NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you really believe burning fossil fuels and destroying our forest is what is best for this planet and humanity in general?

If it weren't for human greed the CO2 problem could be solved.

40% and rising, there is no denying this FACT

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you really believe burning fossil fuels and destroying our forest is what is best for this planet and humanity in general?

If it weren't for human greed the CO2 problem could be solved.

40% and rising, there is no denying this FACT

If you are going to keep using these types of arguments, which don't work too well here because, well, people on ATS can think for themselves, you really need to throw in everything! So. please do not forget the one line that is critical when all else has failed.

IT'S FOR THE CHILDREN

P

BTW, I remember seeing a post from a member who claims that I was implying that "97% of scientists are behind the scam that is AGW"... First of all, there is no proof that there are "thousands upon thousands of scientists who agree with AGW".

If there was any truth to the claim that "97% of scientists agree with AGW" then why the heck is it so hard for the IPCC to get scientists who agree with them on AGW?...

That's without mentioning, again, that because a majority of scientists could agree on something it doesn't make what they agree on as true... Heck, it wasn't that long ago when scientists believed that if a train would run at 30+pmh all the air/oxygen would rush out of the train and people would suffocate and die. A more recent example is how most scientists used to believe that there were no parallel universes, and now we know they do exist. I could post many other examples but the smart people of ATS would understand that "majority opinion doesn't make opinion a fact".

The claim that anthropogenic CO2 is the main cause of climate change comes from the times of Arrhenius... It is about time that 'belief' is laid to rest...

Heck, there are many examples of real experts who have been trying to explain to people what has really been going on with the IPCC on the topic of Climate Change.

One of the many examples is the testimony of Prof Reiter to the UK parliamentary committee in 2005 that the IPCC claimed there were many experts in Climate Change but in fact many of those "experts' were either environmental activists, policymakers, and experts on other fields not associated with Climate Change or what could happen during such changes.

...
13. Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Niño, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motor cycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cell phones).


14. The amateurish text of the chapter reflected the limited knowledge of the 22 authors. Much of the emphasis was on "changes in geographic range (latitude and altitude) and incidence (intensity and seasonality) of many vector-borne diseases" as "predicted" by computer models. Extensive coverage was given to these models, although they were all based on a highly simplistic model originally developed as an aid to malaria control campaigns. The authors acknowledged that the models did not take into account "the influence of local demographic, socioeconomic, and technical circumstances".


15. Glaring indicators of the ignorance of the authors included the statement that "although anopheline mosquito species that transmit malaria do not usually survive where the mean winter temperature drops below 16-18ºC, some higher latitude species are able to hibernate in sheltered sites". In truth, many tropical species must survive in temperature below this limit, and many temperate species can survive temperatures of -25ºC, even in "relatively exposed" places.


16. The authors also claimed that climate change was already causing malaria to move to higher altitudes (eg in Rwanda). They quoted information published by non-specialists that had been roundly denounced in the scientific literature. In the years that followed, these claims have repeatedly been made by environmental activists, despite rigorous investigation and overwhelming counter-evidence by some of the world's top malaria specialists. [85]Moreover, climate models suggest that temperature changes will be relatively small in the tropics, and carefully recorded meteorological data—eg in the Brook-Bond tea estates in Kenya—shows no demonstrable warming since the 1920s. The IPCC authors even claimed that "a relatively small increase in winter temperature" in Kenya (!) "could extend mosquito habitat and enable . . . malaria to reach beyond the usual altitude limit of around 2,500m to the large malaria free urban highland populations, eg Nairobi. This despite the fact that in the 1960s the mosquitoes were present above 3,000m and Nairobi is at only 1,600m!
...

www.publications.parliament.uk...

Heck, one of the other many inaccuracies the IPCC posted as "fact" but has been proven false is the use of the Hockey Stick graph of Mann, which is a slap in the face to facts and science itself.

The IPCC report mentioned above wasn't the only one that was claimed to have the backing of thousands of scientists experts in Climate Change, but was not true.

mclean.ch...

I did post in this same thread how scientists who were part of the latest IPCC report were also stating that most of the so called "experts in Climate Change" who participated on the latest IPCC report were not experts at all, and in fact only a few dozen even commented on the chapter dealing with Climate Change causes.

By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotSeptember 27, 2013 2:11 AM

UN IPCC Climate Report Untrustworthy


See here for full news release and all media contacts.

NIPCC report now seen as more reputable

OTTAWA, Sept. 27, 2013 /CNW/ – “No one should trust the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] report issued today,” said Professor Bob Carter, Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalitionand former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia. “The IPCC has a history of malfeasance that even includes rewording recommendations of expert science advisors to fit the alarmist agenda of participating governments.”

Climate data analyst John McLean of Melbourne, Australia warned, “In previous IPCC assessment reports, media were tricked into reporting that thousands of climate experts endorsed the chapter in which climate change causes were discussed. In fact, only a few dozen scientists even commented on that part of the document. At today’s news conference in Stockholm, reporters should insist that the IPCC reveal how many climate experts actually reviewed and agreed with each of AR5′s most important conclusions.”
...

www.climatedepot.com... -of-malfeasance/

BTW, posting graphs and websites which "claim" "a majority of scientists agree with AGW" doesn't change the fact that if that was true then why IPCC itself can't get "thousands" of scientists to be part of their reports...

I will leave you with a video from a professor who talks about the 59 former NASA scientists who wrote a letter to NASA admonishing the claim that "CO2 is the main cause of Climate Change"...



Oh and btw, the NASA former scientists is just an example of what many scientists are saying about AGW and Climate Change. These are not the only scientists who disagree with the claims behind AGW.

Another fact that needs to be mentioned is that the majority of the AGW followers will ALWAYS try to fall back on these claims that "a majority of scientists agree with us" EVERY SINGLE TIME, instead of actually discussing the argument itself.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Do you really believe burning fossil fuels and destroying our forest is what is best for this planet and humanity in general?

If it weren't for human greed the CO2 problem could be solved.

40% and rising, there is no denying this FACT

Where the hell did I state that "destroying our forests is the best for humanity"?...

For crying out loud stop changing and twisting what people actually write...

An increase of anthropogenic CO2 doesn't mean anthropogenic CO2 is the cause for Climate Change...

Learn to type an intelligent and logical argument for crying out loud.

a reply to: pheonix358

Can you kindly explain to the handful of lurkers that maybe reading this thread, how I have failed.

40%

280ppm to 400ppm is a 40%ish increase. You are right, this is something that is elementary...a child can do the math.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: pheonix358

Can you kindly explain to the handful of lurkers that maybe reading this thread, how I have failed.

40%

280ppm to 400ppm is a 40%ish increase. You are right, this is something that is elementary...a child can do the math.

Already have...several times... An increase in CO2 IS NOT PROOF THAT IT MUST BE THE CAUSE behind Climate Change... How hard is it for you to understand that?...

As for your last statement... Yes, it seems more and more obvious that some of us have been trying to argue with children who can't understand simple concepts, and who are so removed from reality that these people try to imply Climate Change is "simple"...

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: pheonix358

Can you kindly explain to the handful of lurkers that maybe reading this thread, how I have failed.

40%

280ppm to 400ppm is a 40%ish increase. You are right, this is something that is elementary...a child can do the math.

Sure, and I will simply use math.

280 ppm is in fact 280/1000000 = 0.028%
400 ppm is in fact 400/1000000 = 0.040%

Yeah, it may have gone up a tad, but 40% nah. The increase is .012%

And this is where math can be used to spread a lie!

It all depends on how you try to make the lie sound really, really, truly scary. Grrrrrr, the CO2 monster is coming.

All of the myths you expound as one of the faithful have been truly destroyed in this thread and yet you just can't get your head around it ... or .... you choose not to.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Wow. You must be an American.

Pre-industrial CO2 count: 280ppm

Today's CO2 count :400 ppm

difference: 120ppm

(120/280)*100%=~42%

42% increase in CO2. Simple Math.

I am amazed that someone starred your post.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: pheonix358

Wow. You must be an American.

Pre-industrial CO2 count: 280ppm

Today's CO2 count :400 ppm

difference: 120ppm

(120/280)=~42%

42% increase in CO2. Simple Math.

I am amazed that someone starred your post.

I have had enough. Time for some basic math as used by science.

Jeez!

PPM is an abbreviation used in math. It means 'Parts Per Million'
1/1000000

% is an abbreviation also used in math. It means 'Parts Per Hundred'
1/100

there are many other shortcuts that we use.

YOU CANNOT MIX THEM IN TOGETHER unless you wish to hide the truth.

Use one or the other. I did that for you above. The increase is .012% = 120ppm

That IS math. What you have is junk math used to sway the masses.

AND all that is beside the point that the 'Pre-industrial CO2 count: 280ppm' is utter garbage because in that era, we had no bloody way of measuring CO2 content.

Lies, lies and more lies piled on top of each other until the whole mess of doggy poo comes tumbling down.

Why don't you go and learn some maths.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

www.coursera.org...

You can take math classes for free here. Clearly you need a refresher.

I am done, maybe another enlightened soul can try to clean this one up.

originally posted by: pheonix358


And this is where math can be used to spread a lie!

......

All of the myths you expound as one of the faithful have been truly destroyed in this thread and yet you just can't get your head around it ... or .... you choose not to.

This is exactly what you are doing with your fuzzy math.

No myths from me, over a 40% rise of CO2 is a fact, accept it.

As usual, when the truth hurts you can only insult someone.

Way to go!

P

a reply to: ProfessorChaos

I always get a kick out of watching the pro climate change shills try to battle logic with the realists. The funny thing is that the realists, although they generally have a certain amount of respect for the experts, inquire and ask questions which the pro climate change shills can never adequately answer.

One other thing mentioned in this thread about scientists being whores... Not all scientists are whores, but very many are. Here's how it works....

The UN enlists help at both "career" political, beaurocratic and corporate levels to press an agenda.
Meetings are called with the leading "experts" in the target field to push the mindset or agenda
This filters down to the universities and colleges where the agenda or mindset is driven daily
If a scientist denies or questions the mindset or agenda, they are terminated or lose funding
Scientists that agree with the agenda, retain their positions or are promoted or tenured

It's all about the Benjamins!

I have personally watched this happen. If you were a student in a class the discussed anthropogenic climate change and you proved beyond a shadow of a doubt with hard facts and empirical evidence that anthropogenic climate change was a fraud, you would fail that class. Not because you were wrong, but because it goes against the agenda, and the truth is disruptive to minds that need to be programmed by the state. We can't have none of that critical thinking going on, it lessens control.

I'll tell you just how stupid people are... There is a pumped storage system in Marmora Ontario being promoted by a company called Northland Power. They have somehow convinced the locals that they can create energy (ROFL) and the energy they "create" will pump water up into a reservoir with no losses, meaning a unity exchange and they will only use "green" energy, even though it's coming from the same lines fed by hydroelectric, solar, wind, nuclear, gas and coal generators. They will generate (is the word they should have used) on the way down and pump on the way up, in a closed-loop system, using 75% efficient Francis combo generators/pumps, 400MW of these beasts.

The upper reservoir will have enough water and height to produce say 400MW at unity.

Day 1 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 2 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 2 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 3 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 3 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 4 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW

So what is the energy used in this scam over a 3 day period? 1600MW. What is the energy generated? 900MW. What is the loss or gain? Survey says! A net energy loss of 700MW. Where's the creation of energy, geeze where's the generation of energy? That's simple, the net loss of 700MW is converted into money for the CEO, go figure huh? And where does that money come from, rate payers, tax payers and of course increases in the cost of electricity, whoopee! Wouldn't it be simpler to just give the CEO and the politicians a few bucks from each of us, at least it's more honest.

This lame-ass pumped storage thing is like climate change, it's all common sense, but the engineers and politicians who have a vested interest in this BS have baffled most of the people (or in this case maybe "manipulated" the town council) into believing this make-work-scam will bring full time and permanent jobs to the local area. More BS. The company who owns the reservoir will be doing all the construction and they are very protective of their employees making sure they always have work, so there will be very very few or no new construction employees. But the big push was that there would be permanent staff from the area to run the white elephant. Also not true, it will be remote controlled probably from Kingston or Toronto.

Unfortunately, we live in an age when almost everyone lies. They do it deliberately to get a better partner, get sex, protect their jobs, get jobs, advance their position, make more money and get more power or control. We have to ask questions because we know that 99% of the time, we are being lied to, by our politicians, by our banks, by corporations and by the alleged experts.

Most of the people out there want to believe that what they are being fed is the truth, so they don't have to think about the alternative, but more importantly, so they don't have to do anything about it.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: raymundoko
However, as temperature increases history tells us that extremes become less apparent. So in the past when global temps have been higher, changes in seasonal weather were more moderate and there were fewer to no deserts. We would also have thousands and thousands of miles of more coastline and liveable land as well as more access to water for land locked areas.

Seems like a bold claim to me.

Do you have some links where I can read up on this?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
AGAIN, just because CO2 is a GHG it doesn't mean that it must cause the catastrophic warming you and the rest of the AGW crowd claim it causes...
...
And CO2 has shown throughout the history of Earth's geological past not to cause "massive warming" like you and the other AGW followers keep claiming.
...
One small candle does warm as well, but you are implying, alongside the other AGW followers that one small candle can warm an entire "open cave" the size of an stadium... BTW, yes I am aware that CO2 is a gas and a ghg, but that doesn't mean it causes the "massive warming" people like you keep claiming it causes.
...
If you are talking about Arrhenius HE WAS WRONG... Arrhenius claimed that a doubling of atmospheric CO2, from levels in the 1800s, would cause a temperature increase of 5C -6C

Stop with the strawman attacks. Show where I claimed "massive warming."

Also, show us where CO2 didn't cause warming while other factors were not involved. I'd love to be wrong about this, and I'd imagine everyone else pleading for people to pay attention to this would as well.

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but it can change form. That would be burning the candle, in this case. That heat doesn't just 'go away' magically. In an enclosed environment, your candle would heat that environment. However, that heat spreads and dilutes across the environment. A candle would not heat an open stadium, but given enough time and fuel, it will heat a closed stadium. While the Earth is not a closed system, it is not an entirely open one either. If we receive more radiation from the Sun while the Earth remains the same, the Earth warms. If we receive less radiation from the Sun while the Earth remains the same, the Earth cools. The man-made increase in CO2 is restricting infrared radiation from escaping our atmosphere, thus changing the equation. The dip in TSI over the last decade seems to have counterbalanced much (but not all, as there is still warming) of the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration.

Or, you could just look up what he actually wrote instead of speculating - Svante Arrhenius (1906):

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°."
...
"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries."

That was over a hundred years ago. The IPCC last estimated doubling the CO2 concentration to cause a 1.5C to 4.5C increase in temperature. NASA says the Earth's temperature rose between 0.6C and 0.9C from 1906 to the present. The CO2 concentration has risen by about 1/4th, from ~300ppm to ~400ppm. How wrong was he, precisely?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
What the hell does "botox" have to do with CO2 and Climate Change?...

It's an illustration of the simple scientific fact that even a minute quantity of a substance can have an effect on an environment, which you mocked with your gigantic images. Botox is not simply a cosmetic treatment - it's an extremely potent toxin.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
But do tell us, how is it possible that during other warm periods such as the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm periods, that CO2 levels were lower than now yet temperatures were much higher than now? Not to mention the fact that during those warm periods fresh water from glaciers should have also caused the oceans salinity to change more extensively than now yet there were no "massive die-offs"?

I think I've gone over this before. Why don't you define "now" and "much higher" for us, so that we can have a clearer understanding of your argument? Since skeptic websites frequently cite this, I'm sure it won't be much trouble.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Eating too much can kill you, exercising too much can cause damage and even kill you... ANYTHING in excess can kill you...

Now that you recognize this, you can abandon the talking point that an increase in CO2 has no effect because the concentration is so low, which is what you were implying with the pictures before.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I'll tell you just how stupid people are... There is a pumped storage system in Marmora Ontario being promoted by a company called Northland Power. They have somehow convinced the locals that they can create energy (ROFL) and the energy they "create" will pump water up into a reservoir with no losses, meaning a unity exchange and they will only use "green" energy, even though it's coming from the same lines fed by hydroelectric, solar, wind, nuclear, gas and coal generators. They will generate (is the word they should have used) on the way down and pump on the way up, in a closed-loop system, using 75% efficient Francis combo generators/pumps, 400MW of these beasts.

The upper reservoir will have enough water and height to produce say 400MW at unity.

Day 1 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 2 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 2 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 3 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 3 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 4 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW

So what is the energy used in this scam over a 3 day period? 1600MW. What is the energy generated? 900MW. What is the loss or gain? Survey says! A net energy loss of 700MW.

You're quite ignorant of how electrical grids work and greatly misunderstand what's being done in this situation.

Demand is rather low during the night, but much higher during the day (peak). Generators run all the time, and they can generate a lot of waste electricity at night (off-peak). Due to supply and demand, off-peak electricity is much cheaper than peak electricity. Storing energy in batteries is not a viable solution, but storing water in a gravity-driven reservoir is. Another solution is to use natural gas plants. Both of these options can quickly respond to peak loads and purpose-built to do that, but other types of facilities are less able to do so.

They are not creating power as you mean it, and I doubt they have claimed that.

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle
I'll tell you just how stupid people are... There is a pumped storage system in Marmora Ontario being promoted by a company called Northland Power. They have somehow convinced the locals that they can create energy (ROFL) and the energy they "create" will pump water up into a reservoir with no losses, meaning a unity exchange and they will only use "green" energy, even though it's coming from the same lines fed by hydroelectric, solar, wind, nuclear, gas and coal generators. They will generate (is the word they should have used) on the way down and pump on the way up, in a closed-loop system, using 75% efficient Francis combo generators/pumps, 400MW of these beasts.

The upper reservoir will have enough water and height to produce say 400MW at unity.

Day 1 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 2 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 2 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 3 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW
Day 3 night: We use 533MW to fill the upper reservoir (400MW x 1.33) net energy -533.33MW
Day 4 morning: We generate 300MW back to the lower reservoir (400MWx0.75) net energy +300MW

So what is the energy used in this scam over a 3 day period? 1600MW. What is the energy generated? 900MW. What is the loss or gain? Survey says! A net energy loss of 700MW.

You're quite ignorant of how electrical grids work and greatly misunderstand what's being done in this situation.

Demand is rather low during the night, but much higher during the day (peak). Generators run all the time, and they can generate a lot of waste electricity at night (off-peak). Due to supply and demand, off-peak electricity is much cheaper than peak electricity. Storing energy in batteries is not a viable solution, but storing water in a gravity-driven reservoir is. Another solution is to use natural gas plants. Both of these options can quickly respond to peak loads and purpose-built to do that, but other types of facilities are less able to do so.

They are not creating power as you mean it, and I doubt they have claimed that.

I wrote a freelance newspaper article on this where I interviewed many people, so yeah, it was what was said. In addition, I know quite well how the grids work and generating stations, because I am an engineer and I designed critical systems in both nuclear and thermal generating stations. They don't need another response system, there are plenty of thermal/gas fired generating stations that can respond to demand just as quickly.

In addition, I will direct you to the Taum Sauk disaster. Imagine that happening to a town that is less than 300 yards from the weakest point of the upper reservoir. I mean seriously, the engineers were going to build the reservoir on the uncompacted/non-engineered tailings piles, how stupid is that. But better still, they were going to reduce the quarry water levels down to about 200 feet (presently 650 feet deep) and the quarry is huge, where would the put that 3 billion gallons of water. I did the math, volumetric and removal, seems to me they have to move around 250 million gallons a month out of there and the plan is to feed it through the wetlands (protected environmental area) directly behind the town. That's going to work out well. Plus remember this is an old iron mine, who knows what kind of water is at the bottom of this thing and only surface tests have been conducted. That "water" could actually be a moderate solution of hydro-sulphorous or sulphuric acid, won't that be fun in the wetlands and in peoples basements.

IMHO, it's a scam to line the pockets of two companies and a bunch of politicians. You might want to give your head a shake, do the research and stop drinking the kool-aid.

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I don't understand. You imply that there will be increased costs for electricity. With that kind of background, how could you not see that the peak/off-peak electrical costs make such a system economical? You know generators have an optimal speed. Not having to ramp up (or ramp down) speeds during shifting loads can make it more efficient overall, never mind costs of starting up/running/stopping the peaking plants.

I certainly could be wrong in this instance, since I don't know the full situation. What I do know is that pump storage facilities are used across the world, and comprise the largest stores of energy that we have. It's a technology we are familiar with, and companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't improve their bottom line.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: bobs_uruncle
I don't understand. You imply that there will be increased costs for electricity. With that kind of background, how could you not see that the peak/off-peak electrical costs make such a system economical? You know generators have an optimal speed. Not having to ramp up (or ramp down) speeds during shifting loads can make it more efficient overall, never mind costs of starting up/running/stopping the peaking plants.

I certainly could be wrong in this instance, since I don't know the full situation. What I do know is that pump storage facilities are used across the world, and comprise the largest stores of energy that we have. It's a technology we are familiar with, and companies wouldn't be doing it if it didn't improve their bottom line.

I don't imply increased costs, I state there will be increased costs. I/we know the drill, you know the one with the screw on the end. Not having to ramp up or down? LOL. It won't be running all the time, just as a buffer for line load increases. They buy the power from the common grid at night ($0.02/kwh) to pump the water up and generate during the day ($0.14/kwh) to fill any voids in energy requirements. So yes, it could be 400% to 500% inefficient and it does still help the bottom line, but only of the company/CEO running this scam. I took their proposal to three accountants and asked them what they thought, every one of them said it was apparently legal, but it is a scam and that they were riding on the backs of everybody else making electricity to make their money by making less electricity.

In a 400 megawatt system, as illustrated, it costs 233.334 megawatts to make 0 megawatts or 533 megawatts to make 300 megawatts, that is a NET energy loss of 233.334 megawatts under normal operating conditions. This is neither a cost effective system nor a sustainable system, to state otherwise is an outright lie. It's a resource hog and an energy pig.

These wankers say that the system will cost around 650 million dollars, now from experience we know that will go to about two to three times and tap out between 1.3 and 2 billion dollars of capital up front costs and even though Northland "says" it will be fronting whatever it costs, c'mon, we know it's a lie (half of us were born at night, but it wasn't last night). If it wasn't a taxpayer, ratepayer, utility payer based system and it was simply a private project, Northland et al would not be wine'ing and dining government MP's and MPP's. They wouldn't have or need the propaganda mill running and they wouldn't have forced (directly or indirectly) the town council into a position of NO Questioning the Councillors or the tool they have for a mayor or the CAO. IMHO, they look bought and paid-for to me and I am quite sure with enough digging, someone will find the sales receipts.

This says nothing of the safety issues. In the event of a catastrophic failure, like Taum Sauk, if the breach occurs on either the north or west side (the weakest points) the town is gone. The water will flow to the lowest local point, the Crowe River/Valley, backwash the Crowe Lake damn and dump roughly 7 to 8 billion gallons of water into the Trent River over a period of about 20 to 30 minutes. Taum Sauk, about the same size, dumped its reservoir in 12 minutes. The property damage to the land and towns all the way down to Trenton, could result in as much or more than 8 billion dollars in property damage and 10,000 dead, especially if this happened say, on a Sunday to Thursday night in the winter when people are at home and asleep.

And then if we look at the water evacuation plan from the quarry ROFL, wow, just wow! 250 million gallons a month dumped into an environmentally protected wetland for a make work project that has ZERO sustainability. An ethanol powered fluidized bed steam turbine has more sustainability and doesn't need electricity to start the process. Got a match and a hand pump?

And no one on the engineering side or Northland, it appears, has accounted for the ground water input to the quarry of 20 million gallons per month, that's why the water is there in the first place (which they have denied, they say it's 5 billion gallons of rainwater LOL). Unfortunately, they can continue to lie, but there were two 5000hp pumps down there when open pit mining was running to keep it reasonably dry and from flooding the quarry.

Or like I said, they haven't analyzed the chemical composition of the water at depth (600 feet+), which may be highly acidic (iron mine - sulphates) that will be dumped through the wetlands filling people's basements. But let's not bother to think of those pesky people or even of the local geology or the hundreds of limestone caves under the town that will get eaten away producing sink holes possibly right under houses, won't that be fun?

You are right however that it is a battery of sorts, a seriously expensive battery in capital, maintenance and running costs, but that's where the "right" stops. Here's a funny one, the engineer who approved this project, meaning the IMHO idiot with all the liability, is 86 years old. He'll be dead before they even break ground. Who ya gonna sue for 8 billion dollars and 10k plus dead, if this guy is already in the ground? Who you gonna call? Ghostbusters?

Northland has though thought this scam through quite well. They've learned from the AMO, ECLEI, UN and IPCC based sustainability scams promoted by the government and the corporate/town entitlement grants that they use as a weapon to force Agenda 21 based change from the "bottom-up."

BTW, some of this is my opinion, the rest is peppered with facts. But I have engineered systems between 1980 and 1984 on five generating stations, two nuclear and three thermals and am presently assisting a company in the development of a one megawatt variable rate hydroelectric system. I have worked for research institutions, universities, colleges, think tanks, the government and the military on two continents. So, I know a little bit LOL (and that is being facetious).

ETA: As a side note, I have physically moved away from this retarded situation because when the SHTF, I don't want to be in it's path and I want to make sure that I can show all of the original documents warning the town council and Northland that this could very well be the end result. Then at least it can be defined as negligence with intent and that is at least manslaughter at worst and murder at best.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: Greven


Stop with the strawman attacks. Show where I claimed "massive warming."

The only ones with a straw man argument and who keep dismissing facts are people like you, aka the AGW crowd.

You agree with the premise of AGW and that premise is that CO2 is the main cause behind Climate Change because it captures excessive warming as claimed by the AGW crowd. Warming which has never been demonstrated to be caused by CO2...

So, do you imply that CO2 causes major warming?... YES, since you keep backing the AGW false claims...

originally posted by: Greven
Also, show us where CO2 didn't cause warming while other factors were not involved. I'd love to be wrong about this, and I'd imagine everyone else pleading for people to pay attention to this would as well.

Already have...several times... Even the Current Warming Period of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century started with TEMPERATURE increasing first in the 1600s for over 200+ years before CO2 levels even began to rise... The Earth started warming up again, slowly, as it was recuperating from the LIA which was still occurring in areas around the Earth...

Here is AGAIN global borehole temperatures which show the Earth was warming for 200+ years BEFORE anthropogenic CO2 increased rapidly. Hence it is not possible for CO2 to have been the cause of the CWP...

Global Borehole Temperature graph


Again, Temperatures began to increase in the 1600s, over 200 to 300 or so years BEFORE the industrial revolution and before the increase of CO2 due IN PART because of anthropogenic activities. BTW, most/ the steep increase of the anthropogenic increase in CO2 started around 1945 after the start of the industrial revolution.

CO2 levels graph.




In 1800 the level of atmospheric CO2 was about 275ppm, so the increase in temperature was occurring for over 200 years and closer to 300 + years before the rapid increase of CO2 due to anthropogenic activities. Because during warming events there is also an increase in atmospheric CO2 from ocean surface, a portion of the increase of the CO2 attributed to humans was also natural.

originally posted by: Greven
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but it can change form. That would be burning the candle, in this case. That heat doesn't just 'go away' magically. In an enclosed environment, your candle would heat that environment. However, that heat spreads and dilutes across the environment. A candle would not heat an open stadium, but given enough time and fuel, it will heat a closed stadium. While the Earth is not a closed system, it is not an entirely open one either.
...

False, a TINY amount of energy cannot contribute LOTS of energy. CO2 levels are right now 0.04% the content of Earth's atmosphere. 0.04% is next to nothing, a doubling of next to nothing is also next to nothing. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 from today's levels would be 0.08% of Earth's atmospheric content. Now, another fact the AGW crowd, like you, keep ignoring and dismissing is the fact that during warming events as the atmosphere warms it allows for increasing levels of water vapor.

Water vapor is molecule by molecule 10 times more powerful than CO2 and it exists at higher levels than CO2. Meanwhile CO2 levels are 0.04% of Earth's atmospheric content, water vapor levels should be at an increase levels from 1% - 4% of atmospheric content. In the tropics water vapor accounts closer to 4% of Earth's atmospheric content and increasing, while in the poles the levels of water vapor are closer to 1% and increasing.

A majority of the warming that has been attributed by the AGW crowd to CO2 was in fact caused by WATER VAPOR and not CO2.

originally posted by: Greven
If we receive more radiation from the Sun while the Earth remains the same, the Earth warms. If we receive less radiation from the Sun while the Earth remains the same, the Earth cools. The man-made increase in CO2 is restricting infrared radiation from escaping our atmosphere, thus changing the equation. The dip in TSI over the last decade seems to have counterbalanced much (but not all, as there is still warming) of the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration.

That's what was thought, but in fact we know now that heat has been escaping the Earth's atmosphere at much higher levels than were previously thought possible.

New Paper “On the Misdiagnosis Of Surface Temperature Feedbacks From Variations In Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance” By Spencer and Braswell 2011

There is a new paper published which raises further questions on the robustness of multi-decadal global climate predictions. It is

Spencer, R.W.; Braswell, W.D. On the Misdiagnosis of Surface Temperature Feedbacks from Variations in Earth’s Radiant Energy Balance. Remote Sens. 2011, 3, 1603-1613.

The University of Alabama has issues a news release on it which reads [h/t to Phillip Gentry]


Climate models get energy balance wrong, make too hot forecasts of global warming

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (July 26, 2011) — Data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe.”

The result is climate forecasts that are warming substantially faster than the atmosphere, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

The previously unexplained differences between model-based forecasts of rapid global warming and meteorological data showing a slower rate of warming have been the source of often contentious debate and controversy for more than two decades.
...

Link


So AGAIN the AGW crowd is dead wrong...

To be continued.