Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Unexpected warming in Antarctica

Winter air temperatures over Antarctica have risen by more than 2C in the last 30 years, a new study shows.

Research published in the US journal Science says the warming is seen across the whole of the continent and much of the Southern Ocean.

The study questions the reliability of current climate models that fail to simulate the temperature rise.

In addition, the scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) say the cause of the warming is not clear.

It could be linked to increases in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or natural variations in Antarctica's climate system.

Scientists are keen to understand the change in temperatures over the continent as the region holds enough water in its ice to raise sea levels by 60 metres.

Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4857832.stm

Commentary:
While political purists argue about whether it is natural variation or greenhouse gases ... smart people should be buying beach-front properties 50 metres in elevation above the current beach.

From NASA: there IS arctic warming,it has been going on a bit over 30 years, before that there was Arctic Cooling, for a bit over 30 years, before that there was Arctic Warming for a bit over 30 years.

Notice a PATTERN? a 30 year pattern..

The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) study made headlines all over the world and was covered heavily by the New York Times, Washington Post, London Guardian etc.
Dr. Robert Corell, the lead author of the study was just a barrage of quotes and sound bites: "Very rapid and severe climate change in the Arctic, .." rising sea levels from the projected melting of Greenland's ice shelf ?, changes in animal habitats and possible shifts in ocean currents ? "present serious challenges to human health and food security, and possibly even the survival of some cultures,"

The key data that was used to substantiate these doom and gloom projections was a temperature graph that showed a 33-year warming trend, during which temperatures rose nearly 1.5 degrees Celsius. This was then projected as a linear increase to come up with the potentially devastating temperature rise of 4.5 C over the next century. To make sure those south of the Arctic circle paid attention, the report had graphs that showed how the rising seas would inundate New York City, Bangladesh and the Florida keys.

The trouble is these predictions depended ENTIRELY on the study?s use of a carefully selected time period, 1971 to 2003.

Now SOME of you are old enough to remember the period around 1975 when scientists were predicting an impending ice age. You see, by 1975 the world had experienced roughly 3 decades of FALLING temperatures (of course CO2 was still going up) So, by starting the time line at the low point and very near the end of this 30 year long cooling trend and by only including the subsequent 30 year warming trend, Dr Corell clearly insured his outcome.

It really took no more then looking back at the temperature record and picking the point where the temperature records last started heading upward. Since its actually pretty well known to CLIMATOLOGISTS that Alaska?s climate has a well known cycle of just about 30 years Dr Corell?s study picked just about the perfect time to generate a report showing unprecedented warming.

Of course they couldn?t actually claim that any real quantifiable damage had occurred so they had to resort to taking the artificial trend line derived from this tiny slice of climate history and project it to continue for 100 years. At this point the study entered the realm of the absurd.

Why did not a single major reporter covering climate issues ask why a short 30 year data series was used as the basis for this study? It is certainly well known that we have reliable records dating MUCH further back and it is also well known that when you are dealing with climate and attempting to analyze climate trends the LONGER the period of reliable data you work with the more accurate any conclusions are likely to be. The reason is simple and damn obvious. If he HAD included the previous 30 years of data, there would have been a declining trend to arctic temperatures.

If I wanted to be as unscientific as Dr Corell, I could simply move the analysis to a 30 year period that will yield results of my choosing. Take for example the data just previous to the study period, say 1938 to 1968. During those 30 years my data will show that the Arctic temperatures FELL 3.5 C.

That?s more then twice as great a trend as the ACIA study. But, let?s not stop there, like Dr Corell, let?s project the trend out for 100 years to show a glacier-maker drop of over 12 degrees C.

Ah heck, we?re on a roll, so if we continue with his same methodology we could show that in 5 centuries the Arctic would be so cold that CO2 would precipitate out of the atmosphere. They wouldn?t have ice in Alaska, they would have DRY ICE.

Actually what this shows is the absurdity of using a short data series when longer series are available and then the result you get when you compound the absurdity by using linear projection of an inherently chaotic system.

I guess Dr Corell took Steven Schneider?s view on a scientist?s ethical responsibility to heart:

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

Interestingly at the same time that Dr Corell was working on his study other Alaskan scientists were using maximum latewood density and C13 discrimination measurements of Alaska white spruce to reconstruct summer temperature for the period 1800 to 1996. The reconstructed temperature history was characterized by seven decadal-scale periods, with abrupt shifts occurring at 1816, 1834, 1879, 1916, 1937 and 1974. In another study, Barber et al found that while summer temperatures of the latter part of the 20th century were "characterized by some of the warmest summers in the 200-year interval." They also noted that mid-19th century summer temperatures also "reconstruct as some of the warmest over the 200-year period." Further their research showed that summer temperatures during two decadal periods in the mid-1800s are as warm as present.
This clearly shows that the recent warmth in Alaska is in not unprecedented in either intensity or rate of onset and that in fact similar warming occurred in the 19th century before the presumed onset of any anthropological CO2 induced climate forcing.


As to Antarctica, actually as a continent it has been on an overall 20+ year COOLING trend, and it is INCREASING in the quantity of ice stored on the continent, not decreasing.

As far as Global Warming, its been going on for 15,000 years, so NO its not disputed. NEVER HAS BEEN.

Its the CAUSE which is the issue.

Is MAN part of the cause, most certainly, we are part of the biosphere so there is no way we can have NO impact.

The question is HOW MUCH impact? No one can offer HARD evidence as to how much, but we do know it GLOBAL WARMING AND COOLING has been going on as far back as we can date, to jump to the ideal that man is the cause, to say that one would first have to PROVE why prior global warming and cooling took place.

And for that there is SERIOUS disagreement.

Among SERIOUS scientists.

I think the main issue at hand is the overall warming of the planet, the continuing increase in unusual weather (i.e. last year's hurricane season), the rapid destruction of habitat (which is all us), the increase in pollutants (which is us), and it is a simple issue of logic that the speed that we have polluted, destroyed and changed the planet will have us careening into uncharted territory as far as climate is concerned.

You spoke of cycles, those cycles were the natural balancing factors of which there are none anymore. The natural biosphere can only handle so much extra stress and I think we are reaching those limits.

Of course, the other way of looking at it is that those animals that can adapt to lead, mercury, chemical, lack of rain where it has rained for centuries in a regular pattern are the only ones that deserve to survive, but think of the creatures that we will lose.

The arctic warming is EXPECTED.. core samples from the ARCTIC prove that there is a 30 year warming and cooling cycle in the arctic.. why is it people just gloss over that.. the 30 year temp. cycle is, and has been very constant.. during the mid 70s your same "scientists" were warning everyone of the soon to happen GLOBAL ICE AGE, once again this was the cause of MANKIND... because the arctic was EXPANDING.. now the same people are saying global warming.. see a pattern?

This has nothing to do with any normal cycle. Get over it.

30 years ago Greenland wasn't melting at this rate.

30 years ago no one was looking at the lack of arctic ice in another 60 years.

This is different. Pay attention.

Archer, look at Photos of places like Mt. Kilmanajaro, look up new news articles on the Intuits standing around in shorts in 40 degree (that is above zero) weather. Find satellite maps of the last 50 years and I am sure you will see this is not normal, look up the stories of Greenland thawing, Siberia's permafrost melting etc. This is abnormal as any scientists who has studied the core samples will tell you the ice has not melted like this in a long time.

And we skip right by the ice core samples as PROOF.. and we skip right past the fact that 32 years ago the ice packs were GROWING, hate to bust your bubbles, but core samples go back a whole lot more than a few THOUSAND years. We all have seen PLENTY OF STORIES about global warming, We also seen the same stories about the PENDING ICE AGE 32 years ago from the SAME people now claiming global warming, I do hope you dont believe everything people write, I need to pay attention? lol nice try

Ok, as I am only 31 I do not remember a global cooling fear, pretty much all I have ever seen in the news is global warmning. I believe what I see, ie Kilmanjaro, Inuits in shorts, waterfalls running down glaciers that were frozen solid only a few years ago. Would you like links?

I am also aware of the fact that ice cores go back more then a few 1000 years. I am also aware of the fact that more and more scientists are ever more concerned. By the way, my parents never discussed a global cooling trend fear in all the talks we had about the environment.

from 2005
When 87% of the glaciers had retreated.

Nasa

For a few links.

Before you start, yes I am aware that there was a similar heating/cooling cycle in the early 1900s but I doubt Kilamanjaro looked like this in the 1900s when it happened the last time:


no snow

I know this is a blog shot, but I already used up my quota of news site time allowed at work.

Let me quote something here.. Scientists are keen to understand the change in temperatures over the continent as the region holds enough water in its ice to raise sea levels by 60 metres.

WHAT A LOAD OF #()$^(@#.. 60 meters? IMPOSSIBLE! this is proof a JUNK SCIENCE.. let me show you why.. were are ice packs located, ON THE OCEANS.. they are ALREADY DISPLACING 92% of their volume, what does that mean? when you add ice cubes to a glass of water what happens.. it rises, what happens when the ice melts? the level in the glass is raised apx. 8%, if you take that 8% and do the math, that comes out a LESS than 4 inches globally.

Global warming ALWAYS leads to global cooling, warmer ocean currents will build more clouds at a very high, almost extreme rate.

This causes a redistribution of snow and ice globally, the primary holders of the redistributed snow and ice will be mountain ranges, then it will move to lower elevations from that point.

Most people believe CO2 is the main cause of global warming, not so. CO2 is not pollution,
It's the starting point for all the food you consume. CO2 is the basis of LIFE on this planet, Plant's will and DO use more if given more and grow faster. Acidification of the oceans, not a chance, the oceans store IN SOLUTION more than 6,000 times as much CO2 as we produce per year. This is the basis for Blue Green alge, the more CO2 the more prolific the BG alge, that means more ocean life as BG alge is the first in the oceanic food chain.

in fact the annual increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 1/2 of what we produce each year, and while the CO2 increase has to proceed the adaption of the biosphere to the increase, its also clear that the biosphere has been increasing its Net Primary Production in response to these higher levesl of CO2. Which is why the NPP went up 6% over the last decade. That's an AWESOME increase in the primary measure of biologica l productivity of our planet, and it makes it pretty clear that if we simply level out the growth of CO2 that the planet will quickly catch up.

If people were to take the longer view they would realize that our REAL longterm problem on this planet is we are running out of CO2. While burning fossil fuels is helping to keep it artificially high, that can't go on forever, and a planet with 250 PPM of CO2 is a colder planet with a much lower level of NPP.

Thanks for your post.
The conclusion is:
The pseudoscience it trumping the science.

e s

Tell me where I am wrong, and where WE can find the proof? please prove some names, dates studies, showing up, calling names then leaving, I punish my kids for doing stupid things like that.. PROVE ME WRONG.. enlighen me.. pseudoscience, show me where.. give us some dates, times, studies, PROVE I am wrong.. if I am as stupid as you imply, it should be really easy for you to disprove the facts I have listed in this thread.. tell us where Dr. Corell was wrong, tell us how C13 is not accurate, show us PROOF of cause of global warming. Show us proof that the seas will rise 60 meters? (still laughing at that one).. I have put the facts on the table.. it should be really easy for you to provide proof I am wrong.

Archer wrote:
"were are ice packs located, ON THE OCEANS.. they are ALREADY DISPLACING 92% of their volume, what does that mean? when you add ice cubes to a glass of water what happens.. it rises, what happens when the ice melts? the level in the glass is raised apx. 8%, if you take that 8% and do the math, that comes out a LESS than 4 inches globally.

Assuming your first word was supposed to include an "H" and be Where ... you must be one of the planet's most willfully ignorant people. Are you expecting to receive an award or do you just like running around saying "I don't get it?"

Your assumption is ridiculous. The vast majority of the ice is NOT located on, in or even near oceans.

Once again we get the name callers.. but NO FACTS.. and if you dont think Ice Packs are floating on the ocean you might want to open up a book before speaking, polar ice packs float out to sea dont they? its not the penguins and polar bears packing them out to the ocean and tossing them in.. show me were I can read about this..

If correcting a typo is the best you can offer up in the way of proof for the basis of your attack then I know why you think the way you do, there are lots of people who talk a lot, spend lots of time cutting and pasting articles, but dont have anything of value to really say even when they are talking.. come on tell me some names of people in the science field who offer up what you claim to be PROOF! lol.. why is that so hard? you make claims back them up.. I DID.. now its your turn, so throw down.. lets see the names and studies.. here I will HELP YOU.. the ONLY real study done (yep there is ONE) by a REAL scientist was from 1971 thru 2003.. yes a 32 year study that claims man is the cause of global warming.. LMAO.. come on.. let see some SCIENCE lol or cant you do it?

Archer wrote:
"if you dont think Ice Packs are floating on the ocean you might want to open up a book before speaking, polar ice packs float"

That is not what I said. Not once in anything I wrote did I every say anything about "ice packs" and "ice packs" have nothing to do with where the vast majority of ice on this planet is located.

Want to try again or just make another futile attempt to divert from the topic?

Tell you what I'll make it easier for you. Where are the two largest concentrations of ice on the planet? And the answer is not "ice packs."

You might want to re-read what you have wrote lol..

I reread it and stand behind it.

Since you prefer to joust rather than learn I'll ignore you and spell it out for others:

1. Antarctica has some seven million cubic miles of ice, representing some 90 percent of the world's total.

Source:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/warnings/almanac.html

2. Speaking of Greenland, its ice sheet has seen dramatic melting in the last decade. Greenland contains about 9 percent of all ice on Earth?also enough water to raise sea level by 5 meters.

Source:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/TimeShelf

Now lets see if everyone else other than Archer can figure this out.

Antarctica is a continent. The vast majority it its ice stored on top of land not floating in the ocean. Greenland is an island. The overwhelming majority of its ice stored on dry land not floating in the water. That is 99% of the world's ice.

Archer's talk about ice packs (see his comment posted posted April 02, 2006 05:38 PM is drivel and diversion. He is referencing 1-2% of the ice on earth. ice packs are irrelevant as are Archer's comments. Especially when viewed through the fact that the opening sentence of the post that started this thread reads: "Winter air temperatures over Antarctica have risen by more than 2C in the last 30 years." Which has absolutely nothing to do with ice packs.

The rapidly ablating ice SHELVES are floating on the ocean. The ice CAPS are not. None of this is about pack ice.

A few links for anyone interested:

http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.p...p;setcookie=yes

"...Over the last few decades, and particularly within the last 10 years, several ice shelves in the northern Antarctic Peninsula have rapidly retreated. essentially disappearing. As discussed below, morphological evidence, coupled with ice-flow speeds of the shelves, indicates that they have existed for centuries prior to this period. The only plausible cause for this sudden turn of events is the strong regional climate warming observed in the area over the same period. Weather-station records from several stations in the Antarctic Peninsula indicate a 2.5 degree C warming trend in mean annual air temperature over the last 50 years..."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Contains an interesting table indicating the amount of ice in the various ice sheets, and the amount of sea level rise that would occur if one melted completely.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/IceSheet_SeaLevel/index.html

Exerpt: "Sea level is rising at around 2 mm a year, which is at a faster rate than over the last 5000 years (less than 1 mm a year), but still slower than the average rate (5 mm a year) predicted for the next 80 years."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276

This one includes information that my ol' geomorph prof didn't have: "However, data from coral reefs exposed above sea level today, and other evidence, point to an LIG sea level at least 4 m and possibly as much as 6 m greater than today."

It also contains many links to the original abstracts (and sometimes full papers).

Thanks for the links Soilguy.

Is it just me or does SAGG seem to be a crank-magnet? The original posting specifically stated "Antarctica" and talked about air temperatures. Anyone that has taken K-6 geography knows Antarctica is a continent. And yet we get someone coming out of the 17th dimension talking about ice packs?

Are they that hard of reading or is it that they just have an agenda and don't want to let the facts get in their way?

The increased polarization of politics in the US, along with science-illiterate pundits and talk radio hosts are the cause, IMO. Everyone seems to think their opinions should be aired and respected, regardless of their knowledge of a subject.

I'm been involved in a number of open forums on scientific topics, and it's not just SAGG. I started out trying to help kids with homework, and my eyes were opened to this nonsense.

People just don't know how science works -- from the *scientific method* to peer review.

My thoughts exactly. And to mildly criticize our hostesses and host here at SAGG they don't help the matter by running a "science" web site and not enforcing rules of scientific discourse.

The US education system, especially with respect to science and math, is in need of a trip to the ICU. And the politicizing of science by the Bush administration, and others before it, have only made the matter worse. Global warming is not a political issue. How to respond to it may be but there are no politics, or shouldn't be, in a temperature measurement. This is all very sad.

If I were 30 years younger I'd be studying Chinese. I see no hope of the American public waking up before the country is reduced to being another Portugal (no offense intended to the Portugese).

My first father-in-law was a big fan of Louis L'Amour, and had just about every one of his popcorn novels. I read most of them during my visits to the in-laws to avoid death by boredom. One of his observations stuck in my mind. I paraphrase:

The center of civilization gradually moves westward over the centuries.

I'm afraid he's right. It should be crossing the International Date Line soon. Are we living America's Autumn?

"Are we living in America's Autumn?

with my luck it's winter and it will stay that way forever.

I think American should look to its borders and impose strict regulations on foreign immigrants, especially from the Middle East. We don't need to have terrorists coming here and being welcomed. I'd be in favor of some kind of supervision of "visiting aliens" similar to that of parolees; make them report weekly and account for themselves regularly. If we monitored them more closely, we should be able to detect the money laundering and funds transfers from Al Quaida and send them packing.

Very prescient quotation. And yes you have a front seat view of the death throes of a once great culture. Every civilization or empire has eventually choked to death on its own sickly sweet hedonism. Greatness leads to affluence which affords people the opportunity to endlessly play with themselves. $14 Billion a year spent on porn in USA tells me I'm not wrong. The great US of A as the benevolent dictator of Western culture isn't any different from the Romans, it just has the opportunity to reach out by satellite and take more people with it. Sit tight in front of your TV and watch the whole sordid spectacle unfold in 42" high definition widescreen like everyone else. You'll be able to get any good bits you miss in a DVD boxed set with special features and commentary. Quit complaining, the wise lost as was inevitable, and the Immams will inherit the Earth.

Easy.

SO do either of you two know what would happen if you hosed down the polar ice caps and ice sheets with fresh water in winter?
Would It all just freeze very quickly or would it just melt the pre-existing ice?
If it did freeze, couldn't someone just bring a collosal supertanker equiped with an enormous desalinazation rig (that sucked in salt water and spat out fresh water)and hose down the icecaps and sheets to keep them from receding?

Quite, but too late. They're in and unlike white middle classes who want to defer for their career, until they're sterile, the Muslims have no such compunction. One thing they do know is how to multiply. "It's the demographics, stupid". But anyway, the feminist hatchet job on Motherhood has left you bereft of children, so whose gonna step in to do clean your empty factories and look after an aging population...Whitehall will keep America's doors open and both terrorism and the Muslim population will thrive and when they make the feminists don the Jilbab they'll wish they had mothered a whole army. They were fighting the wrong battle.

Easy.

OMG. I take it all back. We have the Kevin 611s of this world to save us.

Easy.

The center of civilization, except for recent history, has always been in China. It is just going home after a short vacation.

The British, the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Spanish and Portugese have taken the change in their status quite well and adjusted. The French, it seems, still think everyone should be speaking their language but otherwise have recovered from their loss of empire. I fear Americans will awaken to their new reality with anger and a desire for vengence.

The Europeans finally realized that if they stick together they are a greater power then individual little states.

As far as the "hatchet job on motherhood". Anytime a society becomes more technologically advanced the women tend to become more independent. The historical and societal reasons to have large families disappears as countries move from agricultural economies to industrial ones.

Morgan you amaze me.. what do pictures of Ice there, and Ice gone.. I SAID there is a 30 year polar cycles.. Ice cores (remember those pesky lil problems that get in the way of your logic), SHOW this and far worse has happened.. I want proof of mans empending doom from global warming.. the massive flooding.. the earth on its knees gasping for breath.. do yourself a favor, quit reading the national inquirer.. and just go read the info avail. from ICE CORES.. yes I know they will get in the way of your death and destruction Global Warming.. you just blow off the PROOF.. FACTS seldom win against preconceived opinions.. but I am trying.

If you think we are seeing Global Warming now.. anyone who says this is unprecedented global warming.. are just parrots repeating party lines.. the simple fact is.. this is NOTHING when compared to what has happened.. core samples prove it..

"We're not global warming skeptics, though we are generally "skeptical," in the healthy scientific sense that we don't hide our heads in the sand of easy explanations. Recent ice core data collected from Antarctica indicate carbon dioxide and methane, both greenhouse gases, are currently 30 percent higher than any time in the last 650,000 years. This rise is attributed to increasing fossil fuel combustion and intensive agricultural practices (e.g., livestock and rice fields).

The International Panel on Climate Change predicts an average global temperature increase of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Fahrenheit for this century. Even if we only reach the lower limit, we can reasonably expect that climatic change will outpace the ability of many systems, both economic and ecological, to adjust. It is ethically unacceptable to continue business as usual in the face of substantial and avoidable harm to each other and Earth's ecosystems. We must respond with courage, reflected in the policies of industrialized and industrializing nations, and in the energy choices of all states, counties, towns, and citizens."

Ok, how about looking at it this way. The temperature warming, the climate shifting as it is leads to unpredicatable weather patterns which will affect things like water supplies even in the US. California has had long droughts and the only thing that kept that state running was water from other states. If we hadn't gotten the rain we had in Arizona the fire season would have been horrible and there would have had to be serious water rationing.

I am not saying that one day we will wake up and all be under water. I do not think anyone but the most extreme people are saying humans will become extinct. The point that scientists and concerned citizens are making is that there is evidence that we are changing the planet faster then it has normally been changed, that "urban heat islands", less trees and damaged watersheds will effect our way of life. We need to try to be more aware of how our actions affect the environment. There are people, like the Inuits whose entire way of life may be destroyed if the temperature keeps going the way it is. I guarantee you they have not been able to stand around in shorts and have their fishing equipment slip into the water as an ice floe has given way beneath them in eons.

Look at it this way, if the "hoax" of global warming causes us to develop cleaner, more efficient and healthier means of living it will prove to be a positive thing for humans and the ecosystem. Wouldn't it be nice not to have smog?

Past studies of gases trapped in Greenland and Antarctic ice cores have suggested that Earth's temperature can sometimes change amazingly fast, warming as much as 15 degrees in some regions within a couple of decades. At the same time, there are concerns about the change of major ocean currents, such as those in the North Atlantic Ocean, that are responsible for the comparatively mild climate of much of Europe. If that "thermohaline circulation pattern" were to abruptly shut down, as has happened at times in the past, it could plunge much of the European continent into a climate more closely resembling that of central Canada.

At the time this data was gathered the ice cores under study were from present back apx. 650,000 years, the current thinking is they are going to get ice cores as far back as 1.2 million years from the Dome C, EPICA. During the last 400,000 years, warm periods have had a temperature similar to that of today. Before that time they were less warm, but lasted longer (<-- global cooling then or now?). In the last 400,000 years our grenhouse gas levels are at the highest.. what caused them to be higherprior to 400,000 years ago? comparing the pattern of this past climate with global environmental conditions today we could expect the present warm period to last at least another 15,000 years.

This information was gathered by Dr Eric Wolff EPICA,and Ed Brook, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University, is part of the 10 nation team who does deep core studies.

The result of a hoax success would be make us
to do things that we can not afford. It will bankrupt humanity, not help improve its conditions.

ES

No, what is bankrupting us as a country is a war we never should have fought. Most cities and countries that implement renewable energy initiatives such as solar farms have a high cost outlay, but save quite a bit of money and make the cost outlay back in a few years.

How exactly does replanting trees, building windfarms, installing solar panels, finding ways to not pullute our own drinking water bankrupt us again?? Solar and windfarms are low upkeep products, planting trees only helps air quality as well as helps us provide for future homebuilding etc.

I fail to understand how even after all the proof of what horrible, shortsighted policies cost us, medical bills, water pulluted beyond repair and on and on are people still pulling the "it will bankrupt us card". California and Europe have some of the most stringent environmental laws yet their are still plenty of businesses there. Europe has done a wonderful job of incorporating renewable energy into their daily lives.

I find it fascinating that people who, one would think, should be worrying about the future are so focused upon their next paycheck.

And do you think any of these greedy souls is happier than a native of Belize living quite nicely on $3600/year? Not a chance.

Once you have a roof over your head and food in your belly everything else is a matter of style. Our society has lost its way and people who have barely the ability to balance their checkbook are pontificating on the impact of energy strategies on the global economy. It is very sad! They can't think but they can parrot.

Chaoslillith, maybe you need to define what you would call "plenty of businesses", Its basic economics that are causing both people AND BUSINESSES to leave California in RECORD NUMBERS, California tax revenues, and tax records being proof of that (the interesting thing is most of the businesses and people leaving California are heading to Texas, it currently holds 5 of the top 10 fastest growing cities in America, due to lower taxes, cheaper power, and non-destructive business laws, and affordable housing) also, if you are thinking Western Europes economies are healthy.. I think you will find they are not if you check into them.. France is currently having riots than have numbered in some est. 1 MILLION rioters nation wide over labor, Germany has had more than a few riots and problems in regards to employment, Germany's last elections adding even more proof to the existence of those problems.. and our English brothers have employment problems as well, and a heavy regressive taxes, Green Energy is NOT cost effective as of yet.. For power, Nuke power is currently the most cost effective means of producing power.

Windmill Farms kill more birds of prey to the point of whole species in the areas of windmill farms in great decline and endangered. The maintenance costs of the windmill farms are very high. Planting trees does little to improve air quality, the primary producer of oxygen is the oceans, in fact there are numerous trees that produce green house gasses in levels that are rather surprising (why would plants produce green house gases if they are "destructive to plants"?)

There are several reliable recent comparative studies place nuclear electricity generation solidly as th e lowest-cost producer, often by serious margins. Studies by eg. IEA AND OECD-NEA (2005), MIT (2003), DGEMP France (2003), TARJANNE & LUOSTARINEN Finland (2003), ROYAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING UK (2004), UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO (2004), CERI Canada (2004) are surveyed at http://www.world-nuclear.org/economics.pdf Most accept an "overnite" capital cost of about $1300 to $1500 / kw, butvary on rates of interest etc.

BOTH solar thermal concentration (very soon, eg. alread y in California (but not cost effective yet), see the 0.5 to .8 Gw Stirling dish generated power purchase agreement by San Francisco utility http://www.stirlingenergy.com/breaking_news.htm) and PV (somewhat later, depending on how quickly commercialization of Optical Rectenna is done) (http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/33263.pdf is a bit old, (yes I know Morgan its old, and no longer reliable, btw, how old are you, are you by chance pre-personal PC??) dont expect NREL to move quickly on something like this which could upset a LOT of vested interests with conversion efficiencies above 50% and no crystal silicon processing required), it's about economics folks, so I guess we need to hurry up and wait.

Ahh yes, windmills kill birds, that one is being trotted out again.

California's economics has more to do with California doing things like investing money in Enron and rising healthcare costs then environmental burdens, France's riots has to do with racism, Germany's labor issues have to do with trying to bring East Germany up to the level of West Germany and what is happening is that the businesse are going to East Germany because labor is cheaper, once again nothing to do with solar energy. I am 31, hardly pre-PC. My mom has family in Germany who keep her up to date on information there, plus she gets a German newspaper.

Your last two paragraphs lost me as I think you are referring to DA with them. The point is that investing in renewable energy is intellingent as the technologies are getting increasingly more efficient and less costly. My uncles in Germany both have solar on their roofs and every month they get checks from the power company as they are producing more then enough energy for their house. THAT IS IN GERMANY!!! Imagine what solar roofs in Arizona could do.

Current riots are about employment law.

Easy.

Wrong riot. Think back to the fall.

Current riots are about emploment law.

Easy.

It is obvious, that the proponents of simplicity are nitwits, who think they are smarter than people and more vituous than people.

Brothers in the village idiot Marx they are.

We are being bankrupted by parasitic pseudoscience and its advocates and the rest of "liberal" parasitic crowd.

e s

You know, I bet all the great scientific advancements were once thought of pseudoscience, poppycock and such. Good thing people like Bell, Einstein and the others didn't listen to all their detractors.

Once again, how is spending billions on defense weapons we do not need less wasteful then investing in technology that is already proving useful to us and that will improve society much more then another bunkerbuster bomb?

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/EconomicsOfWind-Feb2005.pdf

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629_Myths_vs_Facts_Fact_Sheet.pdf


Information on wind power from 2005.

The growth of Texas is PROOF of that extrasense..

Chaoslillith.. my last 2 paragraphs are in reference to the cost of producing power, there is NO green power that is cost effective thus far, and it is going to be a long while before it ever will be.. Nuke and Hydro are the most dependable, and cheapest forms of power, my reply was also in response to your statement that, and I quote: California and Europe have some of the most stringent environmental laws yet their are still plenty of businesses there. Europe has done a wonderful job of incorporating renewable energy into their daily lives, unquote, (Germany uses a lot more than a few coal fired planets, if I remember correctly one of the largest coal strip mines is in Germany) California is two faced about its power, California is sure are buying vast amounts of its power from Utah (coal fired planets), California has nothing close to what its economy once was, and businesses are still leaving in record numbers, due to socialistic 'legal reform" and heavy taxs and control on business (most of us call it BS), Ca. bonds have a JUNK BOND rating, the same it true for Europe, there are no socialist economies in Europe that are doing well.. the very nature of socialism is not indicative to sound business principles, the proof of this is world wide..

California's government screwed itself, which once again has nothing to do with renewable energy causing the problems. Did you even look at the links I posted?

There are cities in California which use solar for government buildings and have saved a great deal of money on their power bills. Ask any individual homeowner if the layout cost for their solar array was worth it and they will all say yes.

Europe has issue with employment yes as does the USA. However if you notice the Euro is standing quite strong against the dollar. I am aware of some of the issues in Germany being that there are not enough jobs for the level of high education many Germans obtain, as a result they end up moving elsewhere.

I suppose your solution would be to let companies run rampant with little or no regulation. We have tried that and ended up with Superfund sites, Enrons and Great Depressions. I am not saying that businesses need to be controlled out of existence but I fail to see how insisting that companies are responsible in their decisions regarding money, waste, fair treatment of employees and healthcare is wrong.

I do not approve of stupid lawsuits (ie suing a manufacturer of RVs because you set it on cruise control and walked away from the steering wheel), but I fail to see how some regulation is this horrible evil.

Would you like to go back to child labor and sweatshops?

The state of California is in a bad way, many businesses are prospering there though. The state made many bad choices but once again prompting businesses to be more environmentally aware was not one of them.

No.. I was simple rebuffing what I understood you to say that California and Europe have plenty of businesses.. nothing more, I also tried to convey as to why they have lost, and continue to loss jobs, when jobs are lost, there are families that are hurt by this, its more than numbers, California has screwed itself almost to death.

The state buildings that use solar have not saved the taxpayers in Ca. one cent, if you look at the cost per watt, those solar cells on average will take 18 - 22 YEARS to pay for themselves.. yet the average life of solar panels is only 11 to 15 years on average..

California did this in a effort to "lead the charge" and try to get people to buy solar, it didnt work even with all the tax incentives provided by Ca. to do so, the people did the math.. it dont pay to go solar the cost per watt is too high.

The laws I was in refernce too are laws that apply to private businesses, requirements for hiring, stupid things like, if your sales team decides to become transvestites, you cant fire them for it when they make sales calls for your company dressed like a woman, its INSANITY at its worst, asking a woman for a date while off work, but a in company uniform can get the he works for company sued for Sexual Harassment, paid maternity for the FATHER! HUH? how many examples need to be given for the simple reasons California is no longer economically viable for businesses, these things plus a great many more are counter productive to business..

I was not attacking you, sorry if you felt like I was, I save that stuff for Morgan, I was only expressing that I felt to be a error about California's and Western Europes economic status.

My brother chose to quit work to stay at home with his child. His wife is a teacher and it was more economically viable for them to save the $800.00 a month and avoid all the hospital trips that would have resulted in their baby getting sick at infant day care.

There are ways to deal with issues like the transvestites that you raised. Realistically though, the amount of transvestites that would take advantage of this are small.

Sexual harassment, that is a touchy issue because some men and women use it to whine about everything. In all laws, most people do not abuse them.

As far as solar, I will continue to disagree. The reason it is not more prevalent is that it is still not marketed to the general public. There are many more people that rent their houses then purchase them, perhaps too HOA's play a part. Yes it is an expensive layout, everyone I have ever spoken to who has owned solar says it is worth the money they paid for it.

The cities, well let's see
Solano : annual Savings of $800,000
http://www.powerlight.com/case-studies/state/solano.shtml

Naval Base Coronado, CA annual savings of $228,000 from year one
http://www.powerlight.com/case-studies/federal/naval_base_cor.shtml

Cal State Hayward : $200,000 a year in electrical savings

I could go one but as I said, the technology is much better and much cheaper now.

I think there is one key point that these have in common, City, State, Federal all have deep pockets, to coin a pharse, they have what it takes, to take what you got.. I used your links I was not able to find to total project costs, to say they are cost effective we dont know, as we are not given the per kw cost, and every thing I do know about PVs they are as of yet not cost effective per kw..

One point to look at, >IF< PVs are cost effective, I would venture to say that most large companies with deep pockets would be using PVs to greater or lesser degrees.. there are so many tax incentives that goes with using them that it would be hard to fatham most Fortune 500 companies not using PVs to fatten up their bottom line.

Solar is a useful addition to add power generation, and would be much cheaper when it becomes more main stream, PVs need higher levels of manufacturing to bring down the costs..

Why not your rich Hollywood pigs would form a company that would produce those beautiful energy farms, it deliquents like you were right?
Bombs do their jobs, that is moch more than can be said about parasites that claim nonexistent virtues.

ES

Well folks if you had any questions about the level of humanity and morality of the "Christians" using SAGG to prosletyze this thread should set you straight as an arrow.

extrasense wrote:
"Bombs do their jobs, that is moch more than can be said about parasites that claim nonexistent virtues."

Well if that isn't turning the other cheek and paying homage to the Prince of Peace I just don't know what else one could possibly do.

And they wonder why I call them hypocrites.

[Note to Rose: feel free to delete this post]

Idiot's interpretation of the Cristian love fits the idiot's interpretation of science, that fully deserves the scorn we have for it.

ES

Extrasense, you missed my point that we as a country already have the world's most technologically advanced and largest military )escept for China as far as size there is no way we could match them). There is no need for us to keep spending billions on defense R and D not to mention all the wasteful spending the DOD does on a daily basis. We could take a small percentage of the money that goes to the DOD, use it for alternative enery and another small percent and use it for education and the DOD would not lose anything. Renewable energies do their jobs.

The links are of Hollywood stars putting their time and money into renewable energy.

http://www.socialfunds.com/news/release.cgi?sfArticleId=4912

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-powerprop2feb02,0,4434665.story?coll=la-home-business

http://www.treehugger.com/files/celebrities/

Archer, my uncles in Germany who are hardly rich state that their solar has more then pad itself off. if you looked through the rest of the site I linked too I am sure you would have found costs, they had a page that linked to their partners who sell the PV equipment. It is not that expensive anymore.

http://www.partsonsale.com/

http://wholesalesolar.com/solar-panels.html#Anchor-Wholesale-11481

http://wholesalesolar.com/packages.html

For those who do not feel like clicking the large array package was $13,000. Less expensive than just about any new car.

There are plenty of people who can afford to do it. Most people though are not aware that it can save money and pay for itself in a few years, unlike a car which depreciates, solar cells actually enhance the value of your home.

Most Americans still think it is a treehugger, crazy idea that only pinkie-hippie-commies will use. We will have the last laugh however as heating oil and electric prices continue to rise and those off us with solar power will stay have free electricity.

What you forget Archer, is that once installed, most people make money from the power company or at least never have to worry about outages or power bills ever again. That in itself is worth the initial outlay in hot place like Arizona where the electric bill in summer can be $200-400 a month depending on your house. 13.000 / 400. At that rate a solar array takes 32 months to pay itself off. Those government buildings I am sure got their money back within a few years.

Lillith ... attempting to bring sanity into the discussion will hardly get an acknowlegement from extraNONsense.

There are people who believe that after you can nuke someone ... you should still sow the ground with salt.

They couldn't subdue Vietnam. They can't subdue Iraq. And rather than recognizing the reality of human nature ... they are looking for a bigger stick. Christian hypocrisy at its mightiest.

Obviously, you uncles are paying prices, that are subsidised by the government. Which makes money on importing immigrants, which are going to destroy your uncles in due time.

ES

Ummmm...my uncles are in Germany, I am quite sure that they are not importing immigrants. Turks are moving into Germany but what will destroy the Germans is not the Turks but the fact that most Germans are choosing not to have children.

As far as prices, I refer you yet again to the links I provided for Archer...

Living in fear solves no problems.

Oh and one other thing, my uncles are MAKING MONEY off their solar power because the panels PROVIDE EXTRA ENERGY TO THE GRID!!! Hence they are not subsidized by the government but are providing a service to the power companies.

It's not Iraq that we are trying to subdue, the vast majority of fighters in Iraq are NON Iraqi's, or did you miss that? the majority of them are funded by Saudi's, Iran, Syria, Jordanians.. Iran being the majority suppler of tech for IEDs.. body counts/IDs consistently prove this, not to mention the EIGHTY of them we just captured ALIVE.. opps..

See you want it to sound like we are fighting Iraqi's, while there are some, they are far out numbered by the influx of fighters/terrorists from outside Iraqs borders.

There are LESS people dying in Iraq NOW daily than there was under Sadams rule.. by TWO THIRDS LESS, those numbers are from one of your own buddies, Amnesty International, and less than 3% of those killed are by Coalition Forces. Its funny how the liberals whine and throw fits when a Marine shots a rag failing to follow the order to freeze.. but they have NOT A WORD TO SAY when the foreign fighters use a car bomb to kill women and children, or take them hostage and behead them..

And as far as winning in Vietnam, we never lost a single battle, which is more than I can say for the French when they were there..

And Iraq, NO coalition forces unit has lost a single battle..

And if you were one of the grunts on the ground (not that you could ever be), I would bet you would not be so eager to start with taking money for weapon systems to put to some other pink fuzzy feel good programs..

And when you get time, maybe you can tell us how to win a guerilla war, sponsored, supplied and equiped by nations outside the Iraqi AO.

STILL WAITING FOR THOSE PAPERS MORGAN.. post them.. show us how stupid we all are.. or will you give us some more of what Freud called "sour grapes"? no one will "appreciate" them so I wont post them.. lol

And to coin one of your own phrases.. whats this have to do with global warming? or did you run out of facts?.. o. wait you didnt post any.. lol

The price that they have paid for the panels, were below what they actually cost.
Moreover, to produce those panels, the energy expanded was more than those panels will produce over their lifetime.
The polution produced was much higher than if the energy were directly consumed by your "uncles".

When and if the balance will become positive, there will be no need to do convincing, the market will just switch to those energy sources.

ES

HA!!! Yes because the old and entrenched companies will not fight tooth and nail to prevent a new technology!

Look extra, as I keep saying the technology does pay for itself. You choose not to see it simply because you are looking at older technology. There are advancements literally every day and it is slowly making news, but people who have switched to solar or wind have repaid whatever pollution that was caused by lowering the amount that will be caused in the future. If you look at the links for Powerlight it gives you a break down of exactly how much pollution is saved when using solar technology.

Quit parroting old information.

Hmm some where along the line, the topic of this got changed from globule warming to how screwed up the french are and politics.....

How many of you have taken into consideration all of the volcanic eruptions since the 1700's?
And what about all the cold spells that follow them?

It's called tangents, I rather like them. Keeps conversations going for hours. My friends and I have the best 4am, Denny's and coffee fueled conversations due to tangents.

Actually Archer, Morgan is getting ready to be at several conferences regarding his chosen work.

As far as how things are in Iraq: look up a blog written by a woman who lives there: Google Riverbend...

Our destabilizing Iraq has killed more not just because of bombs from both sides but from lack of proper medical care owing to hospitals being blown up and several other factors.

I despise the senseless killing in general because we have not yet accomplished the original mission of CATCHING BIN LADEN or have you forgotten him.

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, Saddam hated religious fanatics and his country technologically and standard of living wise was better off when he was in office. All we have accomplished is to destablize another part of the Mideast.

By the way, as there is no formal count being done by either the government in Iraq or the US government of civilian dead any numbers you read are highly questionable.

If we were not faced with the near inevitability of long-term hostilities in the middle-east before ... we certainly are now.

And for reasons of international politics? Hardly. We are doing it for reasons of domestic politics. Because we haven't a political party in power anywhere, or even capable of being influential anywhere, willing to stand up and tell the truth

The time has come for first-world folks to lower their standard of living, stop iving beyond their means, and discuss HOW not whether, to level the economic playing field with other countries. Well that and stop consuming energy you are incapable of producing internally.

Denial is not the name of a river.

Chaoslillith wrote one April 06, 2006 02:14 PM
...my point that we as a country already have the world's most technologically advanced and largest military )escept for China as far as size there is no way we could match them. There is no need for us to keep spending billions on defense R and D not to mention all the wasteful spending the DOD does on a daily basis.)....

and we aim to keep it that way. stop r and d and in a decade we will no longer be a superpower, well be a colony of someone else.

...We could take a small percentage of the money that goes to the DOD, use it for alternative enery and another small percent and use it for education and the DOD would not lose anything. Renewable energies do their jobs...

yes and then another country would have that much more incentive to use their newly developed super weapons that we have no ability to defend against with our antiquted defense systems.

Archer, my uncles in Germany who are hardly rich state that their solar has more then pad itself off. ... It is not that expensive anymore.

http://www.partsonsale.com/

http://wholesalesolar.com/solar-panels.html#Anchor-Wholesale-11481

http://wholesalesolar.com/packages.html

its funny, i used these to see how long it would take me to pay off a system to replace my electricty, it came out as 54.3 years. how is that cost efficent.

...For those who do not feel like clicking the large array package was $13,000. Less expensive than just about any new car...

yes for a small home. say a one bedroom for one person with no computer etc.

There are plenty of people who can afford to do it. Most people though are not aware that it can save money and pay for itself in a few years, unlike a car which depreciates, solar cells actually enhance the value of your home...

yes there are some ppl that can afford it. but then those ppl dont think anything about buying a new car every year either. most of us cant do that.

...Most Americans still think it is a treehugger, crazy idea that only pinkie-hippie-commies will use. We will have the last laugh however as heating oil and electric prices continue to rise and those off us with solar power will stay have free electricity...

no, most of us americans realise that its not hippies anymore, its the super rich that dont have to worry about actually making the money back because the goverment will pay for it, with tax breaks etc. The majority of americans dont make enough money to have the kind of taxes that would be helpful to get this system.

...What you forget Archer, is that once installed, most people make money from the power company or at least never have to worry about outages or power bills ever again. That in itself is worth the initial outlay in hot place like Arizona where the electric bill in summer can be $200-400 a month depending on your house. 13.000 / 400. At that rate a solar array takes 32 months to pay itself off. Those government buildings I am sure got their money back within a few years.

yes, but they can also get their money back using passive things to cool the building. many of those building claim its the solar power that helps them and puts all the savings towards paying for that system, without putting anything towards paying for new type windows, better siding, heat reflective roof coating, ets. why, because these are not one time expenses. if they have to spread the savings on the entire package, they will lose money.

"you must be one of the planet's most willfully ignorant people."
- - I notice a trend here, DA. There are two types of people on the planet, the ones who agree with you and the really stupid ones...

Here's a puzzler for you: Do you know whay they call Greenland GREENland?

If you get really bored here, you could always help Ehrlich write his next requiim for the blue planet!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chaoslillith:
[QB] Ok, as I am only 31 I do not remember a global cooling fear, pretty much all I have ever seen in the news is global warmning. I believe what I see, ie Kilmanjaro, Inuits in shorts, waterfalls running down glaciers that were frozen solid only a few years ago. Would you like links?
- - As someone who's been around for nearly 60 years, I definitely remember the very first Earth Day and the first Global Environmental Summit where Global Cooling was the focus.

"I am also aware of the fact that more and more scientists are ever more concerned."
- - Very few of them are actually climatologists.

"By the way, my parents never discussed a global cooling trend fear in all the talks we had about the environment."
- - Ask them to come clean about it. They're probably just embarrassed to admit it.

Meanwhile, Greenland was once Green and the mean temperature of our planet has been warmer than it is today. When it dipped to about 2-3? cooler than the current averages, it was called "The Little Ice Age!"

People are freaking out over temperature changes at the second decimal place, and assuming these represent irreversible trends that will give us a global average temperature that will make the seas boil. It won't happen. These things are cyclical, and when it warms a bit, that triggers cooling influences and vice versa.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Archer:
[QB] I think there is one key point that these have in common, City, State, Federal all have deep pockets, to coin a pharse, they have what it takes, to take what you got..
- - You correctly surmise that these projects were done with taxpayers' funds and the "savings" is based on not actually having to pay the full cost.

Alternative energy is not yet economically viable. Hopefully it will be some day, but for now it's all done with smoke, mirrors and taxes.