The environment thread

[mr_genius]

I've never heard of tidal turbines before. I'm surprised they aren't used more widely since they aren't as big of an eyesore compared to wind turbines.

 

 

Well, I for one never considered wind turbines to be an eyesore. I actually think they look pretty cool. I suppose the honorable Ted Kennedy disagrees.

[NorthSideSox72]

Not sure where to put this, but, here we go. Someone went around and felled about 15 very old, large cottonwood trees in the Burnham sanctuary park in the south lake shore neighborhood. It appears the motive was so that some local condo residents wanted a better view of the lake. Nevermind that the trees were there well before they were.

 

I think the Chicago Park District should go find some even taller trees somewhere, and re-plant those right where the old ones were.

 

[Balta1701]

From the "Environmental degradation doesn't hurt me" category...

Faced with the collapse of the fall Chinook salmon run in the Sacramento River, the Pacific Fishery Management Council voted Thursday to cancel all commercial salmon fishing this year from the California coast to north-central Oregon. The season was to have begun on May 1.

 

“This is a complete disaster by any standard,” said Don Hansen, the council chairman.

 

Some recreational fishing will be allowed off Oregon. Fishermen on the Sacramento River refer to the fall run of the Chinook, or king salmon, as the “workhorse” run because of the usual abundance of the prized fish.

 

The National Marine Fisheries Service will take a final vote on the issue.

 

Jim Olson, a fisherman in Auburn, Wash., and a vice president of the Washington Trollers Association, said the catch of wild king salmon provided more than half of the income of hundreds of West Coast fishermen. If that income is lost, Mr. Olson said, “that hits the gear store and the drugstore, too.”

 

Representative Mike Thompson, Democrat of California, and the state’s senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, also Democrats, have said they will seek disaster aid, which is likely to be more than $150 million.

....

Two factors are suspected. One is federally sanctioned diversion of water from the Sacramento River into the irrigation system used by farmers in the Central Valley of California. The other is a climate-driven change in the normal upwellings in the ocean that could have deprived the young fish of food.

 

[The Beast]

LoL

[Balta1701]

Despite all the reports you read on Drudge about how the globe stopped warming a decade ago, how this was the coldest winter in years, etc., the global data is now in for March. Thanks to what appears to be another big T spike over the big Eurasian continent mass, March comes in as the 2nd warmest March on record, and the warmest on land ever recorded. January to March comes in overall as the 11th warmest.

[mr_genius]

Despite all the reports you read on Drudge about how the globe stopped warming a decade ago, how this was the coldest winter in years, etc., the global data is now in for March. Thanks to what appears to be another big T spike over the big Eurasian continent mass, March comes in as the 2nd warmest March on record, and the warmest on land ever recorded. January to March comes in overall as the 11th warmest.

 

this was linked on drudge today

 

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9...;show_article=1

 

i am familiar with the web site and he links articles that the earth is warming often. but you're right, he also does link articles that state it isn't.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Well, I for one never considered wind turbines to be an eyesore. I actually think they look pretty cool. I suppose the honorable Ted Kennedy disagrees.

 

 

NIMBY is the favorite acronym of these eco-hypocrites like AlGore and Ted Kennedy. The sacrifices that supposedly have to be made to save the planet are all well and good as long as they're not being made by them.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013480,00.html

 

orry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh

 

* Font Size: Decrease Increase

* Print Page: Print

 

Phil Chapman | April 23, 2008

 

THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.

 

What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.

 

Disconcerting as it may be to true believers in global warming, the average temperature on Earth has remained steady or slowly declined during the past decade, despite the continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, and now the global temperature is falling precipitously.

 

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

 

There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

 

It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years.

 

This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.

 

It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.

 

The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.

 

Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.

 

That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern.

 

It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.

 

There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.

 

Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.

 

There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.

 

The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.

 

The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.

 

The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.

 

By then, most of the advanced nations would have ceased to exist, vanishing under the ice, and the rest of the world would be faced with a catastrophe beyond imagining.

 

Australia may escape total annihilation but would surely be overrun by millions of refugees. Once the glaciation starts, it will last 1000 centuries, an incomprehensible stretch of time.

 

If the ice age is coming, there is a small chance that we could prevent or at least delay the transition, if we are prepared to take action soon enough and on a large enough scale.

 

For example: We could gather all the bulldozers in the world and use them to dirty the snow in Canada and Siberia in the hope of reducing the reflectance so as to absorb more warmth from the sun.

 

We also may be able to release enormous floods of methane (a potent greenhouse gas) from the hydrates under the Arctic permafrost and on the continental shelves, perhaps using nuclear weapons to destabilise the deposits.

 

We cannot really know, but my guess is that the odds are at least 50-50 that we will see significant cooling rather than warming in coming decades.

 

The probability that we are witnessing the onset of a real ice age is much less, perhaps one in 500, but not totally negligible.

 

All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.

 

It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilisation may be at stake.

 

In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

 

Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...5013480,00.html

Again with scientists trying to interpolate a trend from one friggin' year. Where did these people get their degrees? I see this from both sides of the debate, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can't look at 2007 and call it global cooling any more than you can look at 2005 and call it global warming. Its a ridiculous idea. Heck, even a decade is a very, very short timespan to try to determine anything from.

 

[Controlled Chaos]

Again with scientists trying to interpolate a trend from one friggin' year. Where did these people get their degrees? I see this from both sides of the debate, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can't look at 2007 and call it global cooling any more than you can look at 2005 and call it global warming. Its a ridiculous idea. Heck, even a decade is a very, very short timespan to try to determine anything from.

I didn't see that at all. He made note of the temp change in 2007, but followed it with "It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years." Then went on to explain his sunspot theory.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Again with scientists trying to interpolate a trend from one friggin' year. Where did these people get their degrees? I see this from both sides of the debate, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can't look at 2007 and call it global cooling any more than you can look at 2005 and call it global warming. Its a ridiculous idea. Heck, even a decade is a very, very short timespan to try to determine anything from.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one...because frankly, I'm not sure where exactly the people in this article are getting their data. To quote them directly:

All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.

Except...I can go to the NASA Goddard Space studies data with a simple Google search (frankly I'm too lazy to do all 4) and it shows no such thing.

The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle.

 

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Here's the temperature graph they include for the global picture (there are others at the link, none of which show a .7 degree C Drop.)

If you look at the graph on the left, we are .6 degrees C above the zero line. The article 2k5 links to says that the temperature last year dropped by .7 degrees C. In other words, they're saying that the 2007 point on that graph should come in at -.1, not at .6. I have no idea where they come up with that claim.

[YASNY]

Again with scientists trying to interpolate a trend from one friggin' year. Where did these people get their degrees? I see this from both sides of the debate, and it adds nothing to the discussion. You can't look at 2007 and call it global cooling any more than you can look at 2005 and call it global warming. Its a ridiculous idea. Heck, even a decade is a very, very short timespan to try to determine anything from.

 

Since I haven't been in the 'Buster for a while, Kap sent me via email the link to Mike's article. Much appreciated, btw. NSS, why weren't asking the same questions after the 2005 data? It seems that data backing global warming is trumpeted as the honest to God truth ... no wait, I can't invoke God in a liberal agenda ... as a scientific truth. But let something come out that contradicts the agenda, then that, as in this case, is considered ridiculous. Typical.

 

Now, I step back out of the Buster till I decide otherewise. And for the record, I probably won't see any responses to my post.

Edited April 23, 2008 by YASNY

[Balta1701]

Aw hell, for completeness, I hit up the 2nd datasource in there. The Hadley one, Britain. Their data is only slightly different from NASA's, and certainly does not show the trend alleged in 2k5's linked piece.

In this scale, a -.7 degree C change would show up as a blue bar going down to -.3. Here is what they write:

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2007. The year 2007 was eighth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006 and 2001. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre. The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

 

The key reference for this time series is:

 

# Brohan, P., J.J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S.F.B. Tett and P.D. Jones, 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850. J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi:10.1029/2005JD006548

 

The 1990s were the warmest complete decade in the series. The warmest year of the entire series has been 1998, with a temperature of 0.546°C above the 1961-90 mean. Twelve of the thirteen warmest years in the series have now occurred in the past thirteen years (1995-2007). The only year in the last thirteen not among the warmest twelve is 1996 (replaced in the warm list by 1990). The period 2001-2007 is 0.21°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade.

So, 2 of the 4 sources they cite simply do not show what they say they show.

[NorthSideSox72]

I didn't see that at all. He made note of the temp change in 2007, but followed it with "It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years." Then went on to explain his sunspot theory.

 

He opens with a sarcastic apology to people believe in global warming, then talks at length about how cold 2007 was. Then later, as you point out, he adds the caveat. He's playing both sides of the issue. If its not relevant, why use it as a basis at all?

 

Since I haven't been in the 'Buster for a while, Kap sent me via email the link to Mike's article. Much appreciated, btw. NSS, why weren't asking the same questions after the 2005 data? It seems that data backing global warming is trumpeted as the honest to God truth ... no wait, I can't invoke God in a liberal agenda ... as a scientific truth. But let something come out that contradicts the agenda, then that, as in this case, is considered ridiculous. Typical.

 

Now, I step back out of the Buster till I decide otherewise. And for the record, I probably won't see any responses to my post.

 

I am not sure if you are confusing me with someone else, but, I have said repeatedly in here that no single year or a few years can be used as a guide to indicate global climate change in either direction. I've said it over and over again. And in fact, when people have brought up individual stats like that showing a particularly hot year (as I recall, 2005 was one of those), I've said that is meaningless as well. So to answer your question, I DID ask the same questions.

 

[BigSqwert]

New Dell PC made from 'bamboo, bottles and jugs'

 

Computer giant Dell unveiled a tiny, bamboo-encased eco computer at green business conference Fortune Brainstorm yesterday.

 

Said to be Dell's smallest-ever computer (it's about the size of an average external hard drive), the machine is 81 percent smaller than a standard desktop and uses an impressive 70 percent less power. While the casing is bamboo, its innards are apparently 'filled with recycled materials like old bottles, milk jugs and detergent cases'.

 

CEO Michael Dell said at the conference that the computer should be on the market later this year.

 

Dell, whose previous 'green' initiatives have included tree planting schemes and a brave attempt at carbon neutrality is ranked '5th greenest' in the Greenpeace consumer electronics scale.

 

[Balta1701]

NOAA has their yearly summary of the average greenhouse gas contents of the atmosphere up.

 

The less surprising, although still troublesome part, not only do CO2 contents keep going up, the rate of increase of CO2 contents keeps going up as well. You have to take like 3 derivatives before the problems go away.

 

The more surprising, and probably more troublesome part...after nearly a decade of remaining roughly constant, there seems to have been a big spike in atmospheric methane concentration last year. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but thanks to mediation efforts and the fact that you can burn it as an energy source, it's been roughly constant for a few years now. Unless for some reason we started emitting more methane, which isn't terribly likely in the U.S. but could be true of developing countries, it's more likely that the source for this gas is extra reduced carbon being released from something that was frozen, i.e. old permafrost layers, which have a ton of the stuff ready to release if they melt.

 

Too soon yet to tell whether or not the Methane spike is another trend picking up.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technolo...xprod=permalink

Put an ethanol pump right in your own backyard! Make your own gas!

[Mplssoxfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/technolo...xprod=permalink

Put an ethanol pump right in your own backyard! Make your own gas!

Thanks, Alpha. I'm a little uncertain about this quote, though.

In fact, Mr. Quinn sometimes collects left-over alcohol from bars and restaurants in Los Gatos, Calif., where he lives, and turns it into ethanol; the only cost is for the electricity used in processing.

Left-over alcohol? I'm unfamiliar with the concept.

[EvilMonkey]

Thanks, Alpha. I'm a little uncertain about this quote, though.

 

Left-over alcohol? I'm unfamiliar with the concept.

Yeah, I saw that. I know what he means, but it is a sin to not finish your drink. There was a bar I worked at briefly that used to dump out the dregs from beer bottles left behind and stuff into a special sink which kept it out of the sewers. I always wondered if they recycyled that into mystery shots or something, but didn't really want to know.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, the lead regional EPA investigator for Region 5 (Midwest) was pushing Dow Chemical to clean up the Dioxin found in downstream waters leading to Lake Michigan. Investigations and hearings determined that the dioxin (a carcinogen) was clearly Dow's fault, and the sediment damage included the largest dioxin spill ever found in the U.S. Dow stalled and hemmed and hawed, so the investigator used her emergency powers to force Dow's hand.

 

The result? I'm sure you could see this coming...

 

She's been fired.

 

[BigSqwert]

So, the lead regional EPA investigator for Region 5 (Midwest) was pushing Dow Chemical to clean up the Dioxin found in downstream waters leading to Lake Michigan. Investigations and hearings determined that the dioxin (a carcinogen) was clearly Dow's fault, and the sediment damage included the largest dioxin spill ever found in the U.S. Dow stalled and hemmed and hawed, so the investigator used her emergency powers to force Dow's hand.

 

The result? I'm sure you could see this coming...

 

She's been fired.

Unreal.

[HuskyCaucasian]

So, the lead regional EPA investigator for Region 5 (Midwest) was pushing Dow Chemical to clean up the Dioxin found in downstream waters leading to Lake Michigan. Investigations and hearings determined that the dioxin (a carcinogen) was clearly Dow's fault, and the sediment damage included the largest dioxin spill ever found in the U.S. Dow stalled and hemmed and hawed, so the investigator used her emergency powers to force Dow's hand.

 

The result? I'm sure you could see this coming...

 

She's been fired.

What else would you expect from the current administration? If you dont think like they tall you to think, you are out.

 

Senator: EPA Regulator Firing Resembles U.S. Attorney Firings

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said the firing of the EPA's top environmental regulator "looks like d éjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with its political agenda more than it values the trust or best interests of the American people."

[EvilMonkey]

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said the firing of the EPA's top environmental regulator "looks like d éjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with its political agenda more than it values the trust or best interests of the American people."

This coming from the party that threw Leiberman to the wolves because he voted what he thought was the interest of America instead of toeing the party line.

[NorthSideSox72]

This coming from the party that threw Leiberman to the wolves because he voted what he thought was the interest of America instead of toeing the party line.

Well, there was more to that than one vote and you know it. I don't like the party B.S. either of course, but Joe has decided (for good or for bad) that he's basically an independent. He shouldn't then expect either party to be overly enthusiastic about him.

 

[YASNY]

Well, there was more to that than one vote and you know it. I don't like the party B.S. either of course, but Joe has decided (for good or for bad) that he's basically an independent. He shouldn't then expect either party to be overly enthusiastic about him.

 

A man that refuses toe the line for either party. What a radical concept.