Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46670)	1/24/2014 11:49:16 PM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

In California's drought emergency, Gov. Brown declares the obvious If a drought happens, is it real before a governor says so? (Ted Rall / For The Times / January 23, 2014) Also Photos: Photo gallery: Ted Rall cartoons We've come a long way in slaking SoCal's thirst Nudity and other water-saving tips for California's epochal drought 'Voluntary' efforts not strong enough to combat California's drought 5 sticky drought-related questions Gov. Brown didn't answer L.A.'s driest year: Time to shut off the lawn sprinklers for good By Ted Rall January 23, 2014, 6:00 a.m. Now that 2013 has gone down as the driest calendar year in 119 years of California rainfall records, Gov. Jerry Brown has officially declared a drought emergency, asking Californians to reduce their water usage by 20%. Times columnist George Skelton predicts: "Next comes serious flooding." Skelton says it's a familiar pattern: "A drought proclamation, as issued by Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday, changes the political climate. It focuses public attention on the need for costly new waterworks. Therefore governors and water officials are always reluctant to declare a drought over, even when rivers again leap their banks, fill reservoirs and send torrents of muddy snowmelt, uprooted trees and drowned livestock cascading into the Pacific." But some state pols say the guv waited too long to unleash the flow of aid to drought-stricken counties. "Today's drought declaration is better late than never," said Assembly Republican leader Connie Conway. PHOTO GALLERY: Ted Rall cartoons Which got me thinking about the concept of disaster declarations. Whether a hurricane destroys the Gulf Coast or an earthquake levels a city or a drought deprives farms and rivers of water, it's obvious to everyone -- the victims, the governor, headline writers -- that a disaster has occurred. There's something inherently silly about having to issue a formal proclamation. (I know, it's a formality designed to free up state funds and perhaps federal aid as well. Still.) Wouldn't it be nice to live in a society where everyone could look outside, see that it hasn't rained for a long time and say: "Lo! A drought"? On the other hand -- for a cartoonist, nuance is a major intellectual hurdle -- should an event that occurs at regular intervals be considered a disaster? When you live along a fault line, for example, you can't really be shocked shocked shocked when the earth starts moving (unless you're a state official). As Skelton notes, major sections of California's climate are subject to the desert's drought-flood-drought cycle. Finally, what of whim? Should one man, even the governor, be able to determine, Solomon-like, whether a drought is occurring? These things keep me up at night, especially if I'm only allowed to drink 80% of my previously allotted water ration. Whatever that amounts to. latimes.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46670)	1/25/2014 12:09:41 AM
From: Sdgla	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Epstein: We live on the cleanest, safest planet in history video.foxbusiness.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (46670)	1/25/2014 1:11:28 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Gerhard Gerlich are theoretical physisists as was Albert Einstien. Their orgional paper as Version V4 was publish peer reviewed in 2009. In 2010 some chemists published a peer reviewed put down. In 2010 Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Gerhard Gerlich, theoretical physisists publish peer reviewed evisceration of the chemists. Since 2010 no peer reviewed publication has attempted to contradict any assertions or conclusion of Ralf D. Tscheuschner and Gerhard Gerlich, theoretical physisists. yes all manner of rat brained loonies from the green coolaid blogs have babbled on and on about physics the is miles over the heads. Reply to Comment on `Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics' by Joshua B. Halpern, Christopher M. Colose, Chris Ho-Stuart, Joel D. Shore, Arthur P. Smith, Jorg Zimmermann" Version 1.00 (December 1, 2010) Gerhard Gerlich Institut fur Mathematische Physik Technische Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina zu Braunschweig Mendelssohnstrae 3 D-38106 Braunschweig Federal Republic of Germany g.gerlich@tu-bs.de Ralf D. Tscheuschner Postfach 60 27 62 D-22237 Hamburg Federal Republic of Germany ralfd@na-net.ornl.gov Abstract It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our Falsication Of The CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientically vacuous. In particu- lar, it is not true that we are \trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are \systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat ows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsication paper discusses the violation of funda- mental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of ctitious greenhouse eects that are all based on simplistic pictures of radiative transfer and their obscure relation to thermodynamics, including but not limited to those descriptions (a) that dene a \Perpetuum Mobile Of The 2nd Kind", (b) that rely on incorrectly cal- culated averages of global temperatures, (c) that refer to incorrectly normalized spectra of electromagnetic radiation. Halpern et al. completely missed an exceptional chance to formu- late a scientically well-founded antithesis. They do not even dene a greenhouse eect that they wish to defend. We take the opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, which are communicated in the current discussion on the non-measurable, i.e. physically non-existing in uence of the trace gas CO2 on the climates of the Earth. Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 24, No. 10 (2010) 1333{1359 , DOI No: 10.1142/S0217979210055573, c World Scientic Publishing Company, worldscinet.com .