text:
Roxicodone 15, 30 mg User Reviews
Roxicodone 15, 30 mg - User Reviews
Roxicodone 15, 30 mg User Reviews
Now you can gain knowledge and insight about a drug treatment with Patient Discussions.
Here is a collection of user reviews for the medication Roxicodone 15, 30 mg sorted by most helpful.
With this drug I now have a life! It's wonderful. I have to ask Why do you get all these dirty looks at the pharmacy? They look at you likea criminal.
If i take too much i get alot of itching and it affects my breathing a little. Be very careful if you have allergies or asthma like conditions triggered by stress, allergy episodes or taking too many of these. I recommend to new users to get the 15mg especially when driving. After 6 months you will be use to them and can use the 30mg ones. My biggest cautions to everyone is to watch your respiratory functions and try not to take too many as they are very addictive. I developed a high level of tolerance to them in as short as 6 months. I recommend switching to Dilaudid 8mg tablets for a few months once you feel you have this high tolerance. I also recommend not to take the Oxycontin or Oxycodone ER unless it's 20mg tablets or less as those are twice as addictive and time release. Make sure to eat food since it makes the medicine last longer and be careful driving. My last caution is don't share these with anyone since they can be very harmful and even giving someone 1 pill is a felony!
The only way I have complete pain management is to use the Brand name version of this medication. I have found that one certain Generic Brand of Oxycodone manufactured by Qualitest Pharm. is a 0 pain reliever.
i just wanted to say this med is amazing. before i suffered with an extreme amount of pain due to a messed up back going on 15yrs from a car accident..anyway, this is good stuff but there are some drawbacks to this medication as in once you start taking it you can't just feel better and then decide not to take it that day, your body reminds you, that you haven't taken it and it can make you feel really awful. otherwise, this stuff works...by the way, you can be phyiscally addicted w/o being mentally addicted..i think that every person taking this that doesn't abuse the med. is physically addicted and unfortunately there is no way around this..i just wish they could come up with something new that would relieve pain but that you didn't have to depend on even if you're having a good day...
I have been on 30 mg oxycodone for 5 years due to a back injury and was being prescribed 7 a day. Well this month my Dr. decreased me to 6 a day. He said the DEA put a cap on how many pills doctors in Florida can prescribe. He said 180 a month is the cap. Does anyone know if this is true?????????????????
roxycodone works very well for my back and leg pain. my pain is severe,but well controlled when used properly. it is very important not to take more than you need. you will get hooked,and drs will cut you off if they think you are abusing the medicine. it is no fun withdrawing from it. take my advice and dont increase your tollarance! it will stop working like you want it to.so be carfull!
Well about 2 years ago i had my daughter by c-section n she had a lot of problems so i went to the other hospital where she was without my pain meds. from the doctor well my friend gave me like 8-10 of the roxys and i was taking them for my pain but then when i ran out i realize i needed more or else i would be VERY VERY sick! so i did them everyday for about a year and a half then i lost everything to my drug addiction EVEN my own daughter!!! Yes i do agree that thid med. does work for real pain but do not abuse it or you will def. loose your life even the most important things to you. I got my daughter back and now i am clean and i have my daughter to remind me of what i once lost but now have back!!
even though people beleive they can take this medication for years and decide when they want to stop,... thats just a dream. This is the most addictive medication i have ever taken. Ive been to medical detox 3 times and when its all over, about 7 days, when u go home u still have major withdrawls, pretty much suicidal at times. DONT TAKE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm a 44 year old male I have been taking roxy's now for 6- months.. They have gave me my life back.. Before I was on ms contin, opana, They just made me sick when I took them.. The roxy's Have been a life saver.. I take 30mg. twice a day, also lortab 10/500 3 times a day, And as needed soma 350mg most of the time I will take those at bedtime.. I wanted to tell MacAttack I read your comment I can feel for you they have done the same for me. he pharmacy treats you like a junkie, or like you said they never have what you take... My Doc. called them and wellll let's just say the now have my meds.. My back is so screwed up ddd. since 2000, spinul stenosis my disc. from cervical to lumbar are a joke.... The injections do not help.. Maybe that first day but after that it's over.. My e-mail is firstname.lastname@example.com Good luck to everyone.........
Patient Comments are not a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your physician or other qualified health provider because of something you have read on RxList. The opinions expressed in the comments section are of the author and the author alone. RxList does not endorse any specific product, service or treatment.
If you think you have a medical emergency, call your doctor or 911 immediately.
Report Problems to the Food and Drug Administration
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
Chronic Pain/Back Pain
Find tips and advances in treatment.


text:
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Sears Canada at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
Get it today!Shop Now
OrAdd to Wish List
Ralph Lauren Big Pony Pink # 2 Eau de Toilette, For a seductive & spontaneous woman. She follows her heart. and just might break a few. Part of the iconic Big Pony fragrance collection by Ralph Lauren, this eau de toilette spray comes in a colourful bottle with signature details.. Price: $69.00
© Copyright 2016 - Christmas.com. All rights reserved and protected by Christmas Spirit

subset: commoncrawl


text:
FiltersShow / Hide
- All Events
- Music
- Comedy
- Theatre & Shows
- Sport
- Cinema
- Festivals
- Days Out
- Edinburgh Fringe
- Anywhere In The UK
- Location: Anywhere in the UK
Radius: ... miles
Fri 21st Jun at 8:00pm
Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again
@ The Cluny & The Cluny 2, Newcastle upon Tyne
This event has been and gone!
Catch the next one:
Check out the info below for future tour dates, and track them to receive alerts when they tour near you
Never miss another 'Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again' show
Back On The Streets Again: Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again
Image © The Cluny & The Cluny 2
Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again
'Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again' is the ultimate live Gary Moore tribute act featuring all of his well known rock and blues songs.
They cover history of Gary Moore from his beginnings in Skid Row, through Colosseum II and Thin Lizzy, his solo compositions, and the many musical collaborations with other musical legends such as BB King, Eric Clapton, Bob Dylan, Ozzy Osborne, George Harrison, Greg Lake, and Cozy Powell.
The band is made up of Paul Thompson (ex Gary Moore's band), Martin Bland (ex The Animals and Eric Bell's Thin Lizzy), Brian Vasey (world class guitarist and friend of Gary Moore) and Stevie Hutch (ex The Animals).
Gary Moore....Back On The Streets Again tour dates
Track this event
- Event has been added to your calendar
- Any important updates will be sent to your email address
- Add to your personal Ents24 calendar
- Sync with iCal, Outlook and others
- Receive important updates
Venue Facts
Venue: The Cluny & The Cluny 2
Website: thecluny.com
Bookings: 0191 230 4474
Disabled Bookings: 0191 230 4474
→ Manors 12 min walk
→ Manors 12 min walk


text:
Better information about pharmaceutical impurities is generating new questions. What is the best way to handle them? How should we report them? How do they really affect overall product quality? How should control procedures be put in place? Ingredient suppliers are working—and debating—with regulatory agencies to develop guidelines designed to eliminate redundant testing for APIs, explain the composition of excipients, and reasonably control the genotoxic impurities in both.Improving analytical methods
Nongenotoxic impurities. LC and GC techniques with conventional detectors have been the traditional analytical methods for identifying and quantitating nongenotoxic impurities. According to a 2003 survey, HPLC accounted for approximately 53% of the reported analytical separations used in 1999–2001 (1). In these applications, specificity, sensitivity, and matrix interference remain the primary analytical challenges (2). These techniques may not necessarily measure impurity levels accurately. They assume that impurities are structurally related to the drug substance, and therefore have similar detector responses; this is not always the case.
"Incorporating this information with those obtained from NMR and IR techniques, one can identify the impurity with a fairly good degree of accuracy," says Liakatali Bodalbhai, group leader, Analytical Sciences R&D, DPT Laboratories (San Antonio, TX). "However, only by synthesizing the possible molecule and comparing its fragmentation pattern in MS and retention time by HPLC to the impurity of interest can one conclusively identify that impurity."
Bodalbhai points out that the development of multiple ionization modes in LC–MS and LC–MS–MS, namely electrospray ionization, atmospheric pressure chemical ionization, and atmospheric pressure photoionization, has expanded the capabilities of these techniques for a large class of compounds. Newer technologies include fast chromatography data treatment such as signal averaging, new LC–NMR platforms, thermogravimetric–MS for volatile impurities, and LC–MS–NMR (3).


text:
Respond to this message
Back to Highlands Forum
Original Message
pastor tommy, is my toy boy, sx object.
Dr Evil
Posted Aug 4, 2012 10:17 AM
Hi pastor tommy,
You can't run and you can't hide. You're are piece of worthless sacrificial meat.
Have you forgotten I own your anus? Fyi...I have donated it to the sect specifically for the new recruits to practise gangbanging techniques.
You property bilong club, I mean your anus and mouth, tongue.
Jon Y is proud of you.
Login Status
You are not logged in
Provides additional benefits such as notifications, signatures, and user authentication.
Create Account
Your Name
Message Title
Message Text
Find more forums on Network54
Create your own forum at Network54
Copyright © 1999-2016
. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use
Privacy Statement


text:
Last year Lord (Nicolas) Stern (of Brentford) appeared in Stockholm in order to entertain a large audience with the conclusions reached in his famous analysis of potential climate change calamities. I of course was not invited to attend his presentation, because it was almost certainly believed by its arrangers that had I been present, there might have been what is sometimes called an `incident'. This was definitely not certain, because I would have been willing to exercise a maximum of restraint in order to avoid informing Lord Stern that many leading economic theorists regard his work on this topic as scientifically meaningless.
Meaningless and in the light of the finished product, pedagogically superfluous. To my way of thinking the Stern Review -- or at least the small portion that I have examined -- is an insult to both conscientious economics teachers and the students who require their knowledge, as well as innocent bystanders who pay taxes in order for -- among other things -- systematic and professional attempts to be made to ascertain the extent and mechanics of global warming, and if necessary to suggest or devise efficient programs for reducing its possible dangers. The analytical fragments of the Stern Review remind me of esoteric contributions to a journal called `The Review of Economic Studies' which played an important part in my education at the University of Stockholm, and contained articles which were often a part of the curriculum when I taught mathematical economics in Uppsala and Australia. I feel it appropriate to mention that I haven't read anything in that journal for more than 20 years, and I enjoy informing students and colleagues that I consider myself a better person as a result of this abstention.
After scrutinizing a few pages of the Stern Review, the first thing that came to my mind was that if it is true that we are now living in the most dishonest period in modern times, as a Canadian billionaire claims, then the so-called research done by Stern and his team might turn out to be a prime contender for the paramount scam of the present century: in wisdom and verbosity it belongs in the same category as Mein Kampf, and this is perhaps the reason that Professor Richard Tol said that if it were presented to him as a `Master's' thesis, he would grade it F (for failure).
But please take note that I am not criticizing nor denigrating climate scientists or anybody else who takes the position that global warming is a clear and present or nearly-present danger, because this may well be true. Instead I am merely commenting on an economic investigation whose ennoblement can be attributed to careerists in the faculties of economics and the environmental bureaucracies, and where the principal concern of some individuals on both the writing or reading end of enterprises of this nature may be money and some of the beautiful things that money can buy. Here I am thinking of subsidized travel and accommodation on the one hand, and on the other a superficial understanding of a fashionable topic.
Let us suppose for the purpose of this discussion that I was totally and obsessively corrupt, and found myself with the opportunity to write a thick book with the title The Ferdinand E. Banks review on the economics of climate change. Please be aware that what I am implying is that for me to write a book with that title, I would have to be `bent' in one sense or another, because otherwise I would never have anything to do with an assignment of this nature.
Given the limitations of economic theory, there is only one sensible approach to the project, and that is to find a model that can be adjusted and/or refined and/or extended and/or tweaked in such a way as to allow my assistants (and perhaps myself) to carry out rambling discussions of the economics of climate change in perhaps 700+ pages. The model that would be chosen by me, or my assistants, or my graduate students, or by party animals posturing themselves and courting attention at the bar of an Uppsala University student club could only be the one published by Frank Ramsey in his famous article `A mathematical theory of saving' (1928).
What is the logic behind this choice? First of all, the Ramsey model is complicated but not too complicated. Even if they are put off by its mathematics, the basic intent of such a model should be recognizable to a majority of advanced economics undergraduates, to include those pursuing their education in or near certain store-front universities where environmental studies constitute almost a religion.
Equally as important, the Ramsey model can be summarily enriched in case someone visiting a lecture on global warming decides to play ego games with the lecturer, in the course of which they proclaim the triviality of the basic Ramsey construction. If the basic model is polished up, a skilful lecturer might be able to successfully convince a drowsy audience that it is capable of providing some genuine insight into whether future benefits from `present' action to prevent climate change outweigh the cost of this action. The model -- though not the real world - reduces this puzzle to determining the discount rate that should be used to evaluate future benefits.
A simple example might feature being able to continue enjoying the marvellous beach life on the west coast of Sweden in future summers, while the estimated (or presumed or postulated) present cost of achieving this goal might involve altering Sweden's energy architecture in such a way as to include more wind turbines and natural gas, while promoting a nuclear retreat. Of course we know something about what this would mean, because the cost of electricity in Denmark -- which is the promised land of wind-based energy -- is perhaps the highest in Europe, while the cost of electricity in Sweden -- which has a large nuclear commitment -- is among the lowest.
For readers who are curious about this particular trade-off, I can refer to an article in the latest IAEE Energy Forum by Mary Hutzler (2009), in which she examines a proposal by the billionaire T. Boone Pickens for the massive employment of wind and natural gas in the United States, where it would be used to generate electricity (wind) and provide an alternative motor fuel (natural gas). I have attempted to convince large numbers of persons in the U.S. and elsewhere of the futility of this approach, however their fear (or hatred) of a situation in which the United States must depend on Middle Eastern countries for increasing amounts of energy has tended to undermine their rationality.
Another option for solving this problem is to get producers to invest in production equipment featuring clean outputs. For instance, electric generators might use coal, but carbon dioxide emissions from this coal would be sequestered underground or in the ocean, or perhaps generators could buy permissions to emit from other firms that possess the knowledge to greatly reduce the production of CO2. (This is apparently a big thing in Australia just now). In any event, and this is important, physical capital that might be used to produce items that were important in the manufacture of present necessities and luxuries would (directly or indirectly) be devoted to the suppression of CO2 emissions. In other words, the present consumption of necessities and luxuries would be reduced, and the disutility this would entail would have to be weighed against being able to visit the west coast beaches in the future.
Ramsay-type equations are designed to provide a `scientific' approach to comparing a future utility with a present disutility -- e.g. enjoying the beaches of the west coast of Sweden in the future in return for a present monetary outlay. Of course neither those equations nor any equations derived since Adam and Eve can carry out this particular commission to my humble satisfaction, but that is irrelevant. When many persons see or maybe just hear about the mathematics employed by Frank Ramsay and Lord Stern, they tend to draw the conclusion that it is in the same category as that employed by Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton. My comment on this situation is that this is precisely what is wrong with academic economics at the present time.
As mentioned above, many economic theorists find it difficult to accept the validity of Lord Stern's theoretical work, but some are of a different opinion. I certainly respect many economists who find the Stern analysis important, but as far as I can tell they find it important because they accept that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is the real deal -- which it may be -- and genuinely feel that the general public should be made aware of what could happen in the event that bad news in the form of e.g. rising sea levels arrive before precautions are taken to deal with its most unfavourable aspects.
As to be expected, some concerned citizens are almost totally confused when confronted with the opinions expressed in this short paper. Take for example Joan Ruddock, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the UK. She has dismissed the criticisms of people like Professors Tol, Partha Dasgupta and Martin Weitzman because -- according to her -- these economists suffer from "a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of formal, highly aggregated economic modelling in evaluating a policy issue."
I'm afraid that I must reject that point of view Ms Ruddock: they do not misunderstand. You and I are guilty of that shortcoming! You because your education in economic theory is inadequate, and me because the only interest I have in aggregated economic modelling is the slender amount necessary for me to write this note.
I would like to close by saying that the Stern Review may well be on its way to enjoying the same status as `The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money' by John Maynard Keynes, or `The Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour' by John von Neuman and Oscar Morgenstern. These are famous books that everyone knows about, although very few have actually read them. I for instance know a great deal about them, and may even have told some inquiring student or colleague that I have read them from cover to cover, but if I made this assertion, it is a departure from the truth. What is true is that if I had been ordered to read every page in these works by e.g. my regimental commander in the U.S. Army -- Colonel Michael (`Screaming' Mike) Halloran of the 24th Infantry -- I might have made an attempt, but even an order by a president of the United States would not cause me to read, think about reading, or even to thumb the pages again of Lord Stern's attempt to clarify the importance of the Kyoto Conference on the Environment.
Baltscheffsky, S. (1997). 'Världen samlas för att kyla klotet'. Svenska-Dagbladet.
Banks, Ferdinand E.. (2009a). 'Deeper thoughts than usual about nuclear energy'. 321 Energy.
_____ (2009b). 'Nuclear and the new American president'- Energy Politics.
_____ (2007). The Political Economy of World Energy: An Introductory Textbook. London, New York and Singapore: World Scientific.
_____ (2004). 'A faith-based approach to global warming'. Energy and Environment, Volume 15, Number 5: 837-852.
Beyer, Jim (2007) 'Comment on Banks'. Energy Pulse (www.energypulse.net).
Harlinger, Hildegard (1975). 'Neue modelle für die zukunft der menshheit' IFO Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (Munich).
Huber, Peter W. (2009). 'Bound to burn'. City Journal (Spring).
Hutzler, Mary (2009). The Pickens plan: is it the answer to our energy needs? IAEE Energy Forum (Spring).
Nadeau, Robert (2008). 'The economist has no clothes'. Scientific American (April).
Ramsey, Frank (1928). 'A mathematical theory of saving'. Economic Journal.
Stern, Nicholas (2007). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change. London: H.M. Treasury.
Stipp, David (2004). 'Climate collapse'. Fortune (Feb. 9, 2004).
Baltscheffsky, S. (1997). 'Världen samlas för att kyla klotet'. Svenska-Dagbladet.
There are many reasons for these failures.
(1) Kyoto was illogical. (When you perceive that you are digging yourself into a hole, the first step is to STOP DIGGING.) The logical first step would have been to halt increases in annual emissions, rather than trying to have some "fill in the hole" while others were still digging. The increases in annual emissions rates are predominantly from the developing countries, led by the ~10% annual increases from China. China has more than offset all of the carbon emissions reductions contemplated by the Kyoto Accords.
(2) Kyoto was inadequate. (When you decide to "solve" a "problem", it helps to pursue a course of action which actually offered some possibility of doing so.) The annual emissions reductions contemplated by the Kyoto Accords, even if achieved by every nation on the globe, would not have "solved" AGW. Reductions an order of magnitude greater than those envisioned by the Kyoto Accords would not have done so either.
(3) Inconveniently, the globe ceased warming at approximately the same time as the Kyoto Accords were agreed to by the signers. Despite a massive "obfuscatio ad absurdum" effort, the taxpayers have not been convinced of the necessity of sacrificing their futures on the altar of AGW.
(4) The participants in the Kyoto Accords have had a decade to evaluate the costs and benefits of their efforts to comply. Most have realized that compliance would be far more expensive than Lord Stern and his "band of merry persons" would have led them to believe. Most have also realized that, while not cheap or easy, the "7% solution" would have been far cheaper and easier than the remaining 93%.
Reality Bites! :-)
I guess Len won't accept anything Lord Monckton writes - especially his brilliant response to Markey and Barton (number 13), here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/ He probably doesn't read Richard Watts either, or SEPP or Marohassy, or Nova, or Morano, etc. etc. or the fact the Gavin Schmidt and colleagues are now climbing down off their perch for about 20 years. Sad! John.
WE DON'T NEED 'HIS' REVIEW! We don't need valuable space in our academic librairies taken up with more pretentious nonsense. We also don't need the thoughts and posturing of Lord Monckton, and especially Mr Al Gore, whose incompetence resulted in people like George W. and Condoleeza roosting in the White House for 8 years, starting a war that shouldn't have been started with Iraq, and insulting innocent members of the TV audience like my good self with their outrageous and irrelevant babbling about freedom and democracy.
It is quite reasonable to argue that the cost of reducing carbon emissions might be onerous. But even given that, expending energy to refute the motivation for doing this will prove ultimately futile, not the least because this line of reasoning is likely wrong.
But even if it wasn't, population pressures will stir us to seek out something other than coal and oil anyway, even not (right) now, that perhaps 20 years hence. So the notion that this is a wasteful enterprise is not supported by either conventional reality or even the rarefied reality possessed by many AGW deniers.
And Edward, the "plan" is to not have so many babies. But this will prove hard to implement, not the least because of the legacy religious beliefs that often encourage large families and the growth quotient that seems to be an essential aspect of modern capitalist society. Barring growth restrictions, we need to find energy sources much more powerful and cleaner than what we are using today. They need to be clean because we are now so crowded there is little room to dump waste sources. As hard as changing human behavior might be, this may be even a harder problem than limiting population growth.
Here is a sample:
"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time." - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.
One of my favorites:
Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
"Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why 'global warming' is now called 'climate change.'" - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970. Stilbs coordinated a meeting of international scientists and declared his skepticism about manmade climate fears. Stilbs wrote on December 21, 2006 that "by the final panel discussion stage of the conference, there appeared to be wide agreement" about several key points regarding man-made climate fears. Stilbs announced that the scientists concluded, "There is no strong evidence to prove significant human influence on climate on a global basis. The global cooling trend from 1940 to 1970 is inconsistent with models based on anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. Actual claims put forward are that an observed global temperature increase of about 0.3 degrees C since 1970 exceeds what could be expected from natural variation. However, recent temperature data do not indicate any continued global warming since 1998." Stilbs also noted, "There is no reliable evidence to support that the 20th century was the warmest in the last 1000 years. Previous claims based on the 'Mann hockey-stick curve' are by now totally discredited."
"Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Change
Line plot of monthly mean global surface tmperature anomaly. The black line shows meterological stations only; redle dots are the lan d-ocean temperature index, as described in Hans en et al. (1999). The land-ocean temperature index uses sea surface temperatures obtained from satellite measurements of Reynolds and Smith (1994)."
Or simply peruse ANY of the temperature presentations at this NASA site. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Analysis Graphs and Plots
It all goes back to who bears the burden of proof. By shooting the CO2 levels to values unprecedented in 600,000 years, I say the burden of proof is on the AGW deniers that this global science experiment is NOT a problem. If proving a negative is difficult (difficult, not impossible) then I'm sorry, but maybe we should of thought of that before burning lump of coal in sight so we could drive to Wal-Mart and buy more plastic lawn furniture.
Jim: Do you really believe that we have any way of knowing what the CO2 levels were over the past 600,000 years? What is the measurement errors for these 'measurements'? How much has CO2 levels varied over that period?
Furthermore, by your logic, humanity should abandon the planet. Our very presence is an abomination, a crime against nature. I reject that. I am just as persuaded that humanity's true role in nature is to release the carbon locked up in the Earth's crust for the benefit of the rest of the biosphere. Perhaps we are here to rescue the planet from a slow death spiral.
There are multiple sources of confirmation of past CO2 levels. Ice core samples are commonly used, as are other sources.
Some sources can be found here: CO2 Levels
Significantly, the CO2 levels now are higher than anytime during the past several ice age cycles.
My logic indicates no such thing (abandoning the planet). Conversely, your logic (do nothing as we continue to multiply to 9, 12, 18 billion souls) will definitively lead to a catastrophic collapse of population akin to what happens when yeast grows unbounded in a Petri dish.
I would like to think humanity can out think the behavior of yeast, but sometimes I'm not so sure.
There's a medical term, "Primum non nocere", first do no harm. I don't see why this conservative and thoughful concept shouldn't apply to our environment as well. Your (assumed jocular) view that releasing more carbon will benefit the planet would be in violation of this principle.
Please detail for me YOUR interpretation of how any of these graphs indicate recent cooling?
Jim: I reiterate, we cannot now what those CO2 levels were hundreds of millenia ago because we cannot determine the accuracy of the measurements. I have read the literature. The rest of your argument is rehashed Malthus, Ehrlich and the Club of Rome, all of whom have been utterly discredited by history. Your insistence that we return to their models of the future is irrational.
Our current levels of CO2 are 27% above measured levels from the past 650,000 years. The measurements do not have to be that accurate to justify the concern. The ice cores from different parts of the world are generally in concert with each other. No serious researcher questions the basic validity of the ice core sampling with respect to CO2 levels. Not a fruitful tree to be barking up.
I don't think the former inhabitants of Easter Island would agree that Malthus was utterly discredited. You should read Collapse by Jared Diamond.
While it is true that societal collapse is not inevitable, it is certainly a possibility if resource limits are ignored.
Zbigniew Jaworowski explains, "The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false."
and "The notion of low pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric level, based on such poor knowledge, became a widely accepted Holy Grail of climate warming models. The modelers ignored the evidence from direct measurements of CO2 in atmospheric air indicating that in 19th century its average concentration was 335 ppmv."
Beck has found, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942 the latter showing more than 400 ppm." Here is a link to a copy of Beck's article that was published in Energy and Environment, a peer reviewed journal.
Jim, you need to remove your blinders and consider evidence that contradicts your views. Your failure to do so indicates that your views on global warming are not grounded in science.
I believe that, with a little research, you would discover that Dr, Hansen's GISS shows the largest temperature anomaly of the commonly referenced temperature sources.
I believe that, with a little research, you would discover that the average temperature measurement station from which data is collected and used by GISS is subject to measurement errors in excess of 2 degrees C according to the NCDC rating system. (www.surfacestations.org)
With a little critical thought, I believe you would realize that collecting temperature data from such error-prone measurement stations, massaging it through several "black box" computer programs and using it to report temperature anomalies to two decimal place "accuracy" is folly.
It would seam reasonable to spend a few million dollars to measure temperatures accurately, from properly sited and maintained measurement stations, before committing to spend trillions of dollars redesigning the world.
If you look at Figure 2 of Jaworowski's own paper you can see that atmospheric measurements before 1900 were horribly inaccurate. His comment about citing an average of 335 ppmv is ludicrous. Much of Jaworowski's work was only published in Lyndon LaRouche's journal.
Some comments about Beck's paper and the review process of E & E can be found here:
James, it's not me who has the blinders on. I have no trouble questioning the status quo (as I did with the Hydrogen Economy) but one does need substantive evidence to work with. Beck and Jaworowski do not provide this.
The link led to many other links critical to Beck, including this one
I'll point out just one concern of these critics. Beck says the CO2 level jumped from 290 ppm in 1925 to 470 ppm in 1942, then dove down again to 320 ppm by 1950. Pray tell, where did all this CO2 come from? And then go to? It makes no sense whatsoever. This is compared with the alternative hypothesis that these measurements do not reflect global values, but local variations.
As the critics point out, the Mauna Loa collection site was developed because CO2 measurement was so problematic; often due to local sources which distort measurements intended to represent global value.
But I agree that we disagree.
You may find this discussion interesting and perhaps enlightening.
I, for one, am inclined to have more confidence in the weight of the thousands of local measurements taken in the 19th century than I am in measurements taken today from air bubbles in ice cores. The ONLY thing we can say with any certainty about CO2 concentrations is that they have increased since 1960. Nothing more. The record before that time is sparse and inconclusive at best.
You asked the questions: Where did all that CO2 come from in the 1925 to 1942 time frame? Where did it go? The 1930s were scorching. Records were set all over the world that still stand. The 1950s and particularly the 1960s were very cold. Warmer water holds less CO2, cold water holds more. You do the math.
James Carson, RisQuant Energy
Mr Carson Sir. Your tactics are despicable.
"Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change
Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006)]"
"Divide by 100 to get changes in degrees Centigrade. Multiply that result by 1.8(=9/5) to get changes in degrees Fahrenheit.
Best estimate for absolute global mean for 1951-1980 is 14C = 57.2F, so add that to the temperature change if you want to use an absolute scale (this note applies to global annual means only, J-D and D-N !)
Example -- Table Value : 40 change : .40C or .72F abs. scale if global annual mean : 14.40C or 57.92F"
From the data, if you can read it, the values for J-D (Jan to Dec) anomoly for EVERY YEAR from 2001 to 2009 are GREATER than any from any prior year except 1998 (70).
As for the past ten years, I am just citing subject matter experts who happen to take a different view from yourself. You asked John for citations while belittling Lord Monckton. So, I gave three to you. I've got a lot more. Argue with them. Incidentally, is Lord Monckton any less qualified than Albert Gore?
The explanation you cite from the bottom supports MY interpretation. Over the past ten years, the previously rising curve has FLATLINED. As I look at YOUR chart above, I do not see any discernible increase since 1998. In fact, the five year average (red line) notches DOWN at the very end. The anomalies are NOT increasing and the five year average has recently decreased. That indicates a reversal that confirms what they say. Your earlier chart also clearly shows a flat line since 1998.
Although only an appointed Lord, Lord Stern was in Sweden yesterday, where he addressed a congress of ignoramuses at the great ski resort of Åre. Among other things he put in a good word for nuclear. So, perhaps he is has gotten the message. In the long run the Chinese will probably take it all, but I prefer them taking it in a thousand years instead of in a decade, which might happen with a nuclear fade-away in their competitors.
As I'm sure you now realize, this comment thread is not the optimal place to argue religion. :-)
Your quotation in an hilarious attempt to back up you position
"Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC….The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium…which is why 'global warming' is now called 'climate change.'" - Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado. "
Though true (see the graphs I posted) actually says NOTHING which can be used to refute IPCC. It "conveniently" ignores the fact that even Keen's carefully selected COLDEST year, 2007, is warmer than any year in the 20th century except for ONE YEAR in the 1990's.
Agruing with you is just too easy. I continue posting only to make sure no unsuspecting reader might get sucked in by your references to bogus "scientist politicians".
And regarding "running out of oil" solving CO2 loading growth in earth's atmosphere, that's ridiculous. Unchecked, coal will be used to substitute for oil and the CO2 loading problem will get worse, not better.
You guys are just so far off any base in reality, science or economics it's becoming funny, if it wasn't so serious an issue.
Readinbg the above reference clearly refutes your "exponential" claim, see graph below. Pretty much par for the course in discussions with you guys.
Len, your lies are despicable, not to mention foolish. Here are the credentials of those whom I cited:
Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Physical chemist Dr. Peter Stilbs, who chairs the climate seminar Department of Physical Chemistry at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm, has authored more than 165 scientific publications in refereed journals since 1970.
They are neither bogus nor politicians. I can cite dozens, perhaps hundreds more. Nevertheless, Edward is right. Your position wrt global warming is fundamentally religious. It is clear that you do not understand the science. Actually, it is very clear that you do not even understand what you yourself posts.
Len, your graph didn't make it. I'm guessing if you meant to post a picture the file type would be .jpg or .gif rather than .htm as you did when I viewed your source: "http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/118.htm". Looking at the web link I see lots of graphs but it isn't obvious which one you meant to post. What IS obvious however is you COMPLETELY missed Dr. Bunger's point . A little puzzler for you. What is the growth rate at 1.5% per year COMPOUNDED for 100 years? How big for example will $10,00,000 get by then? Considering that the money in this case is SPENT every year (but still compounding, kind of like politicians like to do with taxes) how much in TOTAL gets consumed? Now I know your IQ is about 75 points lower than mine but you can still figure this stuff out with the aid of internet tools, but if you're REALLY stuck I'll give you the answers. Meantime, reread, or better yet, actually read for the first time Jim's short article and make sure you understand it before you spout off again.
Your point about coal is almost interesting, but Dr. Jim Bunger is way ahead of you there and already converted into BOE (bbls of oil equivalent). Next you should look into the Fischer Tropsch efficiency and recalculate how many TRILLION bbls you think can be produced from same, in situ or otherwise? Reread this: Fifteen trillion boe is an astounding number considering we only have about 13 trillion boe on earth in oil, gas, coal oil sands, heavy oil and oil shale combined. And only a portion of this total, probably no more than one-third, can ultimately be recovered under reasonable economic conditions. This disparity, between IPCC projections and fossil fuel reality, is sufficient to call into question all the conclusions of the climate change models, as future CO2 concentrations are the principal input to the model that drives all the outputs. [emphasis added]
Again, as an expert, I implicitly trust Dr. Bunger infinitely more than I trust YOU, (Bunger's credentials are extremely well known, he's peer reviewed and an acknowledged WORLD expert, especially in unconventional oil ) and the fact that I know him personally doesn't impact my judgment in the slightest.
"I ask again. WHERE DO YOU GET A DECREASE IN THE PAST 10 YEARS?"
UAH MSU and RSS MSU (satellite data) both show a decrease.
GISS, on the other hand, contends that the globe's airports and miscellaneous other Urban Heat Islands continue to warm, although well within the error band identified by NCDC for the average US measurement station providing data to the GISS temperature set.
I still contend that it would be well worth spending a few $ millions to collect accurate temperature data from properly sited and maintained measuring stations before investing $ trillions reacting to temperature sets based on erroneous data.
I understand that measuring temperature accurately is not the easiest task, but it isn't the hardest either.
"Emissions in the B2 scenarios with harmonized global input assumptions (population, GDP, final energy; B2-MESSAGE, B2-AIM, B2-MARIA) are very close in 2100. Differences in emissions are largest around 2050, which reflects the different patterns of structural change in the energy systems in anticipation of depletion of conventional oil and gas. "
It is also quite clear that IPCC is considering resource depletion in its scenarios, eg look at the heading "Primary Energy EJ " in the table IPCC SRES Emissions Scenarios - Version 1.1 - World - B2 IMAGE . eg. oil use in 2020 is assigned to be 130 EJ, and in 2100 is assigned to be 86 EJ, a reasonable rate of depletion assumption if one listens to EIA and not theOilDrum, and includes tarsands and shale as oil. Other of their 43 complete scenarios make alternative assumptions about such things, some in line with more rapid depletion.
Considering the IPCC reports have been vetted and accepted by representatives of pretty much every government worldwide including the appointees from the Bush admin., I think I might take their statements over yours.
I'd like to think this is not a religion, at least to me. I for one, could be persuaded that global warming/climate change is a farce, but I do not think that's the case at this time.
And I DO appreciate the issues with temperature measurement that Edward brings up. Most of his posts seem to be reasonable.
What gets me and continues to get me is the CO2 level. No one questioned the CO2 levels from the ice cores 20 years ago; the science seemed to be fine THEN. But when it becomes a literal inconvenient truth to AGW deniers, they draw in discredited research from the likes of Beck and Jaworowski, which few serious researchers take seriously at this point. This is like disproving Darwin by citing LaMarck.
I think what sometimes happens on this thread is that people paint themselves into corners and then waste a bunch of effort defending their mindset. I try not to do that. When I make mistakes, I admit them. For example, I once thought CO2 could "settle" out of less dense methane, but that appears to be highly problematic. Something about Reynold's numbers. Mea Culpa. I was wrong. See? It's not so hard. (It's still a bit unclear to me because I know that a much harder gas separation occurs with Uranium separation.)
And on the subject of religion, I submit that the global warming believers and deniers are akin to the rival factions from "The Life of Brian", the Judean People's Front, and the People's Front of Judea, who both hate the Romans but prefer fighting amongst themselves instead.
The "Romans" in this case is not Global Warming, but peak oil. Dealing with Peak Oil will be hard enough such that GW or no GW, the solutions are not that much different.
Your reference hasn't a clue.
As I have suggested here previously, it is important to define the "problem" before designing the "solution".
This comment thread has touched on AGW and "peak oil"; energy independence has not been mentioned here so far, though that could change.
In previous threads, coal has been discussed as the "priority" from an AGW perspective. Oil is obviously the "priority" from a "peak oil" perspective. Those two facts strongly suggest that the "plan of attack" for dealing with the two issues would be very different, though the ultimate results might be similar. Certainly the "plan of attack" would be tightly focused in an economically constrained environment. I believe we are in an economically constrained environment.
I question whether anyone here "denies" that the globe has warmed since the trough of the "Little Ice Age". I certainly do not. I suspect most of us are rather glad it has warmed.
I believe many of us, myself included, are very skeptical of the AGW hypothesis and even more skeptical of the AGW hysteria. I acknowledge that it is not possible to "prove" what will happen 100 years in the future. It is even harder to "disprove".
I am extremely skeptical because my analysis suggests to me that none of the "solutions" to AGW being proposed publicly would actually "solve" the "problem" as defined. That makes me suspicious of the "slippery slope". I don't care how often or how loudly Waxman-Markey is proclaimed as the "solution" to "save the globe". My engineering analysis convinces me that such a claim is ridiculous on its face.
King Arthur (Camelot):
It's true! It's true! The crown has made it clear. The climate must be perfect all the year.
A law was made a distant moon ago here: July and August cannot be too hot. And there's a legal limit to the snow here In Camelot. The winter is forbidden till December And exits March the second on the dot. By order, summer lingers through September In Camelot. Camelot! Camelot! I know it sounds a bit bizarre, But in Camelot, Camelot That's how conditions are. The rain may never fall till after sundown. By eight, the morning fog must disappear. In short, there's simply not A more congenial spot For happily-ever-aftering than here In Camelot.
Camelot! Camelot! I know it gives a person pause, But in Camelot, Camelot Those are the legal laws. The snow may never slush upon the hillside. By nine p.m. the moonlight must appear. In short, there's simply not A more congenial spot For happily-ever-aftering than here In Camelot.
Ed :-)
If you were the head of the Soviet Army, you'd never have defeated the Germans, because you'd spend all your time planning exactly how you'd defeat their incursion. The same goes for Omaha beach when that "plan" went out the window.
AGW is a big enough problem that it will take years to figure out a plan, if it is indeed possible. Criticizing Kyoto as being insufficient is missing the point. If nothing else, it was a learning experience. We have a lot to learn.
And if you think this is all superfluous, then you are free to bow out and live your life without disruption. Just don't be a net contributor of CO2 to MY atmosphere. If you are still doing that, then expect further intrusions of this sort.
The G8 did not legislate anything. G8 announced a "goal" without a "plan", which renders it just a "wish". Therefore, it deserves the same level of respect as the song lyrics. The interjection was not an obfuscation, but rather an attempt at clarification, by comparison, with humor.
W-M is arguably an attempt to legislate lots of things, including "support for solar thermal and nuclear over coal, electric transport over petroleum", all wrapped up with a massive new federal revenue stream from the sale of emissions allowances.
In both cases you mention above there was a plan which was believed to offer the opportunity for success. When they didn't, they were changed, very quickly and "on the fly". None of the "plans" on the table today regarding AGW offers the opportunity for success; and, the climate scientists on both sides of the issue KNOW that.
Before you can develop a plan, you must establish a goal or goals. In the case of AGW, the goal must be to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations, at least initially. That means first stopping the growth of annual emissions rates, followed by reductions in annual emissions rates. Continuing to "dig the hole deeper" (the developing countries) while others are "shoveling the dirt back into the hole" (the developed countries) is insane. (Just visualize the cartoon.)
Kyoto, if it taught us anything, taught us that nations will lie and cheat while continuing to maintain a self-righteous image. It certainly has not been a reassuring experience.
The members of the G8 didn't legislate anything individually either; or, even promise to do so. They just made a joint "wish" when they couldn't agree to do anything.
The only thing I can imagine which would be worse than a larger federal government is an even larger world government.
So you are saying if all the shovels don't stop at exactly the same time, it's not a plan? Before one stops digging this hole (your analogy) then the digging will slow down at first. I don't see why this is so problematic to you. It just seems evidence of practical reality.
If some countries stop polluting whilst others continue, I admit, that's a problem. As I recall, slavery wasn't outlawed worldwide all at once either. That doesn't mean it still didn't make sense for some countries to outlaw it before others (and at an economic cost to them as well).
It certainly seemed problematic to a lot of people when the US didn't sign on to Kyoto. Right, Len? :-)
It is logical to stop digging the hole deeper before starting to fill it in again. Right now, China is digging faster than all of the developed countries would be expected to fill in the hole if W-M were adopted and adhered to by all of the developed countries. Therefore, the hole keeps getting deeper.
Maybe I'm just missing something.
Then we have so-called "scientists" like Hansen who screamed bloody murder under the Bush administration that he was being "muzzled" all this while giving over ONE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED interviews?!!?? Who is the "scientist politician" here? Hansen was BREAKING OFFICIAL GOVERNMENTAL POLICY by discussing policy that by definition was "above his pay grade" and when someone brought it to his attention the screaming began. But we've been over this ground before and you'll just ignore for the 1400th time having your arguments chopped out from beneath, ahh faith is such a wonderful thing. Whatever you do, don't read Hansen's latest because he's not saying nice things about the Obama administration's cap and trade plan either, so it is both topical to Fred's gold star article here and underscores that he's still a loose cannon on deck.
Your discussion on coal is so mistaken that I don't even know where to begin. Needless to say mining engineering is yet another area of your ignorance. You pull out the "expert" card every time someone steps on your holy grail, and yet pretend expertise yourself that is both ill warranted and misinformed. Leave THIS to the experts and Bunger is certainly one of those without a doubt.
Speaking of Bunger your post mentions this link, which I suspect was a mistake on your part, but one can never tell. From that link we find this quote, which is VERY interesting on the face of it, "In a small number of cases slight corrections were made after the publication of the document to prevent negative emissions which occurred as a result of the standardization procedure". So we have an admission (for a "small" as in we aren't going to tell you ALL the places we did it) of book-cooking so the numbers come out right. Well at least THERE they admit to cooking the books, as McIntyre has proven getting these "scientists" like Hansen to admit to ANYTHING they've done is about as easy as pulling hen's teeth, so he just has to continue catching them in lies and mistruths and support himself by donations NONE of which come from big oil. BTW McIntyre IS a mining engineer so for amusement I should send him your theories on Alberta coal.
Len: The decrease is demonstrated in your own chart. You know that little hook down at the end of the five year average line that I have been yapping about. That average anomaly would not, could not, have hooked like that if temps were not falling. Get a clue.
Len: As for the climatologist count, HUNDREDS of qualified scientists now dissent from the so-called consensus. Many of them were part of the IPCC process and have either recanted, or say that they were overruled by the bureaucrats who wrote the summary.
Len: You do have a good point about the coal. (finally). We have been predicting the end of oil for many decades. This has been going on since the nineteenth century! As we adapted when we nearly drove whales to extinction hunting them for their oil for lamps, we will adapt again.
In the period from about 1943-1946, the CO2 concentration dropped like a rock from 470ppm to 350ppm, the equivalent of removing almost 1 trillion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. Talk about a giant sucking sound.
Then, in the next two years the CO2 concentration jumped back up by 80ppm (from 350ppm to 430ppm), the equivalent of adding 615 billion metric ton of CO2 to the atmosphere.
In the next couple years, it again dropped by 110ppm, the equivalent of sucking 845 billion metric tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
For comparison, burning of fossil fuels currently increases the atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 1.5ppm (11.5 billion metric tons CO2) each year.
If we are to believe that the graph represents the actual atmospheric CO2 concentration before 1957, then presumably there must be physical mechanism(s) for such wild fluctuations in he atmospheric CO2 concentration.
My proposals: Black hole fly-bys to explain huge decreases in short time periods. Opening (and then closing) of giant CO2 valve allowing leak from the earth's interior to explain the large increases over short time periods.
Other proposals welcomed.
[End Comment]
James, earlier you asked me to do the math. Well, here's the math and it shows the Beck's findings don't make any sense.
Ferdinand's own countryman Anders Silvertsson from Uppsala University has a far more detailed analysis than Bunger's Study of World Oil Resources with a Comparison to IPCC Emissions Scenarios. Unfortunately I can't link to the many excellent graphs and charts because it is in .pdf format. Fred can perhaps translate the first page for us, but don't worry the rest is in excellent English. Furthermore Fred, perhaps you and Anders can have a drink together and peruse those Scandinavian beauties on the beach and discuss low viscosity lubricants and give us a detailed report?
Ernst-Georg Beck, M.Sc. Biology, Merian-Schule, Germany
Beck has a Master's degree in Biology, not meteorology or climate science. I've read he's a retired high school teacher, but I can't confirm that.
Jeff: World War II didn't not produce excessive amounts of CO2 (compared with industrial output of the 1990's-2000's.) We just blew up lots of stuff. And if anything, it would've gone UP, not down.
I give up. Not worth it.
JeffP: I didn't mean to concur with the specifics of Len's numbers, although that reading is reasonable. My only point was that we have found replacement resources many many MANY times. Most of the time, we are mere years from depleting carbon based fuels entirely.
As to the number of dissenting scientists, I know of 700 as tabulated by Senator Inhofe. If you have a source that says that there are a lot more, by all means post a link.
Len: Since you would no doubt find the following quotes to be rank apostasy, I have little hope that you will read them, two of whom former IPCC scientists. But, others may find them interesting.
"Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists." - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
"I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said," explained South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
James Carson, RisQuant Energy
As for Mr Silvertsson, I don't know him. But I suspect, just suspect, that somebody has told him to steer clear of my good self. I wonder why.
I know that atmospheric CO2 can't vary by 10s or 100's of ppm per year. And so do you. Beck pulled out old data from bad collections made 100 years ago in an effort to discredit more current findings. That's what happened. It's bad science.
No, Jeff keeps hinting at his scheme to unlock oil shale, not coal. Like almost any new energy scheme, I double- and triple-check the thermal and heat transfer implications of any strategy when practically applied.
I'd bet on PHEVs before I'd bet on oil shale. They are not unrelated.
This Link leads to two links that critique Beck.
One is by Harro Meijer of the University of Groningen.
The other is by Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
Please let me know when I've cut it.
Note also that Energy and Environment is not even recognized as an academic journal by ISI. Scopus lists it as a trade journal.
I knew where you were heading all along. The scary thing about you and your ilk Len is that you are the archetype of someone who quite literally knows just enough to be dangerous.
Now do the math and show me how your little region in Alberta gets to displace the 400 MILLION bbls per day of oil (which as Fred can ask you will come from WHERE and which because of the cumulative effect will have already exceeded all known and unknown oil reserves) which is what the IPCC projects to get THEIR carbon saturations. Add to that the growth in coal which they LIKEWISE factored into their scenarios (apparently missing your little hidden gem there in a province I seriously doubt you've even set FOOT in).
Beyer did a good little analysis to debunk Beck's paper (actually he did no such thing but Googled for "Beck and debunk" or some such). His paraphrasing from smarter people allowed him to say, "Where is this CO2 coming from?". Bunger and Silvertsson did exactly the same thing and further embarrassed the IPCC in the process. But they've got pretty thick skins and a LOT of political clout so they can handle it and force intelligent analysis to the fringes to be published in journals that will more and more be marginalized... well we've heard this song before.
Fred, there is no reason Anders would be afraid of you, if you look at his paper I'd be surprised you find anything there to disagree with. You both have a clear understanding of the economic and social reasons oil won't reach the kinds of numbers the IEA predicted and Herr Silvertsson adds the geologic background to cement the story. He may even be a future collaborator. On the beach you could practice a stochastic analysis of pulchritude based on melanin concentrations. ;)
So you agree that Beck's paper is debunked?
First a rather useful review of CO2 concentration measurements can be found at http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Ferdinand E has done a thorough job, a good introduction for laymen.
Second, Ferdinand B has missed the boat. While much of the original criticism of Stern was of a similar bent, it was realized about a year later that the assignable costs for climate change were not linear with global temperature increase, but grow exponentially. Costs for mitigation are thus insurance against disaster. You can get a good idea of whlat the cost estimates are by looking at two figures, one from Stern and one from the IPCC report, which you can find at
BTW your new friend Eli has posted an invalid link above on his rabett blogspot. Since the link doesn't work I can't know what it says but of course I suspect from the content of his post that it is something of a Pascal's Wager straw man argument. By assigning nearly infinite scale costs, I can make ANYTHING economic or uneconomic as was done with Dr. Cooper's anti-nuclear "report". My statistics counter is that while it may be worth spending a dollar for a lottery ticket when the prize is trillions, it is NOT worth spending trillions, even if the prize is mega-trillions. At the low odds of success, the expected value even with a vast (but not infinite) reward is still quite negative, hence the rub. Pragmatists like Ed Reid and I want to see something that has a better chance of success, ESPECIALLY considering the immense costs. At least in my case if I'm expected to shoulder the burden of society's choice in this matter I sure as hell don't want weak science and shoddy models to guide the decision process.
I cannot defend or condemn any of the comments I've been reading here, but it certainly has been one of the most inspiring debates on an EP article in a long while.
One scientific fact is undeniable whether the earth's climate is warming or not - climatic patterns are dramatically changing, and not for the good of us. Historical seasonal patterns of decades ago are no longer reliably being repeated all over the world. Here in Ontario and eastern Canada we have been experiencing one of the coldest and wettest summers on record, all apparently because the jet stream has stayed much farther south than it "normally" did in the past during the summer months, leading many to disbelieve AGW. But in other parts of the world where the tropical air masses are present, they are experiencing record droughts and heat. In the Arctic the ice sheet melt-back during the summer months has been unprecedented in recent years, as also has been the gradual retreat of mountain glaciers in many parts of the northern hemisphere.
My point is do we really care weather these effects are due to warming or cooling of the global climate. About the only thing that our "changing" climate patterns correspond to in recent decades is man's likely increasing influence on it by increasing emissions and destruction of the biosphere like forestation etc.
So unless someone has other bullet-proof theories to what is causing our climate to change, isn't it reasonable to do SOMETHING about our influences rather than nothing? If nothing is done until a theory is proven rock solid valid, it could be too late with a price none of us can afford.
I didn't know technical arguments were bartered, so the answer is no. I don't know anything about heat islands.
Add an l to Eli's link: http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/12/return-of-fat-bird-eli-and-ms.html
I cannot take Rabett seriously. Nevertheless, I did check out the responses by Meijer and Keeling.
Meijer's critique in the link provided is unconvincing. While I would agree that the measurement error for Beck is very large, and problematic, Meijer fails to address the question as to how the differences can be systematically that large and so dramatically upwardly biased over thousands of observations. Very few of the historical observations are as low as the ice core data. There is virtually no overlap, in fact. Beck also makes the unaddressed and valid claim that the modern data as reported and the ice core data is averaged and that the disaggregated observations today have a much larger variance than reported.
Keeling's critique is not much better. He makes the point that any measurements taken before 1960 are pretty much worthless because his father's methods were not yet in use (convenient) and because the collection of the data was not systematic. Note that this second critique can also be applied to the ice core data.
Keeling: "In effect, Beck has turned back the clock to before 1957, rejecting the notion of an atmospheric background, a concept which has stood the test of 50 years of scientific scrutiny." I find this comment curious, if not bizarre. Beck wasn't 'rejecting' the notion of an atmospheric background, he tried to measure it, albeit with inadequate data.
Each of their criticisms of location and variability can just as easily be applied to the ice core data. At what time of day was this bubble formed? Under what conditions? Why do we believe that this observation is representative or otherwise more meaningful than a measurement taken in a Paris garden in 1856? Apply their critique of Beck, the ice core data is useless.
JamesC, You've hit the nail on the head, in this kind of debate evidence that gets discarded by one side for one reason likewise discredits something on the other side for the SAME reason. Unfortunately as you see from Beyer's reply, the AGW crowd doesn't want to play that way. In fact the AGW side wants there not to be a debate at all, which is unfortunate because to my mind that just shows they've got a weak hand.
But this debate really is irrelevant. Bills WILL be passed and lifestyles WILL change. Whether for good or ill is not known yet, but the likelihood is quite strong that for many it will be painful. If you're currently paying 10 cents per kwh, expect to pay 20 or more. If your business won't survive at the new prices... oh well, perhaps you can move it to China.
Precisely which irrefutable scientific facts convince you that the warming we have experienced until recently is all/predominantly/largely AGW?
I grant that the recent coincidence is a fact. For the past decade, the coincidence is questionable.
Coincidence is not causation.
If coincidence were causation, the historical record would support attributing the increase in CO2 to the temperature increase, since temperature has preceeded CO2 increase. In the recent period of coincidence, temperature apparently led CO2 by ~100 years, based on the available data.
However, it now appears that whatever linkage might exist between temperature and CO2 is being tested by our somnolent sun. NASA currently acknowledges that we may be entering a solar minimum.
Should be interesting. Hopefully, if I am not "encouraged" to take the "little black pill" at one of my "end of life counselling sessions", I will be around to watch.
The ice core results correspond to the
Where is the peer reviewed article that refutes the Keeling and Meijer refutation of Beck? (Keeling and Meijer were both published in E&E). If you wouldn't accept my comments at face value, then there is no reason for me to regard yours.
And so it goes on and on.
I have found that the AGW debate largely involves working to support or re-affirm well-established principles accepted by the the scientific community at large (like CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years). That is, mostly a waste of time. If and when you can finally provide the proponderance of evidence so that the critic can no longer wriggle away from it (that is, you've managed to push the puppy's nose in his accident) then the critic will drop it and move to the next inane point.
Yes, largely a waste of time. I delude myself into thinking that some 3rd-party reading these ridiculous exchanges will see one side attempting (more or less) to state their case, and the other side resorting to Clintonesque questioning of basic established principles ("It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is....").
And so it goes on and on.
I have found that the AGW debate largely involves working to support or re-affirm well-established principles accepted by the the scientific community at large (like CO2 levels over the past 650,000 years). That is, mostly a waste of time. If and when you can finally provide the proponderance of evidence so that the critic can no longer wriggle away from it (that is, you've managed to push the puppy's nose in his accident) then the critic will drop it and move to the next inane point.
Yes, largely a waste of time. I delude myself into thinking that some 3rd-party reading these ridiculous exchanges will see one side attempting (more or less) to state their case, and the other side resorting to Clintonesque questioning of basic established principles ("It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is....").
The ice core results correspond to the Milankovitch Cycles and thus have independent verification.
Your notion of the skeptics as being outside the mainstream and not serious is obstinate and foolish. Hundreds, if not thousands of qualified scientists have expressed grave skepticism of AGW. I have cited many. I can cite many, many, MANY more. Why have you refused to consider their views? Is it because they are apostates?
Your link only shows that the CO2 levels vary with the Milankovitch cycles on a kiloyear time scales. They correlate. Okay, so what? It does NOT confirm, however, that the Vostok levels measured are are representative of anything other than a glacial environment.
This shows that the ice cores seem to correlate with actual CO2 values (Mauna Loa) at least fairly well: Law Dome It might not be perfect, but it doesn't have to be; Ice Age CO2 levels never got much above 300 ppm. Now we are close to 400 ppm, and it's risen nearly 100 ppm in the last hundred years. If the Ice Cores are even within 25% of the atmospheric levels at that time, then they confirm that present CO2 levels are without precedent in any recent history.
There are PLENTY of legitimate areas of discussion in the AGW debate; economic costs of mitigation, reliability and accuracy of surface temperature measurement; the actual effect of elevated CO2 levels in the atmosphere; the possible role of other mitigating, self-stabilizing forces, etc.
And there may well be lots of legitimate AGW skeptics. Yet you choose to cite Beck, Monckton, and Jaworowski. If there are so many of these thoughtful critics, then why are you leading off with the B or C team? Even Jeff has admitted that Beck is debunked.
In terms of my belief system, you might be surprised that I parallel Michael Crichton, who said on the Charlie Rose show that global warming is real, it should be addressed, but we shouldn't panic about it (or words to that effect) [Start watching the clip at about 40:00-45:00]. I concur. One shouldn't panic. That's unproductive. On the other hand, I find denial of our current situation (CO2 levels) similarly unproductive.
Ancient ice shows warming ahead of CO2 (UPI) CO2 & temperature: ice core correlations (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard) QUOTE (Luboš Motl) The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations have been correlated but we know for sure that the temperature was the cause and the concentration was its consequence, not the other way around. If you look carefully at the graphs, you will see that the carbon dioxide concentrations lag behind the temperature by 800 years."
He is not the first and certainly not the last to note that even in the much-ballyhooed ice core data there is a substantial lag between the uptick of CO2 concentrations and the temperature. In other words, the temp goes UP first followed by the CO2. The obvious answer of course is the warmer ocean retains less CO2, just like your warm soda goes flat. Since the CO2 levels attributable to man only account for 1.5% of the TOTAL, we need to look at other sources/sinks as well. But I've said all this before and yes, this isn't my day job as I have better things to do with my time than peruse dusty old reports. He keeps things lively and approachable, albeit ruffling a few feathers at realclimate.org (otherwise known as realclimatepropaganda.org)
If I'm going to read anything with my valuable spare time, it had better be witty and urbane, as I largely find Herr Banks' articles to be. Keep up the good work Ferdinand! ;)
Some quotes from the paper:
"This sequence of events is still in full agreement with the idea that CO2 plays, through its greenhouse effect, a key role in amplifying the initial orbital forcing. First, the 800-year time lag is short in comparison with the total duration of the temperature and CO2 increases ( 5000 years). Second, the CO2 increase clearly precedes the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation (Fig. 3)."
"The sequence of events during this Termination is fully consistent with CO2 participating in the latter 4200 years of the warming. The radiative forcing due to CO2 may serve as an amplifier of initial orbital forcing, which is then further amplified by fast atmospheric feedbacks (39) that are also at work for the present-day and future climate."
And since you are now talking about CO2/temperature correlation, I assume you've given up on the issue of historic CO2 levels.
Have you made it to the second link yet?
So, let us rehash for YOU. Is there a correlation between CO2 and temperature? Answer YES, the CO2 rises AFTER the temperature rises!
The initial trigger was the orbital shift but the continuing rise of temperature was due to the CO2.
In your parlance, the temperature continues to rise AFTER the CO2 is released.
The fact is that we have no idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels have been before 1960. At least, not within any reasonable margin of error. In fact, we do not have a good measure of temperatures either. All we have are climatic indicators, much of which contradicts the notion that temperatures are at some sort of high.
JimB: One more time.... Why are the ice core samples any more indicative of CO2 levels than the 19th century measurements?
Because they track the Milankovitch cycles (yes, Jeff, these are the orbital fluctuations that have triggered the last half dozen or so Ice Ages) and can be verified with other geologic records, like sea shell depositions. Beck's records don't track with anything. They indicate huge rises and fall in global CO2 with no mechanism to explain how this could possibly happen.
The Law Dome records track cores to more recent times and show that CO2 around 100 years ago was about 290 ppm or so.
James further says: The fact is that we have no idea what the atmospheric CO2 levels have been before 1960. This is false. We know is was about 250-300 ppm before the industrial age, and it has risen to 385 ppm since then. We know it fluctuates between 200-300ppm during the last several Ice Ages. Even if these numbers are off by 30%, it still means we are at unprecedented levels NOW than in the past 650,000 years.
JimB: Just because the ice core data correlates with the Milankovitch cycles means little. My income correlates with Warren Buffetts. Does that mean I make as much money as he does? The correlation says nothing about levels.
As for what the atmospheric levels of CO2 were before 1960, I have already pointed out the fatal flaw in the ice core data. You have already asserted the point that Beck's re-analysis is flawed because of the lack of controls on the measurements. How is that any different from the ice core data? You can't have it both ways.
Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC cocoordinating lead author on the Technical Report on Carbon Capture & Storage... "I have studied the ice core record, in detail, and am concerned that those who claim to have a model of our climate future haven't a clue about the forces driving our climate past"
Another point, the entire solar system shows distinctive signs of warming. Is that mere coincidence?
So, your statement that CO2 levels have "never" been above 300ppm in 650,000 years based on ice core data is nonsense. You can say that the one hundred year average has never been above 300ppm. Even then, you would have to make the assumption that ice core core measurements are an unbiased estimate of CO2 levels everywhere. If vegetation introduces a bias when taken in a Parisian garden, mightn't the lack of vegetation in the middle of a continent bereft of life introduce the opposite bias?
I find it interesting that the AGW proponents will grasp at any straw that supports their theory, but disregard log sized objects that are "inconvenient" to their "truth". So for instance, as you've noted the fact that Mars is 1C deg warmer must be due to those two pesky man made rovers toiling away on the planet and not that big yellow thing up in the sky? Jim wants to point to Milankovitch cycles, but DISREGARD them as CONTINUING to heat the planet opting to claim they STARTED the heating process but then had NOTHING to do with the further warming, blaming it instead on the CO2 "forcing". This is what is referred to as a red herring. If orbital oscillations cause the earth to be closer to the sun (and coincidentally if sunspot activity is heavy) the earth warms up. No big mystery here, the earth is being bombarded by tremendous energy from that big yellow thing all the time. In fact there's a discussion right here on EnergyPulse about solar heat energy. I haven't vetted the numbers but believe they are in the ballpark. So what happens when the earth receives 4,600 quadrillion BTU's of sun energy instead of 4,500? How about 5,000? When you hear hoof beats what's the first thing that comes to mind? Horses? Why obsess about reindeer then?
So, I guess that climate is going to be a big thing just about everywhere. Here in Sweden - where the environment is one of the best in the world - the belief is that if more is not done then everything everywhere is going to hell, regardless of what others do or don't, and while I don't have anything against keeping the west coast beaches of this country in apple pie order, I don't think that we are dealing with something that can always be discussed on the plane of logic.
What is it that you want to convince people to do?
The Law Dome cores go up to close to the present day and correlate pretty well with measured levels. That's why they know the cores represent a pretty good measurement of the CO2 of the past, not only in a relative sense, but in absolute numbers as well. Maybe the match isn't perfect, but it doesn't have to be; 30% is close enough to show we are sailing in uncharted waters right now.
The 100 year average issue is well-taken, but for a huge spike to occur and then vanish, again, one would need a mechanism(s) that would allow huge amounts of CO2 to enter and leave the atmosphere. The most likely way this could occur is via the oceans, probably via a delta Q (heat) of some kind. But again, what would be the mechanism? The records all show annual changes to CO2 to be in the 1-2 ppm range, not 10-20 ppm and certainly not 100-200 ppm. Given that a different mechanism would likely be needed to take the CO2 out, it's very unlikely (well nigh impossible) for a huge spike to be created and then vanish without showing up in the record.
Our oceans are huge, but they only interact with the atmosphere at its surface. There are practical limits (even with huge sunspot activity) as to how quickly they can be heated up in a single year.
Note also this averaging process will eliminate the time-of-day and time-of-season biases that can plague point data measurements such as those cited by Beck.
We are burning a million years of carbon sequestration (via green plant growth) annually with our coal and oil use. And with all of that, we are raising the CO2 levels 1-2 ppm per year. There's simply no mechanism to create (and remove) the spike you are speculating about.
Note that taking the 100 years of 1910-2010 with a beginning CO2 level of 290 ppm and an ending level of 385 ppm, and noting that levels were 320 ppm in 1960, we have an average level for this century of about 330 ppm or so, higher than any 100 year average in the ice cores.
I don't see building nuclear power plants instead of coal plants as costing Trillions more. And that's all we really have to do and can do.
Len, Jealous your folks didn't send you to Harvard? Me suspects that UNDERGRADUATE degrees from Harvard are more easily attainable than GRADUATE degrees, but what do me know? BTW my brother went to Yale and I could have gone - in both cases on free full ride scholarships, so not having wealthy parents isn't really a problem. Or maybe they just import smart guys like us to make up for the dullards with rich daddies. ;_)
JimB, you wisely dropped the orbital fluctuations point so I guess I can add that to my win column. Here's another link debunking that canard.. Guess the boys over at RealClimate are going to need to burn the midnight oil to refute the latest. Glad they're on the "winning" side what with all the "scientist politicians" supporting their position. BTW, they're about to lose the APS imprimatur, or the APS gets to lose hundreds of dues paying members who had NOTHING to do with the small subcommittee who published the alarmist statement in the first place. But Len doesn't respect any scientist who joins the denier camp, Nobel Prizes be damned. After all even Gore has one of them so what are they worth? Click on the link in that link and you'll have them name by name, and can make fun of the higher education locations they represent and/or got their diplomas at. You can even make fun of Len's cousin ;_)
Laurence I. Gould Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section APS
BTW, just noticed my paste buffer had the same text so my third link above is wrong. Here's the corrected Open Letter to the American Physical Society. Naturally you didn't catch the mistake, you NEVER click on links. LOL
Now off to my dictionary to look up quackes and fakiers... LOL
Anyway, I guess that it must be my bad education and educational habits that keep me from understanding this thing about nuclear waste that James is talking about. I spend a bit of time in France, and I'll be damned if I ever heard anyone in that country mention nuclear 'dechet' - although that could be due to my rotten knowedge of the French language. What I suspect is that when the next generation of nuclear equipment comes along (Gen 4) they are going to burn up all that waste. As a matter of fact I've given some thought to keeping some of it in my bedroom, in order to sell it to our French friends when the time comes.
Speaking of Gen 4 equipment, I have been assured that it will never appear. Of course I'm stupid enough to believe that the nuclear physicist who told me that HOPES that it wont.
The entire Great Lakes is contaminated with mercury from coal pant emissions. You can only eat fish you catch there once a week now. I'd say this is a considerably more vexing problem than "a slab" somewhere on an island in a river.
But like Jeff, you get off track from the issue we were discussing; past CO2 levels. First you denied it, now you are saying that clean-up is expensive. That may very well be. But that wasn't the point. The point is (no more and no less) that we are at CO2 levels unprecedented in the past 650,000 years. This is supported with strong scientific evidence.
So this open letter has 60 signatories from APS members out of a total membership of 46,000. Let's charitably assume that 40,000 of them are cowering out of fear of losing DOE grants or whatever, and only 6,000 can voice their opinion freely. Congratulations! You've got to 1%!!!
As to off track topics, what was the name and topic of this article again? By rights the discussion shouldn't be devolving into the nuances of theories about how to measure CO2 and historic temperatures (not only unproven but CANNOT be proven), but rather the societal and economic impacts of Climate Change legislation. But by all means accuse ME of getting off track, I got thick skin. :)
JimB, your comment on fish quality wrt mercury in the Great Lakes is nonsense. There are some problems with inland lakes, but NOT with the Great Lakes themselves. Show me a fish advisory for the great lakes that makes this once per week recommendation for anyone other than pregnant women and infants.
Banks, I really couldn't care less about the solution to nuclear waste in France and Sweden. In the US, it has not been solved. I still maintain that storing decades of such toxic waste on an island in the middle of the Mississippi River is downright foolish, not to mention irresponsible.
About the Great Lakes. The once a week recommendation for pregnant women and infants is enough to tell me that I don't want any part of fish caught in those lakes.
Carson is right about the US having a nonsensical nuclear waste "plan". Yucca Mtn is NOT a plan, never has been, never will be. I personally blame this on Jimmy Carter. He overreacted to Three Mile Island because when he went to visit someone handed him an already exposed radiation badge. Either it was sloppiness on someone's part or someone was pursuing a dubious agenda, but in either case we haven't seen any new nukes since then. We also haven't made progress on reprocessing nuclear waste. In another decade I won't be surprised if this country CANNOT even build a nuclear power plant at all. We're already forgetting how to do other things, including how to get to the moon. If it took less than 10 yrs the first time, why would it take 20 years the SECOND time, considering we supposedly already know what we're doing?
I'm guessing not all these fish are caught in the Great Lakes?.
Jim, to keep this thread from being entirely wasted, I can address something you said you weren't clear about: separation of gases of different molecular weights.
Gases are infinitely miscible with one another; that's one of the defining characteristics of the gaseous state. They intermix freely, and each component behaves essentially as if the other components were not there. If you started with a container in which gas A was on one side of a divider and gas B on the other side, then when you removed the divider the two gases would diffuse through one another until each was distributed equally through the entire volume of the container.
In a mix of two gases of different molecular weight in a gravity field, the pressure of the mix decreases exponentially with altitude with a characteristic distance (the gravitational potential difference at which the presure is halved) that depends on the average molecular weight of the mix. (Assuming isothermal conditions throughout). But the partial pressure for each component decreases with a characteristic distance that depends on its own molecular weight. So the relative partial pressures of the two components shift with altitude. At higher altitudes, the mix will be relatively depleted in the heavier component compared to the lighter one. But the separation is a slow diffusion process, easily overwhelmed by any convective mixing. The lower atmosphere is dominated by convective mixing, which is why you won't find any difference in the oxygen to nitrogen level as a function of altitude.
Not below the tropopause, that is. But above the tropopause -- in the stratosphere, where the atmosphere is, uh, stratified -- you will, indeed, be able to measure a slow decline in the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen with increasing altitude. Along with a slightly stronger decline in the ratio of CO2 to other gases -- and a relative increase in helium.
You haven't read many of these discussions. I can think of FAR lower points...lol.
Yes, I was made clearer about those separations. I think it is called scale height. It is why hydrogen escapes faster than other gases because its scale height is higher and then it can be knocked away by solar wind particles or whatever.
Jeff, how about a challenge to see how many others sign that letter by say October 1? We could check back then. Not that it really matters. You will no doubt find any result to somehow be in support of your positions.
Of course when the "banner", that would be you, had his own agenda, then it becomes difficult to take off the blinders and put personal prejudice aside. If you want a moderated site go to RealClimate, they don't allow ANYTHING that stands in the way of their agenda to hit their sacred pages. Perhaps they'll allow you to sign up as a censor, er I mean moderator. If I get a bit short sometimes it is surely because I get so fed up with others doing the same. Blame it on me if you want but I'm not one to back down from a bully, online or otherwise, never have never will.
I tell you what Roger, this will be my last post in this thread, not because I "lost" anything but because I have better things to do with my time. If this were a real moderated debate, in person I'd have a better score regardless, because of all the dropped arguments, that's the way it works in debate, called a flow sheet. But again, it doesn't matter whether there is ANY science to man made global warming, the politicians have deemed it so, therefore it is so. During the middle ages it didn't matter if you believed the earth revolved around the sun either, you were on the wrong side of the political powers.
Your statement above expresses nicely what the problem is: you see the matter as a contest in which your personal standing is on the line. You're concerned about point scoring and "winning". Any tactic that furthers your position in the "contest" is OK with you, even if it means obscuring the issue and diverting attention from inconvenient points.
I quite understand that a lot of people -- maybe most -- operate on the same basis. It's just not what I look for in the comment threads on Energy Pulse. I have a perhaps quixotic interest in facts and issues, and zero interest in witnessing personal contests.
Roger, if you would ban based on the tone of JeffP's posts, then you would ban just about everyone here. You are right, we are fortunate that you don't moderate this forum.
Of course, as Jeff points out, the US is in retreat regardless of the number of wars that are going on, or trips to Mars and Venus that are being planned. The only mystery for me is why they decided to move backward instead of forward, unless somebody like Jon Stewart, with a gutter brain behind his gutter language, has decided that moving backward is the new American Way.
About EnergyPulse. Everything is relative in this old world, but when people ask me how to get an education in energy economics, I immediately send them to EnergyPulse. They ______ sure can't get an education in that subject from most of the books and most of the articles that are being written - with certain beautiful exceptions.
i retian a very soft spot for the US Army. In contrast to every school and every employer the Army's word was good as gold. After a year of intensive trainng as an EM I got selected for OCS. Have all the jokes you want, officer schooling and getting those gold bars was the proudest day of my life.
My timing was bad. I had already paid every penny for my education between wars. Some posts on EnergyPulse annoy me.But not so much as to to have them censored.
Calling spent fuel waste is like burning one gallon of gas from your 20 gallon tank and calling the remaining 19 gallons waste. Not only is there residual Uranium-235 and other fissile isotopes in the spent fuel there is also a very large amount of fissionable Uranium-238. Yes, this requires a fast spectrum reactor but it and all the leftover "depleted" uranium from previous enrichment processes (about 1,000,000 tons in the US alone) will yield the same 1 MW day per gram when it is fissioned.


text:
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon.com Books at the time of purchase will apply to the purchase of this product.
Get it today!Shop Now
OrAdd to Wish List
Sherlock Holmes is confronted by the greatest fear of law enforcement, the perfect crime. He alone realizes that murder has been committed in a small lakeside village in rural Wales. But even as he begins to amass evidence, he realizes that it is not presentable in court. Local law enforcement officials do not even believe that a crime has been perpetrated. Holmes' deductive powers and creative strategizing are put to their sternest test. The denouement will shock the reader.. Price: $11.66
© Copyright 2016 - Christmas.com. All rights reserved and protected by Christmas Spirit


text:
Michael Wayne Hundley, 58, of Boonville, passed away at Landmark Hospital in Columbia on Wednesday, July11, 2012 the day before his 59th birthday.
Funeral services for Mike will be held at Davis Funeral Chapel at 11:00 o'clock Tuesday morning, July 17th, 2012 with Rev. Mel Eaton officiating. Visitation will be at Davis Funeral Chapel on Monday evening from 6:00 until 8:00 o'clock. Friends may call from noon until time of the service.
Mike Hundley was born in Boonville, July 12, 1953, the son of Walter Richard Hundley Jr. and Norma Allen Hundley. Mike had worked in Boonville until health problems had disabled him. Mike had been on kidney dialysis for many years and had had two kidney transplants. He accepted his situation realistically and with courage and an unbelievable toughness. He never complained, lived life to the fullest, never met a stranger, and made friends wherever he went. Mike enjoyed attending local sporting events where he seemed, always to meet even more people and make more friends.
Mr. Hundley was preceded in death by his parents and one infant daughter, Kristina. Mike is survived by his children, Travis (Wendy) Hundley of New Franklin, MO, Michelle (Wayne) Bishop, Jason (Missy) Hundley and Karissa McCoy, all of Boonville. His siblings, Larry (Donna) Hundley of Boonville, Margaret (Dennis) Ridgewell of New Franklin, Sharon Spoor, Beverly (David) Purvis and Peggy Jobe, all of Boonville, as well as thirteen grandchildren, also survive.
Memorials are suggested to the American Kidney Foundation or to Davis Funeral Chapel.
Location, ST | website.com