Last Chance wrote:We need to allow electric cars all around right away. Basically render oil irrevelant except for necessary things unrelated to motor transport, railroad or cars. The Ethanol is a big scam and a robbery of the food basket. We need those crops to eat.Im hardheaded and see 200+ dollar oil within a few years. That works out about 8 dollar or more per gallon. We can withstand 12 or so before we have to stop driving. Sometimes one is in a important job and when the entire net pay is burned up just for the monday-friday commute... well... we would have to take on a second or third job dont we?No. Enough is enough. I intend to ride this one all the way to about 12 dollars a gallon. I fear that many folks will be in open revolt long before we reach that high. I already parked one vehicle and the other gives me very good performance mileage wise. If we had to at 12 dollars, we would quit our jobs and move to another just down the road at minimum wage and walking distance and keep going with both vehicles parked and just worry about the house utilities every month.I tell you this. If the railroad brought back steam with good King Coal, thier fuel bills will settle down overnight, to be replaced by large manpower and infrastructure costs. Another thought is to take a page from the PRR's GG1 and electrify it all hooked up to the brand new power plants that the Pols are hawking these days.
We need to allow electric cars all around right away. Basically render oil irrevelant except for necessary things unrelated to motor transport, railroad or cars. The Ethanol is a big scam and a robbery of the food basket. We need those crops to eat.
Im hardheaded and see 200+ dollar oil within a few years. That works out about 8 dollar or more per gallon. We can withstand 12 or so before we have to stop driving. Sometimes one is in a important job and when the entire net pay is burned up just for the monday-friday commute... well... we would have to take on a second or third job dont we?
No. Enough is enough. I intend to ride this one all the way to about 12 dollars a gallon. I fear that many folks will be in open revolt long before we reach that high. I already parked one vehicle and the other gives me very good performance mileage wise. If we had to at 12 dollars, we would quit our jobs and move to another just down the road at minimum wage and walking distance and keep going with both vehicles parked and just worry about the house utilities every month.
I tell you this. If the railroad brought back steam with good King Coal, thier fuel bills will settle down overnight, to be replaced by large manpower and infrastructure costs. Another thought is to take a page from the PRR's GG1 and electrify it all hooked up to the brand new power plants that the Pols are hawking these days.
What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule." The problem I see is lead - lag time as well...things that should have been done decades ago, well, would be done by now...whether it is offshore drilling...electric cars....nuclear power...even the resurrection of steam all require fairly significant lead time before any results are seen. Within this oil changes price on a per barrel basis... on a dime...daily....I just am amazed how rudderless we are in this...not to get political..whatever the party its all hot air which if we could harness would solve this problem overnight....Ill leave it at that...I found the quote and it was from Ross Rowland who said it would take $150.00 per barrel oil to have the roads look at alternative fuels...its at $140.00 as of yesterday....its only June....fasten your seatbelts.....
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
To the extent that high fuel prices can cause a tipping point, I think it will do so first with the airlines. What would be the cost of business flight if that were the only kind of flight occurring? And at that cost, how much would business flight decrease? And then what would be the cost of that greatly reduced business flight?
The second most likely transportation business to experience a tipping point would be trucking because it carries a lot of product that consumers can forego. I agree that railroads would be less likely to experience a tipping point because a smaller percentage of what they carry is sensitive to consumer consumption cutback. The way the energy crisis will affect the railroads will likely be through their general business relationship to the collapse of the U.S. economy.
Where a tipping point will most dramatically occur is where we are tipped out of our cars and dumped into public transportation.
Several points:
1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.
2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option.
3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?
4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.
I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.
Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?
ed
The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.
Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.
We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
I shall weigh in on the futures market 'scapegoat' which our congresspeople are now looking at to get the heat off of themselves.
Futures markets are here to stay. To regulate them by congressional action will serve no purpose other than to distract voters until after the election.
If futures markets are substantially regulated in the USA the trading will be done in: Tokyo, Hong Kong, London or wherever and we shall actually weaken our influence in the market.
diningcar wrote: I shall weigh in on the futures market 'scapegoat' which our congresspeople are now looking at to get the heat off of themselves.
Yes the speculators are the most reddish of red herrings. But if congress says speculation is what is driving oil prices up, it should be easy for them to outlaw speculation. How long can that take? End of problem. I'm glad it was so easy to fix.
......And the "40's and 50"s" changes mentioned by Jim much influenced by actions caused by rebuilding and renewing after WWII.
Quentin
eolafan wrote:The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
In urban areas versus suburban enclaves, the general trend has been a decrease in valuation for the outlying areas and and increase in urban areas where long car dependant commutes are not required.....the plowing under in Chicago and elsewhere of entire neighborhoods to pave them over as roadways....the vanishing of Insull's roads....is this about to reverse itself?...Los Angeles is a good example...rebuilding the Pacific Electric...maybe high gas has benefits if it forces planners to look at balancing transportation needs realistically. When I was growing up in Chicago we walked or took the L.....now I am seriously thinking of leaving the suburbs in a full circle....having to drive everywhere is a pain in the _ss ....as surban roads are so congested it takes forever to do a simple errand....
wallyworld wrote: eolafan wrote: The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me. In urban areas versus suburban enclaves, the general trend has been a decrease in valuation for the outlying areas and and increase in urban areas where long car dependant commutes are not required.....the plowing under in Chicago and elsewhere of entire neighborhoods to pave them over as roadways....the vanishing of Insull's roads....is this about to reverse itself?...Los Angeles is a good example...rebuilding the Pacific Electric...maybe high gas has benefits if it forces planners to look at balancing transportation needs realistically. When I was growing up in Chicago we walked or took the L.....now I am seriously thinking of leaving the suburbs in a full circle....having to drive everywhere is a pain in the _ss ....as surban roads are so congested it takes forever to do a simple errand....
eolafan wrote: The automobile and relatively cheap gasoline are largely to blame for the creation of the suburbs in the late 1940's through the early 1960's and the breakdown of the traditional neighborhoods...parents driving their kids everywhere instead of walking or biking, the creation of malls with huge parking lots instead of neighborhood shops along the streets and avenues and the demise of streetcar and local rail lines for passenger service.Most of us have heard the old expression "What goes around comes around" and how about the one "Hang onto something long enough it will be popular again". Well, these are surely considerations with gas approaching $5/gallon.We could be experiencing the beginnings of the reversing of what was created in the forties and fifties...which would be OK with me.
Besides moving into high density living in the inner cities, suburbanites can escape the high fuel costs by telecommuting. You can be sure there will be an explosion of demand for this work format as a result of the gas crisis.
But telecommuting will have to undergo some serious evolution to upgrade accountability from employees that are out of eyeshot of the employer. I have seen polls in which 25% of telecommuters state that they only perform one hour of work for the company while being paid for an eight-hour-day. You can't just take conventional employees who are used to the personal empowerment they achieve by working onsite, and expect them to take responsibility for their work like independent contractors when you let them work at home.
What will have to happen is for workers to become independent contactors as one-person service companies. They will have to compete with each other and be highly accountable for their time and task progress. With this sea change, coupled with on-going improvements to communication and software, employers will discover that they have not only solved the energy crisis for much of their workforce, but they have also acquired a workforce that is several times more cost effective than their previous onsite direct employees.
This will cause a distinct division of labor between those performing tasks that can be done offsite, and those performing tasks such as hands-on manufacturing that must be done on the company's site. Therefore companies will tend to migrate their manufacturing centers toward the central cities, where it is possible for the workforce to transport themselves to the worksite. Meanwhile, the people doing the offsite tasks will tend to migrate to the suburbs or even to more remote and pristine areas where they can make a living while avoiding the congestion and discomfort of the extra-high-density urban areas.
MP173 wrote: Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?
"Fire under the ice: International expedition discovers gigantic volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/haog-fut062508.php
wallyworld wrote: What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule."
What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule."
The "polar ice cap melt" is just another baseless scare thrown into the election mix by the Chicken Little Flat Earth Global Warming Society. Arctic sea ice is actually 50% thicker now than at this time last year, and the Antarctic ice cap is growing by leaps and bounds.
Bucyrus wrote:But telecommuting will have to undergo some serious evolution to upgrade accountability from employees that are out of eyeshot of the employer. I have seen polls in which 25% of telecommuters state that they only perform one hour of work for the company while being paid for an eight-hour-day. You can't just take conventional employees who are used to the personal empowerment they achieve by working onsite, and expect them to take responsibility for their work like independent contractors when you let them work at home.
What makes you think that they were performing eight hours of work a day at the office? If the pay was the same, the work output the same, and they save how much time and fuel by staying home, it might be better all around.
Did you get the memo about the TPS reports?
Mike WSOR engineer | HO scale since 1988 | Visit our club www.WCGandyDancers.com
Norman Saxon wrote: wallyworld wrote: What is interesting in your views is that mixed in this situation is how wrong the predictions of experts can be. The nothern polar ice cap was not supposed to melt and collapse for another twenty or so years...according to every prediction and now I heard on the news this has a 50% chance of occurring within this year, two decades ahead of their "schedule." The "polar ice cap melt" is just another baseless scare thrown into the election mix by the Chicken Little Flat Earth Global Warming Society. Arctic sea ice is actually 50% thicker now than at this time last year, and the Antarctic ice cap is growing by leaps and bounds.
I suggest you view the images of the cap taken from space ...relative thickness is not the same as measuring area...there are advantages to this, the opening of the long sought Northwest Passage....it is what it is....ice is ice...its the politicians that applies politics to saltwater. One wonders what will happen to the Panama Canal?The level of CO2 will enhance crop production....it all depends on your subjective point of view...as it applies to a valuation.
MP173 wrote: Several points:1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option. 3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?ed
The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.
That is the one silver lining of high oil. That is, that it spurs development of alternatives. Indeed OPEC might be very nervous about the market. Although high prices redound to their benefit right now, they may lead to a serious demand falloff if there is a worldwide backlash expressed in the form of conservation, or if there is a breakthrough in alternative fuel, -or- if U.S. politics allows more U.S. production.
In regard to this being an "energy election," I suspect that nobody is paying more attention to it than OPEC. Any candidate that stepped up and declared that we will ramp up domestic production, and become energy independent within ten years would cut the world price of oil in half the minute the words left his mouth.
Regarding the North Pole, there is always ice melting somewhere, and the image can be broadcast to the masses. But it is a big leap to attach the conclusion that the entire North Pole will melt within a couple years, resulting in the extinction of the polar bears.
Bucyrus wrote: The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.
The weak dollar is caused by the $500B budget and $900B trade deficits.
Bucyrus wrote: MP173 wrote: Several points:1. A very significant run up in the cost of a barrel of oil is due to the falling value of the dollar. A month or so ago the price of oil was $125/B and E75/B. The dollar and Euro were roughly even several years ago, perhaps 2001. In other words $1 = E1. Today the dollar is somewhere around E1.60. A dollar purchases much less than a Euro compared to 7 years ago. With the oil at E75, had the dollar not fallen (and why it has is another topic) our oil would be around $75.2. Dont think OPEC is really happy with this high oil situation. Short term it is good news. Long term not so good. Every dollar increase in oil allows more and more "alternative fuels" to become more attractive. Oil at $140/B is more attractive and drilling for the deeper oils, or refining oil sands, etc is an option. 3. Saudia Arabia is considering upping production to 15 million barrels a day to meet demand. Yet, that creates potential problems for the structure of their oil fields. The last time production was bumped up in the late 70's it resulted in damage to the oil fields and penetration of water into those fields. Will that happen now?4. At this pricing, more and more technology is available to increase production. Oil that wasnt attractive and wells shut down are now being reworked with plans for production. This is even being done on wells with production as low as 3 barrels per day.I truly believe this is going to be a watershed election year. By October this could be an "energy election", if not sooner. The Democrats have established that they want no offshore drilling, nor ANWAR drilling. The Republican candidate seems to be awakening to the fact this might be his only chance to secure the election and is starting to change his opinion on drilling.Regarding North Pole...I just heard that yesterday and dont have a comment. But, is it possible that the warming is due to something completely different than emissions? The earth has gone thru a number of periods of warming/cooling. Is it possible we are in a cycle now? What is happening to the temps on Mars and other planets, or do we know?ed The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.That is the one silver lining of high oil. That is, that it spurs development of alternatives. Indeed OPEC might be very nervous about the market. Although high prices redound to their benefit right now, they may lead to a serious demand falloff if there is a worldwide backlash expressed in the form of conservation, or if there is a breakthrough in alternative fuel, -or- if U.S. politics allows more U.S. production. In regard to this being an "energy election," I suspect that nobody is paying more attention to it than OPEC. Any candidate that stepped up and declared that we will ramp up domestic production, and become energy independent within ten years would cut the world price of oil in half the minute the words left his mouth. Regarding the North Pole, there is always ice melting somewhere, and the image can be broadcast to the masses. But it is a big leap to attach the conclusion that the entire North Pole will melt within a couple years, resulting in the extinction of the polar bears.
It is expected there is a 50% chance for the cap to completely melt this year...we'll see..I wonder if there are unexplored oil reserves under it? Santa Claus is looking at launching from an oil platform next year...
nanaimo73 wrote: Bucyrus wrote: The falling dollar does seem to be cited often as being part of the problem. I would like to hear a little more about what is causing the weak dollar.The weak dollar is caused by the $500B budget and $900B trade deficits.
So if I were a speculator, I would speculate that it will only get weaker.
wallyworld wrote:It is expected there is a 50% chance for the cap to completely melt this year...we'll see..I wonder if there are unexplored oil reserves under it? Santa Claus is looking at launching from an oil platform next year...
It is very likely that there are some large oil reserves under the Arctic Ocean - that's why the Russians have been making noises about the underwater ridge extending towards the North Pole.
Modelcar wrote:.....Could burn oil shale in a firebox with grates.......?? Does the shale turn into "ashes".....?
.....Could burn oil shale in a firebox with grates.......?? Does the shale turn into "ashes".....?
....I have seen the images from space of the polar ice cap and the comparison to another time and it was shocking the amount of difference.
Wally.....You mention the Panama Canal and {I assume you refer to higher water levels}....If the polar ice cap does melt and I'm assuming it's floating on the Artic ocean...{I really don't know that for sure}.....even if it melts, it shouldn't raise the water level any if it's already floating in the sea.....Example: A glass full of water and ice...remains the same level even after the ice melts.
Of course if part of the artic ice cap is resting on land, than that's a different story.
MP173:
To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
Quentin, I feel you have nearly answered your own question at the last. Much of the south polar ice is elevated and supported well above sea level. This is unlike your glass of water.
I have recently seen estimates that mean ocean levels will rise between 150-200'....!!!!! That represents a huge volume of water, no matter what its state. And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight Strait of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. I am a mere 100' above sea level, with a nice path down to the beach. Currently my property terminates at the high water mark, about where a lot of the beach logs are deposited during the winter storms.
-Crandell
selector wrote: And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -Crandell
And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -Crandell
Along with your hobby of beach-combing for right feet in tennis shoes ...
Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
alphas wrote:MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/
And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue.
Wayne
Modeling HO Freelance Logging Railroad.
....Crandell:
It's an interesting story. Our elevation way inland here is 937' at our airport and my home area over in Pennsylvania is {at the top of town} about 2200'. If something like a 200' rise in water would ever happen....Our country {of dry land}, would be reduced by a major amount. Believe that would take care of Florida all but a small area in the Pan Handle.
Railway Man wrote: selector wrote: And I will have to yield my fine view on the bluffs overlooking the Straight of Georgia and the Coast Range beyond when that happens. -CrandellAlong with your hobby of beach-combing for right feet in tennis shoes ...Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
I haven't seen any yet. I wonder if their counterparts are going to show up sometime soon.
Ghoulish, no?
Edit- whoops, I see I have forgotten how to spell strait...previous post of mine above.
sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue.
alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim.
There you go again.....
Real Climate (sic) is a propaganda group dedicated to fommenting and promoting the notion of anthropogenically-induced climate changes. No amount of factual logic that counters their belief system will get in the way of their BS.
Let's take a logical look at what Wayne just printed above. His answer to observed solar-induced temperature increases on other planets in our solar system over the last few decades is that it can't be because RealClimate says it can't. Yet that doesn't answer the logical fallacy of there being no possible anthropogenic causes of warming on other planets, does it? A reasonable person would conclude that, since Earth is in the same solar system as Mars et al, what ever was causing concurrent warming on those other planets was also the prime culprit of warming on earth between 1940 and 1998, right?
So why the absentminded deferment to organizations like RealClimate without a basic analysis of what they claim? In fact, they're still in denial of the recent cooling trend observed over the last decade.
So what we have here is a perfect correlation, e.g. an absolute direct correlation between solar activity and Earth's climate trends, and zero correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's climate trends. Remember these two graphs below from the locked thread:
My advice to you, if you are sincere in getting to the basic truth of climate and man's supposed influence over climate, is to read through Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit page:
http://www.climateaudit.org/
These guys are on neither side of the debate, rather they are dedicated to analyzing all the claims made about climate and any anthropogenic influences.
sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne
Wayne,
Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.
It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around.
Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne Wayne,Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around.
This is an excellent thread and there is no need to have it locked. Therefore my only comment will be: I generally research authors prior to reading any of thier publications. So I researched Singer, and his financial backers, and then decided not to read his book.
sfcouple wrote: Bucyrus wrote: sfcouple wrote: alphas wrote: MP173:To answer your one question, the temperatures on the planets where we have conducted probes are also increasing. This is no surprise since all of the planets are expected to feel the effects of the increased solar flare activity that has taken place on our sun in recent years. Science has been able to calculate a history of our sun's solar flare activity from long years gone by (thanks to computers) and it does coincide with the warmer periods during both recorded history and before (determined by geological and similar studies). Although you'd never know it by the way that most news media keep reporting the currrent warm period as totally the fault of man, the continuing main differences among the true climatologists is over whether or not the solar flare activity is really "the" reason for our planet's warming or whether or not there are other factors that are being caused by man this time around. There's lots of theories on the later but no one has been able to prove anything yet, despite what Al Gore and similar claim. Actually the connection between solar flares and the current climate change has been analyzed quite carefully and there does not appear to be a significant direct correlation. I'm using the following reference in making this statement: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/And this particular website (realclimate.org) is an excellent resource that discusses a voluminous amount of climate issues in a factual manner, without an apparent political agenda. This website will probably answer most, if not all, questions one might have on this controversial issue. Wayne Wayne,Another excellent, objective reference with no political agenda on the subject is a book called, UNSTOPPABLE GLOBAL WARMING EVERY 1,500 YEARS by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. You have probably read it considering that you have looked into this subject.It is pure science, chock full of footnotes and references. The authors discuss historical trends, prehistoric evidence, species extinction, the role of water vapor, climate computer modeling, solar influence, how increasing CO2 affects plants, bleaching coral reefs, alternative and renewable energy, the Kyoto Protocol, and whether increasing CO2 increases temperature or the other way around. This is an excellent thread and there is no need to have it locked. Therefore my only comment will be: I generally research authors prior to reading any of thier publications. So I researched Singer, and his financial backers, and then decided not to read his book. Wayne
Why not just read what authors say and let their science stand on its own? Would that not be the scientific approach? How do you know that what you researched about Singer was not written by somebody who does not want you to hear Singer's ideas?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.