| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13584
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:06 pm: | 
|
No, I won't. Proof that global warming can happen without automobiles is not proof that automobiles and other burners cannot cause global warming.
When we started dumping garbage in the oceans, we said we couldn't possibly put in enough to have any effect, because the ocean is so vast and limitless. We were very wrong. The same thing could be happening with all the heat we are creating. I have no proof, but there is no proof that we do not have this effect, and to dismiss the possibility is irresponsible. We have a duty to the environment because we have learned that we do have an effect.
What to do is not clear, but it is clear enough that "nothing" is not a good answer.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14928
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:22 pm: |
|
Dearest Tom,
What are the downsides of "global warming"?
Thankey.
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4719
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:25 pm: |
|
are you serious? |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14930
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
Yes |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4720
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:43 pm: |
|
<sigh>
Rising sea levels put coastal cities under water.
Prime agricultural land in the US turns into desert. This is actually good news for wheat farmers in Canada, which will become the next North American hyperpower.
Thoroughly unpleasant conditions in much of the US in the summer, including severe droughts. Agriculture literally dries up. Hundreds every year die during heat waves now, care to try for thousands?
Expanded range of disease-carrying and other destructive pests. Formosan termites, anyone?
Northern Europe, our bestest allies in the world, in the short run suffers a mini-ice age, becomes even more dependent on fossil fuels.
Increased storm severity puts gulf oil platforms out of business.
Others can supply more, I'm sure. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14931
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Why are farmers in the US more important than wheat farmers in Canada?
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13589
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:07 am: |
|
The coastal flooding would reduce the amount of land available. It has already begun in Alaska.
Your question is analogous to "what are the downsides of pollution?"
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14935
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:12 am: |
|
No. My question is to point out that the definition of hubris is believing that the earth should stop evolving in 2006 along boundaries that you and others find to be nice and tidy.
The dinosaurs are laughing at you. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4722
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 12:52 am: |
|
yes, but the dinosaurs are all dead. So what do they know? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13593
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 8:14 am: |
|
Oh, I agree that assuming the earth should stay exactly as it is is as arrogant as assuming that any change is benign. But it's no worse. We may not be responsible for the changes, and we may be powerless to address them, but I disagree that we shouldn't even concern ourselves with the questions.
There is also a danger that trying to correct the trend could be as harmful as letting it take its course.
See, I'm no dummy, and I don't give anyone too much credence. But look at how people follow their interests and ignore the consequences of their actions. I give them less credence.
|
Glock 17
Citizen
Username: Glock17
Post Number: 588
Registered: 7-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
HAHA...honestly...the only funny dilbert ever |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1202
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 1:43 pm: |
|
Still another perspective....and not entirely surprising one....
Climate of Fear
Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.
BY RICHARD LINDZEN-WSJ
Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.
If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.
So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.
All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.
Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.
And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.
M. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3158
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 3:58 pm: |
|
Right. Great. Here is what you need to know about energy industry spokesflack Mr. Lindzen.
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1204
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:09 pm: |
|
Notey:
Your predictable close-minded stubborness on this topic is growing tiresome. Can you allow any wiggle room for different opinions?
Lindzen says it best in the article(you must have overlooked it):
"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.
Thanks for providing a specific example. Case Closed.
-SLK
|
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 774
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:16 pm: |
|
So we should completely disregard those who earn a living in their vocation? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:19 pm: |
|
If Lindzen was a Pro-GW MIT Professor Notey would be ok with it.... |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3159
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:20 pm: |
|
I am entirely willing to consider the opinions of others. And if the facts contradict what they say, and if they are caught lying to people, and if they are actually, truly, very really in the pocket of people who are seeking to deny the truth, than their opinions are worth bupkis.
If I look hard enough, I can probably find somebody who claims that the world is neither warming nor cooling, but is exactly 65 degrees everywhere, and has been since the dawn of time. Shall we call a rejection of this assertion "close-minded stubborness" [sic]?
The case is closed, just not in the way you think it is. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4724
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:22 pm: |
|
looks to me like notey is just calling a spade a spade.
Quote:Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true.
That's one degree so far. The rise is accelerating, and projections for the next century range from 5 to 10 degrees more. Looking at what is happening with just one degree -- vanishing glaciers, disappearing polar ice -- what will five more do, and why should we be complacent? |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1207
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Notey-
Well, if you really would "consider the opinions of others" you sure haven't done it yet.
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3160
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:23 pm: |
|
Hey, here's how much confidence Lindzen has in his own claims about global warming...
(from the site I linked to above)
In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3161
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:27 pm: |
|
SLK, I do consider the opinions of others. And if I see that they don't withstand scrutiny, I dismiss them.
Don't let guys like Lindzen manipulate you. Be smarter than that. |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 775
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:31 pm: |
|
nice try note, but you have completely lost it on this thread. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1208
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 4:32 pm: |
|
notey-
May I ask who funds CMD?
-SLK |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
Sbenois,
Are you convinced that there is not a problem; or are you not convinced that there is a problem?
Just curious.
TomR |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14938
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 10:53 pm: |
|
I am convinced that there is a problem.
I am also convinced that not every hurricane and warm winter is evidence of it. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1048
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:28 pm: |
|
Sbenois,
A reasonable, and reasoned, response.
Thankey.
TomR |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13629
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:45 pm: |
|
I agree with that. No one knows everything. But that's not new. The shrillest people are those who claim to know this stuff for sure.
I just spent Passover dinner (which I can't rightly call a seder) at LibraryLady's home, and of course, you came up in conversation.
|
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14939
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 12, 2006 - 11:50 pm: |
|
When is the funeral? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3162
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 13, 2006 - 10:03 am: |
|
CMD - the Center for Media and Democracy - is a non-profit watchdog organization. Their "SourceWatch" is Wiki-based. Their main "About" page is here. Note: they do NOT accept corporate or government grants.
Sbenois, I'm glad to see your 10:53 post, and I entirely agree. A very large number of individual events and/or trends should be considered before drawing any conclusions. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3414
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:53 am: |
|
This may not directly affect GW, but it is related to the attitude of our society toward pollution as "not my problem" if you're wealthy:
University of Wisconsin-Madison My UW Search People UW Home > News > Story
News
Researchers say pollution is a social justice issue
March 22, 2006
by Paroma Basu
While environmental pollutants constantly swirl around children in all walks of life, past research has shown that children in poor, minority populations are disproportionately likely to be exposed to harmful toxins such as lead and agricultural pesticides.
Local, state and federal policies have strived in recent decades to limit such exposures. Policies have mandated the routine testing of blood lead levels in Medicaid-eligible children, for instance, while requiring that public health authorities eliminate lead sources-such as lead-based paint and lead dust - in high-risk homes. Similarly, environmental regulations have banned the use of certain pesticides in agriculture.
But despite the good intentions, such preventive efforts are irregularly enforced, often under-funded, and rarely targeted at those who need them the most, write researchers at UW-Madison, in the March/April issue of Child Development.
"One of the reasons we wrote this paper was to put together information on the inequities in exposure to pollutants," says co-author Colleen Moore, a UW-Madison professor of psychology and the author of "Silent Scourge: Children, Pollution and Why Scientists Disagree." "The policies that are in place for the general population are not working as well for the minority groups that are most exposed."
For example, African-American children in low-income families are much more likely to live in lead-contaminated housing, says lead author Janean Dilworth-Bart, a child development researcher and assistant professor at UW-Madison's School of Human Ecology. "A lot of tenant-based lead reduction programs focus on educating parents, but low income parents usually lead extremely stressful lives in which they might have tenuous housing, might be a single parent or might even have lost a child," she says. "These types of programs have been shown to have limited effectiveness in reducing lead burdens, so the real solution is the creation and strict enforcement of effective public policies."
That solution would similarly extend to the prevention of exposures to agricultural pesticides, adds Dilworth-Bart. Pesticide education policies and worker training programs currently target the general public, even though it is the children of migrant-and often undocumented and illiterate-workers who are at a higher risk of exposure to pesticides that latch on to their parents' clothes.
"Because there is a big disparity in exposures to environmental pollutants, we think it is important to include these types of variables in child development studies, especially when we talk about ethnic and racial differences," adds Dilworth-Bart. "Right now we talk about things like social support systems, single parenthood, and the quality of schools and health care, but it's important to consider the role of pollutants as well."
Scientists know that lead exposure can have a lasting affect on the cognitive ability of developing children, which can in turn influence their performance at school. Lead exposure has also been associated with inattention, restlessness and aggression. Pesticides are similarly thought to disrupt brain development, again placing children who are exposed to them at an unfair disadvantage.
The UW-Madison researchers say that basic research on the effects of pollutants on growing children remains crucial, and that such investigations should extend to other environmental offenders such as air pollutants, noise, industrial waste, and mercury levels in fish. On a broader level, academics should attempt to discern a community's specific needs by listening directly to what its members have to say.
"Ultimately our paper offers solutions for people who directly study child development," says Dilworth-Bart. "They are in a perfect position to take the lead here because they have the research skills to ask the most important and valuable questions."
|
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3415
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 8:54 am: |
|
If you want to learn about sources of achievement differences, rich and poor, start with the environment. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3164
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
I know it's hard to believe, but Wal-Mart has committed itself to running entirely on renewable energy. They have even come out in support of business regulations in response to climate change. They're a company that progressives usually love to hate, but this interview with CEO H. Lee Scott is pretty interesting...
check it out |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13634
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:29 am: |
|
Interesting. I will read it. I am curious to learn what led them to start this project. I believe it will ultimately show that you can go green and keep or increase profits. It will be a repeat of the story of the car makers who resisted safety equipment because they claimed it would hurt both profits and consumers.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3167
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 4:39 pm: |
|
A discussion of meeting future energy needs by Greg Watson, the head of Green & Gold Energy, an Australian company that is working on solar energy products. In a nutshell, he explains why solar power is literally the ONLY source of energy abundant enough meet our needs down the road. I wonder how many of you knew that there is simply not enough uranium to solve this problem for any significant length of time?
Solar Energy, the only game in town
Current global energy consumption is 4.120 J annually, which is equivalent to an instantaneous yearly-averaged consumption rate of 1312 W [13 terawatts (TW) or 13 million MWs]. Even with aggressive conservation efforts, projected population and economic growth will more than double this global energy consumption rate by the mid-21st century and more than triple the rate by 2100. Hence, to contribute significantly to global primary energy supply, a prospective resource has to be capable of providing at least 1-10 TW of power for an extended period of time.
The threat of climate change imposes a second requirement on prospective energy resources: they must produce energy without the emission of additional greenhouse gases. Stabilization of atmospheric CO2 levels at even twice their preanthropogenic value will require daunting amounts of carbon-neutral energy by mid-century. The needed levels are in excess of 10 TW, increasing after 2050 to support economic growth for an expanding population.
The three prominent options to meet this demand for carbon-neutral energy are fossil fuel use in conjunction with carbon sequestration, nuclear power, and solar power. The challenge for carbon sequestration is finding secure storage for the 25 billion metric tons of CO2 produced annually on Earth. At atmospheric pressure, this yearly global emission of CO2 would occupy 12,500 km3, equal to the volume of Lake Superior; it is 600 times the amount of CO2 injected every year into oil wells to spur production, 100 times the amount of natural gas the industry draws in and out of geologic storage in the United States each year to smooth seasonal demand, and 20,000 times the amount of CO2 stored annually in Norway’s Sleipner reservoir. Beyond finding storage volume, carbon sequestration also must prevent leakage. A 1% leak rate would nullify the sequestration effort in a century, far too short a time to have lasting impact on climate change. Although many scientists are optimistic, the success of carbon sequestration on the required scale for sufficiently long times has not yet been demonstrated.
Nuclear power is a second conceptually viable option. Producing 10 TW of nuclear power would require construction of a new one-gigawatt-electric (1-GWe) nuclear fission plant somewhere in the world every other day for the next 50 years. Once that level of deployment was reached, the terrestrial uranium resource base would be exhausted in 10 years. The required fuel would then have to be mined from seawater (requiring the equivalent of 10 Niagara Falls), or else breeder reactor technology would have to be developed and disseminated to countries wishing to meet their additional energy demand in this way.
The third option is to exploit renewable energy sources, of which solar energy is by far the most prominent. United Nations (U.N.) estimates indicate that the remaining global, practically exploitable hydroelectric resource is less than 0.5 TW. Cumulative energy in all the tides and ocean currents in the world is less than 2 TW. The total geothermal energy at the surface of the Earth, integrated over all the land area of the continents, is 12 TW, of which only a small fraction could be practically extracted. The amount of globally extractable wind power has been estimated to be 2-4 TW. The solar availability at the top of the atmosphere is 170,000 TW, of which 120,000 TW strikes the Earth (the remainder being scattered by the atmosphere and clouds). It is clear that solar energy can be exploited on the needed scale to meet global energy demand in a carbon-neutral fashion without significantly affecting the solar resource.
Solar energy is diffuse and intermittent, so effective storage and distribution are critical to matching supply with demand. The solar resource has been well established, and the mean yearly insolation values are well documented. At a typical latitude for the United States, a net 10% efficient solar energy “farm” covering 1.6% of the U.S. land area would meet the country’s entire domestic energy needs; indeed, just 0.16% of the land on Earth would supply 20 TW of power globally. For calibration purposes, the required U.S. land area is about 10 times the area of all single-family residential rooftops and is comparable with the land area covered by the nation’s federally numbered highways. The amount of energy produced by these boxes is equal to that produced by 20,000 1-GWe nuclear fission plants. This many plants would need to be constructed to meet global demands for carbon-neutral energy by the mid-21st century if carbon sequestration were to prove technically nonviable and if solar energy were not developed.
Above adopted from BASIC RESEARCH NEEDS FOR SOLAR ENERGY UTILIZATION, Report on the Basic Energy Sciences Workshop on Solar Energy Utilization, April 2005, http://www.sc.doe.gov/bes/reports/files/SEU_rpt.pdf
The bottom line is that despite established coal and oil reserves and the desires of the nuclear industry, solar energy is the only game in town.
greg.watson@greenandgoldenergy.com.au |
kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 780
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 6:01 pm: |
|
From note:
Right. Great. Here is what you need to know about energy industry spokesflack Mr. Lindzen.
Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels.
also from note:
A discussion of meeting future energy needs by Greg Watson, the head of Green & Gold Energy, an Australian company that is working on solar energy products.
so we are supposed to disregard Lindzen because he was paid consulting fees by oil and coal interest, but listen to Watson on the benefits of solar energy. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3416
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 7:37 pm: |
|
Another downside of global warming is that indigenous peoples, from the Arctic to the Namib desert, are losing their traditional climate environments, therefore their traditional food sources, thereby starving them, thereby increasing diseases that eventually spread to...yes...Maplewood. |
sbenois
Supporter
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 14942
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 7:45 pm: |
|
 |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3417
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
I take it you don't believe me. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1155
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 10:51 pm: |
|
Tulip: The Bird flu will never make it from China to Maplewood. Right. LOL.
Notehead-- great freakin post. Let me reframe:
Solar cells on a house can make most houses net producers of electricity. If houses in the US, overall generated electricity, nobody would be paying for electricity. How much Persian Gulf oil would that save? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:36 pm: |
|
The Earth is likely to experience a temperature rise of at least 3C, the UK government's chief scientist says.
Professor Sir David King warned this would happen because world governments were failing to agree on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases.
***
A recent report called Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change, produced by the Hadley Centre, one of the top world centres for projecting future climate, modelled the likely effects of a 3C rise.
It warned the situation could wreck half the world's wildlife reserves, destroy major forest systems, and put 400 million more people at risk of hunger.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4888946.stm
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3168
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 11:03 am: |
|
Kenney, I think you missed the part where Mr. Watson says his information is from the U.S. Department of Energy.
oooooooh...SNAP! |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3421
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 12:26 pm: |
|
Foj: Thanks for the research!! |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1246
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 3:55 pm: |
|
Actually, I am more concerned about Global Shrinking....oh lordy lordy...
-SLK |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1166
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 4:24 pm: |
|
That sounds like a personal issue. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4776
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 12:23 pm: |
|
Follow the Money
One of the best ways to cut through the propaganda about the risk of potentially dangerous activity is to look at what businesses with a financial stake in getting it right are doing. Want to see if smoking is really bad for you, despite what Tobacco Industry lobbyists say? Look at premiums and mortality/morbidity tables for smokers used by insurance companies. So what does the insurance industry think of climate change?
Quote:[Environmental Science Online] As the world's largest industry, the insurance business faces more financial risk from global warming than any other sector of the economy. To better understand how business leaders are dealing with the dilemma, ES&T spoke with Evan Mills, a staff scientist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Right now, the media seems to be caught in a debate over whether hurricanes are becoming stronger because of global warming. What does the insurance industry predict?
Earlier this year, the insurers' catastrophe [CAT] modelers unveiled their first attempt to incorporate the implications of climate change [...] The net result was an approximately 45% increase in previously expected insured losses due to changes in the physical characteristics of the extreme weather events alone.
Why do the insurance companies buy into the science?
I would say that insurers are better equipped to understand and evaluate the science than most other industries, and they have no particular vested interest in propping up polluting industries. [...] Insured losses from weather-related events in 2005 approached $80 billion (4 times those from 9/11) ...
Hurricane season is a little over one month away.
--from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/20/55345/5197 |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3179
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 2:17 pm: |
|
For those who are not really acquainted with this issue, I suggest the Union of Concerned Scientists Global Warming FAQ.
I hope everybody is going to do something good for the environment on Earth Day this weekend! Plant a tree! Replace a few incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs! Quit smoking! Install some insulation! Donate to an eco-conscious charity! Install a tankless water heater! Become a vegetarian! Pick up litter in a park! Cheerfully flip the bird to a Hummer and post a picture of that moment on www.fuh2.com! |
GOP Man
Citizen
Username: Headsup
Post Number: 323
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 3:37 pm: |
|
you libs and your "data" and your "science" think you know everything. aren't "scientists" the ones who once said you could turn lead into gold and that the earth was flat? we humans don't know everything but you secular humanists think you do. humans don't know the divine plan for the universe, and all your "science" adds up to nothing more than probability. you all have your faith (you call it science) and people like me and the other GW skeptics have our faith. and in the meantime, why should we wreck the economy just because you and a bunch of other tree huggers think there's a likelihood of disaster. there's also a likelihood that there won't be disaster. I prefer to be an optimist, unlike you angry, frustrated libs. |
Chris Prenovost
Citizen
Username: Chris_prenovost
Post Number: 814
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Fatuous Balderdash. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4778
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 20, 2006 - 4:59 pm: |
|
Chris, please check with legal before using that term again. "Fatuous Balderdash" is a registered trademark of Fox News. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3452
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 7:40 pm: |
|
I hope you are all watching CNN Presents. Even the Pentagon accepts global warming, and is working on doomsday scenario remedies. |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1316
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 8:53 pm: |
|
(the sound of the counter argument still going over tulip's head)....
-SLK |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3197
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
Experts: Global Warming Behind 2005 Hurricanes |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 3453
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
slk: You "take issue" (read "harass and insult") me because you have figured out I don't have as much time as everyone else to bicker with your silliness. Hey, congratulations on your new baby. Why don't you spend some time with him/her?
You may make babies well, but you are a major insulter and a reason to be nauseous while reading the message board. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page