zardoz wrote: Weather trivia for today:Back in 1899 it was so cold in the US that the Mississippi river froze over it's entire length.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface is 6,000 times the amount of energy used by all human beings worldwide. The total amount of fossil fuel used by humans since the start of civilization is equivalent to less than 30 days of sunshine.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The summer of 1995 was so hot that at the end of August, methane emitted within big bales of freshly-cut hay in Missouri began spontaneously combusting.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------World's one minute rainfall record: July 4, 1956, 1.23 inches of rain fell in Unionville, MD.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Greatest snowfall in a day: 75.8 inches (Silver Lake, Colorado; April 14-15, 1921)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Greatest snowfall in a single storm: 189 inches (Mt. Shasta, California; February 13-19, 1959)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Highest world temperature: 136° F / 58° C, Al Aziziyah, Libya, 13 September, 1922-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Highest USA temperature: 134° F / 56.7° C, Death Valley, California, 10 July, 1913-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest world temperature: -128.6°F / -89.6°C, Vostok Station, Antarctica, 21 July 1983--without windchill.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest world temperature in inhabited area: -90.4° F / -68° C, Oymyakon, Siberia (pop. 4,000), 6 February, 1933 and also at Verkhoyansk, Siberia, 3 January, 1885.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest USA temperature: -79.8° F / -62.1° C, Prospect Creek, Alaska, 23 January, 1971.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest USA (48 contiguous states) temperature: -69.7° F / -56.5° C, Rogers Pass, Montana, 20 January, 1954. So, based on the above statistics, I wonder: are we in a cooling phase or a warming phase?The problem is that the "phases" of weather are measured in centuries and millennia, not just a few decades. There is simply insufficient information to make an economy-changing decision.
Weather trivia for today:
Back in 1899 it was so cold in the US that the Mississippi river froze over it's entire length.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface is 6,000 times the amount of energy used by all human beings worldwide. The total amount of fossil fuel used by humans since the start of civilization is equivalent to less than 30 days of sunshine.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------The summer of 1995 was so hot that at the end of August, methane emitted within big bales of freshly-cut hay in Missouri began spontaneously combusting.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------World's one minute rainfall record: July 4, 1956, 1.23 inches of rain fell in Unionville, MD.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Greatest snowfall in a day: 75.8 inches (Silver Lake, Colorado; April 14-15, 1921)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Greatest snowfall in a single storm: 189 inches (Mt. Shasta, California; February 13-19, 1959)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Highest world temperature: 136° F / 58° C, Al Aziziyah, Libya, 13 September, 1922-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Highest USA temperature: 134° F / 56.7° C, Death Valley, California, 10 July, 1913-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest world temperature: -128.6°F / -89.6°C, Vostok Station, Antarctica, 21 July 1983--without windchill.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest world temperature in inhabited area: -90.4° F / -68° C, Oymyakon, Siberia (pop. 4,000), 6 February, 1933 and also at Verkhoyansk, Siberia, 3 January, 1885.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest USA temperature: -79.8° F / -62.1° C, Prospect Creek, Alaska, 23 January, 1971.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------Lowest USA (48 contiguous states) temperature: -69.7° F / -56.5° C, Rogers Pass, Montana, 20 January, 1954.
So, based on the above statistics, I wonder: are we in a cooling phase or a warming phase?
The problem is that the "phases" of weather are measured in centuries and millennia, not just a few decades. There is simply insufficient information to make an economy-changing decision.
Very interesting stuff. I have no idea, the more I read the more unsure I am. That brings me back to my natural conclusion which is more like a puzzlement...If we do not know the source of global climate change, perhaps prudent measures make sense until we do, however it struck me that if fossil fuel=changing the climate turns out to be a red herring, when I consider fuel efficency, new forms of motive power, light rail, less particulate emissions...there is an irony in all this is that I suppose they all have merit even if the source of concern is illusionary. So...knowing that some of this impetus to improve rail technology would not have occurred if the alarm bells had not sounded in the media, etc, maybe if this alarm turns out to be a fallacy, quantum leaps in technology are perhaps only driven by necessity..like the space race in the midst of the Cold War...not to mention any political rant..just some thoughts...
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has.
All I know is that my land is properly turning colors when it's supposed to and that the plants are starting to come up early this year.
Build a nuke plant, attach it to a railroad and power the locos by electricity overhead. That should pretty much eliminate alot of stress and heartburn over Desiel fuel.
As for the rest of the global stuff, we will find out when the sea levels start to bury the east coast cities.
alphas wrote: My recently retired brother-in-law professor was very involved in atmospheric research. His thoughts are: That the world is warming but it does that, especially in the latter half of a typical 300-350 year world warm cycle (which we now know we started in about 1850-1860). There still isn't enough evidence that points to one definite reason for causing these cycles of hot and cold. Given that wholesale industrial development didn't even start until the 1800's, one can't say that manmade greenhouse gases greatly influenced the weather in the past. However, it could be having an impact on the other factor(s) that are causing the current one. He's also concerned politics might trump science when it comes to making decisions. He also echoed the previous comment that a 90% possibility or confidence level is too low when it comes to making drastic policy, especially when the 90% confidence level research hasn't been made readily available so it can be verified. He suggests at least a confidence level of 99% for the research (that's not as hard to achieve as one would think) before the world starts making the temendous economic and living sacrificies the global warning panic crowd is demanding. He also says that some 40 years ago there was some widely accepted research that implied the world was going to enter into a new cold age by the about 2030 and that research turned out to be off-base. Summary: we're about at the half-way point of a global warning cycle, no one knows what's going to happen for sure since its the first one of a now industrialized world, and we need to be patient until science can (hopefully) come up with a universally accepted way to determine the causes of both global warming and cooling.
My recently retired brother-in-law professor was very involved in atmospheric research. His thoughts are:
That the world is warming but it does that, especially in the latter half of a typical 300-350 year world warm cycle (which we now know we started in about 1850-1860). There still isn't enough evidence that points to one definite reason for causing these cycles of hot and cold. Given that wholesale industrial development didn't even start until the 1800's, one can't say that manmade greenhouse gases greatly influenced the weather in the past. However, it could be having an impact on the other factor(s) that are causing the current one. He's also concerned politics might trump science when it comes to making decisions. He also echoed the previous comment that a 90% possibility or confidence level is too low when it comes to making drastic policy, especially when the 90% confidence level research hasn't been made readily available so it can be verified. He suggests at least a confidence level of 99% for the research (that's not as hard to achieve as one would think) before the world starts making the temendous economic and living sacrificies the global warning panic crowd is demanding. He also says that some 40 years ago there was some widely accepted research that implied the world was going to enter into a new cold age by the about 2030 and that research turned out to be off-base. Summary: we're about at the half-way point of a global warning cycle, no one knows what's going to happen for sure since its the first one of a now industrialized world, and we need to be patient until science can (hopefully) come up with a universally accepted way to determine the causes of both global warming and cooling.
That is a refreshing amount of common sense. I can't but help wonder, that in the past all of our challenges have been of a physical nature and for whatever reason, all of them seem to be increasingly designed to be intellectual ones, almost like in the phases of childhood development, but then again, speaking strickly for myself, it might be an increasing loss of brain cells thats catching up with me.
I think the initial post goes a long way towards saying that the debate is not 'closed' with regards to global warming as some politicians have proclaimed. In fact, I have heard more doomsday scenarios from people with no connections to science then anywhere else. Al Gore maintains that the coasts of our country are doomed (and didn't he receive awards for his documentary??). Barbara Streisand laments that if only Americans would turn the air conditioners up a few degrees in the summer that somehow we can 'save' the planet. Yesterday the Milwaukee Urinal Sentinel ran a huge story about our addicition to coal and the global effects that this is going to have. None of these people are scientists. They quote some scientific studies, but they also fail to acknowledge that there are studies that maintain we are in a current warming cycle because of the natural order of nature. In either case, there certainly is no conclusive proof that would justify shutting down coal plants or massive lifestyle changes.
solzrules wrote: I think the initial post goes a long way towards saying that the debate is not 'closed' with regards to global warming as some politicians have proclaimed. In fact, I have heard more doomsday scenarios from people with no connections to science then anywhere else. Al Gore maintains that the coasts of our country are doomed (and didn't he receive awards for his documentary??). Barbara Streisand laments that if only Americans would turn the air conditioners up a few degrees in the summer that somehow we can 'save' the planet. Yesterday the Milwaukee Urinal Sentinel ran a huge story about our addicition to coal and the global effects that this is going to have. None of these people are scientists. They quote some scientific studies, but they also fail to acknowledge that there are studies that maintain we are in a current warming cycle because of the natural order of nature. In either case, there certainly is no conclusive proof that would justify shutting down coal plants or massive lifestyle changes.
There are good reasons for reducing the worlds dependency on coal
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
however, this does not justify wholesale shutdowns which would deprive us of the eneregy we need.
The hypricate Environmental nuts in California have a two part plan to save the world:
1) Draconacion laws an regulations to reduce green house gases in California. Laws that would result in masive lifestyle changes (most not for the better).
2) Fight every proposal to increase electric generation capacity in California, but at the same time favor building new coal plants in Wyoming to furnish electricity to California.
Even if all the green house gas reduction the demand could be achieved, the reduction would only be a small fraction of the increase resulting from one coal plant.
The best alternative method of generating the electricity we need: Nuclear plants. They do not polute the air and do not release green house gases. The "danger" of nuclear wastes is mostly hype. Most of the waste is actually a valuable resource that can be reprocessed to create more fuel to generate electricity. This is already being done in France and Japan.
Here is an article by Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace)
http://www.kgoam810.com/viewentry.asp?ID=357828&PT=PERSONALITIES
I am not a partican of wind and solar, but properly developed and used they can make a small (but still worthwhile) contribution.
--------------------------------------------------------
Energey efficiency and developing clearner energy sources, and reducing pollution from manufacturing sources are worthwhile goals but the drastic "solutions" proposed by many in the Environmental movement are not a valid answer. They are more about controlling people's lives than saving the Earth. The Earth is much bigger than we are and natural forces (earthquakes, vocanos, huricanes and tornados) much more powerful than our most powerful bombs. We are not capable destroying or even making any significant long term changes to the Earth.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
A couple of things, even though I have nothing highly germane to offer this debate on the subject area: first, no reputable, well-trained scientist will ever aver that he/she has a solid grasp on the "truth". None will claim to have realized all that pertains to a given problem. Einstein didn't, and neither should they. So, when we get scientists and their backers stating categorically that they have the definitive word on a subject, do not buy stock in their enterprises...they are not doing science any favours.
Secondly, in order for a burgeoning global population to survive, no matter what the numbers or where they are found on the surface of our planet, they will require energy. What is not stored chemically in the earth, they must farm. What they cannot grow, they must mine. As their numbers continue to grow, so will their demands for what can be yielded by all methods, whether solar, wind, coal, nuclear, oil, and/or wood/cow dung. So, as long as we continue on our (hyper)geometric path to populating the Earth to the extent that we reach a stasis of some kind, we can expect that we will liberate heat in increasing quantities due to the inherent inefficiencies of our various forms of energy usage.
What we don't quite understand is how efficiently the Earth can radiate or dissipate this heat in balance with what those who use the energy produce. Some will tell you that they know, but I would look at them askance. If they have such a good handle on it, they should be predicting the weather.
My intention was not to reignite the off topic global warming roundabout but it is interesting to note how a theory has impacted and for that matter will impact fuels, motive power, transportation options etc...but it is equally interesting how once accepted theories are today's curiousities. From Wikipedia:
Superseded biology theories Giraffes are often invoked in explanations of Lamarck's superseded theory of evolution. In Lamarckism, a giraffe is able to lengthen its neck over its life time, for example by stretching to reach higher leaves, and subsequently have an offspring with a longer neck. The theory has been superseded by the understanding of natural selection as the primary mechanism of evolution.
[edit] Superseded chemistry theories
[edit] Superseded physics theories
[edit] Superseded astronomical and cosmological theories
[edit] Superseded geographical and climatological theories
[edit] Superseded geological theories
[edit] Superseded medical theories
[edit] Obsolete branches of enquiry
[edit] Approximate theories
Here are theories that are no longer considered the most complete representation of reality, but are still useful in particular domains. For many theories a more complete model is known, but in practical use the coarser approximation provides good results with much less calculation.
The MMGW alarmists have defined the problem and it is a BIG problem according to their definition. And by their definition of the big problem, they have defined the remedy, which is also BIG. Yet, for as much as the problem is being played up, the remedy is being downplayed. We are led to believe that all we need to do is little things such as switching to compact fluorescent light bulbs, for instance.
However, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has indicated that stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at "moderate" levels might require cutting fossil fuel use by 60 to 80 percent worldwide. Kyoto member countries might have to cut much more in order to balance the rising emissions of developing countries such as China and India, which Kyoto exempts from compliance. Over the next 8 years, China will build 562 new coal fired power plants, and these are generally the dirtiest coal fired power plants in the world. That is one new, dirty Chinese power plant every five days.
New word of the day: Factasy
May or may not contain factual content, but either way selectively using a few facts to support a fantasy notion.
If I had 100 years notice that we will lose all East Coast Cities that lie at 250 feet and lower on land above the sea level, I would scrap those places and migrate everything inland right away. It will take a generation or two but if we are going to preserve the USA as we know it it needs to be done.
None of that little stuff like changing light bulbs for me thank ye.
If the temperatures are supposed to get too hot for reliable wheat and other crops I might build very large systems that controls the atmosphere and protect the crop. We may lose a certain percentage of acreage and possibly generate enough employment to make those towns boom again between the Rockies and the Midwest.
When in elementaty school many decades ago I was taught the at one time the northern ice sheet extended down into what is now New York state. When it receded the Great Lakes were formed. If this was so what kink of Global Warming caused this?
Superbe
Don't Ever Give Up
Bucyrus wrote:According to this long range, 1,500-year cycle, there is no question that we are in a warming, and will once again enter a cooling. This transition can happen in as little as one or two decades. Therefore, the next cooling cycle could be right around the corner.
According to this long range, 1,500-year cycle, there is no question that we are in a warming, and will once again enter a cooling. This transition can happen in as little as one or two decades. Therefore, the next cooling cycle could be right around the corner.
Great point. And when then next cooling cycle begins, we may be encouraged to burn fossil fuels to save farmland from becoming tundra -- like citrus growers use smudge pots in a frost -- to save an ever-increasing world population from starving, as many did in 1816, the Year Without Summer?
I've also read theory claiming any additional water melted from glaciers into the world's oceans would not cause a significant rise is sea levels because the excess (rising) heat in the atmosphere would support a higher than normal amount of humidity. And that the amount of fresh water being stored behind megadams like the one in The Three Gorges, China will in effect take much water out of the circulation process (rain, evaportion, rain).
Poppa_Zit wrote: Bucyrus wrote:According to this long range, 1,500-year cycle, there is no question that we are in a warming, and will once again enter a cooling. This transition can happen in as little as one or two decades. Therefore, the next cooling cycle could be right around the corner.Great point. And when then next cooling cycle begins, we may be encouraged to burn fossil fuels to save farmland from becoming tundra -- like citrus growers use smudge pots in a frost -- to save an ever-increasing world population from starving, as many did in 1816, the Year Without Summer?I've also read theory claiming any additional water melted from glaciers into the world's oceans would not cause a significant rise is sea levels because the excess (rising) heat in the atmosphere would support a higher than normal amount of humidity. And that the amount of fresh water being stored behind megadams like the one in The Three Gorges, China will in effect take much water out of the circulation process (rain, evaportion, rain).
The main problem with the scare stories of raising oceans is that they included floating ice in their calculations. Try this experment. Pour a glass of water. Measure the height of the water in the glass. Place a couple ice cubes floating in the water. Measure the height of the water. Let the ice cubes melt. Measure the height of the water again. What are your results?
I believe that Algore (spelling not a mistake) claims a 20 foot or more increase in sea levels in his movie. The latest UN report claims 20 inches. A few years ago the alarmest claimed that the Statue of Liberty (except for the lantern) would be under water within 20-30 years. (I believe that someone made a blunder to in mixing up English system and Metric system units and in conversions between them to get this result) This claim was widely published in newspapers, on the net and even made it into a least on elementary school book on the subject.
---
In an earlier post I mentioned the California Enviromentalist plan to save the world. The nonsense apparently sounds good to a large part of California's Democrat controlled legislature and the Republican (INO) Governor.
Most people want to do what is reasonable to protect the environment, but there are environmental extremists who want to go much farther than what is reasonable. In their green view, environmentalism is tinged with class envy, and a belief that the rich are using more than their share of the world's resources. They would ration resources. They disdain the so-called throw away society. This is what they want:
1) End the use of industrial nitrogen fertilizer, which is produced by fossil fuels, and revert to 100% organic farming, which would cut food production by 50% and raise the price accordingly.
2) End the burning of coal, and revert to wind and solar for the generation of electricity, and raise the price accordingly.
3) End the consumption of meat and dairy products.
4) End private personal automobile transportation.
5) Replace the use of gasoline and diesel with ethanol.
6) End the use of nuclear power.
Obviously these changes would be extreme. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but these measures add up to about the same amount of sacrifice that would be required to prevent the threatened world-ending catastrophe of manmade global warming as it is being defined and quantified. Moreover, the same people who demand the above listed changes are also among the ones warning us about the impending catastrophe.
I don't know what to think anymore about the climate situation except that I hope wiser heads prevail. The comment about the disruptions of the last 50 years being a precursor to a cooling is an interesting thought.
Getting back to wallyworld's original thought, I recently read how a computer manufacturer now sends its laptops from its plant in Asia by either FedEx or UPS planes directly to individual retail stores in the States. Third day delivery?
Does a green goat also make a railroad a tool a customer can use to gain a competitive edge in its marketplace?
Bucyrus wrote: Most people want to do what is reasonable to protect the environment, but there are environmental extremists who want to go much farther than what is reasonable. In their green view, environmentalism is tinged with class envy, and a belief that the rich are using more than their share of the world's resources. They would ration resources. They disdain the so-called throw away society. This is what they want:1) End the use of industrial nitrogen fertilizer, which is produced by fossil fuels, and revert to 100% organic farming, which would cut food production by 50% and raise the price accordingly.2) End the burning of coal, and revert to wind and solar for the generation of electricity, and raise the price accordingly.3) End the consumption of meat and dairy products.4) End private personal automobile transportation.5) Replace the use of gasoline and diesel with ethanol.6) End the use of nuclear power.Obviously these changes would be extreme. Maybe it is just a coincidence, but these measures add up to about the same amount of sacrifice that would be required to prevent the threatened world-ending catastrophe of manmade global warming as it is being defined and quantified. Moreover, the same people who demand the above listed changes are also among the ones warning us about the impending catastrophe.
Actually the class they want to destroy is not the rich, it's the Middle Class. Many of the advocates of the extreem measures those funding the movement are rich people (many of whom didn't earn their fortunes). The consider themselves superior by right to the masses. They have not and do not plan on making any sacrafices themselves. They will continue to use their private jets and limos, and live in mansons on huge estates while the rest of us walk long distances or wait in long lines to get on overcrowded buses and trains and are squeezed into small apartments so that more of the Earth can be returned to pristine (manfree) conditions.
Others who are not necessairly rich, want a Communist world (even though Communist systems have a record of failure). The Middle Class is in the way of their achieving their goals.
Virtually every improvement in the Human condition has been preceeded by advances in energy technologies and development of new energy resources. They advocate retrenching to lower energy use, actively work to prevent any real advances in developing energy and advocate removing engery sources already in use. (For instance AL Gore's proposal awhile back to remove hydro-electric dams to "save the Salmon"). Going their way would result in masive disaster for the Human race.
This is the controversial nucleus of the theory of manmade global warming. Some would say that it is the "follow the money" reason for the theory, and that the so-called science is beside the point.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1212812.cms
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.