71
   

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

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:06 pm
@Foxfyre,
That may be true or not: I wonder why it works elsewhere.


By the way: yesterday, Siemens got a supply contract for up to 500 wind turbines for Danish offshore windparks. (Turbines with a capacity of 3.6 MW each.) [This order is the biggest order for Siemens in its 160 years company history.]
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:34 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
On a very small scale it works here too. We have rural farms etc. that are being run exclusively on wind and solar power (when there is wind and sun) and actually produce excess energy that they sell to the local power company. (I am sure that is not particularly profitable for the local power copany, but they are required by law to buy it when offered.)

But the United States is a very large country with a very large population. Denmark is what, about the size of a U.S. New England state? And has a population of less than New York City? How much industry is there per capita comparied to the U.S.? How technologically advanced is Denmark re its technological energy needs?

Further Denmark is a virtual island surrounded by ocean and don't they put most or all of those big turbines in the water? Evenso, according to the story following, only 20% of Denmark's energy comes from those turbines. Most of the USA is landlocked.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/212520/2_62_mp_sailboat.jpg

Nevertheless, while I think it is unworkable to think you can compare a country like Denmark to the USA in how energy needs can be practically approached, Denmark's accomplishments have not gone unnoticed here:

Quote:
FOXNEWS.COM HOME > SCITECH

Denmark Points Way in Alternative Energy Sources
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
By Hannah Sentenac

America has been outclassed, and by an unlikely competitor.

In the realm of alternative energy, there is an inconspicuous European nation that could stand to teach the U.S. a few lessons " Denmark.

Besides being home to the world's happiest people, according to a study this year by a social psychologist at England's University of Leicester, this small country, badly battered by oil shocks in decades past, has become a leader in the field of renewable energy.

Alternatives Born From Crisis

Following the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Syria and Egypt, most of the Western world was subjected to an Arab-led oil embargo. The crisis forced Denmark, which was 99-percent dependent on foreign oil at the time, to develop an alternative-energy policy.

In the 30 years since, Denmark has worked tirelessly to develop new technology and new policies.

The result is that today, renewable sources account for a greater share of the nation's energy consumption with each passing year, according to the Energistyrelsen, the Danish Energy Authority.

Twenty percent of Denmark's energy needs are now met by electricity generated by wind turbines, and the proportion is steadily increasing. Thanks to advances in technology and turbine design, the cost of wind power has been reduced by 75 percent since 1970, when the programs began.

Wind-power technology has also been a driving force in the Danish economy, according to Chuck Kleekamp, president of Clean Power Now , an American nonprofit organization that informs citizens about renewable energy projects and studies Danish energy programs.

"Danish companies manufacture 40 percent of the world's supply of wind turbines, as well as having had extensive research programs for decades," Kleekamp said. "The technology also provides employment for a segment of the population in Denmark."

But wind power is not the only renewable resource Denmark has explored.

Other Danish alternative-energy sources include the burning of waste products, or biomass, in combined heat and power plants; electricity generated by photovoltaic, or solar-energy, cells; and geothermal turbines powered by the escape of underground steam.

Alternative-energy technologies, as well as conservation habits, have become normal parts of life for the average Dane. High gasoline prices and heavily taxed vehicles result in fewer people driving than in the United States.

Most households have only one car, and at least one spouse typically uses the extensive Danish public transportation system for commuting, said William E. Griswold, a member of Clean Power Now, whose wife, Dorte, is Danish.

A Willingness to Adapt

While Denmark's transportation needs are far simpler than those of a sprawling country like the United States, part of the European nation's success is due to its citizens' willingness to adapt to alternative means of transportation and wean themselves from excessive automobile use.

The Danish attitude toward energy conservation means "people don't have as many appliances, or gizmos," said Griswold, a frequent visitor to Denmark. "Also, there are stringent requirements for insulation when building new homes. Every individual mandate like that means the nation uses less energy."

The average Danish household consumes only 350 kilowatt-hours of electricity usage per month, whereas American homes average between 600-kwh and 1,000-kwh a month.

The result is that Denmark has the lowest energy consumption per unit of gross domestic product in the European Union, as well as the highest proportion of electricity generated by renewable sources and the world's most efficient clean-coal technology.

A major part of that success is the Danish commitment to and attitude toward its energy policies, Griswold said.

"After the [1973-74 oil] embargo, Denmark had the attitude that they were going to become less dependent on the outside world and more self-sufficient," he said. "And upon making this commitment, they've gained benefits, including lower national debt, cleaner air and less dependency on other countries."

Following the embargo, Denmark developed a broad-based strategy to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels.

It increased taxes on natural gas and petroleum to reduce consumption, and embarked on major research projects to develop new sources of energy, according to the Danish Embassy in Washington.

Denmark has become both wealthy and environmentally conscious while barely increasing its own energy usage. Still, oil and gas resources remain a key element of the country's energy portfolio.

Petroleum's Price

The production of oil and gas from the nation's 19 oil fields in the North Sea " which began full production only after the oil embargo " has led to the creation of jobs, successful Danish companies and higher tax revenues for the country, said Jonathan Coony, former spokesman for the International Energy Agency, a pan-governmental organization based in Paris.

"As oil and gas resources become more concentrated in mostly non-EU [European Union] countries, the Danish resources will become increasingly important as a way to enhance security of [the] energy supply," Coony said. "This is true not only for Denmark itself but also for the EU as a whole."

The state-owned North Sea oil fields are the primary suppliers of petroleum for Denmark, but other sources are continually being explored, according to the Danish Energy Authority's 2005 policy statement.

"Because we have an open market, companies within Denmark import and export oil," said Ture Falbe-Hansen, chief adviser of communications for the Danish Energy Authority. "They sell the oil products on the stock market. Some of the crude oil will be handled and sent to refineries in Denmark, of which we have two, and some will be sold abroad."

According to the DEA's annual report, 10 different companies received and sold oil from the Danish fields in 2005.

"This is quite normal, and the important thing to look at is the net of import and export, and in Denmark we have a net export," Hansen said.

Denmark imported approximately 69,000 barrels, and exported approximately 263,000 barrels, of crude oil per day in 2003, the latest figures available, according to the International Energy Agency " a net export of about 194,000 barrels per day.

But unless substantial new fields are discovered, the North Sea oil supply, at current rates of depletion, is expected to run out within 20 years.

"It has been assessed that there still remain a large number of exploration opportunities in the Danish sector [of the North Sea], and that new technology holds the potential for exploiting finds even more than at present," the DEA said.

The use of these new technologies offers the potential for additional cost reductions within the nation's energy sector.

A recently released in-depth review of Danish energy policies by the International Energy Agency finds that although the costs of renewable energy resources have decreased dramatically over the past 30 years, even more efficiencies can be found.

"The Danes have been able to integrate a high level of renewables into their electricity system with no major technical difficulties. The downside has been the cost," Coony said. "We estimate that subsidies to renewable plants increase retail electricity costs to households by 3 percent and costs to business and industry by 9 percent."

In its report, the IEA said that Denmark could achieve more cost-effective results by focusing on further gains in energy efficiency, rather than on expanding its portfolio of renewables.

Hassle-Free Energy Independence

But has the stalwart commitment of the nation to energy independence impeded on the life of the average Dane?

Griswold argued that it hasn't.

"Danes would say, 'Thank goodness we have a government that plans so well that we are only minimally impacted.'" he said. "The average Dane isn't terribly conscious of being in an energy-saving environment because it's so natural to [him or her]."

The IEA shares in the broad consensus regarding the success of Danish energy efforts.

"It is Denmark's pioneering role in renewable energy and energy efficiency that allows it to provide particularly valuable lessons for other countries," it said in its review.

Denmark's long-term commitment and dedication to research and development, the success of its energy policies and its unique social and cultural environment prompt other nations to learn from Denmark's example.

"The people of Denmark are very aware of the need to ensure sustainability for future generations," Kleekamp said. "Thanks to their attitude on renewable energy and sustainability, Denmark has managed
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203293,00.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 01:44 pm
On another unrelated subject, looking at that picture of the big turbines in the ocean, I presume that they are on the coastal shelf fairly near shore? How in the world do the big ships, passenger cruisers, etc. get through those safely when there's heavy fog and storms?
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:10 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, do you have any idea about navigation? Charts? Radar? Notice to Mariners ?

I mean, just have a look at the oil and gas platforms ... in parts of the USA (since I don't want to bother you with strange oceans late the North Sea, and since you know a lot about it due to your son):

http://i40.tinypic.com/2yy8qck.jpg
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:24 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
235
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity, and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist," dismisses the idea of a "consensus" on man-made global warming. "We must all remember that scientific truth is not determined by popular vote. The [UN] IPCC is severely tainted by politics," Sheahen wrote to EPW on June 11, 2007. "No one disputes that the Earth has been warming over the last 150 years. The controversy is over whether it's natural or anthropogenic (AGW)," he added. "I have done computer modeling of physical and chemical phenomena, and I know two things very well: first, your outputs will always be conditioned by the input assumptions you make at the front end; and second, data always trumps theory. For a model to be valid, it has to match the data. Given the observations of temperature variations during the 20th century, you really can't make the case that mankind caused such erratic temperature swings," Sheahen concluded.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
How in the world do the big ships, passenger cruisers, etc. get through those safely when there's heavy fog and storms?


This is the actual plot [minus about one hour] of the momentarily situation at Thames estuary and parts of the North Sea/British Channel

http://i39.tinypic.com/rap4kw.jpg
(NB: only civil cargo vessel are marked)
The weather: [wind]Southwest 6 to gale 8. [sea]Moderate or rough. Rain.[visibility] Moderate or poor.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:26 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
My son is in the R & D and refining end and not production of raw product. So I don't know why you referenced him or what your purpose was in doing so.

I've been on a ship out among those oil platforms, however, and they are a LONG way apart and they are huge and are equipped with fog horns and warning lights and provide docking for a ship to tie onto should that be necessary. The photo makes it look like they butt right up against each other. They don't.

Anyhow I don't want to make a federal case out of it. It did cross my mind that a ship fighting rough seas in reduced visibility conditions would likely worry about those turbines as much as pilots worry about tall towers in stormy or low visibility situations.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 02:35 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:


I've been on a ship out among those drilling platforms, however, and they are a LONG way apart and they are huge and are equipped with fog horns and warning lights and provide docking for a ship to tie onto should that be necessary. The photo makes it look like they butt right up against each other. They don't.


How often did you navigate in stormy weather and fog between those platforms?

I did. More than a dozen times. (One time leading a convoy.)

How often did you pass of shore wind parks? I did. With landing crafts.


Here's a chart, from the North Sea

http://i39.tinypic.com/30m4h8g.jpg

In short: offshore wind parks are treated as offshore platforms by surrounding traffic.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 03:34 pm
@Foxfyre,
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
... fog horns and warning lights...


fog horns and warning lights are mainly meant to warn away small vessels (fishing boats) that do not have radar and modern communication devices aboard .
large ships (navy vessels , freighters and criuse ships) rely on the various radar and communication devices to guide them from port to port and show other ships and any obstructions on the radar screen .
you might say that these ships are "programmed" (by computer input) to sail a predetermined course .
while the officer-of -the-watch and usually two helmsmen will continuosly check the readings , the vessel pretty much follows the programmed course
(much like the course of an airplane is laid out and programmed into the flight computer , i understand) .

on longer cruises we have usually been given a guided tour of the bridge (no fiddling with the dials , though !) and had the programming explained to us .

the best example was the crossing of the atlantic from the azores to the bahamas some years ago . the officer essentially worked out the best course (taking into account an approaching low over the eastern atlantic) , entered the current time and the desired arrival time - and the computer took over . the computer calculated the desired average speed , the necessary changes in the course ... and away we went ... and arrived in the bahamas at the set time .
of course , there was always personnel on the bridge "to keep an eye " on the actual course , but little or no intervention is usually required .

btw i read some time ago (a few years ?) , that when an airplane is on autopilot
when crossing the atlantic or pacific , the flight-crew is allowed to take a snooze . if something goes amiss , there would be audible warning given "to wake up " .
i don't think there has be a airplane mishap when flying across the oceans for many , many years .

in narrow passages and also on rivers , vessels are usually guided by controllers on land who see all the traffic on the water and can guide the ships properly .

three years ago on our south-america cruise , our ship was coming up the
la plata river late in the evening (it was dark and we could only the lights of the ships coming and going - often passing each other at fairly close distances ) , without radar and land communication , the traffic would have been at a crawl at best , but ships were just whizzing along like cars on a highway .
a bit scary , but also fascinating to see .
hbg

Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 04:41 pm
@hamburger,
Interesting and thanks Hamburger. I don't pretend to know a dang thing about navigation at sea as I was born and have lived the largest portion of my life on the prairie or in the desert. Ships of any stripe are pretty hard to come by. Crossing the gulf on a cruise ship a couple of years ago, however, we encountered a day of rough seas--16-ft waves--and I was glad that we were out past the oil platforms. Also on an inside passage cruise, coming through the narrowest part, the Italian crew of our ship was required to turn the ship over to one of your Canadian crews due to the difficulty and dangers of navigating that portion of the trip.

Looking at those wind turbines off the coast of Denmark, it just occurred to me they would be difficult to see in a stormy sea at night. They're probably no problem at all though.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 05:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
They're probably no problem at all though.


Not more than passing any other known (it's in the charts!) obstactle.
(And I do pretend to know a bit of navigation having been a navigator for 15 years Wink)
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Mar, 2009 05:55 pm
@Foxfyre,
fox wrote :

Quote:
Looking at those wind turbines off the coast of Denmark, it just occurred to me they would be difficult to see in a stormy sea at night. They're probably no problem at all though.


we sailed from st. petersburg (the original , that is <GRIN> ) to london in 2002 .
our ship passed those danish "at sea" turbines at a distance of no more than two miles . since it was a clear day , they were clearly visible .
ship traffic no longer stops at night or during fog , not even in narrow rivers and channels . the turbines would be seen on the radar screen on the ship's bridge , so even passing at night or in fog would be no problem .
since the locations of the turbines are on the charts of the ship , the navigation officer would already have plotted a course to stay far enough away from the turbines and that course would have been entered into the ship's navigation computer . ( in a collision , the ship would surely be a loser .)

Quote:
the Italian crew of our ship was required to turn the ship over to one of your Canadian crews due to the difficulty and dangers of navigating that portion of the trip.


local "pilots" are usually taken aboard any ship when passing through narrows or entering a harbour .
as far as i know , the captain still retains ultimate control over the ship's movement in that he can tell the pilot to "step aside" - there is a well laid out protocol for that .
it's differnt in the panama canal , however , where a crew of "canal staff" take over from the captain and control all commands - the captain can essentially to to his cabin - but would usually nervously pace the bridge (after all , it's HIS ship ! ) .

we have always found it almost thrilling to have the pilot come aboard from a small launch and while the ship slows down hardly at all .

hope you don't mind this little excursion - being aboard a ship has always had a certain "effect" upon me - luckily mrs h enjoys being at sea as much as i do .
take care !
hbg

a new york harbour pilot guiding a ship into N.Y. harbour .
looks like he is watching three shows at the same time - while still keeping one eye on the actual traffic !
(probably like having three pots on the stove close to boiling while also watching the kids play in the yard !)

http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/Images%5C7%5C0%5C6%5Cshipsimpilot.jpg

this may be a simulation from the training centre of the engineering corps .









0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 04:05 pm
From today's Albuquerque Journal (March 8. 2009, page B1 and B5):
Quote:

[...] As the nation grapples with the issue, it raises a fundamental question about the scientific evidence on which political decisions are based, according to American University political scientist Matthew Nisbet: To whom should we listen?
There is a tendency to want to defer to expertise in the political and policy-making processes, according to Nisbet. But whose expertise, he asked, should count?
“What I do, frankly, is try to determine if there is a consensus among recognized scientists in a field and if there is a consensus, I defer to the scientists who subscribe to it,” said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., a leader in Senate efforts on legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
On climate science, Bingaman said, he turns to the National Academy of Sciences, which holds that human activity is a significant cause of global warming, and action is needed to deal with it.
Over time, the science can change and the consensus can turn out to be wrong, Bingaman said in an interview. But asked to develop policy now, he said, the beliefs of the majority of experts is the best guide.
But at the intersection of science and politics, the debate is often shaped as much by which scientific sources people choose to cite and trust as it is by what the majority of scientists say, according to Dan Kahan, a researcher at Yale University who has studied public uses of science in political controversies.
Inevitably, Kahan said in an interview, members of the public extend trust to people whose values are similar to their own.
People opposed to government regulation, for example, are more likely to believe human action is not causing global warming, according to research by Kahan, and those who believe societal interests should take precedence over individual interests tend to believe humans are to blame.
The elevation of Schmitt, a former Republican senator, to informal spokesman for those who doubt humancaused climate change began in November when he resigned from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit advocate for space exploration.
Most of his resignation letter argued over the best approach to space exploration. But Schmitt also complained about the society’s views on climate change.
In an open letter last July, Planetary Society executive director Louis Friedman called global warming “the most daunting challenge we confront today.”
“You know as well as I,” Schmitt wrote in his letter to Friedman and others in the society, “the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making.” [...]
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Mar, 2009 07:03 pm
Quote:
Scientists meet to dispute global warming theory
Pete Chagnon
- OneNewsNow -
3/8/2009 4:00:00 AM

NEW YORK CITY - The A-list of manmade climate-change skeptics is meeting in New York City for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.

The Conference is definitely international in scope. Opening the conference is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic and the European Union. When it comes to manmade global warming, Klaus calls that a myth. He is also an outspoken critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and says the panel is one-sided and has a political agenda.

Featured at the conference will be more than 70 scientists who do not subscribe to the notion that so-called global warming is driven by manmade emissions of carbon dioxide, one of those being Harrison "Jack" Schmitt -- one of the last astronauts to walk on the moon.

The Conference is being hosted by The Heartland Institute. Dan Miller is the director of public relations at Heartland.

"What we are trying to accomplish with this conference is to present to the politicians and to the public that the debate is not over about global warming or climate change; that there is plenty of room for disagreement; and that sound science shows that the earth is not warming," says Miller.

"For much of the latter part of the 20th century there's been a mild warming as we come out of an ice age -- but the planet today is much cooler than it was a thousand years ago."

Besides the 70+ scientists at this conference, more than 650 scientists worldwide have expressed skepticism over manmade climate change.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=439146
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 07:40 am
Mther Nature doesn't do bailouts. Interesting piece from Frank Rich.

March 8, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Inflection Is Near?
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Sometimes the satirical newspaper The Onion is so right on, I can’t resist quoting from it. Consider this faux article from June 2005 about America’s addiction to Chinese exports:

FENGHUA, China " Chen Hsien, an employee of Fenghua Ningbo Plastic Works Ltd., a plastics factory that manufactures lightweight household items for Western markets, expressed his disbelief Monday over the “sheer amount of [garbage] Americans will buy. Often, when we’re assigned a new order for, say, ‘salad shooters,’ I will say to myself, ‘There’s no way that anyone will ever buy these.’ ... One month later, we will receive an order for the same product, but three times the quantity. How can anyone have a need for such useless [garbage]? I hear that Americans can buy anything they want, and I believe it, judging from the things I’ve made for them,” Chen said. “And I also hear that, when they no longer want an item, they simply throw it away. So wasteful and contemptible.”

Let’s today step out of the normal boundaries of analysis of our economic crisis and ask a radical question: What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall " when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”

We have created a system for growth that depended on our building more and more stores to sell more and more stuff made in more and more factories in China, powered by more and more coal that would cause more and more climate change but earn China more and more dollars to buy more and more U.S. T-bills so America would have more and more money to build more and more stores and sell more and more stuff that would employ more and more Chinese ...

We can’t do this anymore.

“We created a way of raising standards of living that we can’t possibly pass on to our children,” said Joe Romm, a physicist and climate expert who writes the indispensable blog climateprogress.org. We have been getting rich by depleting all our natural stocks " water, hydrocarbons, forests, rivers, fish and arable land " and not by generating renewable flows.

“You can get this burst of wealth that we have created from this rapacious behavior,” added Romm. “But it has to collapse, unless adults stand up and say, ‘This is a Ponzi scheme. We have not generated real wealth, and we are destroying a livable climate ...’ Real wealth is something you can pass on in a way that others can enjoy.”

Over a billion people today suffer from water scarcity; deforestation in the tropics destroys an area the size of Greece every year " more than 25 million acres; more than half of the world’s fisheries are over-fished or fished at their limit.

“Just as a few lonely economists warned us we were living beyond our financial means and overdrawing our financial assets, scientists are warning us that we’re living beyond our ecological means and overdrawing our natural assets,” argues Glenn Prickett, senior vice president at Conservation International. But, he cautioned, as environmentalists have pointed out: “Mother Nature doesn’t do bailouts.”

One of those who has been warning me of this for a long time is Paul Gilding, the Australian environmental business expert. He has a name for this moment " when both Mother Nature and Father Greed have hit the wall at once " “The Great Disruption.”

“We are taking a system operating past its capacity and driving it faster and harder,” he wrote me. “No matter how wonderful the system is, the laws of physics and biology still apply.” We must have growth, but we must grow in a different way. For starters, economies need to transition to the concept of net-zero, whereby buildings, cars, factories and homes are designed not only to generate as much energy as they use but to be infinitely recyclable in as many parts as possible. Let’s grow by creating flows rather than plundering more stocks.

Gilding says he’s actually an optimist. So am I. People are already using this economic slowdown to retool and reorient economies. Germany, Britain, China and the U.S. have all used stimulus bills to make huge new investments in clean power. South Korea’s new national paradigm for development is called: “Low carbon, green growth.” Who knew? People are realizing we need more than incremental changes " and we’re seeing the first stirrings of growth in smarter, more efficient, more responsible ways.

In the meantime, says Gilding, take notes: “When we look back, 2008 will be a momentous year in human history. Our children and grandchildren will ask us, ‘What was it like? What were you doing when it started to fall apart? What did you think? What did you do?’ ” Often in the middle of something momentous, we can’t see its significance. But for me there is no doubt: 2008 will be the marker " the year when ‘The Great Disruption’ began.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 10:17 am
@Foxfyre,
From Foxfyre's last post:
Quote:

Besides the 70+ scientists at this conference, more than 650 scientists worldwide have expressed skepticism over manmade climate change.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=439146
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Mar, 2009 03:11 pm
@ican711nm,
I was curious about this line in that article though:

Quote:
"For much of the latter part of the 20th century there's been a mild warming as we come out of an ice age -- but the planet today is much cooler than it was a thousand years ago."


Is this an accurate statement? Does anybody have any good data on this?

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 11:54 am
@Foxfyre,
Yes, that statement is accurate.
While the AAGT is higher now than it was 100 years ago, it is still cooler than it was 1000 years ago.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

I'll post for you the 1000+ year history when I get back.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 10 Mar, 2009 06:47 pm
@ican711nm,
Foxfyre,
Here's the table of contents of a very detailed article on the subject of global temperature and sunspot activity:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id2.html
Table of Contents

Here's the part of this article on climate events over the last 1000 years:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/
Climate events of the last 1000 years

Excerpt from this part of the article: "Therefore, it is easy to conclude that current warming is not unusual, although in my opinion current temperatures are warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. "

So, Foxfyre, maybe I'm right that temperatures during the warm period 1000 years ago were higher than now. But then again maybe I'm wrong. Maybe temperatures now are warmer than they were during the warm period 1000 years ago.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Mar, 2009 04:17 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id2.html
Table of Contents

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id23.html
Experiment
The results were quite surprising, and rather clear. There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left. For some reason, probably not known to greenhouse theorists and their scientists, greenhouse gases did not play a role in late 20th century warming. It was simply a matter of solar variation being clouded by El Ninos and La Ninas.

"There was no sign of greenhouse warming at all. Only the clear fingerprint of solar activity was left."

What's a fella to do? These guys refuse to cooperate with Al Gore and the UN IPCC's "consensus"! Clearly it's time to fix this by legislating some laws.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.16 seconds on 11/28/2024 at 02:44:54