http://www.dailymail.co.uk/...hames-freezing-again.html

Where is their source on this?

Last week Met said this

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/...012/solar-output-research

Decline in solar output unlikely to offset global warming

23 January 2012 - New research has found that solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years but that will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases.

And it continues... but basically global warming is real and the Daily Mail is rubbish...

You know this:

http://ga.water.usgs.gov/...hics/wciceiceagelores.jpg

is the normal state of our planet right? The milankovitch cycles explained this along time ago...

Do you seriously think that it hasnt been accounted for in recent calculations for global warming?

"Normal state"? Citation needed!

I would contend that there isn't really a normal state; the planet is continually evolving; it really hasn't been that long since it was molten pile of rock, and not won't be long until our sun burns into it's helium stage and gobbles us up...

how can you possible nail down a "normal state" with natural warming and cooling stages with ice ages etc? dude....

cool

i've said it for years, helium will be death of of us all :(

The fact that the earth is in a theoretical cooling cycle, yet average temperatures continue to rise is further evidence of man-made global warming. That graph is also hilarious, way to cherry pick temperature data. Here's a bigger version:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/...tp-anom/201001-201012.gif

qzjul, look at geological temperature data and you will see that our latest temperature peak happened 9.000 years ago, between each peak you have a ice age, these move in cycles, but the fact remains looking at a larger scale our current position in the graph is in a downhill trend into the next ice age, no global warming will stop that.

I'm useing this picture in swedish cause it describes very well my point:

http://www.torbjornsassersson.com/...imategate/global_temp.jpg

If you look at the timespans in a geological perspective on a global scale for this planet, a colder climate then what we currently has is the normal state.

I'm not denying that we have global warming, I'm just saying that what they are talking about in that article is bullfluff.

Newspapers allways like to put up data over the last 250 years or less, thats irrelevant to the bigger cycle that will inevitably lead us to a new ice age.

everyone will be playing hockey then

From the mostly ignorant point on the issue: how many years have there been a clean sailing passage across the Artic Ocean?
Is Greenland Greener today then only a handful of years past? how about the ice around and on Antartica, growing or shrinking?
Are the desert regions not expanding?
While there is clearly major cycles, The earth will do fine in correcting our mistakes, and if needed in dramatic form it doesn't care whether we get to continue our existance.

Hrm.. Maybe florida will learn how to play hockey then?

*sniff* a single tear rolls down my cheek. i'm having difficulty with remembering how to spell callipygian.

This funny to me. You say theoretical then continue on like its fact

XiQter - I am not sure I understand your logic on the "bigger picture". In which of those previous ice age cycles do you have comparable data with man-made emissions, ozone depletion, etc?

Oh wait, none of them.

Sometimes the past CAN be irrelevant.

What that data tells me, is that *if* man has no impact at all, we might be headed for another ice age in the next 1000 years or so.

But to have global warming you must have solar waveenergy to begin with, wich isnt constant as per my pervious post.

or to correct myself, the solar energy is constant (about 1340W) but the angle of the surface of the earth gives a larger area that the energy is divided upon hence causing less watts/sq m

I agree with that part. That part of the model will likely hold true. But that doesn't change the fact that other factors have also been introduced. The graph you posted showed a 6-8 degree (Celsius) drop over a ~5,000 year period, based on a historical record that didn't have man-made effects. Most of the current global warming theories talk about several degrees (Fahrenheit) of effect over a much shorter period (~20-50 years).

So we have a couple of outstanding questions. Is the time scale relevant? and, will man-made effects overshadow the solar cycle in the near or long term?

http://online.wsj.com/...Opinion_MIDDLEThirdBucket

(obviously in reference to a different, but similar article)

When I was in my late teens to early 20's it was the hole in ozone layer scare tactic. Now you hear nothing about it. Every generation has those people who have a reason to proclaim doom and gloom. For some reason though it never happens the way they say it will happen.

The earth actually corrected itself with above average lighting storms (lighting creates ozone).

One decent volcanic eruption puts out more green house gases than man kind has ever put out since we have been on this planet. The earth recovers from those all the time. I truly find it hard to believe it can not recover from our insignificant presence.

All this doom and gloom is just an example of mankind's arrogance that it has any control over mother nature.

If you think we have the power to control mother nature please create even the smallest rain storm for those that need it or stop one for those that don't. Until then the only way I believe we can destroy the earth would be using all our nuclear weapons to blow it up completely.

You are aware that some countries create/cause rain fall all the time...

Anyways our presence is very significant, just take a look at overfishing, we are the only known species to have directly caused the extintion of hundreds of others species.

A single eruption releases more gases than us, but we are constantly pumping it while volcanoes rest for decades, the earth will correct and fix itself, but the problem is that we (life in general) may not like those changes, the planet has no free will its just a very complex system that we are constantly corrupting.

I blame japan for the over fishing (of fish and whales)!

Right now we can affect the climate but it is possible that someday we'll be able to control the weather. Think of it as how we used to be able to drop bombs in the general area we wanted but now we can target missiles on a dime. One of the problems with trying to control the weather though is the vast amounts of energy that would require. Looking at a hurricane for example, by some estimates hurricanes release more energy through clouds and rain than we are currently capable of generating. http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html

As far as the ozone hole, it stills exists, however the situation has improved due to regulations on things like freon. We were fortunately able to identify a problem and correct it on our end, and then we were fortunate enough for it to naturally begin correcting itself in a way that is beneficial for humans. The lighting storms were not created in an effort to generate ozone, that was just a fortunate by-product.

A single volcanic eruption does not release more green house gases than humans have ever created. Last I checked (so I don't know how our green house gas production has changed), volcanic eruptions contributed green house gases on the same order as we do annually.

I have googled it and ill give you the rain fall. I don't understand why what I have read though says it is all being done secretly. If I could create rainfall I would be screaming it from the rooftops. Have we ever stopped one?

We have volcanoes erupting around the world somewhere everyday. While one volcano might rest there is another that is pumping it out.

As for the extinction of animals 95% of all animals on this planet has gone extinct without mankind having anything to do with it.

Don't get me wrong I think it is outstanding that we are trying to come up with way's to create cheap renewable energy. But I refuse to demonize what has gotten us here or return to the way we lived 150 years ago. We Have cleaned up our act from 100 years ago when we dumped everything into the environment. Oil and coal has created an almost nirvana. Without them you would still be using horse's to get around and so many more would be suffering on this planet than already do. This is the greatest time ever to be alive thanks to both. We have things at our finger tips today that kings and queens couldn't imagine just a very short time ago.

Again I have googled it and just like everything else on the net you get sites that say what you say, some say what I say and some say humans put out more than volcanoes. I guess it's down to choosing what you wanna believe.

...

IPCC: International Pot & Crack Club.
You Grow It, We'll Toke It.

I literally study earthquakes and volcanoes, have worked in oil, and have accepted a job with an oil company... I have (in a few months) a PhD in this stuff you are googling.... trust me... or study it intensively yourself. There are a LOT of people who know nothing about science but have a vested financial interest in spreading misinformation.

There have been experiments to create rain by "seeding" clouds with things like silver iodide to nucleate rain drops. There are drastic limits to the capabilities of techniques like that though. There would be political reasons to do things in secret. If you create the moisture in the air to precipitate on your land then that can cause someone who was going to get rain to experience a drought.

As for your extinction argument, it is completely irrelevant. Humans have been around for a tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth. What is important is how we are affecting current biologic systems. I think this article makes some of the strongest, accurate statements about the state of extinctions. http://www.livescience.com/...on-rate-habitat-loss.html



I don't see what your thesis is behind your statements. In your mind you seem to be venting against something but it has not come out as a coherent argument yet.

if 99% of all the species ever to have lived on the planet were killed long before we developed the steam engine, what makes you think we're responsible for keeping the last 1% alive?

Don't worry before long we'll nuke ourselves off and something else can take over...

If all squares are rectangles, what is the price of eggs in China?

Evolution has caused a continuum of creatures. It is not like we started with a billion species and they have slowly been dwindling - species evolve and create new ones while others disappear. The reason we want to not exceed "background" extinction rates is that it decreases biodiversity faster than biodiversity naturally develops. Without bothering to type a novel response to your troll, I provide wikipedia as the source for benefits to biodiversity: http://en.wikipedia.org/...odiversity#Human_benefits

If you don't ride a bike to work, use solar and wind to power your home or give up almost every man made object you have in your home and you are demonizing coal and oil it's pure hypocrisy. It is just like the bible thumping preacher in the pulpit say pornography and prostitution will morally corrupt us all then getting caught in the seedy hotel room with a hooker and a suitcase full of pron. I am sorry if that is insulting I mean no disrespect to anyone but it is basically the same thing.

I disagree. There is very little alternative to using fossil fuels no matter how much you don't want to. Very few people can afford the luxury of choosing where they will work and where they will live. Most people have to make decisions within real-world financial constraints. Since all land is accounted for by someone you can't really even just forage and live off the land. Furthermore, homelessness is not really making a strong statement on the environment's behalf. Most people simply do not have the financial means to live the way they want to - including how 'green' they'd like to live.

But there are many, I'll call them hippies, that do just that. It is like a religion for them. Again I don't mean to be offense but that is a cop-out. People don't have to live the life style they live. Most though are unwilling to give up the comforts that oil and coal afford them me included. Using inability to do so is just a way for those that don't wanna give it up a reason to continue living the way they are living because it is easier to do so for them. I agree the hardship and difficulty in living that way is great. That's why most choose to live with their hypocrisy.

I'm all for clean energy where we can... But in some places the technology just isn't there. Like Detmer said there is very little alternative at the present moment however eventually I suspect we will have some other choices that are more feasible.

They've made great advances in the clean coal technology and our new coal plants are much cleaner than before. We have a great abundance of coal in the US and we'd be putting ourselves at a disadvantage.

If the environmentalists don't put a stop to natural gas fracking we could possibly use that more as it is a clean burning fuel.

But lest for one second imagine we did stop pollution in the US completely... Lets imagine we all use solar power and ride bikes to work... Unless every other country does the same it won't matter much because pollution is a global problem not just a US problem.

Yup, like we're going back to the third world if we drop all oil immediately... and part of the problem with that is people will starve since we more or less water our crops with oil. Oil is not something that we as a society can just give up over night. I have a job with an oil company because the world needs oil and not working there isn't going to change anything. I ride my bike to work and I opt-in to pay extra on my electricity bill to subsidize green energy so we can move that direction in the future. I vote for greener measures and greener politicians (although that isn't my only basis for selecting a politician) but just because I know we need to move off of oil as a primary source of power does not mean that it is reasonable to stop using things that require electricity. Putting pressure on congress and companies to switch to alternative energies is a much better method than having some "hunger strike" against fossil fuels.



As for coal... coal will never be "clean". Coal will never stop decimating the landscape with acid rain, even if we stop destroying the countryside to mine it. Natural gas is so much cleaner than coal and oil by almost all metrics it is really a no-brainer as far as fossil-fuels are concerned. The downside to natural gas is the energy density is much lower than coal and oil so you need more volume for equal energy (and we do like smaller things). I think we should strive to move off of all fossil fuels, but in the meantime I think natural gas is a step in the right direction. Old cars can be retrofitted to run on natural gas, but here is just one example of a new NG car http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-natural-gas/

I don't think fracking is the be-all-and-end-all of natural gas extraction. There are serious potential environmental damages and I do not think the true dangers (if any) are known (to the public). Most of fracking is highly proprietary and there is surprisingly little scientific literature on the topic. I am not sold that fracking is inherently bad but I am also by no means convinced that it is not a huge problem.

Finally, as far as if the US made all these changes, I think that would actually solve a lot. Smaller countries have made changes and pledges (like Kyoto as an example) but understandably they are thinking "what's the point if the biggest problem (the US) is not making changes?" I think that a lot of the world would make changes if the biggest polluters would take steps to reduce their pollution. For developed countries this isn't a big deal - for developing nations it is a much thornier issue. I am impressed at how China is trying to develop green, even though they are still a gigantic environmental disaster. At least they are putting some green infrastructure in place for the future.

why you troll me with the wikipedia, eh? you don't expect me to click on the link that is blacked out because they can't keep pirates off their site. might be some anonymouse remote trojan anime porn.

Well detmer I didn't say coal was completely clean but advances in the way we burn it and the scrubbers we can put on the stacks have greatly reduced the pollution put off by coal.

Unless you get liberals to let us build more Nuclear plants coal is something we will be burning for electricity for the foreseeable future.

Consumer Energy reports has coal at around 48.7% of our electricity output. So like oil coal is something we can't just drop... Now we can improve how we burn it the best way possible to limit the pollution... Again if you can give me a source of 48.7% of our electricity that can realistically replace coal and doesn't pollute I'm all for it, but it just isn't there, yet.

And it is kind of ironic a green man working for an oil company :p

Oh and cars have ran off natural gas for a long time, lots of commercial trucks use natural gas. You can convert a standard gas car into a car that can run off natural gas if you wanted.

Yup, I acknowledged that vehicles already run on NG ;)

It is true that coal provides about half of our power and the transition off of coal can not be made over night. I think it is necessary to make clean as coal as possible in the meantime but ultimately we do need to wean ourselves off of it.

And, I won't deny it is on some level ironic that I work for an oil company - but ultimately environmentalism and realism are far from mutually exclusive. We need oil and it's an awesome job... maybe I'll vote myself unemployed some day... I am not optimistic though! =P

Haha you wont because the best thing about oil is it is a very efficient fuel. Politics aside it's the best, cheapest, most efficient fuel we have available. You'll be good until one of two things happens:

1. The cost of oil rises too much forcing us to use an alternate form of energy by market constraints.
or
2. We run out.

The part you should notice is they both depend of the supply...

Also the oil companies will transition to renewable fuels before they are tapped out if they plan to survive as a business. They arn't stupid by any means ;)

How do you define it as the best, cheapest, or most efficient? It does well in all of those categories but ultimately I would consider it to be none of those superlatives (certainly not overall best by opinion or most efficient or cheapest by cost). It is certainly the best for long-range personal, ground based transportation and all aviation at this point, but that is about all it is the best in, imo. =P

And yes, all major oil companies are transitioning into becoming diversified major energy companies.

Ok, you tell me another fuel that is available right now that can get you 40 miles on one gallon which cost ~3.44 (about the national average, and that just happens to be the MPG of my car :p).

As of right now, today. It is the best, cheapest, and most efficient source of energy. The amount of energy that we get out of a relatively small amount of fuel is all of them things if it wasn't we'd be using something else ;)

Coal, hydro and nuclear are all cheaper than oil. Nuclear is more efficient.

If you had a gallon of enriched uranium you could a LONG ways ;)

You can run a car on coal? what is this the 1900's! You heard it here first folks detmer is gonna be cursing down the highway in a steam powered car!

If you were only discussing cars you should have been more precise and mentioned that =P

Key words from my post that might lead to you thinking I wasn't talking about cars: "40 miles one gallon", "just happens to be the MPG of my car :p"

All joking aside D I want that steam powered car, for realz.