@thread



100% renewable electricity possible until 2030:

"Die völlige Deckung des deutschen Strombedarfs aus regenerativen Energiequellen ist nach Ansicht des Kasseler Wissenschaftlers Prof. Jürgen Schmid bis zum Jahr 2030 möglich."

Translation:
"According to Prof. Juergen Schmid (ISET-scientist, Fraunhofer-Institute for Wind and Energy System Technology, Kassel) it is possible for Germany to reach complete energy self-sufficiency with renewable energies until 2030."

There was a documentation on that on TV today, telling that wind energy and biomethane, followed by photovoltaik would be able to cover the European demand for energy until 2030 completely. Overcapacities from wind energy can be stored e.g. in Norwegian hydro-electric power stations with reservoirs via an Europe-wide intelligent grid.
Nuclear energy was described as niche product that will become more and more expensive over the next decades.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

Global warming ends dispute over island . See GW is a good thing!

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Global warming ends dispute over island . See GW is a good thing!

Hmmmmmm - all I get from this link is: "Server has no DNS entry"...

EDIT:
I tried it a third time and the link worked - I`m going to read now...

Last edited by Dandy on 25-Mar-2010 at 09:01 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Quote:

all I get from this link is: "Server has no DNS entry"

Glad that the 3rd time was a charm.

Here's text for those it's not working for
"For around almost three decades, countries Bangladesh and India have been arguing with the Moore Island, which lies in the Bay of Bengal.
But the argument was kept on a long wait, as the sea levels there have been rising at an alarming rate due to Global Warming. The latest news is that New Moore Island has been swallowed by the Bay of Bengal. New Moore island no longer exists.

Professor Sugata Hazra reports that, New Moore Island has completely sunk and this is confirmed by satellite images and sea patrons.

Professor Sugata Hazra further stated,

“What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking has been resolved by global warming.”

The sea levels in the Bay of Bengal had been rising by 3 millimeters per year until the year 2000. But shockingly, that rate increased to 5 millimeters per year since then.

New Moors Island is also know as South Talpatti Island.

Reports say that around 10 more small island like New Moore Island are still at risk in the Bay of Bengal
"

@BrianK

To be quite honest, that island appeared from out of nowhere in the 70's, in the middle of a river outlet. Saying that it disappeared because of GW is in my opinion a little too easy.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK To be quite honest, that island appeared from out of nowhere in the 70's, in the middle of a river outlet. Saying that it disappeared because of GW is in my opinion a little too easy.

How about it disappearing because of the rising water level - perhaps we can agree on that?

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@Dandy

Nope. It's most likely disappearing for the same reason it appeared: The river. It's moving sediments.

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: Global warming ends dispute over island . See GW is a good thing!

I hope that is a attempt at humour. I dont see how anyone could link this to global warming.

@Dandy

Quote:

Dandy wrote: @olegil Quote: olegil wrote: @BrianK To be quite honest, that island appeared from out of nowhere in the 70's, in the middle of a river outlet. Saying that it disappeared because of GW is in my opinion a little too easy. How about it disappearing because of the rising water level - perhaps we can agree on that?

The sea level has been rising during the ENTIRE holocene period and will most likely continue to rise a tiny bit until this interglacial ends. The sea level inrease has btw slowed down over the last decade which completely contradicts the predictions of ever fasting sea level increase.

@Tomas

Quote:

The sea level has been rising during the ENTIRE holocene period and will most likely continue to rise a tiny bit until this interglacial ends. The sea level inrease has btw slowed down over the last decade which completely contradicts the predictions of ever fasting sea level increase

Did you miss this part?
"The sea levels in the Bay of Bengal had been rising by 3 millimeters per year until the year 2000. But shockingly, that rate increased to 5 millimeters per year since then"

Sounds that the last decade for the Bay of Bengal the sea level increased not slowed down.

@BrianK

I actually agree on that., but 5 cm since 2000 and 11cm since 1980 is not enough to complete submerge an island.

Also, the island appeared just as mysteriously 40 years ago. And it's not like islands in the middle of rivers are famous for being stable

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

@olegil

Quote:

olegil wrote: @BrianK I actually agree on that., but 5 cm since 2000 and 11cm since 1980 is not enough to complete submerge an island.

We just had a news item on that on German TV.
It was said that the island hd an area of roughly 9 square kilometers and a height of roughly 2m.

If I combine that with your statement that the island appeared just 40 years ago, it tells me that there must have been more mechanisms in action than just the rising of sea levels.

We all know that sea levels did not rise by 2 m during the last 4 decades.

What we currently don`t know is what material the island consisted of.
When we were children and played in the sand-pit we learned that if we filled a small sand hollow with a "sand mountain" in the middle with water, that we did not hve to pour that much water into the hollow until it reached the height of the "sand mountain" in the middle to cover it. No - this "sand mountain" started to crumble and to disintegrate long before the height of the water level reached its original top. So to say it floated apart. Obviously that would not have worked if we had put a big stone in the middle of the sand hollow.

Equally we don`t know anything about local vertical tectonic movements there or regional up- and downlifts of the ground.

Quote:

olegil wrote: Also, the island appeared just as mysteriously 40 years ago. And it's not like islands in the middle of rivers are famous for being stable

Yeah - but its also not very likely that islands in the middle of rivers are solely created by the river depositing debris up to a height of 2 meters. As I said above - there must have been more mechanisms in action than we can currently think of.

EDIT:
And I think it must have been the combination of all involved factors that created the island and made it disappear again.

Last edited by Dandy on 26-Mar-2010 at 09:07 AM.

_________________
Ciao

Dandy
__________________________________________
If someone enjoys marching to military music, then I already despise him.
He got his brain accidently - the bone marrow in his back would have been sufficient for him!
(Albert Einstein)

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @Tomas Quote: The sea level has been rising during the ENTIRE holocene period and will most likely continue to rise a tiny bit until this interglacial ends. The sea level inrease has btw slowed down over the last decade which completely contradicts the predictions of ever fasting sea level increase Did you miss this part? "The sea levels in the Bay of Bengal had been rising by 3 millimeters per year until the year 2000. But shockingly, that rate increased to 5 millimeters per year since then" Sounds that the last decade for the Bay of Bengal the sea level increased not slowed down.

No, i did not miss that part at all. I am surprised you take it as fact simply because some mainstream media article stated it. There are plenty of other sources that show that sea level increase have slowed down over the last years. There are many other reasons for why an island could "sink". There are also big local variations in sea level due to completely other reasons than global warming/global sea level increase.

But i guess logical thinking does not apply with blind faith...

Last edited by Tomas on 26-Mar-2010 at 12:13 PM.

@olegil

Quote:

I actually agree on that., but 5 cm since 2000 and 11cm since 1980 is not enough to complete submerge an island. Also, the island appeared just as mysteriously 40 years ago. And it's not like islands in the middle of rivers are famous for being stable

The article stated 5mm per year since 2000. 2001-2009 is 8 years. Assuming since 2000 means after and because 2010 is now let's ignore those 2. That's 40mm. 40mm could be enough to suberge an island. Not only is there the increase in depth but as you mentioned the river itself. I'd think adding that much water to a river will have some major changes to flow and errosion.


@Thomas
Quote:

I am surprised you take it as fact simply because some mainstream media article stated it.

Just because MSM said it certainly doesn't mean it's right or wrong. It does give one a starting point to go on a fact finding mission to see how this conclusion was made.

Quote:

There are plenty of other sources that show that sea level increase have slowed down over the last years

Certainly the MSM article didn't link to the science showing the .5 cm/year rise in the Bay of Bengal. But, to be fair Thomas didn't link to the science showing any claim of slowing water rise in the Bay. IMO, we should question each equally until the science has found indicating which of the two options is more likely correct.

EDIT: Here's another article. Island disappears . It denotes that the School of Oceanographic Studies at the University of Calcutta did the work indicating a significant rise in water levels of the Bay. One more stepping stone to finding the research...

EDIT: Thanks Olegil.. Fixed the UoM typo.

Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2010 at 12:36 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 27-Mar-2010 at 12:35 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 26-Mar-2010 at 08:51 PM.

@BrianK

You're off by a factor of ten.

5mm is 0.5cm

_________________
This weeks pet peeve:
Using "voltage" instead of "potential", which leads to inventing new words like "amperage" instead of "current" (I, measured in A) or possible "charge" (amperehours, Ah or Coulomb, C). Sometimes I don't even know what people mean.

That was that earth hour.. I celebrated it this year by turning on all my lights and making my dinner during earth hour.

Seems like i wasnt only one who did not bother turning off the lights either. I looked outside the window and the 3 13 floor apartment buildings and other buildings was still lit up like usual.

A new paper indicates that Solar Flare Activity doesn't account for recent warming.

@BrianK
Quote:

Certainly the MSM article didn't link to the science showing the .5 cm/year rise in the Bay of Bengal. But, to be fair Thomas didn't link to the science showing any claim of slowing water rise in the Bay. IMO, we should question each equally until the science has found indicating which of the two options is more likely correct.

Ah sorry.. I thought you were talking about global sea level increase. I am sure then it could be true as there is always local variations. I still doubt this has anything to do with global warming though.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: A new paper indicates that Solar Flare Activity doesn't account for recent warming.

There are more to solar activity than just number of flares or even sunspots though.

Arctic ice levels have apparently reached levels not seen in nearly a decade:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/norsex_ssmi1_ice_ext_033010.png
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/norsex_ssmi1_ice_area_033010.png

Last edited by Tomas on 31-Mar-2010 at 08:39 PM.
Last edited by Tomas on 31-Mar-2010 at 08:36 PM.