Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Britain freezing over

Climate Change Science Weather Winter in UK 2006

  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#21 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:05 AM

Ah, yes.  It was your post, wasn't it?  Made at much the same time that Kate O'Beirne was tittering because Vice-President Gore was speaking on global warming in the midst of a snowstorm--in balmy,. tropical Boston.    

I got some lovely shots of the S. Texas snow, by the way--snow on the yuccas and cactus, on the sago palms, on my roses, which were blooming their brains out at the time, especially Old Blush.  Folks with cameras every two feet on Christmas morning, and I was the only one who was working!  :D
Posted Image

#22 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:16 AM

Bush protesters do not equal America haters Ogami.

but yeah. I was a little annoyed that before so much as a by-your-leave my own lil' country had turned into a UKsicle. Other than that it was amazing at how EXCRUCIATINGLY cold it was one moment and just a bit chilly the next. :eh:

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#23 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:20 AM

SparkyCola, on Dec 31 2005, 09:30 AM, said:

I was under the impression that regardless of Global Warming, an Ice Age occurs every so many years anyhow - otherwise what about the last ice age? How was that connected to Global Warming?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ice ages tend to run in cycles according to the movment of the Earth.

For example, the Earth's rotational axis doesn't always point the same direction relative to the plane of the planet's orbit and the rest of the galaxy; if you drew a picture of the Earth and sun indicating the axis's orientation at one time, and the axis appeared to lean 23 degrees to the right, then the equivalent picture 11,000 years later would show it leaning 23 degrees to the left. At 22,000 years it would be back where it had come from.

And the Earth's orbit is elliptical, not circular (although it's pretty close to circular), so sometimes we're closer to the sun than we are at other times.

Put those two facts together and you get the result that sometimes the northern hemisphere's summer (which is dictated by the north pole leaning "toward" the sun and the south pole leaning "away" from it) happens when we're closest to the sun, and sometimes it happens when we're fathest from it. When the northern hemisphere's summer occurs while we're far away, it isn't as warm as a summer that occurs while we're close. Of course, during the part of the 22,000-year cycle when the north's summers get less radiation from the sun because of being farther from it, the south's summers get more because that's when the planet is closest to the sun. But the north has much more land and the south has much more water, so this cycle essentially means that once every 22,000 years we switch back and forth once between more sunlight hitting water and more sunlight hitting land. This makes a difference not just because of the different reflectivities and heat-absorption rates of land and water, but also because of how life reacts; more light on land, for example, leads to more plant mass growing, dying, and decomposing, and plant decomposition releases methane (a greenhouse gas).

And on top of that, the 22,000-year cycle is alternately magnified and then suppressed by a separate 41,000-year cycle... and another one with a 100,000-year interval. These also result from other little oddities in the Earth's movement. (The axis's tilt isn't always 23 degrees and the ellipse traced out in space around the sun by the path of its orbit can change shape slightly.) When one of these cycles is up and another is down, ice ages and the hot spells between them can be reduced and milder or not happen much at all; when they all combine in the up phase or the down phase at the same time, we can get more drastic shifting between severe ice ages and severe hot ages.

At least, that's the pattern for the last few million years. Let's not deal with previous millions, when the continents and oceans weren't in the same configuration. :suspect:

But even when all of the known cycles are accounted for, there's still one more little glitch, one episode that doesn't fit even that pattern. And no, it's not global warming within the last century or two of industrial pollution. It's global non-cooling (and higher apparent greenhouse gas levels) starting about 5-8 millennia ago. About 11,000 years ago, a reduction in greenhouse gases and temperatures began as it was supposed to right on schedule, but then started reversing itself within a few thousand years. Since then, it's been mostly holding steady instead of getting cooler as it normally would have at this point in the cycles. All of human history has happened during a time when the planet would normally be expected to have been getting cooler and cooler, but it wasn't.

Nobody knows of anything that's different this last time around compared to previous times we've been at the same point in the cycles, except for human deforestation and agriculture.

And remember, the beginning of the cooling trend that would normally have been expected was 11,000 years ago in a 22,000-year cycle, which means that right now is when it would start heating back up again as a part of its natural cycles.

#24 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:26 AM

Quote

Sorry, I apparently have a better memory than you. I remember Bush's first year goodwill tour through Europe, where hundreds of thousands of America-haters turned up to protest Bush in every European city he visited. Their main reason for these protests? Because Bush gave his honest answer over why he wouldn't sign Kyoto, the same answer that 95 to 0 Senators gave Bill Clinton.

Waterpanther conveniently forgets, but at the same time, Bill Clinton also conducted his own "goodwill" tour across Europe, getting the accolades of someone who "cares" about the environment, despite having to do zip about greenhouse emissions. Bill Clinton was all about positioning himself as the all-caring, all-compassionate jerk, and to heck with reality. Bush gave his honest answer on Kyoto, and was excoriated for it. Clinton lied, and was hailed as the lying hero he was to the left.

I remember this just fine, actually.  Bush said "scroo yoo" to the rest of the world and reaped an entirely predictable consequence.  Clinton did the morally appropriate thing and reaped the undying hatred of the right--but there's nothing new about that.  It's got to be a matter of some embarassment to the right that Bush can't even speak to an American audience that's not handpicked and vetted for Republican loyalty, can't visit his bestest friend Tony without tearing up HM's garden for security reasons--and yet Bill Clinton can go anywhere, plunge into a crowd and shake hands with people who love him.  

And by the way, you want to back up your contention that Clinton "lied" about Kyoto with a fact or two?
Posted Image

#25 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:35 AM

waterpanther, on Dec 31 2005, 08:55 AM, said:

At this time last year, there was a post claiming that global warming was bunk because it was snowing in South Texas at Christmas.  Just in case anyone's interested in a follow-up, we're expecting a high of 90 today and tomorrow in the Rio Grande Valley, and that is 20 degrees and more above normal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



You might be getting 90 there, we are getting to 80 or so here in Houston, but it's been hotter before.  I think the record high temp of 82 goes back to 1971 or something here.  In 1984 we had record cold and quite a bit of snow and ice.  The experts do call them weather PATTERNS for a reason.   Next year we might get snow again.  And this winter is far from over.  Febuary is generally the coldest month here.

I just get tired of what seems to be the vast majority of very vocal politicians and media yelling about Global Warming, yet they seem to have no concept of what Global Warming is.  They always seem to be confusing Human impact on the environment and a natural heating/cooling cycle and slow change that the Earth has gone through for billions of years.  Yes, there is some amount of short-term impact that we have directly had on the planet.   But it is miniscule compared to the impact of the planet itself and the Sun.  To think anything else is pure Hubris.
I'm all for lowering harmful emissions, but let's as a whole, keep it in perspective.  That is really where we are failing.  (I do mean the Human "we")

Sorry.. didn't plan on going on a Global Warming rant....


Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#26 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 11:44 AM

Thank you very much Delvo :) That was very interesting! So...if I understand right....Global Warming is happening on TOP of the planet naturally being in a 'getting hotter' phase? :eh:

I also heard somewhere that when light hits a big expanse of ice it reflects back out into space, or something :eh: is that relevant :unsure:

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#27 offworlder

offworlder

    pls don't kick offworlders, we can find a place too

  • Islander
  • 5,363 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 03:31 PM

while I continue looking for that Guardian piece on the review of the year 2005 and the warming .... here's an interesting review of the year of living dangerously from the Scotsman, (with stories of wintry cold moving into Scotland on the right-bar)
http://thescotsman.s...m?id=2466592005

~ because it was in the INdependent not the Guardian, you schmuck! ~
:look:
this is a good one, not political, just reviewing "the way it is"
http://news.independ...ticle334925.ece

(hey, I got to 'edit', I'd really hate it if I tried to edit after four days and it wouldn't let me)

Edited by offworlder, 31 December 2005 - 03:42 PM.

"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

#28 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 04:13 PM

Yes, the effects of human induced warming would be on top of the already existing warming trend.
Ice is more reflective than either water or land and so therefore reflects more of the Sun's energy back into space. This means that less of the energy from the Sun in the form of light is absorbed by the planet which in turn means that a planet with more ice will tend to be cooler than one with no Ice caps or glaciers. The more ice the more solar energy is relected back into space without being absorbed by the Earth and therefore more ice tends to mean a cooler planet. Without the ice then more energy from the Sun will be absorbed, tending to warm theplanet even if no other factors are in play.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#29 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 04:18 PM

Quote

Thank you very much Delvo  That was very interesting! So...if I understand right....Global Warming is happening on TOP of the planet naturally being in a 'getting hotter' phase?

Not quite.  Earth doesn't have a "top;" there's no up or down to the solar system or any of the planets.  Climate change, or "warming," unfortunately, isn't  confined to one area of the globe.  The tundra in the Arctic is melting, but Antarctica is warming, too, and calving off huge ice bergs from its mass.  The chemical and other pollutants that are trapped in the atmosphere remain in place whether the planet, or half of it,  is relatively closer to or further from the sun.
Posted Image

#30 Eskaminzim

Eskaminzim

    Head eggs and butt toast

  • Islander
  • 559 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 05:11 PM

I think you misunderstood Sparky Cola, waterpanther.  Substitute "in addition to" for "on top of" and I think you'll get it.

#31 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 08:11 PM

SparkyCola, on Dec 31 2005, 11:44 AM, said:

So...if I understand right....Global Warming is happening on TOP of the planet naturally being in a 'getting hotter' phase? :eh:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If by "global warming" in that sentence, you actually were referring to our modern pollutants increasing the greenhouse effect, then yes, that would be happening in addition to some other causes of the world's increase in temperature.

To be persnickety, though, "global warming" really just means the warming of the globe; making it synonymous with industrial pollution alone is a political tactic. And by that definition, no, global warming isn't a separate thing from a naturally-caused temperature increase; it includes whatever causes there are, natural or otherwise.

SparkyCola, on Dec 31 2005, 11:44 AM, said:

I also heard somewhere that when light hits a big expanse of ice it reflects back out into space, or something :eh: is that relevant :unsure:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Tennyson described how ice and snow reflect more light than other stuff, which you can tell at a glance by looking at the white color. There are also other differences, which you can also usually tell by looking because darker colors absorb light and lighter ones reflect it. For example, bare dirt and rock are generally light-colored and reflect more light than a forest because they're a darker green, which reflects more than an ocean, because that dark blue is just about the darkest thing you'll see on a photograph of the Earth from space. So development of a polar cap not only increases the world's reflectivity by putting more ice and snow out there as Tennyson said, but also increases it elsewhere, where the decreased sea level exposes land in places that would be covered with water otherwise.

In one strange twist, one thing that could actually be holding back global warming a bit is desertification :crazy:, which is the replacement of dark green grasslands and forests with reflective bright yellow sand. Another oddity is that some kinds of pollution could actually be holding global warming back a bit too, by fostering an increased development of clouds, which of course always "replace" (as seen from space) whatever's below them with bright reflective white.

#32 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 09:21 PM

How bizarre! :eek2:

What would you say is the best course of action, seeing as you seem to be in a position of expertise, Delvo? and waterpanther too?

:eh:

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#33 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 09:29 PM

What to do?  Get away from fossil fuel/petroleum-based technology as quickly and as completely as possible.  Meantime, institute stringent pollution controls and reduce usage.  This means developing alternative energy sources such as solar and wind and may mean falling back at least temporarily on nuclear power.  That's got its own set of problems, including the possibility of spectacularly bad accidents--remember Chernobyl--but, at least in my view, the alternative is worse.
Posted Image

#34 Talkie Toaster

Talkie Toaster

    There's no Shepard without Vakarian

  • Islander
  • 1,136 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 09:58 PM

Go the French way! Complete national nuclear program for 100% of your electiricy needs. (Another Chernobyl is unlikely- I don't think anyone is stupid enough to build a any new positive power coefficient reactors).

Water is actually rather good source of renewable energy if you have the suitable geography for it  (like the states). Solar is just rubbish tbh at the moment and wind is insanely overated. Tidal is under researched. Just get some nuke plants in to tide us over until fusion saves us all.
Blessed is the mind too small for doubt.

#35 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 10:08 PM

Solar isn't rubbish if you have the geography for it, and the U. S. does.  Likewise the geography for wind.  Coupled with appropriate structural technologies, it's possible to produce buildings that have radically reduced energy needs, then meet those needs without resorting to either fossil fuels or nuclear generators.  Infrastructure requirements are something else, though I'm seeing highway surveillance cameras on poles equipped with little solar panels, even here in Texas.  It's a technology with expanding uses.   Hydroelectric power requires dams, and dams involve more interference with the environment than either solar or wind energy.

The main problem with nuclear power is disposition of the waste.  I nominate Crawford, Texas for a national storage facility.
Posted Image

#36 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 03:21 AM

Chernobyl was an archiac design based off of a plutonium producing weapons reactor that used graphite as a moderator and had a light aluminium shed as a containment building thus having little in common with the vastly better engineered and maintained reactors built in France, Japan and the rest of the industralized world. If they had maintained even the minimum standards of reactor safety maintained in the rest of the developed world then the accident wouldn't have happened. Modern light water reactors work very well and supply most of France and Japan's energy.
Waste could be dealt with by selective particle beam bombardment to break it down into less massive isotopes or be recycled into more reactor fuel if a facility would be built and not simply thrown away into some containment facility.
Solar is finally hitting the point where it is economical in the US with the right subsidies but unless the market is biased by things like subsidies and new zoning it won't  make enough of a dent in fossil fuels to matter fast enough. Even with the latest crystaline and amorphous silicon solar cells and solar energy concentration mirrors it is still more expensive than even the most expensive fossil fuel.
Wind won't do it alone. There aren't enough good areas for wind power to replace all the US's energy useage alone not to mention the many people who have been fighting wind power plants in thier local areas. Wind will have to be combined with existing nonpolluting technologies such as hydroelectric and low foot print like nuclear while solar, tidal and other energy sources are more fully integrated into the power grid.
Countries like Iceland and Denmark are small enough and have enough unique geographical or geological features to make the transition to nonfossil fuel energy easier than in the US or Canada or any other similar large nation with a large population and varied geography. Iceland has immense stores of geothermal energy that already provide most of its elecricty and heating so the changeover to hydrogen will just mean putting a few key technologies in place of the fossil fuel systems that were just supplements for the geothermal anyway. Denmark has access to tidal, and wind power in adundance, although its cloud cover makes solar less efficient.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#37 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 10:41 AM

waterpanther, on Dec 31 2005, 10:08 PM, said:

Solar isn't rubbish if you have the geography for it, and the U. S. does.  Likewise the geography for wind.
Solar and wind power both have their own problems in terms of not being the perfect solution.  You create massive nightmares by ruining historic viewsheds when you build either of these power generating solutions.  This is why in many locations historic preservationists oppose them.  Having a 200 foot pinwheel spinning in the middle of a important historical district can totally alert the historic view of that area.  The second matter is that wind turbines have a propensity for killing large numbers of birds.  This is currently one of the major concerns with this form of power especially when they often kill predatory birds.  The last bit is that you have to locate wind turbines a large distance away from people in colder climates.  They have issues when it comes to icing and then throwing off massive chunks of ice.  I am not aware of any human fatalities but I do know of several cow deaths.

Now while these issues may be minor in comparison  to fossil fuels they do exist and people need to understand there is no perfect solution.  Myself Iím more of a fan of hydroelectric power.  In a state like New York, we have a huge number of preexisting dams that could be retrofitted with hydroelectric generating capabilities.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#38 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 11:05 AM

Quote

Solar and wind power both have their own problems in terms of not being the perfect solution. You create massive nightmares by ruining historic viewsheds when you build either of these power generating solutions. This is why in many locations historic preservationists oppose them. Having a 200 foot pinwheel spinning in the middle of a important historical district can totally alert the historic view of that area.

I think wind turbines are much prettier than the ugly electricity pylons we have covering the country!

Quote

The second matter is that wind turbines have a propensity for killing large numbers of birds. This is currently one of the major concerns with this form of power especially when they often kill predatory birds. The last bit is that you have to locate wind turbines a large distance away from people in colder climates. They have issues when it comes to icing and then throwing off massive chunks of ice. I am not aware of any human fatalities but I do know of several cow deaths.

That on the other hand is a big problem.

But yeah, in Milton Keynes (MK) (city recently built from scratch practically, nearby) there are some very ugly but very energy efficient buildings - my friend lives in one- it's sort of a cube...with very few windows on some sides and a lot on others, if that makes sense.

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#39 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 11:37 AM

Mind you- birds can evolve to understand and learn how to avoid turbines..

Sparky
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#40 Chakotay

Chakotay

    For gosh sakes let me out of here!

  • Islander
  • 6,657 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 11:44 AM

There's no single solution. Government has to take a lead and push as many options as are viable, even over the protests of local residents who don't want the turbine 'in my backyard'.

The same grants that are available for insulating households ought to be there for adding solar panels to roofs, and without all the planning permissions and disputes about whether it is 'in keeping with the neighborhood'. (I'm on the receiving end of that at present, and could be about to pack up and move if the locals don't get off my case and start practising what they claim to preach)
  No plan survives first contact with the enemy - military axiom.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Climate Change, Science, Weather, Winter in UK, 2006

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users