My bet is most temperature changes that span a couple hundred years are due to the sun burning hydrogen faster/slower. I suspect the sun is gearing up to become a little brighter over the next century. That's great if you're into solar power.

What the hell? Jay, that's the most stupid theory I've ever heard.

Well that's the propaganda anyway. I'm not saying man doesn't effect the environment, but historically we're coming out of a small ice-age. It was hotter in the Medieval year 1000 than the mid to late 90s. After that the temperature continued to drop, almost dramatically until the late 1600s when the temperature started coming back up again, and made its way to where it is now. This mid-period in the past millenium is known as "the little ice-age". If you step back and look at the past 2000 years, You'd see the temperatures steadily drop and increase from the year 0 to where it peaked at 1000 B.C..

Yeah, this summary of the history is true, but there's still a big difference compared to now: in the past years, ice-ages and high temperatures were all part of natural cycles of the Earth, and with lots of years between every climate change, and that was natural. But with the industrial revolution and its pollution began to change many things that haven't been seen until our time, and the latest temperature graphics explain all the matter.

 

And all this stuff about the different temperatures is very relative, I mean, depending on the area you live in the effect is more noticeable or not. For example where I live, 50 years ago it was normal to see the roofs and streets frozen in winter, but now this is the most improbable thing that could happen. That wouldn't be a problem, but perhaps it is when it's summer and it never rains. And what about the tornados and hurricanes in areas where there have never been atmospheric phenomenons as those, or big fires in lands with more drought than long time ago,...?

 

Some atmospheric and oceanic currents are changing their natural cycle. And this may not seem so important, but the fact is that everything belongs to a long natural chain in which we are and it can be very difficult to repair. And all the pollution just makes things worse, with the sea and ocean acidifications, acid rains, chemical smogs, the ozone holes, damaging fertilizers, etc.. There are many things to accept that there's a climate change caused by humans, not just the global warming.

 

Anyway, maybe it's true that this matter is being a little tedious because of the repetitive information everywhere, but the key of that is to make people aware of the situation, because is the only thing to do if the problem is ourselves. If we don't believe what they say on tv or wherever, is our problem. But when so many experts, who have studied the causes and consequences of climate change in a deeply way, just advise us, it's better to pay some attention and try to do something to put things right.

Pardon me for missing your post @ first!:embarassed: That is really super-cool!:cool::cool::cool:

The Amish are simply just well adjusted to lanterns, candles, stove light, etc. But I agree - they have a system of values that keeps the simple pleasures in life central to their lives, and it really has great redeeming qualities we've whizzed past in our modern lives..

Sounds like you had good fun with the kids - it's been ages since I've played those sorts of games.;)

 

 

thanks chuck! it was a wonderful evening. i am a lucky girl.

What the hell? Jay, that's the most stupid theory I've ever heard.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

 

Solar radiation output changes with time. Stars aren't perfect devices.

I've heard about that too. I think it was on Neal Boortz that I heard the sun has recently been hotter than before. Interesting articles.

Solar radiation levels change with time, but the National Geographic article goes on to say that most climate scientists feel the effects of wobble outweigh solar fluctuations, and while the wobble of Mars is speeding the warming climate there, the Earth is warming primarily from increased levels of greenhouses gasses in our atmosphere, so the simultaneous changes are coincidental. They might be wrong as well, but that's where most climatologists are at.

Jay, in my mind, what I see is how humanity has combusted a vast quantity of stored carbonaceous matter in the Earth's crust (oil, coal, gas, tar sand, etc.), which is suddenly (in climatological time) being put into the biotic portion of the earth. The oceans are taking up much of the CO2 and becoming more acidic, but there's a balance with the atmosphere, and the levels of CO2 have been rising dramatically, logically from the introduction of large amounts of CO2 as the combustion product. Where else can this CO2 go? Certainly as more long wavelength infra-red is scattered back to earth, then the earth becomes warmer, and hence the greenhouse effect. What has slowed the warming is the amount of soot particles we've pushed aloft as well; ironically, as we reduce emissions, then the Earth may actually warm faster!:laugh3: (some have suggested pushing aloft reflective particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect more light back into space.. who knows! Maybe a way to help stave-off disaster, if temp's rise too rapidly)

We may also try to disperse mineral supplements into the ocean to cause the oceans to produce more phytoplankton, which if done correctly, could help reduce the effects of climate change, and increase ocean food productivity. Kind of a win-win-win situation, if we have the smarts to do it correctly.

Truth be told, we waste vast amounts of energy, and it's not that difficult to improve our efficiency. In fact, this would free up capacity in the economy for more productive uses for our human effort, so instead of focusing and putting ourselves to work making oil flow and turn into gasoline, etc., more effort can be applied into home insulation and assessments, better neighborhood designs, areas of scientific research, creative activities, and more leisure time to enjoy the fruits of our labors.

Thanks for the articles, and keep seeking truth!!

Huh.

 

I still think it's silly to say that global warming on Earth isn't caused mainly by humans -- and I don't think your point about solar power is really very valid. Solar panels currently are ridiculously innefficent and we certainly aren't going to be able to get a huge amount of energy from them just because the Sun's burning more hydrogen.

Well noonsun, a 1 or 2 percentage point change in the sun's output can save millions of dollars for these solar companies. Everything is on a massive scale when you're talking about big businesses that operate on margins.

 

Also, solar panel efficiency isn't what's important. What's important is whether solar energy's cost per watt is less than coal energy's cost per watt. Once that magic barrier is broken, it suddenly makes more sense (from a money standpoint) to build solar farms rather than coal plants.

 

http://www.nanosolar.com

 

Here's a business that has invented a way to print solar panels on thin strips of metal. The cost of manufacturing these (admittedly inefficient) solar panels is less per watt than putting the money in coal. It's only the beginning.

 

EDIT: I should add that currently the most efficient form of solar energy is thermosolar, where you just aim a bunch of mirrors in the desert at a tank of water so that it makes steam. It's also even cheaper than nanosolar's stuff.

Okay, then. I thought you were saying that a change in the suns' hydrogen-burning would solve the energy crisis or something -- I didn't know you were just talking about solar companies. :nice: Sorry, I misread you.

My grandfather was an engineer for a company called AAI. He worked on a project for President Johnson to build solar panels, and he said it was the most inefficient crap they'd ever made :laugh3:

My grandfather was an engineer for a company called AAI. He worked on a project for President Johnson to build solar panels, and he said it was the most inefficient crap they'd ever made :laugh3:

Any renewable energy can be efficient right now.

 

The most inefficient crap they do is to look for more lands to extract crude oil in countries such as Alaska.

Well noonsun, a 1 or 2 percentage point change in the sun's output can save millions of dollars for these solar companies. Everything is on a massive scale when you're talking about big businesses that operate on margins.

Perhaps, if the amount of particulates goes down, and there isn't more cloudiness from an increase in evaporation and cloud formation.. But I remain skeptical about the level of solar fluctuation, as it's only prudent to be so about a giant fusion reactor which we're still trying to understand..

 

Also, solar panel efficiency isn't what's important. What's important is whether solar energy's cost per watt is less than coal energy's cost per watt. Once that magic barrier is broken, it suddenly makes more sense (from a money standpoint) to build solar farms rather than coal plants.

And if our government can be made to be an instrument of the will of the people once again, it can level the playing field, adding externalities, and making solar the logical choice economically as well as environmentally so..

 

www.nanosolar.com

 

Here's a business that has invented a way to print solar panels on thin strips of metal. The cost of manufacturing these (admittedly inefficient) solar panels is less per watt than putting the money in coal. It's only the beginning.

 

EDIT: I should add that currently the most efficient form of solar energy is thermosolar, where you just aim a bunch of mirrors in the desert at a tank of water so that it makes steam. It's also even cheaper than nanosolar's stuff.

To make electricity Jay, to my astonishment as well, I discovered that the most efficient solar process to do so (watts in, watts out) is using parabolic mirrors focused on sterling cycle engines coupled to generators. It's quite bizarre to see an obscure heat engine out-competing the best solar cells, steam turbines, and other heat cycle engines, but it's true. How long they'll hold up might still be another matter (there's a pilot plant in the desert SW somewhere..)

I'm not quite as up on the nano-solar dots and other methods (chemical solar films, etc), but it seems like a good idea to keep searching!

The best value for solar PV right now are the amorphous thin-film "cells", actually a roll that can be rolled out between the seams on standing seam metal roofing. Payback is in the range of 1/2 to 2 years time, a pretty cool deal! (sure, they're not as efficient, but then the real answer is with improved efficiency in everything - Planet Green's got Ed Begley and Bill Nye competing to make their houses super-green. worth watching, if for nothing else than entertainment's sake! Lots of energy-efficient ways, like sun tubes, home-mounted wind turbines, etc. Gotta love those Californians!:laugh3:)

 

I just want to emphasize the elephant in the room - called efficiency. That's where the low hanging fruit are - it's soo much easier to get the efficiency of our homes and appliances maxed, and it's much, much less expensive. Do that first, and then solar is pretty cheap to add when you only need a fifth of the energy!;)

Any renewable energy can be efficient right now.

 

The most inefficient crap they do is to look for more lands to extract crude oil in countries such as Alaska.

 

No, the most inefficient crap is importing oil from other countries when we have loads and loads in our own back yard. We're not searching for oil, we already know it's there. Some idiots in congress won't let us drill though because some seal might get annoyed by a couple of poles.

No, the most inefficient crap is importing oil from other countries when we have loads and loads in our own back yard. We're not searching for oil, we already know it's there. Some idiots in congress won't let us drill though because some seal might get annoyed by a couple of poles.

What?? Some seal??? you're not very informed dude...

 

If they can be so insane with the seals, they're capable to make a war in a second just to take the last sad drops of oil, too, though it already exists..

 

Even if there's plenty of oil under your house or wherever, it's time to understand that it won't help us to overcome our problems, so there's no need to make holes in all the Earth.

Oil was once solar energy! Plants gathered sunlight millions of years ago, and over time they ended up comprising the carbon in oil.

 

So getting energy direct from the source (the sun) is the best way to go about things. I imagine in the future the way we'd do this is automate a process of firing batteries back and forth between the moon and the Earth. They would be charged by solar farms on the moon (which would be fantastically efficient given the fact there isn't an atmosphere there to reduce solar radiation) and shot back to Earth to be spent. Then the used batteries would be shot back to the moon, using a fraction of the energy they produced.

 

Such a process could be self-powered and entirely automated by robots. And by the time it's implemented, I'm confident battery technology would have progressed substantially due to nanotechnology.

What?? Some seal??? you're not very informed dude...

 

If they can be so insane with the seals, they're capable to make a war in a second just to take the last sad drops of oil, too, though it already exists..

 

Even if there's plenty of oil under your house or wherever, it's time to understand that it won't help us to overcome our problems, so there's no need to make holes in all the Earth.

 

They? Are you pointing fingers at the republicans? In case you haven't been informed, 29 Democratic Senators supported the Iraq War resolution, 21 opposed. It was bipartisan.

What?? Some seal??? you're not very informed dude...

 

If they can be so insane with the seals, they're capable to make a war in a second just to take the last sad drops of oil, too, though it already exists..

 

Even if there's plenty of oil under your house or wherever, it's time to understand that it won't help us to overcome our problems, so there's no need to make holes in all the Earth.

 

Well there's not enough evidence one way or another to speculate about "peak oil". Certainly the price of a barrel of oil will rise in the next century, but that will be due to demand/population growth and inflation. Not a limited supply. We've only been burning the stuff (seriously) for around 100 years now. Not very long. And oil companies are surprisingly environmentally friendly these days. I think the logging industry is where you should turn your attention if you are worried about animals.

They? Are you pointing fingers at the republicans? In case you haven't been informed, 29 Democratic Senators supported the Iraq War resolution, 21 opposed. It was bipartisan.

 

True, she was probably talking about the government in general, though. The Republicans and Democrats are (for all intents and purposes) identical.

True, she was probably talking about the government in general, though. The Republicans and Democrats are (for all intents and purposes) identical.

 

Agreed, my Anarchist friend. :cool:

The Republicans and Democrats are similar, but non-identical in all instances. Please look at the money they get for their campaigns, and who throws tax breaks to whom. Yes, I would have to agree that when it comes to big wall street firms, commercial banks, and legal firms, they all take big sips of the cool-aid. But not so when it comes to oil and coal - mostly that goes to Republicans last time I checked.

Peak oil isn't a matter of speculation, but a matter of time, and while some projections show a longer, broader peak, many go on to a peak which is occurring about now, and some have predicted we're already past peak oil, only accelerating the rate of depletion to keep and upward curve, with a consequential steeper decline then to follow. No need to worry anyhow, except for the effects those fuels have on our environment - we are so wasteful, we could easily do more "work" with only 10% of the current energy production. The waste is mind-numbing, and is simply unnecessary.

Although 29 of 50 Democratic senators supported the war initially, I think it was clear who was pushing the war (and the false evidence) - the Republicans and this past administration. The Democrats didn't all have the spine they needed to buck the bull****, as they were afraid more of loosing seats than voting their conscience at the time (an ignoble moment in our history). But the real issue is money controlling representatives through campaign donations and soft money. That's where we're loosing our Democracy; Money, contrary to certain right-wing supreme court members, is not free speech; it is a corrosive eating away at the underpinnings of our Democracy. The right to fair elections is the right through which all other rights are secured.