Global Warming..Science and Politics

[xelasnave]

Global warming is a fact it seems not because it is necessarily a fact but because the only views promoted support the proposition that global warming is upon us and we must do something.. Well its the "we must do something" I have the problem with.
Our PM who won’t sign the protocol all decent nations are signing but he then comes out with a statement to the effect. Global warming is upon us we need to think about nuclear power.. mmm big jump there even for a Polly.
Does it not seem curious that one could make such a statement. I see the yellow cake lobby is running a "sky is falling" campaign and the only way to hold the heavens in place is to eat yellow cake.
Is it just me or does anyone out there see this link between Global warming and the yellow cake sales machine?
It seems so curious that for the first time in history that the Australian of the year award goes to a man who will preach the problems we face with global warming and thus opening the door for those with vested interests to jump in saying they have the fail safe answer.. Conspiracy at the highest level or an old man's cynicism clouding his judgment. Does anyone analyze the news they are fed each day on this matter..
How little outcry about the sale of yellow cake to China..one must ask why..could it be you have been made feel so guilty about humans warming the planet that you should not stand in the way of China getting "cleaner" energy?
AND can someone tell me why we go from finding the Global warming problem to let’s fix it with yellow cake desert..are there no other alternatives??
Who is pushing this barrow that it can influence the Australian of the year awards...
To save the barrier reef we need yellow cake, to have air conditioning we need yellow cake.. to save our vinyards we need yellow cake.. the "news" comes every day..we must go for the yellow cake or be doomed... if folk cocerned with Global warming are not stupid maybe they can stop and look at how their message is being used to push the yellow cake barrow.
It will be interesting to see our Australian of the year state his possition on yellow cake..or will he find an acceptable middle ground... if he does the PM wont be very happy I bet.
So science says we have a problem but politics means vested interests will corrupt that knowledge to read "buy yellow" cake I recon.
alex
alex
alex

[matt]

You're an interesting sort of fellow, alex...

with some interesting views

[xelasnave]

That a nice way of saying I am nuts:P , but I have never disagreed with that proposition:eyepop: :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbsup: ..it took a long time to free myself from convention and peer pressure to be able to form a view at odds with current popular thinking:D .
I have time on my hands to think so I do a situation I treasure because one can see how events seem to favor vested interests..
I suppose I am silly for wondering why we are still at war now that the threat of weapons of mass destruction (pushed down our throats day in day out in the days leading up to the war) is no longer a threat.
I found it funny Mr Bush saying we needed a friendly power installed so as not to have our future oil needs threatened... on CCN of course.. but I chuckled when later in the "news" they had a nostalgic clip on the good old American pick up truck that made it more sacred than apple pie.. I saw that as a manipulation of minds to come round to the belief ..I want a pick up truck so more troops is a good thing:lol: :lol: :lol: . however we were told that the reason for the war was to remove the threat of weapons of mass destruction ..can anyone remember how terrible that threat was:shrug: . now we have the truth ..or closer to it. we need oil that why we are there..mmm
Too much time to think or is it that I actually think about the "news".
Did you notice when Dr David Suzuki was in town giving a talk to the National Press Club the yellow cake lobby was in town doing their thing? Coincidence only noticed by a cynical old man no doubt but I would sure like to compare the travel logs of Dr S and the yellow cake lobby.. not saying Dr S is in league with them but what a great time to bring up yellow cake after DrS has conditioned the minds of the press to the problem. AND how long after that did the PM say we must see the problem and consider N power.. coincidence no doubt simply coincidence:D .
But it’s interesting that now we have defined the problem only one solution is being presented;) .. a solution that to my mind is too expensive and too dangerous... and I am not a greenie, a liberal or a union man and certainly not aligned with the religious right:eyepop: . I simply think about the "news" and how convenient it becomes for certain interests.
In my view when "they" want your opinion they will tell you what it is;) ..I like to form my opinions with the knowledge that money makes the world go round not niceness and clear thinking:eyepop: .. I bet I am not wrong even if that is cynical:D .
alex

[Argonavis]

I read in the paper that Tim Flannery is in favour of nuclear power.

intersting.

I think his books and writings go well beyond the science, and he is just another political activist, one in favour of yellowcake, presumably for both export and domestic use.

[avandonk]

I think you are correct xelasnave. Even if all the problems with nuclear power such as dangerous waste, nuclear proliferation etc were solved the world at best has about thirty to sixty years supply of Uranium. This depends on how much capacity is installed and what do we do then? So the whole idea of going nuclear is a furphy and using Global warming as an excuse is hypocrisy at best and the usual short term thinking at worst.

We are no better than bacteria growing in a petri dish using up all available resources and excreting in their environment until they all die.

Bert

[xelasnave]

Mmmm does that not make you feel as though strings may have been pulled?
Its not so much that I am against the yellow cake thing but what I do not like is so many clever people being brain washed without even knowing they are being manipulated.
When a kid I thought those poor folk behind the iron curtain having all that crap pushed down their throats and not being given any alternatives..mmm.. are we getting to hear of any alternatives.. no ..the leap must arrouse suspicion in any thinking person.. If you buy the salesmachines presentation I question if you really have thought it through.
The fact our Australian of the year is in support of yellow cake should sound warning bells about what is happening to our world.. but in the days of rush rush rush it is easier to switch on the box and get your views on issues prepacked ready to fit with the other prepacked views you will dicuss when talking with your friends.
I find most people are not prepared to offer a contrary view for fear of ridicule..I welcome ridicule, nail me if you can I say, I welcome all attempts, if you get me so what, I must deserve it because I have not thought deeply enough. But I try to state the facts as they present and they can speak for themselves.

[Argonavis]

The US adventure in Iraq was all about oil - Hussein and the Baath Party were sitting on rather a lot of it (about 25% of known reserves) and were using the proceeds of sale to run weapons programs like big guns, bio and chem and the big one, nuclear weapons. These aren't easy to do, but once you do it you get a lot of respect. This made the people in Tel Aviv rather uncomfortable. I don't think the people in Tehran, Kuwait and Rydah were too happy either.

Saddam and his Baathist mates were also getting very chummy with the people from al Qaida, which made the people in Washington uncomfortable, as well.

So I suppose they had to go...

[Argonavis]

so are you the only sane one who can't be manipulated?

[Argonavis]

When this country comes to its senses and realises that they are being manipulated by global warming hysteria put about by the likes of Tim Flannery, and realise that nuclear power is vastly more expensive than coal fired power stations, then the balloon will pop.

Until then politicians will be politicians, persuading people that they are doing something about problems that do not exist.

[xelasnave]

Argonavis said...

so are you the only sane one who can't be manipulated?

Clearly by the responces so far I am not..however if you can not be manipulated the first thing that will be called into question is indeed your sanity. Thats why I feel comfortable assuming a possition of a ratbag we can save time establishing that point..I agree I am a rat bag so wiuth that out of the way lets get to the meat of what I raised is my method of confrontation.. no skin off my nose.. but even a ratbag can stumble upon a few truths that maybe others can accept.
I dont think I had any illusions as to why we needed the war.. again it is the crap we are fed that irritates me.. but what do you do..if in power you need to do certain things for certain reasons and its not likely that you can simply come out with the real reasons..but it is very comforting to know that at least there are others who are not simply sold their opinions pre packed.
alex

[Argonavis]

so you like to be contrary just to be contrary?

or do you like to be contrary because you have good solid reasons for doing so?

[matt]

That seems a fair enough question

[Argonavis]

Tim visits the USA:


http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=70569&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex .jhtml%3Fml_video%3D70569&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

[ispom]

if in 60 years the Uranium supply is over,
we will have the nuclear fusion (lets hope so) as cheap and never running dry energy source.
But also the U does not have to go out so fast,
if it is not used in conventional nuclear reactors, but in fast breeders,
it is then 100 times so effective

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

[sheeny]

Interesting point of view and discussion Alex!

I'm a bit of a sceptic when it comes to conspiracy theories(OK...most of the time...), however, of course the yellow cake lobby are going to use global warming to their advantage.

I don't think the global warming issue has been developed by the yellow cake lobby though. My scepticism cuts in about the severity and cause of global warming. Yes, I agree there's evidence for global warming, but the whole issue is so immersed in politics that I am (I admit) confused about the severity of it. Of course, the greenies want us to believe the end is nigh - it gives them political power. Create the fear, you get the power - politics...

It has been demonstrated that we can contribute to global warming, but the signal (human induced global warming) to noise (natural global warming which happens periodically) is so very low. If we only look at the data from the industrial revolution forward, it is easy to create the current global warming histeria. Look at the data over the full range of available history and the impact of human induced global warming is almost (??? - not sure if it's completely!) lost in the noise...

I admit I don't know!:P Yes, it's good to do something that will reduce our adverse impact on the world but most people don't want it that much... I bet by far the majority of greenies and protesters who are pushing the global warming barrow are still driving cars, and using electricity... So how desperate is our situation?:shrug: Do as I say, don't do as I do... all symptoms of classic politics and the quest for power!

Global warming has become a powerful meme. Powerful enough to hide the facts in the fiction, make it difficult to separate the two, and so provide a political vehicle for those who want to hitch a lift.

Al.

[Ric]

What's wrong with filling up the Nullabor Plain and other outback regions with wind farms and solar panels.
at the moment alternative and viable technologies get almost zero funding for research and development, but the government can spend millions on a feasability study to decide if we need a reactor in the next 20 years.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

In an effort to be more clear prompted by….


and Matts concern also
That seems a fair enough question
No I am agreeable and strangely unconcerned with the day to day stuff most worry about…
I care about the sheep however who mistakenly believe their Shepard has only their best interest in their mind.
My point simply was if one goes against the flow often rather than being confronted with sensible counter argument and further discussion one is accused of "being insane" or the like.. instead of argument and reasonable debate those pushing the yellow cake barrow are saying anyone offering opposition is a fool , a rat bag who won’t face the needs of the future.
They say any one who even questions the findings as to the evidence as to GW is a fool who wont look at the facts. I question some of these facts given that they are found to be fact by folk on someone’s payroll.. whose payroll, I ask. who asked for the research,. I often wonder????
I could offer examples ad infinitum as to calling one insane if one questions the prepacked view we are given, however if one recalls the PMs leap into the Global Warming field one can recall his comment that anyone not looking at Nuclear power was "un real" a term very close in that context to "insane" I would think..certainly such a statement must discourage any person wanting to be "real" from presenting a different view.
So with that in mind I recognize that by offering views on this matter and pointing out the obvious one will be labeled "unreal" or indeed "insane".
If any debate is allowed any opposition will be dealt with in this way. The evidence available to me is that any who stand in the way of a power seeking to turn the mind of the public will be held up for ridicule and labeled “insane” or a new one “unreal”. Think how that term must fill any debate on the matter from here on in…. It is not a new tactic by any means and easily observed if one takes the time observe the tactics of irrational argument.
So to answer the question I don’t see starting in a debate as a rat bag as any more than defusing a tactic that will be used.. I say being a rat bag has little to do with the debate so don’t bother to try to introduce it as I will save you the trouble and admit it freely. My words can be interpreted by all they can decide if I am a rat bag .. in a fist fight you know you will get hit before you land the killer punch so be prepared and welcome it I say.
That deals with my statement which I did not think indicated that being a rat bag meant being contrary.. however I say this I don’t like being contrary but if that is what is needed I will be that. in an effort to stand up for truth not in an effort to have truth questioned. So if I must be contrary it is not a reflection of having a chip on my shoulder, for I do not. In fact I am known as a mediator and smoother of troubled waters, a loyal friend to all, and an enemy to none, if that relationship demands input from both sides… that’s in my in the real world. Hit me in the head with a brick and I will feel concern for the troubles that motivated you to do so ..I will ask what is wrong and can I help?.. not seek a larger rock to destroy you. I will feel pain from the event but it will be the pain of the attacker, their fear or anguish that caused their action. I care about people I don’t like the way they are conned, by their Governments, by the folk who are supposed to look after their life savings or folk ripping them off with promise of easily made fortunes, playing on their decency and belief that all are decent, playing on their belief that when in power that lies will not be told, playing on their belief that if in power one does what is right for the general public. as they personally would if in such a position.

As to the Australian of the year award I am positive about it, not withstanding the intrigue behind the closed doors, but because such an appointment gives some credibility to the need to conserve resources (I hope) Maybe it will promote public concern and maybe personal choices will be made that result in folk being more careful with precious recourses. Maybe it will become less "cool" to drive big cars or will encourage folk to use Sun screen…. but lets face it behind the closed door that makes the choices and tell us such choices are indeed ours, do you really think the yellow cake lobby had nil input directly or indirectly on our Australian of the Year award. I hope I am wrong and step aside so others can debate the implications.. sane people however may find themselves sent to the rat bag side of the room and labeled “unreal”.
No if I say something it is because I believe whole heartedly in my carefully considered and deeply researched position not simply to be a pot stirrer. I hate injustice and vested interest propaganda is unjust. So I would make a very bad polly…
alex

[xelasnave]

Where did the Y2k bug go??? where did the "weapons of mass destruction" go??? why is the Snowey Power unsuitable???.. after all it was an irrigation problem and a vested coal interest that perhaps saw the rest of us calling it environmentally unsound.
alex

[xelasnave]

The power of the Sun is really unused. How much is available yet how much is gathered with current methods.. A rat bag would suggest getting the gathering process more efficient but there is a side to me that tells me as no one owns the power from the Sun this area will not be pushed.
alex

[okiscopey]

Human-induced global warming?

Let us, of all people, be scientific about this.

This is a hypothesis that has not met experimental tests (see data presented in web links below), but which has been politicised beyond belief.

The apparently-diminishing temperature of the Earth in the 50's and 60's led to a similar but opposite political push - the forthcoming new ice age! (I remember it - I was around then.) The solution was to reduce hydrocarbon production - exactly the same 'solution' as now proposed for the opposite effect - global warming (GW).

Unlike the 60's, GW has developed into a quasi-religion embraced by ratbag 'enviros' and mediocre 'scientists' with an eye to research funding. The 'global warming' angle must, it seems, be worked into every investigation.

All of this nonsense is compounded by the media beating everything up. For example, Hurricane Katrina (and the record number of storms) in 2005 was damning 'evidence' of GW. However, data on Atlantic hurricanes since 1900 to date show that there has been no increase in frequency or average intensity over the period. The newspapers were very quiet last year, which provided the lowest number of land-fall hurricanes on record.

What makes the whole thing worse is that we apparently now have to change the way we generate power. Many have become instant 'experts' on energy production, believing solar and wind power will be our saviours. You only need to look into the physics and economics (free of artificial, politically-motivated taxes) to realise that these 'piddle power' solutions are useless for providing round-the-clock base power to a modern, industrialised society.

Here are some links to some thought-provoking, scientific views on the GW business:

- - - -

Ken Ring's website (he's the NZ long-range weather forecaster):
http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

- - - -

Paper: Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

- - - -

Global Warming Lecture, Dr. Arthur Robinson (7.5Mb download; 52 min. running time; needs RealPlayer)
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm

The picture quality of this video is very poor, but the sound is OK. The lecture also covers data relating to another aspect of the GW religion, sea-level rise.

- - - -

Global Warming Petition (related to above paper):
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm

- - - -

Letter from Frederick Seitz (realated to above paper and petition):
Research Review of Global Warming Evidence
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm

- - - -

Another take on the GW business from Anthony Watts (specialty: weather instrumentation) noting the effects of the change of paint types on Stevenson Screens over the years, also the direct correlation between temperature fluctuations and solar activity over the centuries:

http://www.globalwarmingindex.org/gwi_essay1.htm

- - - -

And while we're about it, here's Ken Ring's views on the 'ozone hole' religion as well (funny we haven't heard much about it lately):

http://www.predictweather.com/ozone%20depletion/index.asp

[gaa_ian]

That makes for very interesting reading Mike, Hmm :shrug: C02 & CFC's heavier than air Eh !
Adds a whole new dimension to the perceived problem !

[Argonavis]

excellent post okiscopey

but.....not another crank long range weather forecaster?

The chemistry of how CFC's affect the ozone layer is very well understood. I remember reading a book about it many years ago. I think Ken has a severe credibility problem if he is attacking something for which there is a substantial body of knowledge and a degree scientific consensus. This is why there was *immediate* political action to ban CFC's in the industrialised world. There was no dissent at all. Ken is out there on a limb all by himself.

GW, on the other hand, looks dodgy, and needs a measured response at best.

[okiscopey]

Yes, sorry about that, I didn't know much of his background and was taken in by some pages on that site. Should have done more research!

Here's a critique of Ring's predictions, very interesting reading:

http://www.astronomy.org.nz/aas/Journal/Oct2004/PseudoWeather.asp

[xelasnave]

Excellent posts:thumbsup: .
Okiscopey you can explain the news to me any day:thumbsup: :)
alex

[Argonavis]

a good place to argue about the news is:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/

[Argonavis]

I have never come across anyone who thinks the Moon affects weather on the Earth.

although there seems to be lots of people who believe that the Moon, and especially the Full Moon, affects human behaviour. Well, yes but only to the extent that there is more light around at night during those times.

[gaa_ian]

Well spotted Argonavis !
Just because someone has a very verbose website does not make it true, the mix of science & selective "Evidence" can be very seductive !
Reminds me of another revisionist "Science" being pushed around the place recently .... but we don't even want to go there do we !

[mickoking]

Global warming is REAL, it is happening NOW
Nuclear (fission) energy is NOT a solution
Johnny H is only interested in global warming when it suits his policies (nukes and Washington)
We have no leadership in this debate (particularly in Australia)
Australia WILL sufferThank you for listening to my rant :thumbsup:

[matt]

I'm ambivalent on this.

Whilst I am not anti nuclear per se, I am also certain there are far more suitable alternatives.

At the end of the day, we need something other than traditional fossil fuels.

And we need a massive shift in individual attitudes in our day-to-day lives.

I am completely into individual responsibility when it comes to the environment.

[xelasnave]

Mmmm I think I best keep away from that news site.. what an opportunity to "air" ones views.
Mick may I ask how you really feel about the issue;) . I envy your ability to come to the point:) .
If there is to be a national debate it may be wise to consider if the warming is man made or indeed can be controlled by humans. I suspect it is occurring but I doubt if it is entirely governed by human activity. Perhaps it has something to do with the aging of the Sun or is a cycle not shown by attempts to illustrate the problem to suit a sales campaign. If not governed by human activity the direction taken to manage the problem must be different (to the patch up that N Power can maybe offer).. A decision should be made if we can we control it.. if not (presumably) how can we best manage the change by sensible planning. Water supply is a pressing problem possibly related to GW but trying to stop GW to me could not bring a result which requires a better approach to water management irrespective of GW. I am very comforted by the contributions herein but am surprised that an opposing position has not been presented that maybe GW is a bit of a beat up for a vested interest (rather vested interests. as a lot of folk get their pay packet from the GW industry these days).
alex

[matt]

Don't be surprised.

Maybe a lot of people simply don't see it that way.

And that doesn't make them sheep or any less enlightened or more duped or simpletons who can't see the "truth" or "the big picture".

They simply don't agree, Alex:)

[xelasnave]

Another thought:D .. think how we could ease the energy drain if we switched all lights off at say 9 pm:eyepop: .. I think of those office blocks with all gone home as wasteful;) but could we live with darkness over the city after about 9 pm:D . I have a feeling most everyone who visits these forums may go for the lights out suggestion... mmm vested interests again but why not:lol: :lol: :lol:
Lets try our own lobby attack on the lights er I mean do our bit to save the planet and motivate others to turn out the lights.
Will the electricity company be happy that we may reduce the strain on their resources or do they just want to sell more energy?
alex

[xelasnave]

AND Matt that is their right even if they are wrong :) ..not saying they are wrong either in this context:eyepop: . When folk feel strongly about issues some fight fair some dont all I ask is for a fair fight. Free speech is alive and well at Iceinspace to the point where opposing views get fair air time. Seems a little sad the case for "GW is being caused by humans and yellow cake will solve it" guys dont use the opportunity to engage some folk here who give it some thought. Given the media bias again I say it is conforting that an alternative view is alive and well.
alex

[matt]

That's a good thing, Alex.

I've fought for it and defended it on many occasions. No-one's questioning your right to express yourself or debate an issue.

It just seems to me that you often present your point of view as "fact" and that if no-one else sees things your way it's because you're the only one capable of seeing the "truth"... and everyone else is being tricked and is incapable of understanding something that you've given much greater thought to.

That's just my reading between the lines, as you so strongly encourage and claim to practice.

Don't be offended. You've just got a bit of megalomania going on:lol:

I keep reading things like how you have freed your mind. How your view of things is the result of going against convention as if you are some radical free thinker and the rest of us are luddites still trapped by the machine, incapable of seeing the "real truth".

That gets a little tiresome.

Maybe we just don't agree or feel the need/point to argue with you.

But I've never said anyone isn't free to express their thought or opinions here.

Just don't tell us we're being tricked or can't see the deeper truth just because we don't see the truth as you see it.

Express your thoughts and theories. Sure, but please don't sound off like you are some type of visionary Messiah whose job it is to free us all from our mental/intellectual slavery and impoverishment:lol:

Sorry. These things always look worse in print than the tone in which they are really meant.

I'm not trying to offend. Honest. I'll leave it at that. This sort of thing never ends well in internet chat rooms or forums.

Cheers

[xelasnave]

Matt I can not disagree with anything you say:eyepop: . Your observations are valid and there will be many saying ..”Sock it to him Matt”:thumbsup: . There are more flaws to my personality than you could list so I could not be offended when you hit on but a few;) ..and I am not offended I am delighted you take the time to make your input:thumbsup: . . I like to think it is a product of loneliness and isolation but clearly its goes deeper than that:P :D ;) .
It would be worse if I could not accept your observation.
It is an unfortunate style I agree and have often suspected I cut off debate simply by being passionate about what is being discussed. But I would like to think that it is a case of what you see is what you get… a cranky old man with little to talk about so he does;) .. That’s the way I see it so it is curious I translate into a know it all:lol: :lol: :lol: .. But I make my stand with what I have at my disposal.. Still look on the bright side as I said free speech is alive and well here and I recon it’s great you can say that to my face:thumbsup: . Still you won’t get a promise that I will change my ways unfortunately:) .
alex

[matt]

Don't go changing, Alex.

When I said before that your observations are "interesting"... i meant interesting. I like reading your stuff. It's "out there", and where would we be without the variety of opinion and thought that makes this place what it is.

You keep being you. I'll keep being me. It's all good:thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Thank you Matt..needless to say I take it all as a compliment..part of the condition I recon.
Have you heard the yarn about the lady who says to her husband
.."you may be good looking but you are lazy, arogant, absent minded and rude"
... husband replies... "Oh you think I am good looking do you?"
I am not that husband but somehow I relate to picking thru whats there for the good bits.
Fate is smiling upon me, the clouds have cleared so maybe I will get a look at this comet.
Good night and best wishes.
alex

[matt]

Enjoy, mate:thumbsup:

[GrahamL]

Great read :thumbsup:.. talking to my father a few years back on solar /wind
power .. and knowing he spent many years of his working life in the power
industry .. his simple coment was ..How do you maintain a power grid
if the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow ? ,presuming I guess that
both these options figure in the scheme of things majorly in the years to come .

Read a great article in NS recently which made a pretty fair case that the
earth is still comeing out of a mini ice age from the 15th century
.. and warming as a result , it also pointed out if i remember that
the data spikes markedly on warming temps a while after the start of the "industrial age " so as to say that ..WE .. while arn't the only cause sure
are a contributer .

I like the petri dish scenerio ;).. while some of us like to try and ****e around the outside where its less noticable where all doing our bit to foul the medium. .

[xelasnave]

Saw the comet and got some out of focus snaps but terriffic:) its been a long wait. I feel more positive and experienced an uplifting upward mood swing.;):P :lol: :lol: :lol:
Caught a little news and it seems that Mr Blair is calling for new paper work re GW:eyepop: .
Given our (Australias) stand to date and our PM saying anyone not recognising the problem is "not real" or was it "unreal"... recent facts yet already hazy:shrug: ..it will be interesting to hear our reply when presented with the new paper work:D .
alex

[glenc]

How's this for an idea? Not good for astronomy? "Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were ;"speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects"" http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/us-urges-scientists-to-block-out-sun/2007/01/28/1169919213362.html

[matt]

Sounds a bit loopy to me... but who knows:shrug:

I'd rather treat the causes, not the symptoms:)

[glenc]

Graham RE: "How do you maintain a power grid if the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow ?" If you use solar hot water systems and solar powered street lights you don't need as much power at night. Well designed houses in Australia will stay warm at night and don't need heating. The wind is usually blowing somewhere so you can connect up wind generators into a grid. Then there is tidal and wave power too. So the base load can be much smaller.

[Meade bloke]

Was under the impression that off peak power was used to pump water back up the hill in the snowey system to act as peak use ??, ie BIG battery when needed hmmm, think you could do the same with other power sources.

Spud

[neB]

Once our scientists have evaluated the problem I'm sure they'll come up with the obvious solution: Send a batch of cane toads into space. They fix all sorts of problems (like cane beetles) and will quickly reproduce enough to block out 1% of the sun.

[matt]

:lol:

Finally... they're good for something

Toaaaadssss .... in ..... space!!!

[ving]

a quote from i think it was the daily telegraph:

[matt]

Says it all really, Ving

[ving]

so does this: 0_o

[matt]

Wazzat????

[ving]

google 0_o

[glenc]

Based on four primary and six secondary criteria, including proximity to seawater for cooling and access to the national electricity grid, areas identified as possible nuclear plant sites are:
in Queensland – Townsville, Mackay, Rockhampton, Gladstone, Bundaberg, Sunshine Coast and Bribie Island;
in NSW/ACT – Port Stephens, Central Coast, Botany Bay, Port Kembla and Jervis Bay/Sussex Inlet;
in Victoria – South Gippsland, Western Port, Port Phillip and Portland; and
in South Australia – Mt Gambier/Millicent, Port Adelaide and Port Augusta/Port Pirie.
http://www.tai.org.au/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=36&func=fileinfo&id=997

[Argonavis]

The latest GW inanity is:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21141214-30417,00.html

It seems that the great barrier reef will be extinct in 20 years.

How does this pass even modest research? The reef has existed for 18 million years (the northern part - 2 million years for the southern) and gone through numerous climate cycles - there has been at least 5 ice ages and interglacials in the last 400k years and the reef is still there but the GW hysteria is going to make it disappear in 20 years!

lots of politics, not much science

I quite like this summary:

http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

it is a bit of a read, but worth it as an excellent summary of climate science.

[glenc]

The oil industry and the coal industry don't want to admit it but climate change is here. "Average Sydney temperatures will soar by 4.8 degrees by 2070, according to a CSIRO report commissioned by the NSW State Government. In summer, maximum temperatures could rise by up to seven degrees by 2070, according to newspaper reports." http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-temperatures-to-soar-csiro-report/2007/01/31/1169919346716.html

[xelasnave]

At the risk of observing the obvious it seems we travelled rather quickly from “anyone not considering Nuclear Power is “not real” (or lets read between the lines with that comment and substitute “insane”) to a position asking where the many reactors will be placed:eyepop: . No longer any views of those from the “unreal” department will be considered and the case for going nuclear has clearly been established, guess that happened whilst I was in the bush for a little under 48 hours. I thought it must be my imagination …a list of sites being presented on the ABC radio took me by surprise but confirmed when I saw Glen’s post. But it obviously has been done by experts taking into account all the relevant criteria for the placement of a power plant;) … more likely put together by someone aware that folk wont want them in their backyard and will stop complaining when the proposed site near their house is moved elsewhere... at that stage they wont argue about if we should have NP or not … just get it out of my back yard will be the view… and the powers know that aspect of human nature and will work it to get them somewhere.
For those who see it similar to me I say it is the old divide and destroy tactic being employed to take the debate from one of national interest and concern to a level where individual communities will be fighting simple against a single plant and its placement within a district:D . For those who think different.. go back to sleep your elected representatives have nothing but your interests at heart.. you have nothing to fear:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Needless to say when asked if he would object to a nuclear power plant next to his house the PM offered a prepacked view for “the people” if any are still awake and need nice words to aid their drift into dreamland…. Saying he would not worry if a nuclear power plant was to be place next door to his house:whistle: . I don’t believe our PM need worry about that happening for many reasons and he may be happy to live next door (taking him at his word) but I bet if it was to be placed anywhere in his electorate his view would change;) :shrug: :D . In fact it will come down to an electorate by electorate battle and I suspect those electorates that have not supported the Government will get “power” but not in the way they have been working for:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Will local councils have a say? Will the words environmental impact study mean anything? And if they do will any studies be more than a rubber stamp to a program obviously already in place, a program that we are told a little more about each day.
I think the problem of climate change is not imaginary however wasting time and effort on vested interest solutions will leave us with plenty of power (maybe) but the real problem of what to do will not have been addressed:eyepop: . We may end up with an air conditioner in every house, pulp trees on all our best agricultural land but looking at the figures the planet will still be hotter:scared: . The suggested solutions are laughable... placement of CO2 into rock for example seems an impossible dream but its investigation drains the resources that could be used better. I say lets counter the rise in Ocean level by digging a big hole to drain the excess Ocean into:P :D … well that has a better chance of a happy result than placing CO2 into rock and how crazy is that as an idea still a committe should start work on determining the size of the hole:lol: :lol: :lol: .. find it is not a perfect solution and say .. go nuclear it is the only way..or you are "unreal" "not real" or "insane";)
Still on the bright side taxes that would be wasted on public education and health issues can be redirected to supporting “studies” as to where to place the power plants…and the question if we should store nuclear waste has been hidden as a political question:eyepop: ... we have nuclear power stations of course we need to store our waste:P :rolleyes: :D .... so we may well make some cash by taking everyone elses waste.. after all they will not be silly enough to keep it in their countries. At least ash from a coal furnace can be disposed of relatively easy;) .
Why has the benefits hydro power been passed by:shrug: ... the environmental impact to our rivers takes it off the table I guess;) . One day in the future you go to the sea side what would you rather see a nuclear power plant or a hydro plant (taking power from the tidal action). And of course there will never be any accidents but a leak of radioactive material into the sea could be of a concern one would think:shrug: .
The real worry with all this is, we the people don’t seem to have any control of our future. I heard 50% of the people don’t want Nuclear Power so their minds still have to be changed for they are after all are “not real”… I hate the condescending "we know best” crap we are dished out particularly when it’s only to sell a product, a produce owned by someone employing lobbyists and politicians to sell the goods.
One other worry! Whilst we are wringing our hands over this what are they really trying to take our attention away from... ?
alex

[glenc]

We have plenty of solar energy, much more than most countries. We also have a long coastline with plenty of wind, wave and tidal energy. The main problem is storing energy so we can use it at night. When it comes to transport diesel is more efficient than petrol and petrol is more efficient than LPG. Also trains are more efficient than trucks. Why does the PM subsidise LPG and trucking?

[xelasnave]

I stand the risk of being seen as cynical but it all has to do with money finally, but that is old news for most thinking folk it seems a fact of life:D .
I believe Mr Diesel invented his motor with a specific fuel in mind..canolla oil... a vegetable oil:eyepop: .. and one would think that may still work;) . If one wanted to "be real" one would think that is an area worth looking into.. there is so much available re bio diesel on the net to suggest it is a fantastic fuel, and it can be grown on the same land currently being used up for pulp trees.
Ethanol fuel is being produced which seems nice but it has had a little support from Government , but a rather smart way to gain a big slice of the petrol market over night... it got more support than biodiesel..which if you choose to manufacture yourself and save energy you will be taxed:eyepop: :lol: :lol: :lol: fact I believe but correct me as I have not seen any legislation re this..very encouraging not to try it:D .
But it all boils down to this:) in my view:) not saying that this is correct:) but I believe this to be true:D ... one has a business, when the business gets big you lobby for Laws to protect your business:thumbsup: . Needless to say when lobbying one must make it sounds as if you are only concerned for the greater good, you will employ folk generate income etc etc but in truth it is the personal gain that motivates issues:shrug: . AND I can not suggest an alternative but even that is not the issue somehow the GW problem needs to be addressed, firstly to cull those milking it for a pay check and secondly to engage science uncorrupted by vested interests to plan a future where our country can best cope with the different climate:D . to think we can change the climate is expecting too much of our capabilities;) to change the current direction can be done by discussing it debating it:) but I guess that time has passed well at least until the stations are up and running:lol: :lol: :lol: .
It is ironic also that now I can buy an excellent TV that runs on 12 volt the very same all use by taking 240vlt and dropping it to 12 volt in their homes. why? well we need 240 to transfer power. so maybe the problem is not so much the needs but the distribution and storage, but as rain water tanks are being considered if you are a caring person why not run your lights, and most electricals from your own solar panels.
Still when one thinks of what could be done and what will be done it is like thinking of two different planets... hopefully the debate can move from where to put them to will we get them:shrug: . Maybe this is one of those mandates governments use to get things done??:lol: :lol: :lol:
Still a current unhappy result..money is being wasted on putting co2 into rock, trees using agricultural land which does not require irrigation, and money is being spent on a political campaign to manage electorates. Do we deserve better ...maybe if we expect and ask for better.
alex

[ving]

global warming? bah!

the ice age is coming! :)

[xelasnave]

From what little I have read it appears that the climate warms before each ice age as part of a cycle:shrug: ... I dont know if that is reliable or not but the suggestion I recall was that current GW is part of such a cycle and that although it could be argued that humans may or may not contribute to the effect, the effect has been observed in the past:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: . It is so hard to believe anything and whoever put it forward may have their reasons to play down GW... ;)
So Ving you could indeed be correct:thumbsup: , I say you probably are:) .
The only thing I know for sure is I am getting older:eyepop: and my improving vission;) sees an even more hansombe face squinting back;) ;) ;) each time I look in the mirror.. :lol: :lol: :lol:
alex

[ving]

lol alex.
we had a simalr thread on global warming and i came up with a good site that showed that the warming and cooling is a natuarl cycle and we are currently in teh steep incling temperature area of teh cycle which includes... well what we are currently experiencing (ie weird ass weather and melting polar caps).

i believe the study was done in antartica where they drilled a long way down to show fluctuations in ice temperature or was it some sort of structural thing? over many thousands of years....

interesting but i have forgotten most of it.

not in to this govts scaremongering at all...

[xelasnave]

Ving lets see what they say next cold snap:) ... mmm how will we heat a planet covered in ice:shrug: .. now we need nuclear, not only to heat but all those green houses needed to grow our food;) .. You gotta come down on the Nuclear power side if they pushed that one:lol: :lol: :lol: .
The good news is we have global warming fixed:thumbsup: the bad news is :scared: :whistle: .. the ice it will be everywhere.
alex

[okiscopey]

Well said Argonavis!

Whilst I don’t agree with your views on the relative expense of nuclear energy compared with coal (although a combination of coal, gas, hydro and renewables may be more appropriate for this country for the forseeable future), I’m tickled pink by your response to ‘The Australian’ article.

If we were to believe the newspapers of a few years ago (and the researchers keen to add more spice to their grant applications), the crown of thorns starfish should have done the demolition job on the Great Barrier Reef already.

I’ve been following what I believe to be sensible, science-based sources of information on ‘human-caused global warming (GW)’ for at least ten years and I’m convinced that there’s no definite proof that the minor rises in temperature some regions of the world have experienced in recent decades are caused by human action, or will result in catastrophic outcomes for ourselves and our children. I say 'some regions’ as not all the globe is affected. Readers may recall hair-raising shots of huge ice shelves setting sail from the Antarctica Peninsula on TV, all set to a predictably ominous music track. The Peninsula is only 4% of the Antarctic and is the only bit showing any evidence of warming. Satellite measurements show absolutely no temperature increase over the other 96% of Antarctica, which has an average temperature of -37 deg. C.

(Ref: http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/global_warming.htm

In fact it's also debatable whether the increase in CO2 is all man-made (and then produces warming), or whether it is the warming that comes first and produces more CO2 due to outgassing from the warmer oceans (which contain 39,000 gigatonnes of carbon compared with humans' 5.5 GT-C/yr ).

Historically we've seen it all before (the receeding glaciers in Europe are uncovering remains of villages), but this is the first time it’s been turned into a quasi-religion. When a population has an easy life as a product of human effort, science and technology, when their only source of information is the news media, when they’ve been through a fact-free school education system, when science is distorted by bad politics, there’s plenty of time and acres of fertile ground for illogical, non-productive speculation and agitation.

It’s wonderful to be among such knowledgeable folk here when it comes to astronomy. Many of you are experts in other areas, but most of us fall apart when it comes to disputed subjects outside our specialties. Let’s see now, we have intelligent design, sea level rise, feng shui, nuclear power, water divination, miraculous cures, UFO’s, diet regimes, the ozone hole, astrology and many others to choose from. Some effort may be required in some of these to reach an informed opinion, some end up just being a matter of faith. The links on GW posted recently should at least give food for thought for anyone with an enquiring mind and who appreciates the scientific method (that covers everyone at IIS of course!).

I’ve only skimmed through Kerry Emanuel‘s ‘Phaeton’s Reins, the human hand in climate change’ http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html At first sight it looks like a balanced view of the subject, but I (we all?) need to look at it more carefully.

As previously posted for those who missed it ...

GW Petition explanation (and link to a most important 2001 review paper on the scientific data): http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

[glenc]

Ice cores unlock climate secrets
BBC 9 June, 2004

Global climate patterns stretching back 740,000 years have been confirmed by a three-kilometre-long ice core drilled from the Antarctic, Nature reports.
Analysis of the ice proves our planet has had eight ice ages during that period, punctuated by rather brief warm spells - one of which we enjoy today.
If past patterns are followed in the future, we can expect our "mild snap" to last another 15,000 years.
The data may also help predict how greenhouse gases will affect climate.
Initial tests on gas trapped in the ice core show that current carbon dioxide (CO2) levels are higher than they have been in 440,000 years.
…………
"There is great controversy as to whether human beings have changed the climate," said Professor McManus. "But there is no doubt about the fact that human beings have changed the Earth's atmosphere. The increased levels of greenhouse gases are geologically incredible."
He added: "It is something of grave concern to someone like me, who sees the strong connection between greenhouse gases and climate in the past."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm

[glenc]

It was suggested recently that if everyone on the planet started gorging themselves on fatty foods, the amount of carbon sequestered could reverse global warming as long as no one did a stitch of exercise other than to produce more butterball humans. An article by Mike Archer dean of science at the University of NSW. http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/no-time-for-nevernever-solutions/2007/01/31/1169919402348.html

[xelasnave]

It seems from the little I have read that there is a certain arrogance on the part of humans that comes from a belief the place was made for us. Unfortunately our “spiritual” book leaves those words “and man shall have dominion over the world and the animals” ringing in my ears and I suspect that even the non believers accept that part of the book. We have been here for a relatively short time..the spider for example has done it his way for over 20 million years just to name one creature that has more experience on the planet than humans. What is it about humans when confronted with rising sea levels they seek to build walls to hold out the sea rather than simply move to higher ground. One can only assume the words above give them the confidence and belief that they can manage this feat. There is an industry I call “the sky is falling corporation” that comes up with newer threats to our being but I suspect the only folk they really seek to help is themselves..to the profits of scare campaigns. That is the real problem with GW it is difficult to work out fact and fiction because so many vested interests support the data gathered when it suits their drive. The posts in this thread have been excellent and the wisdom of those contributing is a joy to behold.
alex

[glenc]

This is a conservative report. It could turn out to be worse than this. The US government is trying to play down GW.

“Global climate change is "very likely” to have a human cause, an influential group of scientists has concluded.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said temperatures were probably going to increase by 1.8-4C (3.2-7.2F) by the end of the century.
It also projected that sea levels were most likely to rise by 28-43cm, and global warming was likely to influence the intensity of tropical storms.……………
Now, the panel concluded that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases rather than natural variations are warming the planet's surface……………
On sea level, there has been a more fundamental debate.
Computer models of climate do not generally include water coming into the oceans as ice caps melt. So the IPCC had to decide whether to exclude this from its calculations, or to estimate the effect of a process which scientists do not understand well but which could have a big impact.
They used the former, more conservative approach, projecting an average rise in sea levels globally of between 28 and 43cm. The 2001 report cited a range of nine to 88cm. “
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

[xelasnave]

Thanks for that Glen:thumbsup: ... Given the accuracy required in other areas the words "very likely" worry me as does the use of the words ""an influential group of scientists";) I suppose that means we are to accept their conclusions without question:shrug: . My point is simply the reporter sounds as though he is adding emotion to drive the point home... can’t blame him for that most of us will inadvertently display our leaning in the choice of words used... I like to know the odds in gambling but if there is room for doubt why seize on "90% certain" I wonder? Does this let in the concept of varying degree of difficulty I wonder?
But let’s take their estimates as probable and their 90% blame rate as in the ball park, and that water levels will rise do they have a study showing the effort required to change the current human input? And to stop any further increase in omissions and as one would reasonably presume we will need a level that existed before the humans caused the problem... Or putting it another way, on the assumption that the favorite wins and humans are responsible what is the percentage of their responsibility:shrug: ? If humans stopped all contributes to greenhouse a little later today will the planet recover? How far will the reduction have to go before any successful result can be achieved? In my opinion,( which is for the large part uninformed and enjoying an opinion says nothing as to its correctness, particularly in my case.), I doubt anything can stop it if the facts show it is happening:eyepop: . Certainly if the problem is due to natural causes how can we stop that? But what chances do we have if of a human input. What chances do we have when it takes years to get the simples of matters resolved even at the United Nations level? From the little I have read even if every recommendation to reduce green house by everyone one the planet were to be implemented the problem will not go away:scared: . But the reality will be few will do anything so we must prepared to live in the environment they say is coming and abandon the belief that humans can manage and control the weather let alone their actions that may have impact upon it:D . Practical solutions like greater water storage for our drought plagued country, setting aside of land for agriculture that projections show has a chance of better rainfall in the new future, only electric cars allowed in city traffic, efficient bulk transport, discontinuing irrigation of land without which would be desert.. the list wow! what a list! But as simple as these simple solutions they will be stepped over to benefit vested interests not the overall interests of our country, I suspect (my opinion only) all that will come out of all the studies is a simple rollover to nuclear power (as seems to be happening from my following of the news provided for the general public)) ..Soon it will be we need nuclear power to run the desalination plants as they are energy intensive;) . The suggested placement leaves one with the expectation such news will follow soon;) ... The Plover Cove reservoir near Hong Kong shows how to manage the water that we simply let run into the sea in the land of drouhts... and yet someone says turning sea water into fresh is a good idea:P . Sounds like “double handling:lol: :lol: :lol: . Hong Kong and its water management should be looked at as their solution shows at least in respect of water management we could be doing it much better.” And even control the sea water levels in respect of our cities…:lol: :lol: :lol: ;)
We will have a Federal election in August this year so it will be interesting times till then, still its good to have something everyone can feel they can vote upon ..so I wonder how the issues will be presented finally er by August:lol: :lol: :lol: I look forward to the adds;)
Alex

[glenc]

Alex, I think nuclear power is better than coal but I hope we don't have to use it. We are trying to get grid solar power at our place but the company developing it needs more support from the government. We have a solar HWS, use tank water and drive a small diesel car. We are looking at other ways to reduce our CO2 output. I think everyone can do something.

We are trying to get a Grid Connect Solar Power System from:
http://www.greenandgoldenergy.com.au/

[xelasnave]

That is terrific Glen:thumbsup: . Save your cooking oil in a 44 gal drum for when you need a diesel supply;) . I also think Nuclear power will be a reasonable answer to power problems in so far as everyone wants more power, and some even need more power. With GW we certainly will need more air conditioning power allocation..thems the facts even now no one will turn them off even if a warning that power will shut down because there are too many air conditioners on.. It probably seems I am dead against nuclear power when in truth that is not entirely the case:eyepop: . After all how many nuclear power stations in the world now.. hundreds? What gets me is the way we are dealt with and presented with fear of the future and there is only one answer. Let’s have a fair trial and then hang them is the approach that gets to me. Why suggest we have input when all they are doing is political dances that avoid the pressing issues that should be addressed irrespective of what the weather is doing. I am not a communist but I think sometimes the market system fails us by letting us think we are given a choice and yet we are being manipulated to a position already pre determined.
We will be sold power plants and desalinates that’s where it all points and when they are here we will think it was us who figured it out.
Its like the war Mr. B finally came clean and said we need more troops to see a favorable Government that will not threaten our oil… that’s reasonable but to cloak the move as we are seeking weapons of mass destruction which we have now forgotten just seems a dishonest way to go about things.
I wonder what the tracking is like on those panels, you may be able to mount a scope on it and do some photos of the night sky... Ask them what is the periodic error of their tracking systems see how they respond to that one;)
alex

[mickoking]

Another disadvantage of nuclear-fission power is that is only a finite resource. If we go down that path its only a matter of time before we have to look at renewable energy anyway. Also countries like France, China,The US and Germany are working very hard at harnessing nuclear-fusion power. Australia could be left many decades behind, purchasing technology of China if we look at nuclear-fission for our energy answers. Governments are notoriously short term/ short sighted creatures.
I think every one can do something too, don't leave it to pollies or we will be very disappointed ;)

[glenc]

John Howard says solar and wind can't supply the base load, and we need nuclear power, but the current power stations can supply the base load easily at night if we replace electric hot water with solar hot water.

[xelasnave]

Half the problem Glen it is convenient that when faced with energy problems there is no introduction of practical and inexpensive methods of storing energy.. hot water from the Sun is still hot at night and large reservoirs can store heat for many days where the Sun does not shine. The irony is if we get nuclear power their problem will be how to get rid of the heat build up:lol: :lol: :lol: ...that’s why we are being conditioned to have them near the sea whereas the conditioning has only to do with the sale of desalination plants;) . Could one be a fool and suggest that once heating the water we could save that heat:whistle: .. I await them to say ..we cant its too dangerous:shrug: … but of course it can be used.. One must ask why the previous premier made it his business in the last days to look into desalination and traveled across the seas to look at the matter deeper. Gee if I was serious about taking power from the current Government, presumably the object of the game for the opposition I would be digging into what is really going on..
As to electricity storage that is not impossible when one realizes that a "car battery" is not a battery but an "accumulator" it gets only the power placed in it by a charge.. an accumulator is very simple and I doubt if it would take much to build some big enough to fill in the gaps of power supply.
But it’s not necessarily about reason and doing the right thing it is about "sales" and we are being sold nuclear power and desalinators and investigation of alternatives will be suppressed.
In the late 1800s one Australian dollar was worth 5 USA dollars, one could be cynical and ask are we buying too much stuff “we need to have”. I am one for spending money and spreading it around the community but the biggest problem with nuclear power and desalination is it drains more cash overseas, little will be spread around the Australian community. Rather it means we borrow more cash to send over seas.. , We are the rich country that’s why we are a perfect target for ideas that won’t get off the ground in other places…
Alex

[Argonavis]

The Antartica data was always the GW archilles heal. Recently someone claimed to have recorded increases in temperatures on the continent. If this is true, it does give substantial if not irrefutable support to GW.

Irrespective of this, the hysteria is still well ahead of the science.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=ae9b984d-4a1c-45c0-af24-031a1380121a&k=0

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0

[glenc]

Edward Wegmen was working for the energy and commerce committee of the U.S. House of Representatives, you would expect him to say that. Also the data he used was old. The fossil fuel industry is doing its best to discredit climate change and they have plenty of money and the US president on side.

[mickoking]

Why are we talking nuclear anyway. We have enormous reserves of natural gas in this country, the least offensive of the fossil fuels. Gas can be used as an energy source until renewable energy is well and truly established. But the Uranium lobbyists and Johnny H stand in the way of common sense.
It would also appear that we are flogging most of our gas to China. When the WA premier decided to put some of our gas in reserve for national use there was an outcry from the big end of town and their political allies. Sadly climate change and commonsense are at the mercy of political ideology and business interests.

[xelasnave]

It is my belief that you are on the money Mick, what I would like to know is who now owns the bulk of the Uranium reserves I heard we lost control but its not something I follow closely, but it would be interesting to see who stands to benefit from power stations. I was thinking today about the words Mr Howard used "not real" and cant help but think that was specially chosen by a minder to appeal to a certain demographic its not a word Mr Howard would come into contact with so I see even a conspiracy in the words selected to "guide" us.
But what can we do it is clear the wheels are in motion and anyone standing in the way öf progress"will be marginalised as ""not real".
There will be an election in August and I hope this matter is one of the issues M aybe the opposition can offer an alternative now that Mr B has been set aside, I never knew what he stood for if anything at all, hopefully we see something from Mr Rudd but I suppose they are all really the same when in power.
alex
alex

[xelasnave]

AND where do they stand on light polution:P ?? We could save the planet if the lights got turned off it the cities can we not get some mileage out of GW for our own personal interests;) ... I would love to jump up at a press conferrence and slip in a question like that:lol: :lol: :lol: maybe I will
alex

[Argonavis]

maybe we should start pushing very hard for the removal of all streeet lights and other outdoor illumination

I like it

think of the carbon that would be saved

[okiscopey]

Many thanks for that link Argonavis, it contains a lot more detail than most of the sources I've been following over the past few years.

Now, apologies for the capitals: EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD SHOULD READ ALL TEN PARTS OF THIS ARTICLE AND CONSIDER THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ... or should I say, relative lack of evidence for catastrophic GW.

I think I can be forgiven for posting a juicy extract from Part 3 "The hurricane expert who stood up to UN junk science" as an appetiser:

"Christopher Landsea received his doctoral degree in atmospheric science from Colorado State University. A research meteorologist at the Atlantic Oceanic and Meteorological Laboratory of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, he was chair of the American Meteorological Society's committee on tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones and a recipient of the American Meteorological Society's Banner I. Miller Award for the "best contribution to the science of hurricane and tropical weather forecasting."

" the IPCC called (him) to be an author in the "Fourth Assessment Report." This report would specifically focus on Atlantic hurricanes, his specialty, and be published by the IPCC in 2007."

"Then something went horribly wrong. Within days of this last invitation, in October, 2004, (Landsea) discovered that the IPCC's Kevin Trenberth -- the very person who had invited him -- was participating in a press conference. The title of the press conference perplexed (Landsea): "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity." This was some kind of mistake, (Lansea was) certain. He had not done any work that substantiated this claim. Nobody had.

As perplexing, none of the participants in that press conference were known for their hurricane expertise. In fact, to (Landsea's) knowledge, none had performed any research at all on hurricane variability, the subject of the press conference. Neither were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability, (he) knew, showed no reliable upward trend in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes. Not in the Atlantic basin. Not in any other basin."

"To add to the utter incomprehensibility of the press conference, the IPCC itself, in both 1995 and 2001, had found no global warming signal in the hurricane record. And until (Landsea's) new work would come out, in 2007, the IPCC would not have a new analysis on which to base a change of findings."

My changes to make the text more sensible in this context are in ( ).

The URL (already posted) is:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=
22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

[xelasnave]

It is relatively easy to expose the myths if you take the time to question things rather than accept wild statements:) .
Unfortunately it is an emotive issue and those who are taken in by the hype who believe GW is caused by humans are probably sincere, taking responsibility is another thing they will wring their hands and probably take shorter showers in an effort to help.and I am guilty of same. I waste a lot of energy here but at home on 12 volt and solar you must conserve, .. My personal opinion is we will see a link between GW, nuclear power and desalination. I posted details of Hong Kongs Plover Cove project a solution if adopted here would go a long way to minimise our water problems thereby taking away part of the thrust that will be made when nuclear power stations move a little further forward. The need for desalination plants will be pushed hard when nuclear power is put to bed. It was a stupid idea when it first popped into my mind last week (in post re underwater dam) but to find out such an approach is alive and well and working well for Hong Kong makes me wonder why it has never been floated here. Many Australian engineers have been there know about it (look at the speaker lists associated with the Hong Kong water works) . It would have started when our colonial masters still had time to run on their lease so funny it has never seen the light of day here. I wonder how many suitable bays on the East coast. I even suspect the recycled water proposals may have been raised to get the public off side with that idea (conspiracy but it helps to practice looking for them;) ) after all when put to a vote it was canned someplace up North..
Maybe an arbitary move was made to do something to generate an even more negative reaction from the voting public:shrug: . I dont know it is confusing me there are so many interests, so many players.
BUT there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the case for GW being caused by humans and humans can fix it is pumped up by many falsehoods and careless reference to "scientific facts".
I dont know if we could get all lights removed but when in the city at night one must wonder what benefits accrue by leaving all the lights on when workers have left the building. Not all lights could be removed etc but certainly less energy could be used without discomfort. I think that a "turn off your lights and save the planet"" T shirts could swing opinion in the current climate;) ... now I will count the puns:lol: :lol: :lol: .
Still it is a wonderful world full of wonderful people thank goodness most of them are here:thumbsup: .
alex

[glenc]

Here is an interesting idea. ShepHydro DESALINATION STATION is a Seawater Pumped-storage Power Desalinator, an idea brought about by the need to solve a particular problem - desalinate water for Sydney without generating greenhouse gas. I like to call that the biggest green battery in the world. http://www.shephydro.com/ and Multi Purpose Seawater Power Station http://www.seawaterpower.com/seawaterpower/ Also desalination plants can be built next to power stations so they use the heat from the power stations. This is much better than separate desalination plants. Mick, I agree that gas fired power stations can be used to provide the base load, they are cleaner than coal or nuclear, and they can easily be turned on and off. Regarding streetlights, the driver’s eye cannot adjust to rapid changes in brightness. It is better to have faint and even lighting than bright areas with dark areas in between. Artificial moonlight is bright enough. Regarding climate change I would rather believe 2500 experts than 2500 armchair critics. Some parts of Antarctica might not be getting warmer but that doesn’t prove there is no climate change. Read the IPCC summary for policymakers at http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

[xelasnave]

Great links Glen.
I found this in another forum where the subject is being discussed and post the latest input from a memeber ... another ëxpert" ??? or another opinion??? I dont know anymore.

A prospectus for big government
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 05, 2007

Imagine you find out that a large corporation has produced its annual report before its audit is complete. Long before its outside accountants have signed off on revenues and expenses for the year, the company has issued its official annual statement claiming everything is rosy.

Oh, and the report was written by the company's sales department rather than its finance office.

Securities commissions would be all over them. Exchanges would stop trading their shares.

Or how about a mining company that issued a prospectus claiming it had found a rich vein of ore even before the mineral samples had been tested?

"Charlatans! Frauds! Crooks!," you'd scream. And you'd be right.

So how come so many otherwise smart people are eager to swallow whole the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's global warming report when the scientific studies behind it will not be released until May at the earliest?

The 21-page document, officially called the Summary for Policy Makers, was released by the IPCC last Friday, and leaked far and wide for a week before that to ensure maximum public relations impact.

But the scientific reports on which the summary is allegedly based won't be available for months. Accepting the conclusions of the summary before being able to see the science behind it is just like buying shares in a company based on its premature annual report or speculative ore claims.

The IPCC summary isn't even written by scientists, at least not in their capacity as scientists. It is written by a few politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists chosen by the UN agency, some of whom also happen to be scientists.

And the vaunted meeting in Paris last week that approved the summary's final draft, the meeting most of the world's media so breathlessly told us represented the consensus of 2,500 leading scientists? Well, most of the attendees with votes were the representatives of their national governments. That some were also scientists was purely coincidental. The IPCC buries its scientific findings for release months after the fact; has politicians, bureaucrats and environmentalists write its report; and -- surprise! surprise! -- ends up coming to conclusions that can only lead to bigger government, and government funding for environmental scientists.

In effect, the IPCC summary is a prospectus for big government written by big government's sales department.

And don't expect the full truth to come out even when the 1,600 pages of science are finally released. The IPCC has a habit of censuring the work of scientists who disagree with the global alarmist orthodoxy. It has also instructed scientists still working on their academic contributions to the final report that those contributions must be modified after publication of the summary so as to "ensure consistency with" the summary's conclusions.

It is the political tail wagging the scientific dog.

In the corporate world, this would be called a scam. News producers, editors and reporters would see right through it. In the environmental world, the IPCC is hailed as the definitive word, and most media fall to their knees before its collective wisdom without raising so much as a suspicion.

Friday's summary actually contained some good news -- if one simply looks at the few hard scientific observations it contained and disregards the hell-in-a-hand-basket hyperbole.

For instance, since its last report in 2001, the IPCC has revised downward its projections for temperature and sea-level rise.

Six years ago, the "scientific consensus" was that the Earth could warm by 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. This time, the IPCC thinks it will rise by no more than 7.2 degrees F -- a 30% reduction. And sea levels are now projected to rise by no more than 17 inches, half the rise of 34 inches in 2001's forecast.

This is the forth IPCC report, and the third in a row in which the doom and- disaster predictions have been revised downward.

The IPCC should be saying that the more we learn about global warming, the less we believe its consequences will be disastrous. But that doesn't feed the global big-government industry. And it would make it hard for environmental special interests to continue raising billions each year.

So just as Tony Blair's government was accused of having "sexed up" intelligence on Iraq's WMDs to justify invasion, the IPCC and the environmentalists have sexed up predictions on climate disaster to reinforce their self interests.

© National Post 2007

I wonder what he really thinks:lol: :lol: :lol:
alex

[glenc]

Who controls the National Post? Why do they promote this view? What's in it for them? Do they have big shares in oil or coal companies? I reckon beware of media moguls, multinationals and big government. I think the scientists would have said so if they disagreed with The IPCC summary. Saudi Arabia didn't like it because it threated their oil industry and Exxon-Mobil tried to get them to make their findings more oil friendly. I don't think the scientists are reducing the threat by changing the temperature and sea level forecasts, they are just getting more precise. I hope we use more green energy and less oil, coal and nuclear to power the future.

[okiscopey]

Thanks for that Alex.

You DO know anymore!

"Facts' that are parroted in the media and by pseudo-environmentalists will not stand the test of time, common sense and scientific evidence.

[okiscopey]

Link to an article by Lorne Gunter mentioned by xelasnave is here (apologies for split URL):

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=34b2c4eb-
1788-4242-a04d-eaa286afa9c7&p=2

Here's an extract highlighting what's not being reported in the papers:

“ … the United Nations' global warming spin factory will switch into high gear with the release of the (IPCC’s) latest report.

Actually, the spin will come mostly in the Summary for Policy Makers.

Expect the summary -- which is not written by scientists, but by politicians and activists -- to be highly alarmist. It will almost certainly insist that since the last report in 2001, proof of a coming man-made climate disaster has mounted and the scientific consensus has grown stronger.

It will infer the only solution is a massive remaking of industrialized society presided over by international bureaucrats and environmentalists.

Even the scientific papers in the IPCC report will have been doctored a bit. In past versions, scientists who have refused to swallow whole the orthodoxy that Earth is going to hell … have been dropped from the committees that write and review the IPCC report's individual chapters.

Their doubts, no matter how substantial and well-documented -- have been expunged from the final drafts.

You've no doubt heard there is an international scientific consensus that the planet is warming, that the warming will likely be catastrophic and it is being caused by human-produced emissions. The IPCC shows how this vaunted consensus is reached, not by getting all scientists to agree, but by defaming or ignoring those with opinions and research cast doubt on the dogma.

That's not science, it's shunning, the ancient religious punishment for heretics.

If you saw Al Gore's propaganda film, An Inconvenient Truth, you may be familiar with Naomi Oreskes, the University of California social scientist who claimed to have found 100% agreement among climate scientists. In a much-quoted article in Science magazine, Ms. Oreskes claimed that of the 928 scientific paper's whose abstracts she reviewed, not a single one disagreed with or raised objections to the man-made warming theory.

Not reported though -- because it doesn't reinforce the climate catechism -- was a review of Ms. Oreskes' report by British scientist Benny Peiser. He found that Ms. Oreskes had failed to examine nearly 11,000 other climate reports that may or may not have supported her conclusion. And even among the 928 she carefully selected, only 2% "wholly endorsed the view that human activity is driving global warming," while several "actually opposed that conclusion," even though Ms. Oreskes claimed their support, too.

Remember headlines late last year such as "Greenhouse gases help make 2006 warmest year ever"? What didn't get reported was the fact those doom-laden records were based on only the first 11 months of last year. When the temperatures for December were added to the mix last week, 2006 turned out to be the coolest year in the past five.”

[xelasnave]

Thanks Glen. One should never ask a question that one does not know the answer:D . Sorry I was a little manipulative:) . If only everyone could stop and ask similar questions when presented with the news:thumbsup: .
AND thanks Okiscopey but I say I dont know anymore er should add than I already know;) .
alex

[glenc]

Have you read State of Fear? http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/ Why Politicized Science is Dangerous (Excerpted from State of Fear) "Imagine that there is a new scientific theory that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out. This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high school classrooms. I don't mean global warming. I'm talking about another theory, which rose to prominence a century ago." An interesting read about Eugenics. Glen

[okiscopey]

Interesting! I didn't realise until now that the Sydney region already has a pumped-storage scheme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoalhaven_Scheme

[xelasnave]

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Coca Cola and other soft drink companies by putting so much CO2 into water.. a planet saving effort I recon.
alex

[xelasnave]

Breaking news...... any one want some winners at Randwick?

NSW Labor to build desalination plant
A 125 megalitre per day desalination plant will be built at Kurnell in southern Sydney if the NSW Labor government is re-elected in March.

Premier Morris Iemma announced that two preferred consortia had been asked to tender for the construction of the plant which will be built when dam levels drop to 30 per cent.

"Desalination should be ready for summer '09 under this process," Water Utilities Minster David Campbell told reporters

I think the plan has been about a little longer;) given the research the outgoing (leaving not friendly) premier put into it.;)

Havent found what will power it yet:lol: :lol: :lol: .
But I did notice a news flash that the PM has made a statement in support of nuclear power I wonder if there is any link between the two:shrug: .
alex

[xelasnave]

Our mob is no doubt better than that mob from up North making them drink sewerage:D . Its your choice voters sea water or sewerage... now we have a choice thank goodness:lol: :lol: :lol: .
alex

[slice of heaven]

:lol: :lol: :lol: That's a crackup :lol:

[glenc]

But what happens to the co2 after they drink it?????

[Argonavis]

2500 experts?

care to name them Glen?

here is one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

I don't think he will be getting a gig at the IPCC next year.

[gaa_ian]

I read the report this morning that GlenC posted, Pretty convicing stuff !
When the models developed several years ago a validated by the data collected since & the factors that are often talked about to debunk climate change, are taken into account in the report.
we are in deep, deep do do :scared:
But the challenge comes not with the facts of what is happening, but what we do about it.
The Developed world is in a position to act & reduce greenhouse emissions.
But how about the developing world :shrug:
When you think about it China for instance is growing because of the OUR demand for cheap consumer goods, & our western corporations setting up cheap labor factories in China.
So where does the responsibility lie ?
While we as individuals can make some difference, unchecked growth in consumption & population is the real factor that will affect global climate change.
So who will act to limit that ???

[glenc]

We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend there is no climate change but we might have trouble denying it when the sea level rises and the sand gets flooded. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21161453-601,00.html "Consensus" was the stumbling block. The report had to reflect scientific consensus, a tricky process considering the complete report, Climate Change 2007, was written by 485 experts and reviewed by 2500 peers from 130 countries. It drew on more than 6000 peer-reviewed scientific papers. The report then required line-by-line approval from governments, each keen to protect their own interests.

[xelasnave]

I think that such a process Glen simply means that it was open to corruption of the inputs. Clearly someone has an axe to grind and it would be easy to control the content of the report. It is easy to control mob thought because humans cant handle being the odd man out.. fear of peer pressure do it.. I have seen it over and over and if you want to control a group pick out the person causing the others to think different and make a fool of them, hold them up so the others can ridicule them.. no I dont buy the report no one would put up that much cash and not know the result..no one. Already the PM is using a mob rule approach to this with the use of the words "not real" ..what is there no room for another opinion? not from someone who is "not real" I guess. That’s what politics is all about controlling events and people and facts so as to arrange things to produce a result that you seek and then stepping back into the shadows to let all think it was a committee result. Obviously the report is subject to corruption at many levels.
If one asks who is behind the push to make climate change a matter that is front of mind and simple looks it is easy to see where the push comes from... in my view the USA, one can ask why and there are many answers that pop into ones head that will make you worry that you are becoming a conspiracy theorist.. However it is what is being done to solve the problem humans did or did not create... nuclear power is on the table, if one thinks the introduction of nuclear power can solve the problem they are 1. Either fooled by the hype or 2. involved in the conspiracy to push it forward.
It may be a matter coming from an attempt by the USA to appear less reliant on oil, think of the upswing in alternate power when the first lines of cars appeared waiting for petrol 20? years ago.
We won’t be able to stop it if we are causing it but someone will profit from the fear I believe it’s like Noah and the Ark story we have a message that the sea will rise lets build boats not umbrellas.
One could be silly and try and stop the climate one could think one can change human behavior or one could be rational and ask where does the money trail lead who stands to benefit... Someone has their hand up the politicians back making their lips move whilst they play ventriloquist.
If the pollies are serious pass laws restricting consumption of power like in the second world war, the problem is controlling the market not controlling the climate.
We are being conned.. we are simply being conned irrespective of what view one takes of the facts we are being conned.
Personally I am sick of being conned by vested interest groups who think you are stupid enough to swallow their crap as they shovel it in one distasteful morsel after another..
So what if the seas rise some places certain lands become desert !!!things change, humans need to grow up and face the facts... we are recent arrivals and the place was not and never was made for us and we shall become extint just as many species have before us.. Can we last as long as the spider at 20 million years I doubt it.
alex

[Tiroch]

I'm new here and just wondering the reason the IPCC blames Global Warming on us.

[xelasnave]

Its a small world on the net ..Welcome welcome welcome.
You probably know what I think, so I will let someone else who doesnt suspect a conspiracy one way or the other to answer with some scientific facts....doing some consulting so I gotta go put on a suit so I look the part. Love these gigs where I get recognition to tell someone what they are doing is wrong and they had best do it my way.
alex
alex.

[okiscopey]

Just in case the folks not following this thread miss you - welcome Tiroch to IIS!

(I wonder if a first post is 'automatically' seen by the moderators?)

To answer your question, 'GW' is blamed on humans as it's believed to be a consequence of the big rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in recent decades from our industrial activity. (Hope you weren't wanting anything more detailed than this!)

Nobody would deny there's been big and small increases in the Earth's temperature in the historical and geological past, so the current debate is actually about 'human-induced global warming' - a more accurate term.

I'm a long time sceptic and believe h-i GW is largely a beat-up and will not pose any significant threat (except if we are forced to cut back on energy production), but I won't say any more about it here.

Look back through the previous posts to see what people have said. There are lots of links to lots of very long articles!

P.S. Are you here for the astronomy or global warming?

[Tiroch]

I'm not here for the astronomy as I do that elsewhere.

Being a mining engineer with an education in geology I've taken to studying in depth climate on terms that far exceed our short term records of 150 years or so since the invention and use of the thermometer came along allowing meaningful record keeping.

I'm also curious that the frenzy over increased carbon dioxide by human activities being said to cause Global Warming (GW) has a time frame related to the commencement of the Industrial Revolution which is equal to the time the Sun radiance increased causing the 500 years long Mini Ice Age to go away.

It is hard to believe that anthropogenic effects are considered more an influence than Solar radiance fluctuations, cosmic rays (refer the recent Danish Space Academy test), natural carbon dioxide fluctuations caused by cycles in ocean temperatures and so on.

It is hard to believe mere humans are more powerful than Mother Nature.

Here is an interesting site on the history of climate over eons:

http://www.scotese.com/Default.htm

and direct to the Climate History page:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[Tiroch]

I wanted to add this link but have not figured out post submit after an edit:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

[glenc]

Bush and Howard did not believe in climate change until recently. Even now I doubt that they really do. Bush has been putting out all this propaganda against climate change and many people have been deceived. He is doing this to support his mates in the oil industry. But we can reduce CO2 without nuclear power, there are many alternatives such as gas, solar and wind. See http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_change/mans_impact/man1.html

[glenc]

IT is no longer socially acceptable for Australia to keep exporting coal knowing the damage it is doing, according to the scientist and Australian of the Year, Tim Flannery. Professor Flannery said that in the future, coal would be seen as just as dangerous as asbestos is now. "As the situation unfolds and the matters get more critical, the world is not going to allow people to pollute our common atmosphere, as occurs at the moment," he told ABC television. "The social licence to operate those old polluting technologies will be withdrawn." He also advocated shutting down the coal-fired power stations that provide the bulk of Australia's electricity. "I think that we do need to ultimately close down those coal-fired power plants, but first we need to build the bridge to the new energy future." Professor Flannery said solar thermal and geothermal technologies could form the basis of meeting Australia's energy needs and they were better options than nuclear power. His comments were immediately dismissed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, who said to stop using coal would "be devastating to many communities throughout Australia". He said money would be better spent on developing technologies to clean up coal production. http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/coal-will-be-the-new-asbestos-says-flannery/2007/02/08/1170524236625.html

[Tiroch]

I thought I was signing into a serious thread about the world. Certainly I realize this is an Australian site with Australian issues about coal and yellowcake and trees and farms. But GW is a world issue.

GW is all about politics and the IPCC is pulling off a fraud:

Truth's heat lamp
Climate change report is hyped and politicized

By LICIA CORBELLA, Toronto Sun Feb. 8, 2007

"I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

-- Leo Tolstoy (1826-1910)

Clearly, Tolstoy -- the great Russian novelist -- wasn't writing about man-made global warming, since he predated this relatively recent hysteria. Nevertheless, the above quote certainly applies to the global warming debate or should I say the climate change consensus?

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) summary released last Friday inflates the language of doom even as it deflates its predictions of temperature and sea level increases from previous reports.

The IPCC Climate Change 2007 report predicts that world temperatures will possibly rise by 1.8C to 4C from 1990 levels to the year 2100 and that sea levels might rise by 28 to 43 cm.

Just six years ago, however, the picture looked much bleaker. The 2001 IPCC report predicted that from 1990 to 2100 temperatures would rise by 1.4C to 5.8C causing sea levels to rise by 9 to 88 cm.

In other words, in just six years predictions about temperature increases have plummeted by one-third and predictions about sea-level increases at the high end have been cut in half!

At that rate, by my calculations, we'll just have to wait for two more reports and the IPCC will be predicting no measurable increases at all!

Incidentally, many climate scientists have been saying just that -- wait until 2025, when it's expected that the sun's output may wane leading to global cooling.

Another measurement has had to be slashed by one-third as well. In 2001 the UN body said the global net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming with radiative forcing of 2.43 watts per square metre. Oops. Now they're saying it's 1.66 watts per square metre.

Shouldn't someone at least be blushing? Shouldn't they apologize for getting all of this so wrong? If a large automobile executive got his predictions wrong by up to 50% he'd be fired. The IPCC, however, continues to fly around at great cost to the UN and the environment and they stay on board this great gig as long as they continue to tout the party line -- that Earth is going to hell, only it's going to be even hotter.

What's most troubling, however, about all of this, is the 21-page, much hyped summary is not referenced at all. The science that supposedly backs all of these predictions is nowhere to be found and won't be released until April and May.

This is problematic on many fronts but as past IPCC reports have shown, the summary is not written by the scientists whose names appear on the cover, it's written by politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, some of those scientists after the fact have complained that their work has been grossly misrepresented.

In 2001 two scientists complained publicly that their work was misrepresented by those who wrote the summary, including MIT physicist Richard Lindzen.

In June 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, past president of the National Academy of Sciences and president emeritus of Rockefeller University, wrote with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

He continued: "This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page."

In other words, past IPCC reports have proven to be fraudulent and yet, to paraphrase Tolstoy, they have been woven into the public policy fabric of our lives.
*********************************** ******

This fraud will likely succeed due to media complicity and the general population ignorance of the facts.

****************************
I tried to post a Google image about aerosol atmospheric contamination but the URL is 3x our page width so I skip that but I post the text ( know I
can copy/paste the image and resize and post)

Using Google search word anthropogenic click on Google Images and down the page a bit is an image over the Western Pacific near Taiwan showing aerosol pollution from China.

How Does Anthropogenic Haze Influence Climate?

high resolution 1000-pixel wide image (1.1 MB JPEG)
Greenhouse gases act broadly to warm the atmosphere, but human-induced aerosols (particles in the atmosphere) generate negative forcings?that is cooling of the atmosphere by reflection of the sun’s energy away from Earth. The above photograph from the Space Shuttle was featured in an article in Science magazine this week (Science vol. 300: 1103-1104). It shows haze from China spread over the Pacific Ocean, on March 4, 1996.

In the Science article, Anderson and coworkers point out that greenhouse gas forcing on climate is fairly well understood, but the effect of aerosols is not. Two ways of estimating the “forcing,” or push, on global climate caused by aerosols give inconsistent results. So-called “inverse” calculations constrain such cooling to a range of ?1.0 to ?1.9 Watts per square meter, whereas “forward” calculations suggest far greater negative forcing, as much as ?3 W/m2 or more. Photographs taken by astronauts illustrate the kind of reflective smog plumes that cause surface cooling.

The photograph shows a coherent corridor of anthropogenic haze (arrows), probably a mixture of industrial air pollution, dust, and smoke, in the left half of the view against the dark background of the East China Sea (Wilkinson et al. 2000). The corridor is ~200 km wide and probably much more than 600 km long (the visible length over the sea). In this southwest-looking view, the island of Taiwan appears top left and the east coast of China across the rest of the view. The picture was taken as the Space Shuttle flew over Okinawa. Shanghai lies at the near point on the Chinese coastline (top right)—about 650 km away. The transport of smog from East Asia has been confirmed in measurements of the atmosphere over North America.

The uncertainty in understanding aerosol forcing of global temperature means that its effect in counteracting greenhouse-gas warming is still largely unknown. The Science article concludes that the 0.6 Kelvin rise in average global surface temperature in the last 130 years may be due to natural variability in the atmosphere that could be far higher than currently understood; and/or to much higher sensitivity in the climate system. The article nevertheless concludes that by the middle of this century the absolute accumulation of greenhouse gases, compared to the non-accumulation of aerosols, “will inevitably result in a strong, positive forcing of Earth’s climate system”.

References
Anderson, T. L., R. J. Charlson, S. E. Schwartz, R. Knutti, O. Boucher, H. Rodhe, and J. Heitzenberg, 2003, Climate forcing by aerosols?a hazy picture, Science (16 May 2003) 300: 1103-1104.

M. J. Wilkinson, M. J., J. D. Wheeler, R. J. Charlson, and K. P. Lulla, 2000, Imaging Aerosols from Low Earth Orbit: Photographic Results From the Shuttle-Mir and Shuttle Programs, in K. P. Lulla and L. V. Dessinov (ed.) Dynamic Earth Environments, New York: Wiley. Ch. 6.

NASA photographSTS075-773-66, was taken March 4, 1996, 01:29:47 GMT, center point 28°N 123°E, craft nadir 28°N 128.1°W, from an altitude of 278 km, with a Hasselblad film camera and 40 mm lens. The image was provided by the Earth Sciences and Image Analysis Laboratory at Johnson Space Center. Additional images taken by astronauts and cosmonauts can be viewed at the NASA-JSC Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth
*********************************** **********

Having no solid idea the influence of aerosols then how can there be a solid idea the influence of carbon dioxide? That is not logical. Please remember 'greenhouse gases' are a mixture of several chemicals.
*********************************** ********

That makes the silly idea of shooting up dust or setting up mirrors all the more ludicrous. We can't get the Iraq war straight. However can we believe we can mess with the atmosphere and get that straight? We already mess it up by industrial pollution, vehicle exhaust, cow gas and etc.
*********************************** ********

Has anyone ever thought about politicians and self centered pseudo scientists doing so much atmospheric damage through ignorance or disregard for Mother Nature's ways that we might all suffocate? freeze? bake? Take you pick as all or any are possible.

Think about that!

[xelasnave]

I know what we are supposed to think but I dont think that so by definition I must be "not real".
Clearly the hype saying there is scientific evidence that GW is something humans have caused and can control is pushed by special interests... and the purpose of me starting this thread was to draw attention to the way science is being corrupted by politics. Personally I have moved from one view of belief to one of disbelief simply by "looking" behind the "news".
We who believe in scientific method should be alarmed how politics corruptes even the un corruptable.
I have posted in the other forum a concern of mine re the tree planting thing ..it seems that tax concessions are available to investors placing their cash in forrests for paper pulp using valuable land that requires no irrigation and would be very valuable in a future in a country with massive water problems...however tax consessions for those who invest in food production are to be withdrawn.. funny about that so funny I could cry. Onw ould think in a country involved in wool production we could tell when it is being pulled over our eyes.
But I am on a positive bent so I like to think that maybe they can reduce energy consumption by having outside lighting and over night office lighting reduced... I have a special interest now that I spend near equal time between the bush and the city..I want a dark clear sky here as well.
Thanks for contributing here this is a general chat forum limited to astronomy and science but I think folk should know about the possibility that science is being used distastefully to push certain political barrows... science is the losser was my point.
alex

[glenc]

Try reading http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/edsumm/e070208-03.html Until quite recently (perhaps even until last week), the general global narrative of the great climate-change debate has been deceptively straightforward. The climate-science community, together with the entire environmental movement and a broad alliance of opinion leaders ranging from Greenpeace and Ralph Nader to Senator John McCain and many US evangelical Christians, has been advocating meaningful action to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions. This requirement has been disputed by a collection of money-men and some isolated scientists, in alliance with the current president of the United States and a handful of like-minded ideologues such as Australia's prime minister John Howard. The IPCC report, released in Paris, has served a useful purpose in removing the last ground from under the climate-change sceptics' feet, leaving them looking marooned and ridiculous.

[okiscopey]

Tiroch, didn't realise Wasaga Beach wasn't in Australia! Google tells me you're in Ontario.:thumbsup:

Glad you're here though, I need some support in this thread! ;)

Looking forward to reading your (and everyone else's) comments and links.:)

[okiscopey]

Religion, politics and other influences have affected the 'scientific method' (one of the greatest products of the human mind) ever since it was developed. It's understandable I suppose, but very unfortunate.

As I have a special interest in the topic of human-induced GW, I've put more into this thread than the astronomy ones (still a beginner in those). The GW business is a perfect example of your original point about "science being the loser".

Looks like you're winding up the topic ... just as well, I'm exhausted!

[Tiroch]

Far from winding up this guy in Ontario is just getting started as I'm a newbie.

It is easy to get exhausted doing an impossible but this is what I have to say:

This is about the media.

About 20 years ago I was at a party with my sons and one of their friends was there who worked in the news department of one of our national TV news services.

I was in a conversation with this guy and I said you people only print/video the news you figure we should see.

Well he went ballistic!

So be it and that is the media today. We are being GW'd because they so so.

*********************
We have have a tragedy unfolding and the 98 percenters (most of us) are going along while we the 2 percenters (the thinkers) stand by in a state of true disgust and powerless.

If these UN people et al keep at it the atmosphere will become unbreathable.

Why do we put up with this.

We cannot stop Mother nature.

We are not the guilty party.

GEEZ! It is so obvious it is pathetic that we are allowing ruination by media.

Frankly I'm more than appalled. I'm completely disgusted with complacency. Is it the UN and the politicians running our world? Well according to the 98 percenters the answer is yes.

I feel truly knowing but completely helpless and that is aggravating me.

[glenc]

The Journal "Nature" is one of the main Scientific journals. This is not the just the media talking. The editor of "Nature" is saying climate-change skeptics are looking marooned and ridiculous.

[matt]

Yes. As a member of that all-powerful special group of people ie "The Media" ... I'll confess right here that we are all Bush stooges and there is a massive conspiracy that we are all in together... to rip you off, trick everyone and do everything within our considerable power to bring about the destruction of the planet and the complete collapse of civilisation.

It's all our fault and you're all gullible fools, except for you very special 10 percenters... the real thinkers. You blokes and sheilas who know what's really going on

:lol::rolleyes:

[xelasnave]

Now folks lets not get carried away:D .
Just let the facts speak for themselves.
If one takes the time to look at the facts available you will form an opinion you have the right to express the opinion:D . The behaviour of one person does not represent a profession and remember most people are honest hard working and contributingly in a positive manner:thumbsup: . I was a real estate agent and accept there are really bad real estate agents out there so I would be unhappy to hear someone assessed me on their actions.. I tried to do it better and have references to say I did:D :) ;)
I started this thread because of my percieved manipulation of political direction which sort to put the views of 50% of Australians on nuclear power to one side:eyepop: ..and that the manipulation involves science being used to push political barrows:eyepop: .... if you have followed this thread you can decide that one:) .. I say it is that way because I believe that! not trying to say I am the only one that thinks about stuff or that I know much of what is going on just saying this is my honest opinion.. not that it is correct.
Matt I can understand your responce, as seeing yourself as a professional in the media industry you could take it personal however I can not understand why you respond to people expressing an opinion that they present as knowing it all when they are trying simply to express themselves. Tiroch feels strongly and in your view over the top but I suggest he is concerned and expressing his view.
However Tiroch sticking to the facts available for inspection has more chance of people considering your view of same.
We all have opinions and it can be difficult to put them forward and we can feel frustrasted because we feel no one understands what is apparent to us but lets keep it "cool".
I am trying to be reasonable and accept I have been over the top, sounded arogant , displayed a greater than thou approach and many other things that simply come over in a way which I call unfortunate. I do the best with what I have and believe most people do the same.
I think we all see a problem with GW and are trying to make sence of what is going on but we dont need to get personal. The lead of our PM need not be followed to cut off debate ..the debate he said we should have... but it is not between people who are "real" and "not real" it is between concerned folk.
alex

[matt]

I was just joking, Alex. No-one's getting carried away.

And I wasn't accusing anyone of behaving/speaking like they "know it all".

I think you're revisiting old exchanges.

Let it go, mate.

If Tiroch has a problem with my comments he can respond to them. I don't see it necessary for you to defend him or act on his behalf, unless you are really defending yourself while appearing to defend someone else. That's not an uncommon human trait or behaviour. The psychology of that is fairly easy to see and understand.

I don't have a problem with people expressing themselves, Alex. I've even fought for your right to say whatever you want at a time you were looking to leave this forum and during other threads.

I'm sorry, Alex, but if I don't agree with what's being said I will exercise my right to express myself also. I will take an opposing view, if I wish, and express my opinion as strongly as I feel necessary. Please don't attempt to stifle me. That goes both ways, mate.

I think it's a bit of a cheap shot you've taken, actually. Roping my defence of my fellow media brethren into a separate debate to suit your own past agenda.

Sorry, mate. Just expressing myself:)

And just be careful with the word "facts".

Anyway, enough of that. Back to the debate/issue at hand:thumbsup:

[ispom]

Oh Alex, almost not recognized you !
what do the people in Tabulam say about your new outfit?:)

here in a short contribute my opinion to the topic:
I always have pleaded for the further development of the nuclear energy,

In Germany (after newest polls) now 54% want it (after 5 years ago by law the disconnection was unfortunately decided)

And I think:
Australia could make the Outback to a flowering landscape using cheapy atomic power for demineralization of salty sea water.

Do I see that correct?

[mickoking]

I have believed in Man Made climate change since the late 70's, when I was in primary school. The real tragedy is it took that long before reaching the media spotlight. The media are usually on side with the powerful like GW Bush and Johnny H, but when they (the media) finally get of their arses and report on this serious problem some accuse them of a climate change 'Media Beat Up', sorry I dont buy that.

The simple fact is us, as a species have been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and cutting down our forests in large quantities for over 150 years, of course that is going to have an effect. And there is ample scientific evidence to that effect.

I have stated this before but I honesty believe that denial of GW is a political view.

Sorry if I have got any ones noses out of joint :)

[mickoking]

By turning the outback to an inland garden you have other problems to contend with like salination , soil erosion, and loss of biodiversity. As it is we already have huge problems with salinity and rising water tables in much of our established agricultural land. presently we produce much more agricultural produce than we need, much of it is exported.

[ispom]

pump demineralized sea water op to a hill,

there it will well from the pipeline like a fountain,
let it flow into the flat country, there it will make the grass growing and flower the vegetables,
finally it will arrive at a salt lake or again into the ocean .:thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

[QUOTE=ispom;191562]Oh Alex, almost not recognized you !
what do the people in Tabulam say about your new outfit?:)

I am a hermit when at Tabulam and a recluse when in Sydney:lol: :lol: :lol:
Last time I was in public at Tabulam I was Santa Clause but wore a faulse beard.
alex

[Argonavis]

The article says that he worked pro bono.

and I would expect you to say that





nothing like a good conspiracy, is there Glen?

[xelasnave]

Mick my nose is outta joint but thats bcause I went base over apex stumbling over my guitar case in the dark:lol: :lol: :lol: .
The point of these threads is to get people to get off their chest their views.
Opinions are (as I have said many times) like our children no one else can critise them we alone can do that and we protect them so one day they can stand on their own two feet... or something very similar:shrug: .
alex

[Argonavis]

Glen, don't you read your own posts? Like the one below.





No doubt at the turn of the Centuary before last you could have got 2500 scientists to support eugenics, and an international body issuing a report on how the species is in decline etc etc.

The uncritical acceptance of this "science" led to Auschwitz and Dachau, and the stains of National Socialism.

A similar uncritical acceptance of the GW religion may well lead to similar consequences....(insert extremist vision here...well if they can do it so can I)

[gaa_ian]

GW or not, we still need to be turning to renewable energy.
Oil will be lucky to see it out to the middle of this century.
Coal may last for 50 years or more perhaps (at what cost to the environment?)
Gas for a few hundred ?
But what then ? If we do not invest our "energy capital" into building renewable energy alternative's on a large enough scale, what will happen when the Non renewables go into decline & consequently rise in price ?
Global warming is happening (I believe this is an established & observable fact), are we the main cause, I don't know for sure :shrug:
Do we need to do something anyhow ?
I believe the answer is yes !

[Tiroch]

My goodness there is a fair bit of wandering off topic it seems.

Having been on this Planet Earth for quite some time and being a natural born cynic and pragmatist with education and work experience in the matter of working stuff that Mother Earth gave mankind to use for its betterment, I concluded quite sometime ago that those that have no knowledge of such matters, to wit politicians, should not make decisions that tamper with serious stuff like our atmosphere.

In that regard I also believe that those that don't know anything about it, which is mainstream daily print/video media, should not profess knowledge of things like the complex GW issue without first declaring their ignorance and unqualified status to be critical of those that work to point out we mere humans cannot possibly be the guilty party on the GW file.

There is an agenda in play that is based on deliberate burying of the 'other side' views. That is the same as propaganda a dictator uses to keep control over his populace. For some unknown or unclear reason we have the same in play on GW.

An example of this re the IPCC summary report is this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948233/site/newsweek/

Now if anyone here can explain the reason for burying the 'other side' I would be pleased to know that.

[okiscopey]

It's interesting to compare these extracts from two recent posts:





I know which version makes more sense.

If our science and future society is in the hands of 'opinion leaders', evangelical christians, Ralph Nader and Greenpeace, heaven help us.

In 2004 , 20,000 scientists, of whom about 2,700 of them were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers or environmental scientists, who were in a position to understand the global warming issues, signed the following statement:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." (Oregon Petition Project http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm)

Obviously these 20,000 are not part of the "climate-science community".

Forget the junk science and 'opinion leaders' and look at some real data from satellite measurements:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

These data are collected at 30,000 points covering 80% of the earth's surface every day. The polar orbit rotates so that 100% of the earth's surface is covered every six days. The satellite data have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere using a completely different physical process.

Since 1979, although surface-station measurements show an 0.2 deg C rise per decade (probably due to the 'heat-island effect'), the NASA data show only 0.1 deg/decade.

That's 1 deg. C per century. You don't need to travel far north to experience this rise in temperature. As far as I know, everyone in Port Macquarie is doing just as well as I am here in Sydney.

[xelasnave]

Growers of illegal weed raise to 3% co2 into their growing chambers to promote plant growth on the premise that plants evolved in such an environment according to a bloke at the pub.. I know he is not in that line of work but apparently plants can only get their carbon content from co2...so although unconfirmed that is worth investigating as it would seem that good old mother nature may have it covered if that is the case. He said he looked into it because he was going to grow strawberries out of season and in a similar growing system to that used by "hydro"? growers. He said if it works on that stuff it should work on strawberries but what are your thoughts on that? I havent seen him for ages so I dont know if he tried it.
alex

[ispom]

Since the Industrial Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution), the burning of fossil fuels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fossil_fuel) has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years. This increase has been implicated as a primary cause of global warming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/global_warming).

but what caused the global warming in the previous ages?

here a digest of papers of german scientists:
Natural climate variations from 10,000 years to the present day

http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pg33/kihzhome/kihz05/mitarbeiter_en.html (http://www.gfz-potsdam.de/pb3/pg33/kihzhome/kihz05/mitarbeiter_en.html)

The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather around 800-1300 AD

During the MWP the Vikings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings)had stock (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?o=3021;service=deen;iserv ice=en-de;query=stock)farming (http://dict.tu-chemnitz.de/dings.cgi?o=3021;service=deen;iserv ice=en-de;query=farming) on Greenland, cultivated wine until for south Scotland as well as south Norway, harvested on Iceland wheat and barley.
there was no human made CO2 excess.

[Tiroch]

In the matter of real science and not pseudo science:

The Deniers Part XI

End the chill
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, February 09, 2007

Who are the global warming deniers, those scientists who downplay the human cause of climate change, who claim that manmade climate change, if it's occurring at all, may have modest costs or even bring benefits, who claim that the science is not settled on climate change? To discover whether these deniers are crackpots from the fringes of academia, as their detractors so often claim, I decided to investigate scientists at odds with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, the official body organizing the great bulk of the climate research that dominates the public airwaves.

After writing 10 columns on the subject, one for each "denier" and his theories, one fact is undeniable: The science is not settled. Not on man's role in causing the warming we've seen this century. Not on the consequences of this warming. Certainly not on the extent of warming -- or cooling-- to come.

The deniers I have written about are not just credible; they have reached the pinnacle of the scientific establishment, with credentials to rival those of any of scientists representing the IPCC position. Here's Russia's Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the space research laboratory of the country's renowned Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory, a member of Russia's Academy of Science. Or Henk Tennekes, former director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Or Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute. Or Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics.

Or, for a more direct comparison of scientists in the denier and the "science is settled" camps, consider Richard S. J. Tol, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, or Christopher Landsea of the Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory, or Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. These three -- among the most cited scientists in the world in the field of climate change-- were universally acclaimed IPCC scientists until they disagreed with the positions espoused by the IPCC leadership. These deniers may no longer have an unqualified IPCC stamp of approval, but their academic credentials, record of scientific discoveries, and scientific prizes remain for all to see.

Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these 10, I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among the 10 welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. Tol denies being a denier, as does Nigel Weiss, astrophysicist at Cambridge University, who called my portrayal of him a "slanderous fabrication." The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called "the scientific method" and lauded.

Most of the 10 especially object to being called "deniers" because they do not at all deny the existence of global warming, only what they see as erroneous and even outlandish claims from climate change alarmists. "Me? A 'dyed-in-the-wool disbeliever in [human caused] climate change'?," protested Tol. "I published one of the first papers [in 1993] that showed that warming was likely caused by greenhouse-gas emissions." Tol believes that the IPCC bureaucracy is forcing out many of the best who once were part of the IPCC process, and he is also scathingly critical of work he considers bereft of integrity, such as the U.K. government's highly publicized Stern review, which last year painted alarmingly dire scenarios. "The Stern review does not contribute to this cause. It is so badly researched and argued, and so full of hyperbole, that it is bound to backfire," Tol argued. Although he continues his involvement with the IPCC, those who don't find him pure enough call him a denier still.

Although most of the 10 deniers see little or no evidence from their own work that humans harm the climate, most nevertheless blame humans for global warming, on the basis of research conducted by others. In effect, most of these scientists are saying: "Don't call me a denier --I'm sure the research by others is sound. It's just that, in my own area of research, I have found nothing of concern."

So what science might these 10 endorse, based strictly on their own research, rather than the research that they accept from the IPCC consensus?

First, the rising of the oceans due to the melting of the polar caps -- the single biggest fear from global warming -- isn't continuing. The only large potential source of ocean water is Antarctica and the only way to determine if Antarctica is thinning is through the use of satellites. Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London and Principal Scientist of the European Space Agency, has unrefuted data that Antarctica, on the whole, is actually thickening, and will "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

The oceans are thus not about to swallow up the low-lying islands and deltas of the southern hemisphere, as so many fear. Unlike the several-kilometre-thick ice in the Antarctic, the Arctic has ice only a few metres thick. Even if the alarming predictions for ice loss there are correct --and Wingham doubts it -- an Arctic ice melt cannot trump a thickening Antarctic.

If the low-lying countries of the southern hemisphere don't experience economic losses from the ocean's rise, the logic of economic ruin changes. The northern hemisphere, Tol has found, would generally gain economically from a warming, while the south would lose. But without losses in the south, global warming might well bring net economic gains in both hemispheres.

Hurricanes? Not an issue, says Christopher Landsea.

Data showing that recent temperature increases are "likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years" and that the "1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year" of the millennium? A misunderstanding of statistics by IPCC scientists, says Edward Wegman.

Human activity is driving climate change? Not much, says astrophysicist Nir Shaviv of Israel's Racah Institute of Physics, who found that the sun dominates climate change. Maybe not at all, says Svensmark, who has discovered the mechanism through which cosmic rays form clouds on Earth. Irrelevant, believes Abdussamatov, who states global temperatures have peaked, and predicts a century of global cooling.

These 10 scientists are extraordinarily distinguished, accomplished, and deserving of our respect. But they do not have a monopoly on the truth, just as the IPCC does not. Much more research in many more fields needs to be done before we can assess the role of man with any confidence. Until then, it would behoove us all to drop the term denier from the scientific lexicon. Answers will come more quickly in a climate not chilling to scientific investigation.
_________________

[glenc]

I have looked at both sides of the argument ( http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/ and http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...070208-03.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/edsumm/e070208-03.html) ) and I think it is dangerous to keep on pouring CO2 into the atmosphere when there are renewable alternatives. If you don’t believe in climate change you should write an article for the journal “Nature” (or another similar respected scientific journal) and they will publish it if it has merit. I won't hold my breath.

[Tiroch]

Glen I never said I don't believe in climate change. Not sure the reason you deduced that.

Yes the climate is warming. No it is not by carbon dioxide in the main. No it is not by anthropogenic activities in the main. Yes it is by increased Solar radiation. Yes it is by cosmic rays. Yes it is by the precession of the Earth.

As per the link I posted to the Paleomar Project and the link to Climate History and the graph of temperature as in warm, moderate and cool over eons that is Earth Science information gathered from fossil, ice and other records. We are currently exiting a cool period. As well the Earth's natural condition is to be much warmer than now.

There is something called the 2% Temperature Target. A look at the data in the above mentioned Climate History makes me comment thusly:

Well that is the first time I've seen a cap to the GW temperature. It must have come from a EU supported computer modeling scientific group that enjoyed the largess of EU funding. Computer modeling is only as good as the inputs. With weather that means a lot of inputs are nothing more than guesses.

Who is to say 2% is the right number. If one looks at the link on the Paleomar Project and Climate History one will note most of Earth climate history is a warm cycle (22 deg). The graph shows we are currently exiting a cool cycle (12 deg.). There are two past incidences of rapid exiting and from the Permian to near the end of the Tertiary no exiting from warm (100 million years) except a brief period between the Jurassic and Cretaceous when the temperature was in a 17 deg. phase. Also the cool phases generally lasted 50 - 75 million years.

However these are global average temperatures. We can still have Ice Ages in the Northern Hemisphere in a Cool Phase and no Ice Ages in this phase as these are short term relative to the length of a Cool Phase thus not altering the average temperature over millions of years to any discernible amount.

The Carbon Cycle is a massively complicated thing (refer to the National Geographic issue Sep. 2004) that involves interaction between solar activities, atmosphere, oceans, vegetation, geologic events, cosmic particles, natural disasters, animal flatulence (methane) and humans. I put humans last as we are the least in the cycle.

On another issue the IPCC summary report by using phrases likely and very likely and then concludes a certainty puts the science used in the realm of pseudo science as real science follows the scientific method and concludes a truth after verifying experimentation. That has not been done on this file.

By forcing an ending to the debate by declaring humans the guilty party, if there was ever any real debate, the UN is pushing humankind into a situation of wasting trillions of money units on an irrevocable situation. The UN is putting humankind as more powerful than Mother Earth and the Sun.
And that must be seen by any logical person to be wrong.

If we can't get a war right (as in the Iraq Invasion), how to we mess with our atmosphere and hope to get that right - whatever right is.

To me humans mess with the atmosphere by polluting it. The trillions could go to the following important and solvable things:

Clean Water Supply
Water Pollution
Air Pollution
Diseases
Famine

Maybe out of cleaning the air we might even make the warm worse but at least we would breath cleaner air.

[glenc]

Tiroch said "Glen I never said I don't believe in climate change." That is good. The IPCC report says there is a 90% chance that GW is caused by people, it does not say it is certain. I insure my car and house even though I may never need it, and I think it is wise to "insure" against climate change. You said "real science follows the scientific method and concludes a truth after verifying experimentation." Popper argues that you cannot verify anything you can only disprove it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper . Can you quote articles from respected scientific journals that support your case? Do any major scientific journals argue that GW is certainly not caused by humans?

[Tiroch]

It is really that the scientific journals do not publish articles by Deniers, at least none I know. In any event Deniers means the body of scientists on the virtually unheard side of the situation.

It is not 'I said' about the scientific method. That is the accepted way.

Popper is writing the same as this phrase I coined 20 years ago:

There is no truth only misconceptions - to wit if one goes with that than nothing is truth.

A 90% rating is virtually the same as saying it is true. No need to split hairs, I suppose.

In any event the mainstream media has reported that the IPCC summary concludes GW is caused by humans. Maybe they dropped the 90% qualifier to further enforce their view that that is so. Think about that as people get their opinion from the media and not by reading a report.

[Argonavis]

so the entire coal industry should be shut down?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21201445-953,00.html

GW, even if true, will have only modest consequences. The IPCC summary would indicate this. It is just that some have taken the hysteria to new levels

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21176656-952,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21176956-952,00.html

"lack of action will have dire consequences" says Rudd

It seems that action will have even more dire consequences.






Clearly not everyone believes the hysteria, or otherwise Sydney harbourside properties would be selling for less than $50,000.

[glenc]

If there was a 90% chance that my house would burn down this year I would insure it. (I do anyway) The same goes for GW, the risk is high and it is time to act, even though Canadians wish for GW in winter.

The coal industry needs to pay for the damage they do and that will make renewable energy more competitive, and news.com.au should be taken with a grain of salt.

[Tiroch]

It seems Glen you do not get the point. Why do you think insurance when the only insurance we have about GW is to act to protect what we can from the effects.

We cannot succeed to stop a Mother Nature/Solar event. Eons of Earth Science history proves the event is mostly natural.

The risk is not only high, it is the new reality. And so will be the following Ice Age (history again). None of us nor any of our kids, or their kids, or their kids and so on will be alive to experience it but it will be. Que Sera Que Sera or some such.

Why can't you accept that?

And yes GW would be heaven here. Do you own a snow blower?

[okiscopey]

What's this "they do"? Sounds like a hostile foreign power white-anting us from the inside!

The coal industry, although less than perfect in the health and pollution stakes, was developed by "us". Our own ancestors created it and we continue to use it and reap the benefits.

Now, on the strength of doom-and-gloom predictions that don't correspond with real-word data, we have to turn around and bite the hand that fed and clothed us, kept us warm or cool, and provided the conditions for better health and intellectual advancement.

Renewable energy needs to stand on its own technological feet, not be made viable by forcing arbitrary taxes on conventional power generation (i.e. the taxpayer).

[xelasnave]

sounds like "has" an inferrence that one ""is".. not helpful in keeping this thread from being withdrawn.not saying you meant it that way but I could see it would be an upsetting thing.. Passion on this issue can not be negative it wont help the cause of truth.
I respectfully suggest we be kinder to each other even though our blood may be boiling with passion for action ..whatever.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Tirock and I have discussed this in another forum and it seems there is so much to it and there is but what becomes clear is even if we as a species somehow could perform the impossible and not as a species put one moleule of co2 into the air and as far as green house gass leave no imprint of humanity on the planet ther remains a reality that has to be addressed. It is what do we do when it happens because it is going to happen. We are geting sidelined from focusing one the real problem which requires more than power stations etc. I requires the posibility that it will warm very quickly and the consequences need to be looked at as best we can and plan for that world ..We can not stop it is I think the message finally so what will we do then not waste money on trying to stop it..history gives us the percentages..we can not stop it dont waste energy trying use energy to live in a world where it has arrived.
alex

[xelasnave]

That was not clear perhaps..dont spend money trying to stop it we can not so spend money to prepare for that world. The debate should be being argued what to do when it is here. AND in thats aspect that is being missed I feel, that not be in line with what Tirock and I have discussed elsewhere but thats the view I have formed and I confess it is hard to focus. WE cant prevent it we can only live with it so spend money for new structures needed in that new world. Whichever view one takes it seems that should be addressed maybe.
alex

[Tiroch]

And that is the real truth. Who are we mere humans saying we can stop, slow or abate that which Mother nature is doing and has done for eons.

My goodness who do we think we are! Bigger than Mother Nature! My goodness how ever truly human selfish.

And that is the sad part.

I would love to breath cleaner air. Fine. I would love that many in the world get drinkable water. Fine. I would love that malaria would be killed off as it was with DDT and Silent Spring book by Carson stopped that so millions died. So much for greenies and the disaster these types have allowed to happen. Is it OK to be Green and allow people to die? Yeah it seems to these eco terrorists. PETA and all that.

Face it GW is a reality and it is not us (Sun) so start figuring a coping way.

Otherwise I see pee in the wind

[GTB_an_Owl]

Mmmmmmmmm!

seems to me that if it is gunna get HOTTER - thats what we should be looking to as an energy source

[Karls48]

Oh well another End of the Word is coming. Soon. I have seen few of those go by in my time. Only this time the Prophets of Doom have learned that predicting definitive time of our demise is dangerous, it does not happen on time and they finish with the egg on their faces. So the Apocalypse will happen soon, maybe in ten to hundred year’s time. And our brightest and incorruptible scientists concluded that we the humans are with 90% certainty responsible for it. The United Nations that infallible institution rubber-stamps it. We do things against the nature. We cut the trees and clear the land, burn the fossil fuels, destroy biodiversity of our planet. We are the cause of global warming. We are doing things against the nature??? Hold on, we have to make up our mind, are we part of the nature or are we not? If we are, then what ever we do (and the consequences of doing it) is natural and it is just another step in the evolution. If we are not (being put here on the Earth by God, Aliens or Whatever) then yes the environmentalists and the clerics are right and we are doing things (depending to which religion you believe) we should not.
We humans, together with few other species (cockroaches, rats and mice, sparrows, rabbits, mosquitos and some others) are at present most adaptable species in the world. We got this ability to survive and adapt because we are constantly facing challenges to our survival presented to us by the nature and by ourselves.
Just look at time, effort and the money we spend on trying to eradicate above species. And still they thrive. That pales to insignificance to the time, effort and resources we spent over the millennia trying to eliminate ourselves. And still we thrive.
Just look at sunny side of the things. Even if we have caused the GW, we may have delayed onset of Ice Age.

[Tiroch]

Please to read you agree that the warm is followed by an Ice Age. We are in a short term interglacial period of about 12,000 years so far and and it is considered by those expert in the Climate History of Earth this period will last a short time longer.

Short term is maybe another 500-1000 years which, of course, is of no interest to us as we will be long dead.

Where I live was covered by 2 miles of ice and this left quickly as explained here:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_3.shtml

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/silveira86lw.html

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

and a different read:

http://www.templeofsolomon.org/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm

An Ice Age is always preceded by a Warm Age.

So the little humans contribute to GW is just bringing on the inevitable Ice Age a bit faster.

[Tiroch]

Has this gone dead?

[okiscopey]

I've expressed my opinion a few times, replied to posts and given lots of links to material I think is relevant. There doesn't seem to be any point in doing much more.

I'll continue to keep in touch with the original scientific data. If others wish to believe in politicised versions, so be it.

I am however looking forward to posting in the 'Global Ice Age' thread when it starts around 2020.

[xelasnave]

It probably goes this way John most of us realize how the world works and that climate change is real, but that the facts will be distorted to suit vested interests.:eyepop: .. It is frustrating and little can be done other than to feel anger that even those we choose to lead us can not stand in the way of the sky is falling corporations drive for cash. It is a worry that the UN can be corrupted to produce such a report.
I have been harsh on our PM about his apparent roll over but he is a good man who has stopped Australia from signing the paper work that adds weight to the fear:thumbsup: .
Even you have expressed an opinion that solar power can’t do the trick whereas of course it can... have you wondered who put such an idea in your head:shrug: . I find it extraordinary the lame reasons why solar could not be made viable.
The prospect of Solar power has been has been marginalized. The energy the Sun delivers to this planet far exceeds the consumption per metre humans use.
We were told GST (Goods and Services Tax or value added tax mm value taken away tax more like it) was needed to catch the black money floating around to give the people a reason for accepting it...but its introduction meant every business in Australia was forced to use a computer or die.. I mean the smallest of enterprises now needs a computer... I see a little irony in that...
Who was really driving that push? which boys in which revenue department.. a Government Tax Department Committee? or a computer marketing department?
You have an ability to see the world at large so please ask yourself where did I get this negative response to the prospect of solar power being viable,..
I think you have made your point very well that the sky is falling corporation has us spending money on ineffectual solutions to a problem we can not even manage let alone cure and we should move past that and plan for a future where it will be different.
I doubt if there is any scientist who has looked at the data available would confine his enquiry simply to a period covering industrialization.. and then conclude the outrageous propositions that are being established as facts for all of us to believe. I mean it is going around out here that basically if we don’t go nuclear our Great Barrier Reef dies and we will have blackouts so you cant use your air conditioner. Hard to beat such emotion.
How did the world survive the y2k bug:scared: .. was that nonsense started by the computer dept or the baked bean dept of the sky is falling corporation:lol: :lol: :lol: . The food shortages, the civil unrest, the cut off of water supplies, people getting stuck in lifts, people dieing on operating tables... all are embarrassed to recall just how they were sucked in so those memories have been erased from memory banks. Let’s get the banks to display their books and tell us how much they were touched for... a little embarrassing I feel.
If our PM can be got at and can not resist the pressure who can...
If tree planting gets tax relief yet our farmers most of who are in desperate situations can not what does that tell you. Farmers have to fight for drought assistance yet tax concessions on forests of pulp timber. what does that tell you. Tells me there is no hope.
You are good at working things out so I ask you look at your opinions on solar energy and ask ..well why do I think that it is not viable have they slipped one in on me ... have I been a little fast in dismissing the proposition?
I hope your pleas to do something constructive on global warming (or as I will call it from now on historic climate fluctuation... mm is it more or less than that??) gains following and will filter thru to people but really what can we do.
I did not want this thread to go this way I wanted to point out that science is in danger here and scientists should consider the possibility that politics can corrupt scientific method… sorry to have opened a can of worms.

Alex

[Tiroch]

Thank you and so 2020 that is as good as any guess anyone can make. Meanwhile enjoy the warm as it will not last very long.

I really believe these people that are TOLD to fret about the warm have no clue about warm as this is an aberration Cold is the Historical Reality except for the periods I mentioned.

When the Himalaya mountains came up 40 million years ago that is when Ice Ages started. The weather patterns became screwed up. Check that out if you will.

I too have given links that are relevant to that which we face: Ice Age.

And your quite correct. It is pointless to do much more as the world is full of 98 percenters that buy into the line of the day which is GW by humans.

Maybe in the next 6 months they will buy into another media line of the day.

How ever shallow is that!

Really I have nothing more to say and agree with you on that.

Sheep and lemmings are of the same ilk - follow each other to death.

[Tiroch]

Alex,

It is not that solar power and wind power are not viable.

It is that both have an efficiency of about 25% and electricity cannot be stored. So when the Sun shines and the Wind blows power is made. Problem is that the grids can take the power but not at peak times in daylight. The grids are handling what these handle and an excess cannot be handled.

So at night the Sun does not shine and generally the wind does not blow.

So if you can figure a way to handle that then you win. Then these will be viable.

Power systems need/require continuity and a thing called turn up and turn down fast. Coal/gas/nuclear/water plants do that.

And that is the problem!

So to have 'environmentalists' get on the file of Solar and Wind is to say they don't have a clue as to how things work.

Nothing wrong with being green. Everything wrong with not knowing what the greenie is talking about. And that is dangerous as most people have no clue. Al Gore anyone?

[acropolite]

Simply not true, batteries are most often used to store solar, wind and micro hydro power and as has been already mentioned, water can be pumped back into reservoirs and reused. Most importantly power from both solar and wind power (even house sized installations) can be fed back in to the grid to lessen the load on thermal power sources.

[Tiroch]

Why say simply not true as that is not my post? My post is the grids and not a house.

Batteries cannot store mega watts. Batteries can store a few kw.

Ontario use 25,000 MW. So where do you get batteries so big.

It is not to lessen the load by having solar and wind power. It is that the production comes at the wrong time.

I'm not writing about house installations. I'm writing about really big stuff.

Do you not understand turn up and turn down? If a system cannot do that then we have blackouts and that is the fact of the way it is.

So if you can figure the way then you get rich.

And yes - electricity cannot be stored except in condensers but these have a natural habit of discharging all at once - blow out everything to which it is connected unless it is dampered by a sink and only exit that which the connected load wants. Not practical.

If you want to save power go with MEG.

Link here and been studying this for years:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

USA patent and frozen out by Big Oil it seems. Want 'free' energy?

Ever read T. Henry Moray?

http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/free_energy/moray.html

Have a go.

[tbentley]

Lies, damn lies and statistics as they say. I'm no expert (on anything) but I do generally investigate further when I hear information that is of some consequence. Just like I did when I first heard about the concept of global warming some years back.
To date I have found no evidence that shows me anything more than a small trend over a miniscule number of years. Statistically insignificant they would say if they had data going back to the ends of time. As it is they have data going back one or two hundred years. Ice data is no good in proving or disproving anything as it is all based on a series of assumptions which we may or may not have got right in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned it seems to me that we humans are big noting ourselves again to believe that we could be capable of influencing anything so large. The world will cope and if not we will adapt to the new environment. We have probably another 50 years before we have viable nuclear fusion anyway and then we will have all of the tools to fix this if it is even our problem in the first place.
Frankly, if you use anything electrical or drive a car and then complain about our irresponsible carbon emisions you are a hypocrite. Every individual can make a difference no matter how small if they so chose. If global warming is true then we simply value our comforts more than our environment. Well that's what survival of the fittest is all about, isn't it? Blow the rest, we'll be alright.
But the original question was really one of more a political nature. Are we being manipulated by our government into a position of supporting uranium mining by an emphasis on global warming? Well the answer is probably yes, of course. That's how democracy works.
Unfortunately 99% of the population is stupid. If it wasn't, a democracy would never work. If everybody was intelligent enough to make a reasoned, informed choice nothing of worth would ever get done. Fact is, a lot of things that are good for us as a group (nation, etc.) would be very unpopular on an individual level.
Look at the greatest civilizations of all times. Autocracy, autocracy, autocracy. When Rome changed to a true democracy it was the beginning of the end. Only an intelligent, benevolent individual, unfettered by the need to gain favour or approval from their peers or subjects can ever make the right decision 100% of the time because they do not have to consider the consequences to the individual. Every democratic system at some point comes down to the interests of the individual and not the group. Bad decisions are made for the group in the interests of the individual.
It is only by the manipulation of the general population that a democracy can ever get anything done. And we are the idiots my friends, you and me. We don't like to think of it that way but it's true.
Man's greatest deception is and always has been self-deception. On every level we are but a very small cog in a very large machine. Every time you get to a dark sky look up and try and convince yourself that you are significant in the big scheme of things. I dare you.:screwy: (That's for me not anyone else!)
Travis

[okiscopey]

Oh no, I just can't help myself, was going to sign off here!

Alex, solar irradiation on the Earth's surface does not exceed about 850W per square metre.

When you add it all up, it looks like unlimited power. The trouble with solar is its very DILUTE power - what we need is concentrated stuff.

As you are no doubt aware, the 850W is greatly reduced by geographical location and climate, sun angle, nightime (100% reduction!) and losses in conversion and storage. Every time energy is converted into another form, efficiency is reduced, so electrical storage makes the whole idea even less viable.

Transport and transmission losses are a big factor - there's a reason coal-fired power stations are right next to the mines (e.g. in the Hunter) and to the cities. The 'Nullarbor option' as mentioned by another contributor is just not on.

There's nothing wrong with solar in the right application. it's great for the ISS and outback phone boxes, and I'll soon be relying on it when I'm a grey nomad, but it's piddle power when it comes to base-load supply and industrial production.

There are no lame reasons, only well-understood physical ones. You won't come across any working electrical/power engineers who believe solar can do the job. (Challenge!?!)

[okiscopey]

Alex et al., just to follow up with a book on the 'solar' topic and (probably of more immediate interest) a link to a fairly detailed review of it:

The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World (second edition) by Howard C. Hayden [who does NOT receive money from the 'energy' industry]
Vales Lake Publisher LLC, January 2005 ISBN 0971484546

Read the review by Jay Lehr here:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17185

Here's an extract, to be read whilst bearing in mind the proportion of solar power fed into the grid of the leading industrial nations is less than 1% and declining every year:

"Hope springs eternal ... so the news media continue to publish glowing stories of solar homes despite years of failed predictions. Coincidentally or not, most high-profile solar enthusiasts tend also to be anti-capitalist collectivists who wish every family unit operated off its own individual windmill or photovoltaic cell instead of the 1,911 U.S. power stations containing 9,493 power generating turbines driven by steam provided from water heated by coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, or liquid petroleum.

The usual socialist suspects have been polyannaishly predicting the success of the futile wind/solar venture for more than 40 years. Examples abound.

* In 1977 Dennis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, predicted that by the year 2000, 40 percent of global energy would be from renewable sources.

* In 1978 Ralph Nader said all power would be solar in 30 years. In 1997 he repeated that claim.

* In 1996 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) predicted solar energy would be the primary source of energy in the twenty-first century."

By the way, an anecdote:

Many years ago I ordered a book called "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". The young lady wrote down my order as "The Health Hazards of Going Nuclear".

If you want to order the 'Solar' book, make sure they write the title down correctly - brainwashing is subtly alive in our society.

[xelasnave]

I dont know what I am talking about :eyepop: but what I am driving at is what we need to be doing as far as solar is concerned and to look at how we can solve the problems raised. The Sun shines somewhere all the time. It is humans that see the night and day as a problem It is a system that is in the future that we can not see yet. Thats why I say I did not know what I am talking about yet;) it is not even an idea yet and it certainly wont be my idea we end up following but an idea along these line is what I suggest.. Just as those of 200 years ago could not imagine a computer or build one we cant imagine what we need as far as as new global energy, and fall back to trying to build our own Sun:whistle: . I wait until a forrest fire to do any big burn offs..work with nature not try to copy it;) . So all I say here is solar with future newer better ways rather than say we are not up to it ..it cant work..why because we have decided it cant work..well someone has who could that be? not me that for sure.. just look at we can do and ask cant we do something like I suggest..think about it is what I ask.. so maybe we need a global approach.an attempt to see the future realistically for a species I hope will last past the spiders time on this planet.. even leave this planet and extend our species futher;) .. like ants setting off for new nests:lol: :lol: :lol: ..we do other more difficult things can we not build a solar power system firstly in our minds rather than say it can not work with what we have today.
Even our petrol is solar fuel if you put a fine point upon it:eyepop: . There is a message there if nature can store solar power why cant we:shrug: :lol: :lol: :lol: .
Heck I want out of this thread or I will be laughed at:lol: :lol: :lol: .I hope you are laughing with me not at me:D ..but thats your call:D .. But its great to hear.. the views:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
Other species who have been here longer than us realise that the Sun is it :eyepop: .. its the thing thet get their energy from:) absolutley all their energy as do we, follow the solar trail if you dont believe that one.. only those little aliens on the heat stacks get their power form Earth and they are not going any all place.. well just look at all they species they get their energy from the Sun.. We are greedier but smarter I say simply lets think of how we can make it work not why it wont work..and lets not try and build our own Sun there is one out there that will outlast any we can build;) ;) .
Hey thanks for the links:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
alex

[ispom]

there is the term „net energy gain“:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erntefaktor (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erntefaktor)


it means, how much energy one really wins,
take the energy which produces a plant during its life span and subtract the energy which one had to spend for production evenly this plant.
in this respect the Votovoltaics score completely badly. It is therefore the by far most expensive energy.
And if one could not use the cheap energy from conventional power stations for the production of the photocells, solar power would be still many more expensive ….
or differently expressed: while a modern Votovoltaik plant needs 100 months to work in order to bring the energy back needed for itself production, a modern nuclear power station needs only 1 month.

[mickoking]

I think economical Fusion power is less than 20 years away now. That will make all the coal, oil and nuclear (fission) obsolete power and help drag our planet back.
Until then we as a global community have to wake up and deal with the problem at hand. Solar and wind power are not perfect but they are hell of a lot better than Coal or fission power. We as a society may have to make a few small sacrifices for the common good (to help the fragile planet we call home, our only home), sadly I see little of that.
Talking of sacrifices we have no problems sending troops to a futile and counter productive war but if it is ever suggested we slightly modify our lifestyle to reduce excessive energy consumption poo poo hits the fan :thumbsup:

[xelasnave]

Thank for the links:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: .
Its like a real estate investment being expressed in years taken to recover capital. Lets face it the sooner you get into the black the better I understand that...So our problem is to do better than what is there at the moment:whistle: . Finally the return on investment controlls the game:) . I understand that:D . Seeing your post I thought I had better get those sausages out of the fidge;) cooking with electricity is convenient but I like the inefficient fuel to cook them ..some nice dry iron bark (wood) but down here I dont think you can use a fire.. not sure on that.. but all b.b ques seem to be gas.
Thanks again for the links and the sausage reminder:D :thumbsup: :D .
alex
alex

[mickoking]

Spot on Alex, We should make the Sun work for us. Australia is bathed in sunlight. But only a miniscule amount, a flys fart of that energy is collected :P

[xelasnave]

Er I did not mean to equate it to finacial gain but was trying to show I understood efficiencies. Very interesting reading. Still got more stuff to go.
Got the sausages out...
alex

[ispom]

of course, you should construct enormous reflectors for heating up and demineralization of sea water,
use the Sun and convert your deserts to flowering landscapes,
leave the coal in the earth!

[xelasnave]

When I was a kid making booze with a solar powered still it thought you could have a pipe carrying sea water to the desert but the heat was to distil it while it flowed to its destination.
alex

[okiscopey]

Computers were devised and developed to the level they are now because we had control of the whole process. We can't increase the ouput of the Sun, and thus the amount of energy we receive on the Earth's surface.



I don't understand why, when the physics, science and engineering aspects of power generation is so well known, that we're still kicking around the solar option here.

Come on folks, haven't you done your homework!?




Always with you Alex! Reminds me of my old physics teacher at school (mid 60's). He was a big factor in sustaing my love of science. He used to say: "The trouble with society nowadays is there's a lack of moral fibre." (Imagine that being said in school today!) He also said something which I've tried to apply over all these years, not always successfully: "It's much better to laugh with someone than at them."

You must have been at the same school!

[okiscopey]

Thanks ispom, worth checking out.

[Karls48]

Travis, I agree with your comments on the democracy. I have lived in both political systems and I can appreciate advantages and pitfalls of each of them. What amazes me is the acceptance of general public of the propaganda presented to then in the media. On other hand, in the totalitarian communist regime general population tend to reject media articles as propaganda even if it was truth. I wonder if the Australian public will ever become desensitised enough to start questioning the new and mainly the comments about the news, presented to them.
One way, I suppose to force public to think for themselves would be legislation forcing media to present the news without any comment.
Power and political influence of the media is clearly demonstrated by the fact how carefully governments regulate media ownership.
\
Alex, solar and wind energy as proposed by many today’s coverts is a just pipe dream. What is my qualification to make such statement? I have been engineer running 2MW power generating facilities on one of the resort islands off the Barrier Reef for two and half years. I have worked on electrical power distributions networks in Europe and I have designed and installed self-sufficient solar systems on few farms here in Australia.
Lets start with advantages of solar power. In some circumstances it is undeniably good solution. If you have to pay $40 to $70K to have power connected to your property and you are prepared to accept limitations of solar power system, you can have solar power for about $5000. You will be able to run all your lighting, small TV, DVD, VCR and small kitchen appliances. Forget about fridges, freezers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, air conditioners and stoves of any kind. It is possible to run all of those excluded appliances of the solar system but cost of set up would be around $ 25 to $40K. Your storage batteries will last 3 to 7 years before needing replacement. Major cost. Your solar panels will decrease output with age and will needing replacement in 10 to 20 years. If you consider all pros and cons Solar Power may be in some circumstances good source of energy for isolated property. I do not have any experience with Wind Power but I assume that combination of both would make self-sufficient system more cost effective. As a micro solution I believe that Solar and Wind energy is feasible.
Now lets have look on midi renewable energy solution. Lets assume that every dwelling will be required to have solar panels installed on the roof. Lets say 40W per occupant. Dwelling will have an invertor feeding the power generated by Solar Cells to the power grid. Lets assume metropolis with four million population. The loses in invertors and in the distribution will amount to about 20% . Total output solar energy of such system assuming that metropolis 100 x 50 km2 is fully illuminated by the sun would be around 128MW. That is a peak output, for couple hours. As the sun travels across the sky the output will decrease.
Disadvantages. The cost. Assuming $200 per 40W of solar panel, $500 for 2KW invertor and $ 500 for installation, we are looking at 5.2 billion dollars investment to produce about 128MW of green power. I do not know how much of green house gasses the manufacturing of required solar cells, components for the invertors and associated structures needed to affix the solar cells to the roofs will produce. My guess is that equation is against the solar power, but I may by wrong. I do not have the numbers.
Some other possible problems with such a system. Maintenance: The solar cells to maintain their already poor efficiency have to be keep clean. For some reason the bird’s find shining solar panel as irresistible perch and place to deposit their dropping on.
Lets assume there is some sort of brake down in distributing network in one suburb. Linesman crew will be sent out to fix it. First task will be to disconnect power to the part of the network they are going to work on. That was easy in the past, but now you have two sources of the power, the substation and every house in the suburb. Of course it is possible to design invertors that will switch off on signal send along the distribution lines. But then some will fail and not respond to such switch off signal. Resulting in prolonged blackouts and increased costs servicing distribution network.
This is just few examples off hand what could go wrong when you feed power distribution network from multiple sources. I’m sure that better qualified engineers will come up with lots of more problems.
For now I will not go to possible problems with Solar Energy on macro scale.
I already said enough to be burned on the stake. Sufficient to say that Solar and Wind Energy may have its place in our economy in the way of using electrical power for electrolyses to produce hydrogen and then use it in conventional power stations. I got no numbers to support this, it is just gut feeling.

[Tiroch]

Karl I recently read about the development of a new type of electric condenser that is not dialectic sink type but membrane flow type which allows steady state controlled discharge. Sure wish I had saved the article. It was in the science pages of one of Toronto's big newspapers about 2-3 weeks ago.

I did a google with string: electric nano membrane capacitor

Picked this on page 1 hits:

http://www.gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/newsrelease/nanocapacitors.htm

I think this is it.

Comments as you are an electrical person?

[gaa_ian]

You make some good points there Karl.
I think the solar solutions that may be more feasible, are the large scale projects:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/index.htm
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Power

The point is that we will have to act sooner or later, Non- renewable's by their very nature are finite & can not continue to be used at the exponential rate of increase that we see today.

[Tiroch]

It is really sad that most people have no idea that likely in less than 50 years all the non-renewable energy sources except uranium will have been consumed. That is the reason intense effort must go into bio fuels and on that here is an interesting read from Brazil:

As to the matter of feedstock for biofuels it is that corn is very inefficient and that sugar cane is 8 times as efficient as related to energy conversion and carbon footprint as per this article:

Even cleanest biofuel includes a dirty underbelly, experts warn
U.S. lags behind Brazil: Critics fear faster deforestation in rain forests
Inae Riveras, Reuters
Published: Monday, January 22, 2007

SAO PAULO - Biofuels have the potential to lessen the impact of human civilization on the environment, but even the greenest of renewable-fuels production is not without its dirty underbelly, experts say.

Although global warming is a growing concern among policy-makers, the current trend to substitute fossil fuels with renewables is in part motivated by countries' efforts to reduce their dependence on oil from politically volatile regions.

Brazil's cane ethanol distillers, with three decades of experience in nationwide production and distribution, have compiled data demonstrating the fuel's advantage over fossil counterparts in the reduction of greenhouse gases.
A worker opens a valve to allow sugar cane juice to flow at a Usina ethanol plant in Sao Paulo, Brazil.View Larger Image View Larger Image
A worker opens a valve to allow sugar cane juice to flow at a Usina ethanol plant in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Ethanol accounts for 40% of total fuels used by non-diesel powered vehicles in Brazil and represents a 30% reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions from the transport sector, the Cane Industry Association (Unica) said.

But not even the global stars of renewable fuels are free of critics who fear that increased ethanol use worldwide will hasten deforestation in the Amazon and other tropical rain forests in order to produce sugar cane.

"In 20 years, I doubt there will be a gasoline car on the Brazilian market. They will all be powered by ethanol," Unica President Eduardo Pereira Carvalho said during the Reuters Global Biofuel Summit last week.

Brazil began its ethanol program 30 years ago, when it was importing nearly 90% of oil needed for domestic use.

During its growth to maturity, the cane stalk absorbs the same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is eventually emitted during combustion of the ethanol distilled from its juices.

But this is not so for ethanol made from corn in the United States or wheat in Europe. These primary materials must first be turned into sugars before fermentation, which requires the use of extra fossil fuels and adds to carbon gasses emitted in the production process.

Brazilian cane mills are also powered by leftover cane stalks that heat caldrons to generate steam and electric energy, an extra advantage that corn and wheat don't have.

Unica estimates that Brazilian cane ethanol on average yields more than eight times more energy than is used in the production process, compared with U.S. corn ethanol production that yields between 1.1 and 1.7 times as much energy.

This advantage should improve with the use of state-of-the-art technologies in Brazilian mills.

The European Union, which just proposed the use of 10% biofuels for transport by 2020, signalled it will demand proof from suppliers that the product was made in a sustainable manner, a requirements that may rule out U.S. ethanol.

Environmentalists have already begun to warn that the expansion of biofuel use currently underway will represent increased use of land for planting, which could stimulate deforestation or the use of more reserve lands.

"We're currently working on some sort of certification system to ensure that biofuels that are imported, or the raw materials, are taken from sustainable production," said Michael Mann, EU Commission agriculture spokesman.

Some U.S. producers hold greater trust in market forces.

Don Endres, chief executive of U.S. ethanol producer Vera Sun Energy Corp., said better farmers tend to squeeze out less-efficient producers and bring more land under their farming practices over time.

"By providing a market we increase the value and that allows for better farmers to increase land," Endres said. "Farmers take very good care of their soil and erosion because they invest a lot in the organic matter."
*****************************


The articles contains several spelling errors which I did not correct. I suppose these were caused by no editing by Reuters.

[xelasnave]

Hey Karl thats what we need someone who knows the problems to offer some input. Its probably just me but I am independant and lived in the bush with 2 panels 65 watt and 85 watt 4 of 6 volt batteries giving 400 amp hrs, a 240 inverter, and a genny, fuel stove gravity fed water and a gas fridge. I dont use a fridge and now have a $100 genny which I rarely use. Two lights which are 240vlt strangly:lol: :eyepop: but prefer candles or no light actually. With the lap top and a 12 vlt tv a real flash one flat screen even.. its luxury for me. No vacuum cleaner cause no carpet :D just cement so I use a 12 vlt path blower:lol: :lol: :lol: . I have an electric guitar power tools and use wood to cook and heat my water. No washing machine I just throw my clothes in a boiler and leave them cook during the night:screwy: :whistle: .. leave them on the line so the rain rinsces them or the Sun gives them a good does of its germ killing rays;) .I dont use a fridge. AND I am very happy. I have to come to Sydney to look after my father and stuff and see and help my Son. But here I use one light as I have gotten into the habit of respecting the fact that energy does not grow on trees ..well some of mine is trees I guess but the stove runs on the rubbish on the track and stuff that is a fire hazzard. If I had wind power that would be great. One guy up my way has littel gennies at the bottom of his down pipes.. I know most people could not handle doing it that way but I love it:) . I like the control I like the fact that so little of my energy goes on un necessary things. My investment in solar was minimal but then again my demands are small but I cant help think that many households could work this way. Everyone is happy to spend on , a plasma TV etc but wouldnt it be nice if they spent their money first to provide their own energy as a first priority on at least higher than buying so many toys that take rather than contribute.
I try to take very little. I was just thinking if one bloke can do it all by himself maybe a big group could do it better than me;) . I dont care really what the rest of the world does..you know a mate gave me two more panels..one Ihavent got working but the other one did that is hooked direct to a car cooler but other than cooling a can of soft drink it does not get used.. I got it to cool my camera it worked well so I got another. A pre cooler and a cooler on the scope:thumbsup: .
But my point is I did not really need the other panels but seeing I had the power I got something to plug in..:D
Why am I rambling again simply to say I do not find a life of simplicity unpleasant because of so many things I dont have to switch on:lol: :lol: :lol: clean or repair or replace.. Sure my clothes are wrinkled but then so am I:lol: :lol: :lol: . I dont follow fashion so that makes things very simple;) .
I have no idea of the figures to go solar and building panels cost energy but so does other stuff.
Panels and batteries are not cheap but when out there what can you do. The power company put out a flyer to see who wanted to go on the grid every one I know said Ïf they put it outside they would rather improve their solar systems as it is cheaper for them having already established things. Even having grid out side your block it will still cost $10,000 to get it to the house so why bother.
Most have more panels than me and run 240 volt appliances.. and there is a fridge with a 12 motor..they get a standard fridge and put in a 12 vlt motor.
But thats in the bush but I thought I would share that with you. But my point was not solar as such it is the way science is corrupted to corrupt the story on WORLD HISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE;) :D :whistle: .. I am trying to get used to the phrase to remember what we are dealing with..
excuse spellign etc but I am beat lttle more reading and its dreamland for me.
Thank for your input I would love to be doing the sort of work you do it must be exciting:) :thumbsup: . Thanks agian alex:screwy: :shrug: :whistle: :D

[Tiroch]

From the Toronto Sun today. I dialog with Lorrie on the climate file regularly. I too have written about the 'murder' of millions by the greenies having DDT banned. That was the result of getting the USA EPA chief to have a law passed making aid to Africa conditional on banning DDT use by those countries. That was in 1969. Today limited use of DDT for mosquito control is underway in several countries and it is showing signs of success in reduction of deaths.

John

Greens aren’t always good


By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN


(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:sendit%28%29;)
(http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Goldstein_Lorrie/2007/02/11/pf-3586748.html)
(http://rapids.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/reg/NR-cust_service.pl?MODE=CUSTOMER_SERVI CE&LOOK=TORSUN)
(editor@tor.sunpub.com) Global warming and the Kyoto accord are the crack cocaine of trendy causes for opportunistic politicians and chic environmentalists.
Since fighting man-made global warming involves “saving the planet,” or so they tell us, it is the King Kong of all environmental crusades.
Of course, the fact we have been warned in the past by this crowd that life as we know it was about to end over everything from “the population bomb” to “global cooling,” and that we survived, is now ignored.


Too many environmentalists know only one way of talking about these issues — hysterically — which has led to disaster in the past.
In this context, the history of the pesticide DDT is instructive.
DDT was rightly banned in the developed world a generation ago, specifically because of its misuse by modern agri-business in order to increase crop yields.


But it was then wrongly denied to the third world, despite the fact that properly-used, DDT was a life-saver.
As a result, millions of innocent people died or suffered life-altering illnesses due to malaria and other insect-borne diseases.
For the chilling story of what really happened when DDT was banned, which environmentalists have always boasted about as a great victory, read James Lovelock’s latest book, The Revenge of Gaia. In it, this brilliant scientist who is also the grandfather of the modern “green” movement, condemns ignorant, urban environmentalists, whom, he says, hysterically campaigned to ban all DDT use, with catastrophic results.


Ironically, Lovelock invented the electron capture detector, which first enabled the measurement of pesticides and other man-made pollutants in the atmosphere and which led to the birth of modern environmentalism.
Lovelock’s discovery also resulted in the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, warning of the dangers of pesticide use — the holy bible of the greens.


But as Lovelock angrily recounts in his book, “the indiscriminate banning of DDT and other chlorinated insecticides was a selfish, ill-informed act driven by affluent radicals in the first world. The inhabitants of tropical countries have paid a high price in death and illness as a result ...”
Lovelock is also an expert on global warming who believes the world is facing imminent catastrophe.


Because of that, he has again broken ranks with the greens, whom he accuses of hysterically campaigning against nuclear power, which, he argues, is mankind’s last, best hope.


Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, nuclear power doesn’t emit greenhouse gases.
As for the wind, solar and tidal power so beloved by the greens, Lovelock says it’s hopelessly naïve to think they’ll be ready in time at the capacities we need.


He compares the greens to clueless passengers flying on an airplane over the Atlantic who, having discovered that it is pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, tell the pilot to turn the engines off, thinking that will solve the problem.


“We cannot turn off our energy-intensive, fossil-fuel-powered civilization without crashing,” Lovelock warns. “We need the soft landing of a powered descent.”


Such straight talk — coming from one of the world’s leading environmentalists and climate change experts — will of course be lost on the braying jackasses in our House of Commons — on all sides — who are playing silly, partisan games on this issue, urged on by naive environmentalists playing fast and loose with reality.


Inevitably, our politicians will screw up Canada’s response to global warming which should lie outside of Kyoto — a farcical, money-sucking disaster — in the strict conservation of fossil fuels here in Canada, burning them as cleanly as possible and looking at every alternative, including nuclear power.


But it will never happen.


Remember, these are the same folks who can’t fix the long and often deadly wait times in our medicare system, despite years of promising to do so.
Now they’re going to “fix” the climate? God help us.

[Tiroch]

Another from the Toronto Sun today:

On climate change fiction trumps truth

Global warming reports 'scientifically unsound', so why don't the media care?


By LICIA CORBELLA (licia.corbella@calgarysun.com)


(http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:sendit%28%29;)
(http://www.torontosun.com/Comment/2007/02/11/pf-3587144.html)
(http://rapids.canoe.ca/cgi-bin/reg/NR-cust_service.pl?MODE=CUSTOMER_SERVI CE&LOOK=TORSUN)
(editor@tor.sunpub.com) It's too bad the world's media don't hold the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the same standards they hold large corporations.


When Enron cooked the books there were -- rightly -- no end of indignant columns and talk shows condemning these high-paid fraudsters who massaged the numbers to fit their agenda and bolster their bank accounts.


The whistleblower who tried to get Enron to change its evil ways, Sherron Watkins, was named one of Time magazine's People of the Year.


But when it comes to scientists who whistleblow about IPCC reports cooked by politicians to fit their politicized agendas, those whistleblowers are either ignored or dismissed as "skeptics" or quacks and are labelled as haters of this planet and nature, even though most of them have dedicated their lives to studying nature and protecting it.


Dr. Christopher Landsea, a leading expert in the field of hurricanes and tropical storms resigned as an author of the IPCC 2007 report, stating the IPCC was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound."


"I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns," wrote Landsea, of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory.


Sounds a lot like what happened at Enron, doesn't it?


Landsea said a lead author for the IPCC report asked him to provide the writeup on Atlantic hurricanes in what he thought would be "a politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate."


Landsea, a contributor and reviewer for the IPCC report in 1995 and 2001, says this author, having been told research showed "no global warming signal found in the hurricane record," attended a Harvard lecture stating the polar opposite.


"I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability... All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."


But, science be damned. The pro-man-made global warming crowd wanted to sex-up the threat of a warming planet so they just made it up. Pulled it out of a hat.


Exaggerating to get your way is a tactic former U.S. v-p Al Gore, the star behind the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, admitted is acceptable.


"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis," said Gore in a May 2006 interview with Grist Magazine.


Gore's admission that he makes like Pinocchio to make a point on global warming should be an inconvenient truth, to be sure, but the mainstream media -- which positively love the doom and gloom scenario of man-made global warming -- have been virtually silent on this.


Also ignored has been Dr. Frederick Seitz, past-president of the National Academy of Sciences, who wrote in June 1996, with regard to the 1995 IPCC report: "I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.


"This report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page," Seitz wrote.


So what was removed from the original 1995 IPCC report that was approved by ALL of the contributing scientists?


The following passage is just one example of what was deleted from the original scientists' report:
"None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."


Dr. Seitz continued: "IPCC reports are often called the 'consensus' view.


"Whatever the intent was of those who made these significant changes, their effect is to deceive policy makers and the public into believing that the scientific evidence shows human activities are causing global warming."


But the evidence doesn't say that and neither did the scientists.


That's what the actual consensus said. That was changed. That's fraud. Billions of dollars are being shuffled around the world to support the lie. Much money is at stake -- much more than Enron multiplied.


So, why don't the media care?

[Tiroch]

Another piece today from the Toronto Sun:

Sun, February 11, 2007
Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact

By PETER WORTHINGTON

Last week -- the day the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its gloom and doom report on greenhouse gases -- Larry King Live had a bunch of experts hashing over what it all means.

Of six panelists, the one who made the most sense (I'm tempted to say made the only sense) was Richard Lindzen, a professor of "atmospsheric science" at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Lindzen looks a bit like how professors are depicted in cartoons -- rimless glasses, a bushy beard and a bit unworldly. On TV, he is soft-spoken, courteous but fearless in challenging those who parrot conclusions no one can be certain about.

One woman, a TV meteorologist, insisted "the science is really solid" that man-made emissions cause the global warming that so agitates the IPCC and has Americans fretting about scrapping their SUVs.

Prof. Lindzen calmly replied he couldn't dispute her assertion "because she never says what science she is talking about." That's one of the problems with the alleged danger of global warming, supposedly caused by excessive carbon dioxide being churned into the atmosphere by fossil fuels, cars and, judging from a recent report, the "emissions" from cattle.

Rarely mentioned is the global warming threat is not anchored in scientific fact or research, it is a hypothesis, a theory, that has yet to be proven.

Yet unlike most scientific theories, it is politically incorrect (and in cases politically prohibited) to question its validity or demand deeper research.

The IPCC report is based on writings of some 2,500 scientists (few of them climatologists, and many geneticists, environmentalists, etc.), and their findings are compressed into a "Summary for Policymakers" which is a political document, not a scientific one, compiled by UN spinmeisters.

This year's report is the fourth since IPCC was founded in 1988. The 2001 report said it was "likely" global warming was man-made from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, while this year's report upgrades "likely" to "very likely." And that seems to have even President George Bush retreating and promising to do something (one isn't sure what), and commentators coming on side with global warming hysteria.

In Canada, Stephen Harper apparently feels his chance for a majority in the next election, hinge on his bending to the global warming/Kyoto gang, despite no evidence justifying the money it's going to cost.

To dispassionate observers, the Kyoto protocols aimed at reducing emissions are an embarrassment to Canada, which already is 35% (and growing) over what it agreed to. Countries like India and China, horrible offenders, are excluded leading many to think Kyoto is more a wealth distributing ploy rather than an aid to the planet.

Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense. Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise. In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.

Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of "consensus." Ask Galileo. Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens' bodies.

Prof. Lindzen is a genuine scientist, ever probing and questioning. He cites scientists who've been fired, denied post on panels, or whose research has been rejected not for merit, but because they challenge the prevailing UN view that global warming is man-induced, and not a cyclical occurrence of nature. As for Canadians (and PM Harper), the Calgary-based website friendsofscience.org is more instructive than the IPCC.

In the 1970s, global cooling was the boogie man. In the late 1960s we were warned the world's supply of oil was running out. Also the world could no longer supply enough food for rising populations. Hysteria and nonsense.

COMPLEX SCIENCE

Predicting climate change is more than computerized models -- and far more complex than predicting the weather change -- which is 50% wrong at best. Just witness no warning of the tornadoes that ambushed Florida last week.

Lastly, why the excessive fear of carbon dioxide, essential for agriculture and plant life? CO2 is not pollution. And it's man-made pollution that threatens the environment, and planet. As for global warming, if indeed it is more than a cyclical event, surely more food will be produced and more people will have a more comfortable life

[Tiroch]

I hope I did not overwhelm.

[okiscopey]

Thank goodness, I've been waiting for a power engineer to join the debate and tell it the way it is.

Uninformed opinion, even if held by 80% of the population and pushed by pseudo-environmental groups, will not change the physics and economics of large-scale power generation.

Incidentally, Karls48's dissertation above reminded me of a researcher I knew once who worked on solar cell development. As soon as they'd perfected a new, higher output cell, it was rushed over to the ammeter and the results recorded and published. They had to do it in a hurry because the cell's output dropped dramatically after creation (presumably an exponential curve like radioactive decay?). I don't know however if this applies to all types of cells, whether it was an exaggeration, or even if it applies to today's devices - just an illustration of the sort of thing you never read about in the newspapers.

[xelasnave]

Now John you know I am a slow reader you will just have to type slower. But I think you have pointed out that even science becomes a tool to push various ideas.
Re solar up home what I did not mention, just in case you are ready to disconnect from the grid and go it alone..is that in periods of a long wet I have to fall back on the Genny and even a small 850 watt genny uses a lot of fuel dollar wise. For the power I get it would be very expensive as compared to grid power but the point I was investigating really was.. is there no hope for solar to subsidise supply as I have a feeling humans will in the future will face short falls simply becuase of the fact demand seems to be growing very fast.
alex

[Tiroch]

Just wondering the reason for quiet.

[iceman]

Maybe everyone has said what they wanted to in this thread?

[Karls48]

Solar and wind energy would have some merit if we have a way to store this energy. Power distribution in industrialised countries is networked. Meaning that you don’t have one PowerStation supplying electricity only to the surrounding districts, it is connected to other PowerStation’s across the country. In some places (EU and USA) power grid is connected to the grids in other countries. Approximate load on the network for any given time and date is known from historical records. Some extra generating capacity is allowed for the load fluctuations and possible breakdowns. But the economic dictate that extra capacity cannot be too large. If the demand exceeds the supply you have domino effect. One PowerStation overloads and trips out, increasing load on other and tripping it out and so on. The result is countrywide blackout. It has happen in past in America and in Europe. To supply such a network directly from the solar and wind generating plants would require double or triple of required generating capacity to allow for occasions when wind drops out and the clouds cover the sky.
OK many will say, store this power in the batteries and supply it when load on the network needs it. Except, there is a small problem with this proposition.
There is a measurement to tell us how much energy we can get from materials we us as energy sources. It is called Energy density and is expressed in Joules per kilogram.
It doesn’t tell us how much of the energy we are after (electricity) it will provide as there are going to be losses in generating electricity (heat, friction and so on). But it doesn’t matter, as we are interested in the ratio of the power available in different materials and the losses in generating electricity will be approximately same.

Black Coal 32MJ/kg
Petrol 46MJ/kg
Hydrogen 120MJ/kg
Uranium 235 (in fission) 90000000MJ/kg
Capacitor 0.002MJ/kg
SuperCap 0.01MJ/kg
Lead acid battery 0.1MJ/kg
NiCad battery 0.2MJ/kg
Lithium ion battery 0.6MJ/kg
There are some new experimental capacitors with reported Energy density of 1MJ/kg.
From above you will see that replacing 1kg of coal with lead acid battery will require 320kg battery.
Or replacing 250MW power station supplying power for 5 hours will require 45000-tonne battery.
If you want to replace 4kg of petrol in your car using NiCad batteries you will need 920kg battery. Twice as heavy for lead acid battery. And then you have to consider what will happen at evening when 1milion cars are plugged in to be recharged. This is one of the reasons why we don’t have battery-powered cars. But some people will see it as conspiracy by oil companies.
Alex, as you see the Nuclear energy is very enticing. Power available from small quantities of fuel is huge. With Nuclear fusion it is enormous at 300 000 000MJ/kg.
I don’t think Uranium mining lobby is driving the GW debate. They simply saw opportunity to suggest their alternative energy source and they took it.

From all I have written you may think that I’m against Solar and Wind power. Not so. Even in past 20 or so years Solar energy had its place in generating power in remote areas. I’m against wasting money something so inefficient. Although it will work it is going to be so inefficient to cause economical crisis leading to social problems associated with economical crash. Once there is huge unemployment, hunger and treat of revolutions, no one will give hoot about GW and will burn anything in the power stations just to get economy going.
One of possible uses of Solar and Wind energy is to produce hydrogen by electrolysis. It is not very efficient process. Hydrogen would be then stored (similarly to LPG) and used to drive turbines in conventional power station. It may be even possible combust hydrogen directly in turbines without converting it to the steam first. Advantage of this would be that such power station could be put on line and off much faster then steam driven turbines. If salt water would be used for electrolysis it may by possible to extract some rare materials (uranium, gold, silver and so on) from it as by-product of power generation. All the problems associated with feeding Solar and Wind power directly to the power grid, or storing it in the batteries would be eliminated. The pollution emitted by such power station would be mostly water. But as no one seems to go this way there must be some fundamental problems associated with this concept that I’m not aware of.
Regardless of way the application of Solar and Wind energy will take, we are looking on hundreds of square kilometres of Solar panels and thousands of windmills to produce some percentage of our energy requirements. Economic of it? Well I’m sceptical, but I’m not economist.
One unforseen consequence of big blackouts is the big increase of the babies being born nine moths later. Peter Costello there is your solution to declining birth rate!

[Tiroch]

Two things:

Iceman: The real debate is just starting.

Karl: You bring here needed knowledge although I'm disappointed you did not reply to my post re nano membrane capacitors. maybe you missed it.

With all this chatter here about solar/wind and doing your thing the reality is that neither serves the big picture as you point out from a technical background. I'm fully aware of this although I did not know your energy items.

We have had grid collapses here the last was a couple of years ago when a grid switch in Ohio failed collapsing the Upper Mid West USA and Ontario for up to 19 hours (us) fortunately in August which is when we don't freeze.

I too am not against solar and wind power. The only country I know that can do the wind power big time is that little country Denmark and only because it is near that very windy North Sea and only because they have the brains to incinerate garbage for energy recovery ( I was there on that topic in '88) and only because they actually use pig manure as a fuel which leads them to the enviable position of not using non-renewable fuels to generate electricity.

Having said that it must be born in mind that Denmark is a rarity and that is only because it is a very small country. Good on them but try such in massive geography such as Australia and Canada.

Dead in the water at the get go.

And you are correct in that making hydrogen by the only way common which is electrolysis is very inefficient and may I add a very dangerous gas to handle.

As to uranium powered electric plants the greenies cannot have it both ways. Such as these = zero carbon dioxide but nuclear waste disposal. Which side of the knife?

So I say get real people. Cut the GW and get on with cutting air pollution.

[janoskiss]

I have not been following this thread at all, but in general when a thread is 9 pages or about 180 posts long and still has not gotten to the point usually it's a fair indication that it is going nowhere and it's probably time to let it go.

[okiscopey]

Yes I agree ... it now seems to be a matter of 'preaching to the converted'.

There's enough information posted here already for anyone interested to have made up their minds already.

[Tiroch]

Well I will but I truly thought we could move into the big picture of Alex's Historic Climate Change rather then dwell on smaller local stuff and then have debates about the Big Picture.

So as to your wish I expire from here.

As to it going nowhere to me I thought we were headed forward into the Big World.

Oh well.

John