macdoc
Philosopher
cool article on salinity.....
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean_temperature_salinity.html
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean_temperature_salinity.html
Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation
- Thread starter batvette
- Start date
- Status
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
http://www.redorbit.com/education/r...olar-cycles-impact-our-weather-here-on-earth/
http://www.examiner.com/article/sol...-crushing-cold-temperatures-and-global-famine
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-cycle-shows-Arctic-freeze-return-winter.html
http://thetruthwins.com/archives/ar...ld-winter-solar-activity-is-at-a-100-year-low
I have what is probably a stupid question but maybe one that can honestly be answered here.
We have roughly 18 bazillion satellites in orbit carrying every imaginable manner of scientific instrument. We have to have dozens if not hundreds of incredibly precise thermometers outside of our atmosphere at this very moment.
Surely we have a good grasp on the temperature outside our atmosphere. If increased solar output was changing the Earth's temperature... we would know right?
ETA: Hey would you look at that.
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
We have roughly 18 bazillion satellites in orbit carrying every imaginable manner of scientific instrument. We have to have dozens if not hundreds of incredibly precise thermometers outside of our atmosphere at this very moment.
Surely we have a good grasp on the temperature outside our atmosphere. If increased solar output was changing the Earth's temperature... we would know right?
ETA: Hey would you look at that.
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/
Last edited:
r-j
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2008
- Messages
- 2,689
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
Care to support these inaccurate assertions?
"In August it was 90 degrees. Now in December it is 30 degrees. At this rate in 3 years it will be absolute zero."
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
Aside from the fact that your link points to outdated and incorrect information that was refuted and discredited long ago.
That we have measured the temp. and solar radiation precisely from orbit is exactly the point.
"Climate Change: Evidence, Impacts and Choices"
National Research Council of the National Academies of Science
(http://dels.nas.edu/resources/stati...booklets/Climate-Change-Lines-of-Evidence.pdf)
(Oh, for an updated and accurate feel for NASA's considerations regarding climate change, try - http://climate.nasa.gov/causes)
Last edited:
Trakar
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2007
- Messages
- 12,637
Trevor from Toronto
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2007
- Messages
- 71
Now isn't this remarkable?
4 years later, minus much of the hype, minus much of the fear-based profiteering, and things have shifted even more towards a more balanced, realistic view of the situation.
This article for the NY Times has come to my attention today, and though it's a few months old, I'm rather puzzled by the duplicity of it. It's the one where they talk about how global warming has been flat for the past 15 years. Maybe this has been covered in the forums before?
Anyways, here's a paragraph I don't get:
Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.
So, they are saying that more pollution stabilized the world's temperature, but then when pollution was reduced, global warming increased over a 20 year period (mid 70's to late 90's) -- before becoming flat again for the past 15 years. That doesn't make any sense, does it? Unless you admit that AGW is a shaky concept (though certainly it isn't completely void, and does very likely exist, don't get me wrong!) Here's the link.
I also notice that they're using the rebranding of global warming and calling it climate change instead -- and yet they're using it exclusively to talk about global warming. The rebranding thing has been around for a few years now. It's fuzzy enough to be convenient, and a lot less difficult to discredit than global warming, as the whole history of the Earth is one of climate change, sometimes quite rapid, and that certainly isn't going to change.
I'm all for cutting out real pollution. And any thinking person is. However, reading this nonsense might give cause to wonder if it is a good idea for China and India and Russia to cut their air pollution nightmare as the West did decades ago. After all, if the global warming carbon connection is to be believed, and if the actual history is anything to go by, won't this spell a rapid rise in global temperature? After all, that's what happened according to the NY Times article.
But as somebody who uses logic and critical thinking no matter what the prevailing social consensus and pressure might be, I recognize that the only right course of action is to concentrate any efforts to clean up emissions right to its current offending source. We must all focus on pressuring China, India, Russia and the other leading growing sources of emissions to clean up their act. As the facts show, the AGW conspirators have no real idea of what they're talking about, can't predict anything, and make money only through fear mongering. However, that doesn't change the fact that China, India, Russia and friends are ruining the air quality not only for their own citizens, but with more and more spill over to the rest of us who have our act together.
Hey, wait a second, I just remembered that China, India, and Russia were the primary movers behind such UN legislation as the Kyoto Accord (and the infamous fudged UN report) and were to be the primary beneficiaries of all those carbon taxes! And now they're the biggest polluters. Gee willikers, that's probably all our faults for not signing on to the Kyoto scam.
Let me state that again: We who live in the so-called "first world" must all focus any and all effort on cutting emissions on China, India, and Russia. Any other approach is a foolish waste of time, and the most foolish thing of all would be for us to "carbon tax" ourselves for their carbon sins. That's reality.
4 years later, minus much of the hype, minus much of the fear-based profiteering, and things have shifted even more towards a more balanced, realistic view of the situation.
This article for the NY Times has come to my attention today, and though it's a few months old, I'm rather puzzled by the duplicity of it. It's the one where they talk about how global warming has been flat for the past 15 years. Maybe this has been covered in the forums before?
Anyways, here's a paragraph I don't get:
Now, here is a crucial piece of background: It turns out we had an earlier plateau in global warming, from roughly the 1950s to the 1970s, and scientists do not fully understand that one either. A lot of evidence suggests that sunlight-blocking pollution from dirty factories may have played a role, as did natural variability in ocean circulation. The pollution was ultimately reduced by stronger clean-air laws in the West.
So, they are saying that more pollution stabilized the world's temperature, but then when pollution was reduced, global warming increased over a 20 year period (mid 70's to late 90's) -- before becoming flat again for the past 15 years. That doesn't make any sense, does it? Unless you admit that AGW is a shaky concept (though certainly it isn't completely void, and does very likely exist, don't get me wrong!) Here's the link.
I also notice that they're using the rebranding of global warming and calling it climate change instead -- and yet they're using it exclusively to talk about global warming. The rebranding thing has been around for a few years now. It's fuzzy enough to be convenient, and a lot less difficult to discredit than global warming, as the whole history of the Earth is one of climate change, sometimes quite rapid, and that certainly isn't going to change.
I'm all for cutting out real pollution. And any thinking person is. However, reading this nonsense might give cause to wonder if it is a good idea for China and India and Russia to cut their air pollution nightmare as the West did decades ago. After all, if the global warming carbon connection is to be believed, and if the actual history is anything to go by, won't this spell a rapid rise in global temperature? After all, that's what happened according to the NY Times article.
But as somebody who uses logic and critical thinking no matter what the prevailing social consensus and pressure might be, I recognize that the only right course of action is to concentrate any efforts to clean up emissions right to its current offending source. We must all focus on pressuring China, India, Russia and the other leading growing sources of emissions to clean up their act. As the facts show, the AGW conspirators have no real idea of what they're talking about, can't predict anything, and make money only through fear mongering. However, that doesn't change the fact that China, India, Russia and friends are ruining the air quality not only for their own citizens, but with more and more spill over to the rest of us who have our act together.
Hey, wait a second, I just remembered that China, India, and Russia were the primary movers behind such UN legislation as the Kyoto Accord (and the infamous fudged UN report) and were to be the primary beneficiaries of all those carbon taxes! And now they're the biggest polluters. Gee willikers, that's probably all our faults for not signing on to the Kyoto scam.
Let me state that again: We who live in the so-called "first world" must all focus any and all effort on cutting emissions on China, India, and Russia. Any other approach is a foolish waste of time, and the most foolish thing of all would be for us to "carbon tax" ourselves for their carbon sins. That's reality.
Last edited:
mysteronyx
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2011
- Messages
- 381
Thanks
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Forbes Magazine originally linked by MacDoc
http://www.forbes.com/sites/william...-in-sight-for-spains-escalating-solar-crisis/
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
A bit more on Spain's Solar Issues
I believe Spain generates over 50% of electricity viasolar panels renewables and now the government wants to tax it heavily.
(from the article)
On 1 August protesters, many of which were wearing solar panels, arrived outside a prison in Barcelona to “turn themselves in” for being supporters of solar energy that they claim the government’s hefty fines would effectively criminalise.
Spain’s draft laws that would make self-generated solar more expensive than regular grid electricity could expose the country’s banks to a €20 billion (US$26.6 billion) bubble, according to analysts NPD Solarbuzz.
Proposed new laws would fine those with solar panels making use of the old off-grid, self-consumption programme (known as “autoconsumo”) by as much as €30 million (US$39.9 million) if they did not connect to the grid.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/npd_solarbuzz_spains_solar_u_turn_could_expose_20_billion_pv_bubble_5647
I believe Spain generates over 50% of electricity via
(from the article)
On 1 August protesters, many of which were wearing solar panels, arrived outside a prison in Barcelona to “turn themselves in” for being supporters of solar energy that they claim the government’s hefty fines would effectively criminalise.
Spain’s draft laws that would make self-generated solar more expensive than regular grid electricity could expose the country’s banks to a €20 billion (US$26.6 billion) bubble, according to analysts NPD Solarbuzz.
Proposed new laws would fine those with solar panels making use of the old off-grid, self-consumption programme (known as “autoconsumo”) by as much as €30 million (US$39.9 million) if they did not connect to the grid.
http://www.pv-tech.org/news/npd_solarbuzz_spains_solar_u_turn_could_expose_20_billion_pv_bubble_5647
Last edited:
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Spain's solar police to kick in your door
The latest nail in the coffin for Spain’s solar energy producers is an Energy Law amendment which allows inspectors to enter private properties without a court order. It's a move lawyers believe could set a worrying precedent.
http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door
The latest nail in the coffin for Spain’s solar energy producers is an Energy Law amendment which allows inspectors to enter private properties without a court order. It's a move lawyers believe could set a worrying precedent.
http://www.thelocal.es/20131112/spains-solar-police-to-kick-in-your-door
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
Arizona Mulls Solar 'Tax'
SustainableBusiness.com News
The future of solar net metering in Arizona is under attack, with the state's largest utility Arizona Public Service (APS) proposing changes that undermine cost benefits for residential solar installations.
Under a plan submitted in July with the state's public utility commission, APS proposes two options for future residential solar customers – both of which will reduce potential financial returns homeowners would receive on their investment.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25103
SustainableBusiness.com News
The future of solar net metering in Arizona is under attack, with the state's largest utility Arizona Public Service (APS) proposing changes that undermine cost benefits for residential solar installations.
Under a plan submitted in July with the state's public utility commission, APS proposes two options for future residential solar customers – both of which will reduce potential financial returns homeowners would receive on their investment.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/25103
Arnold Martin
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2013
- Messages
- 278
What is worse .... Global Warming .... Big Oil .... Or Big Government .... ?????
Broken promises
This is just the latest in a series of setbacks for the renewable energy sector.
The government has gradually lowered a feed-in tariff - a scheme that paid people to produce their own "green electricity" - first reducing the period over which it was paid, then limiting it to already existing installations and finally an energy reform in July opened up the possibility of withdrawing it retroactively
"Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can't sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets," Mr Holtrop says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24272061
Broken promises
This is just the latest in a series of setbacks for the renewable energy sector.
The government has gradually lowered a feed-in tariff - a scheme that paid people to produce their own "green electricity" - first reducing the period over which it was paid, then limiting it to already existing installations and finally an energy reform in July opened up the possibility of withdrawing it retroactively
"Many of these people are going to lose their houses (that they used as collateral to buy solar panels). They are unable to pay back at the bank. They can't sell the installations, because the government has made them toxic assets," Mr Holtrop says.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24272061
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Sovereign Risk is not something that Governments should be playing with. Spains problems are not because of the solar industry, but a speculation bubble in real estate and oil prices. A viable solar industry will actually help reduce reliance on oil.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Yes, the solar cycles will come and go, CO2 in the atmosphere is there for much longer. I don't know why the 'skeptics' have such a fixation on solar cycles. They are something that are completely independent of AGW cause by increased CO2.
The solar output has actually been declining already, but temperatures have still been rising.
- Status