Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Just curious... on the fact ... I am no scientist, maybe u can explain if the stuff is not real world and doesnt effect us... yes sir?

 

You are a student? use your uni student ID to access other research and get a conservative picture from experts in climatology. There are several respected research institutions associated with academia. Gain forum membership, post very carefully researched questions to gain confidence and respect seeking to gain personal communication on some serious topics.

Access is only by diligent research and analysis to gain respect of the head professor. Then you will find out the mysteries of climatology and higher learning.

Good luck westie.

 

About 5 -6 years ago, I figured I'd enroll in the Open University Science degree course. I was not doing it to get a BSc Geosciences, but to discover if the OE staff knew more than me.

http://www3.open.ac.uk/courses/bin/p12.dll?Q01B25

How can I put this? Oh yes, I'm right, they're wrong!

There was too much PC propaganda in the course as far as I was concerned. When pointed out that the projected existence of this planet is currently estimated to be 5000 million years and that human life will in all probability be extinct, I was accused of being heartless. So much for dispassionate discourse!!

I shall not dwell on the almost religious belief about anthropogenic global warming. I is a political invention, designed to throttle the ingenuity of western nations, I will just ask "What would you rather do, die of cold or die of heat?

The Holocene Interglacial, which we now currently enjoy, has persisted since the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,400 years ago. Throughout 2.5 million years of the Pleistocene, significant advances of ice sheets over North America and Europe have occurred at intervals of approximately 40,000 to 100,000 years, separated by more temperate Interglacials.

There have been 4 major ices ages in the history of this planet and the present one started 40 million years ago, with the expansion of ice sheets in Antarctica. About 3 million years ago, it intensified with ice sheets over the Northern Hemisphere heralding the Pleistocene. The Eemian Interglacial began about 131,000 years ago and the climate is believed to have been about as stable as, but probably warmer than that of, the later Holocene with the warmest peak around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (which is now tundra) in northern Norway well above the Arctic Circle .

Changes in orbital parameters from today (greater obliquity and eccentricity, and perihelion), known as the Milankovitch cycle, probably led to greater seasonal temperature variations in the Northern Hemisphere, although global annual means temperatures were probably similar to those of the Holocene.

What are the facts about greenhouse gases? Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F), without which Earth would be uninhabitable. CO2 causes only 9–26%; Methane (CH4), causes 4–9% and Ozone, causes 3–7%. It is WATER VAPOUR, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect (not including clouds).

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

James E. Hansen and others choose to draw their own PC conclusions by
selecting evidence to support their viewpoints and ignoring the inconvenient research by others;

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/

Hansen's methods in gathering data are similar to those methods that researchers know were used with the construction the Xtian Bible 1700 years ago. Ignore the evidence that contradicted the story that the church fathers wanted to tell.

Read at your peril. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Who has heard of Samuel Heinrich Schwabe? His work is compiled here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

So, hands up all this who know about the following?

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world.

Loads more here. Very inconvenient for Hansen, I suspect

http://tailrank.com/2152460/Read-the-sunspots

Specifically for Westie, an insight into the ingenuity of the 19th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_(ship)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigeration

Pericles

 

An example of maths playing second fiddle to politics.

From http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/ December 16th

Madness stalks the land

Following our rather elegant "cathedrals of insanity", it is Booker's turn to have a go at what he does not hesitate to call "the maddest single decision ever made by British ministers."

This was announced by John Hutton, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the startlingly insane plan to build 7,000 giant offshore wind turbines round Britain's coast by 2020, to meet our EU target on renewable energy.

No matter that Mr Hutton's officials warned him in August it was not conceivable that we could achieve even a much lower target, writes Booker, so keen was Mr Brown that Britain should "lead Europe on climate change" that Mr Hutton was told to ignore his officials.

The interesting thing is that, by and large, the media reported his claims without questioning whether such a megalomaniac project was remotely feasible, the New Statesman in fact lauding the "U-turn" on windfarms as "important".

What is especially interesting is that no one mentioned costs. Hutton spoke of his turbines, equivalent to one every half mile of coastline, as having a capacity of 33 gigawatts (GW), a hefty chunk of the 75GW of power we need at peak demand. But Booker has worked it out.

With the cost of giant offshore turbines, as tall as 850 feet, estimated at £1.6 billion per GW of capacity, this represents a bill of more than £50 billion - equivalent to the colossal sum earmarked last week by central banks to shore up the world banking system.

But of course the point about offshore turbines is that, because wind blows intermittently, they only generate on average at a third or less of capacity. So Mr Hutton's 33GW figure comes down to 11GW. To generate this much power from "carbon-free" nuclear energy would require six or seven nuclear power stations and cost, at something under £20 billion, less than half as much as the turbines.

This, however, is only the start of the madness. Because those turbines would generate on average only a third of the time, back-up would be needed to provide power for the remaining two thirds - say, another 12 nuclear power stations costing an additional £30 billion, putting the real cost of Mr Hutton's fantasy at nearer £80 billion - more than doubling our electricity bills.

Then that are a few other minor problems. Booker asked energy expert Professor Ian Fells whether it would be technically possible to carry out the most ambitious engineering project ever proposed in Britain, one which would require us to raise from the seabed two of these 2,000 ton structures every working day between 2008 and 2020.

So we turn to Denmark for an indication. With the world's largest offshore wind resource, it has never managed to build more than two a week, and marine conditions allow such work for only a third of the year.

But it does not stop even there. The turbines' siting would mean that much of the national grid would have to be restructured, costing further billions. And because wind power is so unpredictable and needs other sources available at a moment's notice, it is generally accepted that any contribution above 10 percent made by wind to a grid dangerously destabilises it.

Two years ago, much of western Europe blacked out after a rush of German windpower into the continental grid forced other power stations to close down. The head of Austria's grid warned that the system was becoming so unbalanced by the "excessive" building of wind turbines that Europe would soon be "confronted with massive connector problems".

Yet Mr Hutton's turbines would require a system capable of withstanding power swings of up to 33GW, when the only outside backup on which our island grid can depend is a 2GW connector to France (which derives 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power).

Nothing better illustrates the fatuity of windpower than the fact that Denmark, with the highest concentration of turbines in the world, must export more than 80 per cent of its wind-generated electricity to Norway, to prevent its grid being swamped when the wind is blowing, while remaining heavily reliant the rest of the time on power from Sweden and Germany.

The Danes, who decided in 2002 to build no more turbines, have learnt their lesson. We British have still to learn it. Every time we hear that over-used term "green" we should remember it has another meaning: someone who is naively foolish and dangerously gullible.

So says Booker, but Spiked online has a different "take". What is being agreed in all these announcements is not government action, it says, "but rather yet more planning interrogations."

What Hutton actually did was launch a Strategic Environmental Assessment of the seas surrounding the UK, "paving the way for a possible 'third round' of wind energy development and beyond." This is a "draft" plan for a "potential" major expansion in offshore wind, and will be subject to the outcome of the Strategic Environmental Assessment.

In the housing sector, Spiked adds planning used to mean planning for more houses, but today it means preventing new houses being built. It is the same with energy.

The government now pursues offshore wind in the hope that it can avoid the fate of large onshore wind devices, which are caught in interminable objections by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and other aesthetically minded environmentalists. But New Labour exercises in planning and consultation already promise to kill nuclear energy stone dead, and will likely do the same for offshore wind.

Certainly, whichever way you look at it, Hutton's plan is not achievable – even The Guardian is sceptical – all of which would seem to suggest that we are dealing with a particularly mad form of gesture politics.

The bottom line is that this is designed to allow Gordon Brown can cosy up to his EU "colleagues" and tell them everything is in hand with his renewable energy plans. By the time it comes to deliver, he will be long gone, and David Cameron will be hooking his bike up to a generator to keep the lights on.

Pericles

 

EU Referendum
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Keep watching the sun

Dr David Whitehouse, an astronomer and the author of 'The Sun: A Biography' writes in The Independent today that we might be about to enter a period of unusually low sun activity. Such periods, in the past, have been associated with low temperatures on planet Earth.

Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Whitehouse writes, say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun's reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020. This is larger than most sensible predictions of man-made global warming over this period.

This is something we must take seriously, Whitehouse adds. What happened in the 17th century is bound to happen again some time. Recent work studying the periods when our Sun loses its sunspots, along with data on other Sun-like stars that may be behaving in the same way, suggests that our Sun may spend between 10 and 25 per cent of the time in this state.

He moots that the lateness of the expected cycle of sunspots might even be the start of another Little Ice Age. If so, then our Sun might come to our rescue over climate change, mitigating mankind's influence and allowing us more time to act. It might even be the case that the Earth's response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man's influence on climate change. We don't know. We must keep watching the sun.

I wonder if they are watching in Brussels.

Pericles

 

It is refreshing to see some hard data. When Mt. St. Helen exploded it put in the atmosphere the equivalent of ten years of the c.mbined industrial effluents in the whole world. It took only a couple of days.

 

That's what I like about Nature - she's so damn efficient!

 

In early October 2007, a major research institution announced the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science. The new element has been named "Eurotium."

Eurotium (Eu) has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312. These 312 particles are held together by forces called "******" which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called "peons".

Since Eu has no electrons, it is inert. However, it can be detected, because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact. A minute amount of Eu causes one reaction to take over four days to complete, when it would normally take less than a second.

Eu has a normal half-life of four years; it does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganisation in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places. In fact, Eurotium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganisation will cause more ****** to become neutrons, forming "isodopes". This characteristic of ***** promotion leads most scientists to believe that Eu is formed whenever ****** reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as "Critical Morass".

When catalysed with money, Eu becomes "Administratium" (Am) – an element that radiates just as much energy as Eu, since it has half as many peons but twice as many ******.

http://www.ukip.org/ukip/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=393&Itemid=67

Enjoy.

 

To put it bluntly then "it's all bollocks" forget it and gert on with your life - Yes I use solar water heating, yes I use energy saving light bulbs, no I don't drive (neither does any of my immediate family)! WHY? Because it's cheaper to run! Why the hell else?

 

Safie, you seem to be in good form (on the keyboard) but can an overblubbered walrus run?

 

He bloody well can when a Japanese whaling ship hoves into sight mate!!!

 

Greenpeace would applaud your services (I think) fancy a trip down south? To the Antarctic, fool, not Cairns to chat up the euro backpackers bearing their boobs.

 

Mr. Lee I just happen to know a young lady in Cairns and she's a little beauty (great personality too - problem is she's married) YES MATE I would fancy one! ........................................... a trip to Cains that is!

 

Whaaat, you would run away from a jap whaling ship? run out of torpedoes have we? What about getting a big mob to blow bubbles under it. Reduced water density may induce a sinking feeling aboard the Jap ship. Booonnnzzzaaaiii!!!

 

What are you going to do to improve our planets problems? Do you think that using power saving bulbs and all of that type of suggestions are going to do any good.? power saving buls give no heat so you loose out there.Is compolsory home insulation helping or just compounding the problem and filling pockets of some bul..... artist.? Insulation works both ways,it keeps your home cold in winter and hot in summer unless you use heating of cooling to make your home comfy.Insulation stops your home from making use of the ambient temperatures,so you loose out on free heating,especially from the ceiling area which is usualy the warmest part of your home,heated free by solar heat.There are so many faults in the theories of our experts that the whole exercise will be a waste of time.