Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low Solar Activity
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Sam Wormley
Feb 5, 2012, 9:36:46 PM2/5/12
to
Earth's Energy Budget Remained Out of Balance Despite Unusually Low
Solar Activity
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
> A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of
sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and
2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the
Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum.
> Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt
more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six
year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of
excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the
reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between
maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).
>
> "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the
prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about
the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides
unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global
warming," Hansen said.
>
> According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels
need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy
budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon
dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect
that concentration to continue to rise in the future.
See: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
Solar Activity
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
> A prolonged solar minimum left the sun's surface nearly free of
sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae between 2005 and
2010. Total solar irradiance declined slightly as a result, but the
Earth continued to absorb more energy than it emit throughout the minimum.
> Hansen's team concluded that Earth has absorbed more than half a watt
more solar energy per square meter than it let off throughout the six
year study period. The calculated value of the imbalance (0.58 watts of
excess energy per square meter) is more than twice as much as the
reduction in the amount of solar energy supplied to the planet between
maximum and minimum solar activity (0.25 watts per square meter).
>
> "The fact that we still see a positive imbalance despite the
prolonged solar minimum isn't a surprise given what we've learned about
the climate system, but it's worth noting because this provides
unequivocal evidence that the sun is not the dominant driver of global
warming," Hansen said.
>
> According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels
need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy
budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show that carbon
dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and scientists expect
that concentration to continue to rise in the future.
See: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
oriel36
Feb 6, 2012, 3:42:57 AM2/6/12
to
modelers use an imbalance of 1465 rotations for 1461 days despite
every indication that the huge daily temperature fluctuations keep
pace with the 1461 rotations in 4 years .
http://prairieecosystems.pbworks.com/f/1179343887/crerar%20temperature%20variation.jpg
It is not convenient to dwell on the intentions of others who cannot
read these graphs and put things into proper perspective,just that
reader here now can as astronomers.With Feb 29th approaching,it would
be brilliant to turn a student's attention to what that day represents
in terms of the daily and orbital cycles of the Earth thereby making
amends for some failed propaganda where people actually feel cheated.
I have to ask,do you really want to instruct your students that the
daily temperature fluctuations do not keep in step with the rotation
of the Earth ?.These are the very real challenges facing everyone,not
just astronomers and my thoughts g out to those who know how important
these things actually are.
Scammed Public
Feb 6, 2012, 1:03:46 PM2/6/12
to
There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable
output and an Earth orbit that wobbles.
output and an Earth orbit that wobbles.
Brad Guth
Feb 6, 2012, 7:50:57 PM2/6/12
to
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and denial of being in denial, works every
time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and
CO2 levels
: to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." --
caton...@sympatico.ca
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
So, what part of the .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are you
buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing you.
Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react exactly
like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets none
the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in taxes
because they’ll find another way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster, as another way of culling the lower 95% of us,
thereby sucking away at our savings and making it look as though only
nature was responsible for killing us off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global environment has never been greater,
and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
time.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?hl
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and
CO2 levels
: to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." --
caton...@sympatico.ca
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
So, what part of the .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are you
buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather extremes are either draining your bank account or killing you.
Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/react exactly
like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold or stormy) is taking place,
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets none
the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in taxes
because they’ll find another way of writing it off as another one of
their business expenses. On the other hand, the middle and lower
caste seems to be directly in harms way of GW and AGW consequences.
In fact, it seems the rich and powerful desire as much GW and AGW as
they can muster, as another way of culling the lower 95% of us,
thereby sucking away at our savings and making it look as though only
nature was responsible for killing us off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption as a good
thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global environment has never been greater,
and it’s only getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you can always make any seasonal affected area look like another ice-
age, just like our NASA/Apollo era made our physically dark moon look
so monochromatic of pastels offering only light grays that were also
oddly inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to
only soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or
even the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In
other words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were metallicity
deficient.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently having no tipping
points and unlimited resources plus ample roadkill and free deep-
fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying that
without us humans mass consuming, burning, exploding, excavating,
polluting and exploiting everything in sight (above and below ground
plus indiscriminate harvesting throughout all oceans), as well as
simply venting or spilling whatever as much and often as we like,
whereas without us humans the natural geothermal and atmospheric
energy budget and the chemical plus diversity of raw elements and
biological genetic diversity balance for our Eden environment would be
all out of whack. Got it! (Earth is obviously going cryogenic at any
moment, and needs another fresh restart after the next great thaw)
Silly me, I didn't know that having an artificially made acidic and
carcinogenic atmosphere was actually a good thing, along with
increased soot and raw methane for added global dimming and solar
heating.
Silly me again, for having not appreciated Canada burning their raw
(unprocessed) natural gas in order to get that toxic oil out of their
mucky sand (all at a net energy loss), was actually a very good thing
that couldn’t have been done any better, or sooner.
After all, who the hell doesn’t need more arsenic, mercury, lead,
sulfur and CO in their mostly coal fired industrial and civilian
environment, along with the extra soot, methane, radioisotopes like
radium and radon in order to balance out the extra NOx, CO and CO2.
I didn’t know that by venting massive volumes of raw natural gas along
with helium which tends to displace and/or destabilizes our protective
O3/ozone layer, was yet another perfectly good thing that needed to be
done.
I also didn’t realize that we can never have enough plutonium plus so
many other secondary lethal fission elements for feeding our
skullduggery and WMD frenzy.
I mean, who the hell doesn’t need several thousand tonnes of spent
reactor fuel at risk of losing its cool, which of course wouldn’t even
be an issue if it were spent thorium reactor fuel.
I honestly didn't know that having acidic and toxic fresh water
(surface and deep aquifers artificially polluted) was yet another
super good thing that mother nature needed our help with.
I didn't know that getting rid of that pesky Greenland ice-cap wasn't
yet another super good idea that can’t happen soon enough. (after all,
most of Florida was supposed to be underwater)
I didn't realize the thousands of complex specie extinctions was yet
another good thing we humans have caused or at the very least
expedited, because who the hell needs them other forms of complex
life.
I didn't realize that custom engineered virus and lethal microbials
was just the best ever ticket that Earth couldn't possibly manage
without our help.
I also didn’t realize that Corexit plus numerous other industrial
chemicals as molecular hydrocarbon modifiers and perfectly worthy of
causing genetic mutations was perfectly healthy for us and most other
species.
I certainly didn't realize that lower caste starvation and wars (bogus
or real) because of economic disparities, energy deficiencies
contrived via hoarding or banishment, extensive drought and weather
extremes plus failing crops was all such a good thing in order to
justify global inflation that you and your buddies see nothing wrong
with.
Silly old me, to think that our mutually perpetrated cold-war(s) and
the likes of 9/11 wasn’t a good thing. I mean, what would we have
done otherwise with our spare time and trillions of our hard earned
loot if the US and USSR hadn’t created the likes of North Korea and
Israel to begin with.
So, you’re good with as many dead Jews as possible, as long as only
white Zionist Jews either do their own killing, or cause others to do
the killings in order to justify their subsequent revenge killings by
provoking others?
How about your devout kosher support of the global ethnic culling, in
order to get rid of 6.5 billion humans, and for keeping the global
population always under the “Georgia Guidestones” specified 500
million. Would you care to further elaborate on its kosher approved
redneck authority? (at least so far, all of the Usenet/newsgroup
contributors that act/react exactly like Zionists/Jews, haven’t had
one bad word to say against “The Age of Reason” by yet another
pseudonym that’s hiding himself and his associations)
Don’t get me wrong, as I’m not suggesting a planet like Earth would
not be a whole lot better off under one world government with a common
language and having to host considerably fewer of us, as only highly
educated wizards that’ll each get to know all there is to know, much
like having only a few species of ants could be interesting if these
were hybrid or intelligent engineered enough in order to accomplish
the same jobs as the 12000 species had been accomplishing as of long
before humans even existed.
http://www.antark.net/ant-species/
Perhaps the fewer organic species the better. I mean, why stop at
restricting the variations and population of humans, such as who the
hell needs oxygen from diatoms and their storage of CO2? Imagine our
discovering another Earth that had only one selected species of highly
intelligent humans, and having no other complex forms of organic life,
of which we wouldn’t be allowed to visit or interact with this planet
because everything about our less than 500 million would likely kill
them.
If there were a selection of 100 human species of five million each,
would this be sufficient biological diversity to insure our survival?
Isn’t sustaining the wide diversity of terrestrial life kind of good
biodiversity insurance against our extinction?
Is it imperative that we all think exactly alike, just so that
rednecks like our Hagar can sleep at night?
Notice that our Hagar the commander and chief warlord and resident
hatemonger of Usenet/newsgroups hasn’t specified a common world
religion or his faith-based policy that’s sufficiently redneck
approved. Perhaps those Hagar Guidestones will make this perfectly
clear.
Of course the extremely nearby planet Venus is not without any number
of GW faults and consequences that are pretty much all natural and
doing a fine job, of keeping that planet cooler than it otherwise
might be if the full 2650 w/m2 of sunlight was allowed to get down to
its active geothermally heated surface. Some terrestrial scientists
actually want us to try putting a few million tonnes of sulfur into
our upper atmosphere, for accomplishing the same reflective cooling
effect, except lacking atmospheric buoyancy is why it will not stay up
there, and the end result would likely be much worse off.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
Chris L Peterson
Feb 7, 2012, 12:49:37 AM2/7/12
to
variability of the Sun and long term orbital variation of the Earth do
not change this. They merely are part of the reason why the
equilibrium point shifts slowly over thousands or millions of years.
We are currently out of equilibrium, because we are absorbing
significantly more energy than we are radiating, as a result of human
caused changes to the atmosphere. This is no different that natural
changes that have occurred in the past, just faster. The Earth will be
in equilibrium again; the only question for humans is how comfortable
that point will be for us, and how well we can deal with the rapid
shift.
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 1:17:26 AM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 9:49 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:46 -0800 (PST), Scammed Public
>
> On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:46 -0800 (PST), Scammed Public
>
TW.
Uranium usage and its spent byproducts (none of which are good for the
environment or much less human DNA friendly) isn’t much better than
hydrocarbons and the gauntlet of associated elements (most of which
are toxic and some can even be considered lethal in small dosages),
although unlike hydrocarbon consequences it’ll be dozens of
generations from now that’ll get to pay the most for the uranium
fission consequences initiated today.
Conventional nuclear fission produced electricity isn’t much better
than 20% efficient once the all-inclusive (birth-to grave)
thermodynamics and delivery efficiency is put squarely on the table.
In some instances of a failed or dysfunctional reactor site(s), make
that overall efficiency worth less than 10%. End result is, not much
work for the total amount of thermal energy created.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
So, what part of this .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are
you buying or not buying into?
What part of burning hydrocarbons and fission derived energy is this
296 TW of AGW that doesn’t seem all that bad, that is unless your
local drought and/or weather extremes are either draining your bank
account or killing you. In other words, if we added up all the
hydrocarbon burning and fission energy we contribute to our
environment, could 25%(74 TW) be about right, or is it more like
50%(148 TW)?
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 3:13:03 PM2/7/12
to
Sam Wormley is correct, in that GW+AGW is ongoing climate change, as
of roughly 11,712 years ago, but only as of lately getting into high
gear.
Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For another example,
snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
warming, so perhaps that needs to be objectively measured.
That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
not the rug on Hagar's trailer porch, is it?
It seems the pro-GWs want the rest of us to believe that it’s all
perfectly natural and somehow automatically taking care of us,
regardless of whatever 7+ billion humans has done. Hagar is
suggesting that cold temperatures and whatever glacial buildups are
being systematically excluded or obfuscated.
Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
only by size but via duration. I take it that our Hagar and other GWs
in denial don’t buy into any part of the AGW that's suggesting .58 w/
m2 of our global energy budget imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
another, but not always for the greater good seems to get ignored,
because the rich and powerful really don’t have to care.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/bc7030dc9b65e314?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293fab9f4ac555?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?
So, what quantitative part of the .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
weather/storm extremes are either draining your bank account or
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water.
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
change or weather severity (hot, cold, wet or stormy) is taking place,
their onshore as well as offshore business expenses. On the other
hand, the middle and lower caste seems to be stuck directly in harms
others to create, as another way of culling the lower 95% of us,
thereby sucking away at our savings and making this look as though
environment has never been greater, and the toxic stench is only
affected area look like another ice-age, just like our NASA/Apollo era
deficient as a certain private guano island.
tipping points and unlimited resources, plus ample roadkill and free
deep-fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying
of roughly 11,712 years ago, but only as of lately getting into high
gear.
Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For another example,
snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
warming, so perhaps that needs to be objectively measured.
That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
not the rug on Hagar's trailer porch, is it?
It seems the pro-GWs want the rest of us to believe that it’s all
perfectly natural and somehow automatically taking care of us,
regardless of whatever 7+ billion humans has done. Hagar is
suggesting that cold temperatures and whatever glacial buildups are
being systematically excluded or obfuscated.
Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
only by size but via duration. I take it that our Hagar and other GWs
in denial don’t buy into any part of the AGW that's suggesting .58 w/
m2 of our global energy budget imbalance.
GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
another, but not always for the greater good seems to get ignored,
because the rich and powerful really don’t have to care.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/bc7030dc9b65e314?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293fab9f4ac555?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a69518da54748e?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be280373c5f7e04c?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b288d63bc201f?
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: The researchers concluded that the 0.58 watts per square meter
On Feb 5, 12:15 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget_prt.htm
: imbalance implies that carbon dioxide levels need to be reduced
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: to about 350 parts per million to restore the energy budget to
: equilibrium. They say the most recent measurements put CO2
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: -- caton...@sympatico.ca
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
: levels at 392 parts per million and those concentrations are
: expected to keep rising.
:
: Scientists have been refining calculations of the Earth's energy
: imbalance for years, but NASA researchers say their newest
: estimate is an improvement because they had access to better
: measurements of ocean temperature.
:
: --
: "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...
: and CO2 levels to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm."
: -- caton...@sympatico.ca
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
So, what quantitative part of the .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local drought and/or
weather/storm extremes are either draining your bank account or
killing you. Are you and other pretend-Atheist, that only seem to act/
react exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
react exactly like Semites, favoring an ice-free Earth?
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water.
Obviously the rich and powerful could care less how much climate
because they get to relocate as often and as far away from the really
nasty stuff as they like (using their private yachts and business jets
none the less), and usually not even having to pay an extra cent in
taxes because they’ll find a way of writing it off as another one of
their onshore as well as offshore business expenses. On the other
hand, the middle and lower caste seems to be stuck directly in harms
way of GW and AGW consequences. In fact, it seems the rich and
powerful desire as much GW and AGW as they can muster and/or allowing
others to create, as another way of culling the lower 95% of us,
thereby sucking away at our savings and making this look as though
only nature was responsible for killing us off.
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
justify any amount of pollution and environmental disruption, as a
-
Once again our resident redneck FUD-master (aka Hagar) is constipated
from eating too much of his deep-fried roadkill, and damn proud of it
and the methane cloud that always follows wherever he goes.
On Feb 5, 9:20 am, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: And to think it all had its start in the 70s, with the dreaded
: Global Cooling doomsday scenario gang ... and the idiots
: insist it is Global Warming, ooops . Climate Change,
: ooopsy-daisy ... Global Climate Disruption
:
http://news.yahoo.com/snow-forces-heathrow-cancel-half-flights-143250...
: Bwahahahahaaa ...
Then we always have this other intellectual flatulence that’ll further
good thing.
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
artificially added to the global surface, ground water and atmospheric
On Feb 6, 3:40 am, Harry Merrick <Homes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yes, I keep "telling" people that!! - MOST of the argument
: here is purely personal opinion backed up by "more" personal
: opinions by pseudo-scientists, mostly working outside their
: fields of expertise anyway. Their contrived arguments are
: supposed to impress just because they *may* be scientists of
: some other sort than Climate! Further, what effect does
: photosynthesis have on climate change? It should reduce
: planetary warming because it converts CO2 into O2. ALL
: plants use photosynthesis to live. The planet is working away
: to rectify any mistakes we, or any other thing, may make to
: cause global warming. Panic over!
: Harry Merrick.
Oddly, it seems we’ve deforested and paved over quite enough, as well
as making the average density of diatoms not 10% of what they used to
be, in that converting CO2 back into O2 just isn’t happening to the
extent that Henry Merrick thinks is happening. However, surface
erosion has accelerated and the chemicals plus metallicity
environment has never been greater, and the toxic stench is only
getting worse.
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
you folks of GW and AGW denial can always make any seasonal cold
It seems warming up another significant part of this planet puts more
water vapor into the atmosphere (at least that's physics-101), and
weather/storm extremes do not happen due to global cooling, but you
mainstreamers can go right ahead and pretend otherwise.
Global dimming via multiple natural and artificial methods will
usually not cause a global cooling trend, unless you're talking about
an extremely large and volumetric dosage of heavy or extremely dense
and sulfuric volcanic output that would have to be sustained at
perhaps ten fold normal levels for several years (not just for any few
months or even a year might not be sufficient).
Objective measurements of the continuing ice volume losses is also
hard to keep ignoring, but I’m sure if anyone can it’ll have to be the
likes of our Hagar and his fellow ZNRs that are in perpetual denial
about damn near everything. Seasonal snow and ice hardly counts, but
affected area look like another ice-age, just like our NASA/Apollo era
made our physically dark moon look so monochromatic of pastels
offering only light grays that were also oddly so extra reflective and
inert for such a naked terrain that was nicely eroded down to only
soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or even
the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In other
words the Apollo moon was acting as though it were as metallicity
soft rolling hills, and not the least bit metallicity worthy, or even
the least bit UV reactive, much less anticathode worthy. In other
deficient as a certain private guano island.
-
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
Your redneck ZNR approved planet as apparently one of having no
Once again our favorite resident redneck ZNR clown has us rolling on
the floor, laughing our silly butts off. Apparently his home-
schooling stopped bothering to teach him basic math, science and
reading comprehension as of grade three when his puberty kicked in,
and that scared the other little kids that were all of 6 years
younger.
On Feb 2, 4:34 pm, "Hägar" <hs...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*******************************************
: We all know that you are retarded, so here it is again, for the
: umpteenth time. If you add up all the chemicals that the average
: of 10 active volcanoes belch into the atmosphere, and add to that
: the natural evaporation of ocean bound methane, plus the 10,000
: plus "smokers" or "chimneys' along the oceanic rifts, you may
: find, much to your chagrin, that the contribution from automobile
: exhausts, airplanes and powerplants is merely a drop in the bucket
: of that fictional Global Warming pollution we are supposedly the
: root of.
: Unfortunately, having your head buried deep within your colon
: doesn't help you to see things very clearly, as evidenced by the
: supposed structures you see on Venus ... pure shit.
tipping points and unlimited resources, plus ample roadkill and free
deep-fryers for everyone, is noted. In other words, you're saying
Brad Guth
Feb 7, 2012, 3:26:19 PM2/7/12
to
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut CO2 by 42 ppm it stands to reason
that many other reductions in soot, CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other
released elements (including helium) is going to get reduced at the
same time. The accumulative affect is going to be positive and
otherwise beneficial, even if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement (.
058 W/m2), but it's certainly a start in the right direction.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293f...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a695...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be2803...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b28...
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut CO2 by 42 ppm it stands to reason
that many other reductions in soot, CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other
released elements (including helium) is going to get reduced at the
same time. The accumulative affect is going to be positive and
otherwise beneficial, even if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement (.
058 W/m2), but it's certainly a start in the right direction.
On Feb 7, 12:13 pm, Brad Guth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sam Wormley is correct, in that GW+AGW is ongoing climate change, as
> of roughly 11,712 years ago, but only as of lately getting into high
> gear.
>
> Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
> ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
> as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For another example,
> snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
> warming, so perhaps that needs to be objectively measured.
>
> That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
> not the rug on Hagar's trailer porch, is it?
>
> It seems the pro-GWs want the rest of us to believe that it’s all
> perfectly natural and somehow automatically taking care of us,
> regardless of whatever 7+ billion humans has done. Hagar is
> suggesting that cold temperatures and whatever glacial buildups are
> being systematically excluded or obfuscated.
>
> Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
> only by size but via duration. I take it that our Hagar and other GWs
> in denial don’t buy into any part of the AGW that's suggesting .58 w/
> m2 of our global energy budget imbalance.
>
> GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
> every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
> another, but not always for the greater good seems to get ignored,
> because the rich and powerful really don’t have to care.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/bc7030...
> Sam Wormley is correct, in that GW+AGW is ongoing climate change, as
> of roughly 11,712 years ago, but only as of lately getting into high
> gear.
>
> Seasonal weather is not global cooling or heating. If that snow and
> ice arrived late and is gone within the same or shorter period of time
> as in previous years, it's not a cooling trend. For another example,
> snow buildup within central Antarctica is only possible due to global
> warming, so perhaps that needs to be objectively measured.
>
> That rug of AGW sweepings (that’s supposedly hiding cold spots), is
> not the rug on Hagar's trailer porch, is it?
>
> It seems the pro-GWs want the rest of us to believe that it’s all
> perfectly natural and somehow automatically taking care of us,
> regardless of whatever 7+ billion humans has done. Hagar is
> suggesting that cold temperatures and whatever glacial buildups are
> being systematically excluded or obfuscated.
>
> Those multiple hot spots seem to be outnumbering the cold spots, not
> only by size but via duration. I take it that our Hagar and other GWs
> in denial don’t buy into any part of the AGW that's suggesting .58 w/
> m2 of our global energy budget imbalance.
>
> GW and AGW obfuscation:, and the usual denial of being in denial works
> every time, as well as quantitative physics that interact with one
> another, but not always for the greater good seems to get ignored,
> because the rich and powerful really don’t have to care.
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/1f293f...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/45a695...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/be2803...
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astronomy/browse_frm/thread/740b28...
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 1:54:08 PM2/8/12
to
There's lots of renewable energy that's failsafe and doesn't create
CO2, CO, NOx and a slew of other nasty toxins, as well as not
releasing precious helium, but they are not nearly as profitable nor
worth going to war over. There’s also numerous methods of utilizing
our energy a whole lot more efficiently and making it more reliable at
the same time.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW.
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven
when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't
offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as
when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
On Feb 5, 6:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
CO2, CO, NOx and a slew of other nasty toxins, as well as not
releasing precious helium, but they are not nearly as profitable nor
worth going to war over. There’s also numerous methods of utilizing
our energy a whole lot more efficiently and making it more reliable at
the same time.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW.
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has proven
when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as such hasn't
offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with, such as
when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including helium)
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
accomplishes a 10% improvement (.058 W/m2), but none the less it's
is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative affect is
going to be positive and otherwise beneficial, even if it only
certainly a terrific start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”
On Feb 5, 6:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike Collins
Feb 8, 2012, 3:25:48 PM2/8/12
to
Brad Guth <brad...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn t such a bad idea,
> considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
> gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
> with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
> per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
> and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
> become the new Eden for us.
>
That's even madder than your Venus fantasies.
> Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn t such a bad idea,
> considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
> gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
> with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
> per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
> and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
> become the new Eden for us.
>
Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level
even without the other ice sheets in the world.
Davoud
Feb 8, 2012, 4:46:08 PM2/8/12
to
Mike Collins:
> Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level
> even without the other ice sheets in the world.
Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having
beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get
water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I
drive a Prius :-)
OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
> That's even madder than your Venus fantasies.
You just now realized he's totally bonkers?
> Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level
> even without the other ice sheets in the world.
beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get
water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I
drive a Prius :-)
OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden.
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 4:59:44 PM2/8/12
to
On Feb 8, 12:25 pm, Mike Collins <acridiniumes...@gmail.com> wrote:
Greenland with another 50% loss of ice (-1.4e18 kg and say exposing
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
will actually turn out being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of it at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is roughly 0.7%/year, which by now has likely
increased to near 1%/year.
However, if you're smarter than a typical 5th grader, then Venus isn't
half bad.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
will actually turn out being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of it at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is roughly 0.7%/year, which by now has likely
increased to near 1%/year.
However, if you're smarter than a typical 5th grader, then Venus isn't
half bad.
Thumbnail images, including mgn_c115s095_1.gif (225 m/pixel)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/thumbnail_pages/venus_thumbnails.html
Lava channels, Lo Shen Valles, Venus from Magellan Cycle 1
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/html/object_page/mgn_c115s095_1.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/mgn_c115s095_1.gif
“Guth Venus”, at 1:1, then 10x resample/enlargement of the area in
question:
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5630418595926178146
https://picasaweb.google.com/bradguth/BradGuth#5629579402364691314
Brad Guth / Blog and my Google document pages:
http://groups.google.com/group/guth-usenet?hl=en
http://bradguth.blogspot.com/
http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddsdxhv_0hrm5bdfj
Mike Collins
Feb 8, 2012, 5:10:33 PM2/8/12
to
Davoud <st...@sky.net> wrote:
> Mike Collins:
>> That's even madder than your Venus fantasies.
>
> You just now realized he's totally bonkers?
>
>> Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level
>> even without the other ice sheets in the world.
>
> Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having
> beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get
> water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I
> drive a Prius :-)
>
> OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden.
I see it in a slightly different light since both my children have houses
> Mike Collins:
>> That's even madder than your Venus fantasies.
>
> You just now realized he's totally bonkers?
>
>> Melting the Geenland ice sheet would give a 7.5 metre rise in sea level
>> even without the other ice sheets in the world.
>
> Still, a 7.5 metre rise in sea level would put me very close to having
> beach-front property on the Chesapeake Bay; at a minimum I would get
> water privileges and a boat slip. And I wouldn't feel guilty, because I
> drive a Prius :-)
>
> OTOH, I really have trouble envisioning Greenland as Eden.
at about the 6 metre contour. (At different sides of England) and my son's
family have already had to evacuate once due to a storm surge in the North
Sea. The water rose to within one inch of the sea defences.
And at an average 60 miles per gallon my car archives about the same mpg as
a Prius but without the smugness.
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 7:53:25 PM2/8/12
to
anyway, so make that 3.75 meters, and then it doesn't sound to bad.
Btw; take a good look at the bedrock contour map, and then make your
mind up about how Greenland and our future Eden might not be that far
apart.
Brad Guth
Feb 8, 2012, 7:56:01 PM2/8/12
to
There's lots of renewable energy that's relatively clean, failsafe and
doesn't create CO2, SO2, CO, NOx and disperse a slew of other nasty
toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium, but those are not
Chu and others of our previous, current and future administrations do
not feel the need nor having any personal motives for changing a damn
thing.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
AGW, just like smoke or soot is a good indicator of fire.
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
from start to exit) is still going to become the hot surface or
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has long
since proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as
forms of life, even terrific if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement
(.058 W/m2 or 29.6 TW), but none the less it's certainly a terrific
snow melt per year, at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
between 1979 and 2002” is a rate of roughly 0.7%/year, which by now
to also track our industrial use of lead. Obviously even such heavy
elements of metallicity do carry themselves into the atmosphere, and
return to the surface as precipitation or snow.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988§ion=3.1
doesn't create CO2, SO2, CO, NOx and disperse a slew of other nasty
toxins, as well as not releasing precious helium, but those are not
nearly as profitable nor worth going to war over. There’s also
numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole lot more efficiently
and making it more reliable at the same time. For some reason Steven
numerous methods of utilizing our energy a whole lot more efficiently
Chu and others of our previous, current and future administrations do
not feel the need nor having any personal motives for changing a damn
thing.
Global CO2 is more of an indicator rather than any singular cause of
Solar variations are truly minimal, whereas the end result of whatever
internal fusion within our sun (regardless of the internal time delay
photosphere radiated energy, and a great deal of science has long
since proven when the sun has been measurably hotter or cooler, as
such hasn't offered any strong link as to what Earth has to work with,
such as when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues, the
such as when we try to deductively figure out GW and AGW science.
Try to remember, that by going only 0.1 km (100 meters) below the
surface, the +/- solar energy is nearly meaningless, because day or
night is practically meaningless. As for going any deeper than a km
under the surface, whereas even if the sun varied by +/50% would not
make any significant difference. Should that sun entirely vanish
would not measurably affect the bedrock that’s any km+ deep, however
the lack of tidal modulation would be measurably noticed as a measured
reduction in global heat.
On the annual cycle basis, most of our glacial ice thaw has been
melting from the bottom up. This is not to say that our AGW and its
global dimming isn’t working its magic from the top down.
The amount of stored heat, including fission generated heat and tidal
modulated heat from within Earth is considerably greater than any
solar heat influx. The extra 296 TW of thermal imbalance is just the
amount humans manage to contribute via mostly hydrocarbons, fission
and hydroelectric energy.
0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
CO, NOx, SO2, CH4 and a host of other released elements (including
So, go right ahead and specify or declare what scientific quantitative
part of the estimated .58 w/m2 or 296 TW worth of global thermal
imbalance are you buying or not buying into?
296 TW of AGW (42.3 kw/person) doesn’t seem so bad, unless your local
area drought and/or weather/storm extremes are either draining your
bank account or otherwise killing you.
I would actually doubt that any 42 ppm reduction in CO2 by itself can
cancel out the .58 w/m2 of global energy imbalance, especially when so
much of the global imbalance of 296 TW isn’t strictly CO2 related.
However, if we can manage to cut the global CO2 by an average of 42
ppm, it stands to good reason that many other reductions in our soot,
helium) is going to get reduced at the same time. The accumulative
affect is going to be positive and otherwise beneficial to all known
forms of life, even terrific if it only accomplishes a 10% improvement
(.058 W/m2 or 29.6 TW), but none the less it's certainly a terrific
start in the right direction.
Actually, a mostly ice-free Greenland isn’t such a bad idea,
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
Greenland with another 50% loss of ice (-1.45e18 kg and say exposing
considering how much higher above ocean levels that little continent
gets, and the terrific exposed area of dry land becomes habitable,
with no shortages of inland fresh water. Importing a million trees
per year would be another good thing, along with topsoils for those
and everything else to grow from. With any luck, Greenland could
become the new Eden for us.
another 25% of its continent as ice-free land, worthy of 5e11 m2),
should actually turn out as being a very good place to live. As is,
Greenland is only 19% ice-free, or 4.1e11 m2 out of 2.166e12 m2,
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
However, together that’s 9.1e11 m2 of ice-free land, with unlimited
although most of that ice-free land isn’t desirable to live on.
hydroelectric and all the fresh water you could possibly want (after
exporting more than half of the 365e9 gallons of ice and compacted
snow melt per year, at the wholesale value of $1/gallon).
Outdated science: “Greenland's ice-free area increased by 16 percent
has likely increased to near 1%/year.
Btw; ice cores of Greenland’s compacted snow which becomes ice seem
to also track our industrial use of lead. Obviously even such heavy
elements of metallicity do carry themselves into the atmosphere, and
return to the surface as precipitation or snow.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=397988§ion=3.1
On Feb 5, 6:36 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
Davoud
Feb 8, 2012, 11:43:15 PM2/8/12
to
Mike Collins:
environmentally-friendly cars.
> about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness.
UK Priuses are smug? Must be a different model. Here they're just
environmentally-friendly cars.
Martin Brown
Feb 9, 2012, 5:21:26 AM2/9/12
to
On 09/02/2012 04:43, Davoud wrote:
> Mike Collins:
>> about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness.
>
> UK Priuses are smug? Must be a different model. Here they're just
> environmentally-friendly cars.
The owners, not the cars ;-)
> Mike Collins:
>> about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness.
>
> UK Priuses are smug? Must be a different model. Here they're just
> environmentally-friendly cars.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Davoud
Feb 9, 2012, 10:26:39 AM2/9/12
to
Mike Collins:
> >> about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness.
Davoud:
> >> about the same mpg as a Prius but without the smugness.
> > UK Priuses are smug? Must be a different model. Here they're just
> > environmentally-friendly cars.
Martin Brown:
> > environmentally-friendly cars.
> The owners, not the cars ;-)
No doubt there are smug Prius owners just as there are smug Yugo
owners. I know a half a dozen Prius owners other than myself. None is
smug about his/her choice of a Prius. All but one owns a larger and
less environmentally friendly second car.
Every owner I know loves the Prius, but none goes around scolding
others for their own choice of vehicle. The Prius is a smart way to get
from A to B. No more, no less. But it's not the only way.
No, if you're making a list of smug-ass car owners Prius owners would
be far down the list. 1. BMW...
OTOH, it is difficult to look at the driver of a Cadillac Escalade
without thinking "Smug-ass cretin!" OTOOH, the Escalade is a nice,
supremely comfortable vehicle, and I can understand the attraction,
especially to women.
Me? I miss my 13-MPG Nissan Titan
<http://www.davidillig.com/titan.shtml>.
Al
Feb 10, 2012, 6:31:18 AM2/10/12
to
"Mike Collins" <acridin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And at an average 60 miles per gallon my car archives about the same mpg as
> a Prius but without the smugness.
Chris.B
Feb 10, 2012, 7:55:08 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 12:31 pm, "Al" <al-nos...@agora.com> wrote:
>
> A lousy 60 mpg? My Prius currently averages 83.6 mpg. :-))))) <--- big smug grin. ;-)
Get over yourselves! You have all been conned by marketing hype: Every
>
> A lousy 60 mpg? My Prius currently averages 83.6 mpg. :-))))) <--- big smug grin. ;-)
Prius is a CO2 Everest on wheels. Its design, R&D, materials
scavenging burden, construction, transport to end market, hype and
advertising make a complete mockery of any claims to fuel efficiency.
If the Prius ran on pure CO2 and gave out pure oxygen it would still
be no better than any old, rusting gas guzzler! Car ownership reduces
health due to lack of regular exercise, poor life choices and inferior
(oil-based global farming and fast food transport) diet.
Prius owners are not immune from the CO2 burden of increased health
care, insurance, maintenance and incalculable, global security issues.
All due its oil-based energy consumption and construction. You don't
measure a car by how little fuel goes into the the little hole in the
side. You measure its total CO2 burden from conception to the final
resting place in the scrapyard. Including the daily commute of every
single person who ever worked on its design, construction, delivery,
fuel and maintenance.
My 1954 bicycle repaid its CO2 burden decades ago. Now, if only all
the damned Prius owners would stop forming smug, gridlock traffic jams
in the cycle lanes I could make much better progress in my CO2 version
of the Marianas Trench (AKA: roadside gutter) in which I travel
daily.
Androcles
Feb 10, 2012, 9:36:59 AM2/10/12
to
"Al" <al-n...@agora.com> wrote in message
news:jh2v4i$ha9$1...@dont-email.me...
Chris L Peterson
Feb 10, 2012, 9:57:48 AM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:55:08 -0800 (PST), "Chris.B"
<chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
>Get over yourselves! You have all been conned by marketing hype: Every
>Prius is a CO2 Everest on wheels. Its design, R&D, materials
>scavenging burden, construction, transport to end market, hype and
>advertising make a complete mockery of any claims to fuel efficiency.
Maybe, maybe not. But that isn't the point. Every study shows that
<chr...@nypost.dk> wrote:
>Get over yourselves! You have all been conned by marketing hype: Every
>Prius is a CO2 Everest on wheels. Its design, R&D, materials
>scavenging burden, construction, transport to end market, hype and
>advertising make a complete mockery of any claims to fuel efficiency.
electric cars are capable of having a MUCH lower carbon footprint than
those which burn hydrocarbons. It is hardly surprising that this
technology, in its early years, will not be particularly efficient.
The infrastructure isn't there yet, the manufacturers aren't committed
yet, the technology is still being improved upon. (Certainly, the
Prius is a generally poor design... something that will be improved
upon greatly over the next few years, especially with fully electric
cars, or proper hybrids).
Almost every new technology is inefficient and expensive at first.
It's a stage that has to be passed, and early adopters are part of
that.
Chris.B
Feb 10, 2012, 11:53:48 AM2/10/12
to
On Feb 10, 3:57 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> Almost every new technology is inefficient and expensive at first.
> It's a stage that has to be passed, and early adopters are part of
> that.
I'm still queueing for my Government issue, electrically assisted
>
> Almost every new technology is inefficient and expensive at first.
> It's a stage that has to be passed, and early adopters are part of
> that.
bicycle. Let alone an affordable electric car. I can buy a
sophisticated motor scooter for half the price of an electric hub
assisted, 1930s style, sit up and beg, mild steel, Chinese-made, pedal
driven roadster with rim brakes. It is an obscene joke! Particularly
if I recharge from coal-fired, electric power. Do you really think a
few middle class, early adopters will save the planet?
Are we looking at a similar scenario to the turn-of-the-last-century,
infernal combustion engine revolution? It certainly doesn't feel like
it from the sidelines. Of course the entire palette of finely-honed,
manual skills and hand-on, experimental willingness, in every back
garden shed, is completely lacking from the last time around. We have
been deliberately de-skilled.
We can only hope that our present level of knowledge is similar to the
early side-valve engine. Where do I queue for my electric motor hub
equivalent of the V-12, four valves per pot, double overhead camshaft,
twin turbo-charged engine with full twist-grip control?
Here's one I rode earlier:
http://www.oldbike.eu/wordpress/?page_id=1116
It seems like only yesterday. ;-)
0 new messages