What's your opinion on Global Warming?

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

We're guessing you're new to this discussion??

...btw, it snowed last night where I live.

Hate the snow and the cold. If the ocean levels rise enough I could have tropical beach front property.


Bring it on :)

I don't know, what is the "right" temperature? What if this is just global recovery? Could you tell the difference?

I think man effects the environment, but not as much as the sun.

I believe the only way to "fix" man made global warming, is by reducing the world's population dramatically. Everything we do contributes to man-made global warming, building houses, laying roads, turning topsoil, and spreading fertilizer. And, anyone that tells you he knows the answer is a liar and wants something from you.

The whole Carbon-Dioxide thing is a joke, and the sheep are falling for it.

Concentrate on cleaning the things that make the Indian cry, and you'll be doing the right thing. Clean rivers, skies, and pick up the Wal-Mart plastic bags. Make devices energy efficient. Develop other forms of energy, and stop buying from the Middle East. Why make people feel guilty about living?

Wade,

Historically if you look at things, a large number of people screaming about global warming are the same people who were screaming about global cooling in the late 60's and who were predicting we were sliding into a mini ice age. 60's... 40 years ago... 40 year geological cycle... now their screaming about warming... can't be a real connection, has to be a coincidence.

I'm not sure there is a "right temperature" or that anyone can actually tell you what it is. I do think it is fair to say that we are pumping a lot of crap into the air, we whould breath better is we had less crap in the air, so lets pump less crap into the air. Other than that, there is mo reputable scientist who can definitively say the earth is warmer and 81.5% is due to polution and the remainder is the geological cycle. We just don't know how to seperate out the data yet. The only thing that can be said is that the mean temperature of the earth is risen by 0.5 degrees in the last century.

You want to wait for real havoc to start. Remember about 8 years ago the increase is sunspot activity and solar flairs. Canade and part of it's power grid knocked out due to a solar flair. A large portion of the world had the cell phone networks knocked out due to a solar flair. Well, their on the rise again, predicted to peak in 2012 and they are predicted to have a even more active time than we did 8 years ago. When you think of how many more things in the world are dependent on delicate electronic networks now when compared to 8 years ago. I think we should start now shielding CNCZone in a lead vault with huge battery backups, maybe in the bottom of a abandoned salt mine in Nevada. Of course the extremists will find some way to link this to human activity too.

Using a geological time frame, it's been a lot colder before, it's been lot warmer before. Isn't it sheer idiocy to think it's just perfect right now?

I love global warming. I just wish there was a lot more of it and that it happened a lot more rapidly. Imagine coconut palm trees on the sandy shores of an idyllic and balmy Arctic Ocean teeming with tropical fish. It's happened before, you know.

Mariss

.... Imagine coconut palm trees on the sandy shores of an idyllic and balmy Arctic Ocean teeming with tropical fish.... Mariss
I like your description of a "balmy" Arctic, but what is then the Sahara, Saigon & San Francisco weather like?
(+120F - or mostly just underwater?) :)
Pres

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?

What is it with this mindset that anything different, any change at all is bad and spells doom? If somehow a ton of gold appeared in your bedroom you'd probably complain you can't sleep because there's no room for your bed anymore.

Mariss

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?

What is it with this mindset that anything different, any change at all is bad and spells doom? If somehow a ton of gold appeared in your bedroom you'd probably complain you can't sleep because there's no room for your bed anymore.

Mariss

If Greenland and Antartica became icefree all the World's coastal cities would be under one or two hundred feet of seawater. I would say that should qualify as a change that is bad and spells doom for those cities.

My shop would also be under the same depth of water and I can assure you I would consider that bad and it would spell doom to my business.

So you are going to live at least 10,000 years? You must have one heck of a long-term lease seeing as how you don't ever plan to move. What are your long term plans for when the sun becomes a red giant in 4 billion years?

Mariss

So you are going to live at least 10,000 years? You must have one heck of a long-term lease seeing as how you don't ever plan to move. What are your long term plans for when the sun becomes a red giant in 4 billion years?

Mariss

The context and phrasing of your other posts suggested that you were imagining these events on a human time scale. You did write: How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable? which strongly implies you are imagining things on a human scale.

Not quite sure what you mean here. In a human lifespan you wouldn't notice any change at all. On a human race timespan, cave paintings depicting wildlife dates back over 40,000 years while ice 2 miles thick covered what is now New York only 15,000 years ago.

Mariss

Well then what on earth are you getting at. If your examples of changes are postulations of something that might happen eons in the future they are totally non-pertinent to the current discussion.

The question was "Do you like global warming?" I answered yes, palm trees in Alaska would be nice. You start in about stuff being underwater and 120F. So, what on earth are you getting at?

Mariss

The question was "Do you like global warming?" I answered yes, palm trees in Alaska would be nice. You start in about stuff being underwater and 120F. So, what on earth are you getting at?

Mariss

Somebody else mentioned the 120F.

Okay if you are talking about something that takes place outside a human time frame how can you call it a change. If the warming is so imperceptible that humans do not notice it then it is not changing. Your palm trees in Alaska bit is not pertinent. If there had been a change eons ago outside human perception such that Alaska was covered in palm trees now that would have always been the case from a human viewpoint so it would be no change.

But you said "imagine..." and I did and I came up with a negative counter to your imagine but then you ridicule my imagine so is your's any less ridiculous?

That's the problem with the internet. All that passes between people is written words while neither can hear the tone of voice or see the facial expressions of the other. Were you able to see and hear me you would know irony, not ridicule was intended. I respect you and what you post to ever intentionally demean or ridicule you. It's not in my nature.

Mariss

How about Greenland and Antarctica ice-free? How about most of Siberia and Canada becoming habitable?


Mariss


wow!
hadn t thought about that
global warming may be a great thing for us in Canada , we can ditch the skidoo's , it will be heart breaking to shoot the dog sled teams but with not having to feed them we could afford cars and trucks ,well , once we build roads and highways . the possibilities are endless , we could live like the rest of the world does

and fly fishing on open water will be great , i can t tell you how difficult it is to flick the fly line down that lil hole in the ice :D

wow!
hadn t thought about that
global warming may be a great thing for us in Canada , we can ditch the skidoo's , it will be heart breaking to shoot the dog sled teams but with not having to feed them we could afford cars and trucks ,well , once we build roads and highways . the possibilities are endless , we could live like the rest of the world does

and fly fishing on open water will be great , i can t tell you how difficult it is to flick the fly line down that lil hole in the ice :D

dertsap No!!!! All our Igloos will melt, then where will we live? And the Inuktuks will also sink into the mush from the permafrost melting so we will not have landmarks to guide us when we are hunting Polar bears.

And your fish won't be monotonously monochrome either.

Mariss

Inuktuks


may want to be carefull how you use that word ,the olympic commity probably has copyright to it along with everything else that they had claimed including "2010" , i think we'll have to skip that year due to the fact any calendar makers like hallmark will face lawsuits or something stupid like that

And your fish won't be monotonously monochrome either.

Mariss

donno bout that

man cannot create colors similar to the rainbows i was nailing into a couple weeks ago ,
beautiful !

If there is, do you really think we can do much about it?

No

We can't make it rain where we want at anytime, how in the heck are we causing global warming?

Do I like clean air, yes. Do I like cleaner cars and industry, yes.

Clean happens via the market (and some laws) since people buy cleaner (IE:efficient) and industry responds with more products. Attrition does a fair job in this area too.

I see our kids being brainwashed in this area too, and MANY ADULTS!!!

So, if carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up. Who should we blame, the oil producing countries, or the oil using countries? Seems that if they hadn't pumped the oil out of the ground, it would still be sequestered.

In the war on drugs, we blame the producers (liberals are the users), in the war on global warming we blame the users.

It really depends on where you are living if and when "global warming" occurs. I said "if" because scientists or our "learned" people always seem to "discover" certain ideas. these ideas sometimes they catch on and influence others, and in turn cause others much confusion. Yet, most "learned" people are so specialised that often, they fail to look at the big picture. I believe that solar activity is causing this climate change and it may not necessarily be permanent.
Personally, I think that we have a lot more to learn about our environment and to be at one with nature, this being that we try to have less impact on our environment and try to be sustainable in the long term. We are also at loggerheads with ourselves as to the changing nature of our environment. We also do not have sufficient data to prove or disprove certain events that are occuring now with respect to climate change. First of all, is our climate really changing, or is it just a short term phenomenon. Other planets are also being affected by this solar activity.
However, we still need to be comfortable and be able to enjoy ourselves, otherwise what is the purpose of living in this world?
there are others, of coursel that will make a lving out of the fear we have of climate change...the most recent major problem we had was the Y2K fear. I happened to work in the IT industry at that time, and found that much of the fear people had was quite unfounded. There were many people who thought that the world was going to end, that airplanes were going to just fall out of the sky, and all machines were going to go haywire the moment the clock strike midnight in the year 2000, .... etc. There was so much fear that many IT professionals made a huge profit from that fear and user ignorance. My advice to many was just shut down their computers on the last day of December 1999, and when they switch on the computers on new year's day 2000, and reset the date to 2000 in the BIOS. Most later model computers that were not Y2K compliant (that is, the date cannot roll over to 2000 automatically, ) would accept the new date and continue working. Only very few older computers cannot accept the year 2000 in their BIOS. Remember that in 1999, many computers were Intel Pentiums and their BIOS were quite advanced. Of course some software cannot accomodate the year 2000 in their program, but program shortcoming can be modified accordingly.
I have lived many years, and have seen numerous occurances of fear mongering by people who should know better. Some do that to gain profit from fear, but some are just plain ignorant. I am sure with this "global warming or climate change fear' we are going to see a number of people getting rich from "carbon" trading, and also others profiting from the "greening of the envoronment". All consumers will get are higher prices, and a lower standard of living, and the environment getting the crumbs.
These sorts of examples are plentiful throughout history, and if anybody care to do some research, they will uncover them easily. Of course, recent events can be masked by red tape, or perhaps some records may never see the light of day due to national security or some FOI rulings.
But common sense should prevail .... although someone once said that common sense is not so common after all.
One way or another, I do not fear climate change. I think that it is grossly irresponsible for anyone to spread rumours of our oceans rising and covering cities etc. and causing widespread choas as a direct result of climate change.

If there is, do you really think we can do much about it?

No

We can't make it rain where we want at anytime, how in the heck are we causing global warming?

Do I like clean air, yes. Do I like cleaner cars and industry, yes.

Clean happens via the market (and some laws) since people buy cleaner (IE:efficient) and industry responds with more products. Attrition does a fair job in this area too.

I see our kids being brainwashed in this area too, and MANY ADULTS!!!
Yes it’s true, many people have been brainwashed into this stupid theory and it’s somewhat funny. I have to say that it is a fact that one volcano eruption puts out the same amount of greenhouse gasses as cars do in the whole world in 10 years. So if it is because of that, it would be here with or without our help whether we like it or not.
Just to add Al Gore wrote a whole book on Gloabal Warming, what does that tell you.

1) There is global warming. It's been occurring naturally since the "little ice age".
2) Human intervention or cause is no more dangerous a contributer than a fly on the face of a charging elephant.

The above is a paraphrase of a statement by a "Professor Emeritus" of the University of Wisconsin I heard on a radio talk show. He retired years ago and works at a desk still provided him by the UW. He originally set up that department. His description of the PC version of "Global Warming" is "Hooey".
When asked why he hasn't given his opinion before he said "Nobody asked". After all, he might give an opinion different than the grant giving people want to hear from an eminent authority. Especially one they can't censure.

Well, I think many members of this Group have a much broader picture of climate change and the environment because in our type of work, we have to do a lot of thinking and looking at all sort of ideas etc. If we were to express some of our opinions to the so called "greenies" group, we might be condemmed to hell! Many strongly believe the burning of fossil fuel is the direct cause of climate change. ..
On a different note, will we really get global warming, ...or perhaps some parts of this World may experience warming but other parts may perhaps get colder? Did I hear that our earth's "magnetic pole" will change in the "near" future? Does it mean that our earth will spin clockwise instead?

I'm a mountain snowmobiler, I've long since gotten used to greenies hating me. We've fought greenies over snowmobiling in Yellowstone, and many other national parks and forests. Their all emotion, very little logic. You bad, we good. That's about the best they can do. Sometimes a well informed one shows up. But, if you can get them to give you references, you can usually poke holes in their argument big enough to drive a semi through. The worst is the "Professor" of such and such, too important to give the peasants references, and to busy to accept your uneducated rebuttal. The second worst is the news media greenie with an agenda. "The environment is worth lying for."

CNN showed up to Yellowstone and brought gas masks for the park employees to wear. They don't actually have their own. They shot the story, packed the gas masks back up, and left. Now all the gullible people think park employees wear gas masks. You try to explain this to people, and most don't realize the engines in the snowmobiles are 4 strokes, that are much cleaner than a street bike. A Yamaha R1 motorcycle engine, mounted into a snowmobile, isn't allowed in the park. It won't pass emission requirements. Personally, I always thought snowmobiling in a volcano was the perfect place to recreate, what the heck could we do that won't be wiped out in the next eruption? But there I go again, using logic. I'm glad the park has restrictions. But, to close the park's roads to snowmobiles makes no sense.

I feel it is just a cycle that the earth is going through. I could be wrong. it wouldn't be the first time. There just isn't enough data to support their claims.
Duane

Emotional Answer; Yes, we are causing it and we will all die tomorrow unless we go back to living like in the Middle Ages (wait, it was hotter then :eek:)

Logical Answer; Not enough information, and nothing we can do about it anyway.

FB

Well, yes, we seem to be groping in the dark to find solutions that in some cases we are not in control of, and not in our power to solve.
Sad to think that most of our actions are based on insufficient data. Unfortunately, the porer countries have to suffer for any "carbon" policy this World dictates. the only thing we can do is to find a sustainable policy based on calculations and known data, and work on that. we can first manufacture goods that are longer lasting and durable, and more energy efficient, with a policy on how they should be recycled when the need arises. We can also use energy more efficiently so we don't burnt unnecessarily fossil fuel. We can start reforestation in denuded places. We can start cleaning up the environment and stop harvesting the seas and oceans like there is no tomorow. There are so many things individuals can do to support our future. We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term. Do we still have to burn fossil fuel like we burnt logs on a fire. Why are we still using the internal combustion engine? Are we so ignorant while claiming to be so advanced in technology? Can we use other forms of reaction to obtain the required power or energy instead of exploding fuel in a chamber with the attending noise, vibration, pollution and toxic gases? Aren't our scientist and engineers smart enough to design better products? Looks like we aren't so smart after all...with more than a hundred years of producing the same old internal combustion engine...Am I the only crazy person to think that there are better ways of using our fossil fuel?

Well, yes, we seem to be groping in the dark to find solutions that in some cases we are not in control of, and not in our power to solve.
Sad to think that most of our actions are based on insufficient data. Unfortunately, the porer countries have to suffer for any "carbon" policy this World dictates. the only thing we can do is to find a sustainable policy based on calculations and known data, and work on that. we can first manufacture goods that are longer lasting and durable, and more energy efficient, with a policy on how they should be recycled when the need arises. We can also use energy more efficiently so we don't burnt unnecessarily fossil fuel. We can start reforestation in denuded places. We can start cleaning up the environment and stop harvesting the seas and oceans like there is no tomorow. There are so many things individuals can do to support our future. We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term. Do we still have to burn fossil fuel like we burnt logs on a fire. Why are we still using the internal combustion engine? Are we so ignorant while claiming to be so advanced in technology? Can we use other forms of reaction to obtain the required power or energy instead of exploding fuel in a chamber with the attending noise, vibration, pollution and toxic gases? Aren't our scientist and engineers smart enough to design better products? Looks like we aren't so smart after all...with more than a hundred years of producing the same old internal combustion engine...Am I the only crazy person to think that there are better ways of using our fossil fuel?

What fossil fuels? The earth creates oil just like it does diamonds, gold and other minerals. I remember 30 (when they talked about another ICE age) years ago when we were going to run out of oil at the current use in 25 years. Now the world uses more, we are finding more and get it out more EFF than ever before.

The worlds poor nations are excempt or don't care about so called GW or our rules.

The engines we use now run so clean you can't even kill yourself with the fumes now, it has to afixiate you.

The USA is the cleanest nation in the world for what we produce per capita and how EFF we do it. Sure we use more OIL than other nations, but it is justified.

Everyone lines up to come here, not leave. Think about that part.

Proper Quote: "We have to ask ourselves "Are we doing the right things to help the environment?" Every small effort we put in to help the environment will be useful in the long term"

See Prosper, that's kind of the point. I think there are people capable of making decisions that would help the environment. But, the people that are whipping this all up, don't have a clue.

It's just like the spotted owl. The scientist (they claimed to be anyway) claimed that if we shut down logging, it would save the spotted owl. So, we did. We killed the logging industry in Washington State. So what happened. The bird is still declining. Turns out, spotted owl are adapted to a sparse woodland mountainous environment. Not the overgrown, put every fire out, greenie directed policies. And, it turns out that one animal, the horned owl, is adapted to a dense forest (there native to back east). It also turns out that the horned owl is the natural enemy of the spotted owl. So 10 years later, the wildlife people announce a horned owl culling. About 500 animals to start with I believe. But, the greenies that promised that the birds would be saved by shutting down logging, no where to be found. Not an offer to repay one cent of all the needlessly lost jobs. Or, all the fuel and money and environmental damage caused by shipping wood in from all over the world. From places that don't regulate deforestation properly. They now claim that shutting down the forest helped other animals, and "Saved" the forest. They made a dramatic claim, without any proof. Are they liable?

What fossil fuels? The earth creates oil just like it does diamonds, gold and other minerals. I remember 30 (when they talked about another ICE age) years ago when we were going to run out of oil at the current use in 25 years. Now the world uses more, we are finding more and get it out more EFF than ever before.

Okay, you may be right, as I am not hearing the whole truth...perhaps the oil companies are lying about the scarcity of oil so that they can command a high price? I realy don't know but that. I have heard that oil is much harder to find and most of the oil are of poor quality. Also, they have to pressurise the well or use steam to extracted the last remaining gallon of oil in some cases. Maybe we have better technology in our search or we have better machines to do the difficult work? I don't know how much oil reserves we have, I think no one really knows for sure. I seem to have the theory that in this World, almost everything is finite, and we are capable of exhausting our resources eventually. We are also capable of causing animal and plant extinction...maybe it is not all "our fault", but we are able to hasten extinctions very easily.

The worlds poor nations are excempt or don't care about so called GW or our rules.

Yes, I do agree because they are just too poor to do anything else. They have to burn fire wood just to do basic cooking, or they will starve to death...are we doing anything to help them, or just pass comments and critisise them for wanting to survive. They do care..I visited China recently and many people there are very unhappy about the pollution, but without their polluting industries, they will all die....either way, they will eventually die but at least they won't die doing nothing. It is easy for us to say that our developed world has less pollution etc. We have to remember that we import a lot of cheap products from the "poor" countries. They create the pollution in their countries, we consume what they create..so who really is responsible? Many developed countries have shares or own large factories in the poorer countries where labour is cheap and also their laws regarding pollution is lenient. ((I won't mention names, but there are lots of famous brands of products owned by multinationals), also remember Bopal in India a few years ago? I am not blaming anyone for any pollution problems but it is just food for thoughts, that's all.


The engines we use now run so clean you can't even kill yourself with the fumes now, it has to afixiate you.


Perhaps the engines that are running in vehicles in the developed countries are less polluting but what about the ones in the poorer countries? How are they going to progress if they are in a vicious circle?Also, new technology cost a lot of money, and companies owning patents charge a lot for the licences. I dont' blame them for whatever amount they charge, but where does this lead to?
Remember that in the end, we can blame anyone for creating pollution, but it will go unresolved, and also cause a lot of anger and resentment to all parties concerned. There must be a solution but are we willing to make compromises? Ultimately, are we living in one World or are we divided in our quest for a cleaner environment?


The USA is the cleanest nation in the world for what we produce per capita and how EFF we do it. Sure we use more OIL than other nations, but it is justified.

It is wonderful to know that the USA is leading the World in a cleaner environment. Perhaps the USA is the cleanest nation in the world, and there are many who love to migrate to the USA. How about then helping the rest of the World to become "clean"? Would it cost poorer countries the earth for that too happen? I was in the USA a long time ago. I met many nice people there, and I enjoyed my trip. Americans have a high standard of living and a good technological base. I may be wrong but I always thought that it is the migrants that made America great, both past and present. What about the railroad workers, the pioneers, of people like Albert Einstein, and many scientist that were refugees during the second world war, etc. did their part in contributing to the present America. With such a good base to work on, the younger generation will have a very good chance of keeping up the pace. Yes, indeed, it is very important for any country to accept hardworking and decent migrants to make a country great.


Everyone lines up to come here, not leave. Think about that part.


I live in Australia, and I am happy here. Personally, I like to live in Australia because I am surrounded by the most unique flora and fauna. It also has many climates, and we have many nice places to visit in the "bush". We have a small population, about 21 million inhibitants. We have big cities as well. I will always call Australia my home, no matter what!

I don't think anyone said Australia is a bad place to live. From what I remember, you have a problem with Indonesians (everybody) trying to move there. Besides, why did you change the subject from global warming to nationalist chest pounding. I don't think that was his point.

Here in the states interesting things are going on:

Some people hate hydroelectric dams, cause they want to revive the fish migration populations. Lots of lawsuits. There goes that form of clean energy.

Every time someone tries to install a wind mill around here, they get challenged in court. Lawsuit. There goes that form of clean energy. Not to mention the Audubon society claims they kill birds and some type of squirrel like animals. The only place that has been installing them is Texas. President Bush put saws are in place to support wind energy back when he was governor, environmentalist are mad though.

Tital generators, blocked by environmentalist, and home owners that don't want their view spoiled. Lawsuit.

Everytime someone proposes installing a solar chimney, they get blocked at the local government level. Not in my backyard.

Every time someone wants to burn wood, You guessed it, lawsuit. Going on in Oregon as we speak.

Garbage incineration, lawsuit. Nashville Tn is good example.

Nuclear Energy, lawsuits and marches, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Going on in Grand View Idaho.

Fusion, nobody wants to fund it. They'd rather give money to those that won't work. Or on the flip side, the energy corporations block it's funding. So, they took their research over to Europe.

Laws covering new house energy efficiency, the home builders association groups blocked that.

So, the Engineer not only has to pull a energy bunny out of his azz. He also has to do it in such a way that doesn't offend someone. I mean, how do you do this? There's no magic energy solution. Energy has to be found, harvested, transported, utilized, and then disposed of. So, instead of ranting on engineers, how about proposing some solutions.

I don't think anyone said Australia is a bad place to live. From what I remember, you have a problem with Indonesians (everybody) trying to move there. Besides, why did you change the subject from global warming to nationalist chest pounding. I don't think that was his point.

Well, okay, when I wrote about Australia, it was meant to let people know that we live in our country and we are used to the life. So, under normal circumstances, no one likes to migrate to a foreign country because it has so many pitfalls. Eg. language difference, culture and traditions, new laws to remember etc. etc.. Nationalist chest pounding? I personally am fascinated by the unique environment here in Australia, so I feel that we should be careful what we do. Depends on how one reads my statement.. I wa implicating that if we consume too much, we eventually will suffer the consequences. Look, I agree that we live in this world for a short time,and many people like to enjoy life to the fullest and exposed their "bright side" and contribute their "two cents worth" to society..but we are producing too much garbage as well.




Here in the states interesting things are going on:

Some people hate hydroelectric dams, cause they want to revive the fish migration populations. Lots of lawsuits. There goes that form of clean energy.

Every time someone tries to install a wind mill around here, they get challenged in court. Lawsuit. There goes that form of clean energy. Not to mention the Audubon society claims they kill birds and some type of squirrel like animals. The only place that has been installing them is Texas. President Bush put saws are in place to support wind energy back when he was governor, environmentalist are mad though.

Tital generators, blocked by environmentalist, and home owners that don't want their view spoiled. Lawsuit.

Everytime someone proposes installing a solar chimney, they get blocked at the local government level. Not in my backyard.

Every time someone wants to burn wood, You guessed it, lawsuit. Going on in Oregon as we speak.

Garbage incineration, lawsuit. Nashville Tn is good example.

Nuclear Energy, lawsuits and marches, demonstrations, and acts of civil disobedience. Going on in Grand View Idaho.

Fusion, nobody wants to fund it. They'd rather give money to those that won't work. Or on the flip side, the energy corporations block it's funding. So, they took their research over to Europe.

Laws covering new house energy efficiency, the home builders association groups blocked that.


Well, at least you now realise that you have a social problem rather than an enviromental one. Why do the "greenies" behave in such a way. Are those people who oppose building "energy structures" still live in caves? If not, why not" Living in houses produces pollution, so why should they be hypocrites? When I was in the USA, I was warned to be careful of being sued. We had to study litigation as part of what we were doing. Being sued takes a lot of emotional energy and also makes one very discourage. Unless a person is rich and can afford legal reperesntation, it wil be a lost cause. Now, don't take it that I am critising American society..I am not. I think that in any society, there are quirks that occur and nobody seem to have any power to stop it. So, if you tell me that you have all the above situation when trying to generate "green" energy, then I feel that it is going to be a tough one to overcome. Society sometimes creates its own downfall. If you cannot generate energy by building structures, (for whatever reasons) then I am at a loss for words. I wish you good luck for the future then. I only hope the "greenies" in Australia does not create this situation.


So, the Engineer not only has to pull a energy bunny out of his azz. He also has to do it in such a way that doesn't offend someone. I mean, how do you do this? There's no magic energy solution. Energy has to be found, harvested, transported, utilized, and then disposed of. So, instead of ranting on engineers, how about proposing some solutions.


Engineers? Am I ranting or blaming Engineers? I graduated in Industrial Engineering. My interest lies more with Information Technology at the moment as well as horticulture. What I meant was, with all the talk of our technology, we are still groping to find an alternative energy source. I am at the moment experimenting with Energy derived from Sugar. I feel that sugar derived from any "green matter" may be the way to go. I am not suggesting changing the sugar to alcohol, but using it directly in a reactor.
However, I realise that many people will just laugh at me for my stupidity or ignorance, that is why i keep to myself in this. But I still plod on regardless... Being an individual, it is difficult to work full time, and also spend time researching and doing experiments. I have along way ahead of me, but I'll send my research papers to the next person who will continue when I pass on. So, I am not just talking, but doing something to solve the problem. I apologies to anyone in advance if what I wrote hurt anyone. My intention was to make people aware of our need to be sustainable if we want to survive long term future on this finite earth..

I think something that is lost is how resiliant the earth really is.

We let bacteria clean up oil spills and leaks. Remember the Exxon Valdez? They said it would take 25-50 years for the area to return to normal. 10 years later, there is hardly a sign of it.

There are more trees on earth now than we we started to keep tract, mostly because we plant them.

Conservation comes alot from demand as much as laws. We want more eff and that goes hand in hand with clean very often.

Humans are also part of this earth and our needs (and wants) have to be considered along with conservation.

You are right, FBJR. We sometimes look at this World in a "human" perspective. I say human because we are quite ignorant in the mysteries of this World (Nature). We don't understand fully the mechanisms of what the recovery process of Nature is.
Also, there are so many things we cannot predict, guess this World is steep in mysteries that we humans will take a very long time to decipher and understand...but it makes it even more interesting precisely because of this enigma.
I am quite confident we as humans, will survive for a very long time. As long as we keep up our good works and we'll be all right for the future. We need to be nice to each other and be peaceable, share our ideas and apirations.
I wish all you "Happy Days ahead!!!"

You are right, FBJR. We sometimes look at this World in a "human" perspective. I say human because we are quite ignorant in the mysteries of this World (Nature). We don't understand fully the mechanisms of what the recovery process of Nature is.
Also, there are so many things we cannot predict, guess this World is steep in mysteries that we humans will take a very long time to decipher and understand...but it makes it even more interesting precisely because of this enigma.
I am quite confident we as humans, will survive for a very long time. As long as we keep up our good works and we'll be all right for the future. We need to be nice to each other and be peaceable, share our ideas and apirations.
I wish all you "Happy Days ahead!!!"


I agree with all of that and dittos on the last line :D

Cattle Flatulence and SUVs arent the problem. Anyone with half a brain can see that we are still in a solar maximun instead of the sun moving into its normal solar minimum like it should have years ago. For the last 2 years here in So Ca. we have had 103F degree days in the middle of DEMEMBER. Broke the record by nearly 20F!!!! There is nothing on this earth that can change things that rapidly. Absolutley nothing. The 1st thing we have to understand is that the movement of the outer planets OUTSIDE OF THEIR NORMAL ORBITS could not be caused by anything that goes on on this planet. The unabated huge SOLAR FLARES that have happened within the last 3-4 years are not caused by anything that is going on on or in this planet. Its totally an OUTSIDE form of interference. Physics teaches us: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." ( Newtons third law). To get planets to change their orbits even a little bit requires an interdiction of huge proportions to upset the balances of all the connecting forces that hold them together. I think its safe to say that the govt has been lying to us for many years about many many subjects. Global Warming us just one of them. There is ample historical evidence that a series of comets, asteroids, and even a large planet comes into contact with our solar system every 4,000 + - years. The Ancients wrote about them in detail. The Sumerian tablets recently found have extensive detail about these comets and the destruction to our planet that was left in their wake. Other ancient texts like the Kolbrin Bible have the same type of details that were left out of our Roman inspired bibles of today. All this info is out there, One just needs to use common sense and begin to think outside the box.
Michael

Thanks Michael, and all those who are now seeing things in a better light, and using their common sense to do some research in a balanced way.
No doubt we should be aware of our slowly dwindling resources (although we still have enough for the forthcoming generations) and take care to use them wisely. We also should take steps to minimise or reduce our pollution. However, climate change has little to do with the present "climate change" People seem to be so worried about this climate change that they become so fearful. This fear always lead to panic and action that leads to our destruction if we don't be more aware. Fear always breed more fear and in the end, we destroy ourselves by our illogical actions. There are so many examples of this kind of attitude throughtout history of the human population that there is no need for me to mention them.
However, instead of now trying to think of how to overcome and adapt to the coming changes, we are all squabbling over thoeries that we know to be incorrect. We need to think of ways to make this climate change work for us to our advantage, and also make the necessary changes in some places to survive. By doing so, we are going to benefit and also enjoy the advantages of the change in our environment. Remember that change occurs in the normal course of our ever "evolving" environment and there are occurances in the Universe that we, as humans, cannot change.

Hi Michael,

You’re actually mixing 2 different cycles. The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year). The last maxima, in the late 1990’s, (it’s an 11 year cycle) were responsible for wide ranging outages of cell phones, satellite feeds and even power outages. Sunspots are relatively cool spots on the suns surface. When they collapse the result in solar prominences or flares (for the larger sun spots). This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta). It’s also responsible for the aurora (the proton hitting oxygen and nitrogen in the upper atmosphere). Considering how much more dependent we are now of delicate electronics like computers, 2010-2011 is going to be an interesting time.

There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle. I haven’t read his paper yet, so I’m a little skeptical. Not that the global warming effects are due to the cycle, but that he has found a way to separate this cycle from the other possible variables.

As an interesting side note, the South Africans were complaining about the low turnout for the Al Gore Live Earth concerts due to snow and unseasonably cold weather. You just can’t rely on that global warming.

However, I do like blaming things on the cows if I can. It gets the PETA people really agitated. :)

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Look at the graph about half way down the page (smoothed sunspot cycle), were actually at a pretty low spot for the past few years. But it's going to geg bumpy soon.

I this brief writeup the protons I alluded to are lumped together in the general term ions.

Prosper, not informing the public as to how to protect themselves is criminal. Not telling them what is going to happen is also criminal. We in this country have faced Civil War, 2 World Wars, and the Great Depression. Fear did not cause widespread panic or cause us to become paralyzed. We did what we needed to do to survive and PREVAIL. If the public is informed the same way as was the news of all those aforementioned wars etc. I think the vast majority of people will be more interested in surviving than rioting.
Forget about the envoirnment. It will be years before anything remotely resembling an enviornment will emerge. After this passage we will pick up the pieces and go on. Unfortunately most within 100 miles of an ocean or large body of water will not survive. If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
Michael

[QUOTE=sdantonio;317992] You just can’t rely on that global warming.

QUOTE]

Dear Steven,

Over here in the UK, we had a really hot April.

Out came the "Global Warming" people.. "Obvious proof, "we told you so "etc.

May and June were pretty cold and miserable, and a bit rainy.

Out came the "Climate Change" people. They were the same people of course, plucking dodgy data to support their very lucrative industry.

They simply will not go away.

Best wishes

Martin

......The sunspot cycle, which is responsible for the majority of solar flares, is scheduled to hit maxima in about 2010 or 2011 (I forget which year).....This results in the release on massive proton ejecta, which then wreaks havoc with electrical systems on earth (providing we are in the way of the ejecta)........There is another cycle, a 40-year cycle for the total energy output of the sun. This cycle is currently near it’s maximum. A Canadian solar physicist released a paper the other week stating proof that all the global warming effects (which in reality amounts to a mean temperature increase on 0.5 degrees worldwide) are due to this 40-year cycle......

Here are some IFs. After all if the Global Warming Crowd are allowed to play the if - then game and predict doom and gloom surely I can do the same.

There are a number of scientists who are of the opinion that solar flare activity also acts to reduce the cosmic ray flux hitting the Earth. And because cosmic rays may have an influence on cloud formation a reduced flux could cause a reduced cloud cover which could decrease the Earth's albedo which could contribute to warming.

So we are moving toward a period of enhanced solar flare activity...therefore there is warming from reduced cloud cover and we are at the maximum, or mid point (?) of an increased solar energy output...so therefore it is a double whammy.

But all good (?) things come to an end. In ten years time we should be in a low solar flare condition...i.e. lots of (or at least more) clouds and at the same time we will be well into the decline of the 40 year solar energy cycle...so double downward whammy.

If it all comes to pass it will be interesting to see how the gloom and doomers rationalise it. Of course if it doesn't come to pass I guess a lot of people will have waterfront property facing the wrong way.

Geoff,

Excellent "IF Game". I like the way you think. The only point I would make is that is the past 10 years or so the sun has become noticeably dimmer (noticeable to very sensitive scientific instruments). This is due to soot (particulates) in the atmosphere. I have no idea at all how much this would counter the effect of the reduced cloud formation, if at all.

So do we hurry up and pump more soot into the air. I think this would have it's own problems.

There was a study just released today. One of the global warming folks big "if's" is the possible melting of the Greenland glacier (sea levels rise, mass panic, Las Vegas gets flooded, Elvis returns, etc). According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped.

Looks like I'm not getting my beach front property any time soon :( (going to be stuck 50 miles inland I guess)

If you look at the worlds population you will see that the vast majority of people live within 100 miles of a shoreline. Hence the overpopulation remedy that so many are clamoring for. If they are not told to move closer to the interrior of the country they will be lost. Think Im making all this up? Take a look at how many of the U. S Government agencies have already moved inland. Now ask yourself why.
Michael

Wow, that explains why last week I saw the White house on the back of a flatbed truck with a sign saying "Ohio or bust" on the back. And of course Haliburton blew up the levies in New Orleans by planting dynamite underwater because George Bush hates African Americans. Of course this can't be proven or disproven because the only way to see under water is with mask and snorkel and the government didn't issue masks and snorkels to the residents of NOLA. More population control theories brought to you by the far left bloggers... sewing the seeds of terror worldwide. (I think that one was from the Michael Moore blog, but I could be wrong about the source).

Sorry, I just can't let this one go by.

Dear Geof,

Far from me to suggest that your science is in anyway flawed, but I was curious about albedo. Wiki is a pretty dodgy source of knowledge, but here goes.....

In realistic cases, a bidirectional reflectance distribution function (BRDF) is required to characterise the scattering properties of a surface accurately, although albedos are a very useful first approximation.

Probably entirely true.

The words "a very useful first approximation", however, made my hair stand on end.

Sounded a bit too much like the stuff from the Climate experts.

Best wishes,

Martin

... According to this study, in the last big global warming event 169,000 years ago) where the mean temp of the earth went up 9 degrees, the majority of this ice sheet stayed intact and didn't melt. I didn't listen to carefully to the report, but it was based on DNA analysis of organisms trapped in the glacier and using that to identify the organisms and then extrapolate back to how thick the glacier was when they were trapped....

Yes I read that one.

The "soot" bit I have read about and I think it is not soot but things such as sulfur dioxide which can cause high level haze. As far as I can gather reading different sources there is disagreement whether this cause cooling or warming.

martinw; It sounds like the Wiki people are getting a bit carried away...they do sometimes. Here is the simple minded meaning I am using; "The term albedo (Latin for white) is commonly used to applied to the overall average reflection coefficient of an object". Viewed from above, on average, clouds are whiter than ground and they scatter back incident radiation. There is controversy, as I mention above, as to whether clouds are net warmers or coolers.

Dear Geof and Steve,

Thank-you for the posts.

I live and learn.


Best wishes

Martin

Martin,

The easiest way to think of albedo is, as Geoff said, white. To be a little more specific, the lighter the color the more it will reflect light, the darker the color, the less reflected light.

In planetary physics, celestial bodies are generally characterized by their albedo. Given a star 93 million miles away your less likely to bump into a clean snowball than a lump of coal because more light will be reflected from the snowball (and it will be more easily seen) due to it's higher albedo (or coefficient of reflection).

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

There is so much junk science associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria it too much to keep track of.

The earth is always in some type of ice age, I believe were coming down off one now, but when thats done we'll be coming into another one at some point.

AlGore's global warming map was critically flawed. He used a Mercator projection. He was showing polar areas that had receded. Well the numbers would have looked quite different with an accurate map projection.

Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet.

The whole "we only have thirty years of oil left" thing is total BS too. Thats what they were saying many years ago, we'd be out now if it was true. Thirty years from now they will be saying the same thing, and there's a reason for that too. It is because of accounting practices that consider future reserves to have less value based on how far into the future they will be available. SPV (Sum of Present Value) Its BS.

What I am expecting to happen is we (society) will give in to the BS the greenies are pushing (its already happening). Years from now everything will still be okay and those wacko's will claim we were saved thanks to them, and they'll just get worse then!!

.... Picture a glass of ice water, with ice cubes floating around in it. The top third or so of the cubes sticks above the waterline. This is the earth. Now let the glass of ice water warm up and the cubes melt, does the water level raise?

At most all we could cause the sea levels to raise is probably a lot more like a few inches, not a hundred feet............

It is okay to be a skeptic but make sure your scepticism is well founded.

What you say is correct for ice that is floating in the sea. When ice on land melts and the resulting water flows into the sea the then the sea level will rise.

There is enough water in the ice on the Antartic continent and Greenland that if it did melt then sea levels would rise many tens of feet.

The big question is will it melt.

The big question is will it melt.

And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

On and on it goes...

Best wishes


Martin

And the Climate Change industry will reply.."We can't take the risk, Geof"

On and on it goes...

Best wishes


Martin

True, and if it was remotely possible that we could do anything about it I may accept that reasoning.

I have read one article by a climate scientist/oceanographer who pointed out that IF the fossil CO2 we have released is the cause of the warming, and IF we stopped emitting fossil CO2 completely right now the warming would probably continue for 50 years, maybe more. Climate/weather responds with an enormous lag; after all on an annual basis the shortest day of the year, i.e. the day with the least sunlight, precedes the coldest month of the year by about six weeks.

I have stated it before; IF the CO2 is responsible for the warming a lot of people had better start learning how to live underwater; there is no way to avoid it even if the world's entire economy was shut down.

Geoff's point is that the fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of the suns energy back into space, keeping the earth cool (something easy to verify by just standing outside on a hot day and waiting for a cloud to pass overhead which is also equivalent to walking under a shady tree). Global warming, coupled with decreased cloud formation (due to increased solar flare activity) may just give me my beach front property.

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

Dear Steve,

Yes, I can see that the white fluffy stuff could reflect solar radiation back into space, but won't it also prevent the Earth's heat being radiated back out as well, and cause the Earth to be warmer.

Sorry if my physics is iffy.


Best wishes


Martin

Your Physics is not iffy; that is the crux of the controversy.

If you have clouds only during the day and clear at night it is obvious that the net effect is cooling.

If you have clear during the day and cloudy at night the net effect will probably be heating.

If you have completely clear skies day and night there are very wide diurnal temperature swings; these are typical desert conditions.

If you have constant overcast cloud day and night you have small diurnal temperature swings.

But in the third and fourth situation which gives the greatest NET heat gain? It depends on where this is happening, does the earth's surface in that region have a high or low albedo? There are so many variables you can make your reasoning fit any conclusion.

The response of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Crowd is: "it is so complicated we will ignore it."

My Witch Doctor/Environmentalist said I shouldn't worry about running out of oil or global warming caused consuming it. He claims there isn't enough oxygen left to burn it. What we need is a carbon dioxide fuel cell. lol

Dear Geof,

Many thanks for your last post. This is interesting stuff.

For what it's worth, my real problem with Climate Change is my childish suspicion of politicians and those who shout in their ears loudest.

Climate Change , (rather like Terrorism) is such a fantastic opportunity for the power-hungry to boss and restrict the activities of the citizenry.

Sorry, ranting again...

Please keep the physics coming.

Best wishes

Martin

.... my childish suspicion of politicians and those who shout in their ears loudest.....Martin

I am not entirely sure this is childish :) .

I am not entirely sure this is childish :) .

Childish? Childish?

Too long ago to remember about that...

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof and Steve,

I'm still curious about cloud albedo, and in-coming and out-going radiation .

Geof said a few posts ago that deserts have huge diurnal temperature swings. This is clearly observable. Would I be right in saying that this is due to the a lack of water at ground level which cannot possibly form significant clouds above the desert, despite huge levels of solar radiation? I think so.

Now, suppose you go to the Alps or Rockies for some skiing.

All around are heaps of snow, and the Sun beats down all day. OK, the air temperature is low, but you don't feel it because the Sun is radiating to you and being massively reflected by the snow.

Why are the nights so cold and cloudless? There is plenty of wet stuff lying around (albiet in a solid phase) for some water vapour to be formed by the day-time solar input, but the night skies tend to be clear. Is it simply that the ground albedo chucks all the Sun's effort into outer space? Does altitude feature in the behaviour of H2O in these circumstances?

I have a mountain to climb.

Best wishes

Martin

martin; You seem to be developing a tendency to answer your own questions :) . But your ascribing the lack of clouds over deserts to the lack of ground moisture is a horse before cart way of looking at things.

Most water vapor, which may become cloud and then rain or snow, arrives with the wind. The source of most water vapor is the sea although downwind of lakes and in some cases forests the atmospheric water content is elevated and cloud formation may be enhanced from these sources.

To see why a desert is a desert you just need to look upwind. In the case of many deserts upwind is a lot of land, sometimes very bumpy land which has seen lots of cloud and precipitation of rain or snow. By the time the wind gets to the desert region it is very dry and simply cannot form clouds. Some deserts are in coastal regions and upwind lies the ocean, however, in these cases often the ocean is cold as is the case for Atacama. Even though the wind is off the ocean it does not have much moisture because of the cold current up the coast.

Your mountain situation is somewhat similar in that upwind is down..in elevation that is. The air, that may have been moist when it started its journey upwards from the low lands, cools and the moisture precipitates out so by the time it gets to your ski area it is dry and cannot form clouds. The snow in your ski area arrived in air that was travelling quickly and had such a high moisture content it did not get all the moisture squeezed out lower down. Another name for fast moving moisture laden air is a storm.

And you are quite correct snow has a very high albedo; once it has fallen it does not absorb solar energy much so it tends to stay. But sprinkle a little dirt on it and it is another matter.

One of the great global warming scientists, philosophers and statesmen speaks out (I'm being sarcastic here).

I saw an interview with Robert M. Kennedy Jr, son of Robert Kennedy, (duh... that's kind of obvious) the brother of our president John Kennedy. He was a very pro global warming guy, by which I mean that he ascribes all global warming to human caused pollution and talked of the dire consequences to come (He actually made Gores' predictions sound a little meek).

Part of the way through the interview he made the statement "if you don't agree with me then you are a liar" in rebuttal to John Stossel who wrote a book that pretty much disagreed with a lot of RMK's points of debate (it was a split screen interview with Stossel and RMK Jr.). RMK's point was that the big oil companies bought off Stossel so that he (Stossel) would point the finger of global warming elsewhere). RMK was also making sweeping statements like all scientists and Meteorologists agree with RMK's point of view.

That's what we need. Good, honest open debate in a straightforward and intelligent manner bu experts in the field.

That's what we need. Good, honest open debate in a straightforward and intelligent manner bu experts in the field.

Dear Steve,

I couldn't agree more wholeheartedly. The problem is that "honesty and openness" is a slim commodity given the nature of Government funding.

There is an official policy, and God help those who question it. They will not be fed at the trough.

Best wishes

Martin

Considering the recent Live Earth concert, it occurs to me that any of the speakers might have said:

"My friends, I know the earth-saving lifestyle we ask of you may cause some hardship; no great battles are won without many embracing personal sacrafice. However, also know that as you rise through the ranks, as you grow in celebrity and influence, you will, rightly, no longer be expected to bare the burden of self-sacrifice. Our good friends Al Gore, John Edwards, Hollywood, the music industry, and many many others, are wonderful, humble examples of how there need not be a contradiction between extravegant lifestyles and supporting the cause of mother earth. By the time you are seen as a spokeperson for the 'cause', you will have well earned a life of leasure. So take heart. Gia bless. Now lets rock!"

That same Robert kennedy is one of the Kenndys' and other Martha's Vineyards "ecoists" who are fighting the installation of wind turbines offshore (5 miles out) because they would ruin their view. If you are believer in man-made global warming fine, but live by your words or get out of the way of those who are doing something that may help at very minimal impact to the "global environment"......RMK, Al Gore, John Edwards...hypocrite is thy name. Read about GWB, someone who actually constructed and lives in a "green friendly home" and made improvements to the White House to reduce its impact on the enviroment. He may not be right on everything but he follows through on his commitments.

In Australia we are looking down the barrel of a federal election. The left wing party has been in opposition for about 15 years and look as though they might get back into power based somewhat on their take on "climate change" and their accusation that the conservative ruling party haven't done enough about the "problem".

The ruling party say that the "climate change" case isn't conclusive and unless there is tangible scientific proof they won't be making any radical changes to policy. Depending on your view this looks like prudent governance or stubborn refusal to see a problem.

The opposition party have clung onto the global warming mantra and looking at the polls, they may have hit a nerve with the great unwashed. Despite the questionable science and associated hyteria, the "climate change" beat up/recognition looks like a winner.

In the south west of Western Australia we have a piece of God's own country at a town called Denmark. Here the forest, river and sea meet in what used to be a farming / forestry town. In the seventies a lot of hippies formed communes and the dreadlocks, rainbow garbs, kombi vans, bare feet and pot, turned the place into a hippy/greeny refuge.

The town has since become a mecca for cashed up retirees from larger cities but the local council is still pretty strongly greeny and the town prides itself on its environmentally friendly, tree hugging history.

In the adjacent southern coastal town of Albany they have a wind farm with about a dozen big 3 bladed turbines made in Germany. Each blade of the turbines is the size of a Jumbo jet wing and the wind farm generates a large proportion of the town's energy due to the prevailing sea breezes off the southern ocean.

Strangely however when the state government suggested that they install a green / natural energy wind farm at the greeny Denmark shire the environmentally aware council and inhabitants of the tree hugging Denmark would't hear of it and blocked the initiative.

As the (north) Americans say, go figure.

Romans chapter 1 in the Bible says that men would worship and serve the earth that God created instead of worshipping God. Now they are trying to do His job for Him. I think Al Gore is slightly less qualified than God to handle the job. Environmentalism is good to the 70% level. Beyond that it costs the same to clean up the next 10% as it did to clean up the first 70%. EPA will never go away and will always suck the cash out of our pockets for marginal gain. They will not be satisfied with emissions until my diesel is running on water. Reason is not one of thier strong points. When your leader sounds like he is addressing a kindergarten class when he speaks and will not answer questions, there may be something wrong with the "theory". Junk Science?

Hi Pete,

If you pushed a sexular environmentalist (and all the ones I have run across personally are secularists or "neo-pagans" they will counter by telling you that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that got us in this mess to begin with. While I agree that Al Gore is less qualified to play God than, lets say, the typical 5-year old, there are many in the left wing of the Democratic party in this country who have put him on the same level (unfortunately). The problem your getting into here is that you are dealing with a text that can be twisted to mean just about anything through spin and interpretation.

genesis (bold emphasis in mine)

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

Hi Pete,

If you pushed a sexular environmentalist (and all the ones I have run across personally are secularists or "neo-pagans" they will counter by telling you that it is the Judeo-Christian tradition that got us in this mess to begin with. While I agree that Al Gore is less qualified to play God than, lets say, the typical 5-year old, there are many in the left wing of the Democratic party in this country who have put him on the same level (unfortunately). The problem your getting into here is that you are dealing with a text that can be twisted to mean just about anything through spin and interpretation.


On the topic of spin and interpretation are the double entendres here deliberate?

Are all evironmentalists "sexular" or is your finger too fat for your keyboard? :D

And the second sentence is not entirely clear; are the 'many in the left wing' equating Gore with God, Gore with a five year old or a five year old with God?

I dooo hope your lectures on physics (assuming you give any) are more elucidatory:D

elucidatory? Or elucidative?

elucidatory? Or elucidative?

I don't know :confused: . Anyway you wouldn't expect a Physicist to know the difference would you? :D

physicist? Or Physicist?

You should have seen Kennedy getting all bug eyed with Glenn Beck. Kennedy is a complete idiot. He says a bunch of stupid stuff. He claimed that Glenn hadn't read the IPCC report and that he has, but it hasn't been released yet. The guy started quoting the definition of fascism as corporate power dominating government. It's worth a look.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7661322663307980544&q=glenn+beck+robert+kennedy&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0


fas·cism (fāsh'ĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key n.

1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


"suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship", sounds a lot like what Kennedy is participating in. If you don't believe in Global Warming you should be charged with treason. Humm. Guess he didn't get much from his dad.

Global Darkening, a Looming Catastrophe

A catastrophe that dwarfs global warming has been recently discovered; it's called Global Darkening. Leading environmental scientists first noticed this phenomena on June 23 of this year. Careful scientific measurements showed daylight hours were beginning to decrease.

At first the daylight decay was less than a minute per day. This alarming trend has accelerated and now several minutes are lost per day. Computer models using this recent scientific data show global darkness (the runaway Blackhouse Effect) will make the earth uninhabitable within a few years. Left unchecked, the world will be plunged into complete blackness unless something is done immediately. One needs only to look at our planetary neighbor, the Moon, to see what the Blackhouse Effect has done to its dark side.

Eco-solar scientists claim the only possible explanation is the sun is being used up and the cause is obviously man made. Our use of solar power is consuming precious solar resources at an ever increasing rate. The causes can be seen everywhere; wastefully turning sunlight into electricity, environmentally irresponsible sun tanning, using windows to admit daylight in millions of homes. The list is endless and it all has an untold negative effect on our fragile solar ecosystem. We must take drastic measures immediately before it's too late.

A few irresponsible scientists claim this is just a natural cycle. They cite a few unsubstantiated reports from the Southern Hemisphere that daylight hours are increasing there. They have been paid by the solar cell industry.

As responsible people we cannot wait for all the science to come in on Global Darkening; by then it will be too late. The Blackhouse Effect is real, it's occurring now and our profligate, solar-dependent Western lifestyle is to blame. All responsible scientists agree daylight hours are getting shorter now and everyone knows computer models can accurately predict the future. 10-day weather forecasts prove it.

We must aid in stopping this growing crisis. Solar cells and solar hot water heaters must be banned. Solar offsets must be paid by tan people to pale people. Concerts must be held to raise awareness and all windows must be boarded-up. Crops, the biggest waste of limited solar resources, must be plowed under. A comprehensive desertification program must be instituted by progressive people everywhere immediately. Do it for the children; don't they deserve their day in the sun?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
sometime this year you posted a comment that you felt that world as we know it was going to be "de-engineered". I can't remember the exact words you used but I did do a search through all your previous posts this year and didn't see it. Do you remember making that post and if so when? Can you expand on your theory a bit? The reason for my curiousity is that it's what I believe is happening also.

By the way, I know your views on global warming, the environment, etc. are a bit contradictory to mine. I have always believed that we must look after this earth we live on in order to protect it for future generations (litter, pollution, fosil fuels, etc.). I'm not saying you do or don't believe in those things but I must admit that since reading your posts I've started to look at many of these subjects in a more objective way. i.e. how much is real and how much of it originates from the fear/panick business in order to benefit certain industries/individuals.

Speaking of looking after the environment, the area where I live in Spain has terrible tasting water (undrinkable) and until now we have always bought bottled water. I hate bottled water due to the amount of energy it took to bring you the water (transport from factory to distributor to shop to home) and the amount of plastic that gets dumped into the landfill afterwards. Finally I splashed out and bought a reverse osmosis water filtration unit. I looked at the instructions and saw that it has a waste pipe that gets connected to the waste water system for backflushing. As I fitted the system in the basement directly under the kitchen, I just left a drain pipe to backflush into a bucket. I turned on the system only to find that water is constantly coming out of the drain pipe. I check the manual, didn't find anything, check the internet and discover to my amazement that that is how the system works. Due to the constant movement of water from one side of a membrane to another, the microparticles get left behind. Constant movement of water meaning that it permanently dumps water into the drain and I'm not talking about drip/drip either but a 1/4" tube running permanently. Talk about being dissillusioned about a product, now I have to find a use for the waste water. (plants?)

(Sent to you by pm as well)

......Due to the constant movement of water from one side of a membrane to another, the microparticles get left behind. Constant movement of water meaning that it permanently dumps water into the drain and I'm not talking about drip/drip either but a 1/4" tube running permanently. Talk about being dissillusioned about a product, now I have to find a use for the waste water. (plants?)


Dependent on the salt content of the original water and the efficiency of the RO unit the reject water may not be suitable for plants due to a higher salt content.

You have discovered the fallacy behind using RO to get potable water from a poor supply; the supply flow needs to be many times the consumption.

Why don't you put in a solar still? It is possible to get litres per day from a correctly setup solar still and it does not need to have a tracking or focussing system. Google 'solar still' and maybe include 'mother earth news'.

If you cannot find anything I can post some sketches.

I'll second that.
A "solar still" is the way to go.

It takes a bit of maintenance -but it is the way Mother Nature does it.

Operational costs are about zilch but for some labor/time.

Certainly I'm in a good place to do it as there's plenty of sun here and I do have a flat roof to place any sort of gizmo that I feel like putting up there. Thanks for the help guys!

Certainly I'm in a good place to do it as there's plenty of sun here and I do have a flat roof to place any sort of gizmo that I feel like putting up there. Thanks for the help guys!

Dear skippy,

Dig a big hole in your back yard. Put a big bucket in the middle of the hole.

Put a sheet of clear polythene over the top of the excavated hole, and weight the sheet round the edges with more stones so that the sheet has no tendency to fall into the hole.

Place a small stone on top of the sheet directly above the centre of the bucket below. The sheet will form some kind of inverted cone.

The general idea is that ground moisture will be heated inside the hole (due to in-coming solar radiation trapped by the polythene sheet), and will condense on the underside of the sheet. It will then drip into the bucket awaiting your collection.

If you are feeling brave, you could attempt to augment the ground moisture with "grey water" from your house, but I'm not sure about the possibility of bacteria making the the leap into your bucket.

Ah well, just a thought....

Best wishes

Martin

BTW, that idea came from a "Boys Own" comic a long time ago.

Might just work though..

Best wishes

Martin

The Mother Earth News design is practically identical except the plastic forms a concave vee on a sloping roof and the condensed water runs down the inverted ridge of the vee and is collected at the bottom. The "ground" is black fabric; I thick landscape cloth or something like that would work. The water is intorduced at the top and percolates down. If the sun is intense and the flow is small all the water evaporates before reaching the bottom. Occasionally the fabric has to be replaced becasue it tends to get a build up of salt and dirt when the water is taken to complete evaporation.

Grey water is a no no because the still makes a perfect incubator for nasty bugs. Sometimes depending on the source water the incoming supply needs to be disinfected with bleach.

The Mother Earth News design is practically identical except the plastic forms a concave vee on a sloping roof and the condensed water runs down the inverted ridge of the vee and is collected at the bottom. The "ground" is black fabric; .

Dear Geof,

Mother Earth News !!!!!!

Lorks, it all comes flooding back.

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Geof,

Mother Earth News !!!!!!

Lorks, it all comes flooding back.

Best wishes

Martin

Macrame and candle making :) , long hair, bell bottom jeans, tie dye shirts.

Macrame and candle making :) , long hair, bell bottom jeans, tie dye shirts.

Dear Geof,

Please stop right now!

Given my advanced years, it is cruel to remind me of the folly of youth.

BTW, my attempts at tie-dye T-shirts were, frankly, pathetic.

Best wishes

Martin

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Life is so tough isn't it?

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Dear Phil,

I "feel your pain" but help is at hand in the form of "PLAN B"... a fully functioning , energy gobbling de-salination plant right on your back-doorstep.

Bring it on guys...

Best wishes

Martin

Martin, I can't do the hole in the ground thing. This picture of my back yard might explain why.
Phil

Dear Phil,

Maybe the de-salination idea was not a good one.

It is hard to tell from your photo how far above the sea your back yard might be. Rising sea levels may still get you.

IMVVHO, build an Ark.

Best wishes,

Martin

Global warming is a BIG LIE. Here are a few questions to consider. Where did all that ice come from on the poles? Scientists use greenlands ice to see when a volcano erupted. They found one that erupted 2500yrs ago. If 2500yrs of ice melted from greenland how far would ocean levels rise? Greenlands ice, glaciers, and all this other ice that is/has been melting all came from precipitation. Thus it all started in the ocean and is all returning to the ocean...the water cycle. So will the ocean rise 200ft?

Martin,
we've got a good rise in height if the sea level rises. Global warming would be a good thing for me as I might be able to fish from the chairs in the picture.

On seeing your post about the desalination plant I wondered if maybe you had read about these things in the UK because that's the way things are going here. I can't tell you how many of these huge plants (the size of a very large factory) they have installed and are planning to install here. No one ever reads about the energy requirements of these plants and regarding the output back to the sea, all they say is that it is toxic. By how much no one ever says....
Hey, one has to love that British humour...

On seeing your post about the desalination plant I wondered if maybe you had read about these things in the UK because that's the way things are going here. I can't tell you how many of these huge plants (the size of a very large factory) they have installed and are planning to install here. ...

Dear skippy,

As a back-up system in case of drought, a reverse osmosis desalination plant is going to be built near the site of the 2012 London Olympics. This should be capable of supplying 140 million litres of water per day to the London water network. The plan is to take the water from the Thames Estuary because this has only 30% of the the salinity compared to sea water ( I think). Critics of the scheme say the energy consumption will be double that of a conventional treatment plant. You may be amused to hear that leaks of purified water from the London water mains run at about 915 million litres per day.

Best wishes

Martin

......You may be amused to hear that leaks of purified water from the London water mains run at about 915 million litres per day.

Best wishes

Martin

It is not really very amusing is it? Typical kind of short sighted attitude that I think is dropping us into a lot of future problems. Maintaining existing infrastructure is not 'sexy' so it doesn't get done. But there always seems to be a will to embark on grandiose projects...which will then be allowed to decay for lack of maintenance.

. Maintaining existing infrastructure is not 'sexy' so it doesn't get done. But there always seems to be a will to embark on grandiose projects...which will then be allowed to decay for lack of maintenance.

Dear Geof and Skippy

Geof

Wisdom... but the behaviour of Thames Water isn't really that different from that of most human beings, is it?. Routine maintenance is utterly boring compared to the excitement of a new project. That is just human nature.
I'm guilty in spades, so maybe I should not point the finger at my water company.

Skippy

I could well be wrong, but I think that the main by-product of an RO desalination plant is just brine. If that salt can be pumped out into the sea without creating local high saline concentrations, IMVVHO, no harm done. The salinity of the oceans will not be compromised because the purified water from the plant will find its way back, over time, to the seas, either by drainage or rainfall.


Best wishes

Martin

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, which is what Skippy observed in his system. You have to have a high flow through to keep the osmotic pressure difference low enough that you can pump against it.

On the other hand evaporative desalination can have an effluent that makes the Dead Sea look like rain water; this effluent is toxic and needs a large dilution factor before marine life can tolerate it.

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, which is what Skippy observed in his system. You have to have a high flow through to keep the osmotic pressure difference low enough that you can pump against it.

On the other hand evaporative desalination can have an effluent that makes the Dead Sea look like rain water; this effluent is toxic and needs a large dilution factor before marine life can tolerate it.

Dear Geof,

I agree to disagree about nothing.

http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch20.htm

Salt pans used for evaporative desalination obviously leave (pretty much) pure salt which might be difficult to dispose of ( add to my fish and chips?).

My understanding (limited) is that small commercial and domestic post-treatment RO units are for purifying water that is in no way salinated to any great degree. They might be used to take away a nasty taste in the Skippy household by , typically, a five stage filtration process, or to produce purified water for an electronics assembly facility.

I believe that in that kind of "non-desalination" application, the throughput efficiency is about 75% in terms of what volume of water goes in and what "pure" product comes out.

Best wishes

Martin

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen. In spite of all the doomsayer's shrill screams, I think you'll turn blue first.

Change is natural, lets live and adapt to the changes, the people how want to stop change are mad, but lets not hasten change by burying our heads in the sand , as what we do now will affect all our children no matter what race creed religion or colour, so it is up to us to develop new and better ways so they may build on our ideas.

It is my understanding that an RO desalination plant does not produce a very concentrated brine. RO has a high flow through, ..............

Sorry to have been missing in action, but life has been happening. Apparently you guys have been doing a good job holding the fort without me... :)

Reverse Osmosis has some definite limitations. A process that looks quite promising (that I did some work on for a researcher here) is "Forward Osmosis". It's a 2-stage process that uses a saline interface, is more efficient and easier on components (less frequent membrane replacement).

I live in on a hill in Indiana and am looking forward to having beach front property when the golf of Mexico comes up the Mississippi river.

Dear tmaker,

Hedge your bets,

Buy a snowsuit and insulated boots. Add T shirts, sun cream, shorts, and sandals to your shopping basket.

Best wishes

Martin

the only thing shure about "climate change"is that the gment will use it to lever more cash out your/my pockets

mike

the only thing shure about "climate change"is that the gment will use it to lever more cash out your/my pockets

mike

Dear Mike,

It's just too good an opportunity for them to ignore, isn't it? It's as though their wildest dreams have come true.

Gloomy..

Best wishes

Martin

Dear Mike,

It's just too good an opportunity for them to ignore, isn't it? It's as though their wildest dreams have come true.

Gloomy..

Best wishes

Martin

Well you could always stash your conscience and sense of ethics under a handy rock and come up with some sort of plausible Carbon Offset Scam and bask in the glow of your own halo :) and the piles of filthy lucre you would amass.

Well you could always stash your conscience and sense of ethics under a handy rock and come up with some sort of plausible Carbon Offset Scam and bask in the glow of your own halo :) and the piles of filthy lucre you would amass.

Dear Geof,

The government over here is floating the idea of a $30 " green" tax for each plane trip. I wonder where the revenue will be spent ... probably MP's pensions, and "vital" first-class trips to distant climate conferences that always seem to be in places like Phuket rather than Southend.

Still gloomy...

Best wishes,

Martin

Let's take advantage of global warming. Canal the water from the ice melting at the poles to the arid regions. In fact, we have a lot of dry lakes out here in the High Desert where I live that I'd like to see filled.

Since these lakes and canals are water, they would have a moderating effect on the climate. Could also grow more food, limit the effects of drought, and use for recreation.

The "global warming" has been known since 2004 to be "solar system wide." Even Pluto moving farther from the Sun is warming up. Mars hasn't had any ice caps of late.

lol, now this forums is a hoot. I love it.

2004? Nope.
NASA has known for years that there was a recession of the Martian ice caps. It just doesn't make for sensational headlines, and is kinda contradictory to it's AGW hero Jimmy Hansen....who incidentally makes an interesting statement....

--"The war of words in the global warming debate gets fierce (and even a bit morbid) in a Denver Post article in which Colorado State University hurricane expert William Gray calls global warming “a big scam.” That’s not the morbid part.

The retort from James Hansen at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies: “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead.”
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2006/09/26/anti-global-warming-noise-wont-stop-until-some-of-these-scientists-are-dead/

That's what I like! Real Science from Real Scientists!!

“Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead.”....That's what I like! Real Science from Real Scientists!!

I think you must admit that it is probably accurate.

Contrary to popular belief, I am neither in the yes or no camp in terms of if Global warming is a man made problem. I am in the "benefit of the doubt" camp.
We just cant be sure either way.
My argument is, we need to become dependent on renewable energies regardless. Why wouldn't we want to build a network of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc, where we once and for all, will never need to worry about where our energy is coming from, and its impact on our earth?

I am not saying this video is true or false, but it does show another side of the debate. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
That been said, we might as well sort out our energy solutions regardless of if there is man made global warming or not.

Contrary to popular belief, I am neither in the yes or no camp in terms of if Global warming is a man made problem. I am in the "benefit of the doubt" camp.
We just cant be sure either way.
My argument is, we need to become dependent on renewable energies regardless. Why wouldn't we want to build a network of wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc, where we once and for all, will never need to worry about where our energy is coming from, and its impact on our earth?

I am not saying this video is true or false, but it does show another side of the debate. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566
That been said, we might as well sort out our energy solutions regardless of if there is man made global warming or not.

Dear ynneb,

I absolutely agree with all that. Thank-you.

My guess though, is that the renewable lobby somewhat over-state the realistic contribution that they can make, given the current level of energy demand. IMVVHO, it is obvious that we need to preserve fossil fuels as a resource as a raw material for the manufacture of plastics, lubricants etc. etc. etc. rather than pissing it out of our flues, tail-pipes and power stations.

The answer is nuclear power. I do not think that there is a realistic other option unless we are prepared to live in tents...and we are not.. are we?

Best wishes

Martin

.... I do not think that there is a realistic other option unless we are prepared to live in tents...and we are not.. are we?

Best wishes

Martin

Even the tents would be out: They are either synthetic or cotton the most energy intensive crop there is (I think).

It is back to the caves people :) .

Even the tents would be out: They are either synthetic or cotton the most energy intensive crop there is (I think).

It is back to the caves people :) .

Dear Geof,

I have always been excited by caves , mines and other underground dwellings. Maybe it is something to do with being a mole in a previous life.

On reflection, I'm not sure if I would wish to share my burrow with that nuclear crap.

Best wishes

Martin

With enough renewable energy our standard of living will not need to change at all. All I am suggesting is lets start building towards it now. Its a long term and permanent solution.

Consider this.... enough solar energy falls on our earth in one hour that can supply the worlds energy needs for one year, and thats not taking into account wind, wave, and other energy solutions.
Consider this..... Renewables last for ever. Petrocarbons might last for 100years, nuclear might last for 50 years at our current consumption.......then what? Then turn to renewables? Why not now?

Consider this.....How many trillion dollars have been spent on wars to secure our petrol supplies. What sort of a kick arse renewable system could we have built with that same trillion?

Lets build for the long term and not just our short lives. Lets leave a renewable legacy for our kids and not just think about our own short lives.

If there is only enough uranium to last 50 years, how can we justify having to guard the waste for the next 10,000 years just so we could party for 50 years.

We dont need to live in tents, we just need to plan today and be wise for tomorrow.


http://www.youtube.com/v/kYKOjnCwmG8

Mars undergoing global warming. (http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressreleases/20031208a.html)

Pluto undergoing global warming. (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html)

These articles date back to 2003 & 2002.

I think a bit of clarification is in order on the 'going Nuclear' idea.

Nuclear fission is a temporary solution and a bad legacy to leave to our children's future. The idea of let's have it today and our children can clean it up later is the kind of thinking that governments have been using for years on alot of things.

Nuclear fusion is the only terrestrial form of power creation that will see mankind into the next 3000 or more years. Yes today it is in it's infancy and as yet not viable for large scale use but the physics of the technology has been proven and we do have some small scale reactors 'sort of ' working.

If you, "governments" want to tax 'us' for global warming then the boffins working on Nuclear fusion should get it.

Once we have mastered that kind of power generation and miniturised it, man-kind can then reach for the stars realisticly and find another planet to f*ck up for the next millenea (god i need a spell checker).

Rant over.

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Well said.

Best wishes.

Martin

Thanks for that Martin.

On the other hand, Using less electric is good too. They have recently been harping on about it on the telly, "Switch things off,Switch things off"!

The only thing I want to do is switch the telly off. But because of the genius who made my television, when you switch it off it loses all the channel settings and you have to reprogramme it again when you switch it on. So you leave it on standby right.

Wrong! I live in a part of the UK where farmer down the road switches his BIG machine on and I get a brown out about 2 or three times a week so I bought a UPS to keep the telly on standby permanently.

Then we went "Digital" cos the TV reception got so poor since the farmer down the road started growing trees for fuel in the field at the back.

Now these Sky boxes, latest technology right, press your remote to switch it off, little red light comes on and I go to bed happy in the knowledge I've turned it off (on standby) and saved the planet.

In the morning I turn it on to watch the news and noticed the 'Sky box' is still warm to the touch, I say warm, It's alot hotter than I would like for something that has been off all night. Pondering the idea that laying a slice of bread on top so I can have toast when I get up, I did a bit of research into this phenomenon and was suprised to find that switching it on standby just turns off the video output and the rest of the works has been happily burning my electric.

I do have the option of turning it off at the plug but thats "down the back" amongst all the cables and spiders webs and I don't feel like crawling around and stuffing my arm into those places before I go to bed every night.

I'm sure that we have the technology to make a small circuit that uses a gnat's fart of electric to keep all our precious gadgets on standby instead of the usual 12 Watts that my TV uses.

Lets make the manufacturers save us from ourselves!


Regards

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Could I possibly congratulate you for a most magnificent rant??

The very thought of all those gadgets on stand-by and their wretched remotes is enough to make anybody seeth.

By the way, how can it possibly be that mankind seems incapable of coming up with a battery compartment cover that doesn't break within a fortnight?? All mine are held together with Band-Aid, masking tape, rubber bands etc. If we can't solve that problem, what hope have we of "saving the planet"?

Best wishes,

Martin

yup cj..... why is it that any audio visual bit of harware does that
you cannott switch the fookers off unless you unplug then
our big telly,ninty wee,dab radio,surround sound stuff ,and it all Humms away
on stand-by
ffs save the planet ...........bolloks

Here is something that may be of interest. Chilling stuff really. These are not my words

A document published by the Institute of Public Policy Research is entitled "Warm Words - how are we telling the climate story and can we tell it better?" It was written to advise pressure groups and environmental campaign organisations on how to mould and influence public attitudes to climate change.

The following paragraphs, with only minor changes of wording, appear twice in the document and form the overall conclusion drawn from what the authors call "research".

"Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away form the "advocates debate" described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.

The "facts" need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government's new climate-change slogan - "together this generation will tackle climate change" (Defra 2006) - gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

Best wishes

Martin

Sorry..double post..

Martin

Have you or anyone else on this site seen the documentary shown by the BBC called the 'Global Warming Swindle'? I doubt it gets shown in America. It's very believable and make's Al Gore's production look really bad.

Of all the people that are complaining about global warming, how many have planted a tree? Or better yet, how many have planted an acre of Christmas trees? Everyone wants to scream holler and yell and wait for someone else to do something.
Sad regards Walt..

Hi Walt, You're the man!

I've almost read all there is on the Global Warming debate, and cutting all the political bulls*^t the sure thing I know is it is going to happen whether we like it or not. Mankind is not going to influence it in any way (perhaps a small bit but not enough) and do we want mankind f**king around with the weather?

I agree with conserving our energy and doing our bit and planting trees is the way to go keeping mankind on the planet.

It's the best way of hedging our bets, planting helps lock up CO2 thereby reducing warming - but if at some point the Gulf stream ceases thus causing massive cooling we can cut the F**ker's down and burn them to keep warm!

LOL.. :)

Just wait a few years.

When We (USA) pull out of the middle east and Iran fills in the power vacuum. They will have a strangle hold on the worlds oil supply and We'll all be riding bicycles.

Of all the people that are complaining about global warming, how many have planted a tree? Or better yet, how many have planted an acre of Christmas trees? Everyone wants to scream holler and yell and wait for someone else to do something.
Sad regards Walt..

Does my garden count. It consumes quite a lot of CO2, and unlike a tree, I can eat the fruits of my labor (saving harvesting power and transportation power and store refrigeration power).

When it comes to planting trees, I was refering to farming Christmas trees. Plant them care for them 8 to 12 years. Shear them to make them look like a Christmas tree and then someone from green space, or what ever they call themselves, come by to protest you harvesting the "crop" because they are giving off oxygen and taking in CO2. They will protest, carry signs, get in your way etc,etc, but ask them to help you plant another 4000 seedlings and they will cry they don't have time or someother piece of crap. But, they really have time to protest but, not enough time to work to solve the problem, only time to protest what someone else it doing. Please don't tell them I just cut down a tree in the backyard that was going to fall on my house in the next wind storm. It was only 30 feet tall and 20 feet in diameter. Had about 200 bushels on leaves every year. Most of them stuck in the eaves. I think I am going to plant about 200 Black Walknut trees in the back forty. Plan on letting them for the great grand kids, maybe the great great grand kids. Let them deal with the folks from green what ever. Maybe they can throw walnuts at them.
Best regards Walt.

When it comes to planting trees, I was refering to farming Christmas trees. Plant them care for them 8 to 12 years. Shear them to make them look like a Christmas tree and then someone from green space, or what ever they call themselves, come by to protest you harvesting the "crop" because they are giving off oxygen and taking in CO2. Walt.

Dear Walt,

I wish it was that simple. By all accounts, coniferous trees out-gas terpenes which are apparantly a "greenhouse gas". This was pointed out, I think by Geof.

I do not know how long coniferous trees have grown in North America, but it must have been "a good few years"... perhaps even longer than grapes.

During those " good few years", the wretched dangerous things must have spewed out quite a bit of the deadly planet-destroying stuff. Thank Heavens that commercial logging came on-board to save us all.

Best wishes,

Martin

Im watching these hapless white fat bears sliding off their melted little ice berg on a bright sunny day into the balmy sea, warmer than a gator pond in south florida.

Just as I was ordering my tickets to Juno for scuba diving..... another program comes on ....

These Ice Road Trucker guys are driving in the same area as the bears but.... as my dad use to say.. witches tit in brass bra.. 160 below, snow blowing 80 knots, guys freezing , gas freezing . Ice berg 1/2 mile thick, freeze to death in 2 hours, spit turns to ice before it hits the ground and always dark and kinda cold as hell looking.

Now, the tv is telling me two different stories about how it is up there. And it's all I really know, i dont go up there to see for myself.

An Alaskan reality show, where every one on the set has to stick their tongue on a brass pole once a week for 2 years. At the end, we run a statistical regression of all survivors that can lick their eyebrows.

gh

Well, Global warming is the term scientists(or layman?) use as a term only...however, we are in the throes of climate change...I consider climate change are a more accurate explanation. The earth is going through a change..the change is not only in climate, but in our social order etc. This is because humans are changing and now, we can truely see the differences between the "good", kind and considerate peoples, as opposed to the power hungry, "evil" and bad hearted peoples on this planet. While I am not a religions person, I do believe in the creation, and I am happy that anyone can laugh at me for that thought...because in my heart , I know that it is true. While we might be made of dust, there is a Superior Being that created us from this dust.
To get to the point, yes, we are facing climate change, and surprisingly, some parts of this earth may experience cooler weather, or extremes of weather..However, this is just the precursor of what is to come. Eventually, we are going to live in a "paradise like" world, where the climate in many parts of this world will be very comfortable for habitat.
No doubt may people might think that I have been taking drugs to be writing this, but nothing can be further form the truth. I am a person that do not smoke and do not take any drugs, nor have an alcohol habit. In fact, I am writing this with a fractured shoulder blade after an accident...and I can't get treatment because the hospital system is on the verge of collaspe.... a long story .....yet I take no painkiller, despite the awful pain I am experiencing.
Anyway, we are in the throes of change, and some will survive for the future, many who intend to destroy this world will not..and that's the simple truth of the matter.

I went through Los Angeles in 1974 and rode in a cab with the windows open. The air was so filthy you couldn't see more than a couple hundred yards in either direction. By the time I reached LAX my eyes were burning and the white shirt I was wearing had a yellowish brown stain around the back where I had sweated and the air had contacted it. I went back in 2004 and you could see for miles and after driving around with the windows in the car open for four days my eyes were just fine. The air is cleaner now than it's ever been, yet we keep hearing that the world is a rotting **** heap and it's all our fault in the industrialized world. I have news for all of you - Industrialized nations can afford the technology that makes things clean! Go to Africa and look at how clean things are there. Who is building Coal powered electric plants with no scrubbers on them at a rate of a score or two a year? Try China, the bright light of Communism. Who else is industrialising as fast as they can? Do I hear India? Between China and India there's a total of 4-5 Billion people who are suddenly trying to hurl themselves into the 21st century with less than 21st century technology. If there are any air problems I would think they would be the first people we would point the finger of blame at, since there isn't any country that has a dome over it to ensure it pollutes only its' own air.

To get down to the bare basics of the whole global warming/America is the earth's despoiler rant, there are people who hate America. They hate our Ingenuity, our Productivity, our Prosperity, but most of all, our Freedom. Unfortunately, too many of those people live in America. There are a lot of people all over the world that want to see America destroyed for whatever reason their tiny little minds can latch on to. Eventually, it will happen, but I don't think the world will be a better place because of it. Once America is destroyed, who will be next? Europe? Half of the countries there are well on the way to being nonentities right now. Canada? Australia? Who is going to take the place of the prosperous Democracies who generate most of the wealth and take care of the rest of the world? Does anybody think that Somalis and Cubans will show up with food, medical teams and building supplies the next time a tsunami hits Indonesia or an earthquake clobbers Turkey?

What makes me grind my teeth more than anything is to have to listen to the sanctimonious, know nothing prigs like Al Gore and the Hollywood Intelligentsia preach at me about my lifestyle. I work my tail off at a regular job and run a small business on the side making parts with my little CNC mill for people who can't afford big shop prices. I run the business out of my house, and I pay about $1500 a year for electricity. Al Gore lives in his palace, uses $20,000 a MONTH for electricity, but has the nerve to lecture me about my profligate lifestyle? The hell with all of them. I'm going to live my life the way I damn well please, and I'm telling my kids that they're entitled to whatever lifestyle they can earn and maintain honestly. I recommend everyone else do the same, we don't have long before 'our betters' take everything away.

It looks like there are many people in this world who are aware of the change that is here with us. Also, there are many frustrated individuals who are tired of the rantings by politicians and scientists regarding climate change. No doubt in the USA, there are groups od learned people who are trying to make life better and to clear up the pollution.
In poorer countries such as China and India, they are just trying to catch up, and in that process, their actions can be considered as polluting. As SDJDAVE had pointed out, in 1974, California was quite steeped in smog..I passed by LA in 1976, and noticed the smog in the city as well....well, the USA had gone from the industrialised world and has done their fair share of pollution in the sixties and seventies...(I had been reading "Time Magazine" during that period and can say that scientists at that time were so fearful of the pollution and the disaster that may occur) ..to a leading authority in many high tech discoveries and achievements, and I applauded that. If we think in a global sense, we can understand that many countries are trying to get out of their present unfortunate situation and "progress". Can we blame them for that? Hence, they are going through the same situation as what the USA and Europe had gone through. However, their timing is not good, as these "underdeveloped" countries are caught up in a bad situation.
Would it be better if other developed countries chip in and assist them instead of blaming them? What good to throw blame and accusations if the final outcome will be more pollution, anger, disatisfaction with the West etc? We no longer live in a world where we can hide our heads and not care for what is going on in the rest of thr world.
Also, remember, we also buy very cheap items from the very countries we accuse of polluting the world. I have been to China very recently and yes, many places are full of pollution and the sky is so hazy we don't see the sun at all. Can the more developed country assist? If not, then I think we are going to face some difficult moments in the future...and who, then is to blame?



.
So,

Man did not cause global warming. Rather, global warming caused man.


To get to the point, yes, we are facing climate change, and surprisingly, some parts of this earth may experience cooler weather, or extremes of weather..However, this is just the precursor of what is to come. Eventually, we are going to live in a "paradise like" world, where the climate in many parts of this world will be very comfortable for habitat.


Climate change is a natural cycle. Pollution is not. We can reduce pollution. I lived in the the very place sdjdave is talking about. I was there as a child in the late 60s and early 70s. The smog was terrible. Today it is clear, except for some smoke.

The pollution is all but gone now, and removing it likely did nothing to help curb climate change. But it helps me breath and see better, so that's a good thing.

I don't think destroying the US economy is going to do anything, but the US could help China and India curb their pollution.

(BTW, the amount of US pollution is going down, the amount of pollution from all other industrialized countries is going up, so please don't talk to me about that Kyoto crap. )

Yes, pollution is something man made out of their need to "develop" a more comfortable lifestyle. However, in our pursuit of such, we are making life difficult for ourselves and this pollution is going to affect our health and wellbeing. I do agree that we need to build a cleaner environment. Going through the history of human kind, we still have a lot to learn. We are still very "primitive" in our thoughts and ideals, we still make war on each other and we still our have bias and prejudices. We still treat each other with suspicious, and we still have the fear of each other that we want to vanguish our fears by destroying each other. Well, this is the reality of our human existance at the moment. Can we cooperate with each other for our own survival? We must eventually, if we want to survive. Terrorism and pollution have no place in our world. So, which countries will lead the way to a better world? The talking is now over, and it is time for some positive action. Individuals and industries can help in many ways, but it is the countries that are pollution this planet that must take stock and start to look at their industrial processes and act fast. The world is a sphere, and one country's pollution will eventually spread to another, depending on the time and tide. "Kyoto" seems a whitewash, just lip service to a world suffering from the effects of human "progress" and existance.

Prosper, we can all agree that pollution is bad. It is in defining what pollution is that some of us are going to disagree.

Burning hydrocarbons with enough oxygen produces carbon dioxide and water. If CO2 is "pollution" why isn’t water? After all, water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas that CO2 - ever notice how clouds in the day keep things cool and how clouds at night keep things warm?

No one is going to fall for distilled water being defined as pollution. However, the TV watching generation could easily associate carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide, and carbon monoxide is a real pollutant; hence catalytic converters.

As an aside, burning petrol also produces oxides of nitrogen, with larger quantities produced by the new generation of ultra efficient lean burn direct injection engines such as the VW 2.0 liter turbo. Curiously, the US does not allow this engine to run in full efficiency mode as the lean combustion produces excessive NOX. This, while the European market welcomes the reduced cost of ownership and accepts the NOX that accompanies lean burn operation. NOX is a real pollutant and yet Europeans whine about the need to reduce CO2.

As I have stated before, the CO2 emitted during the combustion of fossil fuel is putting that CO2 back where it came from before the plants incorporated it into their tissues a long time ago.

Eliminating pollution and terrorism by force is going to result in other kinds of fall-out much worse than CO2. This world is going to become an unbearable place because of the political response to CO2 and not because of the gas itself.

Treat others with the respect you seek for yourself and hold your politicians to their promises. Remind them that they work for you and vote accordingly. If you can develop a car that runs on water, more power to you. Just don’t spout the idea that forcing the development of such technology is a moral imperative.

What's next? The UN collecting taxes from all of us to fund the development of control rod technology for throttling the sun?

Okay, Dynosor you hit the nail on the spot.
Pollution is difficult to define because there is no acceptable standard as yet. I think that pollution is basically how much, how toxic, and how fast the pollution can be dispersed.
Yes, water vapour in great quantities can be considered pollution. However, I really don't think that carbon dioxide is as bad as mentioned. You see, carbon dioxide is a heavy gas and as such, it sinks to the earth, providing part of an element for photo synthesis during sunlight. Yes, CO is toxic and detrimental to health.
Of coures there are many types of pollutants produced by industriies, namely sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, chlorine and their deriatives etc. There are also dust particles, water vapour mixed with toxic chemicals etc.
The best way for us to live in a sustainable way is to avoid burning fossil fuel as best as possible. We can generate our own power individually using whatever means available for our disposal, such as wind, water, solar, and even geothermal etc. I am very confident that we will succeed if only we use our Creator given intelligence. We can produce more efficient appliances and equipment, we can monitor our power consumption and regulate what we need and avoid wastage. We have the technology right now....so what are we waiting for?
I am doing research in renewable energy and have spent a lot of time, and if everybody think of a solution, I am sure there is light at the end of the tunnel!

Just don’t spout the idea that forcing the development of such technology is a moral imperative.



Dear dynosor,

Thank-you for that wise point.

The moral imperative people seem to have elevated the debate into some kind of religion where there are "believers" and "un-believers". The latter are to be cast into outer darkness for their doubts.

Whatever happened to scientific debate?

My guess?

No problem...no funding, and no opportunity to tax and control.

Best wishes

Martin

Martin...

No problem...no funding, and no opportunity to tax and control.

Bingo!

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.


Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.


Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."


The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers' specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.


"We have had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."


"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth's post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.


The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California's Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today's tree line.


Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth's climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.


Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers' names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.


Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:


http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1


For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net

Global warming is having serious implications on the DEATH of our provinces Pine tree forest!

I can see some of you have not seen or experienced the effects of climate change or perhaps think it is not real. I can tell you it is very very real. Any of you who know of someone that is in there 70s or 80s and have lived in your area all there life go a head and ask them what the weather was like when they were young enough to recall in there teen years.

I have received Reponses of "Yes the Fraiser River was frozen over for at least four weeks when I was a teenager or "Yes, I recall the flooded fields of the fraiser valley were frozen over for at least 8 weeks of the winter.

Well this does not happen here anymore in British Columbia BC. I am now into my 40s and now recall even while living in Washington State the severe blizzards and cold snaps including snowstorms that used to accumulate up to two feet high.

People what I am saying is that human kind is under serious threat by global warming because if its to warm to snow at sea level it is to warm for it to accumulate in the mountains that feed 1/3 of the worlds population with fresh supply of clean drinking water.

The ramification of global warming is in the last seven years ARE KILLING our forest by the indirect activity of the mountain pine beetle.

The mountain pine beetle has ALWAYS been in our forest but most of beetle population dies off in the winter when the interior of BC and Washington State experiences a severe arctic blast lasting for at least a week of minus 15 to 30 below C temperatures.

Since these events rarely have happened the beetle population has exploded to extraordinary sizes. The Mountain Pine Beetle have devoured 40% of or pine forest. What does 40% of the pine forest equate to? That is roughly 1/3 the size of California. Please look at these pictures of the BC pine forest involved in a mass die off because the pine beetle has chewed there way though them without the threat of a arctic blast killing them off every year.

Some pictures are located at googles image gallery. Just type in “ Mountain Pine Beetle”

As of Last year the Mountain Pine Beetle has spread its wings by the hundreds of million and taken flight in by chance high loft winds and flew into the Alberta forest only to start the distruction process in this pristine forest.

The same wide spread distruction is also happening in the Washington state forest as we speak and other states.


Global warming is a serios issue. The Scintist are right if we do not do something now we all will suffer the consequences with a vanishing water and food supply and out of control heat waves.

Global warming is a serios issue. The Scintist are right if we do not do something now we all will suffer the consequences with a vanishing water and food supply and out of control heat waves.

The ramification of global warming is in the last seven years ARE KILLING our forest by the indirect activity of the mountain pine beetle.

We'd better get started building those nuclear power stations to run the desalination plants then! More heat, CO2 and water to grow MORE food.

Don't pine beetles have natural predators, or have we killed them off by crop spraying? How about breeding super bugs that only eat the pine beetles? This will be easier, cheaper and more likely to actually happen than stopping climate change.

.....Don't pine beetles have natural predators, or have we killed them off by crop spraying? How about breeding super bugs that only eat the pine beetles? This will be easier, cheaper and more likely to actually happen than stopping climate change.

Unfortunately they only "predators" for the Pine Beetle are a quick and prolonged cold snap in the early winter or forest fires. It is a bit simplistic to blame the current Pine Beetle epidemic on Global Warming. For one thing Global Warming involves changes of 1, maybe 2 degrees C over the past 50 to 100 years; the winter temperature variations involved with the Pine Beetle survival are between -40 and -10. It is much more likely that this is simply related to cyclical variations in weather because it is well established that these occur. The best evidence for this is to look at the variation in the width of annual growth rings on very big very old trees. These form bands of wide and narrow over times spans ranging from maybe 30 years or so up to a few hundred.

In the case of the Pine Beetle, however, it is not just a change in winter weather it is also an increase in tree density mostly due to diligent fire suppression. It is literally a case fof the beetles not needing to travel as far to the next suitable tree coupled with the fact that they have not been culled by a good fire for decades.

I do agree that breeding super bugs to control them does have about the same chance of success as stopping climate change; zero in both cases.

Climate change is here to stay, no matter what we do. We can argue all we want on why this has occured. I think the only sensible thing to do is to prepare for the situation. No doubt we will experience some loss of animal and plant life....that has happen throughout history....even before man exist on this earth. We can perhaps spend some resources trying to save some species but there may be others that are just going to disappear no matter what we do.
Why can't we prepare for our survival by ensuring that we have some form of "safety net", and also find out how we can make it bearable in case of an extreme situation occuring in the future. We have the technology that can be of benefit to the coming generations. Why not use it instead of having all this blame and counter blame?

Climate change is here to stay, no matter what we do.

Then let's do nothing! Especially avoid doing anything rash that we may regret later.

Hi Dynosor,
Doing nothing is most probably the best solution, and I cannot dispute that. However, we live in an everchanging world. With climate change, many people in many countries will be affected, some mildly but others might even face loss of livelihood and even their very existance.
I think that it is in human nature to survive, and to shape their environment in such a way that any threats to their survival are minimised. You can see all those things around you everyday. We bulid roads we build dams and power stations, high rise buildings and so on. We no longer live in caves or chase after wild animals for food..we farm or grow them, we now also change their genetic structure to produce better characteristics for better output....etc.
So, we can expect a lot of changes in the future. Most parts of Holland would not exist if not for the "dikes" or dams that the citizens of Holland built to protect thenselves from the ever increasing threats of the rising seas since the early ages.
We also start wars and cause untold death and sufferings to innocent people of the countries that we perceive are threats to our way of life.
I think that with humans living on this planet, there will always be some form of change occuring when their survival is under threat. Not to do so is like the complete destruction of people living in villages close to volcanos and their refusal to leave the area.... For them, their destruction and non existance is complete.

Don't pine beetles have natural predators, or have we killed them off by crop spraying? How about breeding super bugs that only eat the pine beetles? This will be easier, cheaper and more likely to actually happen than stopping climate change.

Dynosor

INCREDIBLE absolutely incredible.

Pine Beetles in BC and Alberta are the tip of the iceberg of coming problems.

You are advocating SUPER BUGS for the pine beetles and I guess water producing SUPER BUGS for drought areas, and sand producing SUPER BUGS for areas that will have to deal with rising water levels and ......

Given your band aid approach to the problem I should go into the SUPER BUG business.

You are advocating SUPER BUGS for the pine beetles and I guess water producing SUPER BUGS for drought areas, and sand producing SUPER BUGS for areas that will have to deal with rising water levels and ......


Silly, but more likely to happen than a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050.

The difference is that the pine beetle problem is real while the CO2 problem is political.

Draughts, floods... sounds like a list of side effect that include "may cause erectile dysfuntion, may cause priapism"...

what happened to all the trash that was giong to fill every inch of the planet? you cant use 30yrs of info to say climate change let alone pic of ice and say look the ice is gone
i would like for the water to come up a foot or so then i can get my big boat into my canal.

Well, I have visited a few countries during my lifetime, and I have seen very unusual things, experienced the different cultures of many people and learn a few languages in the process...
We live in a beautiful and wonderful world, and among all the planets in our solar system, we have the most ideal environment to live and enjoy our lives. Yet, we are happy to destroy it without much thought. What is hapiness really? having lots of money? power to control others? fame?
My idea of hapiness is having good health, family, close friends, and sharing what I have...

We live in a beautiful and wonderful world, and among all the planets in our solar system, we have the most ideal environment to live and enjoy our lives. .

Yes, we do. As far as we know... But they're getting warming as we speak. Perhaps some day they'll be warm enough to support life as we know it.

Yet, we are happy to destroy it without much thought.

Huh? This is the biggest scam, err, I mean debate in history. How is that not giving it much thought? I'd say there's been more thought put into this than just about anything so far. Wouldn't you?

For the record, I'm all for reducing pollution, like we've been trying to do for 20 years, and it's working. But I'm not ready to wipe out everything we know about civilization to try to stop something that's going to happen anyway.

ozone layer was wrong. the south pole hole closed up. when every one agrees there always wrong and the U.N. etc agrees.the plants i.e weeds have grown more in the past years,the alge in the oceans has never been study, this uses co2. give the planet a few years and say good bye to this problem too. theres been more co2 in the past and this is now laying on the ocean floor. we know nothing and should never agree on anything.

"For the record, I'm all for reducing pollution, like we've been trying to do for 20 years, and it's working. But I'm not ready to wipe out everything we know about civilization to try to stop something that's going to happen anyway."

Hey man, I'm not talking about any country in particular, and i know that many developed countries are doing their best to curb emissions.. Sorry if I did not specify that there are countries that are faced with the dilemma of reducing emissons or suffer illness. Take China for instance, I recently visited China and I could not see the sun at all....the sky is hazy all day and also I could hardly see any stars. If that is not pollution that can cause illness and death to humans and animals etc., then what is pollution? Is this kind of pollution going to be a localised in its place of origin? I don't know...
Also, war and destruction going on everywhere....need I say more? I got my doubts on the "CO2" debate, but I rather not say more because I seem to hit on some people's nerve. I was on another forum and I was called ignorant etc., because I disagreed or doubted whether we are really responsible for climate change.

"For the record, I'm all for reducing pollution, like we've been trying to do for 20 years, and it's working. But I'm not ready to wipe out everything we know about civilization to try to stop something that's going to happen anyway."

Hey man, I'm not talking about any country in particular, and i know that many developed countries are doing their best to curb emissions.. Sorry if I did not specify that there are countries that are faced with the dilemma of reducing emissons or suffer illness. Take China for instance, I recently visited China and I could not see the sun at all....the sky is hazy all day and also I could hardly see any stars. If that is not pollution that can cause illness and death to humans and animals etc., then what is pollution? Is this kind of pollution going to be a localised in its place of origin? I don't know...
Also, war and destruction going on everywhere....need I say more? I got my doubts on the "CO2" debate, but I rather not say more because I seem to hit on some people's nerve. I was on another forum and I was called ignorant etc., because I disagreed or doubted whether we are really responsible for climate change.

We can't always control what other countries do. My point was about Kyoto and justification for not signing it.

As for war, I can't find a time in history that a war wasn't going on. Luckily for US, this war is much less dangerous for our US kids that are fighting out there for the freedom of others.

Voicing your opinion against man made global warming will soon be a felony.

Sure, I can understand that every country must decide what is best for its progress and economic security. I know that the USA is one of the leading countries trying to do the right thing for its citizens in reducing emissions, and balancing its options....
You are right that war is prevalent since human existance. I was only thinking that there must be a way out of this "game" if we want our human existance to reach a "higher level".
The reason why I am trying to find answers on this forum is because there is a need inside me to do something to help future generations live a better life. Someone told me that as we grow older, we begin to become more questioning, and trying to find the truth about our existance...I wonder how true this is...

You are right that war is prevalent since human existance. I was only thinking that there must be a way out of this "game" if we want our human existance to reach a "higher level".

What a great topic. It will take one of two things to unite the world; 1) a global catastrophe, or 2) aliens from outer space (not kidding)

Yes, I think you are right...What an utopian dream to think that humans could live live peacefully among themselves...
Aliens from outer space to help us run our affairs? ..may be better than complete destruction??!

Aliens from outer space to help us run our affairs?

No. Think Star Trek, First Contact. Aliens from outer space to make us realize how much we are really the same.

..."how much we are really the same".... Sure, then let us prepare for an eventual war....now it will be in space...., so help us Great Manito!!!

Wacky weird:rainfro:

Interesting thought about the aliens. Which brings to mind a few thoughts: We know that war is the health of the state. We know that the state needs to have a demonized enemy to rally the citizens to the cause. We know that after a time, the citizenry get tired of the same old enemy, especially after it becomes clear that overwhelming technology and force are being brought to bear against primitive societies without success, and especially once some images leak out of injustices happening, that re-humanizes the enemy.

Given the gullibility of the public, their need to be led, and the eagerness with which statists will fill this need, how hard would it be for them to invent some aliens? Just as with any mystical contraption, they could be suited to fit every need -- only appearing to important people, giving them a message on how to lead, etc. A few tantalizing clues as 'evidence', one or two terrible demonstrations of force, some video, plenty of alarm, and reassuring pronouncements from the leadership.

George Orwell would love the concept, I think.

Would it make a good movie? Will it be tried in real life?

Hehe.

--97T--

Would it make a good movie? Will it be tried in real life?

Hehe.

--97T--

97T

Aliens have already landed. :eek: Everybody thought it was a big joke not a threat! Remember Mork.

Nanu Nanu:cheers:

Interesting thought about the aliens. Which brings to mind a few thoughts: We know that war is the health of the state. We know that the state needs to have a demonized enemy to rally the citizens to the cause. We know that after a time, the citizenry get tired of the same old enemy, especially after it becomes clear that overwhelming technology and force are being brought to bear against primitive societies without success, and especially once some images leak out of injustices happening, that re-humanizes the enemy.

Given the gullibility of the public, their need to be led, and the eagerness with which statists will fill this need, how hard would it be for them to invent some aliens? Just as with any mystical contraption, they could be suited to fit every need -- only appearing to important people, giving them a message on how to lead, etc. A few tantalizing clues as 'evidence', one or two terrible demonstrations of force, some video, plenty of alarm, and reassuring pronouncements from the leadership.

George Orwell would love the concept, I think.

Would it make a good movie? Will it be tried in real life?

Hehe.

--97T--

Interesting scenario and there are those on the politico scene that I would not put it past them to try it. Probably have better success in getting the populace to believe in it that with the GW/CC fable.

But with GW you don't have to fake those messy hostile encounters, heck there isn't even any way for "Joe Sixpack" to confirm or deny existence of the phenomenon nor success or failure or "progress" in the effort to combat. Never any casualties to report, unless you count the $$$ taken from your daily budget and the life blood drained from the economy.

What a perfect scheme! If someone does happen to find a way to prove it ain't so they can just claim, "I thought it was real, my INTENTIONS were pure!"

So true. Or maybe aliens are already here, and came up with the global warming scheme for us. After all, what could work better than a victim that can't tell her rescuers to get lost? What human could come up with such a brilliant theme?

Ever seen the excellent movie, "They Live"?

--97T--

Can't say that I have. Hollywierd has grown more and more repulsive with each new crop of trashy stars they choose to promote and the worse films they produce and the result has been that it's been years since I've seem the inside of a theater. Just have no interest. Limited TV use as well for the same reasons plus I resent being spoon fed politics in the guise of entertainment.

The real tragedy of all this falderal is that whatever is happening with the climate I do not believe that mankind can change it. Oil, it seems, will be a huge bone of contention in any case and the generally accepted course of action among those who want to "save us" will force the critical mass very much sooner. I see the potential for apocalyptic consequences spinning completely out of control.

I read the the US used 140 billion gallons of gasoline last year. The land won't produce that and feed us too! There is no alternative short of nuclear (good luck implementing that) so if there is any of them little green buggers about they better offer a good alternative energy source post haste! LOL

Will it be tried in real life?

yup ,just look at religion

"The media reports repeatedly insist that there is a scientific consensus in favor of the Gore view of climate change.

However, for many of the world’s leading scientists in the fields of meteorology, climatology, physics, astrophysics, and related sciences, the science is far from settled, Al Gore’s media accolades notwithstanding. Over the past few years, more than 19,000 American scientists have signed a dissenting petition coauthored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, renowned physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Arthur Robinson, president of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (www.oism.org/pproject). The petition urges political leaders to reject the Gore-supported Kyoto Protocol or other similar proposals that would mandate draconian tax and regulatory measures aimed at virtually all human economic activity.

Kyoto and similar proposals are not based on convincing scientific evidence, the petition claims, and “the proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”

The advocates of Kyoto and other schemes to super-regulate the planet frequently try to portray the scientists who dispute their claims of global warming peril as irrelevant fringies, fogies, and “nut cases” who shouldn’t be taken seriously. However, as brutal scientific facts have poked holes in their hypothetical global-warming models, the Gore camp has become more strident and abusive......."

"...The 1990 IPCC Summary, he notes, “completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists — in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey stick graph...."

http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7523#SlideFrame_1


There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.
— Duc de La Rochefoucauld
French writer and moralist (1613-1680)

There is no alternative short of nuclear (good luck implementing that)

Not sure why. I don't recall any mishaps on any of the nuclear powered ships/subs we have.

There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.[/B]
— Duc de La Rochefoucauld
French writer and moralist (1613-1680)

Dear fizzissist,

Thank you for alerting me to the Duc.

Best wishes,
Martin

You guys are going to be hearing about the Wilkins Ice Shelf collapsing into a pool of super heated Antarctic sea....

What you won't see is a map of the volcanic activity of Antarctica and proximity to Wilkins, and the other ice shelves doomed from "global warming".

"Yet many claim the CO2 is the driver for any melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. I wonder how this will figure into that argument?

Larsen Ice Shelves A and B, by the way, sit astride a chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks, which may figure into melting and breakups like this and this. (h/t Alan)

In fact, there are a LOT of volcanoes in Antarctica as you can see in this image. Notice that many are near the edge of the ice, and there are none in the interior, which may be a lack of discovery of ancient ice buried volcanoes. Most scientific bases are near the sea, rather than inland, for supply and weather tolerance purposes and there are many places in the interior that have yet to be fully explored."

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/surprise-theres-an-active-volcano-under-antarctic-ice/


Map of volcanoes in Antarctica (note: the recent one near Pine Island isn't shown)
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarcticvolcanoes2.jpg

Temperature trends
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/antarctic_temps_avh1982-2004.jpg

Ice Trends
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/current_anom_south0325.jpg

General Ice Stuff..
http://www.icecap.us/

fizzissit, boy, I wish Sen. McCain would read this thread and give you a call. He seems to have allowed himself to be swayed by the 'consensus'. He has recently mentioned being interested in something like a 'follow-up to Kyoto.' I say yikes!

Unfortunately, I do not have too much hope. The government system, schools especially, have for decades created many who are now enamored of the idea that the "village" must have the final say in the disposition the wealth and property of individuals. Sovereignty of the person...how passe. Too many are looking for ways to be net tax receivers. And like I heard someone say, people just are not taught where economic babies come from.

I'm wandering off path.

Thanks for all your interesting posts, guys.
-Mark

McCain'll be 'round soon as he gets done with his RINO meeting.....he's probably telling Hillary what sniper fire REALLY feels like.

Back at the Antarctic.....

I know there's much confusion as to what ice shelf where is collapsing because the press never gives any clues. Just the pics of the drowning polar bear being crushed by the calving glacier. That in mind, I thought I'd post some maps so y'all can see the coincidence of location of glacier collapses relative to the volcanic areas. I'm not saying that volcanos are causing the glaciers to crumble.....BUT....when you look at circumpolar currents, the atmospheric temperature gradients, seasonal length, ice mass, and the raw energy needed to make a huge mass of ice melt...some things just don't add up real well.

Good map of Antarctica in general
http://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/MapSatellite/AntarcticStationsMap.gif

The Wilkins ice shelf is right near the "F" in Fossil Bluff, upper right, around 70deg W and 70deg S.

Images of Wilkins
http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/7452.php?from=111448

http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/images/wilk.jpg

Ice Shelves
http://nsidc.org/data/iceshelves_images/images/ice_shelves_nogrid.png

Gee....you don't see many discussions of ice shelf stability or the 50-60yr natural cycle in the mainstream media do ya?

I like global warming and global warming likes me!

I have notice its been warmer...I think its called spring.
I'm sure it will be very warm around July & August.... followed by a cooling period.

If Greenland and Antartica became icefree all the World's coastal cities would be under one or two hundred feet of seawater. I would say that should qualify as a change that is bad and spells doom for those cities.

My shop would also be under the same depth of water and I can assure you I would consider that bad and it would spell doom to my business.

when the vikings discovered Greenland it was green thats why they called it Greenland and as far as i know there was no significant rise in the sea level.

when the vikings discovered Greenland it was green thats why they called it Greenland and as far as i know there was no significant rise in the sea level.


The Greenland Icecap has been intact for hundreds of thousands of years, it was there when the Vikings were there.

According to some of the books I have read about the Viking colonies in Iceland and Greenland the name was something of a marketing ploy, it certainly did not mean the whole island was green. At the time of these settlements the world was just coming out of the Medieval Warm Period and coastal valleys in some places did have a mild enough climate that cattle farming was possible; archeological remains have been found. The Greenland colonies died out a few hundred years later during the Little Ice Age.

Gentlemen you are talking about the EARTH. It's not going anywhere....WE are. :D

Gentlemen you are talking about the EARTH. It's not going anywhere....WE are. :D

Oh yes it is! In fact, it's haulin' ass!!
...We're just along for the ride.

I meant longevity. The whole global warming thing is a myth. We do not have the capability of monitoring all the variables. We don't even know what all the variables are. The Earth, Life and Death, Weather, Cancer? Sorry not man's realm yet. Man only guesses at these subjects. We know a little but not a lot.

Global warming = evil world teaching to control all and remove all freedoms from everyone.

Well, I think there are more problems to worry about than Global warming..
Read this!!
http://www.theamericannightmare.org/SEVEN_PLAGUES_FREE__K-K_SS.html

That will keep all entertained for weeks to come!!

Well, I think there are more problems to worry about than Global warming..
Read this!!
http://www.theamericannightmare.org/SEVEN_PLAGUES_FREE__K-K_SS.html

That will keep all entertained for weeks to come!!

Prosper, I suggest you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_unfulfilled_Christian_Prophecy

Well, I was not really into the "Christian" prophecy but the fact that there is a fire burning below ground.....

You mean like the molten lava deep in all the earth?

...molten lava deep withing the earth, seeping through the mantle in vast unknown quantities in the sea floor...warming oceans (and land, as in Kilimanjaro) to degrees we can't calculate...

Lava creating superheated vent water, heating cirmcumpolar currents along sea floor faults.....or just making islands in the sun..

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2001/01_06_14.html

Lotsa heat happenin'.

...molten lava deep withing the earth, seeping through the mantle in vast unknown quantities in the sea floor...warming oceans (and land, as in Kilimanjaro) to degrees we can't calculate...

Lava creating superheated vent water, heating cirmcumpolar currents along sea floor faults.....or just making islands in the sun..

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2001/01_06_14.html

Lotsa heat happenin'.

Interesting!

Is there any thoughts/theories that undersea volcanism is responsible for GW, ocean currents, ocean warming etc?

Interesting!

Is there any thoughts/theories that undersea volcanism is responsible for GW, ocean currents, ocean warming etc?

Probably not on a wide spread basis, after all the Earth's heat has always been here and the total is certainly not increasing.

However, you might have seen alarmist stories about regions of the West Antartic ice sheet moving faster 'due to Global Warming'; it is possible this accelerated movement has been caused by localized volcanic activity under the ice.

Similar rapid glacier movement occurs in Iceland on the big ice cap in the southern region, Vatnajokull (or something like that). There are numerous volcanoes under this ice cap and when they burp dramatic things happen, like enormous floods down the rivers. I splurged on a trip to Iceland ten years ago and went hiking up this ice field; it is really neat being at 7000 feet hiking across a glacier and coming across boiling mud pools, geysers and a volcanic crate gurgling and steaming right there at your feet.

Do you suppose Al Gore would like to purchase my carbon credits? My time on this heated ball is limited and I'd like to buy some cold beer before it gets too warm. lol

Dick Z

When we hear the hoopla about Gorebull Warming, and the ice around Antarctica crumbling into the sea, we seldom if ever hear about the volcanic influence...and there is some real serious influence.

http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Volcanoes/Antarctica/Maps/map_antarctica_volcanoes.html

Draw a crude line from the upper volcanoes to the lower ones....then look at this temperature profile....

http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect16/antarctic_temp-AVH1982-2004.jpg

Gee, I wonder if there's any significant effect on polar water temp profiles...

No matter what people think, like life, change happens.

It will change whether we are here or not. We MIGHT help or hinder the rate of change a bit, but we cannot stop it. We do not have the power or united determination to do much in any direction. ... Most folk consider killing others a 'bad thing'. We keep doing that, both on an individual and collective basis (murder, wars, poor driving 'habits', etc).

In the '60s and '70s the big thing was the 'coming ice age', now under 50 years later we are 'global warming' as our doom and gloom. I heard that things have been getting COOLER since 2000, so we are headed for another ice age. ... Whatever pundants say, they are wrong, and they are right. But it doesn't matter what they say.

Which set of extremist wacko's is right? Both? ...

Now my philosophy... This and $10US can get you a cup of coffee most places...

Do right as best you can as you see it,
for yourself and others. Whether anyone is looking or not.

If you learn what you have said/done is wrong, change your ways.

To quote a salutation from an old Star Trek: Live long and prosper.

I love global warming, if it wasn't for that Arizona would be one hot sonofagun. I don't know if we had any days in July where it really hit more than 115 degrees, August weather has yet to become a problem its only the 1st so we'll see what comes.

I love global warming, if it wasn't for that Arizona would be one hot sonofagun. I don't know if we had any days in July where it really hit more than 115 degrees, August weather has yet to become a problem its only the 1st so we'll see what comes.


MMM 115 degrees, nice :cool:
Remind me of my days paving roads in the summer.
Course I tend to get cranky when it hit 135 degrees. Boots tend to melt down too.

Im living on the side of one of them and this dude is fuming and put out red stuff a plenty. Can't figure if it worth trying to load my Victor 18-50 dcl of just give it to Madam Pele as a offering
Aloha
dalts Keaau, Big Island

um.....define: Like it. please, im confused.

I saw an interesting note on the news a few days ago.

The "Old Farmers Almanac" is a publication available annually. One section talks about short term (yearly) and long tern (decades) weather trends. These trends are based on such scientific principles as (1) the bushiness of squirrel's tails, (2) the side of the tree a bear rubs his butt on, and (3) which direction the moss is pointing, etc.

To make a long story short, they (and their reviewers) claim a better than 90% accuracy and they said "forget global warming, prepare for a 50 year period of global cooling".

I saw an interesting note on the news a few days ago.

The "Old Farmers Almanac" is a publication available annually. One section talks about short term (yearly) and long tern (decades) weather trends. These trends are based on such scientific principles as (1) the bushiness of squirrel's tails, (2) the side of the tree a bear rubs his butt on, and (3) which direction the moss is pointing, etc.

To make a long story short, they (and their reviewers) claim a better than 90% accuracy and they said "forget global warming, prepare for a 50 year period of global cooling".

The solar cycle has predicted this too, and predictably, the globe has been cooling. It has given up all the temperature increase gained during the last cycle already, and it might give up a lot more.

The problem is likely to be not global warming, but trying not to freeze to death or starve due to crop failure.

Interesting that the propaganda about destroying our standard of living gets turned down when our entire economy is collapsing anyway.

I have been watching the blood-bath unfold regarding the DOW. Seven successive days with major losses with no seeming end in sight. A total collapse from 10,000 to 8,600 this week and probably worse to follow tomorrow. Nothing in it for me because our investments are elsewhere but it's still breathtaking to watch.

I have belive there is an ill wind blowing. Our 30 years of boom economy may be succumbing to one heck of a recession because it has been held off for so long. The very Devil will have to be paid before it's over. The natural cycle was 5 years boom, 2 years bust. Easily 4 of those cycles would have fit in the last 30 years. Easy pain before, hard pain now to cover what got missed.

I organized a meeting today for what's coming and how to deal with it. The "hobby" segment will totally dry up because it's discretionary spending and there won't be any of that as I see it. Our emphasis will be towards the OEM market to exploit the inevitable cost-cutting that will ensue. Businesses will get much harder than it has before in the coming months.

This is the "Alternate Energy, Global Warming" forum. Good luck. When people are laid off and have no jobs, just think of how much they will care about that crap. For what's coming, my pulse says it's bad, very bad. Bad enough that we had a major meeting today with how we will deal with it. Put your raincoats on, bad weather is coming.

Mariss

I have been watching the blood-bath unfold regarding the DOW... Nothing in it for me because our investments are elsewhere but it's still breathtaking to watch.

I have belive there is an ill wind blowing. Our 30 years of boom economy may be succumbing to one heck of a recession because it has been held off for so long.....

I organized a meeting today for what's coming and how to deal with it... Businesses will get much harder than it has before in the coming months.

Mariss

Its is a damn sight more than breathtaking when you have money tied up in an English bank that is teetering; fortunately we can wait it out.

Yep we are getting recession x three or four because small corrections were not permitted to occur periodically. Or is it going to be recession^3?

I fear business is going to get much harder in the coming years.

Reminds one of the (Chinese?) curse; 'May you live in interesting times'.

Welcome to the interesting times.

I organized a meeting today for what's coming and how to deal with it. The "hobby" segment will totally dry up because it's discretionary spending and there won't be any of that as I see it. Our emphasis will be towards the OEM market to exploit the inevitable cost-cutting that will ensue. Businesses will get much harder than it has before in the coming months.

Mariss

Many years ago I skydived with a man that owned a going business. His business made "bearing pads." These pads were large affairs that buildings in earth quake prone areas are built upon. They give the building foundation wiggle//waggle room when the ground gets feisty. He took great interest in his workers well being. You remind me of him. I don't envy your responsibilities. Not only do you look out for your family, and your business, but you also worry about your workers. You are a good man Mariss. I hope you can weather this storm.

I'm an OEM, so I'll be watching, Mariss.

Great time to launch a new business, eh? Heh.

--97T--

Do right as best you can as you see it,
for yourself and others. Whether anyone is looking or not.

Now that is about the most sensible thing I've heard in a long time and pretty much typifies my attitude in my past and present life. Seen me through so far :)

I live by that.

One other phrase I use every day- "Do something good for somebody and don't get caught doing it". Even if it's not recognised, it makes you feel good.

Well, whether we believe in Global Warming or not pales into insignifance with the thought that this Planet may not tolerate the amount of pollution we are creating for it...that's all. If you recall the Christmas Island observation, that the inhibitants living there destroyed their environment progressively...and themselves eventually....have we learnt from the mistakes of others? I don't think so...

Anyone interested in a good short read ? http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/no-significant-global-warming-since-1995/

Heh, so my property in NE will be tropical waterfront?:D

Yes, well diamonds, gold,and other minerals will be exhausted too. The earth doesn't "make" them, it had made them. So they might run out eventually, but how do you suppose we change all these people's minds? What can we say? We are oil dependent.

Well, whether we believe in Global Warming or not pales into insignifance with the thought that this Planet may not tolerate the amount of pollution we are creating for it...that's all. If you recall the Christmas Island observation, that the inhibitants living there destroyed their environment progressively...and themselves eventually....have we learnt from the mistakes of others? I don't think so...

Wrong island, it was never inhabited prior to European discovery.

Wrong island, it was never inhabited prior to European discovery.
Musta been those durn inhibitants!

The earth are warmer and warmer, I can stand summer days

And now that the sun has quieted down with next to no solar flares or sun spots. What have we observed? Yeah snow and cold.
Ya want to read a good book get "Red hot lies" about the evil lies and agenda of the crowd perpetuating this crap on us all.

Global warmng is a religion not science, it is driven by the sun not co2. indeed we have a huge decrease in global temps and may be in for another little ice age. Check out the paleo climate versus co2 charts, and especially Lord Monkton's paper.http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm he actually does good science. Especially interesting is the model the UN used designed to model vacuum tube amps and totally unsuitable as a clmate model.

Global warmng is a religion not science

Dear amplexus,

Thank you for the link to the paper by Monkton. Most of it went totally over my head because I am not familiar with the details of the computer simulations. My fault absolutely.

What I found completely shocking was the statement at the top of the article by APS...

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Are those people compromised as regards science, or what???

Best wishes,

Martin

Hello Geof,
"Wrong island, it was never inhabited prior to European discovery. "
Below is an article re christmas island in the PACIFIC Ocean..it was inhabited prior to European discovery...like the Americas and Australia etc." I don't think we can bury our heads in the sand and declaring such places 'unhabited', so we can colonise them)

"Kiritimati or Christmas Island is a Pacific Ocean atoll in the northern Line Islands and part of the Republic of Kiribati.
he island has the greatest land area of any coral atoll in the world: about 322 square kilometres (124 sq mi)[1]; its lagoon is about the same size. The atoll is about 150 km (93 mi) in perimeter, while the lagoon shoreline extends for over 48 km (30 mi).[2] Kiritimati comprises over 70% of the total land area of Kiribati, a nation encompassing 33 Pacific atolls and islands.
It lies 232 km (144 mi) north of the Equator, 6,700 km (4,200 mi) from Sydney, and 5,360 km (3,330 mi) from San Francisco. Kiritimati is the first inhabited place on Earth to experience the New Year each year (see also Caroline Atoll, Kiribati). Despite being 1,530 miles (2,460 km) east of the 180 meridian, a 1995 realignment of the International Dateline by the Republic of Kiribati 'moved' Kiritimati to west of the dateline.
Nuclear tests were conducted in the region around Kiritimati by the United Kingdom in the late 1950s. During these tests islanders were not evacuated. Subsequently British, New Zealand and Fijian servicemen as well as local islanders have claimed to have suffered from exposure to the radiation from these blasts."

Testing of nuclear weapons in sensitive places in 'foreign' countries is not something that is desired..

Prosper

how can you like/dislike something that is not real.

how can you like/dislike something that is not real.

Huh??? what's that supposed to mean by the way? What are you referring to?:confused:

Any of you can load up on google earth and spin the globe around to iceland and the hudson bay can see that in the summer when the space photos were taken, the areas around iceland are ice free. I think alot of you THINK that global warming is a good thing but you must understand, alot of cold water that is generated by these massive ice fields also help to regulate the coastal cities along the pacific and atlantic shores and for hundreds of miles inland. Should those waters increace by a few degress, you can rest assured that there will be extreem droughts, massive fires and other serios cosequences such as failed farming and the supply of food will be in short supply. What is happening to Africa can happen to the US and canada. I just recently heard that with California in a severe stage II drought, that vegtables being imported into Vancouver region will start to climb. Our food cost is already high enough as it is.

Already, the wamer pacific waters are killing off the Kryll which is the main food source for our pacific salmon. Are salmon are in steep declines from this and other factors.

Our BC forest has been ravaged by the mountain pine beetle. Billions of board feet are now worthless. If you drive up into the kamloops area, you will see miles and miles of dead forest simply because the pine beettle that for the most part dies off during the winter except a few, now survive.

I honestly think the future will hold some very serios and geographicly wide droughts that will cause whole kinds of geopolitical issues with Canada and the US.

Yes Rhinoman, in any situation that happens, some will gain while others will lose out..that's the way life is on this planet... we just have to adapt to the changing environment since we are not going to be able to fully control it.

Mariss Maybe we should share our coffee with a few on this post ! To rich to pass up !
Some can not connect the dot's so here is an easy little project maybe some will see the connections to. Now here in the states in public schools we were taught a tiny bit about gravity and how mass attracts mass and so forth and I am sure many here can fill in the dots from there? or can you?? Then a while back A fellow named Dyson Devised a system to with hope detect intelligent signals in space . So came SETI. In this simple sceam . it was within logic so it was given a run and a good bit more came of this program but a few super power gov's with some big moneys chose to shut it down in order to shut even more projects down such as the super collider in the states of Texas La and Arkansas. To bad for the France Japan and other nations that invested Millions and lost it coz some one had hold of the fed's neck. We are to this day still paying out the kazoo protecting and holding closed this site then ever it would had coast to finish the near done collider in the first place. So Please don't hold me or the citizens here any grudge. See it was sold to us this dumb so called geodome world was with out gravity so to induce it this world would have to be spun up so fast there was no substance known to man that would hold it together. It would simply fly apart. ! humm ? ok I ask, how these guys come to see it even built to then just fly apart. Now I'm about as ignorant as the next man but my views to such a glob had envisions the shear mass of said world the folks there would have calves like and elephant due at our size in a world the size of our orbits of the G32 stare we hang out with we would tripe the scales at about 4 to 600 pounds of force so we evolved that way or lived our lives as pancakes. Just as with magnetic flux this world would need no spin and more likely a way to reduce the mass attraction.
So take our little rock we live on. Then look at that stare we all share and think about the amounts of iron in every practical of light that falls on us daily ( is the grass not green then dye brown )then add the figures on or rocks mass and the passing comic dust and do your numbers and you well all by your self see this rock collects tonnage daily of matter and the weight of this mass as like our sun and the laws of nature you just can't break , our little rock grows expediently and in its obesity grows and the pressure due gravity yields to heat . as with G class stares it comes a point this most volatile substance we call water will become the flaming components it really is H 2o. Given time it is un disputed this rock was born to be a stare. What are the contents in our old friend Sol any way. See any similarities. My coffee's hot ! Like a cup? So if you wish it to chase that idea the paper money is also based on gold like we alone take blame to warming .When it comes time to light the fuse of the rocket out of here I assume you maybe are going to miss the boat,then proving the good book correct your going to burn?
Where on earth do these numbers come from where in the near future coastal cities be even 100 feet below sea level. I was banking on a few feet so My house I can see the ocean a few miles down the bay to become water front property and I sell for a hefty profit!
I am sorry to remind those that have forgotten or not born in time to witness with there own eyes but in 1958 the government of the USA sent the army one Sunday during the church hour announcing on radio the head treasurer him self said The fed see it fit your ignorance to take possession of the gold and so did. From then on the paper money has been based or that very thing you carry with you to have a seat, and so often I hear in a crowed room I have nothing to sit on ??? I am sorry to see my friends in Europe now to are part of the governments casino sceam and put there wealth in the hands of the great social experiment . But it seams the experiment is working just fine. Who has your money now? We alone are bringing on global warming?
Keep in mind too The church of Roam insisted the world was flat as they enjoyed cinnamon on there breakfast tables and war'ed with those that said other wise and then keeping there flock at bay.Portuguese keep there facts separate to avoid invasions and in a Brown Room some place in the Netherlands they took revenge on a annoying idiot with bad math selling him a map to the world as he saw with his bad numbers. Columbus forgot to think time of the day the sun marked time in so saw the world smaller and missed the great distance to get to the spice Islands . That's why the Portuguese never sailed west. It was simply a waist of time and further then the root they were using. To show and other simple root to this simple math use all the fingers you have no digging for gold now! Your house , or those in the cities take the road before you. Is it really sinking ? Now lets throw in all the hard stuff to and add to this confusion and make allowances the world is warming so sea levels rise you can buy all means toss into this equation and your still going to see what I see. NO it is not sinking unless you are in say New Orleans or what's that city in Asia ? Singapore pumping so much water from underground it defeats the rate of growth. The Earth rises around your house or road side. Life it self uses the iron in light then in its life cycle composts to soils and other matter, but if you cant warp your head around that then by all means get a transit and local land records and see for your self. Ten years is enough but 25 years back records may shock you. Sorry this wont work will every ware due erosion factors. So to you folks just look down stream to calculate your figures
Its not complicated at all . So why make it so. And get your kids to the bus on time ! There training is essential so they can run this maze next !
Coffee any one?

About 50 million years ago,large reptiles roamed our planet.An asteroid wiped them out within a few months.The fact is that this planet has been destroyed by internal as well as external forces many times and has managed to repair itself each time.I don't know how much time humanity has on this planet.Our time could end tomorrow or last thousands of years in the future.One thing is certain,nothing lasts forever and one day our time will end.When that time comes,the earth will again,repair itself and some life form will emerge.The dinosaurs had their time,let the human species have our time.

I'm new, was "wondering" about CNC routers, checked this site and actually seen this topic. Unbelievable. No matter where you go, it seems, there will be a heated GW debate!

I know for one that this time around (geological time scale speaking), the CO2 is preceding temps, obviously from man. Usually, when the sun warms up (or whatever the cause of increased temps), the co2 goes up naturally in line. This time, the temps have not had a chance yet to go up. This is because Earth still has icecaps...

This is only a joking matter for the time being, unless we assume it to be true and solve the problem. Now if it wasn't for conspiracy theories (some of which are true) it would be easy to say "let's just do the right thing and just (try to) stop all the emitters to a certain degree. But since governments around the world will try to use this truth as a scare tactic for more control, we need to say "More jobs with renewables and closed cycle nuclear before we go "all out" trying to do without (another word for conservation)!

The solution lays in converting thousands of square miles of the desert into mirrors that reflect light into either heat reservoirs for conventional electrical generation or into CPV or Stirling generating systems. This would create "all the jobs" even if components were (partly) made elsewhere! Imagine all the mounting hardware, etc! Solar and wind seems to be further proven and cheaper than carbon sequestration (and safer).

However, the (very small but necessary) enviro in me says that we can not bulldoze the deserts, period. Thus there is probably no room for the parabolic trough concept (the one that has been proven for decades now in California). Also such a huge expanse of BLACK PV would probably do more harm than good. Mirrors do not get so hot and therefore pose no eco risk. Infact, later when nuclear becomes large scale, the mirrors would mimic ice that reflects the sun back into space (when not being focused into the collector) thus lowering global temps (to a very small but helpful degree).

Eventually, the wind and solar thing will play out to a max of 25 to 50 percent of all electrical usage, after which, closed cycle nuclear (fission) should be permitted and ready to go. Open cycle is the stupid kind we rely upon today that causes ~ a thousand times the radioactive wastes and uses ~ one hundred times the fuel. Better yet, closed cycle thorium based fission requires spent fuel to start (say good buy to the Yucca storage concept)!

Another reason to "assume GW to be true" is to avert a real and known danger... POST OIL DEATH!

Don't kill a watt, MEGAWATT

I know for one that this time around (geological time scale speaking), the CO2 is preceding temps, obviously from man. Usually, when the sun warms up (or whatever the cause of increased temps), the co2 goes up naturally in line. This time, the temps have not had a chance yet to go up. This is because Earth still has icecaps...


Really?
That would presume that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature...right? Isn't that what you're saying? Anthropogenic CO2 is causing the warming...yes?

Then how is it possible that we've gone into a cooling trend while global total CO2 has been rising?

Is it possible that anthropogenic CO2 is only a third-order driver after all? Is is possible that much of the climate change we're experiencing is A. Natural and B. a function of land-use (misuse is my choice of words)?

James Hansen has proclaimed we've passed the tipping point. If that were true, there would be continued warming...and that's not what the observations are showing.

Carbon sequestration, for the record, is a ridiculous proposal.

fizzissist, we are not in equilibrium yet. However, I stand against the "normal" green movement.

Equilibrium includes feedback effects such as continued warming due to less albedo, methane release, others I don't know about and melting permafrost too? Again, I find it hard to believe that drastic results could ever be observed in such a small time as our lifespans.

I also realize that governments will use GW as a tool for more control (also why many disbelieve GW). I simply know that as every year passes, the co2 level goes up. This, nobody can deny.

Why is "proving GW wrong" more important than promoting responsible (but potentially unlimited) solar and or closed cycle nuclear solutions to fossil fuel(ed) depletion?

If we fall in line with trivial greenisms, we will be forced to conserve which is outright coercive limitation! If we dig up the rest of the fossils, well, just as bad (or worse if this cooling trend does not counterbalance excess co2). Thus the reason why we MUST PROMOTE UNLIMITED CLEAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS! My kids want as much or more juice (freedom) as I.

Oh, I definitely agree that carbon sequestration is ridiculous too!

fizzissist, we are not in equilibrium yet. However, I stand against the "normal" green movement.

Equilibrium includes feedback effects such as continued warming due to less albedo, methane release, others I don't know about and melting permafrost too? Again, I find it hard to believe that drastic results could ever be observed in such a small time as our lifespans.


Can you point me to a geologic time when the earth has been in equilibrium?

If that state exists for earth, then what is the temperature?

Surprised me with the quick reply!

I guess "equalibrium" was the wrong word, I meant that temps have not had a chance to catch up to what they "should be" in line with higher co2. (and to suggest that GW is not the only threat we have to deal with).

Re: fizzissist (some supporting facts)

Not only are we in a cooling trend, the cooling has accelerated this past year to the point where the Russian folks from the space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory announced we are slipping into a new small ice age.

"ST. PETERSBURG, January 22 (RIA Novosti) - Temperatures on Earth have stabilized in the past decade, and the planet should brace itself for a new Ice Age rather than global warming, a Russian scientist said in an interview with RIA Novosti.

"Russian and foreign research data confirm that global temperatures in 2007 were practically similar to those in 2006, and, in general, identical to 1998-2006 temperatures, which, basically, means that the Earth passed the peak of global warming in 1998-2005," said Khabibullo Abdusamatov, head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg.

However, the thermal inertia of the world's oceans and seas will delay a 'deep cooling' of the planet, and the new Ice Age will begin sometime during 2055-2060, probably lasting for several decades," Abdusamatov said. "

God forbid someone should get it right (they could get crucified by the true believers)

Robert Calahan at NASA’s Goddard Space Center could be in big trouble -- for telling the truth. Here is a headline for an article in the Daily Tech:

"NASA Study Acknowledges Solar Cycle, Not Man, Responsible for Past Warming

A study from NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate. The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution."

Who woudda thunk the sun had anything to do with heating up the earth.

But here is the kicker. Let us not believe the facts if they are to inconvenient. I had a GW true believer friend on mine explain it to me this way (pseudo conversation below, but pretty accurately as far as I can remember):

There are computer models that show all GW is man made.

Well, how about the computer models that show it is all solar cycles?

Well those computer models are wrong!

Well, how do you know the models you cite are right and the ones I cite are wrong.

Well, they just are. Not only that, but there are models showing that GW may result in a temperature decrease globally.

Then it wouldn't be GW, would it? So let me get this straight. If the temp goes up it's man made GW, if it goes down it's man made GW and if it stays the same then it's man made GW too? Kind of like a heads you win tails I loose scenario?

Yeah, works out nice doesn't it.

**************************

So Fizz, what are you? BS, MS, PhD. What is your specialty, mine was in novel Heisenberg antiferromagnetic systems (condensed matter physics)

Why is "proving GW wrong" more important than promoting responsible (but potentially unlimited) solar and or closed cycle nuclear solutions to fossil fuel(ed) depletion?

Here is the problem with solar and why some conservation groups are against it.

A typical coal fired plant takes about 10 square acres of land to build and uses about 160 billion gallons of water a year (typically located on a river). with CO2 sequestering it can be made relatively clean (relatively being the main word here.

(California's First Solar Thermal Plant in 20 Years. The plant is small, only 5 megawatts, but their second project, planned for next year, will be 117 megawatts. An average coal plant is roughly 800 megawatts. parenthetical material from ecogeek.org)

A typical solar plant takes about 100 square acres. The desert being the ideal place for such a plant. The first step is leveling the land (called blading in the industry) Since most desert animals tend to burrow in times of danger they are probably dead when you run over then with a plow. Of course we could relocate them or better yet teach them to read and just post signs.

(The plant basically uses flat mirrors to concentrate sunlight on a pipe containing oil. The oil is heated to magnificent temperatures and then the pipe runs through a vat of water. The water instantly boils, creating steam that then drives a turbine, creating electricity.)

A typical solar plant (the 117MW cited above) also uses 160 billion gallons of water a year too. Most desert aquifers are very fragile and easily damaged. A 117 MW plant could possibly damage the aquifer for many many tens of miles around the plant, possibly irreparably. But who cares, it's only prairie dogs and snakes were killing. It's not like were killing warm cuddly animals like fish.

One reason for the failure of the GCMs is the lack of cloud effects. So far, none of the 21 (I used to think there were 19 models, but I've been advised there are 21) models adequately account for clouds, for the simple reason they can't, because we just don't know enough to quantify them. Some clouds cool, some trap heat, some are neutral, depending on altitude, density, etc.....

Top that off with the fact we just don't know how many clouds there are, how big they are, and so on, at any given time. We can make some nice guesses, but that's about it.

What's the deal with clouds? Why care? 'Cause they're water. Water vapor. There's water vapor, then there's water vapor in the form of clouds. Water is a far greater "greenhouse gas" than CO2, and it comprises between .3% and 3% of our atmosphere....in stark contrast to CO2 which comprises ......(drum roll) .... .038% of our atmosphere.

Any time I hear about using large quantities of water for anything, I wonder about evaporation and it's localized climate effects.

In the case of solar power, I'm going long here and guessing that the water will be in a closed loop system.....but it ain't when it comes to ethanol.

I like Heisenberg. In his honor, I'm studying global warming so closely that I'm changing it.

....to fireofenergy:
Temps haven't really been tracking CO2 the way they should if CO2 was a first order driver of climate. CO2 was going up steadily during the postwar cooling of of '45-'75, during the most industrial build-up in history.....the AGW theory was, if correct, as applicable then as it would be now. Global temp anomalies have been neutral, if not negative since '98 or so....more evidence of a lack of causation.

An interesting argument to follow is that of the total ocean heat content. If AGW is true, the heat should show up in the oceans. Has it?

One reason for the failure of the GCMs is the lack of cloud effects. So far, none of the 21 (I used to think there were 19 models, but I've been advised there are 21) models adequately account for clouds, for the simple reason they can't, because we just don't know enough to quantify them. Some clouds cool, some trap heat, some are neutral, depending on altitude, density, etc.....

Top that off with the fact we just don't know how many clouds there are, how big they are, and so on, at any given time. We can make some nice guesses, but that's about it.

What's the deal with clouds? Why care? 'Cause they're water. Water vapor. There's water vapor, then there's water vapor in the form of clouds. Water is a far greater "greenhouse gas" than CO2, and it comprises between .3% and 3% of our atmosphere....in stark contrast to CO2 which comprises ......(drum roll) .... .038% of our atmosphere.

Any time I hear about using large quantities of water for anything, I wonder about evaporation and it's localized climate effects.

In the case of solar power, I'm going long here and guessing that the water will be in a closed loop system.....but it ain't when it comes to ethanol.

I like Heisenberg. In his honor, I'm studying global warming so closely that I'm changing it.

....to fireofenergy:
Temps haven't really been tracking CO2 the way they should if CO2 was a first order driver of climate. CO2 was going up steadily during the postwar cooling of of '45-'75, during the most industrial build-up in history.....the AGW theory was, if correct, as applicable then as it would be now. Global temp anomalies have been neutral, if not negative since '98 or so....more evidence of a lack of causation.

An interesting argument to follow is that of the total ocean heat content. If AGW is true, the heat should show up in the oceans. Has it?

Regarding clouds, they also dramatically increase the albedo with the result of cooling what is under them.

The director of climate research for some Norwegian meteorological group (keep in mind that Norway is probably the greenest country on the planet) made the rounds doing interviews in the news a week or 2 ago and said:

If the Obama cap and trade plan in enacted as is then the result of all the CO2 eliminated from the atmosphere would amount to a temperature decrease of 0.05 degrees over the next 50 years.

But it would double or triple the cost of everything traveling by truck or rail (like the food you get in the grocery store) and would triple the price of petroleum products and electricity in the USA. But it would also bring an estimated 0.5 trillion into the federal treasury since they are the ones issuing and selling these cap quotas. It's kind of like a new tax, but not really, because we all know there will be no new taxes on anyone making less than 250K.

I wonder if there is an anterior motive behind cap and trade? Nah... if you can't trust the government, who can you trust.

Regarding clouds, they also dramatically increase the albedo with the result of cooling what is under them.
-----I wonder if there is an anterior motive behind cap and trade? Nah... if you can't trust the government, who can you trust.

With lower solar wind we get more galactic cosmic rays, more seeds for clouds, and ....voila: More clouds. (At least Nir Shaviv thinks so....) More clouds = more cooling.

For fireofenergy:
What do you get when you superimpose a graph from Hawaii full of atmospheric CO2 data on top of a graph with temperature data?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/05/uah-global-temperature-anomaly-for-may-down-again-near-zero/#more-8204

I'm going with the "really troublesome correlation" crowd on this one....

I posted somewhere here a great piece on windpower according to T.Boone's plan..and just how practical it ain't...It's a great accompaniment (sp?) to discussions of solar.... :) I'll try and dig it up for all you skeptics.

I have found the definitive word on the subject. If you can't believe Burger King, who can you believe.

I just see a graph going up and down like crazy! If you study it for a few seconds, it seems that the average temps are going up since the start (of it).

And to others here against solar, I need to mention that the Stiling Energy Systems's dishes only use a fraction of the water (for cleaning only) and do not need to bulldoze since they are post mounted (of course they don't have thermal back up though, darn it). I am against solar that has to bulldoze (since sooo many thousands of square miles should be available for mirror placement and jobs creation).

Closed cycle nuclear, I guess is just too scary to even talk about, but what about "burning" thorium instead of uranium (I hear it's way less of a weapons issue)?

I'm sure there are better solutions but however we do it, we need more energy if we are to sustain civilization past the oil depletion stage.

As for water vapor, it condenses in a reasonable amount of time! Unlike co2...

As for cap and trade, I really don't believe in that either!

I just see a graph going up and down like crazy! If you study it for a few seconds, it seems that the average temps are going up since the start (of it).

Closed cycle nuclear, I guess is just too scary to even talk about, but what about "burning" thorium instead of uranium (I hear it's way less of a weapons issue)?

I'm sure there are better solutions but however we do it, we need more energy if we are to sustain civilization past the oil depletion stage.

As for water vapor, it condenses in a reasonable amount of time! Unlike co2...


1.Graph going up and down like crazy is quite the point. Steady CO2 growth, but temps weaving erratically, .....? Since we're coming out of an ice age, warming might be expected. Is CO2 driving temps up a little? Probly. To what degree? ....To what degree the anthropogenic contribution adds to it is what's in question.

2. Pebble bed reactors.

3. ....my own personal viewpoint on this one, subject to lots of argument, discussion, pillow fights..... Abiotic is the oil.
I cannot, will not, accept that a bunch of dinosaurs got buried, rotted, and made oil. I think that oil is "renewable" in the sense that gasses deep in the earth percolate up through or are saturated with microbes or some chemical, under heat and pressure....and result in petroleum. That's a different topic though. Are we depleting it faster than it regenerates? Dunno. But there are oil pockets pumped dry that are replenishing themselves in the Gulf of Mexico. ....like I said, whole 'nuther topic!

Anyway, here's a link to Roy Spencer's website....it contains some really good info. Roy is a little more qualified than Algore to talk about climate, so it's worth looking at...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/

....speaking of Roy Spencer and CO2...
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/carbon-dioxide-growth-rate-at-mauna-loa/

Pebblebeds? Don't they consume as much as pressurized water reactors of today? You probably heard about a MIT study saying the fuel is limited. I also don't like the idea of the long lived toxicity associated with "spent fuel".

I've stumbled across energyfromthorium and found it quite fascinating that thorium base closed cycle fission is way less toxic (being that its waste has much shorter half lives to the tune of natural uranium itself in only 300 years) and that it consumes about 100 times less fuel per unit of energy. It would need spent fuel to kick start it! I believe this is also the case with uranium but not sure. With uranium, plutonium is the result, not good (unless 100% sure civilian use). With thorium, I think it's u233, a highly toxic substance only to be used as fuel?

Maybe pebblebeds are better as there is still no worries of "peak uranium" just yet! (I will look more into that!)

Yep, Wikipedia convinced me that at least pebblebeds are safer and more efficient...

fireofenergy,

Anything that's free isn't worth what it costs.:-) Solar power is free. Solar insolation in the Southwest is 6kW-hrs/sq-meter per day, dropping to 4kW-hrs/sq-meter per meter day in New England.

What this means is if you captured 100% of this "free energy" using a collector area of a square yard, you could run your lawnmower for 1 hour. Practically, you can only collect 10%, so you now need about 100 sq-ft of collector area.

Say your car is solar powered and you want to take a road trip, say from LA to Las Vegas and back (it IS the Southwest after all). 10 hours round-trip and you average a reasonable 60 HP, (60kW). That is 600kW/hrs for the trip.

Your solar collector is 1 sq-ft per 60 Watt-hours per day (10% efficiency) so you:

1) Wait 27 years to collect and store the energy for your "once in a lifetime" trip or,

2) Have a 10,000 sq-ft (1/4 acre) collector, save it in 1 day and be a real hit with your neighbors (that 1/4 acre industrial plant-size solar collector) or,

3) Buy $75 worth of gas (600 miles, 20MPG, $2.50 a gallon) for your car and call it a day.

Mariss

I still (kinda) think that the 10,000 sq miles or so needed for practical solar energy would create so many jobs that it may? offset higher electrical prices. I tend to think that it would take at least 20,000 (with storage but that would entail bulldozing, no good!). I've read somewhere that the amount of land used just for all roads is 50,000 sq mi! (Thus the reason for my previous optimism).

Putting solar aside, I now believe that the molten salt thorium reactor is the best choice for hundreds of years! But where would all the jobs be?

One major problem with this "green" job creation is that the transition isn't smooth. Painful would be more appropriate. People lose their jobs en masse first, and the creation of the new jobs isn't overnight.

We're already dealing with economic disaster, but add cap & trade to the mix and the recipe gets worse, not better.

As sdantonio points out, the resultant temperature "savings" of a total reduction of CO2 in this country to nothing by 2050 would save the planet by cutting the global temperature by such a small fraction of a degree that it isn't even measurable. It's so low that it isn't even in the noise.

Pat Michaels has an excellent article on that along with the math to demonstrate. He addresses the Waxman approach from a scientific perspective....well worth reading...

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

Remember...."Humanoid" contribution to global CO2 is on the order of 3% of the total... And 3% of .038% is how much???

Despite how green the new world government wants us to be, they don't really want us all tapping into "free" solar energy because it won't generate any tax revenue.

Ok, so we go to all electric vehicles. Take your car home and plug it in. Good deal, right?

But without the fuel taxes, where's the money for road repairs gonna come from? The money will come from higher taxes on kwh, which means your toast is going to skyrocket in price...all so you can drive cheaper.

In the end, there ain't no free lunch. Like my physics teacher in high school used to say..."You don't get something for nothing."

One major problem with this "green" job creation is that the transition isn't smooth. Painful would be more appropriate. People lose their jobs en masse first, and the creation of the new jobs isn't overnight.

There is another problem too. Spain recently did a huge green economy and jobs push. What they found is that the number of jobs per capita that Obama cites were initially created, but only 1 in 10 of those jobs were permanent, i.e. lasting more than 2 years.

Maybe we could create a whole new industry just rebuilding windmill generator gearboxes??...something that seldom gets mentioned....

For the new guys here, thought I'd post the link for Bob Carter's video on CO2 and AGW again.....since Australians are the subject on another thread, and, well, I just can't help myself...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=bob+carter+global+warming&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=VOEuSsrdMKe0tAO1__nQCA&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Ok, so we go to all electric vehicles. Take your car home and plug it in. Good deal, right?

And when you go to get another car. Do you realize how much of an environmental hazard it is to get rid of those batteries.

I talked to a guy recently who was in the marketing department for GM (recently let go so he has no stake in the company any more).

Go got to test drive one of the hydrogen car prototypes for a few months. Said they were absolutely beautiful. But Obama, in his wisdom (probably in league with Gore... the guy who invented the internet and stole glaciers) decided the GM would screp the hydrogen car in favor of the electric jobs.

I fear that hydrogen is just a stop gap measure on the way to an electric car (...that said, I HATE electric cars. It just ain't right).

The hydrogen support infrastructure is expensive, the cost is up there with gasoline, and the hydrogen still costs CO2 to produce...so what's the gain? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner air (screw the CO2...it's the combustion byproducts that leave me gasping), but something tells me we'll just be spending money we don't need to on a technology that still needs years to refine to an economy-of-scale level.

Did I mention I HATE electric cars? I work with a guy who has a stable of 'em, from an MR2 that'll smoke 'vettes to a 9 passenger GM van. Regenerative braking and the whole 9 yards. (and a gas heater for winter...LOL!).. They are all very economical, quiet, perform very well....and won't go very far. But the real reason I can't get behind 'em is ....they're just weird. There's just no feedback. Can't feel it, can't hear it. It's just weird. But that's beside the point.

Hydrogen has got some problems yet to be solved, and I think it probably makes some sense for Obama to pull funding, but not all funding for it. That would be too short sighted.

But like you say, batteries are huge polluters too. From cradle to grave, batteries contribute a whole new set of problems for the environment. I've been following A123 and Altair Nano on their battery progress....and waiting for A123 to go public so I can get in on the IPO....then I'll go buy a new 'vette with my 'green' profits. :)

Hey Mariss
Check out this paper petawatts of reachable energy, steam turbine technology, 24-7 availability and Jeffery Tester at MIT has a supersonic spallation flame cutter that can cut 100 ft of solid granite an hour. A cnc machine with one of those would be interesting, all joking aside, this fixes energy problems for thousands of years, no co2 drill holes, add water, get steam.

Amplexus

The Future of Geothermal Energy – Impact of Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) on the United States in the 21st Century, Tester et. al.

Hi
I believe that the sound scientific FACTS do not support significant, out of the ordinary (from a looooong time world history) global warming. In fact since 2002 the temperatures are actually cooling slightly.
For a start MOST (more than 80%) of the worlds BEST temperature weather recording locations which are in the US have temperature errors equating to ~+1 degree C.
The Sun would seem to be the most important act in our corner of the universe.
CO2 emmissions are peanuts compared to levels in the distant past and those high levels did not coincide with or cause periods of high temperatures.
KYOTO and Emmissions trading are creating big business and wheeler dealers are latching on in anticipation of money to be made. We the people will be taxed to pay for all and to achieve nothing for the planet. Global warming is big business creating 10s of thousands of jobs.
my penny worth
Ray
The IPCC and Gore are seriously incompetent.

The AGW cap and trade racket would make even Capone jealous......

FYI, naturally (no technology involve) in tropical country, most of the time we can gather food crop such as rice (padi) twice a year. But this year they can gather 3 times, they have an additional short rainy season! This is good fenomena, right? I feel a longer rainy season, 7-8 month. Today, its still raining here, before (5-10 years ago), in May, its already dry season. What is this? Good or bad fenomena. Thanks.

3 harvests instead of 2??
This is a result of climate change you guys are going to fight against, right?

Hi,
This one I got news from TV, that east Indonesia have a longer rainy season, so that they can harvest rice 3 times a year. This also what I feel in my home, now it is still rain, heavy. maybe cycle changes should be balance. In some area getting dry, then in other area getting wet, so does with temperature. I do not know, I am not environmentalist.

Hi,
This one I got news from TV, that east Indonesia have a longer rainy season, so that they can harvest rice 3 times a year. This also what I feel in my home, now it is still rain, heavy. maybe cycle changes should be balance. In some area getting dry, then in other area getting wet, so does with temperature. I do not know, I am not environmentalist.

Where as real Science leaves the discussion open to further study, While Politics jockies for position to control the discussion and direct their agenda.

Carbongate! (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/online-global-warming-study-censored-by-epa/)

DC

I'd like to start a new poll...but I doubt any of the target people would participate...

How many politicians who voted FOR Waxman-Markey read the full 1400 page bill?

How many of them ready ANY of it? (beyond the title...that is)

It's a well known fact that Politicians cant read... If they didnt read the Patriot Bill which essentially took away all of our Constitutional Rights then I doubt they read much of anything unless its the polls from their own constituency.

I'd like to start a new poll...but I doubt any of the target people would participate...

How many politicians who voted FOR Waxman-Markey read the full 1400 page bill?

How many of them ready ANY of it? (beyond the title...that is)

I can tell you for a fact, none of them read it. Most have admitted so. I have heard it said "if the people knew what the Republicans wanted to do they wouldn't understand it, if the people knew what the Democrats wanted to do they wouldn't allow it".

The Waxman-Markey bill was nothing more than a tax in disguise and a quid pro quo payoff to their supporters (goldman sachs, who along with enron developed the trading strategy for the carbon certificates and GE who developed the infrastructure to trade then on and is the single largest producer of windmills in the country). Ever wonder why the administration saved Goldman but allowed it's competition to die (it's not just because all the current heads of the Fed and Treasury were once corporate officers in Goldman... though that is part of it).

That's why things are getting pushed through without reading the bills at such a breakneck speed. Thank god Obama's popularity is fading so the process is getting slowed down.

I've had the chance to get to now the national health care bill also... be scared, be very scared.

Van Jones, the president's environmental advisor who just got sacked, has a most interesting history.

He was involved in STORM, an avowed communist, named his son Cabral in honor of a revolutionary Leninist, and appointed by Obama to serve as an ADVISOR????

The connection to me is clear. If you control power, you have power. That is, if you control energy, you have power over the people. Taxing people for the power they need is another way of controlling them, if you keep in mind that the power to tax is the power to destroy. Jones connection with Obama, and Obama's position on energy taxation makes me real nervous.

Imposing higher taxes on the power we need to create and manufacture means being less competitive with countries that subsidize their manufacturing with cheap (and I mean CHEAP, and often forced....see Laogai) labor and energy.

I remember losing a job on a run of 100,000 parts because I was high by $.017 per part. It was kind of a psychological blow because it was my first big job bid...but I understood what happened and why.

Now, I understand why adding $.017 in energy costs to a part could very well send that job to China. It's imperative that we pay what our energy costs.....not $.017 more....never mind a nickel.