Jump to content
Brahea Axel

Mini Ice Age?

Recommended Posts

Dypsisdean

We have natural threats that are far, far bigger than global warming. I can think of three nasties that are maybe's:

Let me suggest another - in hopes I can sneak it by the Palm Mod if I phrase it correctly. :)

How about the threat of another super power that will pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we do while it acquires more political and geographic power. They will use these cheaper "polluting" fuels to supply the more "conscientious" nations with the goods they desire, while it uses the profits to send men to moon, build the world's strongest military, and buy their debt, along with the power and influence that comes with it.

The climate change will continue, but we will have a new, potentially stronger than the U.S. super power, that will take the place as the "world's policeman." If you think they will act in a more benevolent manner than the U.S. has, then the world is in no political danger. But the climate change threat will still exist, unless this new power develops the the same guilty conscience we have.

Somebody will burn fossil fuel as long as it is available and cheaper. The irony is that if we burn it, we will burn it cleaner than anyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

We have natural threats that are far, far bigger than global warming. I can think of three nasties that are maybe's:

Let me suggest another - in hopes I can sneak it by the Palm Mod if I phrase it correctly. :)

How about the threat of another super power that will pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we do while it acquires more political and geographic power. They will use these cheaper "polluting" fuels to supply the more "conscientious" nations with the goods they desire, while it uses the profits to send men to moon, build the world's strongest military, and buying their debt, along with the power and influence that comes with it.

The climate change will continue, but we will have a new, potentially stronger than the U.S. super power, that will take the place as the "world's policeman." If you think they will act in a more benevolent manner than the U.S. has, then the world is in no political danger. But the climate change threat will still exist, unless this new power develops the the same guilty conscience we have.

Somebody will burn fossil fuel as long as it is available and cheaper. The irony is that if we burn it, we will burn it cleaner than anyone else.

China's got a program going where they're sequencing the genomes of the smartest people that they can find in hopes of genetically engineering a country full of people of that intelligence. They also are pumping money into science research like nobody's business. I don't think we're going to win the struggle that you mention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

The problem with the CO2 argument is adequately demonstrated by the charts I posted above. You had a 40 year period (1900-1940) where global temperatures increased .5C while CO2 levels barely increased. The next 40 years CO2 levels increased dramatically, but temperatures remained flat, then you had almost 20 years where both CO2 and temperatures increased (another .5C for temperatures), followed by 15 years where CO2 increased dramatically and temperatures again remained flat (even the head of the IPCC admits this). I've taken my fair share of college level science enroute to an engineering degree and registration as a PE in TX, to look at this data and see that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases is very low. Low correlation = low causation. I'm not denying that the place is getting warmer, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree. Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to destroy our economies to address CO2 levels that it appears have little to do with the problem? That is the question, and I would argue that the adverse affects on our economy of doing what the alarmists prescribe are a lot better documented and certain then their arguments that doing nothing will be a disaster. So you have a certain disaster if we do what they want to avoid a theoretical disaster that will probably occur anyway assuming that warming is going to continue, which is not all that certain. We do know what will happen if we abandon the use of traditional fuels, and don't know what will happen if we don't. The rational choice here is to avoid the certain disaster and take your chances on the climate change disaster. That's what the odds dictate anyway. This is my pet peeve with every one of these public policy debates, everybody ignores the costs of doing something and focuses on the benefits. There is no such thing as a solution that doesn't cause more problems. How is that ACA solution to the problem of the uninsured working for you (it's been an unmitigated disaster for me and my family just as I and others predicted). That's a rhetorical question, please don't hijack Axel's thread even further off track by replying. :)

I agree that the costs should always be factored in. That's why I actually believe that if we factored in the real costs associated with the usage of fossil fuels, we'd want to take on alternative fuels much faster even without introducing the global warming issue. Factor in the cost of environmental destruction due to oil and coal, from exploration to the burning of it, and the depletion of those resources and the associated inevitable rise in cost of that fuel. All that is enough of a policy driver towards alternative fuels. Global warming is just the icing on the cake. If we really factored in all the costs and didn't even worry about global warming, we're still going way too slow towards alternative fuels. If we went at the appropriate speed, such as removing all the oil subsidies and put those into alternative fuels instead, we'd get a mitigation of CO2 for free without the need for CO2 taxes.

I've already switched to solar power and an electric car and I am laughing all the way to the bank. Savings this year = $5K, can't complain. Let your dollar vote for your energy policy. Driving a gas guzzling SUV is just plain bad personal economics unless you need to do some serious off roading every day.

Imagine super efficient solar cell superfilm, you could paint the trunks of your palms and let the collected energy heat your trees at night. :)

If you are counting all the costs, there is no way you are saving money on solar power or electric cars. I looked into wind, solar, etc. and the time to recoup the high up front investment was so ridiculously long that it just did not make sense. I couldn't make wind work in my area (one of the consistently windiest in the US) even if I sold the excess electricity to the grid. If you drive a lot of miles, I suppose an electric car might make sense, but somebody like myself who commutes 12' across his back porch every morning to his office and only drives 1,500 miles/year, my beat up '89 pickup is more than adequate. It's been paid for since '92, and I fill it up every other month. Even the CFL's I replaced my traditional light bulbs with in my outbuildings have been a bust. They don't last anywhere near as long in practice as they are supposed to, so even though they use a lot less energy, the total cost is much higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

We have natural threats that are far, far bigger than global warming. I can think of three nasties that are maybe's:

Let me suggest another - in hopes I can sneak it by the Palm Mod if I phrase it correctly. :)

How about the threat of another super power that will pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we do while it acquires more political and geographic power. They will use these cheaper "polluting" fuels to supply the more "conscientious" nations with the goods they desire, while it uses the profits to send men to moon, build the world's strongest military, and buying their debt, along with the power and influence that comes with it.

The climate change will continue, but we will have a new, potentially stronger than the U.S. super power, that will take the place as the "world's policeman." If you think they will act in a more benevolent manner than the U.S. has, then the world is in no political danger. But the climate change threat will still exist, unless this new power develops the the same guilty conscience we have.

Somebody will burn fossil fuel as long as it is available and cheaper. The irony is that if we burn it, we will burn it cleaner than anyone else.

China's got a program going where they're sequencing the genomes of the smartest people that they can find in hopes of genetically engineering a country full of people of that intelligence. They also are pumping money into science research like nobody's business. I don't think we're going to win the struggle that you mention.

Maybe we can get them to genetically engineer our favorite palm species to handle 0F. :mrlooney:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

The problem with the CO2 argument is adequately demonstrated by the charts I posted above. You had a 40 year period (1900-1940) where global temperatures increased .5C while CO2 levels barely increased. The next 40 years CO2 levels increased dramatically, but temperatures remained flat, then you had almost 20 years where both CO2 and temperatures increased (another .5C for temperatures), followed by 15 years where CO2 increased dramatically and temperatures again remained flat (even the head of the IPCC admits this). I've taken my fair share of college level science enroute to an engineering degree and registration as a PE in TX, to look at this data and see that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases is very low. Low correlation = low causation. I'm not denying that the place is getting warmer, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree. Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to destroy our economies to address CO2 levels that it appears have little to do with the problem? That is the question, and I would argue that the adverse affects on our economy of doing what the alarmists prescribe are a lot better documented and certain then their arguments that doing nothing will be a disaster. So you have a certain disaster if we do what they want to avoid a theoretical disaster that will probably occur anyway assuming that warming is going to continue, which is not all that certain. We do know what will happen if we abandon the use of traditional fuels, and don't know what will happen if we don't. The rational choice here is to avoid the certain disaster and take your chances on the climate change disaster. That's what the odds dictate anyway. This is my pet peeve with every one of these public policy debates, everybody ignores the costs of doing something and focuses on the benefits. There is no such thing as a solution that doesn't cause more problems. How is that ACA solution to the problem of the uninsured working for you (it's been an unmitigated disaster for me and my family just as I and others predicted). That's a rhetorical question, please don't hijack Axel's thread even further off track by replying. :)

I agree that the costs should always be factored in. That's why I actually believe that if we factored in the real costs associated with the usage of fossil fuels, we'd want to take on alternative fuels much faster even without introducing the global warming issue. Factor in the cost of environmental destruction due to oil and coal, from exploration to the burning of it, and the depletion of those resources and the associated inevitable rise in cost of that fuel. All that is enough of a policy driver towards alternative fuels. Global warming is just the icing on the cake. If we really factored in all the costs and didn't even worry about global warming, we're still going way too slow towards alternative fuels. If we went at the appropriate speed, such as removing all the oil subsidies and put those into alternative fuels instead, we'd get a mitigation of CO2 for free without the need for CO2 taxes.

I've already switched to solar power and an electric car and I am laughing all the way to the bank. Savings this year = $5K, can't complain. Let your dollar vote for your energy policy. Driving a gas guzzling SUV is just plain bad personal economics unless you need to do some serious off roading every day.

Imagine super efficient solar cell superfilm, you could paint the trunks of your palms and let the collected energy heat your trees at night. :)

If you are counting all the costs, there is no way you are saving money on solar power or electric cars. I looked into wind, solar, etc. and the time to recoup the high up front investment was so ridiculously long that it just did not make sense. I couldn't make wind work in my area (one of the consistently windiest in the US) even if I sold the excess electricity to the grid. If you drive a lot of miles, I suppose an electric car might make sense, but somebody like myself who commutes 12' across his back porch every morning to his office and only drives 1,500 miles/year, my beat up '89 pickup is more than adequate. It's been paid for since '92, and I fill it up every other month. Even the CFL's I replaced my traditional light bulbs with in my outbuildings have been a bust. They don't last anywhere near as long in practice as they are supposed to, so even though they use a lot less energy, the total cost is much higher.

Suit yourself. I made zero investment in either, leasing both, works like a charm, the savings are through the roof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

Suit yourself. I made zero investment in either, leasing both, works like a charm, the savings are through the roof.

I would like to do the same, or at least make more efforts in this direction (so I am not critiquing your ideas and approaches) but the finances just aren't even remotely close here. How does one make it work out ? I'd be OK with it even to take a small loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

We have natural threats that are far, far bigger than global warming. I can think of three nasties that are maybe's:

Let me suggest another - in hopes I can sneak it by the Palm Mod if I phrase it correctly. :)

How about the threat of another super power that will pump more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than we do while it acquires more political and geographic power. They will use these cheaper "polluting" fuels to supply the more "conscientious" nations with the goods they desire, while it uses the profits to send men to moon, build the world's strongest military, and buying their debt, along with the power and influence that comes with it.

The climate change will continue, but we will have a new, potentially stronger than the U.S. super power, that will take the place as the "world's policeman." If you think they will act in a more benevolent manner than the U.S. has, then the world is in no political danger. But the climate change threat will still exist, unless this new power develops the the same guilty conscience we have.

Somebody will burn fossil fuel as long as it is available and cheaper. The irony is that if we burn it, we will burn it cleaner than anyone else.

China's got a program going where they're sequencing the genomes of the smartest people that they can find in hopes of genetically engineering a country full of people of that intelligence. They also are pumping money into science research like nobody's business. I don't think we're going to win the struggle that you mention.

The Chinese scare me more than anything mentioned in this thread. Watch this and everything will be crystal clear.

Suit yourself. I made zero investment in either, leasing both, works like a charm, the savings are through the roof.

I would like to do the same, or at least make more efforts in this direction (so I am not critiquing your ideas and approaches) but the finances just aren't even remotely close here. How does one make it work out ? I'd be OK with it even to take a small loss.

The math is simple.

Step 1: I lease solar from Solar City, my bill is fixed for the next 30 years at a rate below the utilities, so as the prices of electicity increase every year by over 12%, my rate, which is already below what PG&E charges me, stays the same. Every year, the delta between what I actually pay solar city and what the utilities would charge me keeps increasing.

Step 2: I drive the electric car which I lease because batteries are limiited in lifetime. My payment to Nissan is more than offset by the money I save on gas.

Step 3: I have the tiered utility rate. So I actually make money on top of what I pay to solar city. I produce power during peak hours. But my car charges during the night hours when the rate drops to 5 cents per kwh. So I charge PG&E more money for the power during the day than I pay for at night. It's a killer deal.

Step 4: Electric charging stations around town and at work are free. Need I say any more?

For all of this: zero up front investment. No need for owning anything at all. But by all means, keep driving your gas guzzlers, it means more free charging stations for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Come on guys, now you are just trying to get this thread bounced. There is some real good non-political subject matter here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

Come on guys, now you are just trying to get this thread bounced. There is some real good non-political subject matter here.

I don't see anything negative yet. This is some real fun discussion. We've covered everything from global climate change to the chinese, even alternative power. Dean's the one who brought up the chinese, talk about a fascinating topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sonoranfans

The problem with the CO2 argument is adequately demonstrated by the charts I posted above. You had a 40 year period (1900-1940) where global temperatures increased .5C while CO2 levels barely increased. The next 40 years CO2 levels increased dramatically, but temperatures remained flat, then you had almost 20 years where both CO2 and temperatures increased (another .5C for temperatures), followed by 15 years where CO2 increased dramatically and temperatures again remained flat (even the head of the IPCC admits this). I've taken my fair share of college level science enroute to an engineering degree and registration as a PE in TX, to look at this data and see that the correlation between CO2 levels and temperature increases is very low. Low correlation = low causation. I'm not denying that the place is getting warmer, I just think they are barking up the wrong tree. Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to destroy our economies to address CO2 levels that it appears have little to do with the problem? That is the question, and I would argue that the adverse affects on our economy of doing what the alarmists prescribe are a lot better documented and certain then their arguments that doing nothing will be a disaster. So you have a certain disaster if we do what they want to avoid a theoretical disaster that will probably occur anyway assuming that warming is going to continue, which is not all that certain. We do know what will happen if we abandon the use of traditional fuels, and don't know what will happen if we don't. The rational choice here is to avoid the certain disaster and take your chances on the climate change disaster. That's what the odds dictate anyway. This is my pet peeve with every one of these public policy debates, everybody ignores the costs of doing something and focuses on the benefits. There is no such thing as a solution that doesn't cause more problems. How is that ACA solution to the problem of the uninsured working for you (it's been an unmitigated disaster for me and my family just as I and others predicted). That's a rhetorical question, please don't hijack Axel's thread even further off track by replying. :)

I agree that the costs should always be factored in. That's why I actually believe that if we factored in the real costs associated with the usage of fossil fuels, we'd want to take on alternative fuels much faster even without introducing the global warming issue. Factor in the cost of environmental destruction due to oil and coal, from exploration to the burning of it, and the depletion of those resources and the associated inevitable rise in cost of that fuel. All that is enough of a policy driver towards alternative fuels. Global warming is just the icing on the cake. If we really factored in all the costs and didn't even worry about global warming, we're still going way too slow towards alternative fuels. If we went at the appropriate speed, such as removing all the oil subsidies and put those into alternative fuels instead, we'd get a mitigation of CO2 for free without the need for CO2 taxes.

I've already switched to solar power and an electric car and I am laughing all the way to the bank. Savings this year = $5K, can't complain. Let your dollar vote for your energy policy. Driving a gas guzzling SUV is just plain bad personal economics unless you need to do some serious off roading every day.

Imagine super efficient solar cell superfilm, you could paint the trunks of your palms and let the collected energy heat your trees at night. :)

If you are counting all the costs, there is no way you are saving money on solar power or electric cars. I looked into wind, solar, etc. and the time to recoup the high up front investment was so ridiculously long that it just did not make sense. I couldn't make wind work in my area (one of the consistently windiest in the US) even if I sold the excess electricity to the grid. If you drive a lot of miles, I suppose an electric car might make sense, but somebody like myself who commutes 12' across his back porch every morning to his office and only drives 1,500 miles/year, my beat up '89 pickup is more than adequate. It's been paid for since '92, and I fill it up every other month. Even the CFL's I replaced my traditional light bulbs with in my outbuildings have been a bust. They don't last anywhere near as long in practice as they are supposed to, so even though they use a lot less energy, the total cost is much higher.

Its funny how often people don realize that its consumption, and that means, in part, how far you drive. I worked with two guys, one drives a prius 40mi one way, the other a beater 3 miles. The guy with the pruis was criticizing the guy with the beater so we decided to look at consumption. The guy with the beater was consuming about 2 gallons per week, the guy with the prius about 10 gallons per week. So how far you drive can be more important than how efficient your car is. And we can see that cars are getting more efficient, this year the average new car/truck sold in the USA is 23.6mpg. Better mileage and a bad economy means gas consumption has dropped off a bit, hence the EPA may reduce the total gallons of ethanol required in fuels for 2014. The future looks like even less consumption with more and better mileage options. Now if only more people could work from home, consumption could really drop. And soon enough cars will drive themselves, saving untold dollars/gas consumption by organizing traffic better. The first self driven cars may appear in 2020 according to report, but it may take longer than that to develop a transit computer system to organize it all. About china, I understand they are now limiting gas mileage, which is changing cars that are legally importable. They are certainly the key player, but they sure do copy technology well. they have had some serious air pollution issues with people dropping en masse from it. One can only hope they see the cost saving in gas and medical expenses. I think that we will know how consumption can be curbed through efficiency in 7-10 more years as all the old clunkers die, and then in another 20 years cars will be driving themselves in efficient organization of traffic. I hate to see this country run from one money burning "war" to another running up the debt. Every time politicians want to make people act they try the fear card. After awhile they lose trust of the people, who think they have been lied to too much. I say let fuel efficiency improvements work before we have another "war" that costs us yet trillions more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mjff

The math is simple.

Step 1: I lease solar from Solar City, my bill is fixed for the next 30 years at a rate below the utilities, so as the prices of electicity increase every year by over 12%, my rate, which is already below what PG&E charges me, stays the same. Every year, the delta between what I actually pay solar city and what the utilities would charge me keeps increasing.

Step 2: I drive the electric car which I lease because batteries are limiited in lifetime. My payment to Nissan is more than offset by the money I save on gas.

Step 3: I have the tiered utility rate. So I actually make money on top of what I pay to solar city. I produce power during peak hours. But my car charges during the night hours when the rate drops to 5 cents per kwh. So I charge PG&E more money for the power during the day than I pay for at night. It's a killer deal.

Step 4: Electric charging stations around town and at work are free. Need I say any more?

For all of this: zero up front investment. No need for owning anything at all. But by all means, keep driving your gas guzzlers, it means more free charging stations for me.

I'd have to see the #'s on all this, but without that:

1) My electricity rate hasn't changed in over 6 years, don't know about CA, and in my area we have wind farms out the you know what with inadequate infrastructure to send the electricity somewhere else, so not much upward pressure on rates.

2) For your lease payment to be less than you were paying for gas you'd have to be driving some ridiculous # of miles that probably isn't typical for the average commuter. Even my wife who does OT for a coop of local rural schools and goes to a different one everyday driving over 60 miles round trip in different directions plus running errands, etc. only uses about $250/mo for gas. She drives a Chevy Cruze LTZ I bought her for Christmas last year. It gets awesome mileage (>40 mpg highway which is most of her driving) and was very reasonably priced. Wrote the dealer a check, and kept her old car for my son who turns 16 in a few months and for myself when I don't need a truck since it gets a lot better mileage. Can't help but wonder if there won't wind up being a huge charge at the end of your lease to cover replacement of those batteries. That fine print in those leases can bite you. I just buy my vehicles and keep them forever. Not that expensive to repair them, especially if you can do most of the work yourself like I do. Replaced the starter last weekend for probably the 7th time. Guessing Autozone doesn't plan on you keeping your vehicle for 25 years or more when they sell you parts with a lifetime warranty. LOL!

3) The tiered rate thing would be great, but they don't even do that in my area as far as I know.

4) Electric charging stations? Ah yeah, must be a CA thing, and somebody is paying for it. If your employer offers it free, it just means they are paying you less to offer the "free" charging station. Another of my pet peeves, the way our society tries to disguise the true cost of everything from electric charging stations, to social security/medicare, to health insurance, etc. by making it an "employee benefit" while simultaneously mucking up the transparency of the labor market.

Like Tom said (and me before him) the number of miles you drive is a lot more important than the efficiency of your vehicle. I use about 12 gallons of gasoline per month for my pickup which is used for hauling things (feed, pulling a trailer, etc.) so an economy car isn't really an option, and even if I bought the most efficient one I'd save a whopping $20/month on fuel expense. Even an electric one with "free" electricity wouldn't save me $40/month, and I'd have to pay for the vehicle whereas my truck has been paid for for over 20 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

The math is simple.

Step 1: I lease solar from Solar City, my bill is fixed for the next 30 years at a rate below the utilities, so as the prices of electicity increase every year by over 12%, my rate, which is already below what PG&E charges me, stays the same. Every year, the delta between what I actually pay solar city and what the utilities would charge me keeps increasing.

Step 2: I drive the electric car which I lease because batteries are limiited in lifetime. My payment to Nissan is more than offset by the money I save on gas.

Step 3: I have the tiered utility rate. So I actually make money on top of what I pay to solar city. I produce power during peak hours. But my car charges during the night hours when the rate drops to 5 cents per kwh. So I charge PG&E more money for the power during the day than I pay for at night. It's a killer deal.

Step 4: Electric charging stations around town and at work are free. Need I say any more?

For all of this: zero up front investment. No need for owning anything at all. But by all means, keep driving your gas guzzlers, it means more free charging stations for me.

I'd have to see the #'s on all this, but without that:

1) My electricity rate hasn't changed in over 6 years, don't know about CA, and in my area we have wind farms out the you know what with inadequate infrastructure to send the electricity somewhere else, so not much upward pressure on rates.

2) For your lease payment to be less than you were paying for gas you'd have to be driving some ridiculous # of miles that probably isn't typical for the average commuter. Even my wife who does OT for a coop of local rural schools and goes to a different one everyday driving over 60 miles round trip in different directions plus running errands, etc. only uses about $250/mo for gas. She drives a Chevy Cruze LTZ I bought her for Christmas last year. It gets awesome mileage (>40 mpg highway which is most of her driving) and was very reasonably priced. Wrote the dealer a check, and kept her old car for my son who turns 16 in a few months and for myself when I don't need a truck since it gets a lot better mileage. Can't help but wonder if there won't wind up being a huge charge at the end of your lease to cover replacement of those batteries. That fine print in those leases can bite you. I just buy my vehicles and keep them forever. Not that expensive to repair them, especially if you can do most of the work yourself like I do. Replaced the starter last weekend for probably the 7th time. Guessing Autozone doesn't plan on you keeping your vehicle for 25 years or more when they sell you parts with a lifetime warranty. LOL!

3) The tiered rate thing would be great, but they don't even do that in my area as far as I know.

4) Electric charging stations? Ah yeah, must be a CA thing, and somebody is paying for it. If your employer offers it free, it just means they are paying you less to offer the "free" charging station. Another of my pet peeves, the way our society tries to disguise the true cost of everything from electric charging stations, to social security/medicare, to health insurance, etc. by making it an "employee benefit" while simultaneously mucking up the transparency of the labor market.

Like Tom said (and me before him) the number of miles you drive is a lot more important than the efficiency of your vehicle. I use about 12 gallons of gasoline per month for my pickup which is used for hauling things (feed, pulling a trailer, etc.) so an economy car isn't really an option, and even if I bought the most efficient one I'd save a whopping $20/month on fuel expense. Even an electric one with "free" electricity wouldn't save me $40/month, and I'd have to pay for the vehicle whereas my truck has been paid for for over 20 years.

Hmmm, you drive one of these?

Audi%20Blaylock%20in%20the%20Sanford%20%

Well, anyway, let's steer this thread back to the mini ice age. This just in: record snow fall in Israel.

http://www.news.com.au/world/israel-blanketed-with-snow-after-heavy-falls-as-rain-floods-gaza-strip/story-fndir2ev-1226783373342

373727-6a9ed9a4-650b-11e3-bdad-d26236de0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Record snow, record cold, record heat are meaningless. Those are weather events. Even a record cold decade or two is meaningless.

temperature-thousands-of-years-ago.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Dean's the one who brought up the chinese, talk about a fascinating topic.

I was careful and never mentioned the Chinese - only a hypothetical up and coming super power. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rafael

Here we have been experiencing unexpectable cold too.

And my guess is this was a cold late autumn, winter maybe will be milder :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

I don't know why I think of the RUSH song "Temples of Syrinx" when I see climate threads. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the song...it is about a boy who finds a guitar and brings it to the priests in the year 2112....the priests with their great computers who plan everything tell him to forget about it because everything has been planned and his guitar music has no place in their society.

Now I'm not saying that the powers that be have a plan to control the masses, but what better way than to regulate everything about the individual until the individual is just part of the grand scheme. Three points......

1. Why did the excessively used term "Global Warming" suddenly become "Climate Change"

2. Follow the Money......who makes money from Climate Change?, are they in power? Does it give them more power/money?

3. Who pays the salaries/grants of the Scientists on both sides of the issue?

If it gets colder......will it affect the planet in a negative way?........If it gets warmer......will it affect the planet in a negative way? Which is worse.

One thing.........the more things change, the more they stay the same.........huh...another RUSH reference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shirleypalmpaws

Money. Power. Control. I can feel the effects….a scientific game of scientific musical chairs……gonna keep scientifically banging at us, and it's always 'over our heads', ever after us with their broken scientific hockey sticks….never missing a beat switching the scientific method to now climate change from global warming. She blinded me with science! And, something, something, technology.

PBT.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

"Truth" as used today is most often the hallowed ground of philosophers, religions and politics.

I stick with facts and their reasonable interpretation. . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

"Truth" as used today is most often the hallowed ground of philosophers, religions and politics.

I stick with facts and their reasonable interpretation. . .

and maybe scientist as well.......guess it is according to who is funding them....after all, they are people too...got families to feed....reputations to uphold.....thesis to defend..

"Exciting news about polar bears in eastern Canada: the peer-reviewed paper on the Davis Strait subpopulation study has finally been published (Peacock et al. 2013). It concludes that despite sea ice having declined since the 1970s, polar bear numbers in Davis Strait have not only increased to a greater density (bears per 1,000 km2) than other seasonal-ice subpopulations (like Western Hudson Bay), but it may now have reached its ‘carrying capacity.’"

Is Global Warming better than Global Cooling?

Life Expectancy at Various Periods Warmer Days and Longer Lives

Thomas Gale Moore

Senior Fellow

Hoover Institution

Stanford University

Difference in Percentage Growth Rate of Population from the Expected

Period Climate Difference in Growth Rate 5000BC-1000BC 
Warmest Period +5deg.F +0.050% 500BC-600AD 
Cooling Period -0.011% 800AD-1200 
Medieval Warm Period +0.001% +3deg.F 1300-1800 
Mini Ice Age -0.034% 

Source: Kremer 1993, table 1 and the author.

Life Expectancy at Various Periods

Mesolithic People in Europe -- Ice 32

Age

Neolithic, Anatolia -- Warm Period 38

Bronze Age, Austria -- Warm Period 38

Classical Greece -- Cooler 35

Classical Rome -- Cooler 32

England 1276 a.d. -- Warm Period 48

England 1376-1400 -- Mini Ice Age 38

Source: Lamb [1977]: 264.

  
Average Height of Icelandic Males Period (a.d.) Mean Height Medieval Warmth 874-1100 68" Mini Ice Age 1650-1800 66" Modern World 1952-1954 70" Source: Lamb [1977]: 264.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenikakias

The most interesting non-palmy topic. I dare however not express my personal opinion, I prefer to read ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

I probably shouldn't either.....but sometimes I think that people put too much trust into the studies on both sides of the issue. Especially when there are commercial and monetary interests involved. Sometimes you can't see the forest because of the trees. If you step back and look at the big picture you can see the man behind the curtain.

Hate to keep using metaphores but it seems applicable in this instance.

I would still like to get an answer to the basic question of why the terminology changed so quickly from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"..........seemed like it happened very quickly....like someone at the top is giving orders...really weird IMO.

What is "Climate Change"? ...... If the climate changes from hot to cold or from cold to hot would be my guess......sounds like two sides of a coin....no matter which way it goes....you are right....unless of course there is no change. But history shows the climate DOES change over time....so it looks like they got a winning argument using the teminology that they have coined.....Seems Logical....right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

I probably shouldn't either.....but sometimes I think that people put too much trust into the studies on both sides of the issue. Especially when there are commercial and monetary interests involved. Sometimes you can't see the forest because of the trees. If you step back and look at the big picture you can see the man behind the curtain.

Hate to keep using metaphores but it seems applicable in this instance.

I would still like to get an answer to the basic question of why the terminology changed so quickly from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"..........seemed like it happened very quickly....like someone at the top is giving orders...really weird IMO.

What is "Climate Change"? ...... If the climate changes from hot to cold or from cold to hot would be my guess......sounds like two sides of a coin....no matter which way it goes....you are right....unless of course there is no change. But history shows the climate DOES change over time....so it looks like they got a winning argument using the teminology that they have coined.....Seems Logical....right?

David, first the point of the polar bear article you posted about was that the low reproductive rate of those bears is either a result of the population density, or the lessening sea-ice, or parts of both. But it was not possible to say definitively which factor was forcing the reduction in reproduction. Yes, there are more bears now in total, mostly because of increased protections from the overhunting prior to the 1980's. However, the rebounding to current "carrying capacity" does not mean they are not threatened. (also, the reduction of sea-ice reduces the carrying capacity...)

As for your global warming/change terminology question. I was unaware there was much of a difference. Generally, "Climate Change" is used more locally where the overall trend may not necessarily be heating, but a significant alteration to the yearly season weather patterns. An hypothetical example might be an alteration of the timing or intensity of monsoons in southeast Asia, the place is already about as hot as it's going to get but the climate is still changing. (another note, if the global average temperature rises +1C, near the equator there will be almost no change, but high latitudes will see several degrees rise in temp to make up the average. In an average rise in temperature the heating always happens more at the poles) However, I do see how there seems to be a lot more use of the Climate Change term lately. Perhaps, thinking meta for a moment, the use of "Global Climate Change" is a less bitter pill to swallow than "Global Warming", a term which seems to have been demonized by those outside the science who will lose profit/power if the general population were to understand it better.

For the sake of clarification I would say that Local Climate Change is a part of Global Climate Change which is all driven by Global Warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mats

I would still like to get an answer to the basic question of why the terminology changed so quickly from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"..........

That's simple... it didn't.

The following comes straight from this Skeptical Science page

"There have long been claims that some unspecified "they" has "changed the name from 'global warming' to 'climate change'". In reality, the two terms mean different things, have both been used for decades, and the only individual to have specifically advocated changing the name in this fashion is a global warming 'skeptic'."

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

post-235-0-24283200-1387405504_thumb.jpg

'Climate change', again as the name suggests, refers to the changes in the global climate which result from the increasing average global temperature. For example, changes in precipitation patterns, increased prevalence of droughts, heat waves, and other extreme weather, etc.

Thus while the physical phenomena are causally related, they are not the same thing. Human greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming, which in turn is causing climate chage. However, because the terms are causally related, they are often used interchangeably in normal daily communications.

The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.

In fact, according to Google Books, the usage of both terms in books published in the United States has increased at similar rates over the past 40 years:

post-235-0-93824800-1387406550_thumb.jpg

And a Google Scholar search reveals that the term 'climate change' was in use before the term 'global warming', and has always been the more commonly-used term in scientific literature:

post-235-0-12833400-1387405951_thumb.gif

..........seemed like it happened very quickly....like someone at the top is giving orders...really weird IMO.

Again, from the Skeptical Science page...

"perhaps the only individual to actually advocate changing the term from 'global warming' to 'climate change', Republican political strategist Frank Luntz in a controversial memo advising conservative politicians on communicating about the environment:

Luntz said, It’s time for us to start talking about “climate change” instead of global warming and “conservation” instead of preservation.
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming”. As one focus group participant noted, climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brahea Axel

"climate change “sounds like you’re going from Pittsburgh to Fort Lauderdale.” "

Ha ha, that actually sounds kinda nice. Now if we could go from Santa Cruz to La Paz without loosing the redwoods, that could be pretty nice too. Judging from the picture below and this year's rainfall totals, I think we'd probably loose the redwoods.

La_Paz_coastline.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Well at least someone finally answered the question. You should contact the primary media outlets and let them know because everyone of them missed the memo.....so in turn much of the general population missed it as well.

So is it better to be too hot, too cold or just right? I think we should all buy carbon credits to offset our fossil fuel gluttony, surely that will will bring the temps down. Hope everyone is doing there part. I say we start with tearing this house down.........

post-97-0-78619900-1387417480_thumb.jpg

Think of how many of us peons could live within this same carbon footprint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

You can read the entire article here

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

David Lappi is a geologist from Alaska who has sent in a set of beautiful graphs–including an especially prosaic one of the last 10,000 years in Greenland–that he put together himself (and which I’ve copied here at the top).

If you wonder where today’s temperature fits in with the grand scheme of time on Earth since the dinosaurs were wiped out, here’s the history. We start with the whole 65 million years, then zoom in, and zoom in again to the last 12,000 from both ends of the world. What’s obvious is that in terms of homo sapiens history, things are warm now (because we’re not in an ice age). But, in terms of homo sapiens civilization, things are cooler than usual, and appear to be cooling.

Then again, since T-rex & Co. vanished, it’s been one long slide down the thermometer, and our current “record heatwave” is far cooler than normal. The dinosaurs would have scoffed at us: “What? You think this is warm?”

With so much volatility in the graphs, anyone could play “pick a trend” and depending on which dot you start from, you can get any trend you want. — Jo

Axel may be right.....New Mini Ice Age

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

It is kind of cold in this hotel room, at least now I know what is wrong. I'll adjust the thermostat and wait a few hundred years until it warms up again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shirleypalmpaws

Probably not a lot of people know about that Luntz guy, but sure, it's very believable the main stream media will fix it for us. Meanwhile, Al Gore is a household name brand. I think it seems closer to the truth that most likely Al Gore burned the term 'global warming', and maybe that's why it's not being used? I mean, beside the fact that now its climate changed to global cooling. Gore was the guy who was predicting the Arctic ice cap would be all gone by now. I think IPCC and he won a nobel prize! Gore with all his scientific backing also said, in part,"Peoples in the frozen Arctic…..Climate refugees have migrated into areas already inhabited by people with different cultures, religions, and traditions, increasing the potential for conflict." So, here I am, an Eskimo in Florida. Well, he got that part right. Except everyone has been pretty much friendly, and especially I love PalmTalk very much. Hey, if I like global warming, can I keep global warming?

Yesterday morning, Ken and I were chatting about sweaters and speedos, because I want more palms but because now that global warming is burned I'm afraid to buy anything but cold-hardy for my area. Couldn't chat very long because I had to get the dogs ready for work. Btw the way, my dogs look like polar bears! lol. In fact, we call Cris, our oldest girl, a polar bear. And, finally, speaking of polar bears…..they've been around for 4 to 5 MILLION years. Can't imagine how many climate changes that could make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

BTW:

According to NOAA Scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was the highest for November since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive November and the 345th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average November global temperature was November 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.

(swiped from my former meteorology professor, Dr. Ken Dewey, School of Natural Resources Climate blog, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, today)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

BTW:

According to NOAA Scientists, the globally-averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for November 2013 was the highest for November since record keeping began in 1880. It also marked the 37th consecutive November and the 345th consecutive month (more than 28 years) with a global temperature above the 20th century average. The last below-average November global temperature was November 1976 and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985.

(swiped from my former meteorology professor, Dr. Ken Dewey, School of Natural Resources Climate blog, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, today)

Also 9 of the ten hottest years since records have been kept are in the 21st century. The other one is 1998.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:


So I want to get this right...... "long term" is considered considered to be around 135 years?

Our discussions kind of remind me of trying to time the Stock Market........wish I would have had a long-term stake invested a year ago. If I would have invested heavily 7 years ago...I would probably still be screwed.

I'll tell you what....lets just agree to disagree on this subject....but we both agree that we DO need to try and get away from Oil based products (I hate indebtedness and reliance to countries that hate us), we need to conserve our resources (nobody likes waste), we need to save species from extinction (plants and animals), need to lower our pollutants into our natural systems (especially toxic metals) etc......I am more of an environmentalist than you think (my bachelor of science is environmental technology) actually I probably am more of a conservationist. I just have different motivations and priorities (there are more pressing problems IMO)....so I agree with you that we need to do as much as we can to not pee where we lay. I think I'm done with this subject...time to grow palms.....one last parting shot...the news media, politics and the dominant governmental powers (on all/same side) mostly suck......Don't Tread On Me....peace out....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Both of the terms in question are used frequently in the scientific literature, because they refer to two different physical phenomena. As the name suggests, 'global warming' refers to the long-term trend of a rising average global temperature, which you can see here:

So I want to get this right...... "long term" is considered considered to be around 135 years?

Our discussions kind of remind me of trying to time the Stock Market........wish I would have had a long-term stake invested a year ago. If I would have invested heavily 7 years ago...I would probably still be screwed.

I'll tell you what....lets just agree to disagree on this subject....but we both agree that we DO need to try and get away from Oil based products (I hate indebtedness and reliance to countries that hate us), we need to conserve our resources (nobody likes waste), we need to save species from extinction (plants and animals), need to lower our pollutants into our natural systems (especially toxic metals) etc......I am more of an environmentalist than you think (my bachelor of science is environmental technology) actually I probably am more of a conservationist. I just have different motivations and priorities (there are more pressing problems IMO)....so I agree with you that we need to do as much as we can to not pee where we lay. I think I'm done with this subject...time to grow palms.....one last parting shot...the news media, politics and the dominant governmental powers (on all/same side) mostly suck......Don't Tread On Me....peace out....

Oil is a very finite resource. I am guessing long before we really know about the true effect (from its uses) on the climate, we will be out of it, at least in the mass availability we have now.. I am not thinking in terms of decades, but not much more than a century or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

Wait on one hand there's thousands of peer reviewed scientific journal articles saying that a large part of climate change is due to human CO2 production

On the other hand "THEY.. changed global warming to climate change..."

Sounds like a draw :bemused: Its sad really.

Edited by palmsnbananas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

Also what is this idiotic argument of "is colder better or is warmer better" "i like it warmer" "its been warmer before", are you arguing with yourself, is there a scientist saying that if the global temp avg was X instead of Y it would be "better".. NO.

Yeah, everyone knows its been warmer at different points during the history of the earth, thanks for the revelation.

The point is the climate is changing FASTER than animals and plants can adapt, so many species are going EXTINCT. Is it clear now?

There's also other reasons to be concerned sea level rise etc of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

I would just like to jump in and say how refreshing it is that this thread has been allowed to continue so long. We've had a lot of very interesting discussion and (at least so far) have not degraded into slurs, name-calling, or anything involving "your mother!".

Let's see how long we can keep this civil!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spockvr6

I would just like to jump in and say how refreshing it is that this thread has been allowed to continue so long. We've had a lot of very interesting discussion and (at least so far) have not degraded into slurs, name-calling, or anything involving "your mother!".

Let's see how long we can keep this civil!

My theory on contenious subjects------

There is no obvious answer when such a discussion is occuring, ottherwise there would be no contention :)

For example.....how many spirited debates are there out there which address whether 1+1=2? Not many.....as there is enough information (and associated agreement) that the statement is true. For subjects which are not so rigorously defined, there will always be debate, until enough information is obtained which allows consensus to naturally occur (i.e. the 1+1=3 club goes extinct) :mrlooney:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulgila

good point,larry, but few theories are as cut & dried as that, so that's where "consensus" comes in, & the current consensus of the scientific community is that

climate change is real & it is man made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

good point,larry, but few theories are as cut & dried as that, so that's where "consensus" comes in, & the current consensus of the scientific community is that

climate change is real & it is man made.

What is the current consensus on whether "the current consensus of the scientific community is that

climate change is real & it is man made."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
palmsnbananas

good point,larry, but few theories are as cut & dried as that, so that's where "consensus" comes in, & the current consensus of the scientific community is that

climate change is real & it is man made.

What is the current consensus on whether "the current consensus of the scientific community is that

climate change is real & it is man made."

:floor:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...