Global Cooling

[justfishin]

I have to agree on this one. I think you can nudge mother nature a little but, if you push her she will knock you on your a**.

[Tom Bass]

This entire debate is interesting.

I am not a scientist, nor do I play one on TV. My perspective is that the earth goes through climate cycles naturally. Sure, maybe Man is helping with this cycle but there is not enough recorded history on the climate to prove it. It's my opinion that there is an agenda by the pundits and politicians but I am not sure what they are really striving for. Perhaps it's more control over how everyone lives or perhaps it's just to divert more moneys into the universities for studies. I don't really know.

What I do know is that the media and the politicians keep slamming Bush and past presidents on their bad environmental policies. They also rail against Exxon, GM and other corporations. But, I haven't heard anything from our politicos or the media about how China, Russia, Mexico and other countries are polluting the planet. Even the European scientists blame the US without even mentioning any other country. The ones that do bring up other countries appear to be in the minority.

I remember in the '70's that the media and scientists were all wringing their hands about the ice age that was eminent. It never happened. I remember after hurricane Katrina how everyone blamed global warming and how the next year there were going to be even more hurricanes  and how the strength of these more numerous hurricanes was going to be devastating. It never happened.

I guess you could say that I am quite sceptical on this issue.

I would agree that we do need to find better ways of fuelling our vehicles and generating power. I think it's odd that anytime that clean nuclear energy is brought up it's immediately trounced by the media and politicos but these same people talk of using cleaner burning coal technologies to generate power. Perhaps it's because the nuclear field isn't packed with card carrying Union members that tend to vote the way the majority of politicos and media pundits think they should.

Just my thoughts on the issue.

Oh, and by the way, the French have a great way of dealing with radioactive waste from their nuke plants. They store it for 20 years and then re-enrich it to use it over again. Recycled nuclear power.

[Water Dog]

I'll tell you what. After reading all these posts both for and against global warming I've come to a conclusion.

1. George Bush stole the election.

2. Al Gore invented the internet.?

3. Chicks from the north could wear bikini's longer with global warming .

4. Bill Clinton was a test monkey for (little blue pills).

5. democrats hate big business (unless its unionized)

6. Wal Mart will sell more ice.

7. If bass would spawn in February I would be happier.

8. If democrats knew marijuana would grow better in Canada with Global warming they would encourage it.

9. Its 13 degrees right now in Okla. City

10. Global warming has become more important to the Democrats than defending our Nation.

8-)

You gotta point.

I think from a media standpoint, "It's the flavor of the day", "If it bleeds it lead", ratings, that kind of philosophy.

• 
  

For politicos, "It's an opportunity to advance themselves and a particular agenda". The UN politicos would like to levy a world tax on fuel or pollution to garner more power to itself to "solve the problem".

• 
  

For some, "A cause, a bandwagon, a way of being popular, knowledgeable, to give meaning to their lives, a way to feel that they are making a contribution by carrying signs around, to assuage a feeling of guilt for their inherited millions, or ill-gotten gain, i.e., Alfred Nobel the pacifist who invented a way to make nitroglycerin safer and less volatile to handle". As brilliant as he was he must have known that man would use his inventions to create more violent warfare, oh well.

• 
  

For others, a way to advance their careers directly, to achieve grant money, notoriety, or notice.

• 
  

For some, a way to get even with the achievers, the US of A. Despots would love to see us hurt.

These are for the most part short run opportunists with the exception of the gullible and the environmentalists who are genuinely concerned.

In a worse case scenario, if the world warms up in the next few hundred years some would benefit, vegetation would again flourish in Northern areas, and Chicks from the north could wear bikinis longer. Here, here!

Humanity is mobile and would migrate from hot areas to formerly cold areas.

One of these potential solutions is at hand and it continues to be ignored.

I would agree that we do need to find better ways of fuelling our vehicles and generating power. I think it's odd that anytime that clean nuclear energy is brought up it's immediately trounced by the media and politicos but these same people talk of using cleaner burning coal technologies to generate power.

Nuclear warships need refuelling every thirteen years.

Personally, I think that we would be getting ahead of ourselves by trying to react to an unproved theory that is perceived to be a threat when in fact it may not be. It may be the height of arrogance to believe that man can alter the world climate for the better and in so doing, favor everyone equally at the same time.

We need to realize, outside the cacophony of doomsday voices there are those brilliant minds working on alternative fuels and fuel sources. Technology is advancing on a million fronts.

This article will challenge your mind and concept of the advancement of knowledge.

The Law of Accelerating Returns <http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1>

by Ray Kurzweil

An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense "intuitive linear" view. So we won't experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century -- it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today's rate). The "returns," such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There's even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth.

This can only happen in a free society. The USA has attracted the best and brightest from over all over the World precisely because of this freedom.

This free society must be protected for our grandchildren's grandchildren. You and I can do something about that.

[senile1]

I have said before and I still firmly believe that this global warming debate is a media fed controversy that gets everbody debating about the wrong things.

Yes the earth is warming.

Yes this is natural.

Yes it is probably true that humans are adding to it.

And that's where we argue.

The real issue is that no sane person can possibly believe that we can continue to pour billions of tons of toxic material into our air, water, and soil without the planet reacting in unpredictable ways.

Some day, countries that are the worst polluters will get together and agree to invest heavily in developing clean fuel.  Let's hope it happens soon.

Avid, I think every time this debate comes up you and I say the same thing, but in different ways.  Is it possible that those who believe we are adding too much to global warming could be wrong on this issue?  Yes.  Is it possible that those who don't believe we are adding to global warming are incorrect?  Yes.  But this isn't an issue to be ignored.  Just because you open your mind to the possibility that we, as humans, may be damaging our environment, this doesn't mean that we are all going to be taxed to death and all of our freedoms taken from us.  It seems the media pushes all of us to one extreme or the other.  I think we all agree that humans have added pollution to our environment that has been detrimental.  Let's keep our minds open.  Seventy to one hundred years down the pike, I don't think any of us would want to find out that we contributed to catastrophic climate change because we were too closed-minded to even consider the possibility that we contribute to global warming.  

To those who keep posting regarding the history of cyclical climate change, I don't think there is anyone who seriously debates global warming who isn't aware of this history.  No one should ignore this history and no one should ignore the evidence now that may indicate this is more than just part of a cycle.  Both must be taken into account, not just the evidence that supports your opinion.

BTW, personally, I'm not a big fan of Al Gore, but that's no reason to close my mind to every idea the man supports.  If someone you dislike states a possible truth, do you always disbelieve it just because of your dislike of that individual?  The same thing can be said for those who dislike George Bush.  Your dislike of someone doesn't make every word out of their mouth a false statement.

[Guest avid]

I think that modern nuclear power plants are much safer and efficient than the designs used at three mile island and chernobyl.  but I do understand the concern.  When a mistake can result in a catastrophic event it's going to be a deal breaker for many.

What I'm talking about is investing hundreds of billions in some of the promising alternative fuels, and in some creative basic research.

The money is there.  It's simply a matter of priorities.

We can choose to spend the billions we have avialable in a variety of ways.  Mr Bush chose to invade Iraq and found the money to do so.  

I believe we need a president who will choose to attack clean energy with the same commitment.

The profit potential of such a discovery would be staggering.

Not to mention the global political leverage we would enjoy if oil was no longer the major player.

Good for business, good for the environment, and good for geo-political influence.

Where's the downside?

[roadwarrior]

There is no downside.

This country needs to make a commitment like we made to put a man on the moon.

Avid, I could not agree with you more. Most importantly, it is doable. Money is truely no object in this pursuit. An economical alternative to oil would most certainly change all geo-politics. I believe this can be done. For the forseeable future, and certainly for the next 100 years, oil-gas-coal based energy will dominate the grid. What is important is other sources at the margin. A 20% alternative changes the dynamic completely.

In my opinion the "quick fix" is nuclear. The United States should set a priority of meeting 40-50% of our electrical needs with this technology. Safe, efficient plants can be built right now. It is time to move forward.

[justfishin]

I absolutely agree. Nuclear Power is a fantastic answer with todays technology. I feel that one of our number one priority's in this country as of now is to become more independent of foreign resources. If we could even cut our dependency down by 15-20% over the next fifty years it would take a immense burden off of us. I would be anxious to see how Exxon and the electrical power companies would react to this movement.

[Troutfisher]

I'll tell you what. After reading all these posts both for and against global warming I've come to a conclusion.

1. George Bush stole the election.

2. Al Gore invented the internet.?

3. Chicks from the north could wear bikini's longer with global warming .

4. Bill Clinton was a test monkey for (little blue pills).

5. democrats hate big business (unless its unionized)

6. Wal Mart will sell more ice.

7. If bass would spawn in February I would be happier.

8. If democrats knew marijuana would grow better in Canada with Global warming they would encourage it.

9. Its 13 degrees right now in Okla. City

10. Global warming has become more important to the Democrats than defending our Nation.

8-)

I think you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, instead of Mr. Gore. Great points!

For years, Dems have screamed, "The sky is falling! Oil is running out!  The earth is warming!  The earth is cooling!  They're killing the rainforests!  The timber companies are tearing down the trees!

Here's an interesting site.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

Here are some facts taken from the site.

Myth # 4: Human-Caused Global Warming Will Cause Cataclysmic Environmental Problems. Proponents of the theory of human-caused global warming argue that it is causing and will continue to cause all manner of environmental catastrophes, including higher ocean levels and increased hurricane activity. Reputable scientists, including those working on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations organization created to study the causes and effects of global climate warming, reject these beliefs.

Sea levels are rising around the globe, though not uniformly. In fact, sea levels have risen more than 300 feet over the last 18,000 years - far predating any possible human impact. Rising sea levels are natural in between ice ages. Contrary to the predictions of global warming theorists, the current rate of increase is slower than the average rate over the 18,000-year period.

Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.

Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.

From 1991 through 1995, relatively few hurricanes occurred, and even the unusually intense 1995 hurricane season did not reverse the downward trend.

The 1996 IPCC report on climate change found a worldwide significant increase in tropical storms unlikely; some regions may experience increased activity while others will see fewer, less severe storms.

Since factors other than ocean temperature such as wind speeds at various altitudes seem to play a larger role than scientists previously understood, most agree that any regional changes in hurricane activity will continue to occur against a backdrop of large yearly natural variations.

What about other effects of warming? If a slight atmospheric warming occurred, it would primarily affect nighttime temperatures, lessening the number of frosty nights and extending the growing season. Thus some scientists think a global warming trend would be an agricultural boon. Moreover, historically warm periods have been the most conducive to life. Most of the earth's plant life evolved in a much warmer, carbon dioxide-filled atmosphere.

[senile1]

I think that modern nuclear power plants are much safer and efficient than the designs used at three mile island and chernobyl.  but I do understand the concern.  When a mistake can result in a catastrophic event it's going to be a deal breaker for many.

What I'm talking about is investing hundreds of billions in some of the promising alternative fuels, and in some creative basic research.

The money is there.  It's simply a matter of priorities.

We can choose to spend the billions we have avialable in a variety of ways.  Mr Bush chose to invade Iraq and found the money to do so.  

I believe we need a president who will choose to attack clean energy with the same commitment.

The profit potential of such a discovery would be staggering.

Not to mention the global political leverage we would enjoy if oil was no longer the major player.

Good for business, good for the environment, and good for geo-political influence.

Where's the downside?

Agreed.  We should attack our oil dependence the same way we attacked placing a human being on the moon.  There is only one hitch to this.  The oil companies have spent untold billions of dollars in infrastructure to get oil out of the ground and tranported.  All of these assets will be useless to them if they cannot use them.  The costs of not using this infrastructure will be a hanging point for them and they have tremendous lobbying influece with the governments of the world.  This is one reason why neither party in the U.S has ever made a substantial move toward doing this.  We, the people, will have to demand it in no uncertain terms, before our government will make the move.  The actions taken in the last 30 years have done nothing to decrease our dependence.  It has only increased.  

[Guest avid]

The infrastructure, and the jobs associated with it are relevant topics, but notice the "oil" companies are not oil companies anymore, they are "energy" companies.

these are the people with the expertise, resources, technology, and corporate infrastructure to bring about needed change.

It is naive to think that a major course change could occurr in any meaningful way without including them.  The challenge is to be inclusive.  we could discover how to make clean high octane fuel from corn tormorrow and it would be years before it could be lighting our cities.

Government needs to create an environment where the energy giants are in a position to benefit from the transition, then fund it, and most importantly set standards and enforcement criteria to keep things moving.

In the meantime building new nuclear facilities should be earnestly pursued.

Question.  Are there new nuclear power plants being built in this country or does the legacy of 3 mile island still nix that alternative?

[nboucher]

Question.  Are there new nuclear power plants being built in this country or does the legacy of 3 mile island still nix that alternative?

Still too difficult to get approvals/licenses so it's not seen as a good business investment. The main obstacle in general is not as much operating the plants, which could be done more safely, but the lack of infrastructure for disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

All forms of energy production, from oil to corn, come with problems, though not necessarily unsolvable ones. Even ethanol from corn requires a signifiant amount of land set aside for producing the corn--added to the land used now for growing corn as food for humans and livestock.

I can't agree with you more, Avid, about an energy approach that uses multiple types of energy, as opposed to relying almost exclusively on gas and oil. In my view, you also have to give people more incentives to reduce their own energy use as well, including better insulated houses, for example, or more fuel-efficient engines.

[justfishin]

Excellent point Avid, you have hit the nail on the head. The current power giants have to be included somehow. Its just the nature of the beast.

                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                           Advanced Generation 3 Nuclear Reactors.

                                                         www.uic.com.au/nip16.htm

[Water Dog]

Good points all around.    Oil futures have been going down possibly due to the potential threat of alternative fuel.  If oil futures drop to $45 or less grain alcohol won't be able to compete.  There is no reason for any particular price for oil once production costs have been met.  It's simply a matter of supply and demand.  Oil producers have been holding back the supply in order to drive up the price.  More energy alternatives as competition for oil will drive the price down since oil producers would like to keep their market.

An energetic expansion of nuclear, natural gas, alcohol, solar, coal, wood for that matter, use of the tide and wind to generate electricity, better use of hydro, the incentives that you mention to encourage all of these things and yes, government grants to inventors, scientists, and universities who put forth positive research proposals would bring forth a plethora of ingenious ideas and inventions that would put a dent in the need for oil.  We have great quantities of wood that goes to waste through out the Appalachian chain that perhaps could be used to produce alcohol and certainly used to generate heat, steam, and electricity.  Some of this is done now.

If the US of A and Europe can become energy independent again, the money fueling militant Islam will dry up and more positive elements of Islam would be able to balance the 'nut cases'.

The media needs to get on board to educate the public rather than continue to project the doom and gloom alarmist rhetoric that we have seen especially in the last 30 years.

Twenty five years ago the Federal Government proposed a nuclear underground storage facility in a solid rock mountain near where I live and the media fanned the flames that helped to turn the public against the idea.  This facility would have provided employment for 3000 employees in addition to all of the construction personnel needed to build the facility.  It was a NIMBY issue of course and none of the politicians had the intestinal fortitude to pursue the idea after the news media led the charge against it.  If this ever comes up again, I will organize a coalition of support for it to counter the Nay Sayers.

Developing a sensible energy policy for this Country requires everyone to be objective and do their part.  If any of these issues come up one hand written letter from you counts as 300 votes to a politician.  You should never under rate your influence.

Even for something as simple as the need for more boat ramps, get a few of your friends together and pursue it.  

[senile1]

The infrastructure, and the jobs associated with it are relevant topics, but notice the "oil" companies are not oil companies anymore, they are "energy" companies.

these are the people with the expertise, resources, technology, and corporate infrastructure to bring about needed change.

It is naive to think that a major course change could occurr in any meaningful way without including them.  The challenge is to be inclusive.  we could discover how to make clean high octane fuel from corn tormorrow and it would be years before it could be lighting our cities.

Government needs to create an environment where the energy giants are in a position to benefit from the transition, then fund it, and most importantly set standards and enforcement criteria to keep things moving.

In the meantime building new nuclear facilities should be earnestly pursued.

Question.  Are there new nuclear power plants being built in this country or does the legacy of 3 mile island still nix that alternative?

The nomenclature may have changed, but the main thrust and expertise of most oil companies (now energy companies) is oil based and it would be a major cost for them to change.  I have a friend whose family is in oil.  His family tells him that getting the oil companies to go along with any substantial changes will be a major undertaking.  Having said that, I believe it should be done, and I agree that these companies must be included and must be able to succeed in the new business environment that will result.  

[Hookem]

My only gage of global warming, whether induced by man or a natural cycle,  is this :

(I'll use one lake that I have fished since the early 70's as reference)

I used to fish for spawn in Feb/Mar and into Apr.

Now, its Dec/Jan and into Feb.

[.ghoti.]

A most interesting debate. Global warming, despite the constant bleating media frenzy surrounding it, is a theory. That's right, a theory.

May I suggest some interesting winter reading? State of Fear, by Michael Chrichton. It's a great story wrapped around some real information. In the course of his research, the author located an incredible amount of raw data, and presented much of this in charts and graphs. Most of these long term data sets disproved the theory of global warming. They did this by focusing on longer term studies. One very interesting fact is, that after the book was published, a significant amount of data was removed from public access on some of these sites. What was left seemed to prove the theory of global warming. Yes, that's right, data was sorted to prove the point these organizations were funded, by your tax dollars, to prove. Is this what we now call science? Read the author's comments at the end of the book.

Enviromentalist organizations are big business in this country. They raise, and spend billions every year, with no oversight. Creating a "state of fear" funds the lifestyles of these so called activists. And many live extremely well, thank you very much. It is a moral outrage that so much money is spent in such miguided efforts, while so many children around the world are faced with disease, starvation and death.

Soory for the rant, this pushes one of my buttons. I'll bring the book in soon, so I can find the reference materials, and post the urls' for any who are interested.

Cheers,

GK

[Water Dog]

This controversy will likely go on for decades.    I have some interesting links if you are interested.

<http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0>

Lawrence Solomon, National Post

Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouse gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Another opinion by Nigel Weiss, Professor Emeritus at the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at the University of Cambridge, past President of the Royal Astronomical Society

<http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=17fad0e2-6f6b-41f3-bdd8-8e9eeb015777&k=0>

The science is anything but settled, he observes, except for one virtual certainty: The world is about to enter a cooling period.Typically, sunspots flare up and settle down in cycles of about 11 years. In the last 50 years, we haven't been living in typical times: "If you look back into the sun's past, you find that we live in a period of abnormally high solar activity," Dr. Weiss states.

These hyperactive periods do not last long, "perhaps 50 to 100 years, then you get a crash," says Dr. Weiss. 'It's a boom-bust system, and I would expect a crash soon."

In addition to the 11-year cycle, sunspots almost entirely "crash," or die out, every 200 years or so as solar activity diminishes. When the crash occurs, the Earth can cool dramatically. Dr. Weiss knows because these phenomenon, known as "Grand minima," have recurred over the past 10,000 years, if not longer.

"The deeper the crash, the longer it will last," Dr. Weiss explains. In the 17th century, sunspots almost completely disappeared for 70 years. That was the coldest interval of the Little Ice Age, when New York Harbour froze, allowing walkers to journey from Manhattan to Staten Island, and when Viking colonies abandoned Greenland, a once verdant land that became tundra. Also in the Little Ice Age, Finland lost one-third of its population, Iceland half.

The previous cooling period lasted 150 years while a minor crash at the beginning of the 19th century was accompanied by a cooling period that lasted only 30 years.

In contrast, when the sun is very active, such as the period we're now in, the Earth can warm dramatically. This was the case during the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings first colonized Greenland and when Britain was wine-growing country.

During the Little Ice Age, scientists estimate, global temperatures on average may have dropped by less than 1 degree Celsius, showing the potential consequences of even an apparently small decline.

Dr. Weiss prefers not to speculate. He sees the coming crash as an opportunity to obtain the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions on climate change, and the extent to which man-made emissions have been a factor.

"Having a crash would certainly allow us to pin down the sun's true level of influence on the Earth's climate," concludes Dr. Weiss. Then we will be able to act on fact, rather than from fear.

This is a very brief compilation of data and opinion, go to the links and you will find a lot more.  

Haven't noticed any "Global Warming" in the news lately, have you?