Slashdot Mirror
2008 Is the Coldest Year of the 21st Century
dtjohnson writes "Data from the United Kingdom Meteorological Office suggests that 2008 will
be an unusually cold year due to the La Nina effect in the western
Pacific ocean. Not to worry, though, as the La Nina effect has
faded recently so its effect on next year's temperatures will be
reduced. However, another natural cycle, the Atlantic
Multidecadal Oscillation, is predicted to hold global temperatures
steady for the next decade before global warming takes our planet into
new warmth. If these predictions are correct, there must be
a lot of planetary heat being stored away somewhere ... unless the heat
output from the sun
is decreasing
rather than increasing
or the heat being absorbed by the earth is decreasing due to changes in
the earth's albedo."
we're seeing the best ski season since 1992. There are now around 4.5 metres of base snow at Mt Ruapehu http://www.mtruapehu.com/winter/turoa-report/
Those of us who are paranoid about the sun have got some justification for our beliefs. First off, the new solar cycle is somewhat late, depending on who you believe. Secondly, there have been very few sunspots this year. In fact, right now, we have gone 30 days without a single sunspot.
http://www.solarcycle24.com/
Fire up those SUVs and coal plants, little ice age, here we come.
This is my sig.
Even so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.
I hate to point out the obvious, but global warming models do not predict a year over year increase in temperature. Again, from the article:
"The principal thing is to look at the long-term trend," said Dr Kennedy. "2008 will still be significantly above the long-term average. There's been a strong upward trend in the last few decades, and that's the thing to focus on."
I came here for a good argument
Nobody says that climate change isn't happening. The temperature data is fact. It can't be denied any more than it can denied that the sky is blue.
Any serious debate is over whether humans are causing the change, whether it's a problem, and whether we should try doing something about it.
The "problem" is that there are periods in history where it was warmer than it is now, without all of the man-made air pollution.
Maybe not
Both of you are assuming that the Earth's climate has ever been stable, but even if it is stable, who's to say that it's becoming unstable now? We've seen evidence of relatively severe fluctuations in the climate, the ice age for example, which suggest that it's normal for the climate to change. To us it seems significant but when taken in the proper scope it's likely to be business as usual.
Getting people worked up about things nobody can change is simply an ace-in-the-hole for politicians.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Deposed two dictatorships, disarmed one nuclear nation (working on number two), saw Syria out of Lebanon, and joined a nation against a new foreign power. Yeah..... Horrible... Should have bombed a aspirin factory, a Yugo plant, and had foreign commanders set it up so that our troops corpse dragged through the streets. Now that diplomacy!
CO2 content 2x higher than it has ever been in the history of our planet? Where are you pulling this garbage from?
CO2 levels were [b]11x higher[/b] 500 million years ago. 3x as high just 100 million years ago. This is all through proxy measurement, but if it's even remotely accurate then atmospheric CO2 levels today are some of the lowest in the last 500 million years. There's a nice article all about it that you might want to read.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
"Nobody says that climate change isn't happening. The temperature data is fact. It can't be denied any more than it can denied that the sky is blue."
All that temperature data tells us is that temperatures have risen At Thermometers. GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE HAS MOVED ON.
Full plate and packing steel! -Minsc
Yes we do. We've been warming since 1830 as sunspots have increased after the Little Ice Age. For details, see the Svensmark book.
If his solar-driven model is correct, and if Solar Cycle 24 continues its petulant refusal to actually exist, then the entire-20th-C.-warming plunge over the last year and a bit is just a little foretaste and things are about to get very cold indeed.
A 5 to 10 percent decrease in energy use will be offset by population growth in as little as 3-6 years. That the problem with thinking we can inflate our tires out of this as some people think. In case your wondering how an average of a 3% population increase can offset and savings, it is becuse population growth is exponential and not linear. This means that instead of having 9,030,000 more people next year and every year after, we will have to add the 9 million people and take 3% of that. So instead of having 310,030,000+ 9,030,000 in year two, you have 310,030,00+9,300,900, almost 300,000 more.
Your spot on about the third world countries too. There are generally two reasons for this. The first is that a third world citizen uses on average one sixth the energy as a fist world citizen. That means when they improve to first world status, even with a 10% more efficient world, they will increase their energy consumption 5 fold. The second reason for this is actually the Kyoto accords. Out of 150 some or more signatories, only 37 or 38 are capped and have to reduce emissions. This promoted development into those third world countries so the emissions don't count against you when the product is imported. Europe is doing this with China and India where they are increasingly relying on imports instead of opening or using their existing facilities. As a matter of fact, you can look at the percentage of increase in Chinese imports in say england and the increase is about 5 times as much as the US or any other country not signed onto Kyoto.
Anyways, this off shoring their way into compliance is actually raising the living standards of third world countries faster then their own sets of circumstances would allow. This thereby increases the amounts of energy they use in a greater portion then the population growth. So yes, we are being taken to task on all sides of the demand issue.
I personally don't know why our leaders can't get their thumbs out of their asses and do both, get more fuels as well as make things more efficient and less energy intensive. It's pretty horrid that that congress went on vacation when people wanted to discuss this issue and get something done about it. I understand that the republicans were showboating their commitment by staying in Washington and giving speeches to anyone who entered congress over the needs to do something sooner then later. But the gas prices weren't this high when they were in control and they were the ones wanting to do something about it when the dems decided a vacation was more important at the same time people where spending their mortgage payments on gas to get to work.
I say damn it all, take both sides positions and put them into effect all at once. It is like the big plan Kerry had for winning in Iraq that he refused to tell anyone about after he lost the election. If it is so damn good, then why waste it when your side doesn't win. Use it and for once, be about the country and the people in it instead of you and your parties success. Most races bring up good ideas and suggestions on both sides. It is time to stop using them for political advantage and just do what's good for America.
Setting aside the fact that basically all oceans are outside national borders -- why they're called international waters
Yes, setting that aside.... uhm... because "international waters" begin 200 nautical miles offshore.....
have you heard of Enron and power "deregulation" in California a few years back.
Yeah, you can sell power to other states at market rates... neato.
In addition, are you aware of how large the US is? Do you know of any power lines that stretch over 1,000 miles between a power station and a home? The prices may be regulated, but electrical loss and electrical resistance do not give a rat's ass about in-state vs. out-of-state vs. international.
It is impossible to be more than about 1500 miles from a coast anywhere in the United States.
HVDC transmission lines remain economical, in terms of electrical losses, to a distance of about 4,000-6,000 miles. The longest currently operating singe transmission lines in the world are around 1,200 miles. Losses are not zero, but for the most part are relatively negligible.
I find this particularly ironic, seeing how you just blatantly misused any number of diciplines from electrical engineering to physics to geography AND probably economics and politics. America!! Fuck Yeah!!
Not all "nukes" are trying to replicate Chernobyl contrary to popular belief, and I don't see us running out of thorium anytime soon.
While thorium has slightly less transuranic byproducts, it still produces a number of radioactive wastes. I'll also point out this quote from the article you cited:
"This is a market economy so the economics will have to be in favor for thorium to move that way," said Kazimi. "It could take another 50 years for us to reach the level where uranium prices are so high that thorium looks attractive."
Bottom line: too many people. Conserve all you want, and I applaud you for doing so; however, unless we can reduce our population substantially, even the most efficient home times a few billion is more than wind and solar -- and maybe even nuclear -- can bear.
While I agree about overpopulation, electricity is NOT the reason for this problem, food is. The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will EVER be obtained from the all of earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas and fissionable elements combined.
Simply put, roofing houses with high efficiency solar cells would solve most of our issues. Areas of low sunlight coverage (which are ironically, mostly coastal) can rely on a lot of other things, such as hydro, geothermal or tidal resources.
Non-renewable fuels (Thorium included) are awfully nice short-term solutions, but are... by definition, non-renewable. They also have byproducts (even if they are slightly less noxious than what we currently use).
I don't see a huge number of people in the US putting up quite the same effort in staying childless, but I guess that's just a little too much to ask.
You DO REALIZE that in the United States, Canada, Europe, and much of Asia, the birth rate is below the replacement rate ? You knew that, right??? Or is that one of those "lazy social science" things?
Being smug and condescending is fun.
But you really sound like an idiot when almost every smug and condescending statement you make is factually incorrect.
already sitting there burning at the same rate underground right now
You clearly don't understand nuclear physics.
Thorium natural isotope has a half-life 13 billion years (yes, 13 billion).
Uranium's natural isotope has a half-life of 4.4 billion years.
Neither are "burning up underground".
Most fuel is created by modifying it to create less stable isotopes. Then, when you put a big pile of it together (and/or bombard it with particles, as in the previous article), it creates a chain-reaction that triggers rapid fission. This is VERY different than half-life decay.
You do, indeed, "burn" it up. I'm not arguing against nuclear power, but just pointing out that your post is pretty much 100% entirely made up gibberish .
Do keep in mind, that ordering a city evacuation late is normal...you don't usually know till that far out where the storm will hit. And you get so many scares along the coast, that you can just flinch everytime a storm is out in the Gulf 48-72 hours away from landfall anywhere.
But that being said...my experience with Katrina was (and let me preface this by saying "I" historically have split town 48+ hours early when any storm got close)...sitting in a bar on Friday afternoon-evening watching Katrina as a small possibly Cat 1 storm tops hugging the west coast of FL. I was awakened Sat. morning about 9am with people asking what I was going to do...I asked "do about what?". Then turned on the news, and saw that overnight, the storm somehow had moved VERY rapidly across the Gulf to threaten us at Cat. 5 strength.
I heard on tv while packing and trying to get ready to leave...the Mayor and most all officials saying to leave town, and leave now. To me, that is more than official enough.
I left town to Slidell, met up with friends and hit the road east about 5am Sunday morning.
That's how much notice we had...
But anyway, please don't think that "Oh, they knew 3-4 days in advance that the hurricane was coming". It wasn't that way, and it is never that way.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........