Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Unthreaded

I was wondering if someone had any views on the following.

I'm a chemical engineer, and I've made some rough, back-of-the-envelope calculations to investigate whether the 20th-century warming - especially in the northern hemisphere - could not be due to the heat generated from industrial development - that is, from the same origin is the increased CO2 emissions (correlation). That is, the heat generated directly from combustion engines, power stations, industrial plants, etc.

It's not a straightforward calculation - there are factors like the varying heat capacity of the atmosphere, the percentage of how much of the energy generated is actually lost to the atmosphere as heat (rather than used as mechanical or electrical energy, etc) - but it seems to be that at least the order of magnitude is about the same - that is, the northern hemisphere has gotten a bit warmer since the 19th century because, well, there have been a lot more engines, power stations, lights etc on - and that introduces heat into the atmosphere.

Is anyone aware of any study on this?

Nov 26, 2011 at 7:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterPeter B

5217.txt

Funny little snippet here: I wonder what the preceding conversation involved?

date: Fri Apr 26 16:35:35 2002
from: Mike Hulme <xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
subject: talk title
to: jenkins_geoff

...... that suggests a good title for a popular talk on climate modelling: 'Climate models or Lara Croft: which is closer to reality?'

Nov 26, 2011 at 7:18 PM | Unregistered CommenterTurning Tide

Justin

Nice end quote from your link about abandoned windmills:

"The blades churn until the money runs out. If an honest history is written about the turn of the 21st century, it will include a large, harsh chapter on how fears about global warming were overplayed for profit by corporations."

I think someone should show the whole thing to Huhne...

Nov 26, 2011 at 7:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Peter

Because the warmists like to use the term 'acidification' they forget that the ocean is basically alkaline (chemistry pun intended) and not prone to eating away the shells of molluscs. I suspect that the Russians see AGW as a nefarious western plot anyway, but that doesn't make them wrong!

Nov 26, 2011 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Good comment from dfromnw aimed at the journalist Geoffrey Lean on Telegraph thread hits home:

Climategate II: the scientists fight back

"And the science itself remains sound"

How do you qualify that statement? Do you mean the "science" that even the fragrant 'Prof' Jones - out of whose bottom the light shines bright as far as you are concerned, it seems - refers to in quotation marks? You remind be of the multiple 'inquiries' after Climategate I which all parroted the "the science is still sound" meme despite the fact that none of them looked at the science. Complete garbage, but then that's to be expected from you.

By the way, you get a mention in 0927.txt (October 1997), in a list of journos suggested by a WWF press person Cherry Farrow to Mike Hulme at UEA, to help Hulme publicise a 'European Scientists' Statement'. You were obviously regarded as 'on message' then. So is your so-called reporting still equally on-message now? Just wondering...

Nov 26, 2011 at 6:23 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Funny old world, innit? These days, if you're a right-wing Conservative, or a right-wing commentator or blogger, it is virtually a badge of honour to proclaim that all this global warming stuff, and action taken to counter it, is a load of cobblers, nay, more: it is a fraud, perpetrated upon a deceived public by free-spending liberal or left-wing politicians who don't have Britain's own best interests at heart, and who are backed up by scientists exaggerating the problem so that they can ensure the continuation of their research funding.

Michael McCarthy in The Independent talks about the origins of the Climate Change debate and how it came to be so heavily politicised ... also how the progressive warming of the whole globe which appeared to be observable in the 1990s appears, since the millennium, to have plateaued... and what this means for Durban ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/michael-mccarthy-climate-change-isnt-a-leftwing-cause--the-iron-lady-knew-that-6268156.html

Nov 26, 2011 at 6:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

In all the detritus and fallout from CG2, I spotted this gem from here:
http://www.naturalnews.com/034234_wind_turbines_abandoned.html
And the choice quote is:
"In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills." Claims Andrew Walden of the American Thinker.
The article goes on to state:
"This whole wind energy mess just further illustrates how the American people have been played by their elected officials who bought into the "global warming" hysteria that spawned the push for wind energy in the first place."
Another peach that might have had more exposure were it not for another 220,000 even more disturbing artefacts of post modern, post-industrial, post normal, Lysenkoist claptrap.

Nov 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterJustin Ert

From Greenie Watch 26 Nov 2011::
Evidence? Who needs evidence?

Warmists certainly don't. Prophecy is their stock in trade. They're not even good at theory, let alone evidence. One of their more absurd prophecies is that global warming will lead to greater ocean acidity which will dissolve the shells of various marine animals. This is based on the fact that CO2 in water forms carbonic acid. What they fail to mention, however, is that warming REDUCES the ability of water to absorb CO2 -- so warming should in fact make the ocean more alkaline.

Theory is all very well, however. What actually happens in the ocean? Is greater acidity IN FACT fatal for animals living in shells?

Some Russian researchers found out. They were obviously oblivious to global warming. They were in fact looking at concentations of various elements in marine organisms located in proximity to undersea thermal vents (hydrothermal fields). Along the way, however, they did give brief descriptions of the animals they were studying. Below are two such:

The shells of the vesicomyid clam Archivesica gigas are an important target for Ba, Mn, and to a lesser extent of Fe (Figure 3a), however for other metals, they play only a small role. Taking into account the large mass of the shell relative to the soft tissue of clams (in which the former may reach one order of magnitude higher that the latter), we can suggest that shells, which have accumulated trace metals during biomineralization and adsorption, might serve as a great reservoir for many metals. The second abundant bivalve mollusk Leda (Nuculana grasslei) lives on substratum saturated with hydrocarbons (Allen, 1993). Unlike similar species, this animal has an extremely thick periostratum (an exterior part of the shell) that is considered to be an adaptation to functioning in an acidic environment enriched in sulfides. Its nutritional source has not yet been studied completely, but some researchers regard Leda as a symbiotrophic organism containing bacteria in its gills that can combine symbiotrophy with filter-feeding.

So a clam in a very acidic environment was unusually large and had a very THICK shell. The stupid thing obviously can't read what learned Warmists say! Instead of dying, it prospered!

And another mollusk (Leda) also had a very thick shell. Doesn't it know that its shell is supposed to have dissolved away?

What the Warmists overlook is that shell formation is a active process. The shell is not something that just sits there waiting to be eaten away. So even high levels of acidity don't faze the marine animal at all.

Nov 26, 2011 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterPeter Walsh

Further PS to the new enviro. person at the BBC:

The item on the Norfolk Broads ended with a reference to how the wildlife would be endangered by forthcoming sea level rises.

Sigh.

Nov 26, 2011 at 9:33 AM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>