|
Post by ron on Dec 12, 2008 21:29:04 GMT
Grrrrr, PV again. It's almost like the conspiracy theory that GM built crappy small cars like the Chevy Vega to keep people buying big ones.
Why didn't they harness the heat energy of solar thermal and use it to turn off (turn down) their diesel burners during the day?
sheeesh. I was hopeful for a novel approach!
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 15, 2008 20:26:33 GMT
Greenhouse gases warming North America unevenly there is a "warming hole" where no change occurred in the center of the country, roughly between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians, added Martin Hoerling of NOAA.Isn't that most of the USA other than the heavily populated East & West Coasts? apnews.myway.com/article/20081212/D950SO903.htmlI guess the greenhouse effect just turns itself off in the countryside? More: key findings of the North America climate change report : No significant yearly average temperature changes have occurred in the Southern United States and Eastern Canada.
|
|
|
Post by twawki on Dec 15, 2008 22:31:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 16, 2008 7:53:21 GMT
Just when you though that the measurements were showing increasing Antarctic ice cover. "As Ice Melts, Antarctic Bedrock Is On The Move ScienceDaily (Dec. 15, 2008) — As ice melts away from Antarctica, parts of the continental bedrock are rising in response -- and other parts are sinking, scientists have discovered." "When satellites measure the height of the WAIS, scientists calculate ice thickness by subtracting the height of the earth beneath it. They must take into account whether the bedrock is rising or falling. Ice weighs down the bedrock, but as the ice melts, the earth slowly rebounds." So, when ice levels appear to be rising, like now, it's actually just the bedrock rising as the heavy ice above it melts. We are still really losing ice! [insert appropriate emoticon here] www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215091013.htm
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 17, 2008 0:31:44 GMT
Another barrage from the warmers courtesy of the Sydney Morning Herald: "Temperatures, climate extremes rising December 17, 2008 - 11:19AM Advertisement Parts of Australia endured some of their driest and hottest years on record in 2008, and it will likely go down as the planet's 10th warmest year on record, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) says." We have to act now to stop CO2 pollution before it's too late ... (sigh) news.smh.com.au/national/temperatures-climate-extremes-rising-20081217-706o.html
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 17, 2008 0:39:48 GMT
Now from the BBC we have: " This year is coolest since 2000 By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website Winter brought unfamiliarly cold weather to large swathes of Europe The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say. Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) notes that temperatures remained about 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average. Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth's surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels. " news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm
|
|
|
Post by ayjoso on Dec 18, 2008 16:36:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Dec 18, 2008 20:30:24 GMT
The Australian drought is technically over, except for a few tiny regions. After all, the point of the "drought" was to elect a government inclined to the AGW view, so we can forget about it now. It never was anything but normal Australian weather cycles: Are Martians growing Australian wheatwww.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool12.htmThis article is a bit dated, but since the drought(s) of recent years have been called "climate change" I thought it useful. On another tack: I heard on the news yesterday of the huge wine harvest this year, following on from last year. The talk of drought "inspired" the winemakers to offer lucrative contracts to the growers who have exceeded expectations so we'll have a glut of wine again. Australia is a land of low rainfall. Those who expect otherwise will be disappointed. We have big wets and big drys.!
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 18, 2008 21:50:28 GMT
Did Early Global Warming Divert A New Glacial Age? ScienceDaily (Dec. 18, 2008) — The common wisdom is that the invention of the steam engine and the advent of the coal-fueled industrial age marked the beginning of human influence on global climate. But gathering physical evidence, backed by powerful simulations on the world's most advanced computer climate models, is reshaping that view and lending strong support to the radical idea that human-induced climate change began not 200 years ago, but thousands of years ago with the onset of large-scale agriculture in Asia and extensive deforestation in Europe. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190433.htm
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 18, 2008 22:39:04 GMT
Surely they can find better ways to spend their budget? "Nasa set to launch 'CO2 hunter' By Jonathan Amos Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco The US space agency is set to launch a satellite that can map in detail where carbon dioxide is in the atmosphere. Nasa's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will pinpoint the key locations on the Earth's surface where CO2 is being emitted and absorbed. CO2 from human activities is thought to be driving climate changes, but important facts about its movement through the atmosphere remain elusive." news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7769619.stm
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 18, 2008 23:20:16 GMT
I think that is an EXCELLENT use of NASA's budget. The more light shed on things like this the better. What if the AGW's are correct? We need this info, the risks are great. Anyway, surely better than sending a 9,000 pound "logistics module" up and then bringing it down again. Seems to me that bringing up a double-opening logistics module once, then tying everything down in the payload bay and having a spacewalk or two to transfer the payload bay to the module, and bringing an extra 9,000 ounds of payload (1,000 gallons of water, perhaps?) might make more sense, but who am I to have such thoughts? Or at least leaving them up there for additional interior space, or unpressurized but somewhat protected and accessible storage space at the least. But 20% of the payload for the luggage? sheeeeeeesh. Oh, was this out loud? sorry.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 18, 2008 23:38:16 GMT
I think that is an EXCELLENT use of NASA's budget. The more light shed on things like this the better. What if the AGW's are correct? We need this info, the risks are great.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 18, 2008 23:50:17 GMT
Actually, I agree (of course you deleted the line to which I'm agreeing! LOL I'll respect your deletion and not repeat what it said). The risk that the AGWers might be right is one major reason we should be building the US Giant Solar Array in the desert southwest, reducing perhaps one day nearly eliminating) the usage of fossil fuels to generate electricity in the country. There are many and varied other reasons for doing it: => Reduction of other forms of pollution => New nukes will take forever to get up and running (if ever) => Abundant and "free" energy going forward => The coming Fossil Fuel Taxes => Reduction of risk of possible AGW => New industrial manufacturing and construction sector => Technology development => Better US "stimulus" than paying for Wiis for Christmas => Concentrated national power source for use in desalinating water for desert communities and/or hydrogen production in geo-stable location or perhaps for national steel production and other heavy industry capabilities I could go on... We MUST stop burning fossil fuels for many reasons, including eventually they will peak and/or run out.
|
|
|
Post by tobyglyn on Dec 19, 2008 0:08:05 GMT
Actually, I agree (of course you deleted the line to which I'm agreeing! LOL I'll respect your deletion and not repeat what it said). OK, we must stop emissions of the "dangerous pollutant" CO2 now, the risk is too great to ignore. I think that attitude is laughable for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 19, 2008 2:01:28 GMT
Well, feel free to laugh but it seems that we really don't have a clue either way. The physics of the gas in isolation are well known. The question about how it affects the environment seems to be well..... up in the air.
|
|