deficit due to the huge amounts of CO2 that were surreptitiously removed from the atmosphere by the same so-called “plants” in geological times. During the last 1000 years, CO2 levels were about as low as they have ever been, due to these deleterious effects of fossil fuel formation. We all have an obligation do something about this immediately … [/humor off]
w.
[QUOTE=intention]
Thanks, Una, much appreciated. A very interesting career indeed.
w.
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. Someday I’ll have to post about the fascinating work I did for a certain government agency involving a search for WMDs.
…
Ha. Not likely. :dubious:
[QUOTE=brazil84]
You seemed to be claiming that recent tornado activity was unprecedented. Which would appear to be false. Assuming that recent tornado activity is NOT unprecedented, how is it evidence of catastrophic AGW?
[/quote]
Actually, no, only that it has been coming earlier and earlier in the year.
Again, I am not nor have I ever said, it is unprecedented, merely that it has now become common, while in the past, it was a bit unusual. In scanning Sauron’s link, I note that it does not explicitly state if the frequency of tornadoes in the earlier parts of the year has been increasing or not. The raw data is there, but I’m not interested in crunching the numbers to figure it out. I will note, however, that in the table of “Largest Tornado Outbreaks in Middle Tennessee” the vast majority of them fall into the previous 10 years.
Then we’re done, here. If you want to claim that you’ve now won “teh internets”, knock yourself out.
Nor did I intend to imply that you were an “expert” on climate, merely that as someone who, by nature of your work, was intimately familiar with the issues, and, to a degree (no pun intended), involved with those who are experts on the matter. This would, by simple proximity, give you a better grasp of the issue than the vast majority of folks.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Actually, no, only that it has been coming earlier and earlier in the year.
[/quote]
Any way you slice it, you are claiming that someting is happening now that didn’t happen in the past.
Yet you refuse to back up your claim.
As you said yourself, it’s “possible to be a snivelling little wanker who whines and ignores evidence when it’s right in front of them”
Haha. The classic last refuge of the pro-AGW person whose had his ass handed to him on the merits – turn the argument to qualifications. Bonus points if you connect your opponent to industry somehow.
[QUOTE=Tuckerfan]
Again, I am not nor have I ever said, it is unprecedented, merely that it has now become common, while in the past, it was a bit unusual. In scanning Sauron’s link, I note that it does not explicitly state if the frequency of tornadoes in the earlier parts of the year has been increasing or not. The raw data is there, but I’m not interested in crunching the numbers to figure it out. I will note, however, that in the table of “Largest Tornado Outbreaks in Middle Tennessee” the vast majority of them fall into the previous 10 years.
[/QUOTE]
Well, let’s be fair here … the study also notes that records of weak tornadoes (F0 or F1 on the Fujita scale) are almost non-existent prior to 1950, while records of larger tornadoes (F2 through F5) fall within roughly the same parameters as post-1950. It postulates three possible explanations for that:
The population across Middle Tennessee was significantly lower, and far more rural. This would increase the likelihood of tornadoes, especially weaker ones, passing undetected.
The Weather Bureau prior to 1950 did not issue tornado warnings, and the warning coordination and awareness efforts of the present were not in place then. Therefore, the process of pursuing documentation on tornadic activity was minimal when compared to the processes today.
Storm damage may not have been considered newsworthy unless it was very significant.
The study goes on to note:
"To further investigate this trend, let us now consider tornadoes only within the past decade (Figure 4). The distribution across the F-scale is now far more even, much heavier toward the lower end of the scale, and therefore a more realistic portrayal of the actual distribution of tornado occurrence.
The dramatic increase in detection and documentation of weaker storms is likely a reflection of population increases, greater awareness by the public and media, and the installation of Doppler radar, which is able to detect tornadoes that occur in sparsely populated regions, thereby prompting National Weather Service employees (and the media) to actively pursue storm reports. In fact, 157 tornadoes, or more than one-third of the entire database, have been catalogued within the last decade alone."
And when referring to serious outbreaks of tornadoes on particular dates:
“That only one of the aforementioned outbreaks occurred prior to 1974 – and none prior to 1909 – does not in any way suggest that tornado outbreaks are recent phenomena, but merely reflects the trend in tornado documentation.”
So the “1/3 of the storms being reported in the past decade” statistic is likely to be the result of increased awareness and detection capability, rather than an actual increase in the number of tornadoes themselves. The fact that storms of greater destructive force are spread roughly equally from 1830 through 2003 would not indicate an overall increase in the storms themselves, nor that the storms are occurring earlier in the year.
[QUOTE=Sauron]
For what it’s worth, the U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto treaty because it knew the treaty was useless. As shown in later years, when studies showed the countries who DID sign the treaty didn’t have a chance in hell of meeting the treaty requirements.
The Kyoto treaty was politics for politics’ sake.
[/QUOTE]
Whats wrong with that? It showed that they saw it as a problem and were concerned. Rejecting it says we will do what we want and do not care what the world says. Then we proved it.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
It showed that they saw it as a problem and were concerned.
[/quote]
As they say, that concern plus 2 dollars will get you a ride on the NYC Subway.
But here’s an idea: How about the UN passes a resolution stating “We are concerned about the possibility of man-made climate change. And now we will shut the fuck up and leave you alone.”
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
[QUOTE=sauron]
For what it’s worth, the U.S. didn’t sign the Kyoto treaty because it knew the treaty was useless. As shown in later years, when studies showed the countries who DID sign the treaty didn’t have a chance in hell of meeting the treaty requirements.
[/QUOTE]
The Kyoto treaty was politics for politics’ sake.Whats wrong with that? It showed that they saw it as a problem and were concerned. Rejecting it says we will do what we want and do not care what the world says. Then we proved it.
[/QUOTE]
What’s wrong with Kyoto as “politics for politics sake”? Glad you asked:
It cost billions and billions of dollars.
It has had absolutely no effect, except to show up the signatories as frauds.
It has caused a whole host of nations to break an international Treaty.
It has engendered hatred and ill-will between those nations who went along with the fraud, and those nations who did not.
In addition to direct costs for things like bureaucracies and carbon traders salaries, it has added to the cost of energy. A tax on energy is one of the most regressive taxes, hitting the poor hardest.
It has siphoned money away from solving real problems like providing clean water for people to drink.
It has lessened peoples trust in their governments, who promised to do something and then did nothing.
It has seen some of the most extravagant meetings and conferences generating huge amounts of CO2 in the name of lessening CO2.
It has cost the environmental movement a huge amount of credibility, since their plan did absolutely nothing to lower the temperature.
It has lead to seemingly endless and often boring discussions on the web …
w.
[QUOTE=intention]
9) It has cost the environmental movement a huge amount of credibility, since their plan did absolutely nothing to lower the temperature.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of your items (but what’s wrong with discussions on the web? :D), but it’s not as if one can reliably calculate the effects of a marginal decrease in only 5-10 years.
I mean, people who argue that there isn’t too much global warming say that you can’t even separate the recent rise in temperatures from the long term average. And the effect of Kyoto so far, even if correctly implemented and on track, would be small at the present, way below the noise level AFAIK.
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
[QUOTE=intention]
9) It has cost the environmental movement a huge amount of credibility, since their plan did absolutely nothing to lower the temperature.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with most of your items (but what’s wrong with discussions on the web? :D), but it’s not as if one can reliably calculate the effects of a marginal decrease in only 5-10 years.
I mean, people who argue that there isn’t too much global warming say that you can’t even separate the recent rise in temperatures from the long term average. And the effect of Kyoto so far, even if correctly implemented and on track, would be small at the present, way below the noise level AFAIK.
[/QUOTE]
Ludovic, thanks for your reply. Unfortunately, the effect of Kyoto, even if everyone met their targets, is estimated by Tom Wigley of NCAR (who is a Kyoto supporter) to be less than a tenth of a degree …
Now I’m willing to spend money to change the temperature. Heck, I’m writing this in an air conditioned office.
But if someone came to me and said “I want to sell you this fabulous air conditioner, it only costs a hundred billion dollars, but there’s a really good chance that in 50 years it will lower the temperature by a tenth of a degree” … sorry, no sale.
And it makes even less sense when people say “but Kyoto is just the first step”. Hey, guess what … if the first step is hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the possibility of a tenth of a degree of cooling, I have absolutely no interest in the second step.
Finally, the countries who did listen to the environmental movement and sign on to Kyoto have, by and large, not been able to meet their targets and in a number of countries, far from cutting emissions back to 1990 levels, have not been able to decrease their CO2 emissions at all.
Which makes it one of the most expensive boondoggles in history, the most money spent for the least result. No matter how it plays out, that can’t redound to the credit of the environmentalists.
w.
Any attempt to clean the air and cut down emissions is a positive. It makes the world better. If it does not meet your threshold for danger too bad. But we are making a dirty planet with dirty air. We should do all we can to clean it up.
I’ll try not to be a part of the nasty tone of part of this thread, but I have to take issue with the idea that we should do “all we can” to fight pollution. We could outlaw all internal combustion engines and all coal-fired electrical plants, but I don’t think any of us are willing to go that far.
This means that the acceptable solution is somewhere south of that. Where exactly is what we all argue about. I don’t think that any attempt to “fix pollution” is a positive, no matter what. I could buy a coal burning power plant and then refuse to sell the electricity, but I bet my attempts to clean up the atmosphere would not be appreciated.
I am trying (without success) to find background on this: supposedly, the frostline (which defines the northern limit of citrus cultivation in the USA) has been moving SOUTH for the past 100 years! It is now just about at the latitude of Tampa, FL. 100 years ago, oranges could be grown as far north as Misssissippi.
This would tend to argue that there has beena cooling trend.
[QUOTE=Sauron]
Well, let’s be fair here … the study also notes that records of weak tornadoes (F0 or F1 on the Fujita scale) are almost non-existent prior to 1950, while records of larger tornadoes (F2 through F5) fall within roughly the same parameters as post-1950. It postulates three possible explanations for that:
The population across Middle Tennessee was significantly lower, and far more rural. This would increase the likelihood of tornadoes, especially weaker ones, passing undetected.
The Weather Bureau prior to 1950 did not issue tornado warnings, and the warning coordination and awareness efforts of the present were not in place then. Therefore, the process of pursuing documentation on tornadic activity was minimal when compared to the processes today.
Storm damage may not have been considered newsworthy unless it was very significant.
[/quote]
Right, and I’d consider something which examined the previous 20 years worth of data (or factored out the F0 and F1 tornadoes) to be a valid way to compensate for improved technology and greater reporting.
Which is a bit surprising, IMHO. I’d expect it to be something like the past 20 years, and not the past 10.
And I wouldn’t consider a comparison of something like, say, April 4th 1830 with that of May 17th, 2003 to be valid (assuming that both of them had tornado outbreaks on those dates). Nor could one take simply the same location (Nashville, for example) and run a comparison for the whole time period, as it’s been shown that cities can change weather patterns based on how they grow and the types of construction used in things like roads (asphalt tends to create a hotter heat island than does concrete).
Again, I’d expect the increase to be slightly broader than what’s given in the table. While there can be no doubt that meteorological technology improved dramatically in the time period between 1950 and 1987, I doubt that the improvements between 1987 and 2007 were equally as great. To me, it seems that the “fattest” decades should be the previous two, with a slight increase coming in the past ten years and thus you’d find 1/3rd of tornadoes in the past 20 years, and not the past 10.