Comments BrianValentine has made

  • additional

    Thanks to Max and the wonderful Wallaby - two very good scientists and seekers of truth.

    Remember, all character assaulters out there, that people who seek the truth are NOT your enemy - they are your friends,

    - for the truth is, something that CANNOT escape you (or conversely)  On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Salutations to Dr A Dessler, PhD

    I don't think Dr Dessler has any interest in my invitation, and I guess that ends that.  

    Unless I heard incorrectly, I learned that Dr Dessler said that CO2 caused climate change over the past 100 million years.  

    I was speechless:  one of my principle arguments against AGW has been, there is no observable evidence in the geologic record of GHG influence on climate change in 4 billion years of Earth history.  

    When I went to school, I learned that over epochs of Earth history, the observable causes of climate change have been related to the advance of perihelion of the Earth's orbit around the Sun and the elongation of the node.  The geological record was the astronomical record, and conversely - in addition to any random variation due to tectonic activity and the temporary influences of volcanoes.  (there are other known astronomical influences on the eccentricity of orbit and declination of apparent ecliptic, and these are observable, sometimes periodically, within epochs).  

    If CO2 "caused" climatic changes, the following would have events would have also occurred:  1) the partial pressure of CO2 in the atm. would exceed the concentration for equilibrium with of CO2 in the ocean at some point, and 2) the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere would exceed the equilibrium partial pressure of fixed carbonate on the Earth at the average temperature and local barometric pressure (everywhere, which is what we mean by "global").  

    These events would have occurred, as the Earth responds to CO2 influence to global warming.  

    Unless I am too tired this moment to think straight, I think that if those events occurred, the geological record would look (more than) a little bit different.  

    I don't have any additional comments and I don't think I'm going to revisit this particular location in cyberspace any more.  

    bgvalentine@verizon.net On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Kick people who are trying to dispel fear

    To correct, possibly some choice of words used in the discussion here note that the Burger "study" is referred to as "scientific analysis."

    "A June 29, 2007 scientific analysis by Gerd Burger of Berlin's Institute of Meteorology"

    There are organisations I suppose, that have an interest in trying to help the public not to be afraid of one thing or another: the good that something brings is often overlooked when people are trying to make people afraid.  

    On the other hand, there are organisations out there that see a capital advantage to promoting fear about a lot things.  (Think there's any truth to that statement, Dr Romm?)

    Think about the staterment: "refuses to use peer reviewed physical science which hasn't already been falsified."  Now strictly speaking, "peer review" refers to that otiose process of professors being evaluated for tenure. But in all honesty, I don't know of one scrap of "physical science" that has been published in a journal that others capable of evaluating have found to be wrong that anybody continues to use.  Why would they?  If you are referring to Dr Singer himself, then if somebody found errors in his work and others agree and write about (and that disagreement is collaborated), I not aware of it.  Just because Dr Singer writes something and somebody else writes that they don't like it, that doesn't mean it is "falsified."  

    Falcon you seem like a nice guy, I would guess, maybe 23-33 years of age.  When I was your age I was even more sceptical than I am now:  everything was wrong until somebody proved to me otherwise.  Now I'm not so critical, but if I see things just promoted to scare people, I can't help but say that's wrong.  The environmentalists seem to be trying to find what is wrong with everything, to make their own ideas about renewables and so on look appealing (or the only legitimate alternative) - and that doesn't really help anybody.  Maybe scepticism comes only with the individual psyche, and it is kind of lonely but there is a lot of room and need over on the other side
    On Climate denier contradicts self, facts, remains famous posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

  • If DrSinger has such poor values then I must also

    Take the two "evils" from your list, and for "publishes papers" substitute "produces feature films" - and what name comes immediately to mind?  

    [Be honest now!  How much does that Academy Award Winner charge even rinky-dink little colleges for that 45 minute Power Point presentation of his?  The thing is so filled with untruth I couldn't give that speech for twice that amount, in all honesty.  I have never taken eight cents for trying to move people away from fear and I get vile letters about being "devious".  Talk about a rewarding job!]

    As this shows, I'm not the only one interested in ensuring an informed public sees the truth
    On Climate denier contradicts self, facts, remains famous posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

  • Skeptics see the world differently I guess

    For some reason, Dr Singer is absolutely rejected by the environmentalists, and people like Dr Hansen are highly regarded.  

    One wants to give people visions of doom and despair, the other finds more basis for common sense and moving away from fear.  

    Why is it that some people find a message of despair to be far more satisfactory than a message that seems more balanced?  It is beyond me because negative people usually turn other people off.  

    Slightly off topic but I really wonder - if the tobacco, pollution, damage, danger message that people are constantly bombarded with by the environmentalists was true, I wonder how anybody living in the year 1920 ever made it past the age of 15?  On Climate denier contradicts self, facts, remains famous posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

  • Remains famous

    I should hope so, as he has contributed a lot.  

    Thanks to the lectures from Dr Singer of some 20-25 years ago, I had the opportunity to learn the fundamental bases of heat and mass exchange - of how the atmosphere actually works.  

    How many reading here can consider an atmospheric phenomenon - and say, yes, I do understand?  On Climate denier contradicts self, facts, remains famous posted 1 year, 10 months ago 23 Responses

  • sinking feeling

    The English have an expression for it:  heart turns to water.  

    That is what I felt when I read what Mr Wallaby had copied as a response from Dr Dessler to an earlier exchange,

    Reply: Andrew Dessler at 10:24 PM on 11 Jan 2008 "Actually, most people brushing someone off simply don't respond.  For example, I don't respond to your comments because I'm brushing you off.  In that light, your comment is both amusing and ironic --- and a little bit sad."  

    In all honesty I don't believe I have ever dismissed (or "brushed off") a sincere gesture for discussion; if I don't feel it would serve anyone's interest to do something someone has suggested, I would say: gee, I don't really think that would be of great value, and I appreciate your taking your time.  

    The last response Dr Dessler has made to me, is:  he wouldn't include himself in a list of skeptics.

    Although he has written at length about the list and its particulars, and I refuse to believe Dr Dessler does not believe that those whose names appear on the the list are not human enough to respond to  On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Mission: not impossible

    Wow Max, I think the volume is getting ratcheted up a little too high - at least some of the very high pitched frequencies.  

    Now to get on my mission, step one:  no fear.  We're all in this together, and the real meaning is for all to get to know one another, and the perspectives - the nice ones, not the ones we could (or should) forget.  

    I know that I have a lot to learn in that regard, too, so I'll end it here:  for me anyway, the term is Beatnik.  

    Now that hasn't been around for a while, and in the 1950's, it meant somebody on their own path, usually - and not universally recognized as a positive factor in social progress.  

    Moreover, the people were generally regarded as lazy - if only because they did not fit with the world and the ways most people wanted them to direct their focus or contributions.  

    So, it works with me, and besides, I like bongos ...

    Peace and progress, right now, in hearing all sides, and let me say here, in my memory of

    Spc Miguel S Carasquillo, US Army

    from Chicago, who, on August 5, 2005 at 1:32 PM in Baghdad, happened to be four inches closer to of a piece of a car bomb than I was and because of that I have the opportunity to write something (hopefully worhwhile) right on this page -

    and possibly some more beneficial things, too  
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • mission

    I was in Iraq for two years, working with the US and the Iraqi government to help them rebuild the country.  

    I made a lot of friends, many of them Iraqi who lived in Baghdad.  They were very brave to work with the Americans because the period 2005-2006 was the height of their tension.

    A young man who helped us became very interested in construction methods, and I asked him one day what he wanted to do.  

    He told me he wanted to help to rebuild the place - but he "first had to figure out a way to end the fear."

    The next day he didn't come back.  I think I'll take his mission in his place  On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Pick choices while we can

    As someone mentioned above, a little diesel could be saved if some railways were electric (if only partially, but the protection expense is high).  

    Natural gas is very good for electricity, but I must say, the relative cost is not consistent with the economic consequesnces.  The cost of raw natural gas, driven up by increased utility load, reduced by 40% the 20% POSITIVE balance of trade contributed two years searlier by the US chemical industry.  That had a very unfavorable influence on the dollar, and also drove up the price of ethanol (unfortunately natural gas is considerable fraction of the cost of the ethanol).  

    The Yucca project is very safe and sound - although there is local resistance, as related to the historical meaning and saacredness of the place.  Their views are entirely meaningful and justified.  There is transportation difficulty too - some areas won't permit it passage.  I think there could be a lot more local concentration to higher level waste and local permanent storage, but the technical details would drive up the cost too much.  

    I wish I could see another path to energy security for the US than coal liquid in the short term, nuclear (producing its own fuel) in the longer term, and ultimately becoming a source of hydrogen fuel for transportation once an infrastructure for it is built.  

    A lot of the CO2 produced in the coal liquid process could be reinjected to the historical mines, and the conditions in the mine under which that would re-equilibrate with any remaining coal to yield CO and hydrogen should be studied.    

    Today, our transportation infrastructure is compatable with gasoline only.  One day it could be compatable with hydrogen.  

    I think many of our present fears about global warming have taken focus away from the ideals many seek towards a better future for the energy situation.  

    I firmly believe there will be quite stable temperatures and quite normal variations throughout the globe for some years. Before all our concerns about the issue are put at rest, I hope we make good choices in the meantime   On Nukes don't replace oil posted 1 year, 10 months ago 39 Responses

  • Thank you very much, to Grist

    I want to thank Grist for allowing the views of a "skeptic' to be shared here - for it demonstrates the openness and transparency of what we all should demonstrate in our discussions with each other.  

    I appreciate and understand the Grist perspective on the benefits of the green and sustainable present and future.  Astonishing as it may seem - my wife and her sister are firmly committed to the green Earth viewpoints that are shared here at Grist.  All of it resonates very much with them, emotionally.  

    My wife is not the technical type her husband is (not to that extreme, anyway - and according to her sister, it is everyone's good fortune that few are) - but my wife loves all of nature and wants to protect it.  

    As all here do.  And the skeptical viewpoint that I have taken relates to my belief that evidence may not justify unfortunate consequences to those who cannot say otherwise.  That is the basis of my position.  

    I know very well the rationality, methodology, evidence, conclusions, and support of the IPCC work.  I appreciate very much all the work that has gone into it, and however well meaning the goals have been I unfortunately see negative consequences that are not justified by the evidence.  I wouldn't say so if I weren't convinced otherwise.  

    Meanwhile I will do all I can to understand and learn more of the perspective of the green side, and will share in good faith what I see to be their concerns with others I know to be skeptical.  And if Dr Dessler decides to come to Washington, perhaps we might begin a new era of understanding of things all sides need to know about the other

    Arlington, Virginia
    January 19, 2008

    bgvalentine@verizon.net
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Our mutual understanding

    Fine with me, for then someone would know, the stress someone would feel, of what I see has been the neglect of the poor and needy, and those who have no voice to add to the discussion

    - at the expense of the focus on personalities, rather than the more noble attepmts for mutual understanding of both sides (or the many sides) of an issuel; and realising how much we all have to learn from each other.  

    All sides of the perspective of climate, I am quite certain, have nothing more than the very best interests of humanity in mind - which is something we may have forgotten, in our attempts to be heard, rather than to listen.  

    As Dr Pierrehumbert has been kind enough to show me, we make so much more progress when we do   On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • out of town

    Got to go out of town for a few days.  No internet

    Guys, the individual posting here is not spouting off a bunch of facts and figures that he has not considered or knows nothing about On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • "legit" issues

    Matching frequency is no problem then, Green Engineer?  For PV I will admit it can be addressed by it's own inverter - and do you think that requires a loss in its own power?  Do you think that the cosine squared correction to the power factor causes a power loss in the grid that doesn't really matter over a number of out-of-phase wind turbines?  

    How much (as percent) of base load of a electric grid do you think the power can fluctuate before causing a runaway instability in a 400KVA trunk?  

    At what point does concentration on PV reduce the lifetime to the degree that cost cannot be paid back?  

    The 30% thermodynamic limit for silicon does not apply, necessarily, to a photoelectric material with anharmonic charge carriers for which there may be a phonon coupling with crystal resident carriers.  In fact there may be no limit.  But until somebody can convince me it possible above 10K, I'll stick to 30%.  

    As far as distributed goes, tell me who is going to provide the SOFC or cogen for, say, 25% of downtown Detroit.  

    Or Cincinnatti On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Cynical, and very low, tactics.

    I would really think that many of the denier "tactics" would be interpreted by many others as "shallow", perhaps, rather than "low".  

    But what is a "denier" (or planet killer as I have recently applied a new term).  It means I don't believe some "true facts," agreed?  

    I'll believe those "true facts" if you can convince me that any of the following are true:  

    -    Any GHG other than water influenced the global climate since the beginning of the Earth
    -    I cannot correct IPCC results for water and the heat
    -    The primary product of your own metabolism influences diurnal or matutinal average kinetic energy of the gaseous exosphere of the fourth stone from the Sun outside of the vibrational, rotational,  and translational contributions to the temperature weighted mean molar enthalpy

    I will agree that it will take some time for me to convince others of the veracity of the second.  

    As far as costs go, do you want to continue paying dictators for the stuff under the dirt they stand on, or do you want a strong, independent, America?  The choice is yours, young man.  
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • One more item

    Here is something that only the chemical types would think of:  

    Suppose, when you use injected water to get your geothermal hot water, that you create something like mercury sulfide or selenium sulfide or something with low solubility - that EPA says you cannot deep well inject.

    Now what On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • You cannot talk me into it

    By the way I think the carbon tax idea STINKS and that is one of the primary reasons I come out fighting so hard as the skeptic I am.  

    That isea will DEMOLISH the poor in short order because they are the ones who don't have the means to push the costs on to any more.  

    And you will make an elite, mark my words, so help me, who are going to decide who will live, and who won't, in the name of "Saving the Planet."  

    If I don't hear that kind of tone in some of the current rhetoric about what they want to do - then I am not a "Denier" or "Denialist" or whatever name you want to give it.  

    By the way, I don't think the word "Denier" carries enough force behind it.  I think they ought to come up with something a little more objectionable - like "planet killer" or something like that On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Bury me in a coal mine

    We're gonna get you off of oil, because Albert says he is going to make you; Florida is going to be under 70 feet of water, because IPCC says so; and we're going to have hot dry rock geothermal, next year, - or is it the year after, or maybe the one after that, I can't remember.  

    The only real answer I have is coal for liquid fuel and nuclear for electricity (and breed U233 from a thorium cycle).  

    You might not like the taste of that one, but I can show you that the logic of it is constructed out of something more solid than pipe smoke   On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • hmmm ...

    Don't forget now, we are talking electric (not thermal) and you might have hit the keys wrong when you typed a G in the GW

    The biggest geo plant in California right now is the Geysers, (maybe the world?)  that is 550-650 degree steam, best there is, and the plant is 100 MW.  That is the best source you will find, every source pretty much degrades from there

    The molten nitrate salt can store, can you figure out much salt you need to store 1 MW thermal (which will be 0.2MW electic)if you can't bring the salt within 50 degrees of freezing?  
    (cannot have the salt accidentally freeze in the lines- real catastrophe possible like that)  

    Don't forget now, I'm kinda old, and I have been at DOE a long time, and what is real, is pretty clear to somebody like that

    like real clear On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Beautiful!

    They are great and they have gone a long way with concentrating solar - don't forget now, the efficiency make electricity is solar->thermal->electricity; so we calculate the efficiency as the product of these two; in any case they are certainly well designed.  

    I was actually a program manager for the Solar 1 and Solar 100 central receiver projects; you might look these up, the pictures are beautiful.  

    The former was 1 MW and the second a 10 MW design.  They are great and a tremendous use of the desert sun; and we couldn't do better.  

    But when we realize that a typical coal or nuke plant is 1000-1100 MW, we certainly know we need some more options.  The overall US electrical capacity is about a thousand of thosand MW and we operate at about 75% capacity. We need more because we are growing.  And we need to overhaul transmission too because some of it is aging and we need the extra line availablilty.  

    Say, Dr. Dessler, I know we differ sometimes, in our approach and our views - but I am absolutely certain we both have the best interests of humanity in mind in all we do.  I was thinking that others might benefit from hearing the perspectives of both - to learn what the real message and perspectives are.  

    Do you think an open discussion would be of interest to others who would like to learn the points of view of both sides?  

    If so - maybe something could be arranged for an open discussion if you ever come to Washington DC.  

    It is in the spirit of learning and the true interests of sharing and understanding that I cordially, and respectfully, invite you to consider such an open discussion. The format and topical areas can be anything you like.  

    This offer is extended seriously, I am sure you know, and in the spirit of peace and friendship of all of those devoted to using their very best wisdom on behalf of all.  

    If this might be of interst to you, you are most welcome to respond to me here, or please e mail me at bgvalentine@verizon.net.  

    Anyone else please email me too!  I think a lot of us have a lot of mutual interests On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • The skeptical will tell you the truth

    Remember what I said about real now, and even if you took all 400 of the people on the list and executed them publically, it won't change the following:  

    • There is a maximum of 900 W/sq m in the brightest sun in the US
    • That is available at most 12 hr/day (average like 600 over the day in the sunniest of sunny)
    • Everyting else looks like 200-400 when it doesn't rain
    • Carnot efficiency is at 30% for solar heat, and if you have a big system you can't get the heat out except water (That is Carnot efficiency, remember, and if you are not satisfied with it, maybe hang a skeptic)  
    • PV is at 15% now in the brightest sun, like 5% average.  30% is all you ever do with silicon, and nobody can do better than 5% with thin film now
    • You cannot store PV electricity in anything but heavy duty batteries
    • You cannot put more than 20% renewable on a grid.  Here is why:  A grid is built to maintain frequency.  If you start trying to force wind or solar, you wind up having the grid use more energy than some of the turbines are trying to put into it
    • You cannot eliminate the electric grid.  Period.  You cannot eliminate that any more than you can eliminate public water.  

    work it out from there, guys, and if you come out with some numbers you don't like, then shoot all the skeptics there are, and work it out again - and maybe you'll come up with a new answer
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • ... press 4 to hear the message again or hang up

    Write to Marc Marano directly

    If you're serious, I am sure the office will be friendly toward you.  

    Keep in mind - you have to be up front about everything, and you don't mind a little "teasing" (like maybe musing whether jail or public beheading on TV is the right thing for you)

    And be careful now, saying that 4AR is a fairy tale is a sensitive as mocking religion to some people On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • It is likely that I'm older than you

    We always need to prepare for the future - but we can't pretend we don't live in the present real world.  

    The price of oil will rise by speculation until it starts diminishing the return by hitting productivity - it actually has done that long ago.  People have tried it since time began - but eventually learn, you can't kill the goose that gives you golden eggs.  

    The only thing oil has done in countries that supply it with controlled economies is, pay for an expensive military to control the populace so that a few bandits can live in palaces.  The trick here is to make the populace think the elite deserve it somehow.  Ugly, but another subject.  

    Here's what I see as some realities, and you can debate them all you want but it would take nothing short of chloroforming me to say there are real alternatives:  

    -    From the way the country is structured, the idea of universal mass transit is not within 75% feasible
    -    It is impossible to contemplate much more than 20% renewable fuel for the US.  I will personally buy either of you a jelly donut if you can show me that's not beyond a dream.  Right now we have about 5% transportation fuel coming from renewable (3% all liquid energy renewable) and we still have to buy alcohol from Brazil to make up the balance put in there by legislation.  Guys, we can't cover Neb, KS, MO, and MT with canola and even if we could we don't have the natural gas to make the methanol and make the biodiesel even if we did.  (Please don't say, we'll cover Michigan with enough trees to make the methanol!)  
    -    Work on cellulose alcohol all we can, but let's not write checks without funds in the bank to cover them   (Meaning:  set no target and rely on nothing)  
    -    Unless somebody figures out a way to break the second law of thermodynamics, hydrogen fuel from any source except nuclear is nothing but a niche market possibility - and even at that cannot be done without using more energy than you get from the hydrogen.  Solar?  Nope - costs you more energy to make the cells than you get out - and we can't really cover AZ with cells either.  
    -    Cannot have an electric grid with much more than 20% renewable source (except hydro) because of the instability - and utility solar power is not readily available except in the Southwest.  

    So that's the really real from the old DOE skeptical skeptic and the science skeptyc.  

    Coal is a feasibility - but right off the reservation for some folks.  (John Edwards on your pages:  "Coal is the enemy of the human race."  I want to shout, "Come on John, for Heaven's sake England had no other source of energy for 400 years - is London still there?  Is Paris still there for that matter?  Do you think Moscow will still be there next month?)  That kind of talk from John might make some people nod their heads - but they aren't thinking.  

    So - nobody likes the real, and everybody hollers about it, but that's what is, so let's work from there
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • So then why are you a skeptic, Brian?

    Gosh, I don't see that concern coming from some folks, Andy.  All I see is Albert and a bunch of people saying things like "We've got to (fill in the blank) because (fill in the blank) or else (fill in the blank)".  

    The first blank carries a lot of suggestions that carry negative repercussions for the unfortunate - that there really seems no way out of except don't talk about it.  Some of the arguments used to fill in the second blank seem kinda weak sometimes, and some of the items used to fill in the third blank at times seem far-fetched.  

    But I'm an old dog and maybe too jaded, I've seen a lot come and go, and sometimes I see a little too much worry about things that aren't likely.  And afterward we look back and see how we could have done thing a little differently.  We can always reverse the ill-considered of course, but unfortunately any unintentional harm we caused the innocent sometimes cannot be undone.  

    So that's me, in my view as the "skeptycal scientist" that Robert Boyle identified himself with; Boyle didn't take a whole lot for granted, but he did make a lot of progress.  

    Times were different in Boyle's era, and maybe it's true or it isn't, but the discourse back then seemed more congenial, and that seems to me far more preferable
    On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses

  • Who said what and when?

    There seems to be some confusion about the actual communication to or from Mr Waldenberger, as you can see here

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/the-road-fro ...

    So I don't know.  It might be best not to jump to conclusions until verified statements are made by the individual involved.  

    If anybody asked me - are you still on the list?  I would say DEFINITELY!  

    So why am I on the list?  Because I think our concerns about the environment do not always recognize that the poor and disadvantaged may be unintentionally hurt by well-meaning but misguided actions (read:  carbon tax et al)  On Today: George Waldenberger posted 1 year, 10 months ago 52 Responses