Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

WTF does peak power have to do with anything? If they let all the water piss out at once it could supply 100% of peak demand and flog some to France as well (for about 10 minutes).

There are at least 10 proposed schemes, the most cost effective of the large scale schemes claims to generate 17TWh pa at a claimed cost of $25bn. France reckons it can build 3GW nukes (good for around 21TWh pa?) for about $4.1bn.

I have rather more faith in the claimed output, cost, and reliability of nukes than an enormous theoretical tidal generation scheme the like of which has never been constructed.

Besides tidal generation schemes are just sapping kinetic energy from the earth and moon, you will all be sorry when midday lasts for 6 hours or the moon comes hurtling towards us :).

So why should planets be warming now rather than cooling? Especially Mars, which has no detected bodies of water and icecaps being of CO2 and mere millimeters thick? Mars should have surface temperature following

4th root of solar output closely!

(Mars does indeed have barely enough atmosphere to have dust storms, and a positive feedback mechanism for amount of dust storm activity and related temperature trends. Deviation from previous long term average tends to reinforce itself. That is why Mars gets into its own warming and cooling trends lasting a few Martian years, and those are almost twice as long as Earth years.)

Meanwhile, Hansen did acknowledge the solar cycle and did say that solar dimming accompanied by weakening of sunspot cycles in the first 3 decades of this century would offset roughly 7 years of CO2 increase (at recent rate of CO2 increase).

Also, I checked more into the Multidecadal Oscillation (60-65 year period). It turns out to be called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and its main index is some composite of North Atlantic sea surface temperature. It is known to have some positive correlation with global surface temperature, so the index is for that whatever composite North Atlantic temperature being with respect to global surface temperature. Meanwhile, I do see increased El Nino activity (which warms the surface and lower troposphere) when AMO is in its upswing (most recently the 1983 to 1998 period). It appears to me that central and eastern USA tend to have more heatwave activity when AMO is "upswinging while high" (1931-1936 and 1988-1995). I do see general trend of global temperature having positive correlation with AMO and slightly leading AMO (with lead likely due to El Nino uptick that I suspect is related somehow).

AMO being high probably tends to some extent to make the Arctic warmer at the expense of the Antarctic. From a few years ago to a decade or two from now, expect Arctic sea ice to run low even in comparison to whatever would be typical for current global temperature and current Antarctic sea ice level.

With both weakening of the sunspot cycle and effect of AMO (or cyclic El Nino uptick that has had correlation in the past century) on global temperature likely to favor cooling until maybe 2030 or 2035 or so, I consider it a serious warning sign if the globe manages to warm at all from mid-first-decade-of-21st-century to then.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Here you can see the temperatures:

--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
                     "If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------

One thing that has always puzzled me is how so many people trained in testable reality in their professional lives can go for untestable dogma in other parts of their lives. The internal inconsistency must leave them somewhat psychotic.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com says...>

Slowman, anyone?

That "grand solar maximum" looks like 3 sunspot cycles long in terms of irradiance, as in watts per square meter at 1 A.U. from Sun. The Sun has not brightened over the past 3 11-or-so year sunspot cycles, so warming on Mars is either selective reporting or unrelated to what the Sun is doing.

Hansen of NASA's GISS acknowledged that the sun is starting a dimming phase, and predicted that warming effect of CO2 increase would be slowed by 7 years as a result. There is also the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (observed mainly in the North Atlantic) and more-global phenomena that have had possitive correlation for over 1 cycle of that, such as uptick/downtick of El Nino activity (upticking when AMO is on upswing). With upswing in those areas being recent past, the world should cool over the next 20-25 or so years if there is no AGW.

If over the next couple decades global surface and lower troposphere temperatures manage to hold onto what they rose to in the decade that is about to end when the world should be cooling, then consider that to be a warning sign of what will come once we hit the next upswing of the AMO (or of El Nino activity that has had positive correlation with leading in the past century or so) and of solar activity.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

My take is that I concede that Loehle has somewhat of a better take on the MWP and the LIA, due to natural selection getting trees to adapt to global temperature changes taking a couple or a few centuries to accomplish. Tree ring records may smooth out to some extent or another global temperature changes taking a couple to a few centuries to accomplish while exposing more rapid global temperature changes such as the "blade of the hockey stick".

However, Loehle in his "corrected global temperature reconstruction" (in the second part of the usual cite having two publications by Loehle) only claims global temperature reconstruction at and into the past from

1925. Splice that onto any of the 3 major determinations of global surface temperature (with smoothing of at least 5 years) at any year from 1880 to 1925 (when all existed) or even at any year from 1850 to 1925 (only HadCRUT goes back from 1880, does so to 1850). The result I see: Past 10 years got warmer than height of MWP!

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Almost right, they want everybody but themselves in the stone age. There is not an honest Toohey among them.

"bw" schreef in bericht news:gmnca4$see$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org...

It is close to twice the total increase - about half the carbon dioxide we inject into the atmopshere ends up in the oceans. We've burned enough fossil carbon to have produced a detectable decrease in the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, and the figure ties up with waht the accountatns tells us about the mass of fossil carbon being burned around the world, and the changing carbon isotope ratio's in atmospheric carbon dioxide

Not "less than10%" but 38%. Up from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution to 386 ppm at the moment

Psychotics are out of touch with reality. The figures you have produced are wrong, which makes you the one more likely to be psychotic.

And you don't seem to know the scientific data, let alone the scientific arguments.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Nice understatement. Some of them are real earth firsters who would extinguish humankind.

"bw" schreef in bericht news:gmnf2r$pg5$ snipped-for-privacy@news.motzarella.org...

The asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago seems to have been the only one that casued a global extinction

You can also look up Tony Hallams book "Catastophes and Lesser Calamities: The Causes of Mass Extinctions"

or Douglas H. Erwin's "Extinction: How Life on Earth Nearly Ended

250 million years ago" ISBN 978-0-691-13628-8.

I've got Tony Hallams book too, but it isn't handy.

If you got enthusiastic you could look up their peer-reviewed scientific papers, but the books are more accessible.

Wrongly

The eruptions that produced the Siberian Traps were massive lava flows

that produced not only the intial cooling you refer to, caused by the dust injected into the atmosphere, but also subsequent global warming produced by the carbon dioxide, aided and abbetted at some stage by what seems to have been at least one massive emission of methane.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Too bad that the persons you designate as "egg heads" are working with completely blocking eye coverage. Most anyone that can see, can see that there is neither a wide clear straight road nor a brick wall. The road to the future is curvy, poorly delineated to not at all, marginally paved at best, and hugely occluded by controversy. But the road will be made, step by step, and humanity will travel along it.

I have never seen this before, and therefore can NOT comment on any data. It looks interesting enough to warrant further inspection.

AWG.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_wire_gauge

You intentionally missed the satire and irony, right??

You are massively confused. I'm discussing planetary carbon cycle. Total atmosphere contains 2400 gigatonnes, about 1/6 annual turnover means

400 gigatonnes of CO2 is exchanged from atmosphere to (and from) the surface, including human sources. Total annual anthropogenic CO2 is 40 gigatonnes per year at most, including land use changes, fossil fuel is less. Therefore, 10 percent of the total annual CO2 exchange is anthropogenic. These numbers are easily verified from any basic climate source.

I don't care what your opinions are, I could easily show data that support the null hypothesis that there is no difference in surface temperature from

1908 to 2008. See alt. global warming newsgroup.

I know some people that fit that description after a good meal at the chinese buffet restaurant.

"

Z- for purely subjective/political grading.

_Somewhat_ ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
 I love to cook with wine     Sometimes I even put it in the food

You have a problem with doing what the anti-nuke crowd insists

-- storing nuclear waste on the grounds of nuclear power plants in the middle of populated areas? I can't understand why; clearly that's way better than putting it in a salt mine with miles of empty desert around it...