Global warming crowd takes a break

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

pretty much.

Bottom line...the planet has been around for a long time. The planet looks after itself. The forces acting on the planet are so ancient, strong, and so outside of our control, that it is arrogant and narcissistic of us to think we actually matter that much. The universe has cast aside most life on this planet a few times before without batting an eye, and started anew. This is no different.

This is all a blink of the eye, of the infinity that is time itself. We are insignificant. The planet does not need looking after.

We need to look after ourselves.

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Fact is we never ever had this composition of the atmosphere (regarding greenhouse gases) in the history of the earth before. So again, no one is at this point able to predict any consequences of a climate change for mankind. We may adapt or we may not, neither me, you, Al Gore, the consensus nor the opposition knows anything. Only one is crystal clear, the earth (nature) at itself will adapt to everything, but that a species (here I don´t necessarily mean mankind) disappears from planet earth would be nothing new.

but we are responsible for our doing

Because human activities are contributing to and accelerating climate change, we have a collective responsibility to develop and undertake carefully considered response actions. The fundamental challenge is to manage the risk represented by climate change in the larger context of overall societal issues and environmental stresses. Development of effective strategies requires a holistic approach, in which the natural and social sciences, in tandem with technology and engineering, proceed side by side in a broad multidisciplinary effort. Broadly acceptable response strategies must rest on a rational scientific and technological foundation. Caution is required in adopting response strategies to assure that the total effect will not create an unacceptable environment and/or societal legacy. Given the complexity and uncertainties surrounding the scientific and societal issues involved in climate change, we should consider a research agenda applied in a parallel approach to 1) increase scientific understanding (leading to better characterization and reduction of scientific uncertainty) and inform mitigation policy deliberations, and 2) provide answers to "if . . . then" questions involving potential technological measures and/or adaptive strategies applied to reduce environmental and societal vulnerability.

The federal agencies involved in the broad areas of environmental science, technology, and policy are now organized under a presidential initiative that mandates cooperative activities in climate change research and climate change technology (U.S. Climate Change Science Program 2002).

Recognizing the increasing ability of engineering to provide powerful solutions, but at the same time recognizing the risk of unintended social and/or environmental consequences, the National Academy of Engineering is leading an "Earth system engineering" approach to the problem, which brings tools from engineering and the physical and social sciences. The atmospheric and related sciences have a central role to play in providing scientific information needed to inform and evaluate many aspects of proposed response strategies.

Extensive multidisciplinary research is needed to narrow the many formidable knowledge gaps. The AMS's annual Global Change and Climate Variations Symposium provides a mechanism for the communication of research results, needs, and future directions to the physical, chemical, biological, and social scientists and their students involved in global change research. The AMS Policy Program serves to inform and interact with the public and local, state, and federal decision makers on issues related to the science of climate change and its social and economic impacts. The atmospheric and related oceanographic and hydrologic sciences represented in the AMS are central to this multidisciplinary effort. Consequently, climate change research can be expected to occupy a prominent place in these sciences for the foreseeable future.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

And to the discussion about a stopped warming trend:

Letter

Nature 453, 84-88 (1 May 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06921; Received 25 June 2007; Accepted 14 March 2008; Corrected 8 May 2008

Advancing decadal-scale climate prediction in the North Atlantic sector

N. S. Keenlyside1, M. Latif1, J. Jungclaus2, L. Kornblueh2 & E. Roeckner2

1. Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, Düsternbrooker Weg 20, D-24105 Kiel, Germany
2. Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstrae 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany

Correspondence to: N. S. Keenlyside1 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to N.S.K. (Email: nkeenlyside@ifm-geomar.de.).


The climate of the North Atlantic region exhibits fluctuations on decadal timescales that have large societal consequences. Prominent examples include hurricane activity in the Atlantic1, and surface-temperature and rainfall variations over North America2, Europe3 and northern Africa4. Although these multidecadal variations are potentially predictable if the current state of the ocean is known5, 6, 7, the lack of subsurface ocean observations8 that constrain this state has been a limiting factor for realizing the full skill potential of such predictions9. Here we apply a simple approach—that uses only sea surface temperature (SST) observations—to partly overcome this difficulty and perform retrospective decadal predictions with a climate model. Skill is improved significantly relative to predictions made with incomplete knowledge of the ocean state10, particularly in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific oceans. Thus these results point towards the possibility of routine decadal climate predictions. Using this method, and by considering both internal natural climate variations and projected future anthropogenic forcing, we make the following forecast: over the next decade, the current Atlantic meridional overturning circulation will weaken to its long-term mean; moreover, North Atlantic SST and European and North American surface temperatures will cool slightly, whereas tropical Pacific SST will remain almost unchanged. Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

Link

Will global warming take a short break?
- Improved climate predictions suggest a reduced warming trend during the next 10 years -

During the last decades, temperature maxima were regularly broken. A new study to be published May 1st in the international science magazine “Nature” suggests that a reprieve may be expected over the next decade, as natural climate variations may temporarily offset the long-term warming trend. This result was obtained by researchers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel and the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Meteorology in Hamburg.

To date climate change projections, as published in the last IPCC report, only considered changes in future atmospheric composition. This strategy is appropriate for long-term changes in climate such as predictions for the end of the century. However, in order to predict short-term developments over the next decade, models need additional information on natural climate variations, in particular associated with ocean currents. Lack of sufficient data has hampered such predictions in the past. Scientists at IFM-GEOMAR and from the MPI for Meteorology have developed a method to derive ocean currents from measurements of sea surface temperature (SST). The latter are available in good quality and global coverage at least for the past 50 years. With this additional information, natural decadal climate variations, which are superimposed on the long-term anthropogenic warming trend, can be predicted.

The improved predictions suggest that global warming will weaken slightly during the following 10 years.

“Just to make things clear: we are not stating that anthropogenic climate change won’t be as bad as previously thought”, explains Prof. Mojib Latif from IFM-GEOMAR. “What we are saying is that on top of the warming trend there is a long-periodic oscillation that will probably lead to a to a lower temperature increase than we would expect from the current trend during the next years”, adds Latif. “That is like driving from the coast to a mountainous area and crossing some hills and valleys before you reach the top”, explains Dr. Johann Jungclaus from the MPI for Meteorology. “In some years trends of both phenomena, the anthropogenic climate change and the natural decadal variation will add leading to a much stronger temperature rise.”

Emmy-Noether1 fellow and lead author Dr. Noel Keenlyside from IFM-GEOMAR continues: “In addition to the greenhouse gas concentrations we are using observed SST’s of the past decades in our climate model simulations, a method which has already successfully been applied for seasonal predictions and El Niño forecasting. The SST’s influence the winds and the heat exchange between ocean and atmosphere, and both factors impact ocean currents. The results are very encouraging and show that at least for some regions around the world, it is possible to predict natural climate oscillations on decadal time scale. Europe and North America are two such regions because they are influenced by the North Atlantic and Tropical Pacific, respectively.”

Decadal climate precitions are not weather forecasts, as Prof. Latif expands upon: “Such forecasts will not enable us to tell you whether or not we will have a white Christmas in 2012 in northern Germany, but we will be able to provide a tendency as to whether or not some decades will be warmer or cooler than average. Of course, always with the assumption that no other unforeseen effects such as volcanic eruptions occur, which can have a substantial effect on our climate as well”, summarizes Prof. Latif.


Observed global mean temperature (annual mean and smoothed) shows variations on multi-decadal time scales. From Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, UK.



Observed and projected global mean temperature change according to different szenarios (after IPCC, 2007). In these szenarios no ocean observations as suggested in this paper were used.



Initialised retrospective predictions/forecasts (green) for global mean temperature, compared with observations and predictions not initialised using ocean observations and made using only radiative forcing. Decadal means are shown; error bars indicate the spread of the three ensemble predictions.


More information:

Science Paper:

Keenlyside, N. S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh, and E. Roeckner, 2008: Advancing Decadal-Scale Climate Prediction in the North Atlantic Sector. Nature, 453, 84-88.

1Emmy Noether Programme

The Emmy Noether Programme supports young researchers in achieving independence at an early stage of their scientific careers. Young postdocs gain the qualifications required for a university teaching career during a DFG-funded period, usually lasting five years, in which they lead their own Independent Junior Research Group.

Link

The prediction is: Constant temperatures till 2014 (and in Northern and Middle Europe, probably a slight decrease of about 0,1 C°) and after this a strong increase. The same result has been determined by another climate simulation from the British "Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research".

Link

[DirkFTW]

Colbert vs. Sierra Club.

HAHA! Money!!!! So many laugh out loud moments

[DirkFTW]

Could US scientist's 'CO2 catcher' help to slow warming?
David Adam in New York
The Guardian,
Saturday May 31 2008



It has long been the holy grail for those who believe that technology can save us from catastrophic climate change: a device that can "suck" carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air, reducing the warming effect of the billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas produced each year.

Now a group of US scientists say they have made a breakthrough towards creating such a machine. Led by Klaus Lackner, a physicist at Columbia University in New York, they plan to build and demonstrate a prototype within two years that could economically capture a tonne of CO2 a day from the air, about the same per passenger as a flight from London to New York.

The prototype so-called scrubber will be small enough to fit inside a shipping container. Lackner estimates it will initially cost around £100,000 to build, but the carbon cost of making each device would be "small potatoes" compared with the amount each would capture, he said.

The scientists stress their invention is not a magic bullet to solve climate change. It would take millions of the devices to soak up the world's carbon emissions, and the CO2 trapped would still need to be disposed of. But the team says the technology may be the best way to avert dangerous temperature rises, as fossil fuel use is predicted to increase sharply in coming decades despite international efforts. Climate experts at a monitoring station in Hawaii this month reported CO2 levels in the atmosphere have reached a record 387 parts per million (ppm) - 40% higher than before the industrial revolution.

The quest for a machine that could reverse the trend by "scrubbing" carbon from the air is seen as one of the greatest challenges in climate science. Richard Branson has promised $25m (£12.6m) to anyone who succeeds.

Lackner told the Guardian: "I wouldn't write across the front page that the problem is solved, but this will help. We are in a hurry to deal with climate change and will be very hard pressed to stop the train before we get to 450ppm [CO2 in the atmosphere]. This can help stop the train."

He added: "Our project has reached the stage where it is quite clear we can do it. We need to start dealing with all these emissions. I'd rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway."

Scientists have been sceptical about air capture devices for carbon because of the large amounts of energy they consume. Although it is relatively easy to find chemicals that absorb CO2, it is harder to then strip the gas from the so-called sorbent for reuse. A detailed report on carbon capture from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2005 effectively dismissed the air capture as unworkable.

Lackner's team says it has made a significant breakthrough that massively reduces the amount of energy required to recharge the sorbent. It is reluctant to discuss details, but a US patent application obtained by the Guardian shows that it is based on changes in humidity.

The team says it can trap the CO2 from air on absorbent plastic sheets called ion exchange membranes, commonly used to purify water. Crucially, it has discovered that humid air can then make the membranes "exhale" their trapped CO2. The discovery was "some serendipity and some working out," Lackner said. "When I saw it the first time, I didn't believe it."

The team is working to build a prototype at a laboratory in Tuscon, Arizona. Run by a company called Global Research Technologies (GRT), of which Lackner is vice president of research, the laboratory unveiled a "pre-prototype" air capture machine last year, based on a different technique -rinsing trapped CO2 off the membrane with liquid sodium carbonate, and then using electricity to liberate the CO2 from the fluid.

Lackner says that device works, but the "humidity switch" could slash the scrubber's energy use tenfold. He said: "We can do it coming out carbon positive."

The team is also working on ways to dispose of the pure CO2 gas produced by each scrubber.

The patent suggests the scrubber could be connected to greenhouses, where the CO2 would boost plant growth. Or the gas could be used to grow algae, for food, fertiliser or fuel. The latter could "close the carbon loop," Lackner said.

The discovery could make the team eligible for the $25m Virgin Earth Challenge, which has pledged the money to the inventor of a way to remove a billion tonnes of CO2 from the atmosphere each year, though Lackner said he had not contacted Branson.

Wallace Broecker, the distinguished environmental scientist at Columbia University who helped Lackner set up GRT, said the air scrubber could be only way to tackle climate change.

He said Lackner was "one of the smartest guys on the planet". Broecker introduced the late Gary Comer, a billionaire entrepreneur, to Lackner and Allen Wright, an engineer who runs GRT, helped by his brother Burt. Broecker said that the Wright brothers helped to cause this problem and "now the Wright brothers are going to fix it".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen....climatechange

[ribosoma]

"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill...All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

- Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider of The Club of Rome, from their document 'The First Global Revolution'

The plan to use a "global environmental catastrophe" to further an agenda of globalization was hashed out decades ago. Their plan to divide the world into 10 super-states is rolling along, but the people aren't unified quite yet. This new movement would act as a new religion for those who had lost faith in the organized religions of the world. Like the CFR, the Club of Rome is an NGO thinktank who pretty much gets whatever they ask for. Before those of you who will soon "Rock Da Vote, Yo!!!" think that some puppet actor (Socialist or cadaver) will do anything but further this agenda, you might want to read up on groups like the RAND Corporation, the CFR, UNESCO, the Trilateral Commission, the Tavistock Institute, or the Committee of 300, known as "the Olympians" by heads of state due to their God-like power and influence.

From a hard-science perspective, as temperatures increase due to entering a new solar maximus, more CO2 is released through increased decomposition of plant and animal matter. Only 0.117% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human technology. So, if humans ceased all technological activity, we would still see 99.883% of carbon dioxide remain in the atmosphere. Perhaps we need to consult with sea algae and ask it to cease decomposition so it leaves less of a "carbon footprint." Global warming is caused by, get this, the SUN! Go figure. The entire solar system is heating up, as well, which would seem to indicate that this "horrible problem" is naturally occurring and cyclical.

It would be great if those who see this scam for what it is would look in to other areas of their worldview that are held up by superstition and faith. It seems that the greatest threat to humanity is flawed ideas and beliefs. These ideas are used to fragment us so we are more easily governed.


Here are some other quotes of interest from the people who own you and your politicians:

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, patron of the World Wildlife Fund


"Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

- David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club


"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."

- Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports


"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true."

- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace


"We've got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy."

- Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation


"Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself."

- UN Commission on Global Governance


"In 1931, when Brave New World was being written, I was convinced that there was still plenty of time. The completely organized society, the scientific caste system, the abolition of free will by methodical conditioning, the servitude made acceptable by regular doses of chemically induced happiness, the orthodoxies drummed in by nightly courses of sleep-teaching - these things were coming all right, but not in my time, not even in the time of my grandchildren....Twenty-seven years later,...I feel a good deal less optimistic... In the West,...individual men and women still enjoy a large measure of freedom. But...this freedom and even the desire for this freedom seem to be on the wane."

- Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited 1958



I found this tidbit quite interesting:

1951 - July 31: The Chicago Tribune publishes an article, "OWI (office of war information) Propaganda machine Linked to Rhodes (Rhodes scholars) Men," stating: "Those who absorbed the Elmer Davis(Rhodes scholar and head of OWI), Office of War Information training have pushed the British concept of policing the world with American soldiers and economic aid and have fought for a world federation under which the United States would surrender its sovereignty." About 40 years later, American soldiers will be stationed in many nations around the world as part of UN peacekeeping missions.

And for the kiddies who enjoy the banter associated with the belief that we live in a Democracy:

1996 - May 11 Journalist Joan Veon interviews David C. Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World (1995) and former Ford Foundation project specialist in Manila. In this interview, Korten claims that: "the World Trade Organization is creating a world government in which one organization which is totally unelected, wholly secretive....with the power to virtually override all local or national laws if those in any way inconvenience global corporations....It was a terrible shock (to those of us who supported Bill Clinton) when Clinton came in and GATT and NAFTA became the centerpieces of his policy....And in a sense, there was almost a seamless transition from President Bush to President Clinton in that regard....Our democracy has been rendered meaningless by big money. The truth is there are politicians (who) are owned lock, stock and barrel by the big money interests....Our elections create, to some extent, a facade of choice."





With love from your favorite Leftist Pinko Elitist Organic Gardening Artist,

XOXOXO

[dude1394]

I believe that this discussion is over. The scale of coal-fired electricity generation isn't going to subside no matter how many movies or nobel prizes AlGore wins. People need energy to improve their lives and they are going to get it.

As dubya said, the only way to solve this baby is technologically. Better get on it.

http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapun...es2/022201.php

PETER HUBER LOOKS behind the carbon curtain:

To judge by actions, not words, the carbon-warming view hasn't come close to persuading a political majority even in nations considered far more environmentally enlightened than China and India. Europe's coal consumption is rising, not falling, and the Continent won't come close to meeting the Kyoto targets for carbon reduction. Australia is selling coal to all comers.

On the far side of the environmental curtain China already mines and burns more coal than any other country. Together, China and India control more than one-fifth of the planet's vast coal reserves. Dar predicts--very plausibly, in my view--that the two countries may fire up a new coal plant as often as once a week for the next 25 years, adding about twice as much coal-fired generating capacity as the U.S. has today. Persian Gulf states are planning significant coal imports, because coal generates much cheaper electricity than oil or gas.

In developing countries the political survival of the people at the top depends on providing affordable fuel for kitchens, farms, fertilizer plants, steel mills, highways and power plants. Oil and coal are the only practical fuels at hand.

Read the whole thing.

[DirkFTW]

Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet



EARTH—Former vice president Al Gore—who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save—launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.

"I tried to warn them, but the Elders of this planet would not listen," said Gore, who in 2000 was nearly banished to a featureless realm of nonexistence for promoting his unpopular message. "They called me foolish and laughed at my predictions. Yet even now, the Midwest is flooded, the ice caps are melting, and the cities are rocked with tremors, just as I foretold. Fools! Why didn't they heed me before it was too late?"

Al Gore—or, as he is known in his own language, Gore-Al—placed his son, Kal-Al, gently in the one-passenger rocket ship, his brow furrowed by the great weight he carried in preserving the sole survivor of humanity's hubristic folly.

"There is nothing left now but to ensure that my infant son does not meet the same fate as the rest of my doomed race," Gore said. "I will send him to a new planet, where he will, I hope, be raised by simple but kindly country folk and grow up to be a hero and protector to his adopted home."

As the rocket soared through the Gore estate's retractable solar-paneled roof—installed three years ago to save energy and provide emergency rocket-launch capability in the event that Gore's campaign to save Earth was unsuccessful—the onetime presidential candidate and his wife, Tipper, stood arm-in-arm, nobly facing their end while gazing up in stoic dignity at the receding rocket, the ecosystem already beginning to collapse around them.

In the final moments before the Earth's destruction, Gore expressed hope that his son would one day grow up to carry on his mission by fighting for truth, justice, and the American way elsewhere in the universe, using his Earth-given superpowers to become a champion of the downtrodden and a reducer of carbon emissions across the galaxy.

"Perhaps he will succeed where I have failed," Gore said.

Despite the child's humble beginnings, experts predict the intergalactic journey may have some extraordinary effects on Kal-Al's physique, eyesight, and, potentially, his powers of quiet, sensible persuasion.

"On his new planet, Kal-Al's Earth physiology will react to the radiation of a differently colored sun, causing him to develop abilities far beyond those of mortal men," political analyst Sig Schuster said. "He will be faster than a speeding Prius, stronger than the existing Superfund program, and able to leap mountains of red tape in a single bound. These superpowers will sustain him in his never-ending battle against conservatives, wealthy industrialists, and other environmental supervillains."

Although Gore and his wife voiced regrets that they could not accompany their son on his journey, they tried their best to equip Kal-Al for life on his new planet, providing the infant with a Keynote slide-show presentation of all human knowledge, a self-growing crystal fortress from which to monitor glacier shrinkage, and a copy of Al Gore's 1992 bestseller, Earth In The Balance.

The baby was also wrapped in a blanket emblazoned with the Gore family crest, which, because it is made of Earth materials, will be invulnerable on the new planet. It is hoped that one day it will be fashioned into a colorful costume for the boy to wear while fighting wrongdoers.

"In brightly hued tights, it will be harder for people there to ignore him when he takes on his new planet's lobbyists, auto manufacturers, and enemies of justice," Schuster said. "A bold and eye-catching unitard will give Kal-Al, last son of Earth, a formidable tool for protecting his new planet, a power more awesome than any his father could have dreamed of: the power of charisma."

Link

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Finally I have a solution for all our energy problems:

NASA Reports That Methane Drizzles on Saturn's Moon, Titan

Liquid methane drizzles on the surface of Titan, a moon of Saturn, according to a paper by NASA and university scientists that appears in today's issue of the journal, Nature.

Data from the European Space Agency's Huygens probe indicates there is a lower, barely visible, liquid methane-nitrogen cloud that drops rain to the surface of Titan, reported a team of scientists from universities, an observatory and NASA. The probe collected the data on January 14, 2005, when it approached and landed on Titan.

"The rain on Titan is just a slight drizzle, but it rains all the time, day in, day out. It makes the ground wet and muddy with liquid methane. This is why the Huygens probe landed with a splat. It landed in methane mud," said Christopher McKay, a scientist at NASA Ames Research Center in California's Silicon Valley and second author of the study. The principal author is Tetsuya Tokano from the University of Cologne, Germany.

On Titan, the clouds and rain are formed of liquid methane. On Earth, methane is a flammable gas, but Titan has no oxygen in its atmosphere that could support combustion. Also, the temperatures on Titan are so cold -- minus 300 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 149 degrees Celsius) -- that the methane can form liquid. Titan's landscape includes fluvial, river-like features that may well be formed by methane rain, scientists noted.

A gap separates the liquid methane cloud -- the source of the rain -- from a higher, upper methane ice cloud, according to the scientific study. Scientists say the downward flow of methane due to the rain is balanced by upward transport of methane gas by large-scale atmospheric circulation.

According to scientists, the rain comes from thin clouds of methane. The upper clouds are methane ice, and the lower clouds are liquid and composed of a combination of methane and nitrogen. Computer models indicate these thin liquid methane clouds cover about half of Titan, even though methane abundance on the moon decreases with latitude, the team reported.

"We determined that the rain on Titan is equal to about two inches (about 5 centimeters) a year," McKay said. "This is about as much rain as Death Valley (receives). The difference is (that) on Titan, this rain is spread out evenly over the entire year."

The scientists reported that erosion potential from the very light methane drizzle may be quite limited, but at least would be sufficient to wet the surface material, and may explain its generally wet character.

In addition to McKay the other co-authors of the scientific paper include Fritz Neubauer, of the University of Cologne; Sushil Atreya, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Francesca Ferri, University of Padova, Italy; Marcello Fulchignoni, of both the Paris Observatory and the University of Denis Diderot, Paris; and Hasso Niemann, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

More information about the Huygens mission to Titan can be found at on the Internet at:

http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/huygens-mission.cfm

More information about scientist Christopher McKay can be found at:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2006/mckay.html

More information about NASA can be found at:

http://www.nasa.gov

Link

We only have to find a way, to build a pipeline to Titan...

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Dr.Zoidberg

Finally I have a solution for all our energy problems:We only have to find a way, to build a pipeline to Titan...

Methane off of a Jupiter moon?? Zoidberg, you should stick to medicine and leave the energy problems to us engineers:

BEHOLD... THE METHANIZER2000!



Ancillary benefits:
1. Tackles World Hunger
2. Tackles Unemployment
3. Can be used to turn otherwise unproductive felons into productive members of society
4. Avoids dilemma of corn ethanol where it takes enough corn to feed a grown man for one year to fill up one car... Feed the man and fill up the car!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

LOL

[rabbitproof]

[wmbwinn]

http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2...mo_code=67A6-1

No one opposing drilling for oil should be re-elected...

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

http://video.newsmax.com/?assetId=V2...mo_code=67A6-1

No one opposing drilling for oil should be re-elected...

Damn straight.

I expect we'll see lots of democrats with changed attitudes when they get back from listening to their constituents and seeing polls. They are politicians after all.

Pelosi will get railroaded I expect. Hopefully she can continue to block it, it will bode well for Mac and the republicans. Unserious people shouldn't be in power.

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn straight.

I expect we'll see lots of democrats with changed attitudes when they get back from listening to their constituents and seeing polls. They are politicians after all.

Pelosi will get railroaded I expect. Hopefully she can continue to block it, it will bode well for Mac and the republicans. Unserious people shouldn't be in power.

I certainly won't be voting for anyone who votes to continue the moratorium. They will eventually have to hold a vote if Pelosi and Reid want to continue the ban, because it will expire on Sept. 30 if it's not renewed. So we can hold the vote now, or we can wait until Oct. 1 and start drilling. The longer they stonewall, the madder the American public gets, and that's good for McCain.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Damn straight.

I expect we'll see lots of democrats with changed attitudes when they get back from listening to their constituents and seeing polls. They are politicians after all.

Pelosi will get railroaded I expect. Hopefully she can continue to block it, it will bode well for Mac and the republicans. Unserious people shouldn't be in power.

How should I interpret this post, in light of your seeming attitude that a candidate who adjusts his views on issues is weak and/or just trolling for votes?

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How should I interpret this post, in light of your seeming attitude that a candidate who adjusts his views on issues is weak and/or just trolling for votes?

Oh I don't know, I think it would depend on the politician and whether he's had a history of doing what I consider the right thing or not. Especially about whether he's been willing to stay strong against something that politically hurts him.

Probably also whether they had been adamantly against it all of their political career and then changed, I'd feel more suspicious.

If it goes against their core principles I'd have to also think that some politicking was going on. Like if Obama suddenly came out and supported any type of abortion restriction, you'd have to think he was being pretty calculating about it. I could be wrong but I believe he's been pretty supportive of partial birth abortion in the past, illinois and the senate. He's gotten 100% ratings from NARAL and I expect that would include never voting against PBA.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

How should I interpret this post, in light of your seeming attitude that a candidate who adjusts his views on issues is weak and/or just trolling for votes?

Obama shifted recently to say he would consider drilling offshore and support nuclear expansion for energy "if the details were right".

Pelosi's stonewall stance is by comparison an example of not waffling or flip flopping.

Both Obama and Pelosi have a problem. Obama's problem is that he made the correct decision to support these ideas AFTER making the previously wrong decision to not support them. You can argue that McCain is absolutely no different and I will agree with you. Pelosi's problem is that she was against the changes in the past (when it was wrong to be opposed) AND she continues to fight it now (when it is wrong AND very unpopular to continue to stonewall).

When you are wrong and admit you were wrong, people will say you flip flopped. When you were wrong and change your position to be correct, you have flip flopped but have done so for the good. People will ridicule the flip flop but at least the person came around to a correct position.

When you are wrong in the first place and refuse to change out of "principle", then you are not a flip flopper. Then, we have to decide if the lack of flexibility is a strength or a negative.

In the case of Pelosi, her strength in not changing is viewed by the majority of Americans as a negative. And, that negative is being applied to Obama by extension although he ironically is now opposed to Pelosi's stance...

Most American's view Bush's stance on Iraq as an example of stubborn wrongness.

What is wrong and right in politics? The voters decide...

If you want to debate absolute right and wrong... that is not nearly the same conversation and there are probably a dozen opinions on the energy situation.

What would really slam the coffin closed on McCain's chances would be if Obama would step up to the plate and issue a Rally Cry for the Dem party to re-convene Congress to vote on the "all of the above" bill (which is a bill that basically says we should invest in every potential idea for energy improvement). If Obama bucked his party on this issue, he would absolutely steam roll his way to victory.

Will he do it? Heck, I would even admire him if he did.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Oh I don't know, I think it would depend on the politician and whether he's had a history of doing what I consider the right thing or not. Especially about whether he's been willing to stay strong against something that politically hurts him.

Probably also whether they had been adamantly against it all of their political career and then changed, I'd feel more suspicious.

If it goes against their core principles I'd have to also think that some politicking was going on. Like if Obama suddenly came out and supported any type of abortion restriction, you'd have to think he was being pretty calculating about it. I could be wrong but I believe he's been pretty supportive of partial birth abortion in the past, illinois and the senate. He's gotten 100% ratings from NARAL and I expect that would include never voting against PBA.

That's reasonable. But I guess I'd like to hear more about the idea of a candidate staying strong against something that hurts him politically. We do have a respresentative democracy here in the US. That means that our congressmen represent us, and so does our president. The way I see it, a president that acts in consistent opposition to the will of the people is a dangerous man indeed, and certainly not what the people bargained for when they elected him.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

That's reasonable. But I guess I'd like to hear more about the idea of a candidate staying strong against something that hurts him politically. We do have a respresentative democracy here in the US. That means that our congressmen represent us, and so does our president. The way I see it, a president that acts in consistent opposition to the will of the people is a dangerous man indeed, and certainly not what the people bargained for when they elected him.

True...I seem to remember one Abe Lincoln who had the same problem however. Issues of war and peace and geopolitics are tough and by definition the populace isn't the best informed.

Of course with respect to dubya and the war (I guess is the inference) that was the will of the people as evidenced by votes of congress and his re-election.

Drilling, tax breaks for seniors aren't quite a tough an issue, they usually fall pretty easily along core beliefs and the party's beliefs.

[wmbwinn]

Dude1394: off the topic of the thread but if you want to know about Obama's abortion record, here is what Buchanon has to say about it....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Dude1394: off the topic of the thread but if you want to know about Obama's abortion record, here is what Buchanon has to say about it....

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27992

Thanks...don't cotton much to buchanon in general, a little too out there imo. I did look up his record and it's 100% NARAL...and pretty much never voting for a partial birth abortion ban.

this site seemed pretty factual, that's where I took some of the data from.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Ba...a_Abortion.htm

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

True...I seem to remember one Abe Lincoln who had the same problem however. Issues of war and peace and geopolitics are tough and by definition the populace isn't the best informed.

Of course with respect to dubya and the war (I guess is the inference) that was the will of the people as evidenced by votes of congress and his re-election.

Drilling, tax breaks for seniors aren't quite a tough an issue, they usually fall pretty easily along core beliefs and the party's beliefs.

No, I didn't mean to imply anything about Dubya. I fully respect the strong stance Dubya has taken on the war, even when it wasn't popular. But I'm talking about campaign season stuff.

What is the point of all the town hall meetings and the face-to-face candidates have with the populace? Generally speaking, it's either A) for the candidates to sell their points of view, B) for the candidates to gather information about grass-roots points of view, or C) a combination of the above.

If a candidate comes into a race with a long-held view that offshore drilling is not a surefire means toward reducing our long-term energy crisis, but he continually hears from people on the ground that they want drilling, what is he supposed to do? If he wants to represent those people, he probably should adopt their perspective, if it is strong and loud enough.

To me that's not a flip-flop, that's a show of responsibility. I know that I would think more than twice about a guy who heard me and a lot of the rest of his constituency telling him that we wanted one thing, only to see him doggedly insist on another.

When it comes down to it, we Americans are hiring a man for the job. If he don't listen to us, maybe we ought not to give him our votes. We're the boss, after all.

[dude1394]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

No, I didn't mean to imply anything about Dubya. I fully respect the strong stance Dubya has taken on the war, even when it wasn't popular. But I'm talking about campaign season stuff.

What is the point of all the town hall meetings and the face-to-face candidates have with the populace? Generally speaking, it's either A) for the candidates to sell their points of view, B) for the candidates to gather information about grass-roots points of view, or C) a combination of the above.

If a candidate comes into a race with a long-held view that offshore drilling is not a surefire means toward reducing our long-term energy crisis, but he continually hears from people on the ground that they want drilling, what is he supposed to do? If he wants to represent those people, he probably should adopt their perspective, if it is strong and loud enough.

To me that's not a flip-flop, that's a show of responsibility. I know that I would think more than twice about a guy who heard me and a lot of the rest of his constituency telling him that we wanted one thing, only to see him doggedly insist on another.

When it comes down to it, we Americans are hiring a man for the job. If he don't listen to us, maybe we ought not to give him our votes. We're the boss, after all.

Yea...I can see that. If however he thinks that it's the wrong thing for the country, doesn't he have to defy the people, no matter the political consequences.

The problem with both Mac's and Obamas movement towards drilling is their long-standing stance against it, Mac's still stupidly against ANWAR. They both seem to be playing politics with this one imo.

However Obama is way too busy talking about stuff like windfall profits tax and how evil the oil companies are to believe that this is any more that a very cynical pander.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by dude1394

Yea...I can see that. If however he thinks that it's the wrong thing for the country, doesn't he have to defy the people, no matter the political consequences.

Well, I think that what you think of as "defying the people" as being good leadership, as you suggested with regard to Dubya and Lincoln, happens after the candidate wins office. I think what you are talking about with this specific argument is in alignment with what Ron Paul has been doing. He doesn't care if it is unpopular, he just believes in what he thinks is right. That makes Ron Paul a right and admirable ideologue, but I'm afraid it doesn't make him much of a presidential hopeful.

If we would define "the people," as you put it, as the majority vote of the electorate, then no candidate can expect to defy their will yet still win the honor of leading them. Nor should they.

They both seem to be playing politics with this one imo.

You say that like it's a bad thing. We are ALL playing politics here. Not just the candidates, but the voters too.

[dude1394]

Certainly agree with you on Ron Paul. There are core beliefs that have to be held to think you know where the candidate will come down on. They can't move too far from that or they really aren't to be trusted.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Come on guys, stop turning every thread in a canvassing thread...

About drilling for the oil maniacs:

Here: http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33596

and here: http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33600

and here: http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33486

and here: http://www.dallas-mavs.com/vb/showthread.php?t=33312

and so on...

[DirkFTW]

All I know is... if I see the Methanizer2000 anywhere in production, I'm suing each and every last one of you.

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

Obama shifted recently to say he would consider drilling offshore and support nuclear expansion for energy "if the details were right".

Pelosi's stonewall stance is by comparison an example of not waffling or flip flopping.

Both Obama and Pelosi have a problem. Obama's problem is that he made the correct decision to support these ideas AFTER making the previously wrong decision to not support them. You can argue that McCain is absolutely no different and I will agree with you. Pelosi's problem is that she was against the changes in the past (when it was wrong to be opposed) AND she continues to fight it now (when it is wrong AND very unpopular to continue to stonewall).

When you are wrong and admit you were wrong, people will say you flip flopped. When you were wrong and change your position to be correct, you have flip flopped but have done so for the good. People will ridicule the flip flop but at least the person came around to a correct position.

When you are wrong in the first place and refuse to change out of "principle", then you are not a flip flopper. Then, we have to decide if the lack of flexibility is a strength or a negative.

In the case of Pelosi, her strength in not changing is viewed by the majority of Americans as a negative. And, that negative is being applied to Obama by extension although he ironically is now opposed to Pelosi's stance...

Most American's view Bush's stance on Iraq as an example of stubborn wrongness.

What is wrong and right in politics? The voters decide...

If you want to debate absolute right and wrong... that is not nearly the same conversation and there are probably a dozen opinions on the energy situation.

What would really slam the coffin closed on McCain's chances would be if Obama would step up to the plate and issue a Rally Cry for the Dem party to re-convene Congress to vote on the "all of the above" bill (which is a bill that basically says we should invest in every potential idea for energy improvement). If Obama bucked his party on this issue, he would absolutely steam roll his way to victory.

Will he do it? Heck, I would even admire him if he did.

and how about W's position on offshore drilling....?

He could've overturned his father's executive order banning new offshore drilling at anypoint during his tenure (it was an EXECUTIVE order...) but chose not to, partially because Jeb was one of the most vocal opponents of offshore drilling while he was gov in FLA.

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

and how about W's position on offshore drilling....?

He could've overturned his father's executive order banning new offshore drilling at anypoint during his tenure (it was an EXECUTIVE order...) but chose not to, partially because Jeb was one of the most vocal opponents of offshore drilling while he was gov in FLA.

GW's flip flop is to my mind a good example of a good change. The change was made for good reasons.

I had/have no problem with the previous offshore drilling bans because there used to be no reason to worry about drilling. I am in favor of lifting the prior bans which is what is happening. I have no problem with the coastal states having control of their own coast lines.

So, in short:
1)yes it is technically a flip flop
2)no it doesn't bother me because it is a necessary change and an appropriate reaction to changes

[wmbwinn]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/bu...nterstitial?hp

interesting article about solar power. The points that stick out in my mind are:
1)wow. this project is over 30X more powerful that anything in Europe and in the rest of the world as far as solar power is concerned
2)due to the limitations of running only when the sun shines, it produces 1/3 as much power as a large coal plant or small nuke plant. when it is actually running, it as powerful as that large coal plant or small nuke plant.
3)regulations are a problem...
4)this monstor is built on how many acres??? Huge.
5)expensive energy. may get cheaper.

I like this and all other ideas.

Wish the Dems had allowed a vote on the "all of the above" bill that Pelosi walked out on with no vote.

These solar panels are going up in California where Pelosi is located.

This sort of project would have been supported by the "all of the above" bill.

pelosi is nuts and needs to be replaced/removed...

[rabbitproof]

Educating the people is always part of the solution. To knowledge!

http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/08/1...ion-bandwagon/

[dude1394]

I just am not sure that solar is going to get it done. It just doesn't pack the power needed unless some really revolutionary things occur imo. It will help no doubt but not for that mythical 20 years that is thrown around for drilling projects.

We need to drill like crazy everywhere and bust our ass on nuclear and coal technology until solar or possibly the new hydrogen catalyst get's going.

It would be nice to lift the ethanol ban on Brazil as well, pretty stupid to protect sugar farmers (or whomever we are protecting) while we send more dollars to the middle east.

[Flacolaco]

[Underdog]

^record cold = global warming (???)

I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is...

[DirkFTW]

Blue is the new Red.

[92bDad]

O brings about the climate changed we wanted...another international crisis resolved...

"We're not worthy" "We're not worthy" "We're not worthy"

[Mavdog]

are we to look at short term stats?

there were record high temps just the past few weeks.....

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are we to look at short term stats?

there were record high temps just the past few weeks.....

Well at least looking at the facts would be better than "climate models."

Mostly that graphic just tickled my fancy and I wanted to post it somwhere. We all know it doesn't mean anything. (kind of like "climate models")

[jefelump]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

are we to look at short term stats?

there were record high temps just the past few weeks.....

Yes, but TheOne was elected and fixed that problem already... It was a pre-inagural executive order, from The Office Of The President Elect.

[mcsluggo]

Isn't the primary implication of global warming eratic and less predictable weather patterns?


overall though... I am not a globnal warming fanatic, and I think that alot of the hype is likely overstated-- but the biggest hype is talking about "long tails" from a statistic standpoint. ie scenarios that are conceivable but not particularly likely, but would be CATASTROPHIC if they occured. (kinda like the low probability, long tail scenario of the a moderate toxic-housing burp causing overall financial markets to seize up...)

I hope that people that are expert keep studying the data. It is never going to be as simple as a single map. the "climate models" embed a whole range of facts as well, the problem, as always, is calibrating the basic assumptions that are interttwined with those facts.