On Feb 6, 9:49*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 6 Feb 2012 10:03:46 -0800 (PST), Scammed Public

wrote:
There IS no equlibrium, not as long as we have a sun with variable
output and an Earth orbit that wobbles.

The Earth is in thermal equilibrium most of the time. The tiny
variability of the Sun and long term orbital variation of the Earth do
not change this. They merely are part of the reason why the
equilibrium point shifts slowly over thousands or millions of years.

We are currently out of equilibrium, because we are absorbing
significantly more energy than we are radiating, as a result of human
caused changes to the atmosphere. This is no different that natural
changes that have occurred in the past, just faster. The Earth will be
in equilibrium again; the only question for humans is how comfortable
that point will be for us, and how well we can deal with the rapid
shift.

Natural and artificial global dimming is perhaps worth 50% of the 296
TW.

Uranium usage and its spent byproducts (none of which are good for the
environment or much less human DNA friendly) isn’t much better than
hydrocarbons and the gauntlet of associated elements (most of which
are toxic and some can even be considered lethal in small dosages),
although unlike hydrocarbon consequences it’ll be dozens of
generations from now that’ll get to pay the most for the uranium
fission consequences initiated today.

Conventional nuclear fission produced electricity isn’t much better
than 20% efficient once the all-inclusive (birth-to grave)
thermodynamics and delivery efficiency is put squarely on the table.
In some instances of a failed or dysfunctional reactor site(s), make
that overall efficiency worth less than 10%. End result is, not much
work for the total amount of thermal energy created.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...budget_prt.htm
“According to calculations conducted by Hansen and his colleagues,
the 0.58 watts per square meter imbalance implies that carbon dioxide
levels need to be reduced to about 350 parts per million to restore
the energy budget to equilibrium. The most recent measurements show
that carbon dioxide levels are currently 392 parts per million and
scientists expect that concentration to continue to rise in the
future.”

So, what part of this .58 w/m2 or 2.96e14 watt global imbalance are
you buying or not buying into?

What part of burning hydrocarbons and fission derived energy is this
296 TW of AGW that doesn’t seem all that bad, that is unless your
local drought and/or weather extremes are either draining your bank
account or killing you. In other words, if we added up all the
hydrocarbon burning and fission energy we contribute to our
environment, could 25%(74 TW) be about right, or is it more like
50%(148 TW)?

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”