This is kinda interesting, from the science thread. It refers to the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, you know - the guys who LOOK FOR THE OIL.
<<<and here is why that organization (the AAPG) was relevant on the CONSENSUS of global warming;
Prior to June 2007, it "was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association."
The changed their position AFTER June 2007, to be noncommittal because of so many members were resigning because of their previous stance.
<<president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007 that "Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years>>
They are now counted in the noncommital. Here is there actual statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change:
"the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.">>>
In other words, the guys who look for the oil are increasingly accepting the reality of AGW/CC. They were resigning from their professional organization because of its absolute anti-AGW/CC stance. They had to change it to be more neutral toward AGW/CC as a whole, only saying their members didn't accept the worst case scenarios (their quote: "these data DO NOT NECESSARILY support the MAXIMUM CASE SCENARIOS forecast in some models").
I'm glad you deniers are SO much smarter than the guys who explore for oil.
Edit: And i'm REALLY, REALLY PROUD of all you no voters - PLEASE KEEP 'EM COMING - because you guys are really, really, REALLY smarter than the geologists who actually explore for oil.
Weather is highly chaotic & never predictable more than 5-10 days in the future. The longer period of time you examine, the less predictable it becomes.
Climate also is chaotic, but over longer & longer time periods becomes more & more predictable. When you do the math, it takes about 45 years of records for the statistical noise in temperature records to completely resolve. 30 years is generally used as a close approximation, though some still look at 10 year periods (the practice of which is prone to inaccuracies).
Given these differences, there is no reason to believe a weatherman is any likelier than any other educated person to understand AGW/CC. That certainly doesn't bias them against the science, but they are used to looking over relatively short periods of time (~1 week). You said you had a good laugh when i said there was no reason to expect a weatherman to necessarily have any expertise in climate. Well, there isn't any.
Petroleum geologists make their living by looking for oil, & they have studied long-term processes. They are scientists, & evidently a large percentage of them are informed enough that they believe AGW/CC is generally correct.
What is notable is that they depend on the finding & using of petroleum for their living, yet even they understand that burning it is causing dangerous changes on the earth. Are they MORE likely than others to believe in AGW/CC? I'd suggest they are LESS likely, which is, after all, the POINT.
What they do have going for them are 1) they're aware of long-term processes on the earth, & 2) they have enough of a scientific world-view to look objectively at other scientists' work.
But thank you for raising such a spurious argument. It did give me a bit of a laugh. Rather ironic, actually, & very, very sad as well.
If you're trying to make a living as a comedian, don't quit your day job.
I've explained it to you, & you STILL don't get the point?!?!?!?
The POINT is that they would be expected to NOT agree with AGW/CC, yet a large percentage of them do ANYWAY.
Are petroleum geologists more or less likely than weather people to understand AGW/CC? Honestly, IDK, & that's not the point.
Edit: Are they more or less likely than a random person on the street (especially if that person pays attention to right wing media malarkey) to understand AGW/CC? They're both a LOT more likely to understand it.
I see where Paradise Film Distribution Company has gotten rights to "The Company You Keep" for Russia. Unfortunately their website is in Russian and the translators are doing a bad job:
Anyone else got info on this? Wonder if Jackie will be meeting with their officials when she is in Russia? Wonder if they even know that Jackie will be in Russia? Any of our Russian fans contact them to get details?
I've learned that the science-oriented professionals who have the most difficulty accepting the science of AGW/CC are meteorologists & petroleum engineers.
So those who study weather are indeed less likely to accept AGW/CC than are other (non-climatologist) scientists. I would have expected the oil people to be skeptical, but not necessarily the weather people. So there ya go.
With the new jobs report indicating a weakening, the unemployment rate was reported as moving up to 8.2% this morning.
The result? The stocket market plunged upon opening. The S&P 500 YTD return after the opening dropped to 2.48% within 17 minutes of the stock markets opening for trading.
BTW, some people have nicknamed the "official" Labor Department unemployment rate as modern day propaganda. In the following article on the reported April unemployment rate of 8.1%, it was indicated that the "real" unemployment rate was actually 11.6% or 3.5% more than the "official" unemployment rate, or the highest difference seen since the early 1980's. Do you not love the "honesty" in reporting by the government?
And President Obama probably knowing what was going to be released, had his senior strategist David Axelrod hold a rally on the steps of the State House in Massachusetts to criticize Governor Romney's record. However, Mitt's people being very nimble caught wind of this event and quickly organized a counter-rally that was held 90 minutes before David Axelrod's rally. The nimbleness of Mitt's people was pretty impressive, even getting NBC New's satellite truck to supply power to them for a bubble-making machine, and continuously drowning out President Obama's supporters attempts at cheers with their own counter-cheers.
And, Mitt's campaign further showed how it knows how to keep a secret by also holding a campaign rally at the former world headquarters of Solyndra which was only announced to the press as Mitt was driving to Solyndra, thus leaving Obama's campaign virtually no time to act on a counter-rally. Obviously Mitt used the Solyndra backdrop as a prop for attacking President Obama's record on jobs creation.
Here is an interesting new technology with great promise: solar magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) electric generator
In summary, MHD generation offers several advantages as compared to other methods of electric generation:
1) The conversion efficiency of a MHD system can be 50% as compared to less than 40% for the most efficient steam plants. 2) Large amount of power is generated. 3) It has no moving parts, so more reliable and mechanically elegant. 4) It has ability to reach the full power level as soon as started. 5) Because of higher efficiency, the overall generation cost of an MHD plant will be less. 6) The more efficient heat utilization would decrease the amount of heat discharged to environment and the cooling water requirements would also be lower. 7) The higher efficiency means better fuel utilization. The reduced fuel consumption would offer additional economic and social benefits. 8) The closed cycle system produces power free of pollution. ___________________________________
And it looks like my old alma mater, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI for short), is directly involved having licensed the MHD exclusively to Concentrating Solar Power Utility (http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=3050)
This could be really big for greatly reducing the use of carbon fuels for electricity generation.
Another interesting technology is the CrossFire Fusion Reactor:
"The Magnetic and Electrostatic Nuclear Fusion Reactor, or simply CrossFire Fusion Reactor, is a concept that uses magnetic fields to confine radially and electric fields to trap axially plasma of electrically charged ions, and electrostatic acceleration in an energy-efficient way to fuse the charged atomic nuclei, allowing the charged byproducts to escape longitudinally to the outputs to be converted directly into electricity, producing safe, clean, dense, and virtually unlimited electric power with no pollution and no radioactive waste."
The above uses the technology: Multiphase Thermoelectric Converter
"The Multiphase Thermoelectric Converter is a direct thermal-to-electrical energy conversion system designed in order to assure a net gain for the CrossFire Fusion Reactor by converting waste heat, from heavy electromagnetic losses(bremsstrahlung) in the reactor's core, efficiently into electricity. With which it is also possible to reduce weight and size of heat radiators making spacecraft more energy-efficient than ever. It is to be the most perfect combination: Electrodynamic Space Thrusters powered by Aneutronic Fusion Reactor with waste heat recovered by the Multiphase Thermoelectric Converter; forming a perfect/impeccable triad for providing a high degree of cleanliness and efficiency for space propulsion, practically, no thermal and radioactive waste."
@GEB See my comments over the science section. I have, shall we say, questions....
Speaking of grammar & the site you posted, it's actually "To All WHO May Be Interested"; or you could say "who is interested in whom?" Whom is the object, but becoms a subject with "may be interested" appended. ;) :)
Re: A Reader from "Frisco Beach" "...who is interested in whom?..."
That was how I had always done it. Then I read the English site and see to supposedly always use whom after a preposition...must have thought was a medical description which makes it sound like one always has the disease. LOL. Fixed back to my original inclination.
Jackie will have some "fun" unraveling this stuff on her exams. LOL
Re: A Reader from "Frisco Beach" "...comments...science section..."
3,000K is 4,940F.
There are plenty of things here on Earth at greater than that temp.
Plasma arc welders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_welding) discharge plasma through a fine bore copper nozzle where the plasma approaches 20,000C (36,000F).
Electric arc smelters/furnaces (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace) have been around for a long time. Temperatures get to 1,800C (3,270F) in industrial units and 3,000+C (5,400+F) in laboratory versions.
Some materials used for atmospheric re-entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_entry) easily handle 2,000C and only begin to melt at roughly 3,500C (6,330F).
Tungsten by itself does not melt until 3,683K (6,170F).
Refractory materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory) retain their strength at high temperatures and are used in linings for furnaces, kilns, incinerators and reactors. They are also used to make crucibles. For example, the refractory material Tantalum hafnium carbide has a melting point of 4,215C (7,619F).
In other words, 3,000K (4,940F) is a "piece of cake" from a materials standpoint.
@GEB 3000K wouldn't be a problem - not sure where you got that. They said the fuel in the reactor would have 600 keV of energy, which works out to ~6 BILLION degrees C (or Kelvin, at that point what's the difference?). That's a bit warm, no? And that's right inside a superconducting coil that has to be kept cool. Hey, maybe everything's hunky dory, IDK.
After a preposition it's normally "whom", but if there's a phrase after that, it reverts to being a subject & goes back to "who". ;)
Re: A Reader from "Frisco Beach" "...600 keV of energy..."
You need to dig out your old physics books. This is kinetic energy, or energy due to an object's motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy).
If it was thermal energy, then you have temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_energy).
We are talking on the molecular level, which is a different animal.
For example, in plasma physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)) we have "thermal" and "non-thermal." Thermal plasmas have electrons and the heavy particles at the same temperature, i.e., they are in thermal equilibrium with each other. Non-thermal plasmas on the other hand have the ions and neutrals at a much lower temperature (normally room temperature), whereas electrons are much "hotter."
In plain English, with a non-thermal plasma, the surrounding air will be relatively "cool" (although 3,000K ain't exactly skiing temperature) while those itty-bitty molecules will be hot as hell (well 600 keV = 7 billion C seems like it would be hell).
You are getting confused with the differences which admittedly can be a tad subtle/confusing.
@GEB Don't think i EVER knew about those physics! (Dating myself, but the last time i took physics i don't think they knew much about plasmas, & i'm positive they didn't teach us about them....) :-( Will check out links later. Hockey game still on...
I know (and have had a few downings of Russian vodka partying with him) Dr Fridman (probably the leading low temperature plasma scientist in the world today - he wrote the definitive book on plasma chemistry - http://www.amazon.com/Plasma-Chemistry-Alexander-Fridman/dp/0521847354) and Dr Rabinovich (used to run the MIT low temperature plasma lab before he left to work under Dr Fridman at Drexel) and have had numerous meetings regarding use of low temperature plasmas for doing all kinds of very useful stuff.
BTW, the AJ Drexel Plasma Institute in Philadelphia is the definitive low temperature plasma research lab in the world (replacing the French with a bunch of ex-Russians turned US citizens - almost a modern day comparison with the German scientists after WWII). Absolutely fantastic stuff happening there. Not trivial to get in to see the stuff, but if can arrange it you should go.
One example of some of the research going on can be seen in the following paper only recently published:
"Non Equilibrium Plasma Assisted Conversion of Fossil Fuels without CO2 Release"
OK, i read more of your link & watched some of their movies. I understand that the temps are not so much of a problem. I'm still having trouble seeing where the energy transfers take place, though. Also they go from a 1-dimensional machine w/ 2 poles to a 3-dimensional machine w/ 6 poles but give NO obvious explanation.
So now i REALLY want to know if anyone's ever built one of these.
This guy is very, very slick about proposing a warp drive that would be relatively easy to make for FTL (faster than light) travel. Actually, people have been imagining warp drive for a long time, & even doing tentative science about it. It's not exactly easy.
So if he's so inappropriately facile about warp drive, is he also overly optimistic about his fusion reactor? Just askin'. Actually, it could be very, very exciting technology. I'd just like to know if it really works.
GEB, fascinating stuff. From what I understand MHD is already in use for propulsion on some military subs in both the US and Russian fleets. On the Fusion technology, have they solved the problem of the reactor itself slowly becoming radioactive from long term exposure?
Also, is this Dr. Stanton T. Friedman, who worked on the Orion nuclear spacecraft development project? He is well known in some circles for his outspoken views on unidentified flying objects. (Not an criticism, I'm open minded on the subject.)
@DFW Actually, it's the constant bombardment with neutrons that causes the problems with the reactor vessels, so aneutronic fusion is the way to go. This can be done with He-3 if you can mine the moon, specifically the mare (sun deposits it in the regolith over the eons). (NASA has calculated a "value" of ~$3.5 million per kg of the lunar material they already have. It's not likely mining would be cheap.) The lithium & beryllium reactions can also be aneutronic, but the Tokamaks & ITERs (etc) supposedly can't impart enough energy to fuse them like this design can.
Again, IN THEORY. I still want to know if one has actually been built.
Are you congratulating one American political party for preventing a member of the other party from being heard in a legal, public setting, using paid operatives?
Wouldn't that make you the moral equivalent of the self-congratulatory leftists who pride themselves at preventing right wing speakers like Ann Coulter from giving talks on college campuses?
Speaking for the independents who will decide the next election (if they can overcome the Republicans' coordinated vote suppression campaign and unlimited campaign spending with no transparency and no obligation not to lie), I'm disgusted with the efforts of partisans of the Left and Right to silence the other side and prevent free elections.
Just as I'm disgusted with the Obama campaign's efforts to spin the jobs figures to not include discouraged voters dropping out and the Romney campaign's efforts to conceal the fact that his jobs record in Massachusetts comes from a remarkable number of Massachusetts jobseekers leaving the state in the hundreds of thousands to seek work elsewhere.
And ultimately the jobs issue is constantly taken out of its worldwide context by both sides. No American president can control the economic climate of Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Ireland, China, India and all the other parts of the world economy that are experiencing a slowdown right now.
American voters are unbelievably myopic if they think any American president can wave a magic wand and control every nation on Earth whose business circumstances affect us. Like it or not, we're inextricably tied to the world economy now. An American president isn't helpless, but he isn't some kind of god either--especially since he or she has only a fraction of the power a prime minister has in countries with parliamentary systems.