I am making an assumption here and that this is a response to my comment “Natural Climate Change vs Anthropogenic Climate Change”. I could be making as ass of you and me.

Let’s take each of your points one by one shall we.

Look at it this way if you like, keep using coal and oil and in 50 years there will be none left

On what basis is this correct? What are your facts to support this? I have heard this same comment many times over the last 40 years and I see additional resources being “discovered” in each decade to extend the amount of time we have left. The actual resource reserves are not yet quantified. We will at some point exceed the limits of known resources and we need to have the appropriate plans in place to handle this.

One of my “hobbies” is looking at fuel efficient engines. how to increase the performance with a greatly reduced fuel usage. There are many different techniques available. However, these will not take off because they are “disruptive” to the current industrial base, and as a consequence, the current industrial base will do what is needed to destroy/delay such technologies. This does not include hybrid or electric vehicles.

Another of my “hobbies” is related to design of alternative “wind turbine” designs. One of which has good potential where I live. Part of my “research” involves different configurations and determining the output power vs wind speed for each of the configurations. The base configuation is an unmodified unit to give me a baseline power output/RPM vs wind speed input. The “research” is based on a number of different ideas from various fields, including an effect that arose from a friend when he was building his steel furnace. He was trying to gauge airflow and his first attempt failed magnificently, which is basis for my testing. This effect is seen is many different places if you look carefully enough.

My goal is to get to about 15kW production with a min of 5kW to supply all my needs, other than vehicle. If I get to that level, I’ll being looking at an electric vehicle for local travel as I then should be fully self-sufficient energy wise.

Sure CO2 increased, and you are saying trees will simply soak it up, except we cut down all the trees as well, building wont soak it up, its also making the oceans acidic and dissolving the shells of animals and coral’s.

Just this morning, I came across an article in one of the science mags (I can’t remember which one, I was more preoccupied with the upcoming blood extraction process) about the effect of increasing temperatures on coral and about their resilience to the changes. Over 40 years, we have had various scientific groups go on about the destruction of The Great Barrier Reef along the Queensland coat and no matter what the disaster being predicted, the reef has managed to recover and be healthier each time.

In terms of CO2 ppm concentrations and what is “good” or “bad” levels, I have seen various information that strongly indicates that the current levels are right at the bottom of what is life sustaining. Below 200 ppm and major disaster ecologically, above 8000 ppm, animal life is in perilous danger. we are currently below 300 ppm. Plant life has better growth characteristics up around the 1000 ppm or so mark. So what are we doing to actually check what is the ecologically sound level we should be maintaining?

and its not simply the amount of energy the earth retains, its also the heat and energy radiated by the earth itself did you factor that in ?

did you factor in the reflective index of ice ? in your calculations ?? If not then your calculations are totally incorrect and meaningless.

the faster you lose ice, the faster you lose ice, it is accumulative, ice reflects light far more that ocean or land, so when the ice melts the surrounding land gets warmer, and more ice melts, and the surrounding land gets warmer, and more ice melts, and so on.

My calculations for ice melt are purely based on the actual energy requirements to make a phase change between solid and liquid forms for H2O. To get the phase change, it requires a specific amount of energy. There is no two ways about this. The amount of energy is the problem. It has to be channelled into the ice for the phase change. The other factors will determine how this can occur, but any energy that impinges on the ice will also affect the surrounding land and atmosphere. The atmosphere heats much faster than does either solid or liquid H2O. You can do the tests and observations yourself here, it doesn’t take a climate science degree to check this.

Since there is a simple energy equation here that cannot be ignored, my calculations are completely valid as a starting point. Any suggestion that a 2 or 3 degree Celsius is going to supply enough energy to cause ice melt is ignoring the actual phase change physics involved. Just to put this into perspective, the energy required to cause a phase change at 0 degrees Celsius of solid H2O to liquid H2O of 1 kg of Solid H2O will cause that 1 kg of liquid H2O to go from 0 degrees Celsius to about 84 degrees Celsius. This is an aspect of the physical characteristics of H2O at one atmosphere.

CO2 also IS a greenhouse gas, more to the point it depletes the Ozone layer that filters a great deal of the heat, so it is a ‘second process’ greenhouse gas.

That is true, however H2O vapour is MUCH more significant as a greenhouse gas, by many times over.

yes big weather events happened in the past (why the say things like 1 in 100 years event ect) but these ‘1 in 100 year events’ are now occurring 1 in 10 years or 1 in 1 years or 4 in 1 year, that’s the difference

When I was a young lad, extensive floods and cyclones were a common feature each year. We were use to major flooding and getting prepared for cyclone season was a normal yearly event. After I left the area, things changed and the area experienced a multiple decade drought. I came back many years later to visit my father and commented on the fact that there were now houses in an area that was flooded every year as a youth. My father’s response was to say that the local planning people were completely ignorant about the historical flooding of the area. Just a couple of years later, that entire area was flooded and the houses destroyed and the prevailing comments were about the unprecedented extreme weather has caused the flooding. Ignorance of history leads to such stupidities.

So buy a new calculator, and do you homework, and please stop listing to big oil for your scientific knowledge

I don’t need to buy a new calculator and I have done my homework (I am engineering trained and have been doing systems development for decades). There are simple physical facts that one cannot ignore, but I have yet to see any concrete proof that the models in use are taking into consideration that actual energy requirements for phase change.

So far none of your arguments stand as credible (you appear to simply parrot your ideologically stand point without giving refuting calculations). When you can demonstrate that the laws of physics related to solid-liquid phase change for H2O have been revoked (or a process that greatly reduces the required energy for phase change) come back and present this information here for a valid discussion.

I have worked for big oil and they are out there to grab as big a profit as they can. I don’t listen to big oil because (at least here in Australia) they fudge the facts to get prices that they want. Australia actually has considerable reserves of oil, natural gas and coal that would last us for a long time at very cheap prices. However, oil company revenue, government royalties and taxes means that we as citizens pay a premium for these resources. This has some beneficial effects into making alternatives for energy production now more viable.

A final note, has anyone actually looked at the cost (energy wise) for the production of compact fluoros. The actual cost to the consumer is actually higher than using the old incandescent. The design of compact fluoros ensure that you have to replace at a rate that does not offset the amount you save in using them. The major problem with them is internal overheating. If you want them to last, you have to modify the case to allow airflow cooling to occur. Bad design.