ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: Spin!

Thanks for the poll information. Sorry I had to sound like Ed...

But seriously Vlad, you seem fairly intelligent but you have let ideological propaganda get into your brain and I am just trying to help you purge some of it and regain rational thought.

Just a simple statement on record that you do not work for an oil company or energy company would clarify things for the inquiring chesstalker community...

Even Stephen Harper wants a binding climate deal...
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technol...012/story.html

The online version is slightly different from the paper version, but in the paper this quote appears:

"One or two scientists fudging data doesn't mean the problem (climate change) doesn't exist. It's real" said one of Harper's closest advisors"

See Vlad, even your own heroes are turning against you.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Ed Seedhouse, data deletion denialist.

Vlad, here is some data...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Let us know when you have finished analyzing it...

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Gary, the only reason you or anyone else thinks global warming is a fad is because you are getting a lot of incorrect information from the above...

You figure you're getting the correct information from the other lobby groups?

When there is proof of figures being fudged the work has to be redone with better control methods. You can't use selective figures to reach a proper conclusion.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Gary, I never trust information that I get from any one source, I am a skeptic by nature. I always do my own research.

I have just finished a 20 page report (40 odd powerpoint slides) summarizing climate change science since IPPC 2007, I will let you know when it is posted online...

Cheers,
Paul

[Paul Bonham]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Maybe we can get some people who will do honest research and allow scrutiny of their raw data to take the lead on this from here on. Take it out of the corrupt hands of the UN and these purveyors of dirty tricks.

We need people to whom the truth does matter, wherever it may lead us.

I'll start writing scripts right away, in preparation for the return of Mulder and Scully, in "The X'ed Files".

"The Truth Was Out There".

But seriously.... good to see that Vlad is at least on side with doing valid research, "wherever it may lead us".

Aside from research, we need immediate megasolutions, which can create jobs and not cause sudden disruption to the status quo (burning of fossil fuels), but rather minimize the effects of the status quo as we gradually phase it out.

On another branch of this thread, I proposed such a megasolution: huge platforms anchored throughout the world's oceans, on which huge rainforests would grow to absorb CO2 and release oxygen, and rising out of the rainforests would be huge wind turbines to generate electricity sent by undersea cables to the nearest land. Mixed in with the turbines would be solar panels.

Someone mentioned that oceans cover 70% of Earth's surface, so why not use some of that bountiful surface area to undo what we are doing? This could be a huge, multinational effort that could change everything over a span of say 10 years.

Could this proposal have any viability, or is there something I'm not considering, some negative side effect?

[Gary Ruben]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Gary, I never trust information that I get from any one source, I am a skeptic by nature. I always do my own research.

I have just finished a 20 page report (40 odd powerpoint slides) summarizing climate change science since IPPC 2007, I will let you know when it is posted online...

Cheers,
Paul

OK. BTW, what are your credentials? Is this a personal project or is it being done for government or a client or a university paper?

I've done lots for the environment. A real global warming fighter am I. Do you know I personally, physically worked on changing over hundreds of industrial, commercial and high rise buildings from oil to natural gas? I'm not talking the paperwork but the phsycial work.

These days I'm reading up on low enriched uranium. The gaseous diffusion method as opposed to centrifuge technology. Of course, the gaseous diffusion method takes lots of electricity to power it and is more expensive to produce the SWU's than with centrifuge technology. For your information, the SWU's are used in light water reactors and not the CANDU. The Americans are still using gaseous diffusion and supplementing the output from that with SWU's they are buying from Russia in the Megatons to Megawatts program. If they stay with gaseous diffusion, they will have to rely on others from SWU's when the megatons to megawatts program ends. This is the program where the old nukes warheads from the Russian missiles is being burned for electricity. The high weapons grade is being turned into low grade for the reactors to use.

Now the U.S. plant needs some loan guarantees to forward the centrifuge plant they are in the process of building. It's on hold until they can get the money. The Department of energy and government is not forthcoming.

If the U.S. government is not willing to give loan guarantees to go ahead with such a project and ensure a supply of SWU's into the future, why would I suppose they are serious about global warming and climate control?

You probably knew all this already. Still why would we assume the Americans are serious about climate control worldwide when they won't give support to such an important project at home?

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

According to Vlad, the only "have" province left is Alberta

Well, Alberta is currently running massive deficits, much higher than BC's.

Another example of Vlad's disinformation.

[Bob Gillanders]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

On another branch of this thread, I proposed such a megasolution: huge platforms anchored throughout the world's oceans, on which huge rainforests would grow to absorb CO2 and release oxygen, and rising out of the rainforests would be huge wind turbines to generate electricity sent by undersea cables to the nearest land. Mixed in with the turbines would be solar panels........Could this proposal have any viability, or is there something I'm not considering, some negative side effect?

Hey Paul,

Nobody can accuse you of thinking small! Assuming for the moment, you're not just pulling my legs, 2 problems with your megasolution.

1. You can't just grow rainforests anywhere, like out in the middle of the ocean. You need the proper climatic conditions, like you would find in a rainforest.;) and
2. Too expensive! Way too expensive.

But I like the idea of using natural solutions. Growing more trees to combat the oxygen CO2 imbalance. Great. But the only practical solution is to protect and enhance our current rainforests and vegetation.

You ideas for using wind and solar power, great. Except again, better to scale down the projects and multiply them. How about a law for all new buildings. Phase in requirements that all new homes and buildings must be energy self sufficient using solar, wind, and geothermal methods. :)

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Well, Alberta is currently running massive deficits, much higher than BC's.

Another example of Vlad's disinformation.

Deficits are not the criterion for determining have or have not status. If you need me to explain any of the big words in that sentence, I can.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Hey Paul,

Nobody can accuse you of thinking small! Assuming for the moment, you're not just pulling my legs, 2 problems with your megasolution.

1. You can't just grow rainforests anywhere, like out in the middle of the ocean. You need the proper climatic conditions, like you would find in a rainforest.;) and
2. Too expensive! Way too expensive.

But I like the idea of using natural solutions. Growing more trees to combat the oxygen CO2 imbalance. Great. But the only practical solution is to protect and enhance our current rainforests and vegetation.

You ideas for using wind and solar power, great. Except again, better to scale down the projects and multiply them. How about a law for all new buildings. Phase in requirements that all new homes and buildings must be energy self sufficient using solar, wind, and geothermal methods. :)

No, Bob, not pulling anyone's leg.

Did you think I meant for these platforms to be in the northern and southern latitudes? No, they'd all be in the tropic zones where rainforest COULD grow. Do you realize how much wide open ocean surface is out there? I thought Paul Beckwith might post and say that if you covered a square mile of tropical ocean with such a platform, the oxygen produced and CO2 absorbed by the lush rainforest would not make up for the loss of oxygen and CO2 effects of the ocean algae that would be lacking sunlight. Paul would know such things, and I wonder if that would be the case. I want to think the rainforest would multiply the algae effect several times, and then on top of that you'd have the turbines and solar panels, which a lot of people don't want on land because they "ruin" the landscape. So my solution seems to be good from many different angles.

I was also thinking that if a specific part of the tropical ocean didn't get enough rainfall to support rainforest, use some of the electrical power to desalinate the ocean water and water the rainforest.

Expensive??? Bob, you just posted something about global warming affecting billions of lives. How expensive is too expensive for saving one life? two lives? four lives? eight lives?.... a couple of billion lives?

I think a law for all NEW buildings is way too inadequate. Retrofit all existing buildings. Desperate times call for desperate measures. I think if there's one good thing about the timing of Obama being President, it's his emphasis on megaprojects. That's really what we need, but so far he's been a letdown, and I used the example of the car companies being given several years to improve their mpg by... 5. That's just so pathetic.

Yes, megaprojects will cost money. It's been done before (i.e. The Marshall Plan, among others). But remember, this doesn't just bring down CO2 levels. It's meant to generate electric power, perhaps enough to close down some coal and oil powered plants. The electric power can power electric cars. Do you think Japan, a country that imports all it's gas and oil, would be willing to spend some money up front to save gazillions once oil production really starts declining in another decade? I think so!

It's a matter of political will. I'm offering a possible solution, but "too expensive" isn't a good enough reason to throw it away in my opinion :).

[Jason Lohner]

Re: ClimateGate - A Question for Ed Seedhouse and Paul Beckwith

Vlad, here is some data...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

Let us know when you have finished analyzing it...

Why would anyone use that site when it is also involved in the climategate controversy? That site has been quoted in the emails as a site that deletes anything that people like Mann disagree with... as much as you distrust anyone who disagrees with climate change as someone involved with the 'oil companies', for people who are now skeptical, I would NEVER trust a site that is up to its neck in this current controversy.

When they clean the current bunch of 'scientists' (activists) from this debate and put people who don't try to 'hide the decline'. then climate change will rejoin the ranks of legitimate science.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: Spin!

Thanks for the poll information. Sorry I had to sound like Ed...

But seriously Vlad, you seem fairly intelligent but you have let ideological propaganda get into your brain and I am just trying to help you purge some of it and regain rational thought.

Just a simple statement on record that you do not work for an oil company or energy company would clarify things for the inquiring chesstalker community...

How many oil companies or energy companies have a headquarters in Windsor? None that I am aware of.

See Vlad, even your own heroes are turning against you.

Stephen Harper is the lesser evil by several orders of magnitude. That does not make him my hero. He should spend some time reading Sun Tzu's "Art of War", Machiavelli's "The Prince" and Musashi's "Book of Five Rings".

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: do it for the turtles and penguins

Deficits are not the criterion for determining have or have not status. If you need me to explain any of the big words in that sentence, I can.

I didn't say they were, Vlad. Your apparent need to put me down is betraying a bit of jealousy, I suspect.

[Paul Beckwith]

Re: A possibly expensive but possibly effective solution

Paul, there is a Norwegian company that has constructed a large test wind turbine that is not anchored to the seafloor. It is floating and tethered to the seafloor so that it stays in one place in very deep water. The pitch of the blades is automatically optimized to correct for sway due to wave motion. It is still in testing...

There is also a company in Ottawa (Magenn) looking at wind turbines on helium balloons that are tethered to the ground. Wind is much stronger at higher altitudes than near ground level.

I flipped through Al Gore's latest book "Last Chance" and it has a lot of ideas along this line; I will read it over the holidays.

There is an excellent book called "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" that has the physics and engineering behind a lot of these ideas. I paid $55 a year ago and read it twice; now it is free to read online here...

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Highly recommended; and very well written to try to answer the question "Could the UK get all its power from renewables." I considered writing a Canadian version with all the analysis, but did not get far...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A possibly expensive but possibly effective solution

Paul, there is a Norwegian company that has constructed a large test wind turbine that is not anchored to the seafloor. It is floating and tethered to the seafloor so that it stays in one place in very deep water. The pitch of the blades is automatically optimized to correct for sway due to wave motion. It is still in testing...

There is also a company in Ottawa (Magenn) looking at wind turbines on helium balloons that are tethered to the ground. Wind is much stronger at higher altitudes than near ground level.

I flipped through Al Gore's latest book "Last Chance" and it has a lot of ideas along this line; I will read it over the holidays.

There is an excellent book called "Sustainable Energy without the hot air" that has the physics and engineering behind a lot of these ideas. I paid $55 a year ago and read it twice; now it is free to read online here...

http://www.withouthotair.com/

Highly recommended; and very well written to try to answer the question "Could the UK get all its power from renewables." I considered writing a Canadian version with all the analysis, but did not get far...

Paul, what is the difference between a platform being anchored to the seafloor versus one that is tethered to the seafloor?

Also, what do you think about the idea of having such floating platforms having rainforest or other CO2 absorbing vegetation on them? The wind turbines and solar panels rise out of the rainforest, and solar panels could be placed around the perimeter (so as not to shade the rainforest). The idea being that you absorb CO2, create oxygen, and create electricity in two pollution-free ways. Is such a three-pronged idea even feasible? They'd have to be in the tropic zones by the hundreds, maybe the thousands, and hurricanes would be a concern, but I'd guess you'd ride out the storm (turbines and solar panels taken down) and whatever damage occurs to the vegetation can be replaced.

You earlier mentioned the ocean has algae absorbing CO2 and creating oxygen. Would the same surface area of rainforest outdo the algae at this, or not?