Global warming? I am more worried about global cooling.

[InfiniteNow]

Global warming is a tired old moniker which was popularized in the 80s. Most anyone who knows their elbow from their bung hole recognizes that it's about climate change, and more extreme climatic events. Global yearly average temperatures have been trending upward, and I've yet to see evidence which debunks that trend, nor evidence which debunks the influence of anthropogenic increases of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on global climate.

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-25.html#post212739

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Global warming is a tired old moniker which was popularized in the 80s. Most anyone who knows their elbow from their bung hole recognizes that it's about climate change, and more extreme climatic events. Global yearly average temperatures have been trending upward, and I've yet to see evidence which debunks that trend, nor evidence which debunks the influence of anthropogenic increases of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on global climate.

 

 

http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-25.html#post212739

Sorry about the rant above...But I'm soooooo tired of the whole mess...Am I the only human being left that remembers the fears of global cooling?

 

As for warming, our winters here have been getting colder and longer...I can remember regularly playing outside in a tee-shirt and jeans in December. Now as soon as October hits you need a coat and there's snow:eek_big: I also remember March being snow-free and regularly well above 40deg (used to live for March because the perpetually windy weather lent itself perfectly to kiting!! And even better field sailing....it's kind of like go-carting but you have a sail instead of an engine), Here it is April and There's still snow lingering!

 

As for Co2

It probably seemed like an exageration in my last post BUT if we are really going to take this problem seriously we need to look at ALL sources of Co2...not just the "convenient" and easy ones...

 

Which includes respiration of nearly all living things including people!

More people produce more Co2 just by breathing. It's fact, I need post no link or reference to prove it, it's known, it's proven.

More people leads to more vehicles and more Co2, again it's fact, and easilly proven.(compare automobile production#'s from 1960 to todays #'s)

More people leads to more deforestation to create more living, educational, medical, retail spaces, and roads so less green space more Co2.

More people leads to more demands for electrical power (alot of which is generated by the burning of fossil fuels) which creates more Co2

More natural gas heating and cooking etc. etc.

 

Not really trying to argue that Co2 doesn't cause GW...Just saying it isn't the only cause and cars aint the only source...And it's about time people started looking at all contributing factors to Co2 production and GW.

 

The general feeling I get looking at this mess is people onlycare or want to do something about it as long as it only very minimally affects their way of life producing as little inconvenience as possible....Hell there were plugin electric cars as long ago as 1900... and for most people a plugin electic would more than fulfill their dailly transportation needs...."But I'd have to plug it in..." Uh DUH!!!! what the F### do you think you're doing when you get gas is it really that friggin hard? It's not like you have to stand there and wait for the battery to charge DUMB@$$!!! But people percieve this as a massive inconvenience and therefore it still waits to have the opportunity to prove itself even though even one PEHV per 1,000,000 petrol vehicles would reduce Co2 emmissions to some extent.

[InfiniteNow]

Hell there were plugin electric cars as long ago as 1900... and for most people a plugin electic would more than fulfill their dailly transportation needs...."But I'd have to plug it in..." Uh DUH!!!! what the F### do you think you're doing when you get gas is it really that friggin hard?

 

Did you know that currently Chevron controls large format NiMH battery technology, a technology which could give us a completely electric car with vastly improved range? As I understand it, that was the only drawback suffered in past examples of the electric car from Ford, GM, Honda and Toyota.

 

Chevron only allows its subsidiary Cobasys to sell these large format NiMH batteries in gas / electric hybrids.

 

Nickel-metal hydride battery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Thousands are dying over oil and most everyone is crying out about foreign dependence while technology that could help is being suppressed because of some archaic patent law and business need. The technology is owned by an oil company, and they're not letting others use it. That really crosses the line.

 

 

But, how far do we go? Do we ignore or overturn the patent law because we feel Chevron shouldn't be able to prevent this technology from getting out? Do we infringe on their freedom to do business and make decisions which are best for their bottom line?

 

 

The problem is about much more than simple inconvenience. It's about bad decisions and misprioritized legislation, and we haven't yet learned how best to navigate all of the complexities.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

The problem is about much more than simple inconvenience. It's about bad decisions and misprioritized legislation, and we haven't yet learned how best to navigate all of the complexities.

__________________

Yeah this may be part...But how about the "need" for high horsepower fast cars...a 265hp subaru gets you to work no faster than its 78hp predecessor.

Imagin the kind of range available from the same size battery but with adequate rather than excess horsepower.

 

Another example-

A few years back I had a 80hp 1991 Ranger, man that thing was great on gas 30+Mpg and because of it's light weight (for a truck) was VERY quick, I now own a '99 it's very heavy (for a compact truck), very horrible on fuel, and rather sluggish for twice the engine displacement and three times the horsepower. It can't haul any more weight than my old one, costs more to register because of it's bulk, isn't any faster on the interstate, and GULPS fuel like it's going out of style..

 

Now why was it built this way?

 

I'll tell ya. Because people want them built that way, if they didn't you better believe Detroit would take note and redesign...why?...because they want to remain in business....So why again are we not seeing full blown electrics yet?

 

Range is simply a matter of weight and power...Getting people to be saticfied with lower powered, lighter, more compact vehicles, used to the idea of pluging their vehicle in at the end of the day, and to understand that 200mi (GM was bragging a couple of years back) is really far and more than most drive in an average day is the dificult part.

 

I average 300mi per week, wifey averages 150 with her car togeter we'd add up to two recharges per week if we had an electric similar to GM's prototype which used plain ol lead acid batteries. Why don't we have electrics yet?

[InfiniteNow]

Here's a great program on solar which was done just about a year ago by NOVA. It's a good watch. Enjoy. :cup:

 

NOVA | Saved by the Sun | Watch the Program | PBS

 

 

 

:)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Yeah I'm a huge fan of solar myself.

 

I really would like to build a small van (about the same size as a VW squareback (aka type 4, aka 1500 wagon) minus trunk (hood?) with solar panels in the roof ten golf car batteries in the floor, an inverter type quick charger, and two 15hp electric golf car motors mate to variable belt drives directly powering the rear wheels.

 

My experience with an 8hp golf car is that they would be capable of higher speeds if they had more than the fixed drive ratio and they're blessed with gobs of torque.

I've used it to haul 1300 pounds of dirt and utility cart at the brisk rate of 9mph with no complaint from the drive train. Unladen 23mph was easily achieved so with a variable final drive speeds in excess of 40+Mph shouldn't be that unreasonable an expectation with an 8 horse...more inportantly nearly four times the hp in an aerodynamic, lightweight, compact van body should easily reach 70Mph.

 

 

O.k. the math-

10 bateries-between 350+ and 700+lbs total

charger-27-60Lbs

300Lbs-coachwork and chasis

solar panels-stripped of glass for polycarb and all other unnecessary weight-?

40Lbs for seating....

etc.

[DougF]

DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Sorry about the rant above...But I'm soooooo tired of the whole mess...Am I the only human being left that remembers the fears of global cooling?

 

As for warming' date=' our winters here have been getting colder and longer... [/quote']

As the world changes, I think we will see more unusual weather patterns and climate changes.

 

Changes to Antarctic ice suffocating seals

 

Changes to the Antarctic ice shelf are causing seals to fight for air and penguins to give up on their young.

 

These are the findings of a new study' date=' which illustrates the impact changes to the Antarctic coastline are having on the physiology, behaviour and survival of local species.

 

In 1998, ecologist and evolutionary biologist Associate Professor Terrie Williams of the University of California at Santa Cruz and her team began a study on Weddell seals in Antarctica.

 

Three years later, an enormous iceberg detached near Antarctica's McMurdo Sound. According to Williams and her colleagues, the event was caused by global warming, which has likely been melting and weakening ice at the poles.

 

The 10,900 square kilometre iceberg, named B-15, drifted westward and lodged on nearby Ross Island. ...

 

More at Changes to Antarctic ice suffocating seals (ABC News in Science)

[DougF]

I thought this would be a good place to put this,

A good Bump now and them! :confused:

 

Experts Warn Species In Peril From Climate Change

 

ORLANDO' date=' Fla.[/b'] -- Climate change threatens to kill off up to a third of the planet's species by the end of the century if urgent action isn't taken to restore fragile ecosystems, protect endangered animals and manage growth, scientists warned Wednesday as a wildlife summit opened.

 

"Much of the predictions are gloom and doom. The ray of hope, however, is that we have not lost our opportunity. We still have time if we act now," said Jean Brennan, a senior scientist with Defenders of Wildlife and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

 

The three-day summit, sponsored by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, assembled several world-renowned climate change researchers with dozens of wildlife experts to trade ideas on how to save species on a warming planet.

Experts Warn Species In Peril From Climate Change - News Story - WFTV Orlando

[Flying Binghi]

Heres some extracts of an article via OHIO uny. The sceptic (thats me, a realist) blogs have been making some mileage on this -

 

...new study confirms that during periods when Earth received less solar radiation, the Atlantic Ocean cooled, icebergs increased and precipitation fell, creating a series of century-long droughts...

 

...the connection between weak solar activity and ice rafting...

 

...manmade global warming could offset the cycle.

 

Full article via -

New climate record shows century-long droughts in eastern North America :: Office of Research Communications, Ohio University

[Essay]

Also from that article:

Carbon isotopes also record drought, Springer added, because drier soils slow biological activity. This causes the soil to “breathe less, changing the mix of light and heavy carbon atoms in it,” he said.

New climate record shows century-long droughts in eastern North America :: Office of Research Communications, Ohio University

 

Kind of off topic, but I've been trying to think of how to measure sequestration in the soil for a year now and this is only the second possibility that I've seen as workable (and much more easily developed than a DNA assay). Thanks for the serendipity.

 

This causes the soil to “breathe less, changing the mix of light and heavy carbon atoms in it,”

 

Wow....

 

~ :phones:

[Flying Binghi]

You should read more Essay - the articles been out since 19 Aug. :phones:

[Zythryn]

Is there a particular section or point in the article you feel would be benificial to read FB?

Come on, just a little hint, please???

[Essay]

Heres some extracts of an article via OHIO uny. The sceptic (thats me, a realist) blogs have been making some mileage on this -

 

...new study confirms that during periods when Earth received less solar radiation, the Atlantic Ocean cooled, icebergs increased and precipitation fell, creating a series of century-long droughts...

 

...the connection between weak solar activity and ice rafting...

 

...manmade global warming could offset the cycle.

 

Full article via -

New climate record shows century-long droughts in eastern North America :: Office of Research Communications, Ohio University

 

I got so excited after reading Springer's characterization of breathing soil (and the idea of measuring CO2 turnover), that I never finished the article.

 

So Binghi, do you think that when it says "offset the cycle," this means global warming is a good thing because it'll prevent those "century-long droughts?"

 

Au contrare, mon friar! Please to read between the lines of the final quote from the article:

 

“Global warming will leave things like this in the dust. The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,” he (Springer) said. [my emphasis]

===

 

Here's a few other papers on weird cycles in North America:

Livezey, R. E., M. Masutani, A. Leetmaa, H. Rui, M. Ji, and A. Kumar (1997), Teleconnective response of the Pacific-North American region atmosphere to large central equatorial Pacific SST anomalies, J. Clim., 10, 1787–1820

 

Viau, A. E., K. Gajewski, P. Fines, D. E. Atkinson, and M. C. Sawada (2002), Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14,000 yr, Geology, 30, 455–458, doi:10.1130/0091-7613(2002)

 

Willard, D. A., C. E. Bernhardt, D. A. Korejwo, and S. R. Meyers (2005), Impact of millennial-scale Holocene climate variability on eastern North American terrestrial ecosystems: Pollen-based climatic reconstruction, Global Planet. Change, 47, 17–35, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2004.11.017

 

But yes, it's great to get better resolution in more supporting evidence for the Bond paper from 2001.

 

Bond, G., B. Kromer, J. Beer, R. Muscheler, M. N. Evans, W. Showers, S. Hoffman, R. Lotti-Bond, I. Hajdas, and G. Bonani (2001), Persistent solar influence on North Atlantic climate during the Holocene, Science, vol. 294, p.2130–2136, doi:10.1126/science.1065680

 

Thanks again for that serendipitous discovery (CO2 turnover)!

~ :phones:

[Flying Binghi]

Is there a particular section or point in the article you feel would be benificial to read FB?

Come on, just a little hint, please???

 

Oh, nothing in particular Zythryn... just noting the 'science' is far from done. Our polititions running around making economy destroying decisions on incomplete research need take note.

 

 

 

Edit - I see I put the article in the wrong thread - should have been in the "my belief in AGW is getting shaky" thread. Perhaps the mods can transfer it ?

[Essay]

I thought you had the right thread, Binghi, since it was about solar weakening.

 

But what about that final quote:

 

“Global warming will leave things like this in the dust. The natural oscillations here are nothing like what we would expect to see with global warming,” he (Springer) said.

 

~ :naughty:

[Flying Binghi]

I thought you had the right thread, Binghi, since it was about solar weakening.

 

 

Was'nt what I intended. If you like - leave it here. Off to work, will take this up later :naughty:

[Flying Binghi]

Looks like due to my absent mindedness I will have to 'work' my miss-placed post here.

 

Via - New climate record shows century-long droughts in eastern North America :: Office of Research Communications, Ohio University we get -

 

...(The caves) haven’t been disturbed by anything...

 

They may-be overlooking something here ?

 

Via deepscience, I discover, life underground - DEEP SCIENCE

 

...discovered microbial life at depths of four to five kilometers (underground) and at temperatures of 60°C.

 

My question would be - Are the caves undisturbed ?

 

 

Note - Perhaps the moderators could move my 'starter' post, and the other 'followers', to the "My belief in AGW...." thread.