Global weather madness

OK so I'm NOT in New Orleans thank goodness, but today is 01 September and traditionally it is the first day of spring in my world. Yesterday was so bad I dared not take the bike out of the garage. Cold and wet and incredibly blustery, News24 reports the worst storms in a decade in Cape Town, even under my duvet I was shivering

Happy Spring day Y'All

the climate is going ballistic. I wonder how much longer it'll take before officials admit that man did indeed cause this, so we can start taking appropriate action!

Yeah we had an icy cold wind pull in here yesterday and today. Cape Town gets it worst though, we just get what's left over ....

Good move DaFiz, no need to get blown into the sea ;-)

Please spend some time investigating sunspot cycles, and thier effect on the climate of all the planets in our solar system.


Global warming is a hoax, based on manipulated data, run in computer models that show a hook no matter what data is put in.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

I know it is very easy to dismiss this and believe in man made warming.

Where have all the sunspots gone? Watts Up With That?


http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture.pdf this one is from a Aussie.

Seriously if you will really research it, you may for a opinion other that the one provided by the talking heads, and those that would profit from the global warming scare.

wrightme43 said:

Please spend some time investigating sunspot cycles, and thier effect on the climate of all the planets in our solar system.


Global warming is a hoax, based on manipulated data, run in computer models that show a hook no matter what data is put in.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3406

I know it is very easy to dismiss this and believe in man made warming.

Where have all the sunspots gone? Watts Up With That?


http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/pastandfuture.pdf this one is from a Aussie.

Seriously if you will really research it, you may for a opinion other that the one provided by the talking heads, and those that would profit from the global warming scare.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, some interesting stuff to ponder there...am a great "believer" in conspiracy theories, so am dubious of most things the main stream media likes to try and make us digest as the "truth"...look at the Y2K scare for example, we all had our knickers in a knot over that one! turned out to be nothing.

So, who takes the blame for the ice age? Global warming is a lot of bull.

Everything in life is cyclic, the changes in weather pattern is part of the cycle.

The lack of fresh water is something to worry about.

My humble opinion differs from those above. But very good links there Wrightme

Global warming is real .... and not natural either. I guess it's hard to judge, since the data is really confusing, and any spin can lead to any conclusion.

My opinion is based on the visible evidence of ice melting, worldwide. What i think is an "issue" is what's causing it. My take is that cell phones, radio towers, HAARP, and all manner of electronic noice has turned this planet into a great big microwave oven. "THEM" that are spraying barium and other minerals into the atmosphere (to assist with 3-D battlefield rendering) are literally creating the global warming phenomenon.

It isn't natural, and it isn't our fault ... me farting is NOT a threat to mankind ... yet. But we are the frogs on the saucepan, not only that, we're told it's our own fault for being there, and that we're stupid for not getting out.

wrightme43 said:

Global warming is a hoax, based on manipulated data, run in computer models that show a hook no matter what data is put in.

Seriously if you will really research it, you may for a opinion other that the one provided by the talking heads, and those that would profit from the global warming scare.

Click to expand...

Odd then that your take is in line with the 2% of scientists left that don't agree that 1) the climate is changing and 2) that change has been caused by mankind.

Looking back over the last 600,000 years, as they can and have with ice coring, CO2 levels have never, ever been as high as they are now. CO2 levels have spiked in the last 100 years...about the time mankind started burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, a coincidence? Yes, surely you're right, it must be sunspots and conspiracy.

the world undergoes climate changes in many several different cycles throughout time. and we have been overdue for a climate change. the only affect that global warming has on it is the fact that it's only speeding up the process. so it is in fact real and existent, however, it is not really the magnitude of which they portray it in. we all know how the weather certainly is getting different around certain parts of the world, however, it's not solely because global warming is causing it all. it is stemmed from the world's cycle of a natural climate change which usually takes a prolonged period of time however, with the ozone layer in our atmosphere being affected a good part of it by man, global warming, rather than naturally as it would through a much longer period of time, we are only undergoing a faster cycle of that climate change. so in essence yes, it does exist, but not as the way we are generally thinking it is. it's only brought up so much now like it's all our fault because they are really pushing for alternate means which look to affect in many more circumstances with greater concern right now (such as nation relations and global resources distribution) than our weather (since the weather is still by far controlled by nature rather than what we think or as they try to make us think that's it all us). expect to see europe with colder weather than usual and north america warmer. once the cycle is complete the ice caps will have been shifted and restored (earth is undergoing a shift in its tilt during this cycle. this is what's causing the ice caps, in the natural way, and obviously only speeding up through our contribution to the ozone layer, or "global warming," to melt as their current locations are being drawn closer to the sun). the ocean will rise in the meantime while the cycle is occurring in order to compensate for the climate change as obviously the currents and weather affect each other. as far as CO2 levels, they are what give that affect to the ozone layer. and in the past, they were indeed existent among the many past climate cycles in order for them to actually occur. but like i said, since everything was gradual, it took a much longer time with the lesser co2 levels than we have now. our high co2 level is only what's causing for the faster process of the climate change to occur due to the ozone layer reaching that stage at a much quicker rate. the high rise obviously due to man's contribution, but again, not solely, just naturally in a forced way. it's just like the way we take many other natural things (such as pet breeding) and add man's contribution or twist to it due mostly in part by our dominant place in this world. we will never overcome nature, but we can still significantly influence it as we are doing so more and more effectively in proportion to the growing number of our human presence.

just my .02. correct me please any experts out there where i may have slightly misinterpreted something but that's pretty much where I stand to believe as far as my research studies and knowledge.

The ozone layer problem is unrelated to the CO2 level problem, other than the detrimental effect both have on all (current) life on Earth.

The ozone layer is a high level (10 to 50 km above the Earth) layer of O3 (aka: ozone, go figure), but the concentration of the layer is quite low - if the ozone layer were compressed to sealevel pressures, it would only be a few millimeters thick. The ozone layer shields the surface of Earth from almost 99% of the sun's damaging UV radiation. Part of the problem is that O3 is unstable and would prefer to be O2 (garden variety atomspheric oxygen).

Refrigerants and propellants, such as R-11 & R-12 (Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs), love to briefly bond with O3 and rip off an O, turning it to O2, which does nothing to shield us from UV. Here's the real problem: CFC molecules are extremely tough and have no 'predators' in nature, so they 'live' long enough to float up to the ozone layer, where they start ripping apart O3 molecules - one CFC molecule will destroy some 100,000 or more O3 molecules before it is itself destroyed, by radiation from the sun, no less.

With a ratio of 100,000 to 1, it doesn't take long to deplete the ozone layer, opening holes - such as the hole over the Antartic region. With no protection, the living organisms under such holes don't stand a chance against the Sun's radiation and die.
This works it's way up the food chain in the form of starvation (eg: you don't get any corn chips if the Sun killed all the corn) and becomes a bad situation for all.

Rushiku said:

Odd then that your take is in line with the 2% of scientists left that don't agree that 1) the climate is changing and 2) that change has been caused by mankind.

Looking back over the last 600,000 years, as they can and have with ice coring, CO2 levels have never, ever been as high as they are now. CO2 levels have spiked in the last 100 years...about the time mankind started burning vast quantities of fossil fuels, a coincidence? Yes, surely you're right, it must be sunspots and conspiracy.

Click to expand...

Who are these "scientists" the ones that are 98% in agreement?

How about why cant the the experiment that provides the hook and runaway temp increase be replicated without modifing the data set, and using bad data to begin with?

Its a bunch of crap science. In the 70s it was a coming ice age. DDT is killing the world. (just do a little research on the number of HUMAN deaths from malaria after the ban) just a little bit. Please. Please!!!

The people that are pushing for Global warming legislation have large amounts of money to be made from it.

The seas can not become acidic. Aragonite forms and dissolves to control the PH of the sea as it has done for millenia.

If the data is bad and can not be replicated using good data, and programs that only show a hook where there is a hook. The experiment is a failure. Climate modeling is not capable of predicting weather or tempratures over one month. ONE FREAKING MONTH!!!!!!!!!

We are asked to destroy the world economy for something that is unable to be replicated.

Oh and we could just get all crazy and use data that is replicatable, and has good records, and correlates to all the other planets in the solar system and say the heat output of the sun, and the wobble in orbits have a lot to do with planetary temprature.

wrightme43 said:

Who are these \"scientists\" the ones that are 98% in agreement?

Click to expand...

For starters

Paragraph 2:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: \"Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations\" [p. 21 in (4)].

Click to expand...

We are asked to destroy the world economy for something that is unable to be replicated.

Click to expand...

I agree, sort of. One only needs to look at Venus to see what mass quantities of CO2 will do to a planet, sure, it's closer to the Sun, but its temperatures are much, much higher than mere proximity would provide.

On to the 'agree' part. Doing patently stupid things, such as using food for fuel, are, well, stupid. This does not mean that there are no alternatives to petroleum, it means that we have an idiot in the White House.

Look up GreenFuel, a company that produces biodiesel by refining algae which is grown using the exhaust from coal burning power plants. Burning biodiesel releases a scant 25% of the pollutants burning dinodiesel, AND growing the algae cleans some 75% of the pollutants out of the exhaust, AND burning the resultant diesel fuel releases only those thing that were just captured in the production of the algae, instead of millions of years later. Sounds like win, win, win to me. Add to this that scientists have recently found a way to turn biodiesel into biogasoline and you've won the 'quadfecta' of ecologically sound, renewable, homegrown fuel sources.

Now, take that and scale it up to where the US is the leading producer of biogas, ah-ha, no more world economy destroying, no more invading countries under false pretenses, no more killing all life on planet Earth because we wouldn't give up our cars.

Yes, temperatures fluctuate, because I just thought of the analogy, I'll say they fluctuate like a teeter totter, up and down, always looking for balance, but overshooting in one direction or the other. The problem is that our current way of life is like that 250 pound 8 year old that no one will play with - and he's sitting on one end of the teeter totter. Natural processes cannot explain the current situation, natural processes cannot recover from the current situation. You did it, I did it, we all did it - now it's time to do something about it.

Venus atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. It lacks any carbon cycle.

Earths atmosphere is .04% CO2. We have a carbon cycle.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM150.pdf

Look, I know it has been shouted from the rooftops.

The glaciers started melting before CO2 began to rise (a very very small amount of something is very easy to show a huge % increase) The air temp and ocean temp correlate almost exactly to Solar energy cycles, but do not correlate to CO2 levels.

Look, even if you don't want to 'believe' in 'human caused global climate change', surely you must want to do something to prepare for the end of the Oil Age. Or is that a conspiracy too?

As it would happen, the action needed for either applies to both: stop. burning. dinosaurs.

Rushiku said:

Look, even if you don't want to 'believe' in 'human caused global climate change', surely you must want to do something to prepare for the end of the Oil Age. Or is that a conspiracy too?
.

Click to expand...

Whatever the cause, climate change and peak oil are realities. As to what to do ... we all been hogtied really. Getting an efficient bike at this point is the limit to what we can do on a day to day basis.

Changing your mindset is good to, but it takes money to be environmentally friendly, not something poor people can really do. Like here in South Africa, when it gets cold, people burn coal. It completely fux up the air, but how else are they to survive? Those who don't, die, those who do, are polluters. That's our choice really. And giving it all up and living on a farm ... not an option, see money.

How about this one. http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1911

Its from the USGS. 3.65 BILLION mean recoverable bbl oil in just one formation in North Dakota and Montana. 25 times the old estimate. It should last us thru the end of this century.

Yes of course peak oil exists. Yes of course we need alternitive energy. I am a huge supporter of the switch over to nuclear power. We could build enough nuclear power to have net exports of energy.

The idea that we do not have the ability to drill and produce in the US is wrong.

Global climate change is a reality. Just not man made global climate change.


See here is the deal. The whole man made global warming idea is based on run away heating from a slight increase in atmospheric CO2. Here is one just huge huge huge problem with the idea.
Global CO2 has been higher than it is ever projected to be now, and we did not have run away global warming.
See if the experiment is flawed, the data is flawed, and the projections are flawed, its called junk science. It becomes a problem when anyone that points out hey thats not true, is presented as a heritic and conspirecy theorist.
Its more a case of a few people lying, and a bunch of useful idiots who wont do any research on thier own.



The whole world economy is based on the ability use energy to do work. The hydrocarbon fuels are the most cost effective way to do that work, and to carry the energy with you.

Really the idea that even if the science behind something is wrong, its still a good idea to do for another reason is just screwed up.

wrightme43 said:

Its from the USGS. 3.65 BILLION mean recoverable bbl oil in just one formation in North Dakota and Montana. 25 times the old estimate. It should last us thru the end of this century.

Click to expand...

If by 'us' you mean Kentucky residents, then, maybe, as:

United States — Oil - Consumption: 20.73 million bbl/day (2004 est.)

20.73 million per day * 365 = 7.5 billion per year = you'll need 179 more formations of this size to cover the next 90 years of demand, in the US only.

The idea that we do not have the ability to drill and produce in the US is wrong.

Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between being able to do something and being right in doing it.

Global CO2 has been higher than it is ever projected to be now, and we did not have run away global warming.

Click to expand...

So, until we experience runaway global warming due to increased CO2 levels, you won't be convinced? Waiting until it is too late before admitting you may have been mistaken doesn't seem terribly prudent.

Nuclear power.
At face value, nuclear power seems a great thing. In fact, I would have agreed with you about building more plants not to long ago. However, out of some 6.5 billion people on this planet, not one of them (including myself) has come up with a viable way to deal with the resultant nuclear waste. The only plan they've come up with is to literally sweep it under the rug. (see Yucca Mountain for details) Building more nuclear power plants, unfortunately, needs to wait until an actual solution is found.

Really the idea that even if the science behind something is wrong, its still a good idea to do for another reason is just screwed up.

Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, regardless of your opinion on global warming, finding and using renewable, sustainable sources of energy (such as the previously mentioned biogas - a hydrocarbon and a weight to power efficient energy) still makes more sense than ripping up every piece of land we claim ownership of to find more petroleum.

The cars and trucks that run on dinofuels will work just fine with biofuels, so you won't need to buy new vehicles. The gas stations that pump dinofuels will not even notice that they're pumping biofuels instead, so no change to the infrastructure is needed. Nothing, in those respects, changes. What does change is the US can make, and sell, its own fuel; without further damaging our habitat, our economy, our reputation, and other countries finely balanced ideas of government. Right now, we are on the path to becoming the schoolyard bully that kicks everyone's ass looking for lunch money (actually, we're beyond 'becoming'...).

abraxas said:

Like here in South Africa, when it gets cold, people burn coal.

Click to expand...

This may come as a surprise, but: when it gets cold anywhere, people burn fossil fuels. Coal powers electricity plants to provide electric heat; in my area, we use natural gas; in the Northeast (New York area) they use fuel oil. I honestly don't know what they use elsewhere througout the world, but I do know that some are on the path to renewable sources: wind, solar, water, geothermal. Mostly in Europe, if I'm not mistaken.

Global climate changes and disasters were part of Earth long before the human race. These changes will continue no matter what the humans do to the Earth and its environment. We may help speed it up, we may be successful in slowing it down but we can never plan to stop what will eventually happen.

Color me careless but all of it will not matter in my minute fraction of time existing here on this planet. I can only do my personal best to reduce my carbon footprint but in the scope of things, what I do cannot make up for the likes of countries that don't have the strict environmental policies of the United States. For every step forward I take, China sets the planet back over 1200 steps.

I can say that within the next 2 to 3 billion years, they'd better find a way off this rock and a new one to live on because the Sun has a finite fuel supply and has already lived over half its calculated life. Supernova's suck!

Rushiku said:

This may come as a surprise, but: when it gets cold anywhere, people burn fossil fuels. Coal powers electricity plants to provide electric heat; in my area, we use natural gas; in the Northeast (New York area) they use fuel oil. I honestly don't know what they use elsewhere througout the world, but I do know that some are on the path to renewable sources: wind, solar, water, geothermal. Mostly in Europe, if I'm not mistaken.

Click to expand...

Um dude no .... i'm talking corrugated iron shacks, and they make a coal fire inside. There is no electricity in this circuit mate.
Now, imagine several square kilometres, 1 shack taking up about 5-10 square metres, almost nothing between them.

Now each one has it's own unregulated coal fire. I should find some pics.

Lets see.

You do understand that is one formation. I can just keep citing stuff that you wont read. The oil in that area should produce for the next 90 years.

What in the heck does that mean? I am lost as to what you mean by this.
"There is a huge difference between being able to do something and being right in doing it."

Quote:
Global CO2 has been higher than it is ever projected to be now, and we did not have run away global warming.
So, until we experience runaway global warming due to increased CO2 levels, you won't be convinced? Waiting until it is too late before admitting you may have been mistaken doesn't seem terribly prudent.

Nuclear power.
At face value, nuclear power seems a great thing. In fact, I would have agreed with you about building more plants not to long ago. However, out of some 6.5 billion people on this planet, not one of them (including myself) has come up with a viable way to deal with the resultant nuclear waste. The only plan they've come up with is to literally sweep it under the rug. (see Yucca Mountain for details) Building more nuclear power plants, unfortunately, needs to wait until an actual solution is found.

Ok so acting based on historical data that says the C02 level in our atmosphere has not caused runaway global warming in the past. Acting based on models that have no correlation with past events is bad science.


Nuclear power is a good working solution.

I have spent way way way to much time on this though. I am not going to get you to even read any of the links.

I can keep refuting things, but it will not do any good. I try to provide data to back up my positions.

If you feel that drilling and using nuclear power in the US is not acceptable its your right.

I can keep citing source after source that will show there is plenty of energy. That runaway global warming hasnt happened in the past, and wont happen in the future.

Basicly my problem with global warming folk, is they are so egotistical as to say this is the perfect climate for earth. we know whats best. any deviation from what we say is perfect is mans fault.

Its insanity. The earth has been warmer, its been colder, it will be warmer, it will be colder.