GW alarmists passages still blocked.

[laklak]

We'd be far better off throwing money at an Alcubierre drive. The minute the Federation detects the warp signature they'll come and give us all sorts of free shit.

[mistermack]

See? That's exactly what I said. Fusion is a very long-term project, with no guarantee of success even in 15 years time, despite very significant resources behind it. And that's just to get one prototype installation working. God alone only knows how long it would take to get it to the stage where it's actually feasible, and then to roll it out on a large scale. It needs a lot more resources, and political commitment, to improve the chance of success, and shorten the time-frame.

We got from the first viable jet aircraft to putting people on the moon in about only 25 years, and that was due in no small part to the space race, and all the political backing it brought. But that was small beans compared to using fusion as a power source.

Quite true, but as far as global warming is concerned, fusion is making quicker and better progress.
If things stay as they are, practical fusion plants will be banging out cheap electricity long before there are any negative effects from global warming. And of course, the positives from any warming are being completely ignored, but they are substantial.

2060 seems to be a good estimate for when fusion can really get into major power production.
The chances of the climate being much different in 2060 are extremely slim.
Even the worst alarmists are reining back their forecasts of doom, both in size and timescale.
Only because the facts are making them look stupid.

[macdoc]

What a doh head....AGW is alredy devastating world wide.

and the heat goes on despite the dunderhead deniers best wishes...

This past August broke records for the hottest August since global temperature records began in 1880, despite cool summer temperatures in parts of Canada.

The world's land and ocean surfaces averaged 16.35 C in August 2014, breaking the previous record set in 1998, reported the U.S. National Climatic Data Center run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The ocean was particularly warm, breaking a record high temperature set in June 2014 with an average global surface temperature of 17.11 C.

more

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/globa ... -1.2770506

WIshing for fusion......pardon my laughter..
..goes to show just how little you understand.....but then we knew that...plenty of evidence you've provided over various topics.

This is from the World Bank -

With a focus on lessons from World Bank Group experience, the new Bank report calls for national governments and the international development community to work across disciplines and sectors to build long-term resilience, reduce disaster risk and avoid unmanageable future costs.

The main findings include:

Loss and damages from disasters have been rising over the last three decades, from an annual average of around $50bn in the 1980s to just under $200bn each year in the last decade. According to the reinsurance company, Munich Re, data, total reported losses from disasters are estimated at $3.8 trillion in the period from 1980 to 2012 with 74% due to extreme-weather.


Weather-related economic impacts are especially high in fast-growing, middle-income countries due to increasingly exposed, valuable assets. The average impact of disasters equaled 1% of GDP over the six years from 2001 to 2006, ten times higher than the average for high-income countries.

The impacts are particularly crippling in smaller and lower-income countries that are least able to cope. Hurricane Tomas, for example, devastated St Lucia in 2010 and wiped out the equivalent of 43% of GDP. In the Horn of Africa, the extended 2008-11 drought, which at its peak left 13.3 million people facing food shortages, caused estimated total losses of US$12.1 billion in Kenya alone

Climate and disaster-resilient development can save lives an.d livelihoods and protect the poor from climate shocks. Early warning systems have been proven to save countless lives worldwide, and typically yield benefits that are 4-36 times higher than initial cost outlay. Cyclone Phailin which hit Odisha and Andrah Pradesh in 2013 resulted in 40 deaths after years of disaster risk prevention and preparedness, compared to the 10,000 who perished during a similar event in 1999.

There are big pay-offs despite upfront investment costs. Disaster assessment experience suggests it costs 10-50% more to build safer infrastructure than to replace original structures. For large-scale infrastructure it can be substantially higher. For example, following the 2008 floods in Namibia investments were needed to elevate roads and improve drainage in flood prone areas. This carried a cost 5.5 times the replacement value of damaged structures.

Much is known already on how to build resilience, but better cooperation is needed among relevant agencies and discipines. The World Bank and other partners have accumulated a wealth of global expertise in resilient development – but it requires better harmonization of climate and disaster management agendas to prevent fragmentation of local capacity and global resources.

The World Bank is providing, combining, and leveraging different types of finance to help nations address climate and disaster risks. Through the Global Facility for Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, and the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience, the World Bank has helped at least 70 countries include climate and disaster risk into their development planning and investments.

but keep that head buried in the sand....it's quite becoming.

[mistermack]

Macdoc, you don't seem to have a brain worth burying.
That's why your idea of a debate is to post chunks of other peoples' opinions.
It's like listening to a parrot, reproducing snippets of what it hears, without the slightest clue of what it means.

[macdoc]

What "debate" would that be?
The one regarding just how clinically significant your denial of reality is regarding AGW??

[Tero]

MM, why do we need this fusion if there is no global warming, as you say? There is plenty of coal.

[mistermack]

MM, why do we need this fusion if there is no global warming, as you say? There is plenty of coal.

Ask the people who are spending tens of billions of pounds on it.
Coal is not cheap. It emits more nasty stuff than just CO2. And costs a lot to clean up the exhaust gases.
And then you have to dispose of the nasties that you scrubbed out of the gases.

Fusion will be cheap once it's got to the running stage. The half life of the waste is only 100 years, so it can be dealt with easily and cheaply. It's inherently safe from explosion, so the safety costs are MUCH less. And the fuel is cheap and unlimited.

It also doesn't involve moving huge amounts of coal, oil or gas around the planet to where it's wanted.
Why is nuclear more expensive than fossil fuels at present? It's mainly down to the cost of safety procedures, and handling the fuels and waste. All of that would be minimal for fusion.

You also have the situation where energy consumption is rising, and fossil fuels are getting used up, so that we will end up running low, and using shittier and shittier fuels, that are more and more expensive to produce.
Fusion fuel will never run low, or run out. It will get cheaper as time goes on, not more expensive.

[macdoc]

Let's put a cork in the denial crockery and move on to what to do about it...

It’s about as settled as science gets.[/HILITE] In fact, it’s about as settled as the fact that smoking causes cancer, chlorofluorocarbons cause ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, and DDT is toxic. Although the science is inconvenient for certain industries and the political think tanks they fund (like the Marshall Institute and TPPF), these effects all pose dangers to public health. [HILITE]Climate change perhaps most of all.

rest of the article...
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... ns-causing

Judith Curry comes off a paid for science shill by vested interests. Gavin has the facts...Curry is a gadfly.

[mistermack]

I just read a bit about the Thames Barrier, just out of general interest.

But there are a couple of interesting bits :

This defence level included long-term changes in sea and land levels as understood at that time (c. 1970). Despite global warming and a consequently greater predicted rate of sea level rise, recent analysis extended the working life of the barrier until around 2060–2070.

And :

In January 2013 in a letter to the Times a former member of the Thames Barrier Project Management Team, Dr Richard Bloore, stated that the flood barrier was not designed with increased storminess and sea level rises in mind, and called for a new barrier to be looked into immediately.[22][23] The Environment Agency responded that it does not plan to replace the Thames Barrier before 2070,[24] as the barrier was designed with an allowance for sea level rise of 8 mm per year until 2030, which has not been realised in the intervening years.

Yet again, real-life facts embarrass the alarmists' loony claims.

[Tero]

Who the fuck are your "the alarmists"? The models predict a variety of scenarios. All go up.

[mistermack]

The alarmists are the ''natural warming'' deniers.

Fuck the models, you do realise that they are just someone's guess, don't you?

More from Wikipedia, from their page on sea-level rises :

Interannual or longer variability is a major reason why no long-term acceleration of sea level has been identified using 20th century data alone. However, a range of evidence clearly shows that the rate of sea level rise increased between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries.[32] Sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr² and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century.

It seems pretty clear that the sea levels have been rising for their own reasons, unconnected to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Which didn't start to take off till 1950.

[Tero]

I have a model of cancer cells where we guess the mechanism a drug would work in. Then we synthesize them and hope our guess is right. Then we test them on animals. Then we guess that animals are like people and we give it to them. Our guess was right. People are like animals.

Sometimes, most of the time, you have to guess.

In the climate issue we can guess and do the climate tests in the lab. We've been doing the CO2 tests simce 1950.

Why is Science such an alien universe to you? What is your training that allows you to dismiss all science as "guessing."?

[Tero]

MM, in your own words, list the one most important factor to warming, whether man made or natural. (There is an answer.)

We can limit this to the last 10 000 years for simplicity.

[Hermit]

Milankovitch cycles?

[Tero]

I can't read 10 000 years on that.
See the graph in this post...ignore the Finnish.
http://www.etusivu.net/viestitaulu/show ... post280333

There must be a cause for the 12 000year trend. For the first 10 000 there it was not humans. Too few humans.