myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 225, 226, 227 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1364

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My physicist acquaintance still has his nightmares about an asteroid strike, but when I can't get to sleep (to dream about Raquel Welch) I consider how lucky the human race hjas been, up to now.

Supposing we'd evolved and developed to our present status a half a million years or so earlier. Here we'd be at that time, sitting at our computers, debating the global warming cause (a bit more pronounced at that time) when the greatest disaster ever was imminent; the Ice Age.

Half the Northern Hemisphere being covered in advancing ice sheets, growing to thousands of feet thick, for thousands of years, and gouging out collosal U shaped valleys which once held our cattle and crops. Now that WOULD be a real disaster! (And I bet no computer would have forecast it!)

Interestingly, in the 1950's there was still debate about whether the Ice Age had really ended, or whether we were merely in another inter-glacial phase. Considering the last retreat was a mere 10,000 years or so ago (less than a blink of the eye on earths geological time scale) I do sometimes still wonder.

But no, it can't be so, can it? Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 223

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
Excellent report Coboard.

But doesn't the sheer complexity show how simplistic 'global warming' computer models were, especially when projected into future events! (Compounding the errors of omission.)

The report acknowledges that (quote) 'the sun COULD be on the threshold of a mini Maunder right now.' And (quote) 'if the sun really is entering an UNFAMILIAR (the Russian claim) phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun climate link.'

I wouldn't bet the farm on any future certainty at present!


To assume that the uncertainties in the models will all break in the favor of humanity is extremely imprudent.

The basic physics of the the green house effect is not in dispute: High energy photons from the sun are absorbed by the earth. The earth molecules which absorb the photons move faster (get warmer) and emit lower energy photons, which are radiated out toward space. Certain gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide and methane, absorb those lower energy photons, which heats the atmosphere.

While the transfer of heat in the atmosphere is complex, the geological record shows that periods of high greenhouse gases correspond with high atmospheric temperatures, higher sea levels, and radically different distribution of flora and fauna. The concern of scientists is that human activities are introducing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at a rate and a scale that will cause climate changes to which our current civilization is ill-suited to adapt.

Because the transfer of global energy in the atmosphere and oceans is complex, and scientific models are by definition incomplete, the are of course uncertainties in the details of how global warming will proceed. But, the basic model is good enough to show us the trends.

It is in the short-term interest of certain industries to emphasize the cost of becoming greenhouse gas neutral, and to minimize the effects of global warming. In fact, the cost of solar and wind power (including storage) are now low enough that they could be our principal sources of electricity. The technology for changes in our manufacturing and transportation sectors to make them greenhouse gas neutral are also at hand.

Given that the sources of fossil fuels are finite, and we will have to find other sources of energy eventually, the prudent course is to develop alternate energy now, while we still have a chance to mitigate the effects of global warming. Petroleum and natural gas should be used as feed-stocks for our chemical industry, and not burned for transportation and electricity.

It is regrettable that this has become a left-right issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4229

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah, Raquel, I was a wee lad, and she was my 1st love. This calls for a duel...

Perspective is everything in life as they say. I've often thought asteroids, famine, bio terror, zombie attack, GMO's, NSA spying, big government, and Britney Spears would be the downfall of our civilization, rather than a warmer climate. Laughing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14321

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pointster wrote:
1. The basic physics of the the green house effect is not in dispute:

2. periods of high greenhouse gases correspond with high atmospheric temperatures, higher sea levels, and radically different distribution of flora and fauna.

3. It is in the short-term interest of certain industries ... to minimize the effects of global warming.

4. In fact, the cost of solar and wind power (including storage) are now low enough that they could be our principal sources of electricity.

5. Given that the sources of fossil fuels are finite.

1. Yet you omitted its all-important plateau effect.

2. "correspondence" (correlation) does not establish causation. Of high CO2 and warmer climate ... which is the egg and which is the chicken, which came first, and what is the causal relationship?

3. Which is the more effective and/or cheaper way to halt or even reverse dramatic global climate change ... tens of trillions of dollars, or the passage of 30 years (don't forget that the climate nuts were screaming "ICE AGE" just 30-40 years ago). The former bankrupts the free world and achieves almost nothing even over 100 years, whereas the latter is free and apparently effective within a generation or two.

4. The wind power myth has been busted as a subsidy-inflated hot air balloon. It even knocked T. Boone Pickens off the list of the world's wealthiest men.

5. Russia's leading oil scientist says otherwise, and not one of the self-proclaimed oil experts here has denied his proof that oil is abiotic and self-renewing ... i.e., its source is purely mineral, unrelated to dinosaurs.

AGW, as an excuse and conduit to globally redistribute the U.S.'s wealth, has been political at least since Charles McCarthy exposed Communism as the conduit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3457

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The "panic full scale leap" into trashing the economy over global warming is a product of the fake media. No liberal supports this but you hear about it a lot from the Right.
It is one of those fake ideas that is tearing up our country , but partisans are not giving it up.
How can they say that they opposes Cos plan and not appear fools?
They need to assign a different plan to liberals and oppose that instead.
Talk and Fox are happy to suggest some stupid ideas to assign to others so listeners can feel smarter.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3457

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawaii is the most liberal state so alt energy is roaring ahead. They have taken ten years off the estimated time to 50% alt use in Maui.
We now make about 22% of our power from solar and wind and Maui Electric is having trouble processing new applications.
The windmills make too much power so they are debating a power line to Oahu to sell the rest.
They are planning more mills.
Wind power has proven to be a viable tech when you don't have a giant lobby fighting against it and pitiful little men parroting the oil companies propaganda.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 1960

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT

I got sort of distracted with your post when brought up Ms
Welch. I wonder how much any of us would have appreciated her had she been completely clad in mammoth skins.

OMG... I just proved global warming is better than global cooling!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3457

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Raquel Welch
A nice warm cave.
Lots of firewood.
Yes.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pointster



Joined: 22 Jul 2010
Posts: 223

PostPosted: Sat Sep 21, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Yet you omitted its all-important plateau effect.

"Plateau effect" results from transfer of heat from atmosphere to ocean. Rising ocean temps cause water to expand, resulting in rising sea level - not a good thing for Bangladesh or New York City and a bunch of other places where humans live.

2. "correspondence" (correlation) does not establish causation. Of high CO2 and warmer climate ... which is the egg and which is the chicken, which came first, and what is the causal relationship?

The greenhouse effect does establish causation: more CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, more global warming. The physics is really pretty simple.

3. Which is the more effective and/or cheaper way to halt or even reverse dramatic global climate change ... tens of trillions of dollars, or the passage of 30 years (don't forget that the climate nuts were screaming "ICE AGE" just 30-40 years ago). The former bankrupts the free world and achieves almost nothing even over 100 years, whereas the latter is free and apparently effective within a generation or two.

Tens of trillions of dollars wil not "bankrupt" the world. We will have to bring lots of power online as the world's economy develops. We will be spending a lot of money to do so, and we can chose to use fossil fuels to do so, or alternative clean sources of energy. When one considers the externalities of pollution and costs global warming inherent in fossil fuels, wind and solar should be no more expensive, and most likely less expensive.

4. The wind power myth has been busted as a subsidy-inflated hot air balloon. It even knocked T. Boone Pickens off the list of the world's wealthiest men.

T Boone Pickens' play was predicated on high prices for natural gas. He was always about selling natural gas, not on generating electricity.

5. Russia's leading oil scientist says otherwise, and not one of the self-proclaimed oil experts here has denied his proof that oil is abiotic and self-renewing ... i.e., its source is purely mineral, unrelated to dinosaurs.

The Russian theory have never led to the finding of a major oil of gas field. The international oil industry has rejected this theory.

AGW, as an excuse and conduit to globally redistribute the U.S.'s wealth, has been political at least since Charles McCarthy exposed Communism as the conduit

Are you referring to Charlie McCarthy, the ventriloquist's dummy?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1364

PostPosted: Sun Sep 22, 2013 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pointster. ... Wind power is practical and effective in many places, but not so in securing energy supply in our (Britains) vastly overpopulated, heavily industrialised, and power hungry economy of our relatively tiny island.

All studies have shown that without full scale conventional back up, permanently running on standby for when wind power just 'shuts off', we couldn't cope. Even our governments much vaunted stance of generating 30% of our power needs from renewables by the year 2030, is now seen as unrealistic. (What would it be saving anyway, with conventional stations having to be manned and run on permanent stand by?)

Consequently, our government has finally conceeded that we must build a new generation of nuclear power stations, just 'to keep the lights burning.' (regardless of objections by the green lobby.)

As I'm sure you know, other European countries face the same problem. France relies very heavily on nuclear power already, and Germany is building new coal fired stations (won't touch nuclear) so as to guarantee continual power supply for its huge industrial economy.

Also, your notion that fuel (diesel, petrol, gas) should no longer be used for transport will never be acceptable. It smacks of big brother regimentation (beloved of socialist societies) which would be an assault on our personal freedom to travel where we wish, when we wish, and how we wish!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 225, 226, 227 ... 347, 348, 349  Next
Page 226 of 349

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group