John Tierney writes a nice piece in the NY Times about a group of 100 scientists who express their opposition to the idea that is being promoted at the Global Warming conference in Bali.
The scientists say: "don't fight, adapt".
Both pieces are worth reading.
Don't miss the over one hundred comments at the end of Tierney's article. They cover the issue really nice. The encouraging thing is that even at the NY Times, more than 2/3 of the commenters express skepticism about AGW.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Auto X Prize definition
The Wired site writes about the auto X prize competition to be defined and started in 2008. basically it's about a car that gets a 100 MPG (miles per gallon) "efficiency".
That's a strange definition of "efficiency". Seems it's the standard definition in the press. This "Efficiency" is just about "how many mpg", for example: a 100 mpg car would be considered more efficient than a 80 mpg car.
That's not how an engineer would define "efficiency". An engineering (and logical, and correct) definition is: how much resources you use to do a given amount of work. In our example that means: how many mpg for a given car weight. It goes without saying that a 1000 kg. car will do more mpg that a 2000 kg. car. A 2000 kg car that makes 80 mpg is probably more efficient than a 1000kg car that makes 100 mpg. You have to state the weight of the car together with the mpg rating to get an efficiency rating.
So, the Auto X Prize people need to specify the minimum weight for the car, to qualify for the competition.
That's a strange definition of "efficiency". Seems it's the standard definition in the press. This "Efficiency" is just about "how many mpg", for example: a 100 mpg car would be considered more efficient than a 80 mpg car.
That's not how an engineer would define "efficiency". An engineering (and logical, and correct) definition is: how much resources you use to do a given amount of work. In our example that means: how many mpg for a given car weight. It goes without saying that a 1000 kg. car will do more mpg that a 2000 kg. car. A 2000 kg car that makes 80 mpg is probably more efficient than a 1000kg car that makes 100 mpg. You have to state the weight of the car together with the mpg rating to get an efficiency rating.
So, the Auto X Prize people need to specify the minimum weight for the car, to qualify for the competition.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Gulag Testimonial
A new book appeared, based on NKVD files from the Ukraine, from the years 1938-39.
Shows how "normal" life was there, how people were routinely tortured and murdered for no reason at all. 700,000 of them in those two years alone...
Read the short review
Shows how "normal" life was there, how people were routinely tortured and murdered for no reason at all. 700,000 of them in those two years alone...
Read the short review
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Burning our food.
Pres. Bush has mandated that by 2030, 15% of vehicle fuel used in the USA must be biofuel - i.e. ethanol. In the EU there is a mandate for 5% biofuel.
This is crazy, totally crazy. The idea that we have surplus arable land and agricultural resources, and can permit ourselves to burn our corn or sugar cane is insane.
This article in The Guardian explains it well. Here is an excerpt:
green intervention. Madness squared.
This is crazy, totally crazy. The idea that we have surplus arable land and agricultural resources, and can permit ourselves to burn our corn or sugar cane is insane.
This article in The Guardian explains it well. Here is an excerpt:
This combines the two themes: government intervention, andIt doesn't get madder than this. Swaziland is in the grip of a famine and receiving emergency food aid. Forty per cent of its people are facing acute food shortages. So what has the government decided to export? Biofuel made from one of its staple crops, cassava. The government has allocated several thousand hectares of farmland to ethanol production in the district of Lavumisa, which happens to be the place worst hit by drought.
green intervention. Madness squared.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Sea level rise
The IPCC report says sea level may rise 30-90 cm in the next 100 years because of AGW.
Al Gore says in may rise 6-7 meters, but he is cautious enough not to name a date.
The sea has risen considerably in the past.
In the first century BCE, Herod the Great built the city of Caesarea, with a magnificent harbor.
Today the Herodian breakwaters are submerged 5m below the water surface.
(Same is true of the ancient harbor of Alexandria, Egypt).
Was it sea level rise proper, or was it a sinking of earth crust (acompanied by rising elsewhere) ? I don't know, I don't think anybody knows.
One thing is certain: it wasn't AGW, it wasn't CO2.
Al Gore says in may rise 6-7 meters, but he is cautious enough not to name a date.
The sea has risen considerably in the past.
In the first century BCE, Herod the Great built the city of Caesarea, with a magnificent harbor.
Today the Herodian breakwaters are submerged 5m below the water surface.
(Same is true of the ancient harbor of Alexandria, Egypt).
Was it sea level rise proper, or was it a sinking of earth crust (acompanied by rising elsewhere) ? I don't know, I don't think anybody knows.
One thing is certain: it wasn't AGW, it wasn't CO2.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Blackouts.
A big headline in the NYT proclaims: California heat wave causes blackouts.
That is as usual partly correct and part spin. What is correct is that there are blackouts.
What causes the blackouts is NOT the heat wave, but the lack of sufficient power, or a sufficient reserve of power, to take care of the peak demand during hot days.
Why is there a dearth of power ? Because the greens oppose to the building of new power stations.
For example: "We should ban the construction of any new conventional coal power plant, period. "
That's standard green policy, adopted by California's "green" Governor, the power terminator.
No new power plants mean blackouts as sure as 2+2=4.
I'm afraid that blackouts is something we need to adapt to, and live with, as they will become more and more frequent. They are the real world consequences of unrealistic agitation and green propaganda. There is no "green" energy there are only green blackouts.
That is as usual partly correct and part spin. What is correct is that there are blackouts.
What causes the blackouts is NOT the heat wave, but the lack of sufficient power, or a sufficient reserve of power, to take care of the peak demand during hot days.
Why is there a dearth of power ? Because the greens oppose to the building of new power stations.
For example: "We should ban the construction of any new conventional coal power plant, period. "
That's standard green policy, adopted by California's "green" Governor, the power terminator.
No new power plants mean blackouts as sure as 2+2=4.
I'm afraid that blackouts is something we need to adapt to, and live with, as they will become more and more frequent. They are the real world consequences of unrealistic agitation and green propaganda. There is no "green" energy there are only green blackouts.
Friday, August 24, 2007
Joseph Romm, modern scientist
Joseph Romm is a Ph.D in physics from M.I.T. "Dr. Joseph Romm is a leading expert on hydrogen, fuel cells, and advanced transportation technologies."
Here is a link to Joseph Romm's bio. Here is a link to his blog.
Read the bio and you will see a frequent theme: Joseph Romm has made a big career in ideologically motivated activism, has written tons of words (for the environment), has published tons of books and articles.
Has he invented any useful device ? Is he doing any scientific work ? Any tangible, physical gadget? Any real solution ? Has he worked in some team that produced tangible solutions? Has he advanced theoretical knowledge ?
Nope, just public relations and ideological advocacy. (Also government administration jobs). He has produced words, words, words.
Words matter, writing is a respectable profession. But for a scientist, for a Ph.D. holder in physics from M.I.T. this is disappointing. But this is typical of today's "scientists".
The truth is - real scientists, real, ground breaking, scientists and engineers are a very rare breed. Most of the people calling themselves "scientists" and parading impressive titles are nothing of the sort.
(If he has produced something useful besides words I apologize. It wasn't mentioned in his bio.)
Here is a link to Joseph Romm's bio. Here is a link to his blog.
Read the bio and you will see a frequent theme: Joseph Romm has made a big career in ideologically motivated activism, has written tons of words (for the environment), has published tons of books and articles.
Has he invented any useful device ? Is he doing any scientific work ? Any tangible, physical gadget? Any real solution ? Has he worked in some team that produced tangible solutions? Has he advanced theoretical knowledge ?
Nope, just public relations and ideological advocacy. (Also government administration jobs). He has produced words, words, words.
Words matter, writing is a respectable profession. But for a scientist, for a Ph.D. holder in physics from M.I.T. this is disappointing. But this is typical of today's "scientists".
The truth is - real scientists, real, ground breaking, scientists and engineers are a very rare breed. Most of the people calling themselves "scientists" and parading impressive titles are nothing of the sort.
(If he has produced something useful besides words I apologize. It wasn't mentioned in his bio.)
Saturday, July 28, 2007
A complete list of things caused by global warming
Here is a complete list of things caused by global warming
This AGW thing is a very interesting phenomenon: mass madness on a gigantic scale. A madness not unheard of in human history - maybe like witch hunting.
A moderately rational person who studies the matter finds out very fast that:
1. AGW, while possible, is far from being highly probable. That 90% probability assigned to it in the IPCC is nonsense. Even if it exists it's probably not big quantitatively.
2. The doomsday predictions are based on absolutely nothing. Just hunches, irrational fears and sensationalism.
3. There is nothing that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions short of killing off a few billion people. That is: nothing beyond what will happen naturally - let human ingenuity find solutions and adapt.
After reading some stuff I was mainly impressed by the unscientific approach of many alarmist scientists. They write like people on a crusade, not like scientists.
This AGW thing is a very interesting phenomenon: mass madness on a gigantic scale. A madness not unheard of in human history - maybe like witch hunting.
A moderately rational person who studies the matter finds out very fast that:
1. AGW, while possible, is far from being highly probable. That 90% probability assigned to it in the IPCC is nonsense. Even if it exists it's probably not big quantitatively.
2. The doomsday predictions are based on absolutely nothing. Just hunches, irrational fears and sensationalism.
3. There is nothing that can be done to reduce CO2 emissions short of killing off a few billion people. That is: nothing beyond what will happen naturally - let human ingenuity find solutions and adapt.
After reading some stuff I was mainly impressed by the unscientific approach of many alarmist scientists. They write like people on a crusade, not like scientists.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Friday, June 1, 2007
How much Global Warming
Here is a short summary of what I think so far about global warming:
The question of man caused global warming, as I see it is as follows:
- Man burns fossil fuels and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 has gone from 280 ppm ( 0.028%) to 380 ppm (0.038%).
- CO2 is a grenhouse gas, and causes some warming.
These are facts. (almost undisputed).
The question is HOW MUCH warming.
The answer - as far as measurable facts are concerned, i.e. the warming so far: 2/3 of a degree Celsius. No big deal.
As to the future - there are several possible answers; we (science) don't know which is true:
1. A minuscule amount, that is indiscernible in the general natural climate variation (like what happened so far).
2. A small (but discernible) amount - a couple of degrees or so. This is what the (worthless) climate models show. This is what the IPCC report says. This is what (dubious) science tells us. This warming has positive and negative effects, and the negative ones are small, we can easily adapt.
3. Catastrophic warming. For this to happen a warming runaway feedback loop has to take hold. Of this there is absolutely no scientific indication.
So the alarmist view, of a catastrophic warming is based on nothing, NOTHING AT ALL, except irrational fear. The alarmists themselves concede this point: there is no scientific indication of a warming feedback loop. It is just a vague possibility, it is in theory possible, but there is absolutely no indication that it is happening.
Would it be desirable to reduce CO2 emissions? Yes. (Would it be desirable to eliminate poverty? Yes.) Is it possible? No. (in both cases).
The question of man caused global warming, as I see it is as follows:
- Man burns fossil fuels and releases CO2 into the atmosphere, the concentration of CO2 has gone from 280 ppm ( 0.028%) to 380 ppm (0.038%).
- CO2 is a grenhouse gas, and causes some warming.
These are facts. (almost undisputed).
The question is HOW MUCH warming.
The answer - as far as measurable facts are concerned, i.e. the warming so far: 2/3 of a degree Celsius. No big deal.
As to the future - there are several possible answers; we (science) don't know which is true:
1. A minuscule amount, that is indiscernible in the general natural climate variation (like what happened so far).
2. A small (but discernible) amount - a couple of degrees or so. This is what the (worthless) climate models show. This is what the IPCC report says. This is what (dubious) science tells us. This warming has positive and negative effects, and the negative ones are small, we can easily adapt.
3. Catastrophic warming. For this to happen a warming runaway feedback loop has to take hold. Of this there is absolutely no scientific indication.
So the alarmist view, of a catastrophic warming is based on nothing, NOTHING AT ALL, except irrational fear. The alarmists themselves concede this point: there is no scientific indication of a warming feedback loop. It is just a vague possibility, it is in theory possible, but there is absolutely no indication that it is happening.
Would it be desirable to reduce CO2 emissions? Yes. (Would it be desirable to eliminate poverty? Yes.) Is it possible? No. (in both cases).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
The “cap and trade” scheme is just like the old Soviet five year economic plan.
Greens (aka lefties) have a firm belief that is government applies just enough coercive power, anything can be made to work. But in the real world, some things work, and some don’t. The five year plan didn’t.
The cap-and-trade scheme adopted by Europe is a scam, has produced exactly zero reduction in CO2, and just hampers the economy for no benefit at all.
When will they learn the futility of “good intentioned” giant social engineering schemes, backed up by force ? They are blinded by ideology, in real life it won’t work.
Besides, when blackouts become frequent because greens are hindering the building of new power plants that really supply power (not renewable green feel-good), the public, the voters will kick them out. There is no way you can make people suffer blackouts just for “the future generations” (false) meme.
Greens hate oil, and coal, and and hinder the production of it, and building of new power plants or refineries. (it’s for the planet and the grandchildren).
They believe in some mysterious notion of “green energy” that just does not exist. They believe that if people are forced to sit in the dark (because of blackouts) they’ll go out and invent green energy. They believe that by using brute force you can make people invent anything.