Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

georgeob1 wrote:

I think there is a bit of a self-serving element in Merkel's reaction.

Sure is. She's a physicist. (I hate physicists.)

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Sure is. She's a physicist. (I hate physicists.)

Actually, I think she is an admirable figure.

Your reference to hating physicists doesn't even rise to mere insincerity. I believe that Fluid Mechanikers are as good as it gets.

0 Replies

can anyone argue with this authority ? Laughing

would it not be feasible to utilize another well-known source of heat ? Rolling Eyes

Quote:

Vatican to build solar panel roof

Pope Benedict XVI is to become the first pontiff to harness solar power to provide energy for the Vatican, engineers say.

The deteriorating cement roof tiles of the Paul VI auditorium will be replaced next year with photovoltaic cells to convert sunlight into electricity.

The cells will generate enough power to light, heat or cool the hall, the Vatican engineers say.

Last year the Pope urged Christians not to squander the world's resources.
The BBC's David Willey in Rome says the Vatican is now setting an example to the rest of Italy, which has been slow in harnessing solar.

Surplus power

Pope Benedict has criticised "the unbalanced use of energy" in the world.

Last year he said environmental damage was making "the lives of poor people on earth especially unbearable".

The Paul VI auditorium was designed by architect Pier Luigi Nervi and built in 1969.

The cement panels on its roof have deteriorated and were due to be replaced anyway, said Vatican engineer Pier Carlo Cuscianna.

When the 6,000-seat hall is not in use, the surplus energy will be fed into the Vatican power network.

The Vatican is considering placing solar panels on other buildings although St Peter's Basilica and other historical landmarks will not be touched

source :
THE GREEN POPE !

0 Replies

In Antarctica, proof that action on climate change is more u
In Antarctica, proof that action on climate change is more urgent than ever
By Steve Connor, Science Editor
Published: 06 June 2007
Independent UK

Fears that global sea levels this century may rise faster and further than expected are supported by a study showing that 300 glaciers in Antarctica have begun to move more quickly into the ocean.

Scientists believe that the accelerated movement of glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula indicates a dramatic shift in the way melting ice around the world contributes to overall increases in global sea levels.

Instead of simply adding huge volumes of meltwater to the sea, scientists have found rising temperatures are causing glaciers as far apart as Alaska, Greenland and now Antarctica to break up and slip into the ocean at a faster rate than expected.

The findings will raise concerns within the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which, earlier this year, downplayed the so-called "dynamic" nature of melting glaciers - when rising temperatures cause them to break up quickly rather than simply melt slowly.

Using radar images taken between 1993 and 2003, scientists at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge mapped a 12 per cent increase in the average rate of movement of more than 300 glaciers in the Antarctic Peninsula over the period.

The scientists believe that their findings are among the first to suggest that as glaciers being to melt they experience a physical transformation that causes an acceleration in their movement into the sea.

"We're only just now getting to grips with just how big these dynamic processes may be. There are still a lot of surprises out there," said David Vaughan, a glaciologist at the British Antarctic Survey and a co-author of the study.

"It is yet another example of how subpolar glaciers are responding very quickly to climate change because they are close to the temperature transition from ice to water," Dr Vaughan said.

"Scientists want to know why these things are happening because that's the route to the prediction of future sea levels."

In its fourth report published in February, the IPCC said sea levels this century could rise by between 20 cms and 43cms but it accepted that this could be a serious underestimate if ice sheets and glaciers undergo the sort of dynamic changes that existing computer models do not take fully into account.

Hamish Pritchard, a co-author of the study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research, said the findings demonstrated how melting glaciers can change in a way that speeds up their eventual disappearance into the sea.

The study showed that rising temperatures cause glaciers to become thinner, which makes them more buoyant when resting on submerged bedrock, so allowing them to slip faster into the ocean, Dr Pritchard said.

"The Antarctic Peninsula has experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3C over the past half-century. Eighty-seven per cent of its glaciers have been retreating during that period and now we see these glaciers are also speeding up," Dr Pritchard said.

"They are speeding up in a steady, progressive way. Warming causes widespread thinning, which causes widespread acceleration due to an increase in buoyancy. They speed up and the fronts of the glaciers break off and float away."

Chris Rapley, director of the British Antarctic Survey, said: "Without doubt we are seeing a striking global picture of ice on the retreat."

0 Replies

Global warming has been observed on Mars and Neptune over the last 20 years; nobody is driving SUVs or smoking cigars on Mars.

Man has less than nothing to do with this stuff. What is going on has to do with the nature of stars and periodic spikes in their outputs. Stars turn out to be plasma physics phenomena and not thermonuclear engines as you've been told all your life. They behave like cosmic lightning rods and as they pass through regions of space with greater or lesser electrical potential difference from themselves, heat up or cool down. Hence the so-called little ice age in the late renaissance period and hence our present warming.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Global warming has been observed on Mars and Neptune over the last 20 years; nobody is driving SUVs or smoking cigars on Mars.

Man has less than nothing to do with this stuff. What is going on has to do with the nature of stars and periodic spikes in their outputs. Stars turn out to be plasma physics phenomena and not thermonuclear engines as you've been told all your life. They behave like cosmic lightning rods and as they pass through regions of space with greater or lesser electrical potential difference from themselves, heat up or cool down. Hence the so-called little ice age in the late renaissance period and hence our present warming.

Thats not what your president believes. He's finally accepted AGW. You better get up to speed with your govt's thinking.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Global warming has been observed on Mars and Neptune over the last 20 years; nobody is driving SUVs or smoking cigars on Mars.

Man has less than nothing to do with this stuff. What is going on has to do with the nature of stars and periodic spikes in their outputs. Stars turn out to be plasma physics phenomena and not thermonuclear engines as you've been told all your life. They behave like cosmic lightning rods and as they pass through regions of space with greater or lesser electrical potential difference from themselves, heat up or cool down. Hence the so-called little ice age in the late renaissance period and hence our present warming.

I think you are making a few unfounded assertions and oversimplifications. There are a number of factors that are expected to have influenced the earth's climactic conditions. The primary ones are generally accepted as; (1) Intrinsic variations in Solar activity; (2) Volcanism on earth; (3) Variations in the earth's orbital mechanics which alter the fraction of solar energy captured by the atmosphere; (4) The interactions of plant & animal life in determining the chemical composition of the atmosphere and hence its reflective/absorptive properties.

There is good reason to believe that all of these factors have played a detectable role in the large climactic changes so abundantly recorded in the geological record of the earth. However, there is as yet no coherent theory that unites them in a way able to consistently explain the past or predict the future.

AGW cultists would have us believe that only factor #4 is operating now (and will continue so into the future) , and that it is utterly dominated by the growing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This proposition is demonstrably false. However, both the AGW critics and the cultists lack a unified theory with which to make their case.

That is the truth and the reality of the matter.

Steve41oo wrote:

Thats not what your president believes. He's finally accepted AGW. You better get up to speed with your govt's thinking.

You are wrong here. Even when he rejected the Kyoto Treaty and ruled out the regulation of CO2 under U.S. environmental laws, both at the start of his first term, Bush was clear that his motivation was that either action could wreck our economy, and would entail world wide costs far out of proportion to the likely benefits. He did not directly challenge the notion of AGW, either in its reasonable form or in the fantastic doomsday exaggerations trotted out by the cultists any time they need some fear and hype. In the currently charged political atmosphere on this matter, I suspect that we really don't know the truth about what any of our politicians really think or accept.

0 Replies

Quote:

AGW cultists would have us believe that only factor #4 is operating now (and will continue so into the future)

Is this true?

I would think that the proponents would believe that factors 1, 2, and 3 are being compounded by factor 4; not denying that the other factors exist.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Its not that people are throwing away reasons 1-3 its that they can't do anything about them. We CAN curb the level of CO2 emissions WE put out. We can't affect our orbit, the suns output or the amount of volcanic activity. We can affect the burning of fossil fuels and burning of old growth and rain forests.

If anything the efforts put forth to find alternative/cleaner energies might help alleviate our alliance on oil from countries that don't care for us so much.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Is this true?

I would think that the proponents would believe that factors 1, 2, and 3 are being compounded by factor 4; not denying that the other factors exist.

Cycloptichorn

Please explain to me how an increase in the CO2 concentration of the earth's atmosphere could (1) affect the internal physics of the sun; (2) increase or decrease volcanism on the earth; (3) alter the precession of the earth's axis & its inclination to the ecliptic plane, or the periodic variation of the major & minor axes of its elliptical orbit.

These factors could themselves conceivably influence (however indirectly) the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, however the reverse process is inconceivable.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Is this true?

I would think that the proponents would believe that factors 1, 2, and 3 are being compounded by factor 4; not denying that the other factors exist.

Cycloptichorn

Please explain to me how an increase in the CO2 concentration of the earth's atmosphere could (1) affect the internal physics of the sun; (2) increase or decrease volcanism on the earth; (3) alter the precession of the earth's axis & its inclination to the ecliptic plane, or the periodic variation of the major & minor axes of its elliptical orbit.

These factors could themselves conceivably influence (however indirectly) the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, however the reverse process is inconceivable.

Um, factor 4 doesn't affect factors 1,2,3 independently; but compounds their effects upon our atmosphere by adding increased heating.

For example, Physics of the sun heats the earth more; increased volcanism heats the earth; variations in orbit heat the earth; increased CO2 and other emissions heat the earth on top of other factors.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

BDoug wrote:

Its not that people are throwing away reasons 1-3 its that they can't do anything about them. We CAN curb the level of CO2 emissions WE put out. We can't affect our orbit, the suns output or the amount of volcanic activity. We can affect the burning of fossil fuels and burning of old growth and rain forests.

The flaw in that argument is that we are currently in a relative warm period through the combined action of factors 1 - 3, and the next expected phase will be one of cooling, not added warming.

BDoug wrote:

If anything the efforts put forth to find alternative/cleaner energies might help alleviate our alliance on oil from countries that don't care for us so much.

THAT is indeed a good reason.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Um, factor 4 doesn't affect factors 1,2,3 independently; but compounds their effects upon our atmosphere by adding increased heating.

For example, Physics of the sun heats the earth more; increased volcanism heats the earth; variations in orbit heat the earth; increased CO2 and other emissions heat the earth on top of other factors.

Cycloptichorn

Again, the trouble with that proposition is that we are currently in a period of cyclical warmth, following the 'little ice age' of the 14th- 17th centuries (now known to be associated, at least in part, with decreased solar flare activity; low volcanism; and favorable (to warming) features of the earth's orbital mechanics.) The next expected trend will be towards periodic cooling - we may need a bit of AGW to limit its effects.

I hasten to add that there is yet no unified theory uniting all of these factors in a way that consistently explains the known past, and which therefore can be a basis for reliable (if empirical) predictions about the future.

The main point here though is that the amplification to which you refer may be going the wrong way.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Um, factor 4 doesn't affect factors 1,2,3 independently; but compounds their effects upon our atmosphere by adding increased heating.

For example, Physics of the sun heats the earth more; increased volcanism heats the earth; variations in orbit heat the earth; increased CO2 and other emissions heat the earth on top of other factors.

Cycloptichorn

Again, the trouble with that proposition is that we are currently in a period of cyclical warmth, following the 'little ice age' of the 14th- 17th centuries (now known to be associated, at least in part, with decreased solar flare activity; low volcanism; and favorable (to warming) features of the earth's orbital mechanics.) The next expected trend will be towards periodic cooling - we may need a bit of AGW to limit its effects.

I hasten to add that there is yet no unified theory uniting all of these factors in a way that consistently explains the known past, and which therefore can be a basis for reliable (if empirical) predictions about the future.

The main point here though is that the amplification to which you refer may be going the wrong way.

I agree with you - may be. But it is the only factor under our control, and we don't understand whether it is helping us or hurting us. Therefore it is better to move with caution then not.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

It depends on what you mean by "move with caution" and how much it costs.

The costs are certain and become known fairly quickly. The benefits are far less certain and reveal themselves (or their harmful effects if we guess wrong) only over a much longer time scale.

Enforcing the various proposed carbon caps entails rather profound political implications on both individual freedom and overall economic well-being. Does history suggest that giving that much power to any kind of government will be without its adverse side effects?

The proposed remedies will almost certainly fail to be nearly as effective and free of adverse side effects as the AGW cultists propose. For example, the trading of carbon credits has already been shown to be far less beneficial than promised, mostly because of the misallocation of capital to uneconomical activities often of far less environmental benefit than promised. Norwegians, flush with cash from the sale of their vast petroleum reserves, can style themselves as "carbon neutral" by diverting a small portion of that cash flow to "green" projects in developing countries of - as it turns out - often marginal economic or environmental benefit. Industry and their associated brokers are already gearing up to sell these illusions to those who have both the money and the desire to appear "green". Thus Al Gore keeps his house in a gated community that prohibits roof mounted solar collectors, but stays "green" because he has his company buy a few tax-deductable 'carbon credits' through a broker. If you don't believe these all to human reactions to the proposed authoritarian regulatory regimes will have their own significant adverse social and political side effects, you should think some more.

Natural economic forces in response to emerging technologies will accomplish far more, at lower cost and with fewer adverse side effects.

0 Replies

Well the carbon credit mentality is silly. Its another example of "do as I say not as I do." You're basically telling people its perfectly alright to pollute as long as you have the money to pay someone else not to.

Concerning your previous post georgeob1 I still dont see the reasoning behind how our "inevitable warming" due to reasons 1-3 should deter our combating our own contributions to reason 4 (human caused carbon emissions). If its inevitable, shouldnt we do all we can to alleviate/reduce the severity of the situation? To make an akward analogy, its the equivalent of knowing you're going to wreck your car so you press on the gas to total the thing. Why not do all you can to limit the damage?

I understand the subsequent costs to industry and businesses if they're forced to adhere to cleaner energy practices but arent those costs outweighed by dependance on foreign energy sources and health care costs due to pollution?

0 Replies

BDoug wrote:

Well the carbon credit mentality is silly. Its another example of "do as I say not as I do." You're basically telling people its perfectly alright to pollute as long as you have the money to pay someone else not to.

Concerning your previous post georgeob1 I still dont see the reasoning behind how our "inevitable warming" due to reasons 1-3 should deter our combating our own contributions to reason 4 (human caused carbon emissions). If its inevitable, shouldnt we do all we can to alleviate/reduce the severity of the situation? To make an akward analogy, its the equivalent of knowing you're going to wreck your car so you press on the gas to total the thing. Why not do all you can to limit the damage?

I understand the subsequent costs to industry and businesses if they're forced to adhere to cleaner energy practices but arent those costs outweighed by dependance on foreign energy sources and health care costs due to pollution?

OR you're paying for the cost of cleaning it up. Let's face it, pollution is going to happen. CO2 is going to be released. I think that it should be a cost of doing business. If comapanies/people are held accountable to paying for their pollution and CO2 emmissions then the market will determine the cost and if a reduction in CO2/pollution is cheaper than paying to clean it up then you'll get a reduction. If the cost to clean it up is cheaper then at least you will get it cleaned up (or sequestered).

0 Replies

One full stop here. What is the objection to carbon credits? If a water well delivers enough water for everyone to get one bucket a day; and one guy uses 3 buckets a day... but replaces the other two from another source; what's the difference? Complaints about Gore sound like a mixture of partisan silliness and financial envy. Overall; Al Gore is hugging the sh!t out of the proverbial tree.

0 Replies

I should have spoken more carefully. Personal carbon credits are silly. Are you truly THAT inconvenienced by using lower watt lightbulbs or not air conditioning the 10 rooms in your house you never step foot in?

I understand their usefullness in business in order to offset economic hardship imposed by tougher regulations. The problem is carbon credits cause people/business to emit up to the maximum allowable amount of CO2 deemed sustainable.

Im not going to be so obtuse to admit I know the answer, in my eyes its a damned if you do damned if you dont situation. We can't keep polluting like we do, but if our economy is going to grow it seems an inevitability. Its just important we cut emmisions and conserve when and where we can.

0 Replies

here is an article for those that know more about science than i do .
please link to complete article .
hbg

Quote:

Laser vision fuels energy future

By Jonathan Fildes
Science and technology reporter, BBC News

When the first lasers were developed in the 1960s they were described as "a solution looking for a problem."
Today, the beams of light are ubiquitous, crammed into everything from CD players and phone networks to supermarket checkouts and research laboratories. They have found many problems to solve.

But if an international team led by UK scientists gets its way, lasers could soon face their biggest challenge yet: solving the world's energy crisis in an environmentally friendly way.

Researchers from the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory (RAL) in Oxfordshire, working with partners from 14 countries, have tabled a proposal to use lasers to recreate the physical reactions at the heart of the Sun.

In just one cubic kilometre of seawater there is the equivalent energy of the world's oil reserves
Mike Dunne

for complete article :
LASERS : THE NEW LIMITLESS ENERGY SOURCE ?

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know