Consensus Grows On Climate Change

When a country, a continent, or a hemisphere enters a new weather cycle most of us would expect that most things were out of kilter. That's what happened when Greenland's settlements and farms froze in the mid 1300s and went extinct.
Which is normal, bitter cold or more temperaturate conditions like Greenland used to be? We may have to warm a bit more before normal comes back again.
Remember whatever happened yesterday doesn't necessiarily make yesterday normal. What kind of science is that?

The overcutting of our forests, the lungs of the planet, cannot be good for the consumption of C02.

Paul Ng predicted for the weather in the year of the dog that:

1. there will be lots of wind, flooding and thunderstorms.
2. very warm worldwide
3. earthquakes and volcanoes especially in the west and central parts of continents, such as California, western Japan, central China, western Ontario, Hawaii, and then he says etc.(?)
4. Forest fires can spread easily in North-Western parts of continents.

Ontario just had an earthquake didn't they? Hmmmm


---
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." Friedrich Nietzsche

"3. earthquakes and volcanoes especially in the west and central parts of continents, such as California, western Japan, central China, western Ontario, Hawaii, and then he says etc.(?)"

Yea, I'd put the (?) at the end of that too. Those are not weather related or regulated. Volcanoes form where outflows of the Earth's crust lie, and earthquakes where the plates meet. I'd say those were more heavily influenced by the gravitational forces of the Moon than Global Warming.


---
"I think it's important to always carry enough technology to restart civilization, should it be necessary." Mark Tilden

It is more than clear that Global Warming is a direct cause of our anthropological activities and our over-production/consumption. So what are we doin about it? Nothing very significative if you want to know.

The worst part is that the scientific community are closed to novel ideas that could help and even save humanity.It is also clear that the corporate entity wants to make tons of monies on the destruction of our world. How stupid do they have to be to profit from death and destruction? Obviously they are that that stupid because they will die too and there won't be anyone left for them to rule over.

I have been working hard to get an idea through that could actually save all of us. Of course we need to get our act together and clean this place and our way of life as humanity but I have a solution that would give us the time that we need to achieve this. But no body will listen.

So, let us all live in our little shell and die in our little shell.

I'd say consensus has been around in the scientific community for a while now. Unfortunately we are too late. I've always thought only a large scale climatic event that kills thousands of people in one of the western democracy's will result in action. This warning to humanity by 1700 scientists in 1992 is worth remembering. <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/1992-world-scientists-warning-to-humanity.html</a><br />
<br />
<br />
“The worst part is that the scientific community are closed to novel ideas that could help and even save humanity.It is also clear that the corporate entity wants to make tons of monies on the destruction of our world.” <br />
<br />
I am in toal agreement with you RayB. Several inventions throughout the 20th century, from Tesla to the present, could have replaced or offset our power requirements but they have been blocked through ignorance and/or greed. There are more now then ever, but try to get one marketed. I should state that I'm an optimist but we are too late on the energy front as well. Imagine if we had cheap clean power. People in cold climates could grow food in greenhouses all year. Developing countries could rapidly develop their economies, and that's one reason for the suppression. Geopolitics; a more even playing field is not acceptable.<br />
<br />
I'm still hopeful though.<br />
<br />
Mike

Scientific community is a broad term, RayB. Every Scientist has own mind. <br />
And since the early 1980 many scientists have been telling what could happen. <br />
The part of Scientific community that does not want to help are the traitors (bribed by politicians mostly), or ignorant ones, or stubborn.<br />
BTW, the conditions in Earth<br />
system are completely different from past. Man introduced thousands of synthetic compunds, changing the planet chemistry. This means, thermodynamically, that many non-desirable effects are taking and will be taking place.<br />
Whoever has ideas that can be applied to stop all this, has to contact serious and worried scientists.<br />
For example, the blog <a href="http://www.realclimate.org">www.realclimate.org</a> is an excelent site to learn and to be heard by many concerned scientists.<br />
Regards

There's some good info on the growth of renewable energy here: <a href="http://resistandrebuild.blogspot.com/">http://resistandrebuild.blogspot.com/</a><br />
<br />
Check it out

In south-western Ontario a substantial wind mill park is presently being built, consisting of wind turbines capable of generation to 1.8 MW each. The ones I am familiar with are located near the eastern shore of Lake Huron, just north of Goderich. They are visible on the east side of hwy 21 which runs north/south.

These things are BIG: 3-bladed rotors to 100 ft in dia., round, tapered towers 250 ft (estimated) high. Pretty impressive. I haven't seen an economic study of their commercial viability. Do they require subsidising by goverments?

The economic viability of the entire "renewable" power system, especially wind and voltaics, bothers me.

Consider: The electric energy produced by the requisite equipment cannot be cheap. Commercial solar panels are advertised at CDN$80.00 for 15 watts. In large quantities a lot cheaper, but how much? During June/July these panels produce power for, say, 12 hours per day. During winter months a lot less.

Wind mills are suceptible to ice damage and fatigue failure. And, no wind, no power.

Which means conventional power plants have to be available to produce power when renewables can't, at least not reliably, say during Jan/Feb/March.

All this capital plant has to be available, and paid for, even when not producing power for the electrical grid, ie. when renewables are "doing their thing". Granted that fueling costs would be greatly reduced during the "free energy" production period.

The end result, in my opinion, is higher cost electric power.

Any opinions or operating experiences on this?

H.F. Wolff

"Ontario just had an earthquake didn't they? Hmmmm"

Earth quakes in the Ottawa area of Eastern Ontario are very common, occurring on a weekly basis practically.

The large majority of these are quite small but noticable if you watch out for them: dishes/glasses rattling or clinking gently, furniture sqeaking, etc.

Montreal in Western Quebec can get earth quakes which, to the uninitiated like me can be most disconcerting! Experienced one 20 years ago or so, 5.4 on the Richter scale, lasting 20 - 25 seconds. A life time if you are not used to it. Very minimal damage to the city or environment, but people were talking.

Northern Quebec in the areas of the huge hydro-electric dams has extensive earth quakes. Theory has it that the large and deep reservoirs raise the centre of gravity of the earth's surface sufficiently to cause local settlement.

These new lakes also cause mercury pollution in the rivers flowing from these lakes.

H.F. Wolff

<p>Do they <i>require</i> government subsidies? Not being familiar with Ontarian energy policy, I can’t say. Here in the States, energy industries receive subsidies at least through favourable federal tax treatment, if not through generous federal land lease deals — not to mention the general lack of liability for the side-effects of typical smokestack emissions. I’d imagine that deals are further sweetened at the state government level for states where energy extraction/production play a larger-than-average rôle (e.g. Alaska and oil, West Virginia and coal). Should a playing field ever be leveled for <i>all</i> energy sources, then perhaps a fair price comparison would be possible.</p> <p>Since the cost of residential electricity in Germany and Denmark is on the order of 25–35¢/kW·hour, it’s not surprising that wind energy and solar energy are being pursued more vigourously there than here in North America. (I pay about 14 US¢/kW·hour, which itself would seem to be rather pricy from an Ontarian perspective.)</p><p>---<br>Shatter your ideals upon the rock of Truth.<br />
<br />
— The Divine Symphony, by Inayat Khan<br />