Global warming or not?

[kennyc]

Hee-Hee even the United Nations is getting in on the act:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1259...googlenews_wsj

[Greg Anos]

We may (and I say may) be starting a real-world test of the global warming tenants over the next 10 years or so. In the next 10 years, there isn't going to be any major cuts in CO2 emission. The shifting couldn't occur even if the political will were there.

Sunspots have dropped to virtually non-existent during the last 18 months. Now, this may be only a short lull, (nobody knows) but if it stay near the maundy minimum lows for a decade, we will have the real world situation where CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are high and rising, while solar activity is continually low. It would be a true test of which set of real world parameters have more effect on the earth's climate.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Sunspots have dropped to virtually non-existent during the last 18 months.

http://www.spaceweather.com/
"Something has exploded on the farside of the sun. Late yesterday, Dec. 4th, a billion-ton coronal mass ejection (CME) billowed over the sun's western limb. ...The blast site could be one of two farside active regions currently under surveillance by NASA's STEREO spacecraft, but those active regions don't seem to be in the right place to hurl a CME over the sun's western limb. The source might reveal itself in the days ahead as the sun's rotation turns unseen territory toward STEREO--or toward Earth. Stay tuned."

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

http://www.spaceweather.com/
"Something has exploded on the farside of the sun. Late yesterday, Dec. 4th, a billion-ton coronal mass ejection (CME) billowed over the sun's western limb. ...The blast site could be one of two farside active regions currently under surveillance by NASA's STEREO spacecraft, but those active regions don't seem to be in the right place to hurl a CME over the sun's western limb. The source might reveal itself in the days ahead as the sun's rotation turns unseen territory toward STEREO--or toward Earth. Stay tuned."

Well, I said maybe.....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

http://www.spaceweather.com/
"Something has exploded on the farside of the sun. Late yesterday, Dec. 4th, a billion-ton coronal mass ejection (CME) billowed over the sun's western limb. ...The blast site could be one of two farside active regions currently under surveillance by NASA's STEREO spacecraft, but those active regions don't seem to be in the right place to hurl a CME over the sun's western limb. The source might reveal itself in the days ahead as the sun's rotation turns unseen territory toward STEREO--or toward Earth. Stay tuned."

Hee-Hee.

I thought everyone KNEW that suns were sentient beings....sheesh!

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

We may (and I say may) be starting a real-world test of the global warming tenants over the next 10 years or so. In the next 10 years, there isn't going to be any major cuts in CO2 emission. The shifting couldn't occur even if the political will were there.

Sunspots have dropped to virtually non-existent during the last 18 months. Now, this may be only a short lull, (nobody knows) but if it stay near the maundy minimum lows for a decade, we will have the real world situation where CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) are high and rising, while solar activity is continually low. It would be a true test of which set of real world parameters have more effect on the earth's climate.

Be careful what you wish for ....

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Well, I said maybe.....

.... you HAD to say it !

[pshrynk]

I agree with the sentiment stated above that the time for replacing fossil fuels is nigh. Not only because of the pollution and the possible effect on climate change, but also for political reasons. Let's stop paying countries who don't like us. Even a yellow dog Democrat like myself can see the folly in financing the enemy.

Also, eventually the fossil fuels will run out. I don't think it will be as rapidly as the chicken littles are predicting, but it will happen and I, for one, would rather have something in place than to suffer the econmic upheaval that would have to take place if there is not a new scheme. I really don't like horses all that much and would be loathe to have to use one to get around, to be honest.

[GeoffC]

At least one thing is clear, irrespective of the differing sides of the argument, is that the GW debate has brought our energy use/conservation to the fore.

A more potent rationale would be to encourage us to be more efficient and hence economical.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I agree with the sentiment stated above that the time for replacing fossil fuels is nigh. Not only because of the pollution and the possible effect on climate change, but also for political reasons. Let's stop paying countries who don't like us. Even a yellow dog Democrat like myself can see the folly in financing the enemy.

Also, eventually the fossil fuels will run out. I don't think it will be as rapidly as the chicken littles are predicting, but it will happen and I, for one, would rather have something in place than to suffer the econmic upheaval that would have to take place if there is not a new scheme. I really don't like horses all that much and would be loathe to have to use one to get around, to be honest.

You have identified the biggest threat we have concerning the use of oil, which is that we are sending tons of money to our enemies for something we have plenty of right here in the US, if only we could overcome the greens who don't want us to drill for it. The problem is not only that our enemies use it to finance jihad, not to mention slavery in places like Dubai, but it also represents a huge economic threat.

Problem is, the only other feasible source for any significant replacement of fossil fuels is nuclear. And nuclear is abhorred by approximately the same subset of people who are against domestic drilling. Nuclear is one area in which the Europeans (except the Germans, or have they come to their senses?) have it right.

The net result in the US is stalemate, and continued shipping of our money to the Middle East.

(Back after 9/11, my own personal foreign policy concerning the terrorists was to tell the Middle East oil barons that unless they put a stop to the Islamic fanatics who were attacking us, we'd destroy all their oil wells. This not only as a threat, but on the theory that it either way, it would cut off the money supply to the terrorists. At the time, I was unaware that I might also solving a significant economic problem as well. Had I known that, my policy would not have been optional.)

BTW, does everyone remember the Ozone Hole Panic of the 90s? The one where fluorocarbons were accumulating in the atmosphere, and causing this Big Bad Hole in the atmosphere, giving us all skin cancer? So we outlawed fluorocarbons in products & behold, the Ozone Hole is shrinking. Result: Antarctica might have it's own version of REAL warming: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225806099928

Hmmm.

Also, for those old enough to remember the Global Cooling Hysteria of the 70s, remember the scheme about fighting Global Cooling by spreading ashes over the North Pole? This was supposed to keep the heat on, & melt the Arctic ice. Don't ask me where they were going to get all those ashes. Above my pay grade. But just think for a minute - what if we had actually carried out that scheme? By now, ALL the Arctic ice would have melted, pouring tons of fresh water into the Gulf Stream, keeping it from surfacing over by Europe, sending Europe into an Ice Age. http://solveclimate.com/blog/2009111...western-europe I'm against this, even if it happens to the French...

More Hmmming.

The bottom line for me is that I don't think we don't know what we are doing when it comes to climate change. Whatever is going on right now might be entirely within the range of normal, and fighting it might tip things in an entirely unpredictable direction.

Besides, I live in Chicago. Global Warming sounds like a good idea along about this time of the year, when the wings of the Hawk begin to stir, and the dog starts hiding when it's time to go out for his walk.

[Dulin's Books]

Originally Posted by XNN

As a scientist, the obfuscation/hiding/deletion of station lists etc. used in the creation of the HadCRUT dataset, as well as some of the tactics employed with respect to journals and editors, etc. are more disturbing.

There have been questions about the accuracy of HadCRUT3 data for awhile and I found yesterday while doing some other reading that they have taken HADCRUT3 down from CRU's website. www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature although Hadley Met office still has a download available.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Problem is, the only other feasible source for any significant replacement of fossil fuels is nuclear. And nuclear is abhorred by approximately the same subset of people who are against domestic drilling. Nuclear is one area in which the Europeans (except the Germans, or have they come to their senses?) have it right.

I saw an interesting documentary the other day called "Can we make a star on Earth?" which briefly discussed alternative power sources.

The documentary was about nuclear fussion. However a couple of guys briefly discussed what we would have to build in order to supply every person on Earth with 6 Kilowatts of power from sources that do not produce CO2(and are doable now) within 20 years.(they did not state if that was per day, week or what though) Mind you the average usage in the industrial world was 11 Kilowatts and in the third world about 1 Kilowatt. So this idea was about a more equitable distribution and a possibly sustainable amount. Those in the developed world would have to get used to using about half what they do nowm, which is a big ask. They looked at all sorts of "clean" sources and tried to figure out how much we could concievably get from each source and they disregarded the whole "nuclear waste" aspect of nuclear fission.

Anyway, if my memory serves me, globally we would have to build 1 new nuclear power plant every 5 days(or thereabouts) for the next 20 years! That was only to get about 1/2 the power needs too! Then for the other 1/2 we would have to invest in all the other types of clean fuel.

So long story short, "nuclear power" as we are able to do it today, is not an alternative at all really. It just isn't doable at our present energy consumption rates.

The only true alternative, the "get out of jail free card" as the doco presenters put it, is nuclear fussion. We are close to doing it too. Every scientist in the production agreed that fussion would be a reality within 20-50 years. Sooner even if the world made a truly co-operative effort to properly fund the research. It even has the benefit of being truly "clean" in that there is no CO2 and also no nuclear waste that needs to be stored for thousands of years.

Is that close enough to make a difference on global warming though?(assuming GW is human caused of course) I don't know.

Not sure that really has much to do with the discussion but I found it interesting so thought I'd share.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

....
Is that close enough to make a difference on global warming though?(assuming GW is human caused of course) I don't know.

Not sure that really has much to do with the discussion but I found it interesting so thought I'd share.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Interestingly things seem to happen when they need to happen.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Interestingly things seem to happen when they need to happen.

you mean like the accidental hacking and subsequently accidental exposure of emails; just coincidentally prior to the Copenhagen talks ?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

you mean like the accidental hacking and subsequently accidental exposure of emails; just coincidentally prior to the Copenhagen talks ?

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind, but ...

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

you mean like the accidental hacking and subsequently accidental exposure of emails; just coincidentally prior to the Copenhagen talks ?

"Interesting" debate about this on BBC's Newsnight on Friday.