Climategate

1129130132134135153

Comments

  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BR View Post


    Money,

    All for money,

    Save your money,

    Hide your money,

    Stuff your money,

    Hump your money

    Keep your money

    All for money,



    It's ok BR.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Agree with much of what you have posted above. If you remember, a while back, I mentioned that even if AGW is a myth, it makes sense to reduce our carbon footprint[, encourage cleaning up the environment, reduce deforestation, and reduce pollution.][FT Comment: edited out by e###]



    I think that we can both agree to this.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    We are in an inter-glacial period in an ice age. Interglacials last 10,000 years or so on average, and ours is 10,000 years old or so. I don't agree that it is a good idea to reduce our carbon footprint until we know what the non-man made portion of climate change is, it might be that our CO2 is the only thing keeping us alive.





    Glacial-Interglacial cycles



    Quote:

    What is the cause of glacial-interglacial cycles?



    Variations in the Earth's orbit through time have changed the amount of solar radiation received by the Earth in each season (Figure 3).





    Figure 3. (Top) Solar radiation varies smoothly through time with a strong cyclicity of ~23,000 years, as seen in this time-series of July incoming solar radiation at 65°N (Berger and Loutre, 1991). (Middle) In contrast, glacial-interglacial cycles last ~100,000 years and consist of stepwise cooling events followed by rapid warmings, as seen in this time-series inferred from hydrogen isotopes in the Dome Fuji ice core from Antarctica (Kawamura et al., 2007). (Bottom) Atmospheric CO2 measured from bubbles in Dome Fuji ice shows the same pattern as the temperature time-series (Kawamura et al., 2007).



    Interglacial periods tend to occur during periods of peak solar radiation in the Northern Hemisphere summer. As you can see in Figure 3, however, full interglacials occur only about every fifth peak in the precession cycle. The full explanation for this observation is still an active area of research. Non-linear processes such as positive feedbacks within the climate system must also be very important in determining when glacial and interglacial periods occur.



    Warming at the end of glacial periods tends to happen more abruptly than the increase in solar insolation. There are several positive feedbacks that are responsible for this. One is the ice-albedo feedback. A second feedback involves atmospheric CO2. Direct measurement of past CO2 trapped in ice core bubbles show that the amount of atmospheric CO2 decreased during glacial periods (Figure 3), in part because more CO2 was stored in the deep ocean due to changes in either ocean mixing or biological activity. Lower CO2 levels weakened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and helped to maintain low temperatures. Warming at the end of the glacial periods liberated CO2 from the ocean, which strengthened the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and contributed to further warming.



    First, recent interglacial periods are between 10 - 30 K years so we can have a considerable amount of time before the next one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation



    Before I respond to your premis that the man made component of CO2 might be the ?only thing keeping us alive,? you need to understand that there are already natural production of CO2 through biological and geologic processes. There is also a natural process of absorption and release of CO2 commonly referred to the carbon cycle. Some of the factors that trap CO2, known as carbon sinks are plants and deposition of CO2 by marine organism like coral?CaCO3---calcium carbonate. However we are losing these sinks by deforestation and pollution of the oceans through toxic substances and CO2 releases. The increasing amount of atmospheric CO2 is making the oceans more acidic.http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...20#post1744020



    Further information on impacts of CO2 and oceans:

    Coral Doctor



    Quote:

    But as Guinotte and his colleagues are discovering, that boon?the oceans' role as a "carbon sink"?comes at a potentially devastating cost: the oceans are becoming more acidic. So far the effects have remained largely out of the public eye. But Guinotte says the changes in ocean chemistry that he sees are great enough to keep him awake at night and may prove to be among the most devastating effects of ever-increasing levels of CO2 *in the atmosphere.



    Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter







    Anthropogenic and natural CO2 emission sources in an arid urban environment.



    Quote:

    The CO2 levels, 50% greater than the surrounding non-urban areas, have been attributed to anthropogenic sources and the physical geography of the area. We quantified sources of CO2 emissions across the metropolitan region. Anthropogenic CO2 emission data were obtained from a variety of government and NGO sources. Soil CO2 efflux from the dominant land-use types was measured over the year. Humans and automobile activity produced more than 80% input of CO2 into the urban environment.



    How Much of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Accumulation Is Anthropogenic?



    Quote:

    Anthropogenic carbon emissions per year has reached a troublesome magnitude. Today, the atmosphere contains about 720 Gtons of carbon. The concentration of carbon dioxide is about 360 ppm. Regardless of its source, one billion tons of carbon released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide would increase its concentration by 0.5 ppm (360 / 720) if all of it stayed there. However, scientists estimate that about half of present human carbon emissions are absorbed by the environment. Of the half absorbed, scientists have accounted for where half of that goes. Where the other half goes is the "mystery of the missing carbon" (about 1.8 Gton per year).



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Environmental scientists pretend to understand the human component of global warming, but when you turn around and ask them "if humans died out during the last glaciation period, when would this interglacial have ended?" they have no idea. They need to understand things better before they start trying to change stuff.



    Please provide links supporting your two statement. Aren't we still in the interglacial period from the last glacial period, so it hasn't ended yet---has it?
  • frank777frank777 Posts: 5,693member
    Worm, why don't you start a thread on solar panels? It is an interesting tech subject that I think a lot of people are interested in all by itself. We're going to see the sector increasingly invade the home and business sectors over time. And this is, after all, a tech board.



    Decoupling the tech discussion from the Climate argument couldn't be a bad thing, could it?
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post


    My 36 Sunpower panels have produced 51,648 KWH so far.



    For $ 15,000 you prepay all the electricity a home needs over it's life time.



    If you plan on getting a Leaf or any plug in car, I recommend investing another 15,000 for a 4.2 KW system and drive your E car for the rest of your life even if you are 16 right now.

    I think that might come out to $ 0.01 per mile (high estimate).



    The cost of delivery of the energy to you is $ 0.-



    I do not have a degree in business or economics but if you think 15Gs is a lot for a life time of fuel you should immediately get a frontal lobotomy.



    You can have more energy than you can ever use for very little $ and you will not produce ANY POLLUTION whatsoever.



    OIL MUST DIE AND SO MUST COAL.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post


    Cost of those panels was more like $50k, the government just paid most of it. And you don't get energy forever, what is the mtbf of your system?



    To calculate the cost effectiveness of your panels we would need more information - unsubsidised price, maintenance costs, kwh generated per day, cost of electricity in your state, etc.





    Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factor?fewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.



    As suggested by Frank777 might be the topic of another thread. Might expand it to other green technologies like solar panels and alternate fuel and energy sources. Also we do need oil as it is the foundation for other products: A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factor?fewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.



    As suggested by Frank777 might be the topic of another thread. Might expand it to other green technologies like solar panels and alternate fuel and energy sources. Also we do need oil as it is the foundation for other products: A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items)



    And then there's the batteries. Don't forget the batteries!
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    And then there's the batteries. Don't forget the batteries!



    This might be a comment meant for wh. But batteries might not be necessary as the surplus power generated could be sold and supply the grid and when the sun is down, the credit for the power is bought back.



    Question for wm---did the price include the DC>AC inverter and the batteries as MJ1970 mentions?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    This might be a comment meant for wh. But batteries might not be necessary as the surplus power generated could be sold and supply the grid and when the sun is down, the credit for the power is bought back.



    Fair enough. It depends on your objectives I guess. If you are looking to be independent from "the grid" this solution might have some problems.



    P.S. I'll also note that this selling back to the grid is a legal mandate. The power companies are required to buy back the excess.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Fair enough. It depends on your objectives I guess. If you are looking to be independent from "the grid" this solution might have some problems.



    P.S. I'll also note that this selling back to the grid is a legal mandate. The power companies are required to buy back the excess.



    We're kind of getting off topic and I will defer until Worm or someone else opens the topic on another thread. Also I don't have he expertise to delve into this topic.
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Really? How are they artificially inflated?



    I've found that doing solar at my home even with all of the governmental tax breaks (which artificially lower the cost) and such still makes it a money losing proposition.



    The company I work for looked at doing solar to power the data center. They estimated something like 20 acres of solar panels and about 40-year pay off. I assume they were including all of the tax breaks they'd have at their disposal. And these are guys who have a lot of incentive to lower power costs.



    What is the payoff of oil and coal?



    infinite years?



    Why do you hate independence and freedom?
  • wormholewormhole Posts: 864member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post


    Seems like there could be other considerations with solar panels. Latitude could be a factor. Best closest to the equator---also longer days. There are seasonal variations as the sun relative to the earth changes with the season in more northerly or southerly latitudes. Weather pattern are also a factor?fewer sunny days would affect the efficiency.



    Due to our denier crowd in congress the US has missed the boat on inventing technologies. Leader is Germany. Not known for their sunny weather.....



    Panels are now close to twice as efficient than just 5 years ago. The future solutions is simple, when you live in an area with less sun like the North Pole, get more panels.



    A company from Spain is ready to introduce a panel that makes as much electricity as 18 of my panels. Pretty much your car roof will be able to charge your batteries very soon and supply electricity for your house as well.



    But here in the US we are just not interested in inventing the future. We think killing everything is the way to go. We like wars for oil over intellectual competition for technological leadership and true independence. It's what god wants.



    We hate our own government but want to be dependent on communist and sharia regimes, that's just soooo much better. We love radioactive trash and water that burns. We love chemicals in our food and we think freedom is being able to choose cancer causing life styles. We are the intelligent ones.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:



    U.S. HAS ITS SECOND-HOTTEST JULY ON RECORD;

    DROUGHT CONDITIONS WORSEN


    Quote:

    The continental United States suffered through its second-hottest July on record because of a blistering heatwave from California to Washington, D.C. The heatwave broke more than 2,300 daily temperature records for the month and eclipsed more than 50 records for the highest temperatures in any July, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The hottest July on record occurred in 1936, and the third hottest was 1934.



    State of the Climate
Global Analysis
July 2006

    Quote:

    Based on preliminary data, globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was third warmest on record for July 2006.





    The Climate of 1997
Global Temperature Index:
1997 Warmest Year of Century

    Quote:



    1997 was the warmest year of this century, based on land and ocean surface temperature data, reports a team of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC....



    The record-breaking warm conditions of 1997 continues the pattern of very warm global temperatures. Nine of the past eleven years have been the warmest on record.



    Land temperatures did not break the previous record set in 1990, but 1997 was one of the five warmest years since 1880. Including 1997, the top ten warmest years over the land have all occurred since 1981, and the warmest five years all since 1990. Land temperatures for 1997 averaged three quarters of a degree F (0.42 degrees C) above normal, falling short of the 1990 record by one quarter of a degree F (0.14 degrees C).



    Ocean temperatures during 1997 also averaged three quarters of a degree F (0.42 degrees C) above normal, which makes it the warmest year on record, exceeding the previous warm years of 1987 and 1995 by 0.3 of a degree F (0.17 degrees C). The warm El Nino event (depicted as Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies) contributed to the record warmth of the oceans this year.



    Quote:

    With the new data factored in, global temperature warming trends now exceed 1.0 degree F (0.55 degrees C) per 100 years, with land temperatures warming at a somewhat faster rate. "It is likely that the sustained trend toward increasingly warmer global temperatures is related to anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases", Karl said.







    INSTEAD OF MORE OF THIS:



    TRY THIS AS YOUR SOURCE:

    Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    RSS global temperature anomaly takes a dive



    State of the Climate 
Global Analysis
 September 2010



    Quote:

    The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for September 2010 was 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20th century average of 15.0°C (59.0°F) and tied with 1998 as the eighth warmest on record. September 2005 is the warmest September on record.



    The September worldwide land surface temperature was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F)?the ninth warmest September on record.



    The September worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the 20th century average of 16.2°C (61.1°F) and tied with 1998 and 2008 as the ninth warmest September on record.



    For January?September 2010, the global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average of 14.1°C (57.5°F) and tied with 1998 as the warmest January?September period on record.



    The global average land surface temperature for the period January?September was the second warmest on record, behind 2007.



    The global average ocean surface temperature for the period January?September was also the second warmest on record, behind 1998.



    The January?September 2010 map of temperature anomalies shows that anomalous warm temperatures were present over much of the world, with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the higher-latitude southern oceans, the eastern equatorial and northern Pacific Ocean, the southern tip of South America, and central Russia. The combined global average land and ocean surface temperature for the January?September period tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record. This value is 0.65°C (1.17°F) above the 20th century average. Separately, the average worldwide land surface temperature ranked as the second warmest January?September on record, behind 2007. The worldwide average ocean surface temperature also ranked as the second warmest such period on record, behind 1998.



    PLEASE NOTE THAT THE DATA FOR OCTOBER WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME THIS DATA WAS TAKEN.



    What you need to do is to look at the overall trend. One month of cooling does not mean that AGW is a myth. You also have to remember that temperature trends are cyclic, however the over all trend of these cycles indicate that Global Warming is happening. Much of this is attributed to the increasing levels of CO2 and more of this CO2 is attributed to human activity ie deforestation, increase, CO2 emissions, pollution and effects on the ocean environment---if you need data review my previous post.
  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I have the honor of being a staff member of The League for Innovation in the Community College, an international non-profit organization dedicated to catalyzing the community college movement.



    This past week, I traveled to Orlando to help run a major conference called STEMtech, which centered around helping educators, industry leaders and others discuss increasing student access into and success in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors and careers with a special focus on exploring the strategic use of information technology to better serve students, campuses, and communities.



    The opening keynote speaker was Ed Begley, Jr. - actor and environmental activist - and I was fortunate enough to be able to hear his speech (from behind the stage as a member of the conference technical staff).



    His speaking style was low-key, anecdotal, and quite amiable. Listening to him speak, I could feel the passion Mr. Begley has for living a "green" life. I sensed nothing deceptive or false about him - quite the opposite. He's very genuine and sincere.



    He and I disagree on the particulars of climate change and what is driving it. But one thing we agree on 100% is that it should make sense - and cents - to "go green".



    In his keynote, he barely touched on the subject of climate change - it was irrelevant to the main theme of his speech, which is that we all can and should do more to "reduce, reuse, and recycle" within our own financial means. I agree with that approach 100%.



    He heartily supports government incentives and subsidies promoting green technologies and wants more. While I am opposed to the government meddling in the free market to that extent, Begley mentioned nothing about governments forcing people to "go green" against their will.



    He said most of us want to protect and preserve our environment and natural resources, decrease dependence on foreign oil, and save money. And we can all do something now, no matter how small, to help achieve those goals.



    But he stressed the importance of doing so within your financial means, and only when it makes sense. For example, why go out and buy solar panels for your home if your appliances, home insulation, etc. are not as energy efficient as they could be?



    Begley has a couple of books out, one of which is called "Ed Begley, Jr.'s Guide to Sustainable Living". I purchased a copy and Mr. Begley was gracious enough to sign it for me.



    It is replete with practical, cost-effective solutions for those looking to do more with less. I'm all for that, and I intend to implement whatever solutions make sense for my particular situation.



    While the issue of anthropogenic climate change is an extremely polarizing one - especially when talking about the extent of government involvement in it - I think we can all agree that doing what we can within our means to live a more sustainable life should makes sense - and cents!



    (Originally published on Ego Anthem...my blog!)



    But is this real science?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    I welcome and encourage science. Unfortunately the green movement has very little to do with science.



  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Quote:



    OH LOOK JAZZGURU HAS POSTED A LINK TO A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL AGGREGATOR WITH NO COMMENT OR ADDITION TO THE DISCUSSION AT ALL OF ANY KIND WHATSOVER!!!!!



    IT IS LIKE THIS IS HIS BLOG HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH1HHAHAHAHAHAHHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOO



    OH LOOK I CAN TYPE IN CAPTIALS!



    The funny thing about this one is that he's suggesting that C02 doesn't control climate. IN YOUR FACE, EVERY SINGLE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCHER AND SOCIETY ON THE PLANET!



    And me, I won't be happy until the last orangutang is strangled with the guts of the last blue whale. FUCK THE PLANET! jESUS WANTS US TO SCREW IT FOR CASH!



  • finetunesfinetunes Posts: 2,065member
    Quote:



    Jg, most of what you have posted before your trip and after have been challenged. You have not responded to the challenges by refuting the evidence that was provided to refute your postings. You have not tried to refute or challenge what I have posted. Rather than posting more material from the same old sites, try to explain what has been challenged and challenge or refute what I've posted. Here is some of what has gone unchallenged:



    CO2



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...82#post1743082

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...97#post1743397

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...20#post1744020

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...67#post1744067





    BIODIVERSITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS



    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...00#post1743400

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...43#post1744043

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...66#post1746666
  • mumbo jumbomumbo jumbo Posts: 1,633member
    Jazzguru!



    He's been kind enough to actually make some links!



    Will you respond to his posts?



    Or start a blog?
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    I encourage you to challenge the originators of the content. I am merely providing links to their content for convenience.



    Trying to refute their claims here is pretty pointless.
Sign In or Register to comment.