• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

'An Upper Layer Of Earth's Atmosphere Has Collapsed'

I am aware of the differences between Germany and the USA. I would however not be so fast to dismiss the stuff we are working on. We have for example some revolutionary projects going on in Africa, where we are working on stowing energy from solar directly into the sand and earth and new ways of delivering it. There have been some major breakthroughs there.
Glad to hear you guys are getting breakthroughs. Can't wait for a revolutionary, economically viable system that will work here.

I would be interested in hearing about the new ways of delivering it. Is there a name for it? I know of no other way than the present transmission line system.
 
I can't tell you. That is a set of articles some 2-3 years back. There are some major projects going in in North Africa in which Germany and the EU are involved, and they are working on some very futuristic stuff with apparently some success. I am not able to explain the details.
 
jhefner said:
Notice how small a temperature increase we are talking about! That is less than a degree a year!
And that is enormous. You are massively underestimating what this actually means. 2°C plus will change the live of humanity forever, 5°C plus is a death sentence to the world as we know it.
I assume you are thinking: whats the big deal if it's 2°C warmer ? Excuse me if saying so, but this is a naive way of looking at it. 2°C in the global climate set means the massive alteration of ocean currents (with all which this brings with it) ice caps (idem) wildlife worldwide, spreading of deserts and increasing lack of water resources, and that is just the beginning of the list. This process has already started and can be observed.

Read the rest of the article yourself. The fact is, he states that the amount of global warming is statistically insginificant, and since 2002, the trend has been slightly down.
No it isn't down, this is a falsification of the denier industry. What really happens is that the warming trend slowed down. But at no moment it revered, or became cooler. Since, it sped up again. 2007 for example saw a massive unprecedented drop of polar ice mass (note: not extension) of a staggering 25%. NOOA reports that the first 6 months of 2010 in the global climate data set break all records since data collections. Several other records were broken in 2009 too.

And that is only looking at four ten year periods; at a time we are coming out of the Little Ice Age.
The Little Ice Age (Ken referred to it too) is called the Maunder Minimum, and it's due to a low in sun activity and rotation. There was also a Vulcanic Eruption which prolonged it. That is why there are different opinions on what time frame the Little Ice Age should be defined.
It has nothing to do with the global warming we are experiencing now.


More bashing of the common folk -- "you're too stupid to comprehend global warming."
I just speak for me, but I think I never bashed anyone in this thread. I also never said that anyone is too stupid to understand it. But it takes a real effort, not just youtube or the blogosphere.

That is laughable; considering we can discuss black holes and faster than light travel here; but global warming is too complex for us to understand.

Mh, since when do we understand black holes and faster than light travel ?


... Where you then state that basically the effects of water vapor as a global warming gas have been written out as a zero sum game. (Not because they can prove it; it's just an assumption.) Remember folks; we are talking about a tiny fraction of an increase in temperatures; but they are happy to write off the effects of water vapor as zero.

It has been disproven and ruled out.


1. We are too stupid to comprehend global warming. Don't try.
2. We have written off water vapor, volcanos, and radiation from the sun, but not CO2.
3. A bare significant 0.12C per decade temperature rise; which cannot be directly attributed to CO2 gas because the other factors are too complicated, is worth turning over billions of dollars in the global economy; and putting a big hurt on a lot of folks.

1) not at all. I think everybody should try.
2) nobody has written off volcanoes. You can see their eruptions clearly on the climate graph. But our CO2 emissions are 8000 times higher than those of all worldwide volcanoes together. Don't you think that has an effect? As of the sun: it has been ruled out, because there is nothing special happening with it. In the contrary, despite the recent low activity of the sun, which is ending most likely 2011, the global warming continued.
3) our ways of burning fossil fuels have to end for many reasons, ecological, but also geopolitical. Do you really want to continue to make some muslim sheiks rich? Oil is ending anyway. If we end the dependence now, it will create a unprecedented move forwards, not unlike the jump from steam to fossil fuel motors was. Its unavoidable.


EasyEd and KOM.Nausicaa are trying to clobber us with the weight of thousands of researchers, dozens of websites (which are not free, BTW), and hyperbabble rather than indisputable facts. Have yet to hear either address my questions about the data in the U.N. climate model, or the fallout from the results published based on that model.

I think you are unfair. I didn't clobber anyone here with "the weight of thousands of researchers, dozens of websites". I made a great effort not to link to sites much, but to talk in a clear way, and in my own words.

I am not going to go into personal attacks like KOM;

I am not aware I was attacking forum members in my posts in this thread. I think I stayed very polite.

but I just wanted to share with them the fact that politicians who are the most vocal about this are making millions speaking about it, live in more than one McMansion, drive around in convoys of SUVs (which they leave running while they are speaking to keep them cool), and fly in nothing smaller than a Gulfstream (although Pelosi argued for and recieved a 737 executive because she said the Gulfstream was too small for her party from CA.)

Maybe that is so in the USA. In Germany a politician will loose his career if he does this.



A final word: I want to inform, not judge, and make people understand stuff, because I tried to understand it, and want to share it. If you think I was not polite to you I am sorry.
 
Pay attention to what's said here ...

'Archaic' Network Provides Data Behind Global Warming Theory, Critics Say
By Joseph Abrams
Published March 02, 2010

To measure weather, volunteers take readings at different times of day, round to the nearest whole number, and mark down up paper forms they mail in monthly.

Crucial data on the American climate, part of the basis for proposed trillion-dollar global warming legislation, is churned out by a 120-year-old weather system that has remained mostly unchanged since Benjamin Harrison was in the White House.

The network measures surface temperature by tallying paper reports sent in by snail mail from volunteers whose data, according to critics, often resembles a hodgepodge of guesswork, mathematical interpolation and simple human error.

"It's rather archaic," said Anthony Watts, a meteorologist who since 2007 has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations that make up the Historical Climatology Network.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said. The network relies on volunteers in the 48 contiguous states to take daily readings of high and low temperatures and precipitation measured by sensors they keep by their homes and offices. They deliver that information to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which uses it to track changes in the climate.

Car and plane exhaust warms the air, right? So why are the National Climate Data Center's thermometers so close to them? Here, sensors in 9 of the oddest locations.

Requirements aren't very strict for volunteers: They need a modicum of training and decent vision in at least one eye to qualify. And they're expected to take measurements seven days a week, 365 days a year. That's a recipe for trouble, says Watts, who told FoxNews.com that less scrupulous members of the network often fail to collect the data when they go on vacation or are sick. He said one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Volunteers take their readings at different times of day, then round the temperatures to the nearest whole number and mark down their measurements on paper forms they mail in monthly to the NCDC headquarters in Ashville, N.C. "You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts, who found that 90 percent of the stations violated the government's guidelines for where they may be located.

Watts believes that poor placement of temperature sensors has compromised the system's data. Though they are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, many of the stations are potentially corrupted by their proximity to heat sources, including exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, seas of asphalt — and even a grave.

Once the data reaches the NCDC, climate scientists in Ashville digitize the numbers and check to make sure there are no large anomalies. The introduction of electronic weather gauges into the system in the 1980s was a much-needed update, but the new and improved gauges measure temperatures slightly differently and must be corrected to sync up with the overall historic data.
If numbers appear faulty or if more than nine days are missing from a single month's tally, the whole month is thrown out, according to NCDC documents, and the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature would have been for the month at the unknown station.

The overall land temperature record produced by the NCDC is used by a number of top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, headed until recently by Phil Jones, who stepped down in the wake of the Climate-gate scandal.
What it boils down to, Watts says, is that some of the world's top climate scientists have been crunching numbers that were altered by their immediate surroundings, rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC if there was insufficient data, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including the uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- all ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than the raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect.
But scientists at the NCDC say the system is an indispensable tool for measuring local temperatures, and that its readings are buttressed by the consensus drawn from the 8,000 surface stations that make up the Cooperative Observer Program, the overall national system of which the 1,218 stations in the Historical Climatology Network are just a part.

"We use the rest of the COOP network to help calibrate," said Jay Lawrimore, chief of the climate monitoring branch at NCDC. "It's used to do quality control." NCDC climatologists carefully track temperature trends at local levels to ensure that the data submitted by volunteers is reliable, adjusting for the biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting.

The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change. "The signal appears to be robust, a reliable temperature signal," said Lawrimore.

But Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
It all could become moot within a decade, as the climate center's outmoded Pony Express is currently being replaced with a screaming bullet train.

Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that about 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated, but a far more important development has been the launching of the digitally run Climate Reference Network (CRN), a system of 114 stations that went fully online in 2008.
The CRN was carefully sited in fields around the country and automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite and eliminating the snail-mail delay, the rounding of numbers and any elements of human error.

But that doesn't mean the Historical Climate Network is going away, say NCDC scientists, who will continue to rely on its volunteers' readings to gather climate data on the local level.
 
KOM et all;
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I go along with the "agree to disagree" comment. No one's mind will be changed here.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You didn't insult me personally, and I appreciate your apology. What I was referring to was folks like Willis Eschenbach. EasyEd invited me to view the climate data and code myself; but my point is that when Eschenbach, Larry Anderson and others have taken the time to do just that, you dismiss them as "denialist crocks", and in the "denier industry."
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
(For that matter, I have worked in both the fossil generation industry and the airline industry. So, feel free to lump me in the "denialist crocks" crowd if you like, and a part of the "denier industry." The fact is, we all have vested interest in this; not just the long term health of the planet, but the short term effect on the global economy; already shaky from other factors; that proposals like the ones in Copenhagen would have. It is obvious from the depth of the knowledge you and EasyEd have that your interest is more than just a casual one. And that is OK; I am not going to lump you in some demeaning category in same hate game the three of you (Ghostrider being the third) that you are playing.)
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I am sorry to hear about the situation in Asia. But the fact is, local droughts, deluges and similar weather patterns are simply part of the regular shifting global weather pattern. I have a picture taken of a steam ploughing engine sitting in what is now the Saharan desert. These local periods of rain and drought are found throughout history; to take the latest and chalk it up to man's activity is a bridge too far.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You still haven't answered my questions about the U.N. Climate Report. I know more than enough about global climate temperature data to know that only the past few decades is complete enough to be usable; has been influenced by local activities (the construction of concrete buildings, parking lots, and A/C units), and in it's raw form is barely usable. (See Snuffy's post before mine.)
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
So now you are telling me that Phil Jones is part of the "denier industry" because he didn't calculate a high enough temperature rise? (Read the stupid article) Am I correct to assume that anyone who doesn't come up with numbers you think are right, regardless of the logic and accuracy of their claim, is automatically in the "denier industry?" Your claims about Asia are good and right, Ken's claims about New Mexico are bad and wrong? That is silly. NOAA data good, Phil Jones data, bad? And how can you possibility say without a shadow of a doubt that sunspots, volcanic activity, and water vapor can be ruled out as a 0.0000000 sum game. It wouldn't take much variation in any of these over a period of time to affect global climate, and just one good volcano can give us another "year without a summer" (at which time lots of people will be wanting to burn lots of that fossil fuel. I won't even go into the futility of predicting future activity based on present trends; no-one could have forseen the present economic crisis and its effect on total man-made CO2 emmissions, or predicting the next Mount Tambora eruption and it's effect on the global climate.)

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Look, if I came on this forum, and stated that without doubt or question --
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
1. The Earth is flat.<o:p></o:p>
2. The Earth is at the center of the universe<o:p></o:p>
3. I know aerodynamics, and bees can't fly.<o:p></o:p>
4. It is impossible for man to fly.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You would laugh me off this forum, or present facts to the contrary. And you would be right. But, clear, indefuitable scientific evidence that man-made global warming is taking place is not there. And all of the name calling, insults, undocumented claims to the contrary, numbers of scientists and websites in agreement, will not change any of these. And like it or not, the UK climate model and U.N. report, and the behavior of certain politicians (and former politicians), rock stars, and other folks we know don't know what they are talking about have only served to hurt your cause. And Ghostrider's labeling us as "too short-lived, greedy, narcissistic, and unconcerned about anything or anyone else but themselves, and their short-term gain/maintaining the status quo" without presenting any facts to support the original claim isn't going to help your cause. Give it up folks; and lets return to the civil forum the SOH has been. Stuff like this is poisoning too many nice forums already.
<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
-James
 
(...)It is obvious from the depth of the knowledge you and EasyEd have that your interest is more than just a casual one.(...)

I could write a lengthy answer, but I have no time right now. But I want to answer the quoted sentence, because it sticks out as a red flag to me. I can hardly believe I am reading this correctly actually. In order to answer this: No I have no personal interest in this at all, except for the one being a human being concerned for the future. I am a artist working as a visual consultant in the movie and games industry. I have no affiliation with the green industry whatsoever. Furthermore I never owned stocks anywhere in my entire life, neither does my family. I am stunned it is not conceivable to you my interest can just be self motivated.
 
I could write a lengthy answer, but I have no time right now. But I want to answer the quoted sentence, because it sticks out as a red flag to me. I can hardly believe I am reading this correctly actually. In order to answer this: No I have no personal interest in this at all, except for the one being a human being concerned for the future. I am a artist working as a visual consultant in the movie and games industry. I have no affiliation with the green industry whatsoever. Furthermore I never owned stocks anywhere in my entire life, neither does my family. I am stunned it is not conceivable to you my interest can just be self motivated.

In which case, I could question your education and knowledge with the same vorasity that has been poured out against the other side, or label you with the appropiate label as been done to opponents. But what good would that do? Give it a rest.
 
PS, and one more Jhefner: If I assume correctly that Snuffy quotes Anthony Watt's work (I cant see his post) and the claim that 'poor' stations in urban areas put out wrong data, then I can tell you that this has already been looked into, and has been debunked. Actually those stations show a cooling bias, exactly contrary to what M.Watt claims. Furthermore this bias is not very significant and has since been aligned correctly in the global statistics, which unite global earth and sea measurements. M.Watt and the 'poor stations' are part of the '20 claims' list which i know really in and out.
 
Give it a rest.

I think it is my right to correct such a strong assumption and accusation of lobbyism like you did. Not only for you, but also for all forum members which read this and who know me for 7 years already.
 
At least the French monarchy beheaded on the "National Razor" did not manipulate the ice age's affect on crop failures. I think the anger and vengence visited upon people who manipulate the situation that puts economies in ruin will find a more savage response brought to them. This is something wise people wish to avoid!

If you want people manipulating stuff dead, exterminate the whole planet.
We're all born manipulators, the best example being this whole, lengthy thread.



We have world class green energy to export, leading in solar, for example.

Energy technology. The energy itself is used up here.



However, comparing your situation with the USA is comparing apples to oranges. Take a look at a world population density map. See Germany? See the USA? Guess what? The areas that solar and wind work best in the USA are the least populated! Now look at what it would take to move that energy from those areas to the highly populated areas. Hint: Germany is smaller than some of our states.

Solar and wind will, at best, never be more than a supplemental source in the USA. Next solution please!

Even if they're "just" supplemental they will provide the US with energy and decrease the role of the non-renewables.

You guys have so much unoccupied land over there ideally fit for renewable energy collectors/generators, so how much harm can wind/solar parks do?

Also, if you need less oil for electricity generation, you've got more of your nationally drilled one for transportation purposes and make yourselves less dependant on imports. And I'm sure that would be a good thing for the guys in Washington. ;)



We have for example some revolutionary projects going on in Africa, where we are working on stowing energy from solar directly into the sand and earth and new ways of delivering it. There have been some major breakthroughs there.

That solar collector thingy in North Africa (Lybia?) for example. Rumour has it that it could supply a quarter of Europe with clean energy...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Mediterranean_Renewable_Energy_Cooperation



- Edit:

Or let's just revive this one...heh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa
 
PS, and one more Jhefner: If I assume correctly that Snuffy quotes Anthony Watt's work (I cant see his post) and the claim that 'poor' stations in urban areas put out wrong data, then I can tell you that this has already been looked into, and has been debunked. Actually those stations show a cooling bias, exactly contrary to what M.Watt claims. Furthermore this bias is not very significant and has since been aligned correctly in the global statistics, which unite global earth and sea measurements. M.Watt and the 'poor stations' are part of the '20 claims' list which i know really in and out.

You want us to belive you have me on ignore, and yet so accurately "assume" what I wrote? You know what they say about "Assume". I think you just did.
View attachment 13845 View attachment 13846
 
This is interesting, I just read a news post ..

THAT THE LAST TEN YEARS HAVE BEEN THE HOTTEST ON RECORD.. EVER..

Almost as hot has the opinions everyone seems to have here..LOL..LOL..

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!
Off to Hide, a piece of the OVERHEATED Sky just landed in my back Yard!!!

:jump: :jump: :jump:
 
This just in, because it fits the discussion. I said earlier the "small temperature rise" some here dismiss as "insignificant" is enough to cause catastrophic changes in the worlds eco systems that will affect us all.

And today Nature reports this:

Microscopic marine algae (Pythoplankton) which form the basis of the ocean food chain are dying at a terrifying rate -- 40% drop over the last 60 years.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...s-entire-food-chain-threat.html#ixzz0v5J9BtrG

To read the Nature article you need unfortunately a subscription.
 
"They found that phytoplankton had declined significantly in all but two of the ocean regions at an average global rate of about 1 per cent per year, most of which since the mid 20th Century. They found that this decline correlated with a corresponding rise in sea-surface temperatures – although they cannot prove that warmer oceans caused the decline."

Correlation does not imply causation.
 
Back
Top