Blogs home Loyal Opposition
Who Is To Blame For Inaction On Climate Change?
I have come to a conclusion that climate change proponent think the rest of us are very very stupid. Yes, there is data that suggests that there is climate change. That is science. Then there are models that project all kinds of futures. Since these models deal with much uncertainty, assumptions must be made. At each such assumption the models builders select the worst possible outcomes. This may not be surprising when one realizes that money from the proponents is at stake. The resulting models produce variants on what amounts to a worst possible climate change scenario. The proponents seize on the worst case and demand never ending major sacrifice from all of us.
Nobody seems to know just how much we have to change to reverse the perceived problem. Some statement of an endpoint might just be useful. Demands for never ending carbon reductions without any end target associated with a useful outcome are unrealistic. The whole thing might be more compelling if the shrillness declined and a rational defendable incremental remedy with consequential reflection of improvements became available. Of course there is the chance that what is needed can not be achieved. There just might be factors beyond human contribution involved? Living in a world of endless sacrifice toward an unstated endpoint is needlessly demeaning toward the human race.
Maybe we simply can not get where the advocates seem to be demanding that we go. Maybe we just can not put this genie back in the box. Maybe we are going to have to accept change as we have accepted change since we got here. Are the proponents of the overwhelming crash response not believers in evolution? Looks to me like we may have to evolve a bit - but probably not as much as the advocates are threatening.
Most of the world seems to wants us to give up everything until we live like their poor. That is a real hard sell in a democratic society. It is a particular hard sell when the elites proclaiming it live so much better than those from whom they demand sacrifice. We are already making significant efforts to address the challenge. Our elites started us on that path long ago. Is it really an accident that the average American is financially marking time – for more than a decade? That is a non-trivial sacrifice. The elites have made no comparable sacrifice. If this is a real global emergency maybe the necessary sacrifice should start with the world’s leaders.
Where is the leadership – leaders lead the way not drive the flock. Everything I have seen the leaders do appears cosmetic. Our Congress proposes a carbon cap and trade solution. But then they exempt many of their own local elites. Where is all the urgency when it comes to actual pain? I might take this all more seriously if the elites reduced themselves to where they want the rest of us to go. Maybe they should renounce their fortunes as contribution to the rest of us to invest in responsible and accountable initiatives? There is just way too much “do as I say” and way too little of “follow me”! I know “all the animals are equal – only some of the animals are more equal”.
The answer to my question above is yes, the advocates are causing the problem by demeaning the rest of us. We are all to be drafted for a cause that demands great sacrifice that is not universally applied and that has no identified endpoint. Until that is corrected, I remain a committed draft dodger.
Top ads RSS
Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment · Bars · Theatres · Restaurants · Coffeehouses · Libraries · Antiques · Services
- Blog: We Noticed November 19, 2009 · 107 comments
- Blog: Palin Book Could Be Your Cheapest Source For Winter Fuel November 20, 2009 · 28 comments
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009 · 155 comments
- Poll: Should a "Botax" be imposed on vanity procedures such as breast implants, face lifts, tummy tucks and Botox injections? November 19, 2009 · 27 comments
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009 · 32 comments
- Blog: Honey, If You're Reading This ... November 20, 2009 · 16 comments
- Blog: Why Do People Repeat Falsehoods? November 20, 2009 · 35 comments
- Fatal mindset November 20, 2009 · 48 comments
- Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban November 20, 2009 · 19 comments
- United Way about $800,000 short of $1.8 million campaign goal November 20, 2009 · 12 comments
- Resident hopes to start rickshaw business in downtown Lawrence, pending city approval November 19, 2009
- Baldwin City teen detained for bringing loaded gun and knife to school November 19, 2009
- Lawrence schools preparing for another round of budget cuts November 18, 2009
- Mangino denies validity of former player allegations November 19, 2009
- KU student pushes button that demolishes a portion of the Kansas Turnpike bridge November 19, 2009
- KU's Chancellor issues statement putting support behind Lew Perkins November 20, 2009
- Farmers' Turnpike reopens after four months of construction November 20, 2009
- Rise and shine November 20, 2009
- Kansas Board of Regents OKs contract to implement $25.6 million in conservation projects November 19, 2009
- Elder Henry makes debut November 20, 2009
9 November 2009
at 10:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Wow, where to start?
1) Science begins with gathering of evidence and applying rational thought to that evidence.
“Yes, there is data that suggests that there is climate change. That is science.”
Not so fast, George. Science is distinct from all other rational endeavors by insisting on the test. The experiment, George, is what makes science….science. Evidence and data is just the start.
2) “Then there are models that project all kinds of futures.”
Well, George, modeling is just fancy mathematics. Now what the modern “scientists” would have you believe is that a model run is an experiment.
It is not.
Masturbation is not going to yield a baby. Computer models will not yield science, for basically the same reason. Feels good, produces nothing.
3) I was going to continue to parse your statements above, but instead I'll just offer this:
You are addressing the new religion. It comes with original sin (our very existence) and redemption (constant and vigilant saving of resources).
It sells indulgences (carbon credits). It has prophets (James Hansen), apostles (Al Gore). It has sacrifice and ritual. It has prophecy and divination. It has contradiction and irrationality. It has censorship, puritans, infidels, apostates.
Above all, it has faith. You don't get it George. You are not of the faith. Repent and admit your sin. The sin of skepticism toward the one true reality, the one true religion. It is called Mother Earth, or Gaia. She is all. She is to be loved. We are her servants. Pay the tax, George. Buy the carbon offset. Turn off you computer when you go to bed.
And feel good about yourself because some aging hippies said that you could.
9 November 2009
at 10:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
“Who Is To Blame For Inaction On Climate Change?”
The growing number of people who are waking up and realizing human beings didn't cause it and it's nothing more than hubris to believe we can control the climate of the entire planet.
10 November 2009
at 3:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dugetit (Anonymous) says…
Good Job George.. There is climate change but it's not science. The climate is always changing and always will. Unfortunatly the AGW scienists don't square up with the “scientific data”. Notice how the scientists who tout “global wariming” gloom and doom don't produce recent scientific data to prove thier point? This is because if you were to get the actual global sattelite temperature data-sets (available on the net) and plot them on a graph, you would find that global temperatures have beeen trending down for over a decade now while Co2 levels have been trending up. There is no corrulation between Co2 and temperatures. Thus the shrill cries of impending doom to mask the truth!
10 November 2009
at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
If computer models of the climate went away today, climate change scares would be gone by tomorrow.
We are contemplating the biggest social change in our time (climate bills in the U.S. and abroad) on the basis of a computer model.
A computer model. Kinda like the models that managed loans at Lehman Brothers.
10 November 2009
at 9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
The best thing about “climate change” is it keeps the “environment” in the forefront of people's minds. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live on a cleaner planet. That said, the part where government takes over our lives based on the junk science being hyped by the climate pimps (Owl Gore, et all) is a load of horse dung designed to line the pockets of a select view while pretending to care about the human race. They are merely grifters running a fancy new con.
When are we going to adopt the Pickens Plan and do something real?
10 November 2009
at 10:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
All:
What about leadership and sacrifice by the elites? If they are not willing to sacrifice why should the rest of us. Do they really believe or are the comments about control above accurate. Just what are their motives. Are we in to notions of one world of seeming equality with a thin slice of very wealth elites guiding th erest? Do they think there would be no wars then as there is nothing to gain-dream on!
There is science when you can measure something and plot a trend. Science fades when you build models that you can not really test properly (short term vs long term). That religious notion is interesting!
Where are the defenders. Why must we go so fast toward an unstated destination at great cost to normal folk??
10 November 2009
at 10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
The problem with Global Warming is that the science behind it is too complicated for anyone to easily understand. You can't read two or three articles from a scientific journal to get multiple views and make an intelligent conclusion in a single day. It would take a significant amount of studying to be able to form an informed opinion on the matter, hence what most of us are left with is having to trust the experts.
The reason why so many doubt the claims of the experts is that they have been caught fibbing too many times. We hear about a consensus, but then get lists of scientists who disagree. One side constantly dismisses the experts on the other as being bought and paid for by the energy industry, but then what are we to think when they themselves have a stake in “green” industries? How also are we to react when the supposedly necessary action can only be increased government control of the economy when these same people also propose increased government control regarding everything else like wages, mortgages, health insurance, etc. Is that really the only option or is that just the option that they prefer? There's always been a connection between scholars and the political elite. Scholars justify the powerful's position of power in return for influence and a salary. It used to be the temple priests who would tell the people the king was chosen by god. Now it's the academics who tell us the political elite need more power to regulate the economy and provide for the people.
I'm not an expert and for the foregoing reasons I don't trust the experts. Unfortunately I don't have the time or energy necessary to conduct a thorough investigation into the matter to be able to arrive at a well-informed conclusion. How can this issue be resolved?
10 November 2009
at 10:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
The_Original_Bob (Anonymous) says…
What happened to all those killer hurricanes we that were certainly going to cause widespread death and destruction?
10 November 2009
at 11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
Who is to blame for the inaction?
The Gingrich congress and the administration of George W. Bush. During these times, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists concluded that humans were having an affect on the global climate. Since the above two groups could not reconcile scientific findings with the interests of their corporate backers, they told everyone the science was faulty (aka Junk Science) and that more “sound science” was needed.
Even though science had already determined humans were affecting global climate, more “sound science” was needed because one or two fringe studies disagreed with the rest. Interestingly, these studies were funded by right wing think tanks backed by the same corporations trying to avoid regulations.
I also think that the blame falls with the people who perpetuate these “junk science” myths. Science never has been and never will be perfect, but when nearly 95% of the world's scientists agree on something, their conclusions should not be completely disregarded as they have been.
10 November 2009
at 11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Liberty_One (Anonymous) says…
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
“During these times, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists concluded that humans were having an affect on the global climate.”
“when nearly 95% of the world's scientists agree on something, their conclusions should not be completely disregarded as they have been.”
This is why there's no action on global warming. We don't conduct science by voting. The number of scientists who support a position is irrelevant; it only takes one to disprove a theory. When you say things like this it looks suspicious. This is a clear example of why I don't trust AGW subscribers.
10 November 2009
at 12:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
Since most of the remedies to global warming are good environmental stewardship, economy of resources and less dependence on petroleum it seems the real culprits are short sighted and foolish people who either fear or resent change or persons who have financial gains from current practices or people who are in denial that they have any responsibility in their own life and actions.
10 November 2009
at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tbaker (Anonymous) says…
Pace - with a stroke of the pen, the President could wake up tomorrow and mandate that all “gasoline” passenger cars manufactured in the US must get 50 MPG on the highway. If he did that, we could immediately save almost the entire amount of oil we import from Middle Eastern sources.
With the congress he has, he could ask for a bill that made conversion costs for compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles (manufacture and refueling infrastructure) a tax credit for say, five years, to help the auto and oil industries transition to CNG. Combined with the high gasoline MPG requirement, this would prompt swift action by the consumer market.
It would cost a lot less to drive, we would have a much cleaner planet, and we wouldn't be sending money to people who want to kill us. Every President since the department of energy was created has had this option, and none of them took it. Mr. Obama could deliver some “change we can believe in” if he did this.
10 November 2009
at 1:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
Well you missed my point. I accept climate change. I accept that we may be contributing to it. I am not convinced we are the sole cause. But I absolutely reject your comment that those who don’t agree with you practice “junk” science. The way the models are being used could be considered “junk” science.
To do something about it, I need a statement of where we are going. If we reduce carbon by the preposterous amount suggested what does that get me. If it reverses climate change then going there is worth the price. If it simply leads to demands for more reduction just what is enough?
Why are the leaders pushing such significant reductions not leading by making real sacrifice themselves instead of cosmetic actions like planting trees in Kenya? Why don’t they provide a statement of accomplishment (oceans only rise x rather than y feet) associated with the sacrifices demanded?
Open ended demands for sacrifice appeal only to those who believe we are all evil and need to be punished. The rest of us demand accountability from our leaders!
10 November 2009
at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Overtherainbow (Anonymous) says…
Climate change (assuming real) has ultimately been caused by individuals. Individuals can each make minute differences. Start living as if it is real, as much as a matter of economic self-defense as of either faith or idealism. The world oil market is getting pretty tight. Why put oneself in the position where one has to cash-compete for scarce resources?
Prudence and frugality were once American ideals. They are the same virtues that will serve us well in our efforts to cope with global warming. Smaller houses, not bigger houses. Spend the money on energy efficiency, not size. Cars? Same applies.
My own home, not in Kansas, is 100% solar powered. I built it this way more as a matter of long-term practicality than of idealism. Why should I want to pay utility bills? My total monthly bill for property taxes, utilities, auto insurance, vehicle registration, cell phone, and Internet is less than $160/mo. This is merely old-fashioned American prudence and frugality. With expenses this low, it is nearly impossible to be poor.
@muguirej: Don't be entirely surprised if technological change happens much faster than generally believed possible. There are federal agencies (generally three letter) that have the mandate to explore technological possibilities, to assure that the US can get there first if there is some need (previously military) to do so. Until they are given the mandate to proceed full speed ahead, they merely stock their files. They didn't get this mandate under GW Bush. Who knows what they have in their files?
10 November 2009
at 1:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
pace (Anonymous) says…
What is your goal? Are you saving the planet from the calamity of climate change or promoting wise environmental stewardship?
I have no argument with the latter although I do not think we should destroy our economy by going too fast. The additional costs of existing initiatives (yes I said existing initiatives) will further aggravate our economic recovery and further reduce the standard of living of the big middle. Too fast and there will be a mutiny.
That is part of my argument. It is not necessary to try to scare the pants off people to get them to make wise choices. Reflecting the true costs of energy is a start. (Note I am not sure carbon taxes do that wisely)
If we are all in this together we need to mitigate the impact of our remedies on segments of our economy dependent on current practices. The notion of punishing past practices is just plain stupid and generates a lot of unneeded opposition.
The demands of people like you are making progress on wise stewardship difficult. You need to tune down your rhetoric and work with others. Instant solutions however attractive to you have serious impacts on others who are as innocent as you are.
10 November 2009
at 1:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
Overtherainbow (Anonymous) says…
100% solar. Neat. Wonder if everybody can afford that? Payback takes time and only KU faculty members with long term expectation have that time. Others have trouble seeing beyond tomorrow because they cannot see beyond tomorrow.
10 November 2009
at 1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
“Who Is To Blame For Inaction On Climate Change?”
Who isn't?
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agricu…
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_inte…
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.ucsusa.org/invasive_specie…
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/wh…
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/…
10 November 2009
at 1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
George, actually the way computer models are used is precisely junk science.
Since about the late 1970s, any jack-leg with a computer could dump data into a spreadsheet and correlate. This is know as “spreadsheet science”. Polynomial fits to trends abounded and the end of science was in sight.
Now we use far more sophisticated modeling techniques and the notion that correlation means causation and other fallacies abound. I've heard scientists claim that they must use computer models to simulate experiments because real experiments cannot be done…….Then they shall not use the name science. The grand lie is that the lay public thinks that all the technological marvels they use today was a result of science done on computers.
This is not true. The science behind electronics was done in the 1800s and early 1900. The rest is engineering. The physics that occurred after about 1940 has been very limited in its application. Mu-mesons, leptons, charm, quarks and all the rest simply aren't used to communicate between my computer and yours. The science behind communications was pretty much done by the 1950s by Claude Shannon and colleagues. It is called Information theory, for which Shannon won the Nobel. Again, the rest has been engineering.
Honest, George, look at GCM web sites. They refer to computer model runs as experiments. They have simply redefined science as being abstraction. Abstraction without testing is just a narrative, a story. The fecundity of the science is in the application, and with climate, that application is human behavior modification. Government control of your life.
George, the comparison of environmentalism with religion is quite well developed. People have amused themselves with the similarities for decades now. The most amusing part is that the purveyors of this new religion are the hippies of old. These are the people who wanted “the man” to give them freedom and let them do their thing……..and now those old hippies are doing just what their parents did, impose their idea of moral behavior on others. And they are using the power of government to do it.
Hypocritical much?
10 November 2009
at 2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
autie (Anonymous) says…
TOB wrote:
What happened to all those killer hurricanes we that were certainly going to cause widespread death and destruction?
autie writes:
They went the way of the widepread death and destruction of the summer riots. The way of the trade routes. I'm beginning to believe that the tin foil hats really do work.
And I found out that I can get a JTV feed tonight and watch the game. I'll blame it all on the liberal conservatives.
10 November 2009
at 4:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
“The Gingrich congress and the administration of George W. Bush. During these times, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists concluded that humans were having an affect on the global climate.”
Ah, yes, the perfectly non-partisan, objective, scientific response: 'It's Bush's fault.' Never would have expected that.
This planet was undergoing much larger climate shifts long, long before humans walked upright, mcguire, when the only way fossil fuels got burned is if they were struck by lightning while out grazing. Was that Bush's fault, too?
10 November 2009
at 6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
Moderate George ” Pace…The demands of people like you are making progress on wise stewardship difficult. You need to tune down your rhetoric and work with others. Instant solutions however attractive to you have serious impacts on others who are as innocent as you are.”
Not to rain on your rhetoric parade, but tune down MY rhetoric, What instant solutions?. If I'm “innocent”, at least I am not reading imaginary words. I hope you are responding to someone's else's remarks and just failed to refer to them.
10 November 2009
at 7:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bisky1 (Anonymous) says…
how about the truth?
10 November 2009
at 8:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
I believe climate change is a natural, cosmic and earthly evolutionary process. I do NOT! Believe climate change is man-made nor human-assisted.
Please go to the link and be willing to reassess the thinking you have been handed and taken on as your own.
Again, let's reduce our carbon footprint but let's not put man at the center of the universe again. I could not tolerate another dark ages.
Controversial new climate change results
Press release issued 9 November 2009
http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2009/6649….
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of
carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions
of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35
billion tons a year now.
10 November 2009
at 8:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
Keep an eye on the sun: http://www.n3kl.org/sun/noaa.html
I do.
10 November 2009
at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
RETICENT_IRREVERENT (Anonymous) says…
“Who Is To Blame For Inaction On Climate Change?”
Al Gore.
10 November 2009
at 10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
Machiavelli_mania (Anonymous) says…
“Controversial new climate change results”
Please don't post research based on measurable facts instead of computer models if you want to be taken seriously around here.
10 November 2009
at 11:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
prolifersforwar (Anonymous) says…
Bah! Science is like the liberal media, just making stuff up whenever it suits them. Them means Scientists or You if You're a moron who believes in Science! Always complaining about this that or the other. Stay out of my life with your liberal science. I don't even like these damn liberal doctors supporting health care hitlerlization. I'm going to a republican for my next check up!
11 November 2009
at 6:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Read thru this one and see just one perspective on the problems with modern “big science”.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/…
prolifersforwar wants to couch this in republican and democratic science terms. No pro, this is about science run amok and used by either party to further their political agenda.
Science is presently a mess of egos, politics, money, power, and religion. Every scientific organization has PR people who help present the science. News releases, pamphlets, press conferences. Sales, baby, marketing.
Money!
11 November 2009
at 12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
pace (Anonymous) says…
“Since most of the remedies to global warming are good environmental stewardship, economy of resources and less dependence on petroleum it seems the real culprits are short sighted and foolish people who either fear or resent change or persons who have financial gains from current practices or people who are in denial that they have any responsibility in their own life and actions.”
Not sure what triggered my comment but it sure was not you. Sorry! Question remains. Is it climate change or environmental stewardship?
The pace (no pun intended) would be different.
How come nobody wants to write about the lack of leadership???
11 November 2009
at 12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
gccs14r (Anonymous) says…
“Controversial new climate change results
Press release issued 9 November 2009”
And the press release mentions nothing about ocean acidification by absorption of excess CO2, something else that has been measured and not conjectured. Even if the atmosphere doesn't completely go off the rails, killing the oceans will be just as deadly to us.
11 November 2009
at 2:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
notajayhawk:
I never said that Bush was the one responsible for climate change. I answered the question of who is responsible for the inaction on climate change, and I didn't single out Bush. In my opinion, inaction on climate change stemmed from the Gingrich congress (during Clinton's administration) and the entirety of George W. Bush's administration.
Not all republicans promoted inaction and not all democrats demanded action. I am not trying to make this a partisan issue.
And yes, the planet has had climate shifts in the past, but none have been as dramatic and occurred as quickly as the recent warming and surge in greenhouses gases.
Liberty_One: You're right, and maybe I should clarify. The number of scientists agreeing on a topic doesn't matter, but the evidence does. And the evidence points to humans have an influence on climate change.
Moderate: I suppose I did miss your point, I was answering the question posed in the title of your blog. My apologies.
More to the point you were trying to get at: If reducing carbon emissions “…simply leads to demands for more reduction just what is enough? … Why don’t they provide a statement of accomplishment (oceans only rise x rather than y feet) associated with the sacrifices demanded?”
I don't think reducing carbon emission to specific levels is the only solution. Our impact on the global climate is such a complex process and trying to minimize that impact is going to require a multi-pronged approach. We also have to factor in our current lifestyles, some sacrifices just aren't practical.
Additionally, and I think this factors into both questions you posed, is that we won't see any benefits from the sacrifices and changes we make for a long time. Expecting a statement of accomplishment is impractical, unless you're willing to wait ten to twenty years for the answer. I think having a goal for achievement is important, and if after a certain time that goal has not been met (or if it has been exceeded), it should be re-evaluated. This isn't a problem that's going to go away quickly and we can't expect instant gratification from our efforts. If trying to minimize our impact is indeed what humanity wants to do, its going to take some time.
11 November 2009
at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
Thoughtful response. In my mind my two questions are related. If you demand a lot of sacrifice and you can not in some manner express some perception of accomplishment you will get little or no sacrifice. People have to feel that what they are doing, when it is painful, has meaning. Your statement while probably accurate leaves everyone not a zealot out in the cold.
If there is no quantification of how what is proposed results in something meaningful the process becomes endless and people like me opt out. I do not trust government when it plays enforcer. Inevitably injustices become rampant. Government imposing carbon reduction without some goal against which I as a citizen can measure the consequence of their actions is in my humble opinion really stupid!
That goes back to my point about leaders. They call for major reductions in carbon without any reflection of impact on people, jobs, economics, life-style and so on. If they really think we need to go there they need to be specific as to what I am going to lose and what I am going to gain. They then need to lead the way by giving up things first!
Absent such honesty, I view this as just one more attempt to control my life and meld me to someone else’s perception of what is “good”
Sorry.
If you have no answers to what happens if we do what is called for then you are the problem. While some humans will buy almost anything the average American has a very healthy skepticism of our own government. Exactly what does a reduction of say 30% in our carbon output do???
11 November 2009
at 7:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
“People have to feel that what they are doing, when it is painful, has meaning. ”
George, have you ever analyzed religion?
Perhaps you should analyze your own feelings regarding spirituality. Lemme give you a hint. When feeling bad, blame sin. When feeling good, credit god.
So, if people feel bad regarding the sacrifice they are being asked for to “save the planet”, blame original sin. Original sin is the fact that they are humans who roam the earth and use its resources. Each use of food, fuel, minerals, air, water contributes to the feeling of sin.
The only recourse is redemption. Redemption is given through charlatans (priests and global warming scientists).
We are on the cusp of an epiphany. That epiphany will occur when it is revealed that global warming has been reduced in its danger. Don't be mistaken, global warming will continue to be offered as a threat, but delayed. We will still be sinners, but because god (nature) is more powerful than we give credit, we are saved. We are sinners, but the planet is forgiving. Even loving?
The epiphany will occur over the next 10 years or so as the sun's insolence diminishes. That's right, we are in for a reduction in solar energy output. Temperatures will remain stable, or go down.
This is a prediction based upon multi-decadal observations of sun spots or direct solar flux.
The high temperatures might continue for a while. But they won't break records.
This too shall pass. And the faithful will be given a new dogma to support their need for a god.
There's nothing to do, George. People are so needful of spirituality that they will soak it up at every chance. Shoot, even devout Christians love Jesus and have a similar “feeling” for all that God wrought. They are spiritualists. Heck, most people are. That is why they are wrong so much of the time.
Like now regarding global warming.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No no he's outside looking in.
Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.
He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way he's gonna go.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Hippies run amok in science. Selling you religion. Just like ole Tim.
If we survive the hippies (don't sweat the temperature), boy will they be laughing in about 200 years.
12 November 2009
at 2:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Dugetit (Anonymous) says…
“How come nobody wants to write about the lack of leadership???”
George…… Only a fool would lead for a problem that does not exist? If by leadership you mean pushing the “Cap and Trade” bill, there are many. Waxman is mostly out in front on the bill with the backing of Obama and most of the dems along with Al Gore cheering on the sidelines. But the bill has nothing to do with saving the planet, but is rather a tool to line pockets while re-distributing wealth.
Global temperatures have been trending down for over a decade now. That’s why they want to push this thru before Americans “Wake Up”. It’s a real tightrope walk. Woe be to the last politician caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
The term “Global warming” first gained American public attention when Bill Clinton along with Al Gore warned of man-made doom and gloom “sooner than later” at a UN conference in early 1998 and was followed up with Al Gore‘s movie “Inconvenient (Un)Truth”. To test this prediction, I searched the net for a graph which just showed temperature anomalies from 1998 to present but was astonished that none existed. I found the satellite temperature dataset and graphed it for myself. After inputting the data, I found that global temperatures peaked in 1998. Temperatures since 1998 have trended down. This certainly diametrically apposed the notion implied by Clinton and Gore. I also found the monthly Co2 readings and inputted them into the same graph. As the temperatures have trended down for over a decade now, Co2 levels have been going in the opposite direction. Sorry.. I don’t need a scientist nor a computer model to tell me that there is any significant relationship between temperature and Co2.
So any leadership in the area of “Man Made” Global Warming would come from either someone who is ignorant of the facts or has a sneaky agenda to separate you from your money! Personally, neither scenario would motivate me…
BTW I can supply anyone the graph as well as the dataset I used on request.
12 November 2009
at 9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mcguirej (Anonymous) says…
Moderate:
I agree that we need to have some measurable endpoint for our efforts. Otherwise, how are we going to tell if things are getting better, worse, or staying the same. But I also think that such measures, if to be believed as accurate, are going to take some time to obtain. I don't think we are going to get the instant gratification we have become accustomed to getting. Let's just hope it doesn't take so long that people start opting out.
12 November 2009
at 10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
mcguirej (Anonymous) says
I am fresh out of trust me cards. I feel no imperative if those pushing the problem do not understand it enough to provide measurable goals for improvements resulting from defined sacrifice.
Dugetit (Anonymous) says…
Have any of these proponents made any sacrifices? Absent such sacrifice I am forced to agree that this is just another scheme to made more people dependent on government placing more power and wealth in the control of elected officials
If there is a real problem then those demanding sacrifice to address it owe the rest of us leadership through example.
12 November 2009
at 10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Interesting notion. Are you suggesting that some of our leaders who abhor organized religion are creating an alternate secular religion to “guide” the masses?
12 November 2009
at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
pace (Anonymous) says…
hey, I found the perfect leader, bright, motivated, practical, oh sorry, it was just a reflection.
12 November 2009
at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
I am suggesting that the followers require a religion.
The social upheaval that occurred in the 1960s immediately left some followers missing the comfort of religious experience. Many alternatives were tried, from born again Jesus, to Zoroastrianism, to Jews for Jesus, to environmentalism.
The people wanted it. About this time, ideas like Gaia became manifest. Peace and love extended from other humans to animals and ultimately the whole earth. People took comfort in the “oneness” of the planet. This is spiritual.
Sure enough, leaders caught up with the spirituality of environmentalism and have been using its believers ever since.
Democrats are bereft of new ideas. This is a big problem. Social engineering has met with mixed success. Gangs, inner city poverty, and other social ills continue to plaque the U.S. culture even in the face of all the social welfare programs.
Republicans are conservatives. They don't need new ideas to justify themselves. But democrats do. Environmentalism isn't new, but its present form is far more impressive than in decades past.
Social engineers are now using a proselytizing approach to swaying human culture. They are using the guilt/redemption card left lying on the table after corporations were decimated by early environmental laws. That is, early environmentalism concentrated on the sins of corporations. Now the hard part is placing blame on individuals. Trickier to do, but possibly quite effective.
What is the goal of the politicians who champion global warming? Power. No different than any other cause. The left wing took a big hit in the 1990s. The fall of communism, the dismantling of welfare,etc. caused the left to look for a new tactic with which to maintain power. That guilt/redemption card that was lying on the table looked like a good prospect.
And here we are, in almost 2010. The masses will come together and sing for saving the planet. They will get their religion fix and politicians will get power they can wield to tax and spend.
The world of politicians and their sheep just keeps spinning 'round and 'round. And where is science? Blasted away. Gone. Redefined to suit the suits. I miss science. Which it were still around.
12 November 2009
at 3:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Sorry, that last sentence should be: Wish it were still around.
12 November 2009
at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Moderate (George Lippencott) says…
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
No hope? Could living in Lawrence be coloring your perceptions?
12 November 2009
at 5:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Well, George, my wife's family all live in California.
Most of my family live on the east coast, or other big cities (like Chicago).
I saw a report somewhere that said there are now more people who live in big cities than not as of this year.
More people who live in Kinshasa than in the bush.
More people who live in Wichita and KC and Topeka, than in Hoxie and the rest.
Cities used to exist to protect people from the marauding hoards of barbarians. Today the situation is reversed. There are more barbarians in the city than outside the city.
People who benefited from the scientific philosophy of Karl Popper have always lived in the country. The green revolution, cell phones, and many others are but a few examples of technology resulting from the science of pre 1968. City folk think they are helped by these technologies, and they are. But city folk are the ones who pay the price. Not the country folk.
City folk get their butts shot off by gang members who communicate via cell phones. City folk suffer untold misery because city culture is dominated by people of low moral character…..and now those criminals have cell phones and cheap food. They can spend their time rippin' off the rest of the city folk.
And its the city folk who are the environmentalists.
Its the city folk who are the erudite, scientific, moralists who are using religion to push the hardly educated (because they were educated in public schools).
The end will of the insanity will occur when people discover that they don't need a politician, a leader, a moralist, a spiritual leader.
They will truly be saved then.
Not going to happen.
We're doomed to mediocrity and manipulation.
14 November 2009
at 3:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
George, well stated blog. I agree with you, but also have some counter points.
If these warnings of global warming do indeed transpire, our generation will surely be viewed in poor light. We will be looked upon as a short sighted and perhaps selfish (if not foolish) generation. For this reason, I believe it is never to late to begin a gradual transfer to renewable energy resources and to be good stewards; preserving resources for future generations.
Aside from stewardship, I like the prospect of America being energy independent and realize the benefits of newer and cleaner energy technology. Our economy is in desperate need of something like this. In this regard, I do not necessarily agree that a shift to renewable energy will lower our standard of living……especially if it is gradual rather than sudden transformation.
14 November 2009
at 7:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mlordner (Anonymous) says…
Global warming (if any) or climate change is not caused by CO2. There is no scientific evidence that it does. Show me any of them and I can refute that is not the scientific evidence. But we can reduce the pollutions like dirty smoke and etc. I still cannot find any places in Lawrence that accepts used batteries that contain harmful mercury. So, I still need to throw them away together with other trash. All those people who are passionate about the environmental issue seem kind of hypocrite to me and just think the way the media or the government wants them to think.
15 November 2009
at 8:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
camper:
What you have stated is a reasoned and heartfelt attitude.
But:
1) Our generation will be viewed in poor light because it abandoned tough rational engineering attitudes. We are selfish. We moved away from the unfeeling science and engineering of the first part of the 20th century and redefined science as “what we want it to be” not “what it is”.
2) Renewable energy sources have been around for generations. Water wheels, windmills and solar are as new as…..horses. What you are seeing is flim flam. You are being sold on the basis of what you want to happen. You want alternative energy, so you will get it, even if it doesn't work. These techniques have been tried many times and have not been fruitful. But here we go again.
3) Our economy is driven by energy. Every piece of the economy is energy dependent. All alternatives to coal and gas and oil are more expensive. They will be for many generations to come. Even when government subsidizes the alternatives, it costs society. Coal is cheap. Solar, wind, and vegetation is not cheap and it will cost you. No matter how much you want it to work.
4) Your reasoned response isn't about energy. Those thoughts are about your feelings. Energy doesn't care about your feelings and doesn't respond to your reasoned thoughts. Here is one suggestion for you. Demand an energy budget for all technologies related to energy. Evaluate the effectiveness of the alternatives on the basis of energy into and energy out of an alternative energy system.
Simple energy budget, measured in joules.
You won't get an energy budget for wind or solar. You won't get a straight answer. You will get a sales pitch. Since you want alternative energy, you will buy it. Sigh.
15 November 2009
at 10:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
phyreh20 (Anonymous) says…
Whose to Blame?
Republicrats or Dempublicans!
An unbiased opinion.
15 November 2009
at 4:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
camper (Anonymous) says…
Devoburn, spoken like a true engineer. But this is a good thing man. Not sure I completely agree with you on all points, but valid they are.
15 November 2009
at 8:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
George,
I will probably regret dipping into this maelstrom of blustery commentary, but I will offer a few points for you to ponder:
1) The science of climate change is not politics, and I'm glad that you agree that there is a real scientific consensus about the dynamics involved, and that the overwhelming consensus is that humans have generated enough CO2 and other emissions to tip the dynamics toward climate change that is undeniable in scope and potentially catastrophic changes, primarily in developing countries, though nobody will be left untouched. Much of this is due to the political and economic consequences of massive economic collapse that occurs when the frequency of Katrina-scale disruptions increases. Don't believe that's important? The Department of Defense has placed this concern at the top of their list.
2) The political responses to these climate changes—or our attempts to slow them down—will shape our future, like it or not. Complaining about the lack of so-called elites sacrifice and leadership is such a misplaced concern that I don't think it merits a response because it has no connection with what is really happening. Nations are gathering in Copenhagen to try to address the following 4 questions:
1. How much are industrialized nations willing to reduce gases?
2. How much are developing countries, including China and India willing to reduce gases?
3. How much help will developing countries need to make the needed changes?
4. How are the huge amounts of money needed to accomplish these changes that the rest of the world, with or without us, going to be managed?
Just as rain falls on the elite, working class, rich and poor alike, so it is with the rest of the climate, in case you hadn't noticed. Time to put on your raincoats and get to work to build a new future, folks.
15 November 2009
at 10:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lawrenceguy40 (Anonymous) says…
As Americans we should burn as much fossil fuel as we want. barry o, al gore and the europeans are not going to tell me what to do in the name of bad science (read liberal hypocrisy).
I urge you all to go and turn on every light in your house, open your windows and crank up the heating to 85! It feels good…..
15 November 2009
at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
notajayhawk (Anonymous) says…
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
“1) The science of climate change is not politics”
If AGW was science instead of politics, the discussion would not be taking place. Even the worst doubters can be silenced simply by showing them irrefutable evidence. Such evidence for AGW does not exist, nor can it.
16 November 2009
at 7:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Doug: “The science of climate change is not politics, and I'm glad that you agree that there is a real scientific consensus…..”
Scientific consensus is precisely politics. A consensus is meaningful in a social, and political argument. It is not scientific. By redefining science as consensus based, or panel-of-peers based, or anything less than testing based, you have entered the twilight zone of rational thought.
Science is not defined, Doug, by evidence. It is not defined by Nobel prizes. It is not about gathering data, dumping into a computer, and pontificating.
Science is about the test for refutation. If science was about gathering evidence, applying rational thought, then presenting to a panel…..then a jury trial would be science.
The law is useful and the best we have for determining guilt or innocence, it is not science. Neither is climatology.
It is an -ology. It is the “study of”. It is not science because it makes statements that cannot be tested, unless you call a computer run an experiment. Which is exactly what climatologists do.
It is outrageous that computer model runs are the “test” that is used to justify the name science. It is not science.
Climatology is stamp collecting followed by more stamp collecting, followed by models on a computer so sophisticated that no one knows really what is the millions of lines of code. The climatologists use models to predict, then change their models to match the new data. They talk among themselves in jargon.
Then when they need money and power, they issue a grave warning and enlist politicians to carry the load until money comes their way.
Politics, Doug. Politics of money and power. I was a NASA contractor for about 25 years. I am familiar with the politics of government funded science. My guess is that you sell shoes and trust that science is pristine and beautiful.
Finally, Doug, the only way to test the theory that global warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2 is to cut the CO2 emitted by people. So, the test will be done at great cost to the public.
It won't happen. If Europe and America cut CO2 to levels of 1990, China and India will more than make up the difference. The test won't happen. Some of the so-called scientists are really social engineers who want a transfer of power from west to east. This will happen. The test will be a social experiment, a political experiment having nothing to do with science of the atmosphere.
16 November 2009
at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
AreUNorml (Anonymous) says…
the earth is the only logical point of blame for climate change. However, since it's been at this a lot longer than we humans have, I'd say lets not blame anyone and just let earth keep doing it's thing. after all, we are the parasites, we should learn to live with our host peacefully.
16 November 2009
at 12:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
Devobrun,
Your extremely narrow definition of science excludes most of astrophysics—after all, you can't test for refutation now, can you?
Throw out engineering codes for all buildings, highways, bridges, planes and the like—after all, they are consensus based agreements of those in the field, and, worse yet, depend heavily on models.
High energy physics? Model-laden, consensus-driven drivel. Throw it out!
What is mathematics if not models for reality? Why bother?
All applied sciences? Irrevocably tainted. Completely useless and irrelevant.
Oh, yes, unlike government science, corporate funded science is also free of the taint of bias, waste, cover-ups, and ineptness. We don't want to forget that, do we?
I'm not sure what kind of world you live in, devobrun, but I know you can't get there from here.
I DO know that the landscape is changing quickly as to what is going to be acceptable ways to heat our homes, generate our electricity, drive our vehicles and grow our food, and much of the rest of the world is already pulling out onto the highway while we sit here on the dirt road arguing about which way to turn the map.
We're missing out on all kinds of future opportunities to create more sustainable ways to live by sitting here arguing about whether it's desirable, possible, or crimps our style, while there are millions engineers in China, Europe, India and elsewhere with no such problems. If we decide not to play, it's no skin off their knuckles—they don't depend on us anymore.
Wake up.
16 November 2009
at 5:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
The difference between models and tests is that tests actually do that which is claimed in the scientific statement.
I can't emphasize the difference between conclusion based upon models versus conclusion based upon test enough.
Astrophysics: Narrative intended to give people an alternative to the mystical. Interesting, but completely unfruitful. Whiz-Bang! Beautiful. Can't use it for a darn thing.
—
Engineering models are tested. I first used a SPICE model in 1973 to design a simple NPN transistor amplifier. Math, Doug.
Then I built the amplifier on a breadboard. Tested it.
—
High-energy physics: Nuclear magnetic resonance imagery (NMR of MRI) and positron emission tomography (PET) are two uses for subatomic particle research.
I'm pretty sure that's it.
I'll let wiki give you the chart of subatomic particles and their names: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia…
Of all the stuff you see on the chart, spin is used in NMR and the antiparticle of the electron is used.
All the rest is useless. There are no machines based upon mu-mesons, neutrinos, or strange. Its kinda funny/sad that all the effort of physics in the last 60 years has yielded so little of use.
Except building the narrative. Indeed physicists know this. They are all theorized out. The math, the computer models and the cocktail napkin science is on hold as we speak.
It is awaiting results from the LHC.
—
“What is mathematics if not models for reality?”
It is a model, Doug. A virtual reality. A model is not a test, Doug. Neither is it real. Nor is it fecund. It is a model, Doug. It doesn't drive the car, Doug.
Math and computers (same thing) can be used to design and to gather data. It cannot actually do the deed, Doug.
—
As for your last two paragraphs. You moved from a discussion of math and computers, and how they somehow are science, to an even broader abstraction.
Changing landscapes?
Future opportunities for sustainability?
Please, Doug. Save the proselytizing for the sheep. I am an electrical engineer. If you want to convince me, show me an energy budget for these technologies that come from the Chinese?
What are you suggesting? That there is something out there beyond energy? That conservation of energy can be violated?
Or maybe you have only spirit. You have only will. You have only hope. You have a deep feeling.
Well, I'm happy for you, Doug. However, Doug, I will remain less sanguine until I see one technology that is better than coal. So far, there isn't one.
Coal is so good and abundant that it wins hands down, unless it is demonized……..by the climatologists.
Imagine their sense of power. Stamp collectors thrust into the realm of world politics.
With virtual thinkers like you following along and praising them like they are prescient.
16 November 2009
at 6:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
George, one last thing for you. You asked who is to blame for AGW inaction.
Its DougCounty and all the thinkers like him. He wishes. He hopes, He wants. These drive him to the idea that a solution to CO2 emissions is just around the corner. That science and technology will deliver us from hydrocarbon evil. The evil that was thrust upon us by the oil barons of a hundred years ago and continues to plaque the planet.
Well, George, all that is emotion. The technology is limited by the laws of thermodynamics. Simple as that. No alternative technology is even close to denting hydrocarbon energy sources. Every physical scientist knows this. However, some of those scientists are gambling on a breakthrough. They are taking a risk that something new will come along and they will be able to say I told you so.
They are starting to get worried, George. The battery research is advancing, but not as fast as hoped. “Smart” electrical power grid-based wind technology is becoming really expensive and is only cost effective if subsidized. Subsidized technologies must emerge from government help at some point. It isn't clear if that can ever occur.
Solar….see the paragraph above.
And then, and then, of all the things, global temperature has leveled off. For 10 years the planet hasn't gotten any warmer.
The current race to alternative energy and climate and energy bills in congress and meetings in Denmark are hurried because the gamble that was taken 20 years ago is starting to fail.
The climate scientist's gamble is not looking too good. And Al Gore can look like an idiot better than anyone this side of Borat.
17 November 2009
at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
Wow, devo,
You seem to know all the answers about what is useful and what is not, and how most of high energy physics, astrophysics, and I presume evolutionary theory is so much bunk, and on and on. Reminds me of the folks back in the 1880s who were advocating closing the patent office because all of the useful inventions had been made so there was no reason to waste our money paying someone to sit there and do nothing.
You really don't get it, do you? There is a whole generation of engineers, scientists, and entrepeneurs out there working on a very different set of assumptions from you, and guess what? None of it violates the second law of thermodynamics and they count energy one joule at a time too.
These folks have already made solar photovoltaics that can be installed cheaper than grid electricity can be installed at peak summer prices (look up the “solar window”). Honeywell has a quiet, aesthetic $4500 wind machine that provides 2000 kwh per year from winds of 2 to 45 miles per hour). And that's the tip of the renewable iceberg, as new, more efficient, innovations keep coming down the pike now that real money is being invested by folks with a very different set of assumptions than you.
The other part of the equation is the incredible inefficiencies that exist in our aging grid, where some 3200 utilities in our country have patched together a system that screams for more efficiency. Add to that the whole combined heat and power (CHP) movement, and you're talking about huge improvements in efficiency with the amount of energy we already generate, which drastically reduces the need for increased power production. Suddenly, the whole picture becomes transitioning our energy production industry through a combination of these two things. By the way, you might want to check out the November Scientific American, which lays out the scenario of transitioning to solar, wind and other renewables completely without the use of new nuclear or coal fired plants.
All of this is doable, all of this is not pie in the sky, all of this generates so many more jobs than burning dirt, which you seem to be overly stuck on. One important thing that you seem to be oblivious to is how you conveniently externalize the total costs of burning coal: mercury, toxic tailings and ash, and, yes, CO2. The consensus of the world community is that we can no longer foul our nests with this stuff without dire consequences, including not only changes in the climate, but also acidification of the oceans. The more we look at the data, the harder it is to ignore, the harder it is to continue down that path.
You can stay in your own little circle of self-reinforcing tautologies if you like—that's your right. But please stay out of the way of those folks who have a larger vision for the future.
17 November 2009
at 5:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
Solar photovoltaics are fun and useful. Wind turbines are similarly cool. These cannot be a significant contributor to the electrical energy system because:
1) Photovoltaic windows only work for a few hours during the day. They are not steerable, so they have limited and variable output. I'm not impressed.
2) 2 mwhr/year is not achievable from a windmill turning in a wind of 2 mph. Fundamental physics says that the energy from wind is proportional to wind speed to the third power.
If the windmill is optimized for operation at 20 mph and it still operated at 45 mph because of blade feathering and brakes, then at 2 mph the output would be 1/1000 that of the 20mph value. You are engaged in specmanship. A common error when dealing with marketing engineers.
3) Efficiencies can and will be improved just as they have been for decades. This is the job of a traditional engineer at any factory. Nothing new or alternative here.
Merging utilities and using smart-grid technologies come with pitfalls. When a large system fails, a large number of users loose power. Smaller units and diverse operating modalities offer redundancy that costs in efficiency, but pay in reliability. Link everybody together in a highly efficient power distribution system and when a tornado hits Hoxie, Omaha goes black.
To err is human, but to really screw things up takes a computer.
4) Ash, mercury, and CO2 are not the problem. Ash is manageable, mercury can be scrubbed, and CO2 is a created problem. I know you disagree. But if there were no computer models predicting climate in 20, 50 or 100 years, CO2 would not be a problem.
Well, I don't believe the computer models. You do.
But then, I think you believe a lot of stuff that you don't understand. Otherwise you wouldn't have come up with such weak examples as you did above.
In fact, I think that you have no training in physics, engineering, or any hard science at all. I think that you never worked in a machine shop, factory, or hands-on job in your life.
I don't think you could fix a leaking p-trap on your sink. I don't think you could have an intelligent discussion about anything mechanical or electrical at all.
You are simply buying the hype. You love the excitement. You are what we engineers call “early adopters”. You are the type who paid $6,000 for a 32 inch plasma TV 10 years ago, because it was so cool. Never mind that you can buy one now for $400. You are the sucker that was born a minute ago.
I was hoping for something from you that was interesting and new. The stuff you presented are toys. Yawn.
17 November 2009
at 10:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
DougCounty (Anonymous) says…
Well, well, don't like the message, so attack the messenger,eh? I have no time for folks who claim to want to be engaged in a civil discussion but then just turn into another troller throwing out bait to see who will take the hook. And for what? To say that a solar panel won't work all day, that windmills don't work when the wind doesn't blow, and that efficiency is nothing new? Or that we know how to deal with pollution??
The dots I've been drawing are pretty darn close together, but apparently they are too far apart for you, or rather, you are determined not to make the connections and you've become too hostile for me to try any more—your loss. Despite your self-anointed role as some kind of expert, it's pretty clear you can't think your way out of a paper bag, or a Scientific American devoted to the answer you so assiduously are trying to avoid, for that matter. I see no need to play your game any further.
Oh, and by the way, I grew up working on a farm, worked in the High Energy Physics lab at KU in my spare time, have worked in factories, have fixed many a p trap in my days, I probably have more hands-on experience than you, but guess what? I have no time to suffer fools.
19 November 2009
at 7:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
devobrun (Anonymous) says…
My attack on you was a result of the alternative energy sources that you offer.
Replacement windows cannot make a dent in our energy needs. They are inefficient and of too few to generate enough energy to make a difference.
The Swiss solar window produces 10% electrical energy from incident light. The average light power incident on a vertical pane of glass is 345 watts per square meter times sine of the angle of incidence, integrated over the sun's angle over 24 hours. Over the period of 1 year the integral comes out to about 0.07 here in Kansas.
That is, if we multiply 24 hours times 0.07 times 0.1 times 345 watts per square meter we get 58 joules of energy per day on average for a 1 square meter window.
This is equal to the amount of energy needed to run a compact fluorescent light for 4 seconds.
In my earlier post, I pointed out that a windmill in a 2mph wind produces 1/1000 the power of a windmill in a 20 mph wind. Do I need to go through the derivation of that one too?
My attack is that nobody who has worked on stuff is so sanguine about advertising hype as you are. There is no way that you can believe that a windmill can work in a 2 mph wind, or a vertical window can deliver substantial energy.
Throughout my posts on energy I have called on people to come up with energy budgets for their technologies. They can't because the companies don't provide them. You don't provide them.
You don't care to provide them. You don't care if a technology is impractical and ultimately harmful to the environment and flat doesn't work. All you care about is replacing the present system. Never mind that the alternative works or not.
19 November 2009
at 9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
jafs (Anonymous) says…
devo,
Your contempt of anyone who doesn't share your perspective has been demonstrated many times on these posts.
The attempt to fairly analyze and compare energy sources is a very good, but very difficult one, especially if comparing large distribution systems with home-based ones.
Also, your narrow focus on joules and tendency to deny/ignore environmentally destructive byproducts is obvious.
Thus your cost/benefit analysis will be different from those who care about not destroying the environment.
19 November 2009
at 11:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Overtherainbow (Anonymous) says…
@devobrun: I would like to use my high school physics to correct your math. A watt is one joule-second. A watthour is 3600 joule-seconds. 345 watts of incident solar radiation with a photovoltaic conversion efficiency of 10% and a 24-hour solar incidence factor of .07 equals 2.4 watthours per hour times 24 hours. The total daily electrical production would be 57.6 watthours.
This would power a small computer, such as this 2000 vintage unit, for around an hour. Frankly, these windows don't seem like they would be worth the effort. I average around 6 kwh per day from my photovoltaic system. Not a lot of electricity, but plenty liveable.