Global warming.

[Digit]

Of what use would a warning system be?

[Minimalist]

Give you time to plug in your electric blanket?

[Digit]

True Min.
But as usual I'm puzzled by these pronouncements.
If the Earth was a perfect sphere, with no land masses, it would have a belt of water around the equator as the result of centrifugal force. The reason it hasn't is because the Earth is larger in diameter at the equator than across the poles, so that water attempting to move under centrifugal force is running up hill.
The Gulf Stream owes it's existance to solar radiation, the shape of the Earth and its rotation.
Water in the Gulf of Mexico is hotter than the surrounding seas, and due to thermal expansion sits several feet higher than its surroundings, and so flows out of the Gulf. Here it is subject to the Earth's rotation and the fact that it must flow north.
Unless I'm missing something the only way to halt it would be to remove Panama!
Perhaps someone could explain?

[kbs2244]

Oh Boy!
Talk about kicking the stool out from under the idea.
Published by MIT no les.
The hocky stick graph is based plain old bad math.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/

[Minimalist]

The ice caps are still melting.

We may need a drowning polar bear to swim up and bite a mathematician, though.

[Beagle]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

The founder of the Weather Channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud, hoping a legal debate will settle the global-warming debate once and for all.

John Coleman, who founded the cable network in 1982, suggests suing for fraud proponents of global warming, including Al Gore, and companies that sell carbon credits.

"Is he committing financial fraud? That is the question," Coleman said.

"Since we can't get a debate, I thought perhaps if we had a legal challenge and went into a court of law, where it was our scientists and their scientists, and all the legal proceedings with the discovery and all their documents from both sides and scientific testimony from both sides, we could finally get a good solid debate on the issue," Coleman said. "I'm confident that the advocates of 'no significant effect from carbon dioxide' would win the case."

Be this as it may - I think we still need to "go green".

[Digit]

As Min has commented on a number of ocasions in the past Beag there are many good reasons for conserving resourses and cutting pollution that have damn all to do with 'Global Warming.'
'Man made CO2 causing global warming' is suspect in all 3 branches.
Firstly, ice cores have shown that in the past that CO2 levels followed warming trends, not preceded them. This is logical when the main sources of CO2 are held in wetlands and the oceans.
CO2 levels are rising and the planet's temp is falling.
In the past CO2 levels have been higher with the planet cooler than current.
The Eastern ice shelf in Antartica is melting and its seaward flow has increased, theis last happened about 10Kyrs ago, when the volcano below it blew, the volcano is thought to be warming again and research is being carried out to check.
The Western ice shelf is thickening and temps inland have fallen in recent years.
The planet's 'wobble' is decreasing from its earlier maximum, what ever we do the polar regions temps will fall as this proceeds, unless CO2 does turn out to have an effect that might then prevent another norther ice age.
When may I expect the paid doom mongers to start looking at the facts instead of peddling the most profitabel line, profitable in terms of cash value to them I wonder?

[Beagle]

When may I expect the paid doom mongers to start looking at the facts instead of peddling the most profitabel line, profitable in terms of cash value to them I wonder?

They will always be with us, I fear. But this countries dependence on foriegn oil must end. That's the real problem I think.

[Minimalist]

But this countries dependence on foriegn oil must end.

The dependence on oil must end....regardless of the source. Even good ole' home grown American oil costs too much and pollutes too much.

[Beagle]

I know what you're saying Min, and I agree. But we use oil for things other than an energy source. We'll use it for a long time as a lubricant, etc.

I see breaking our addiction to oil as a National Security must do.

[Minimalist]

There's probably enough oil to use as lubrication to last for five centuries. It's oil for fuel that is the problem and it's economic impact far surpasses what goes into our cars.

[Beagle]

Agreed!

[Minimalist]

You know, last October when I was in Greece and Turkey, one thing which was utterly amazing was the proliferation of solar panels and tanks on the roofs of almost all buildings. Our guides pointed out that the government subsidized this investment as a means of reducing oil imports.

It seems to me that such is a better expenditure of government funds than writing tax rebate checks to the oil companies.

[Digit]

The internal combustion engine has been with us for so long that many engineers seem incapable of thinking in terms of other fuels or other forms of propulsion, and our idiots ideas of wind turbines as a major source of power need to stop the gravy train before it reaches Cloud Cuckoo land and get real!

[Digit]

With the appropriate climate Min solar panels can save electricty for water heating, and elswhere heat pumps will do the same. The problem is that advancing technology in the Western world has gone hand in glove with centralised everything.
Over here councils dislike the idea of septic tanks, they would rather massive treatment plants discharging effluent into rivers and seas and the idea of helping with the cost heat pumps for example is not on the horizon.
Our late, unlament Chancellor, offered all sorts of tax reductions for zero emmision homes, they are as likely as finding a T Rex walking down Fith Avenue!
To date nine such houses have been constructed!
God knows what they cost or what maintenance will cost.