Harold Squared

"A million", you say? How did you derive such an estimate? But it is true that vast amounts of hardware will be required in order to keep pace with anticipated demands, regardless of the location of said hardware. Does this seem reasonable? I am greatly in your debt for returning the discussion to the topic, and to answer your remark concerning installations in geosynchronous orbit, please notice that above I have not mentioned that location, though it might be feasible to have power relay stations there. I have proposed instead various libration points, not so? Currently I favor a polar relay point in the North and possibly another in the more thinly populated South. These would be the so-called "statites" I found described in "Indistinguishable From Magic" by the late and sorely missed Dr. Robert L. Forward. These devices are yet another application of the solar sail concept. Now that I think of it, such a location would be even more preferable for the generation of power in order to eliminate some transmission losses. With one section oriented always towards the Sun to gather energy and another rotating at the same rate as the planet to disperse it, such a device should serve admirably. As a side benefit, they would be an ideal location for continuous monitoring of polar conditions. And of course such locations would be unsuitable for shading the planet. In fairness to your preference for terrestrial infrastructure and a further example of international cooperative endeavors in science and technology I should mention the ITER project in France. Fusion power would deliver us all from worries about pollution since its principal waste product is helium, a noble and docile gas often invited to children's parties. Consumption of fusion power and space based power alike would represent a greater heat burden for the planet thermodynamically, how significant this would be depends on the magnitude and rate of consumption if I am not mistaken. In conclusion and a further tip of the metaphorical hat to Dr. Forward and the book mentioned above, I will mention the possible manufacture of antimatter in space. The ultimate rocket fuel, antimatter could as well be shipped to any particular location if desired and would sidestep microwave transmission altogether. Forward points out that minute quantities have been manufactured to date but that facilities designed expressly for such a purpose have never been built. The obvious merit of antimatter for spacecraft propulsion ensure that eventually they will, in my estimation. About this China thing, you have got me really curious! I mean, where will these refugees come from and where will they go? Will all the provinces experience the same decline in agricultural productivity or will it differ, and how much? Will this decline be gradual in nature or of a sudden onset and what would be the immediate cause of this decline? What in Sam Hill do alligators have to do with it? I can really empathize with the Chinese people, the XXth Century was one long series of disasters for them, foreign invasions, civil wars, famines, the infamous Cultural Revolution, having to ride all those goddam bicycles, and NIXON coming around, for God's sake. And now you say alligators are going to invade the place, some people really can't get a break... Thank you incidentally for acknowledging natural causes of climate change but you are dead wrong about such always being gradual and so on as evidenced by 1816, the infamous "Year Without A Summer" and similar examples. Needless to say space based facilities would be exempt from damage inflicted by such events.

Oh gee, civil. I must have got the wrong notion from all the ridicule coming my way. I will try to do better, and to EXPECT better in return. I have no idea how to "report it" and little interest. I AM curious about why you are sticking up for this member, since by his own admission he has little to contribute. Merit of your points is acknowledged. Your prediction of doom in China, can you tell me more about that? I am planning a visit there and hoping not to get caught in it, sounds like no fun at all. Reminiscing about my youth and on the subject of China, I can remember Mao and the people all dressing alike in those drab uniforms and riding bicycles. They have come a long way since then, agreed?

With all due respect, my examples are more recent than yours and reflect more closely the technology available to us today. With regard to allocation of resources by government, a substantial amount of resistance by governments to limitations on gas emissions exists, e.g. China and India. There is a model for international cooperative enterprises in space in the form of the International Space Station. To address another of your objections, G. Harry Stine in the eponymous book pointed out that once in orbit, we are "Halfway to Anywhere", and that the "Near Earth Asteroids" are called such for a reason. Sorry, I still do not understand what relevance quoting Donne or the other posts made in response by this member have to the stated topic. Is it not true that off topic responses are discouraged? I have been admonished for such. Didn't even put up any childish cartoons or similar.And notice that I proposed two options to the member, the choice is entirely his to make. Obligations in the offline community require me to bid you gentleman farewell for now, thank you for your interest in my little proposal.

I am grateful for the correction, I spoke in haste. The IPCC is a profoundly influential political body concerned with climate related issues, by definition. Its principal concern is the AGW hypothesis and not other causes of climate variation known to exist in the past and which are very possibly still in operation. It periodically releases reports with the expressed intention of influencing public policy. The climate models used for such purposes are of questionable reliability and have been modified numerous times. Would you admit the summary above to be more accurate?

There are examples of very ambitious and highly technological projects being accomplished in relatively short time frames, I need not remind you of the Manhattan Project, Apollo moonshot, etc., but your point has some merit, particularly with regard to China, getting to be a bigger player in the space arena by the day. A dire prophecy, that. Perhaps you could tell me the odds of such a catastrophe and the anticipated time frame? Thanks in advance. After mulling Swanson's post a bit I must acknowledge that terrestrial means of ameliorating CO2 levels have their place, if they are nuclear. Either fission or fusion reactors can be fully submerged as naval applications have demonstrated. Safe from the titanic storms sure to engulf the planet in misery and despair, they would have many of the advantages of space power in terms of reliability. No CO2 emitted, everybody happy. Then perhaps you should get some gumption and some knowledge before posting again. I will be content to talk with you then.

Think about addressing the topic as you seem unwilling to STFU.

It is vastly preferable to put solar power installations in space versus the planetary surface, i.e. where the sunlight is pretty much unobstructed and is available around the clock. Daily and seasonal variations can be avoided, clouds and precipitation are absent, etc. While you could put up windmills(known to kill birds, incidentally) and terrestrial solar(requires periodic washing), these are vulnerable to the very same atmospheric disturbances forecast by AGW to become more frequent and severe. There is also the NIMBY factor. There are documented cases of local residents objecting to such installations. "Not In My Back Yard" seems to be the curse we can avoid by going to space, nobody's back yard. An incidental benefit of developing a robust spacefaring capability would be the capability of redirecting objects on a collision course with the planet in a timely manner. Just some thoughts on the matter, regarding your objections, culled from personal experiences and various sources. Thank you for your inquiry and participation. I do not understand what relevance your comment has to the topic. Would you care to elaborate or prefer to STFU?

Common ground at last, fantastic. Anyway I was thinking and realized that shading the planet Earth is trickier than warming it up by the means described in my proposal. If I am missing something I trust you will point it out, but reflecting sunlight onto the Earth from the L4 and L5 points of the Earth-Luna system is preferable to parking the mirrors at analogous points in the Earth-Sun system due to the inverse square law. These are also relatively stable. Wikipedia. Putting a "parasol" array at the Earth-Sun position is more of a challenge with the destination both further away and less stable in nature, though successful missions to that destination have been made.(again, Wikipedia, easy and regularly updated) Finally, depending on the volume of traffic in space, any large array might be perceived as a menace to navigation. This is a rather remote possibility, in my estimation, but I am looking for both pros and cons, critical thinking, you know...

Oh, I intend to try again and again to find a figure analogous to Gore in previous scientific controversies. Any help you guys can provide would be welcome. By the way, I just got up so I can't have read all the cited works,(thanks for them, incidentally), but I notice that LM Bouwer's work in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society(2001) states that AGW is not as yet the cause of increased losses from adverse weather events(I paraphrase, of course). In light of this, is Bouwer one of my "ilk"? Do I detect a bit of HAND WAVING aka conjecture there, Brother? Nah, couldn't be. But if the topic of the thread is who is a skeptic and for what reasons, and Gore is commonly cited by said persons, Gore and his methods must surely be fair game in the discussion. Anyhow, he(Gore) is on YOUR side of the fence, and garnered all sorts of goodies for championing YOUR cause, and you guys are acting all ashamed of him, like. Like a pariah, really- where is your loyalty, you'll hurt his feelings if he ever finds out, poor devil.

Depends, are placebos "real"? And if I overdose on placebos, what is the antidote of choice? Lol. Mary Roach wrote a book on the subject, "Spook", I have to grab a copy, she is hilarious.

You're so right. Wonderful thread, obviously a labor of love. I am a LFTR fan but I think the power output of fusion should enable very robust construction and the lighter weight of fuel would be advantageous. It would be nice to compare these bad boys in the flesh, wouldn't it? Are you familiar with the Project Rho website?

True, I suppose, this is really just a diversion, purely for fun, but the fact is there is sort of a tradition of citizen scientists and inventors in this country people can be justifiably inspired by, like three bicycle mechanics from Ohio. Three billion people every year are traveling by air because of them. Didn't you just do exactly that, lol... But I know what you mean by that, things are more formal nowadays, but tradition does linger, even so. As for the guy alluded to on the other thread, who am I to think less of him for trying to understand the science and make a contribution? More than a lot of laymen do. Credentials are nice but they are unfortunately no guarantee of infallibility, or there would be no malpractice suits. So I tend to take a lot of stuff with a grain or more of salt. Anyway guys I am really bowled over by your participation and thoughtful and incisive comments. Strowger(A.Brown), teacher/undertaker The Great Tsiolkovsky, teacher Like Cavendish, Tsiolkovsky was reclusive though he did marry and have children. Remarkably he appears largely to be a true autodidact, largely self schooled due to poor hearing, which in all probability contributed to his reclusive nature. For this achievement and the sheer soaring imagination of the man I have endowed the title "Great", a purely subjective gesture.

That is exactly the point, it was his day job, something he did to pay the bills. My apologies if I didn't make the American idiom clear. Socrates of course is remembered for his philosophy, but even in Ancient Greece this evidently did not pay very well. Thanks to everybody for their interest in the subject to date. While I am at it I should have explained the exclusions of polymaths such as Leonardo DaVinci, not because they deserve no merit but from justified controversy regarding which role is their true "vocation". Hopefully this will address Strange's conjecture. Again, my thanks for your time devoted to my little project here. Thanks for the correction, but I think the distinction was lost on his Revolutionary peers, lopped his head clean off. Damned shame. Anyway, back in the day there was one thing more than formal education in science that was important. That was MONEY, and lots of it. Gauss was lucky to have found a wealthy patron, having come from a poor family. It helped to be a child prodigy, naturally. Some things never change. Neither was Cavendish, though from what I understand he did not get a degree. Did a lot of work, important work, but socially very withdrawn and virtually a hermit. Supposedly terrified of women and demanded female servants stay out of his sight. Born into wealth and society and never really took advantage of it but an enviable legacy. Fascinating guy but not on the list.

Because he is probably the best known promoter of the hypothesis. Which is kind of weird when you compare AGW to other scientific theories. As far as I am aware, there is no comparable figure for relativity, or quantum mechanics, or of course, Darwinism. If you can point one out, that would be pretty cool but be sure to cite your sources and describe why you consider them reliable. On behalf of my ilk, thanks in advance. And really, if you want to trot out some cartoons or whatever, feel free, or is that Inow's schtik? Source: the depths of my heart.

Dude, chill. I am just trying to comply with moderator requests to identify my sources and describe why I believe them to have some degree of accuracy. The Sahel thingy is clearly described as ANECDOTAL in exactly that word and of passing interest only, a curiosity and an example. The Gore thing is a case of emotional appeal, which also has no legitimate place in the scientific discussion. A leading figure among the Brethren and influential career politician, Gore has no scientific credentials worthy of the name. Sources, same as above. Rationale, similar. Reaction of overtone, no sources cited. Double standard, obvious.

Very well, I find wunderground.com appealing because it is available to all without subscription and looks to be without bias one way or another, just the facts. This seems rather extraordinary a requirement and I do not understand why it is being asked of me and nobody else, but hey, why not if it will help you guys figure it out? Also I tend to click on the link and forget to respond to the post that I have to hunt for later, that can be a pain. I don't post links because of the limitations of my equipment and I don't post funny pictures of cartoons and Star Trek guys or movie scenes because they are childish attempts at ridicule with no basis in scientific fact. Obviously not all of you have the same opinion, you know who you are. Nirvana is a band I personally do not care for and unrelated to the topic. The IPCC is a political body governing meteorological policy and financing meteorological research. Wikipedia, for reasons of convenience.

Sure, buddy, you are getting the idea. Terraforming is basically building a world to order from available materials. There are already companies gearing up to mine the asteroids, if you don't believe me, check it out yourself. And do yourself a favor, read "Mining The Sky" by John S. Lewis. He paints a very hopeful picture, might shake you out of the AGW gloom and doom. And speaking of golden asteroids, you might enjoy "Element 79" by Sir Fred Hoyle. Cracking good read by a serious scientist, though from what I understand he had trouble accepting the Big Bang hypothesis. Hey, over on the Amateur Science section of the forum some guy posted a proposal to terraform Venus with spreadsheets and all but nobody called him a "hand waver" or anything mean, nasty, or remotely ugly at all. What makes old Harold so special, I wonder?

What a relief. Hopefully someone who can follow the argument will step in to fill those big clown shoes that are vacant now. Anecdotal evidence, for those new to the fray, are little stories about too much rain here, too little rain there, excessive heat, excessive cold, wells drying up, lost puppies, etc. Generally they have no scientific merit and are calculated to appeal to the emotions. The popular press is full of them. Speaking of emotional appeal and as previously mentioned, a notorious example would be the infamous film, "An Inconvenient Truth". Al Gore, professional politician and mediocre undergraduate science student was present when this piece of tripe won an Academy Award in 2007. On that occasion, Gore cited the issue not as scientific and denied its blatant political nature. According to Gore, it is a MORAL issue. CULT ALERT Oh, yeah, I am supposed to cite my source. Wikipedia, mostly because it is convenient. And the information is consistent with what I know to be true of Gore, et al, and messianic cults.

ANECDOTE: n. A short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person In the most recent use, your account of the Northwest Passage. I believe that clarifies the goddam matter, Brother.

Actually I was referring to the recent "discovery" that the 15 year plus hiatus in temperature rise was a statistical error. Your claim regarding the Northwest Passage, if true, is simply another anecdote and an unsurprising one at that, since the polar regions are known to be variable. So I hope the matter is clarified. Not sloppy emotional appeal. How is AGW supposed to affect groundwater reserves? I know one goddam thing, that problem is not confined to California. Maybe you want to start a thread on the subject. If you do, I have an answer to the predicament, NUCLEAR DESALINATION. But to return to the topic, I bumped into a rare story attributing something BENIGN to global warming, a pattern of greater than usual rainfall in the Sahel region of Africa from FOX News. Another crappy anecdote, but it is so rare to hear anything good from Africa or about "climate change", I thought I would mention it. It certainly does not affect my observations of the AGW cult in any substantial way.

Cute. No doubt derived from impeccably peer reviewed literature in the most prestigious journal on the subject. But returning to the topic, it is a damned good thing that the infamous Hurricane of 1900 or the Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928 have not become significantly more frequent. The effects of the 1900 storm were felt as far away as Canada according to reports and the official estimate of death roll is 8,000. Despite uncertainties it is still ranked most deadly on record, with the 1928 storm number two. Katrina was ranked third and the damage caused by this event has been at least partially attributed to inadequate infrastructure in and around the Crescent City. Thank you for the feedback. I intend to explain the appeal of my sources to my credibility when it seems warranted.

Again, disingenuous. The primary appeal of the Faithful is to FEAR, an emotional one. Without said fear, funding for research is not to be had. Your cult is a political dog wagging a pseudoscientific tail, similar to Soviet era Lysenkoism. But AGW, per se, is not the subject of the thread. The data on wunderground.com and the conclusion of your article may very well both be true. It may indeed be that the increase in top speeds is trivial in terms of ACE, an artifact of better satellite instrumentation, or both. If you would like to comment on such possibilities, you are invited to do so, a guy with your savvy should be able to find the website. I don't put up links and I don't put up funny pictures, sue me. I will be happy to direct anyone to my sources, however. You should also be able to find an abundance of cases of people saying THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED in as many words and which you imply in your response. Slipping there, Brother.

ANALOGY, for God's sake look it up. If intentional fires of various kinds were not maintained in electrical generation plants here and there, there would be no idiotic arguments on the Internet. Go ahead and hold your breath waiting for a retraction then, it will be that much less CO2 emitted, Brother. Anecdote, anecdote, anecdote. I won't ask for peer reviewed literature attesting to the significance of these events but point out that the cause of same has not been determined. As usual. By all means, Brother, keep shoveling. Not all your Brethren seem aware of the extent mass media is involved in the controversy. As for skiing, I won't cry a goddam tear if it disappears from the face of the Earth forever, it kills people, e.g. Sonny Bono. SEE! You are not the only one who can play the stupid anecdote game.

Disingenuous lot, aren't you? You act as if the no holds barred battle for public opinion and policy goals is confined to scientific journals, maybe that's all you have time to read. Check out what the Faithful have to say in the mass media sometime. Many of them have scientific credentials as abysmal as those of Al Gore, but I have yet to see their more sophisticated Brethren correct them, in any venue. Actually, though, in the instance of the South Asian example cited, I got that little nugget from our Brother iNow, you would think he knew better. I read your paper evidence, no mention of AGW involvement, only warmer water temperatures, etiology unspecified. Principally concerned with maximum observed wind velocities rather than total cyclone energy if I am correct. I particularly like the use of satellite data. If you will inspect my post a bit more carefully you will notice I have perused wunderground.com for the claim very prominently made. Thanks for being honest enough there is some room for further investigation instead of bleating, "The science is settled", the typical and annoying chorus of the Faithful. If you don't bother to check out wunderground.com, I don't imagine it will bother them overmuch.

The United States government has made contingency plans by the score, this does not necessarily imply any particular contingency is inevitable. Furthermore, it is entirely possible for the Arctic to be ice free by means other than those related to CO2 concentration. Your anecdotal observations are just that, and a lack of snow can just as easily be caused by a dearth of moisture as a lack of heat. A colder world necessarily would be a drier one, with more water locked up in glaciers. In fact Ice Age settlements have been identified on continental shelves, as I recall. MyFlorida.com or whatever, it is easy enough to find. Is your anecdotal "man" on a boat or a roof, anyway, you are not making a hell of a lot of sense. You want a joke? Okay, farmer's wife is on the bed, he walks in with a sheep under his arm, he says, "This pig is what I have to use when you're not up for sex." She says, "That is a sheep, you prick." He says, "I was talking to the sheep."