Global Warming Total Fraud

[CyberKen]

On what are you basing your prediction - gut feeling ?

Br Cornelius

We won't have to wait long to find out. It's just 11 months away. Then we know.

Computer Models are cool but it's very hard to argue with a real photograph.

We have the August 2012 Photo in our hands.

We have the August 2013 Photo in our hands.

In only 11 months we will have the August 2014 Photo in our hands.

I think my predictions will be a lot closer than IPCC daydreams. Time will tell.

My prediction: there will be 25% Arctic Ice added to the 60% increase that we can already see with our own eyes.

Go read the article again at the Daily Mail. It's full of incredible truths: Yachts and Cruise Ships.

Hint: The cloud cover is being increased : Solar Radiation Management

[Frank Merton]

Higher prices will not change physical limitations. That's why even as oil prices tripled crude oil production didn't.

I take the last line of your simplistic statement. Oil prices tripled and the world adjusted -- in many ways -- not just increasing crude output. Living standards dropped, substitutions were used, use became more efficient. You also ignore the time lag between prices and technology.

It now looks as though the States, because of the high prices of imports stimulating technology, will soon become energy independent, and the technology they develop will be transferable to others.

There remains all that coal. We agree we would rather leave it alone, but if all else fails ways to use it cleanly will be found.

[CyberKen]

I take the last line of your simplistic statement. Oil prices tripled and the world adjusted -- in many ways -- not just increasing crude output. Living standards dropped, substitutions were used, use became more efficient. You also ignore the time lag between prices and technology.

It now looks as though the States, because of the high prices of imports stimulating technology, will soon become energy independent, and the technology they develop will be transferable to others.

There remains all that coal. We agree we would rather leave it alone, but if all else fails ways to use it cleanly will be found.

The natural gas turbine power plants produce more power at a lower cost.

We have a glut of natural gas. Also, the Gas Turbine Power Plants have a small footprint and lower maintenance costs.

That translates into higher profit margins for the shareholders.

[Frank Merton]

Yes there seems to be an awful lot of natural gas. I don't see the pertinence except that natural gas is to be preferred over both oil and coal when possible.

[CyberKen]

Yes there seems to be an awful lot of natural gas. I don't see the pertinence except that natural gas is to be preferred over both oil and coal when possible.

Oh yeah, natural gas burns cleaner than coal.

The power output is impressive. 380 MegaWatts with 2 Gas Turbines running side by side.

They can also use waste heat from the turbines to boil water to turn a steam turbine :Add another 300 MW.

[RavenHawk]

What’s interesting about this chart is that it looks like the average temp progression in the last 10 years. AGW apologists would replace “recovery” with “temp going up because CO2 is increasing because of evil Man and we are all going to die”. Even though the trend points downward. And whenever a spike occurs, they will scream – “see, we were right”. I can’t wait until 2040.

[questionmark]

What's interesting about this chart is that it looks like the average temp progression in the last 10 years. AGW apologists would replace "recovery" with "temp going up because CO2 is increasing because of evil Man and we are all going to die". Even though the trend points downward. And whenever a spike occurs, they will scream – "see, we were right". I can't wait until 2040.

The above is the ice sheet, just in case you missed the fine print. And it is not good if it goes down.

[RavenHawk]

the Gas Turbine Power Plants have a small footprint and lower maintenance costs.

That translates into higher profit margins for the shareholders.

This is what scares all Socialists. That Capitalism can save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time. A true win-win scenario.

[Guest]

What's interesting about this chart is that it looks like the average temp progression in the last 10 years. AGW apologists would replace "recovery" with "temp going up because CO2 is increasing because of evil Man and we are all going to die". Even though the trend points downward. And whenever a spike occurs, they will scream – "see, we were right". I can't wait until 2040.

You should learn how to read a graph. Its the trend that matter, and all that matters in climate science. Arctic summer sea ice goinmg down over a period of over 50 years.

Show me a global temperature graph from the last 10 years which looks anything like that graph, you will struggle because there is no such thing. If it were anyway meaningful to look at the last decade's temp trend - it would be flat.

Br Cornelius

This is what scares all Socialists. That Capitalism can save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time. A true win-win scenario.

it still fossil fuel and it still causes AGW. Not a win win at all then.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

The above is the ice sheet, just in case you missed the fine print. And it is not good if it goes down.

Sigh! Do you ever bother to read what is written? In very few words, I acknowledge the fact that this reflects the ice sheet and juxtapose the chart to average temp.

[Frank Merton]

What's interesting about this chart is that it looks like the average temp progression in the last 10 years. AGW apologists would replace "recovery" with "temp going up because CO2 is increasing because of evil Man and we are all going to die". Even though the trend points downward. And whenever a spike occurs, they will scream – "see, we were right". I can't wait until 2040.

How does one get "average temperature?" For your chart to be convincing, ten years is not enough but even ore important, you provide way too little detail -- how is "average" defined being significant.

This is what scares all Socialists. That Capitalism can save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time. A true win-win scenario.

Why? Socialists countries can use natural gas too.

[questionmark]

How does one get "average temperature?" For your chart to be convincing, ten years is not enough but even ore important, you provide way too little detail -- how is "average" defined being significant.

Why? Socialists countries can use natural gas too.

Yeh, but that is besides the point, Enron has declared that GW is over, so it must be over.

[RavenHawk]

You should learn how to read a graph. Its the trend that matter, and all that matters in climate science. Arctic summer sea ice goinmg down over a period of over 50 years.

Hello!? The second part of my comment *IS* based on the trend. That was the point. Thank you for agreeing with Carter that trend is what is important in climate science.

Show me a global temperature graph from the last 10 years which looks anything like that graph, you will struggle because there is no such thing.

OK:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2012.svg

If it were anyway meaningful to look at the last decade's temp trend - it would be flat.

Carter would probably call it stasis.

it still fossil fuel and it still causes AGW. Not a win win at all then.

Yes it is. It’s the cleanest form of fossil fuel we have. And it takes less to generate more energy.

[Frank Merton]

I perceive natural gas as a "bridge fuel" while renewable non-Co2 emitting sources of electricity are developed and transportation becomes electric.

However, that is not because I think natural gas supplies are particularly limited but because prices of renewable energy are steadily coming down and will in maybe half a century become cheaper than anything else.

That will be the real win-win, and I think we have at least half a century to achieve it so long as oil goes out of use in a major way more quickly. Right now I would concentrate on the most serious sources of CO2 and not take such a purist position that if it contributes any CO2 it must be banned.

[RavenHawk]

How does one get "average temperature?" For your chart to be convincing, ten years is not enough but even ore important, you provide way too little detail -- how is "average" defined being significant.

Man, some people are really dense. I was being sarcastic with Br Cornelius’ chart. That’s all.

Why? Socialists countries can use natural gas too.

Yes they can but that has nothing to do with it. The fact that Socialists must control everything and that government is the answer and salvation of the world is just plain wrong. It’s the people as individuals that are the answer and salvation. We can clean up the environment and learn to live with the changes that occur with climate change. Get closer to nature.

[questionmark]

Well guys, no matter if it does not look like it: We are making progress, not so long ago some interested parties were denying that such a thing as climate change even existed. Now they are saying it is over...

so much for "density"

[CyberKen]

This is what scares all Socialists. That Capitalism can save the planet and make a profit on it at the same time. A true win-win scenario.

It would be nice to power the entire nation on hydroelectric power but our demands are too great.

We need the GE and Siemens Gas Turbine Power Plants.

Lockheed Martin introduced an entirely new power plant solution.

100 MW !

[RavenHawk]

Yeh, but that is besides the point, Enron has declared that GW is over, so it must be over.

You make no sense. Do you have a source? AGW never existed, but GW/GC has always been the norm since before Man existed. So having Enron or anyone else say that GW is over is pretty dumb. Most AGW apologists will claim that GC is over and that is just as dumb. We may get a bit warmer or we may get a bit cooler. It’s hard to say. But one thing is for sure and that is that it will do one or the other.

[questionmark]

You make no sense. Do you have a source? AGW never existed, but GW/GC has always been the norm since before Man existed. So having Enron or anyone else say that GW is over is pretty dumb. Most AGW apologists will claim that GC is over and that is just as dumb. We may get a bit warmer or we may get a bit cooler. It's hard to say. But one thing is for sure and that is that it will do one or the other.

speaking of density...

[Frank Merton]

You have a strange sense of humor and an even stranger sense of what socialism in today's world is about.

[RavenHawk]

I perceive natural gas as a "bridge fuel" while renewable non-Co2 emitting sources of electricity are developed and transportation becomes electric.

I would tend to agree with that.

However, that is not because I think natural gas supplies are particularly limited but because prices of renewable energy are steadily coming down and will in maybe half a century become cheaper than anything else.

This would be key because every home could then lay dirt cheap solar cells on their property and plug it into the grid. Wind and geo thermal will never really be mass feasible. When we develop cheap fusion energy, then our need of fossil fuels will really dwindle. But it won’t until we get to that point. But as I’ve pointed out before, we are just a century or two from reaching a Type I civilization. In short, that means that we will no longer be dependent on fossil fuels. It’s just a matter of time and the sky is not going to fall down before then. In three hundred years, they will be laughing at the AGW apologists in those quaint times just as we laugh at those that think the Earth was flat many years ago.

That will be the real win-win, and I think we have at least half a century to achieve it so long as oil goes out of use in a major way more quickly. Right now I would concentrate on the most serious sources of CO2 and not take such a purist position that if it contributes any CO2 it must be banned.

Our use of fossil fuels is on the way out anyway. It won’t be abrupt but will reduce perhaps in spurts. There will be people that will have need of fossil fuel to run vintage vehicles as a hobby. We shouldn’t worry about having to ban CO2. The government is not needed. Industry needs to be responsive to the consumer and present alternatives. If everyone had an entrepreneurial type mindset and not a socialist one, we could easily reduce our footprint. But as long as people feel that business or government is required to give us things, then we will continue to need fossil fuels.

[Frank Merton]

It may be that government is "not needed" (I take it by that you mean that market forces will do the job) but that doesn't mean government can't help (or hinder, depending on the wisdom of the government). Subsidies (especially on research) and government entities deciding to go in a certain way with their own use of energy are examples.

[RavenHawk]

Lockheed Martin introduced an entirely new power plant solution.

I think this is our future. I use to work on the Z machine (google it). Or more accurately, I supported those that worked on it. I also supported wind and solar research. Our best bet is fusion. But I also like the idea of cheap personal home solar arrays.

[CyberKen]

I think this is our future. I use to work on the Z machine (google it). Or more accurately, I supported those that worked on it. I also supported wind and solar research. Our best bet is fusion. But I also like the idea of cheap personal home solar arrays.

I think this Lockheed Martin Fusion Power Plant 100 MW could power a large orbiting space station.

It is very safe, small and can be turned off and on quickly. We just need to find some deuterium and tritium.

[Guest]

I think this Lockheed Martin Fusion Power Plant 100 MW could power a large orbiting space station.

It is very safe, small and can be turned off and on quickly. We just need to find some deuterium and tritium.

No over unit fusion plant has ever been demonstrated. Fusion is still that magical 30years in the future which never arrives.

Br Cornelius