Interesting article in the WSJ yesterday.

[skierinvermont]

When you say things like this, you show your complete and total ignorance. If you can't do basic research to know that cold fusion is a pipe dream at hasn't even been proved in theory let alone application, you make me question every other "fact" you claim here in this thread.

I was not kidding when i said cold fusion only exists in the non-existent utopia that is erewhon. We'd all love the eureka moment where it comes true in this world, but unfortunately we're past peak oil and quite soon the cost of running this planet on fossil fuels will become prohibitive whether they ruin our planet through warmth or not.

cold fusion is legit man

but AGW.. that's just some speculation by a few crackpots

[skierinvermont]

Did you vote for Obama? If yes, then YES!

I want to control your MIND !!!! MWAHAHAHAHA

[JBG]

Did you vote for Obama? If yes, then YES!

I'm one very liberal Democrat who voted for McCain.

[BethesdaWX]

When you say things like this, you show your complete and total ignorance. If you can't do basic research to know that cold fusion is a pipe dream at hasn't even been proved in theory let alone application, you make me question every other "fact" you claim here in this thread.

I was not kidding when i said cold fusion only exists in the non-existent utopia that is erewhon. We'd all love the eureka moment where it comes true in this world, but unfortunately we're past peak oil and quite soon the cost of running this planet on fossil fuels will become prohibitive whether they ruin our planet through warmth or not.

Neither has AGW. Cold Fusion has been experimented in labs for awhile, now, and replication has been successful

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJcoldfusiona.pdf

[tamarack]

Really?

This proves what exactly?

AGW has significantly increased the frequency of heatwaves, droughts, and flooding.

Heatwaves? Probably, at least compared to much of the previous 125 years or so, beyond which our records seem too sketchy to prove anything. But IMO the evidence for worse floods and droughts is equivocal. Each time I read that such-and-such flood is the worst since 19xy so it must be AGW, it makes me wonder what caused the even worse flood of 19xy. Of course, that's MSM conduct, which does nothing to validate (or invalidate) AGW.

When nukes are addressed, I recall an article frrom about 25 years ago (NYT Magazine, IIRC) concerning the problems with US nuclear applications. The article's main thesis was that we were building the large reactors using much of the same mindsets as worked for fossil fuel plants. Big construction, like any big money, attracts some undesirable attention, and the results are often some under-spec performances and tolerances, which have been found adequate (thus acceptable) for fossil but can be exeedingly dangerous for nukes, where bad things can happen in milliseconds.

Not in the article but perhaps relevant is the US Navy. I'm sure that military is, um, "less than forthcoming" about problems with their nukes, but it's a fact that hundreds of their reactors have been in use for decades. Those reactors are far smaller than those feeding the grid, but they are also - necessarily - less abundantly shielded, and are on moving platforms with folks working at close proximity to the vessel. Though we're not likely to obtain Admiral Rickover's engineering notebooks, an attention to detail like his (without the attending tyranny over the program he exercised) might ensure our nukes are safe and efficient.

[Kevin Druff]

Neither has AGW. Cold Fusion has been experimented in labs for awhile, now, and replication has been successful

http://www.lenr-canr...coldfusiona.pdf

Not once have I claimed in this thread that AGW has been proven or is supported by current evidence. Whether I believe that or not is irrelevant to what I have said and will say again: cold fusion for the purposes of energy generation DOES NOT EXIST.

Yes, they have successfully induced fusion reactions but they occur in 2 ways: thermonuclear reactions and reactions that require more energy than they produce.

The book you sent over is akin to me saying the following: "hey, wouldn't it be great if we could push the earth 100,000 miles away from/closer to the sun? Global warming and/or cooling is solved!"

Just because I say it would be great if we could do it, doesn't mean we can.

[BethesdaWX]

Not once have I claimed in this thread that AGW has been proven or is supported by current evidence. Whether I believe that or not is irrelevant to what I have said and will say again: cold fusion for the purposes of energy generation DOES NOT EXIST.

Yes, they have successfully induced fusion reactions but they occur in 2 ways: thermonuclear reactions and reactions that require more energy than they produce.

The book you sent over is akin to me saying the following: "hey, wouldn't it be great if we could push the earth 100,000 miles away from/closer to the sun? Global warming and/or cooling is solved!"

Just because I say it would be great if we could do it, doesn't mean we can.

Wrong. It has been re-created in hundreds of labs, and references are given, which you have obviously not read. Cold Fusion is in the SAME CAMP, hypothesis wise, as AGW.

Some say AGW doesn't exist, some say it does. Some say Cold fusion doesn't exist, some say it does. We may understand the CO2 molecule, but we have a lot to learn about the atmosphere. We may understand how cold fusion should work, but we are having trouble getting a handle on the physical presence...... SAME THING.

Fight one Crazy Hypothesis (AGW) with another (Cold fusion), and you'll get what I'm saying. There is no reason for AGW to be trumpeted through the economy, and cold fusion to be shut out, and ignored, often purposly.

Hint Hint

[Kevin Druff]

Wrong. It has been re-created in hundreds of labs, and references are given, which you have obviously not read. Cold Fusion is in the SAME CAMP, hypothesis wise, as AGW.

Some say AGW doesn't exist, some say it does. Some say Cold fusion doesn't exist, some say it does. We may understand the CO2 molecule, but we have a lot to learn about the atmosphere. We may understand how cold fusion should work, but we are having trouble getting a handle on the physical presence...... SAME THING.

Fight one Crazy Hypothesis (AGW) with another (Cold fusion), and you'll get what I'm saying. There is no reason for AGW to be trumpeted through the economy, and cold fusion to be shut out, and ignored, often purposly.

Hint Hint

Linking to LENR-CANR is akin to linking to the American Petroleum Institute and Saudi Arabia on oil reserves or to EAU climatologists on climate change. You're only giving one side of the story.

There has been no demonstration, either theoretical or physical, of a process of cold fusion which can produce energy. Does that mean that everyone should stop all research into the matter? Of course not. But, my opinion is it does mean research, especially research supported by our tax dollars, should be limited and inexpensive at this point in time.

It is an incontrovertible, theoretical AND physical fact that carbon and methane in the atmosphere heat a planet up. It is an incontrovertible fact that we spew increasing amounts of these substances into our atmosphere every day.

A warmer planet leads to melting of polar ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland. It's an easy conclusion to draw, given the population densities relatively close to sea level, that a rise in sea level is, on the whole, a really bad and expensive thing for the United States of America. Hence, the need to work on reducing the amount of carbon and methane we spew into the atmosphere.

We have no handle on cold fusion whatsoever. We have a very good handle on what carbon and methane do to our environment. THAT is why one is more deserving of coursing through our economy than the other.

[skierinvermont]

Wrong. All we're seeing is attention paid to each and every speck of disaster. Nothing has changed.

If you can prove this, then we can discuss. Both Hurricanes and Tornadoes are dwindling, there is no evidence of flooding increasing. Yes, NH heatwaves have been more extreme since the the 80's...thanks to natural/solar.

Man Made CO2 is only about 3% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere...and all CO2 in the is only about 2.5% of the atmosphere. 0.28% of all GHG in the atmosphere is due to Human activities.

CO2 increase would be a HUGE help to biotic life Globally.....higher CO2 periods, boitic life flourished

Heatwaves? Probably, at least compared to much of the previous 125 years or so, beyond which our records seem too sketchy to prove anything. But IMO the evidence for worse floods and droughts is equivocal. Each time I read that such-and-such flood is the worst since 19xy so it must be AGW, it makes me wonder what caused the even worse flood of 19xy. Of course, that's MSM conduct, which does nothing to validate (or invalidate) AGW.

When nukes are addressed, I recall an article frrom about 25 years ago (NYT Magazine, IIRC) concerning the problems with US nuclear applications. The article's main thesis was that we were building the large reactors using much of the same mindsets as worked for fossil fuel plants. Big construction, like any big money, attracts some undesirable attention, and the results are often some under-spec performances and tolerances, which have been found adequate (thus acceptable) for fossil but can be exeedingly dangerous for nukes, where bad things can happen in milliseconds.

Not in the article but perhaps relevant is the US Navy. I'm sure that military is, um, "less than forthcoming" about problems with their nukes, but it's a fact that hundreds of their reactors have been in use for decades. Those reactors are far smaller than those feeding the grid, but they are also - necessarily - less abundantly shielded, and are on moving platforms with folks working at close proximity to the vessel. Though we're not likely to obtain Admiral Rickover's engineering notebooks, an attention to detail like his (without the attending tyranny over the program he exercised) might ensure our nukes are safe and efficient.

Wrong. The number of major floods has been increasing, as have heatwaves and droughts. This has been accurately forecasted by climate models.

http://news.national...reatfloods.html

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong. The number of major floods has been increasing, as have heatwaves and droughts. This has been accurately forecasted by climate models.

http://news.national...reatfloods.html

You mean this left wing news article is your proof?

[skierinvermont]

You mean this left wing news article is your proof?

National Geographic is left wing?

I can give you the primary source if you would like.. but I doubt that will matter to you.

[BethesdaWX]

National Geographic is left wing?

I can give you the primary source if you would like.. but I doubt that will matter to you.

It will matter. Give us a Graph/List, etc of floods, Droughts, Hurricanes, Tornadoes, heatwaves...and their epic increase

[skierinvermont]

http://www.nature.co...bs/415514a.html

Radiative effects of anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition are expected to cause climate changes, in particular an intensification of the global water cycle¹ with a consequent increase in flood risk². But the detection of anthropogenically forced changes in flooding is difficult because of the substantial natural variability³; the dependence of streamflow trends on flow regime^{4, 5} further complicates the issue. Here we investigate the changes in risk of great floods—that is, floods with discharges exceeding 100-year levels from basins larger than 200,000 km²—using both streamflow measurements and numerical simulations of the anthropogenic climate change associated with greenhouse gases and direct radiative effects of sulphate aerosols⁶. We find that the frequency of great floods increased substantially during the twentieth century. The recent emergence of a statistically significant positive trend in risk of great floods is consistent with results from the climate model, and the model suggests that the trend will continue.

http://www.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/risknat/projets/alpes-climat-risques/pages/etudes/milly&al_2002.htm

Here, [they] consider 29 basins larger than 200,000 km² in area for which discharge observations span at least 30 yr. [They] analyse annual maximum monthly-mean flows, rather than annual maximum instantaneous flows; these two are strongly correlated in large basins. This investigation has a global scope and focuses on extreme events; they analyse the 100-yr flood. Choosing such a large-magnitude threshold probably reduces any distortion of the analysis by non-climatic factors such as land-use changes and river development.

For each basin, [they] fitted observed annual maximum monthly-mean discharges to Pearson's type III distribution by the method of moments, and determined the 100-yr flood magnitude from the fitted distribution. The 100-yr flood was exceeded 21 times in the observational record of 2066 station-years. Flood events were centrated in the latter half of the record; half of the observations were made after 1953, and 16 of the flood events after 1953. Under the assumption that flood events were independent outcomes of a stationary process, [they] used binomial probability theory to determine a probability of 1.3% of having 16 or more of 21 events during the second part of the record. For observations from an extratropical subset of the basins, the corresponding probability is 3.5% for 7 out of 8 flood events in the second half of the record. Supplementary analyses for shorter return periods (2-50 yr) did not reveal significant trends, but 200-yr flood frequency increased significantl

[tamarack]

Wrong. The number of major floods has been increasing, as have heatwaves and droughts. This has been accurately forecasted by climate models.

http://news.national...reatfloods.html

There appears to be sufficient evidence in the secondary source http://www.obs.ujf-g...lly&al_2002.htm

you linked later to support a decent (IMO) chance that flood frequency has increased, though there are still some complicating factors, mainly the condition of watersheds. (Despite the caveat, this is meant as a concession.) Deforestation/devegetation, or in more developed areas, covering of natural surfaces all serve to increase flow rates for comparable rain or rain/snowmelt events, though the last factor would likely be a small player in the 200,000+ sq.km. watersheds examined. However, the watershed, and thus flow rate, effects of tripling the population must be considerable. And of course the human effects are now enormously greater at any given flood flow, though that fact has no direct bearing on the causality of increased flood flow.

[skierinvermont]

There appears to be sufficient evidence in the secondary source http://www.obs.ujf-g...lly&al_2002.htm

you linked later to support a decent (IMO) chance that flood frequency has increased, though there are still some complicating factors, mainly the condition of watersheds. (Despite the caveat, this is meant as a concession.) Deforestation/devegetation, or in more developed areas, covering of natural surfaces all serve to increase flow rates for comparable rain or rain/snowmelt events, though the last factor would likely be a small player in the 200,000+ sq.km. watersheds examined. However, the watershed, and thus flow rate, effects of tripling the population must be considerable. And of course the human effects are now enormously greater at any given flood flow, though that fact has no direct bearing on the causality of increased flood flow.

Good points- the evidence certainly isn't unequivocal, but the data so far is matching climate model predictions.

[BethesdaWX]

http://www.nature.co...bs/415514a.html

Radiative effects of anthropogenic changes in atmospheric composition are expected to cause climate changes, in particular an intensification of the global water cycle¹ with a consequent increase in flood risk². But the detection of anthropogenically forced changes in flooding is difficult because of the substantial natural variability³; the dependence of streamflow trends on flow regime^{4, 5} further complicates the issue. Here we investigate the changes in risk of great floods—that is, floods with discharges exceeding 100-year levels from basins larger than 200,000 km²—using both streamflow measurements and numerical simulations of the anthropogenic climate change associated with greenhouse gases and direct radiative effects of sulphate aerosols⁶. We find that the frequency of great floods increased substantially during the twentieth century. The recent emergence of a statistically significant positive trend in risk of great floods is consistent with results from the climate model, and the model suggests that the trend will continue.

http://www.obs.ujf-g...lly&al_2002.htm

Here, [they] consider 29 basins larger than 200,000 km² in area for which discharge observations span at least 30 yr. [They] analyse annual maximum monthly-mean flows, rather than annual maximum instantaneous flows; these two are strongly correlated in large basins. This investigation has a global scope and focuses on extreme events; they analyse the 100-yr flood. Choosing such a large-magnitude threshold probably reduces any distortion of the analysis by non-climatic factors such as land-use changes and river development.

For each basin, [they] fitted observed annual maximum monthly-mean discharges to Pearson's type III distribution by the method of moments, and determined the 100-yr flood magnitude from the fitted distribution. The 100-yr flood was exceeded 21 times in the observational record of 2066 station-years. Flood events were centrated in the latter half of the record; half of the observations were made after 1953, and 16 of the flood events after 1953. Under the assumption that flood events were independent outcomes of a stationary process, [they] used binomial probability theory to determine a probability of 1.3% of having 16 or more of 21 events during the second part of the record. For observations from an extratropical subset of the basins, the corresponding probability is 3.5% for 7 out of 8 flood events in the second half of the record. Supplementary analyses for shorter return periods (2-50 yr) did not reveal significant trends, but 200-yr flood frequency increased significantl

LOL. Nothing unprecedented, and not proof of AGW.

Read what I highlighted in red. Increase in floods is NOT proof of AGW, as you said it was. It can be inferred that AGW was the cause, Or it could be inferred that Solar Activity was the cause, or simply natural variability. There have been numerous instances in the past 3000 years with alot more flooding/ice conditions, and higher sea levels globally.

What happened to The Epic Hurricane Increase? How about tornado increase? How about the record snowfall in the past 3 years? How about the coldest NOV in over 222 years in parts of Europe this week? (*cough cough*)

Heres your answer.... natural variability! You do realize that Man-Made GHG in the atmosphere is only 0.28% of that in the atmosphere?

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

[skierinvermont]

LOL. Nothing unprecedented, and not proof of AGW.

Read what I highlighted in red. Increase in floods is NOT proof of AGW, as you said it was. It can be inferred that AGW was the cause, Or it could be inferred that Solar Activity was the cause, or simply natural variability. There have been numerous instances in the past 3000 years with alot more flooding/ice conditions, and higher sea levels globally.

What happened to The Epic Hurricane Increase? How about tornado increase? How about the record snowfall in the past 3 years? How about the coldest NOV in over 222 years in parts of Europe this week? (*cough cough*)

Heres your answer.... natural variability! You do realize that Man-Made GHG in the atmosphere is only 0.28% of that in the atmosphere?

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

you are such a joke.. I never said it was proof of AGW. Learn to read.

Humans are responsible for 100% of the increase in CO2 from 280ppm to 400ppm.

[BethesdaWX]

you are such a joke.. I never said it was proof of AGW. Learn to read.

You said that floods, droughts, etc are increasing due to AGW.....

Learn to think

You cannot say such unless you have proof.

[skierinvermont]

You said that floods are increasing due to AGW.....

Learn to think

"Floods increasing due to AGW" is not the same thing as "Increasing floods proves AGW" ... like I said learn to read.. then come back.

[skierinvermont]

You also need to stop posting misleading statistics about the % of CO2 that is anthropogenic. Humans are 100% responsible for the rise in CO2 from 280 to 400ppm.. anybody that says otherwise is grossly misinformed.

[BethesdaWX]

"Floods increasing due to AGW" is not the same thing as "Increasing floods proves AGW" ... like I said learn to read.. then come back.

LOL! It implies the same exact thing! "floods are increasing due to AGW"...... AGW would have to be verified by the floods then, eh?

Epic Fail

[skierinvermont]

LOL! It implies the same exact thing! "floods are increasing due to AGW"...... AGW would have to be verified by the floods then, eh?

Epic Fail

No it doesn't. Amazing you can't understand the difference between saying

"Floods are increasing due to AGW"

and

"Increasing floods proves AGW"

[BethesdaWX]

No it doesn't. Amazing you can't understand the difference between saying

"Floods are increasing due to AGW"

and

"Increasing floods proves AGW"

Expain then

If floods are increasing due to AGW, the wouldn't AGW have to be verified due to the rising floodwaters?

Or to put it in other words... AGW is validated by the rising floodwaters, since they are Due to AGW.....

[skierinvermont]

Expain then

If floods are increasing due to AGW, the wouldn't AGW have to be verified due to the rising floodwaters?

Or to put it in other words... AGW is validated by the rising floodwaters, since they are Due to AGW.....

No. AGW is validated by many other reasons. Increasing floods are a symptom, not a proof of AGW. Big difference.

[BethesdaWX]

No. AGW is validated by many other reasons. Increasing floods are a symptom, not a proof of AGW.

Yeah, you've gone off the deep end. If it is a symptom of AGW....then the flood increase is due to AGW... thus its proof that AGW is increaing floods.

I'm sure the decreasing Hurricane activity, Decreasing Tornado activity, Record global snowfall, and Record antarctic Sea ice is all AGW related too.

[skierinvermont]

Yeah, you've gone off the deep end. If it is a symptom of AGW....then the flood increase is due to AGW... thus its proof that AGW is increaing floods.

I'm sure the decreasing Hurricane activity, Decreasing Tornado activity, Record global snowfall, and Record antarctic Sea ice is all AGW related too.

If you can't understand the difference between a symptom and a proof of AGW then this conversation is over.

[BethesdaWX]

If you can't understand the difference between a symptom and a proof of AGW then this conversation is over.

HA! So, how is a "symptom" of AGW not proof that its occuring? If this symptom is caused by AGW, then it proves validation.......Fail!

(PS, Don't run away like you usually do )

Heres you answer....Its not occuring.. so "ooh, the conversation is over"...LOL.. being you for a second.

[skierinvermont]

HA! So, how is a "symptom" of AGW not proof that its occuring? If this symptom is caused by AGW, then it proves validation.......Fail!

(PS, Don't run away like you usually do )

Heres you answer....Its not occuring.. so "ooh, the conversation is over"...LOL.. being you for a second.

A symptom does not prove something. AGW is proved by huge amounts of evidence completely independent of the observed increase in major floods. I have never and would never say "floods prove AGW" which is what you falsely quoted me as saying. We can keep going round and round in circles but you will still be wrong.

[skierinvermont]

You have already been warned several times about repeatedly posting long cut and paste articles. It creates clutter and makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion.

[skierinvermont]

Your Graph is Misleading.....how about we go back 450,000 years instead of a few thousand......

From your own graph, CO2 stayed between 200 and 300ppm for 250,000 years. It is currently at 400ppm. Nobody, not even skeptics like Anthony Watts, or skeptics on this board like Zucker, ORH, or tacoman, deny that the CO2 increase has been due to humans.