a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited April 2007
Carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation in certain infrared ranges due to its molecular vibrational modes. These ranges happen to be close to the wavelength for peak spectral radiance for blackbody radiation from the earth.
Scientists didn't just look at the historical records, see a correlation between carbon dioxide density and temperature, and decide that carbon dioxide causes higher temperatures. A lot more is known about the process than you seem to think.
<!--quoteo(post=1623271:date=Apr 26 2007, 11:18 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Apr 26 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]1623271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation in certain infrared ranges due to its molecular vibrational modes. These ranges happen to be close to the wavelength for peak spectral radiance for blackbody radiation from the earth.
Scientists didn't just look at the historical records, see a correlation between carbon dioxide density and temperature, and decide that carbon dioxide causes higher temperatures. A lot more is known about the process than you seem to think. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ya, carbon dioxide is supposed to cause tropospheric warming, which is in turn supposed to cause surface warming further along. How or where, and what the long term consequences of this are, are beyond todays climatologists. It's come to the point where the interactions are so complex that they are basically just guessing and wrapping it up in smart sounding language. There's no evidence to show that unbalanced greenhouse levels have ever caused uncontrollable global disaster in the past. The world isn't even reasonably hotter then it ever used to be. And lets not forget 30 years ago they were proclaiming doom and gloom at the offset of the next ice age due to global cooling.
<!--quoteo(post=1623271:date=Apr 26 2007, 11:18 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Apr 26 2007, 11:18 AM) [snapback]1623271[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation in certain infrared ranges due to its molecular vibrational modes. These ranges happen to be close to the wavelength for peak spectral radiance for blackbody radiation from the earth. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These ranges also happen to heavily overlap with the ranges absorbed by other prevalent gasses in our atmosphere, specifically water vapor. Additionally it takes only a relatively small dose of CO2 to block the majority of radiation in its particular spectrum, a dosage which was exceeded well before the industrial revolution began, and further increasing the dosage of CO2 has only an incremental effect on the amount of radiation absorbed. CO2 levels alone can tell only a small part of the overall story of global warming.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> IMO the Galileo analogy is MUCH more accurate then the tobacco industry analogy at this point in time. The political power is BLATANTLY and CLEARLY on the side of the global warming disaster advocates, and there is just NO real evidence to support their claims. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gee, this arguement sounds <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png" target="_blank">rather familiar</a>.
How about I spin it the other way. What evidence is there that shows that manmade greenhouse emmisions aren't causing global warming?
I can't find any that hasn't already failed peer review.
Note, that doesn't stop the usual shortlist of climate skeptics from quoting disproven information.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not to sound irreverent, but I don't think we understand what's going on well enough to realistically predict what will result from it, and I don't think it's rational to assume there is anything we can do to stop it, or change what is happening at this point in time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've gone to war over much less. However nobody is claiming to know *exactly* what will result from it. The fallout and degree of warming are not certain.
However, Whether we are causing it primarily due to greenhouse gas emmision, that is quite certain.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Effectively we have a machine running here with a billion internal interactions, a billion input variables, and a billion output streams, and we're saying "oh well, if we reduce this one input variable figure then it will magically stabilize!" It's utter idiocy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Of course it's not one variable. CO2 is just one of the bigger variables. <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png</a> <a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a...Attribution.png</a> <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png</a> <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets go back to the CO2 ice core samples. They show a CLEAR causal relationship, that is to say higher global temperature = more CO2 800 years later, and as temperature drops the CO2 similarly drops, 800 years later. CLEARLY CO2 has never driven temperature in the past in any meaningful way. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So.. first you say the arguement isn't complex enough. Now you boil it down to 1 variable? i.e. Incoming solar radiation? Does that even make sence? It's a mix of natural and unnatural forces. But the natural forces do not explain the current warming. From purely natural forces we should be cooling right now.
Furthermore, Martin Durkin, the producer of the global warming swindle He does quite a bit to distort the natural of CO2 emmisions. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNdVDom0GU" target="_blank">Here he is in his own words on CO2 levels</a>, contradicting what he says in the movie. Here's another thing mentioning <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/international/i120726D24.DTL" target="_blank">his exagerations about volcanoes, and the medieval warm period.</a> <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece" target="_blank">Here's another mentioning</a> his fraudlent <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png" target="_blank">quoting of the disproven Eigil Friis Christensen 1991 study.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner and more efficient solutions in terms of energy production and general manufacturing. But I refuse to be fear mongered into it by idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. IMO we shouldn't need a global disaster to encourage us to seek clean and efficient methods of energy production. What I have a problem with is this concept that we need to reduce emissions at any cost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everyone progress. Nobody wants change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Hell, if we do need one then peak oil is MORE then enough IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not really. We're only at the halfway mark, not running on empty. And we can always switch over to electricity. (Hell an electric hummer would probably be greener than a Prius, and have better performance than a normal hummer)
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Backwards progress is ALWAYS inferior, no matter the motive, I'm not willing to role the dice with the future of our people/planet. Right now what the world needs is progress IMO. Strong effective useful technological improvements to increase our energy use efficiency and decrease our non direct energy reliance. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. So long as that also means moving away from coal. Way Bush sees it, we should just turn Coal into oil, and put up twice the CO2 emmisions as before. And burn up more coal in the next 50 years than we have in the last 250.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> What we don't need is movements to suppress technological advancements that are going to aid in this cause. 1. Suppression of genetically modified foodstuffs, 2. suppression of third world labor forces, 3. suppression of human expansion, 4. suppression of foreign governments. If disaster is impending all of these things are going to cost us more, not improve our situation in the slightest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. What does that have to do wth energy? If we have enough food to make biofuels, or we have enough grain to feed it to cows. I think we got plenty of food. Oddly GMO crops, while they offer shortterm benefits, for safety reasons they are sterile such that they don't go wild and cause all sorts of harm. So third world countries are forced to buy expensive seeds EVERY year from companies like Monsanto. Not to mention, the quick gains are usually countered by a longer term degradation of the soil. Over the long haul, organics are more productive. 2. Climate legistlation specifically exempts most third world countries If you don't remember, this was Pres. Bush's excuse for not signing Kyoto. And renewable energy sources are usually the cheapest sources of energy for locations without infrastructure or existing heavy subsidies for coal/oil. i.e. Third world countries. 3. Thats for different reasons. Mainly to cut costs for cities that are legally required to offer services like police forces and fire patrol. 4. Huh?
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Slowing down humanitarian growth to reduce fuel emissions is not an option IMO unless claims of impending disaster can be objectively verified. Hell, a richer more stable world will be much better off dealing with impending disaster if it becomes necessary then one crippled by an impossible attempt to turn back the clock. My enemies are those who would tell me they know the future, or those who wouldn't allow development of the third world for fear that humans are going to destroy the world by accident. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> ........................I'll let <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000" target="_blank">Scientific American explain this</a>. This arguement is just silly. This is essentially BS crafted by Bjorn Lomborg.
Essentially, he uses short term time frames (5 years) to measure long term impacts (50+ years), And then goes on to assume that all the issues of poverty, hunger, sickness etc are all mutually exclusive to global warming.
In short, EXTREMELY heavy discounting of the future.
The other fun talking points they toss up is that the per capita income of poor nations will be much higher than the richest nations today.
What they don't mention is that this will merely be due to inflation, and that in real value terms, they will still be dirt poor.
_
Furthermore it also ignores the cost of "desperate measures" in the furture. They do have some planned, but they make the current mitigations look like chump change.
One of the more popular ones is to launch millions of rockets into the atmosphere containing sulfur aerosols. Which will then widen the hole in the ozone, and cause increased acid rain, and cost about 15% of global GDP.
By comparison, reducing emmisions is about one half of 1% GDP.
_
Anyways, I tried my best earlier to keep my posts as shortwinded as possible, but ah well.
I guess I need to make this into a blog or a youtube video or something to make it easier to absorb.
Here we go. Scientist guy actually made a video, finally <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
Now I need to figure out how convert his +100mb powerpoint into a video so I can put it on Youtube <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <a href="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris" target="_blank">http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris</a>
Now I need to figure out how convert his +100mb powerpoint into a video so I can put it on Youtube <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> <a href="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris" target="_blank">http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Every point in that video can be countered as well. I'm never claimed great global warming swindle was infallible or objectively correct. It presents an argument to a debate that, in the fact of the matter, we do not know what the objective right is.
The basis of what is going on right now, is that something has changed in the way our climate manages itself, possibly at the fault of man made CO2, but not necessarily definitely, and climatologists no longer can figure out what the hell is going on with the world because the system's standards are shifting and there hasn't been time to observe the results yet. I'll agree, that's kind of scary, but it doesn't really say anything decisively... There is no evidence to show that reducing manmade CO2 levels at this point in time will stabilize anything, there is no evidence indicating that increasing manmade CO2 levels will do more damage then already has been done, and the long term extent of the damages resulting from either or is totally and utterly vague at this point in time. The best climatologists in the world can't intelligently argue that they know there will be a specific heat increase of X amount and it will effect X locations and it will do X amount of damage. That's ENTIRELY speculation. The whole point is that the immensely complicated machine is now behaving in an unexpected way, and we CAN'T figure out what is wrong. THAT'S what's scary. Forget global warming. Right now the globe should be at sort of a middle point in terms of temperature, what happens if solar heating increases? How does our temperature react? What happens if solar heating decreases again? It's hard to say now. Has the system reached a stability point at a higher level in a predictable way or is it still unstable?
Optimally, from a climatologists point of view it probably should be best to try to stop increasing or decreasing current levels and figure out weather the system will stabilize in a sensical way or not, of course humanity probably doesn't have the luxury of such a controlled scientific experiment.
[edit] it's not that global warming, or more accurately, our lack of understanding about the current global warming is crock science, it's that reducing greenhouse emissions as a solution is crock science.
Well lets see, 1. We know it's not solar forcing <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar4.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar4.png</a> <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png</a>
2. We had projections back in 1988 which have held up considerably well since then. All they had to do was change when a predicted volcano erruption was going to be, to where it actually happened. <a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf</a>
3. We know that CO2 reflects light within certain wavelengths of IR radiation (Same way that we know that Ozone blocks wavelengths of UV radiation) This can easily be tested within the lab. <a href="http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png" target="_blank">http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png</a>
4. We know that the rise in CO2 is manmade, and that the CO2 levels are 35% higher than they've every been in 650,000 years over 3 major icecore samples. <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/carbon" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/carbon</a>
5. We know that if CO2 were the culprit, then the theory says that the surface should be warming, the greenhouse layer should be warming faster, and the stratosphere should be cooling. And thats exactly whats happening. <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png</a> <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png</a>
6. And we know that water vapor isn't the cause either. Largely because of point #5. <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png</a>
Which begs the question, what exactly is left to prove about increased greenhouse gases causing warming?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best climatologists in the world can't intelligently argue that they know there will be a specific heat increase of X amount and it will effect X locations and it will do X amount of damage. That's ENTIRELY speculation. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This part is true. But climate scientists have never claimed to know the exact degree of warming. Or the exact severity and location of fallout.
However this is largely besides the point. Since the real question is whether we are causing a significant ammount of manmade warming.
While weather always shifts around The entire globe has a very fixed ammount of measurable inputs that are consistant within the system.
So knowing exactly where those inputs pop up isn't neccisary.
_
Lastly the question comes up, how much of this is merely obstructionism. Essentially waiting for all the secrets of the universe to be described in full before any action is taken.
Since absolute knowledge is impossible, <b>how much is neccisary before we take ANY action?</b> (As compared to say, the degree of certainty we had when we went into Iraq.)
<b>And whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong?</b> Worst comes to worst, we become energy independant, and dramatically reduce global energy conflicts around the world, and ready the world's resource use for expontentially increasing population. All the while providing a new economic boom in science and technology which would offer many branching technologies, services, products, and jobs. Not to mention, live healthier and longer lives.
One could argue those benefits alone make it worth it, even if global warming were later shown to be wrong.
_
So whats rather than arguing about the science, we can now say, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upphPTRr_PE&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">that the science is solid.</a> And now we need to figure out what the most effective ways of reaching that goal are.
Meanwhile, by all means, continue the science to disprove global warming.
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
Looking at graphs that show a temperature going up and CO2 levels going up obviously proves that humans are directly responsible. Easy cheesy.
The only thing I can't seem to find is the graphs that show all the negative forcing components in the climate system that have not changed over the last 150 years while CO2 has been increasing temperature.
<!--quoteo(post=1623960:date=Apr 30 2007, 02:58 AM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Apr 30 2007, 02:58 AM) [snapback]1623960[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <b>And whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong?</b> Worst comes to worst, we become energy independant, and dramatically reduce global energy conflicts around the world, and ready the world's resource use for expontentially increasing population. All the while providing a new economic boom in science and technology which would offer many branching technologies, services, products, and jobs. Not to mention, live healthier and longer lives.
One could argue those benefits alone make it worth it, even if global warming were later shown to be wrong. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> You...uh...failed to mention the giant economic bust due to drastically reduced availability of current energy technologies in the transition period before the future technologies are available.
Or if you weren't planning on reducing access to current technology until the next generation technology is finished, thats fine, but even opponents of global warming theory are in favor of developing next generation technology...so in that case I don't see where the debate is.
You don't get anywhere through stagnation. Innovation is what leads growth.
_
Actually if it were up to me,
I'd scrap all the liquid biofuel projects, the carbon sequestration projects, And the "clean coal" projects, and put them towards making "BioCoal".
Mainly because making Biomass into a solid is much more energy effecient than making it into a liquid. (Roughly 90% of the energy is maintained, and it can be processed in a few minutes)
This could be used in existing infrastructure right away.
(This would also be effective because, per unit of energy, Coal puts up about ~10x the carbon as Oil.)
The other advantage is that biocoal can be rather omnivourous. Rather than needing any particular type of biomass.
_
BioCoal is also quite an ideal baseload energy source because it's the fuel-of-choice for Direct Carbon Fuel Cells. Mainly because it lacks any impurities, like heavy metal (mercury), and sulfur (acid rain).
Cool part about a DCFC is that it can process purified coal at 80% effeciency
Which is more than double a conventional facility running at 35% And considerably more than the 55% effecient nextgen "clean coal" facilities.
_
Past that, I'd suggest we go GeoThermal. (Rather than Nuclear) Raser Technologies has already developed an iron electromagnet motor that is orders of magnitude more powerful than the most rare materials for physical magnet motors. Considering all the drilling motors are electric, this means a lot.
We've also gone quite a long ways with geo-sensing technology, which makes exploration a lot simpler.
While conventional geothermal needs there to be existing water in the ground. If you go a bit deeper and pump your own water down there, there's the potential for Geothermal practically anywhere.
_
Past that, I'd suggest we build a bunch of pumped hydropower storage facilities. It'd only take about 50 square miles of water storage to backup the entire grid.
Reason for pumped hydro is that it's the most effecient large scale energy storage device. And we've been building stuff like it for the past century.
_
Then those electric cars can both take and give electricity to the grid. This would make them an excellent buffer for grid capacity. Not to mention, it might even mean that people would fill up your car for free. (Charging you only for the wear and tear on your battery life. Which for next gen electric car batteries is millions of miles)
_
And past all that, you can merely have all the other renewables feed into the grid.
<!--quoteo(post=1624012:date=Apr 30 2007, 03:12 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Apr 30 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]1624012[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Looking at graphs that show a temperature going up and CO2 levels going up obviously proves that humans are directly responsible. Easy cheesy.
The only thing I can't seem to find is the graphs that show all the negative forcing components in the climate system that have not changed over the last 150 years while CO2 has been increasing temperature.
The point is none of those technologies are currently at a stage to replace oil and other fossil-fuel power on an industrial scale. That leaves you with two choices:
(1) Continue using fossil fuels on an industrial scale as we research advanced renewable energy.
(2) Stop using fossil fuels on an industrial scale, and hope the advanced renewable energy becomes ready before we all starve to death.
If you are advocating (2), then you are simply deluding yourself when you say "economic boom", because <i>everything</i> in the economy runs on Oil. If you are advocating (1), then you aren't actually suggesting anything different than what we are already doing. Its a fine plan, its just not <i>new</i>. And it doesn't require us to engage in any global-warming scaremongering to carry out. Its just the natural progression of technology.
I'm advocating for 1, except at a "Space Race" scale. None of this foot dragging BS we got going on now.
Furthermore, some actual funding. Not listed in this chart is $12 billion for nuclear <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png</a> <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png</a>
As is, Ethanol gets 20x the funding of Solar. And <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">Ethanol is craptastic</a>
And Nuclear gets more year to year funding than all renewable energy sources combined. Which doesn't even include the anti-proliferation costs. And hell, they won't even be able to build even 1 plant before 2015
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1624037:date=Apr 30 2007, 02:55 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Apr 30 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]1624037[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> You mean like this? (image) <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I was thinking more like <a href="http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/current_and_past_radiative_forcing_from_human_and_natural_causes#metainfo" target="_blank">the graphic on this page.</a> One that shows what must be a more obvious balance of positives and negatives in natural terms based one the idea that if it were unbalanced, Earth would not be hospitable to life. Conveniently, it also clearly identifies the areas of scientific study that need to take place for a better understanding of how each forcing accurately effects the climate and weather. Unlike the IPCC version.
Although I did clip off the "LOSU". Now I understand what that stands for. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg</a>
Except mine is from 2007, and yours is from 2005.
And considering this happened in 2006. <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png</a>
Thats a pretty big difference.
_
As is Now three years later the only significant unknown is airborne dust. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/</a>
SpoogeThunderbolt missile in your cheeriosJoin Date: 2002-01-25Member: 67Members
<!--quoteo(post=1624049:date=Apr 30 2007, 03:57 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Apr 30 2007, 03:57 PM) [snapback]1624049[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Thats the same chart.
Although I did clip off the "LOSU". Now I understand what that stands for. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg</a>
Except mine is from 2007, and yours is from 2005.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there's very little difference between them. But, considering mine was complete as opposed to edited...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And considering this happened in 2006. <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png</a>
Thats a pretty big difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actual report that you can't seem to link to <a href="http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm" target="_blank">is here.</a> Unfortunately, it seems to have left out <a href="http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf" target="_blank">some relevant and most likely contradictory peer-reviewed data</a> for politics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As is Now three years later the only significant unknown is airborne dust. <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, research into the effects of land use on surface albedo seems to be showing significance in regional climate changes. But, it appears that RealGroupThink.org doesn't spend much time worrying about it.
Hard to figure him out. First off Roger Pielke Jr. also posts a lot of climate stuff.
But I'm trying to figure out what he's going on about Was reading a bit through this. <a href="http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences/feed/" target="_blank">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/...fferences/feed/</a>
_
Haven't given it a good read through, but I'm not quite certain what he's talking about yet.
_
Also technically while credible this wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal as far as I can tell.
<!--quoteo(post=1624042:date=Apr 30 2007, 02:13 PM:name=GreyFlcn)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreyFlcn @ Apr 30 2007, 02:13 PM) [snapback]1624042[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm advocating for 1, except at a "Space Race" scale. None of this foot dragging BS we got going on now.
Furthermore, some actual funding. Not listed in this chart is $12 billion for nuclear <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png</a> <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png</a>
As is, Ethanol gets 20x the funding of Solar. And <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">Ethanol is craptastic</a>
And Nuclear gets more year to year funding than all renewable energy sources combined. Which doesn't even include the anti-proliferation costs. And hell, they won't even be able to build even 1 plant before 2015 <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Ethanol gets more funding then solar because you can't put solar fuel into the internal combustion engine. When we say our world runs on oil, that necessitates that most of the energy production devices currently used to run the world use oil. Therefore inefficient solutions that can replace oil cost less then rebuilding our entire basic production system.
It's really quite logical what they've done. They've noticed that they have a billion fireplaces, so instead of trying to convert every house to a gas stove they have made more efficient fire logs. The full conversion scale would be great to push towards, but it's all just not quite ready yet. When you say space race you're talking about putting a single rocket with a guy in it in space, when you say new energy solution you're talking about rebuilding a million power plants.
Except it's not like we're running out of Oil. We're at the halfway mark. It's merely getting more expensive.
So why are we trying to use an inheriently expensive source of energy to combat something which is merely a price issue? (Especially when all the cost benefits get eaten up by agro-corporate companies like ADM and Cargil)
Wouldn't reducing demand on Oil do a better job at reducing the price?
_
At the rate we have projected to with "Replace" oil with biofuel. We wouldn't even be able to replace the additional growth in domestic demand. Much less reduce our imports by even 1 drop compared to todays imports. Population Growth alone will make sure of that.
_
Also if we were to fund biofuels by the same per gallon subsidy we are now. Given the target we have for the year 2020 that subsidy would be 350 billion dollars. Which is more than 4x our entire military budget.
_
If Brazil is the best example in the world. Thats a pretty crappy example. <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/brazil.png" target="_blank">They pump just as much oil as Venezuela, and less than 14% of their fuel is ethanol.</a> And they've been pushing hard for Ethanol for 3 decades.
Another <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">recent study mentions that if we switched all of our cars to E85 Ethanol using cellulosic switchgrass.</a> We'd get a mere 4% reduction in GHG emmisions And an increase in Ozone emmisions, the primary component of Smog. And that using Switchgrass it would take up about 1/6th the US landmass to plant.
_
How does any of that make sense?
Especially when if we wanted to deal with CO2 emmisions, By far the worst source is not Oil. It's Coal. (By about 10x worse per unit of energy)
We could get atleast 4x the energy by merely burning it inside a conventional coal power plant. And 10x more energy out of the same biomass by making it into biocoal, and then running it inside an 80% effecient Direct Carbon Fuel Cell powerplant.
_
But I guess lastly, where it all falls to complete crap, is where they played the bait and switch recently. Where they plant to make "alternative fuels" from Coal. (Roughly 2x worse on carbon emmisions than normal gasoline)
The fuel of choice by the Nazis in World War II
Mit Romney, and sadly even Barack Obama have been suggesting we go that route. With Bush and the US Energy Secretary pushing legistlation to do exactly that.
_
So remind me, why should we continue the status quo except on biofuels if its just going to be much more expensive, and have almost neglible to worse environmental benefits?
<!--quoteo(post=1624040:date=Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1624040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The point is none of those technologies are currently at a stage to replace oil and other fossil-fuel power on an industrial scale. That leaves you with two choices:
(1) Continue using fossil fuels on an industrial scale as we research advanced renewable energy.
(2) Stop using fossil fuels on an industrial scale, and hope the advanced renewable energy becomes ready before we all starve to death.
If you are advocating (2), then you are simply deluding yourself when you say "economic boom", because <i>everything</i> in the economy runs on Oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well merely replacing all future existing capacity with near-zero emmisions sources would be a big step forward.
For instance: 1. <a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1088" target="_blank">GeoThermal Power Plants </a> (Using <a href="http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206" target="_blank">vastly improved and cheap electric drilling motors</a>) 3. <a href="http://www.greenprices.com/eu/newsletter/GPBE_45_070329/Biogas.asp" target="_blank">BioGas Power Plants</a> 2. <a href="http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independence-and.html" target="_blank">BioCoal Power Plants</a> 4. Electric Storage for Renewables (Like <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/212637/60" target="_blank">50sq miles worth of Pumped Hydro</a>, and <a href="http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/04/plugin_hybrid_c.html" target="_blank">Distributed Battery Storage</a> using <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZVSQ3bvI10&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">Plugin Hybrid Cars</a>)
<!--quoteo(post=1624040:date=Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1624040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And it doesn't require us to engage in any global-warming scaremongering to carry out. Its just the natural progression of technology. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> If only our politics were such that they operated on foresight, rather than hindsight. Sadly we don't live in that world.
<!--quoteo(post=1624040:date=Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1624040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> If you are advocating (1), then you aren't actually suggesting anything different than what we are already doing. Its a fine plan, its just not <i>new</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All they have on the table right now are the red herrings
1. Ethanol (And eventually <a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_155.html" target="_blank">making it from Coal</a>) 2. Hydrogen (And eventually <a href="http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-hydrogen-is-no-route-to-renewables.html" target="_blank">making it from Coal</a>) 3. Burning Coal, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage" target="_blank">undersea storage drilled miles below the ocean floor</a> 4. <a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/" target="_blank">Turn Coal into a gas, and then run it inside a power plant, for slightly more effeciency for large capital cost increases</a>
ALL of these are getting BILLIONS of dollars poured into them And none of these are getting any results.
Nor will they, since they are limited by the laws of thermodynamics. And it's rather hard to change those laws......
There's another facet of this issue to contemplate, namely the developing countries. Huge areas of the world are at this time, or will in the near future, building up the infrastructure we in the west enjoy. What they do affect us, althought slightly less than what the effect of what we do affect them, and so it is in our best interest to find good solutions for them. In their case it is not an issue of replacing existing infrastructure, and so the whole "our world is driven by oil" maxim and argument is void.
I would argue that investing in developing and more or less freely giving away "alternative" technology to these developing economies is the most cost efficient way of reducing the implied (current and future) effect of industry on climate change. As bonii we fuel the sectors of our economies that deal in green energy and create an industrial and economic basis for replacing our current infrastructure, reduce the risk for war by stabilising regions and reducing poverty, and we make ourselves feel better. Altruism rules.
Well, the cool part about developing countries when it comes to infrastructure, is that they can "leapfrog" technologies very easily.
For instance, most developing countries will now skip developing wired telephones and internet. And "leapfrogs" straight into cellphones and wireless internet.
Which are drastically cheaper due to their lack of need for infrastructure.
_
Another one which is very effective is using pig manure as an energy source. Basically they put the pig manure into an airtight vat, and then just siphon off some of the natural gas for heating an lighting.
_
Also there's a lot of ways that you can brand new buildings in their shape and orientation to drastically decrease their heating and lighting costs.
_
In short, building new is often cheaper than retrofitting.
on the subject of ethanol: if you want to pay for a new engine for my car, feel more than welcome. otherwise, i'm going to continue putting moderately volatile liquid fuels into it
<!--quoteo(post=1625278:date=May 6 2007, 11:33 AM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ May 6 2007, 11:33 AM) [snapback]1625278[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> on the subject of ethanol: if you want to pay for a new engine for my car, feel more than welcome. otherwise, i'm going to continue putting moderately volatile liquid fuels into it <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No problem there.
Mostly the study just points out that Ethanol isn't providing any meaningful reduction in harmful air pollutants, or CO2 emmisions.
All the while costing billions of tax dollars each year, and costing the consumer more per mile than gasoline. And using up <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPB6uHm2p_Q" target="_blank">Niagra Falls worth of water resources</a>.
Or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM" target="_blank">as John McCain puts it,</a> "I'm here to tell you the things you don't want to hear, as well as the things you do want to hear. And one of those things is Ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. Those Ethanol subsidies should be phased out. [...] We don't need ethanol subsidies. It doesn't help anybody."
So pretty much, Do your part for the environment and the American people. And buy Oil instead of Ethanol.
<!--QuoteBegin-White House Council on Environmental Quality+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(White House Council on Environmental Quality)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The US continues to lead the global effort on climate change." <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was in the library reading this and I laughed out loud. Sigh.
<!--quoteo(post=1626649:date=May 14 2007, 06:27 AM:name=Zor2)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Zor2 @ May 14 2007, 06:27 AM) [snapback]1626649[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Here we go again:
I was in the library reading this and I laughed out loud. Sigh. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Washington objects to the draft's targets to keep the global temperature rise below 2C this century and halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> For the first one... what's the plan there? magically change the warming pattern of the planet? It's impossible to "keep the global temperature rise below 2C", that will depend on what the globe and sun decide to do, not on weather or not we can decrease greenhouse gas emissions. That doesn't make decreasing greenhouse gas emissions a bad idea, but it's frankly idiotic to believe we have that kind of control over the global temperature.
I imagine the second objection is for a similar reason... but me not being a climatologist I can't really evaluate it fairly.
Rupert Murdoch, corporate CEO of FOX News, now fully supports the science behind global warming, and plans to make the whole corporate go carbon neutral.
He suggests Bill OReilly, and Shawn Hannity get on board.
NewScientist magazine did a rather good piece on the warming science to dispell some myths <a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462" target="_blank">http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462</a>
Although Gristmill covers the subject more broadly: <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics" target="_blank">http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics</a>
But in general, the take home point being increase solar activity can't be the cause of the recent warming, because there has been no increased solar activity for the past 30-40 years.
Most of the skeptics keep regurgitating <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar7.png" target="_blank">that one invalid study </a> that says otherwise merely because it agrees with them.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png" target="_blank">But it doesn't line up with the facts.</a>
_
And as for the blow by blow on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Here's a formal complaint from 37 scientists about the faulty science used in swindle <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3</a> <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle4" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle4</a>
Here's a presentation by a Geosciences proffesor at the University of Edinburgh <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle</a>
And here's a complaint by one of the <u>skeptics</u> claiming even his data was distorted in the show <a href="http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html" target="_blank">http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html</a>
Martin Durkin is just a political hack. <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/carbon" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/carbon</a>
Comments
Scientists didn't just look at the historical records, see a correlation between carbon dioxide density and temperature, and decide that carbon dioxide causes higher temperatures. A lot more is known about the process than you seem to think.
Carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation in certain infrared ranges due to its molecular vibrational modes. These ranges happen to be close to the wavelength for peak spectral radiance for blackbody radiation from the earth.
Scientists didn't just look at the historical records, see a correlation between carbon dioxide density and temperature, and decide that carbon dioxide causes higher temperatures. A lot more is known about the process than you seem to think.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, carbon dioxide is supposed to cause tropospheric warming, which is in turn supposed to cause surface warming further along. How or where, and what the long term consequences of this are, are beyond todays climatologists. It's come to the point where the interactions are so complex that they are basically just guessing and wrapping it up in smart sounding language. There's no evidence to show that unbalanced greenhouse levels have ever caused uncontrollable global disaster in the past. The world isn't even reasonably hotter then it ever used to be. And lets not forget 30 years ago they were proclaiming doom and gloom at the offset of the next ice age due to global cooling.
Carbon dioxide absorbs electromagnetic radiation in certain infrared ranges due to its molecular vibrational modes. These ranges happen to be close to the wavelength for peak spectral radiance for blackbody radiation from the earth.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
These ranges also happen to heavily overlap with the ranges absorbed by other prevalent gasses in our atmosphere, specifically water vapor. Additionally it takes only a relatively small dose of CO2 to block the majority of radiation in its particular spectrum, a dosage which was exceeded well before the industrial revolution began, and further increasing the dosage of CO2 has only an incremental effect on the amount of radiation absorbed. CO2 levels alone can tell only a small part of the overall story of global warming.
IMO the Galileo analogy is MUCH more accurate then the tobacco industry analogy at this point in time.
The political power is BLATANTLY and CLEARLY on the side of the global warming disaster advocates, and there is just NO real evidence to support their claims. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gee, this arguement sounds <a href="http://greyfalcon.net/lindzen.png" target="_blank">rather familiar</a>.
How about I spin it the other way.
What evidence is there that shows that manmade greenhouse emmisions aren't causing global warming?
I can't find any that hasn't already failed peer review.
Note, that doesn't stop the usual shortlist of climate skeptics from quoting disproven information.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Not to sound irreverent, but I don't think we understand what's going on well enough to realistically predict what will result from it, and I don't think it's rational to assume there is anything we can do to stop it, or change what is happening at this point in time.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've gone to war over much less.
However nobody is claiming to know *exactly* what will result from it.
The fallout and degree of warming are not certain.
However,
Whether we are causing it primarily due to greenhouse gas emmision, that is quite certain.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Effectively we have a machine running here with a billion internal interactions, a billion input variables, and a billion output streams, and we're saying "oh well, if we reduce this one input variable figure then it will magically stabilize!" It's utter idiocy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it's not one variable.
CO2 is just one of the bigger variables.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png</a>
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png" target="_blank">http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a...Attribution.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Lets go back to the CO2 ice core samples. They show a CLEAR causal relationship, that is to say higher global temperature = more CO2 800 years later, and as temperature drops the CO2 similarly drops, 800 years later. CLEARLY CO2 has never driven temperature in the past in any meaningful way. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So.. first you say the arguement isn't complex enough.
Now you boil it down to 1 variable? i.e. Incoming solar radiation?
Does that even make sence?
It's a mix of natural and unnatural forces.
But the natural forces do not explain the current warming.
From purely natural forces we should be cooling right now.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png</a>
_
Furthermore, Martin Durkin, the producer of the global warming swindle
He does quite a bit to distort the natural of CO2 emmisions.
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtNdVDom0GU" target="_blank">Here he is in his own words on CO2 levels</a>, contradicting what he says in the movie.
Here's another thing mentioning <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/04/25/international/i120726D24.DTL" target="_blank">his exagerations about volcanoes, and the medieval warm period.</a>
<a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece" target="_blank">Here's another mentioning</a> his fraudlent <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar.png" target="_blank">quoting of the disproven Eigil Friis Christensen 1991 study.</a>
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for cleaner and more efficient solutions in terms of energy production and general manufacturing. But I refuse to be fear mongered into it by idiots who have no idea what they are talking about. IMO we shouldn't need a global disaster to encourage us to seek clean and efficient methods of energy production. What I have a problem with is this concept that we need to reduce emissions at any cost.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everyone progress. Nobody wants change. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Hell, if we do need one then peak oil is MORE then enough IMO.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not really. We're only at the halfway mark, not running on empty.
And we can always switch over to electricity.
(Hell an electric hummer would probably be greener than a Prius, and have better performance than a normal hummer)
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Backwards progress is ALWAYS inferior, no matter the motive,
I'm not willing to role the dice with the future of our people/planet. Right now what the world needs is progress IMO. Strong effective useful technological improvements to increase our energy use efficiency and decrease our non direct energy reliance. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. So long as that also means moving away from coal.
Way Bush sees it, we should just turn Coal into oil, and put up twice the CO2 emmisions as before.
And burn up more coal in the next 50 years than we have in the last 250.
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
What we don't need is movements to suppress technological advancements that are going to aid in this cause.
1. Suppression of genetically modified foodstuffs,
2. suppression of third world labor forces,
3. suppression of human expansion,
4. suppression of foreign governments.
If disaster is impending all of these things are going to cost us more, not improve our situation in the slightest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. What does that have to do wth energy? If we have enough food to make biofuels, or we have enough grain to feed it to cows. I think we got plenty of food. Oddly GMO crops, while they offer shortterm benefits, for safety reasons they are sterile such that they don't go wild and cause all sorts of harm. So third world countries are forced to buy expensive seeds EVERY year from companies like Monsanto. Not to mention, the quick gains are usually countered by a longer term degradation of the soil. Over the long haul, organics are more productive.
2. Climate legistlation specifically exempts most third world countries
If you don't remember, this was Pres. Bush's excuse for not signing Kyoto.
And renewable energy sources are usually the cheapest sources of energy for locations without infrastructure or existing heavy subsidies for coal/oil. i.e. Third world countries.
3. Thats for different reasons. Mainly to cut costs for cities that are legally required to offer services like police forces and fire patrol.
4. Huh?
<!--quoteo(post=1623263:date=Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM:name=Swiftspear)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swiftspear @ Apr 26 2007, 03:19 PM) [snapback]1623263[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Slowing down humanitarian growth to reduce fuel emissions is not an option IMO unless claims of impending disaster can be objectively verified. Hell, a richer more stable world will be much better off dealing with impending disaster if it becomes necessary then one crippled by an impossible attempt to turn back the clock. My enemies are those who would tell me they know the future, or those who wouldn't allow development of the third world for fear that humans are going to destroy the world by accident.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
........................I'll let <a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000" target="_blank">Scientific American explain this</a>. This arguement is just silly.
This is essentially BS crafted by Bjorn Lomborg.
Essentially, he uses short term time frames (5 years) to measure long term impacts (50+ years),
And then goes on to assume that all the issues of poverty, hunger, sickness etc are all mutually exclusive to global warming.
In short, EXTREMELY heavy discounting of the future.
The other fun talking points they toss up is that the per capita income of poor nations will be much higher than the richest nations today.
What they don't mention is that this will merely be due to inflation, and that in real value terms, they will still be dirt poor.
_
Furthermore it also ignores the cost of "desperate measures" in the furture.
They do have some planned, but they make the current mitigations look like chump change.
One of the more popular ones is to launch millions of rockets into the atmosphere containing sulfur aerosols.
Which will then widen the hole in the ozone, and cause increased acid rain, and cost about 15% of global GDP.
By comparison, reducing emmisions is about one half of 1% GDP.
_
Anyways, I tried my best earlier to keep my posts as shortwinded as possible, but ah well.
I guess I need to make this into a blog or a youtube video or something to make it easier to absorb.
Scientist guy actually made a video, finally <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573</a>
_
Now I need to figure out how convert his +100mb powerpoint into a video so I can put it on Youtube <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<a href="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris" target="_blank">http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris</a>
Here we go.
Scientist guy actually made a video, finally <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
<a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573" target="_blank">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573</a>
_
Now I need to figure out how convert his +100mb powerpoint into a video so I can put it on Youtube <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
<a href="http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris" target="_blank">http://www.geos.ed.ac.uk/homes/chris</a>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Every point in that video can be countered as well. I'm never claimed great global warming swindle was infallible or objectively correct. It presents an argument to a debate that, in the fact of the matter, we do not know what the objective right is.
The basis of what is going on right now, is that something has changed in the way our climate manages itself, possibly at the fault of man made CO2, but not necessarily definitely, and climatologists no longer can figure out what the hell is going on with the world because the system's standards are shifting and there hasn't been time to observe the results yet. I'll agree, that's kind of scary, but it doesn't really say anything decisively... There is no evidence to show that reducing manmade CO2 levels at this point in time will stabilize anything, there is no evidence indicating that increasing manmade CO2 levels will do more damage then already has been done, and the long term extent of the damages resulting from either or is totally and utterly vague at this point in time. The best climatologists in the world can't intelligently argue that they know there will be a specific heat increase of X amount and it will effect X locations and it will do X amount of damage. That's ENTIRELY speculation. The whole point is that the immensely complicated machine is now behaving in an unexpected way, and we CAN'T figure out what is wrong. THAT'S what's scary. Forget global warming. Right now the globe should be at sort of a middle point in terms of temperature, what happens if solar heating increases? How does our temperature react? What happens if solar heating decreases again? It's hard to say now. Has the system reached a stability point at a higher level in a predictable way or is it still unstable?
Optimally, from a climatologists point of view it probably should be best to try to stop increasing or decreasing current levels and figure out weather the system will stabilize in a sensical way or not, of course humanity probably doesn't have the luxury of such a controlled scientific experiment.
[edit] it's not that global warming, or more accurately, our lack of understanding about the current global warming is crock science, it's that reducing greenhouse emissions as a solution is crock science.
1. We know it's not solar forcing
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar4.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar4.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar2.png</a>
2. We had projections back in 1988 which have held up considerably well since then.
All they had to do was change when a predicted volcano erruption was going to be, to where it actually happened.
<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansen_re-crichton.pdf</a>
3. We know that CO2 reflects light within certain wavelengths of IR radiation
(Same way that we know that Ozone blocks wavelengths of UV radiation)
This can easily be tested within the lab.
<a href="http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png" target="_blank">http://brneurosci.org/spectra.png</a>
4. We know that the rise in CO2 is manmade, and that the CO2 levels are 35% higher than they've every been in 650,000 years over 3 major icecore samples.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/carbon" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/carbon</a>
5. We know that if CO2 were the culprit, then the theory says that the surface should be warming, the greenhouse layer should be warming faster, and the stratosphere should be cooling.
And thats exactly whats happening.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png</a>
6. And we know that water vapor isn't the cause either. Largely because of point #5.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/watervapor.png</a>
Which begs the question, what exactly is left to prove about increased greenhouse gases causing warming?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The best climatologists in the world can't intelligently argue that they know there will be a specific heat increase of X amount and it will effect X locations and it will do X amount of damage. That's ENTIRELY speculation. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This part is true.
But climate scientists have never claimed to know the exact degree of warming.
Or the exact severity and location of fallout.
However this is largely besides the point.
Since the real question is whether we are causing a significant ammount of manmade warming.
While weather always shifts around
The entire globe has a very fixed ammount of measurable inputs that are consistant within the system.
So knowing exactly where those inputs pop up isn't neccisary.
_
Lastly the question comes up, how much of this is merely obstructionism.
Essentially waiting for all the secrets of the universe to be described in full before any action is taken.
Since absolute knowledge is impossible,
<b>how much is neccisary before we take ANY action?</b>
(As compared to say, the degree of certainty we had when we went into Iraq.)
<b>And whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong?</b>
Worst comes to worst, we become energy independant, and dramatically reduce global energy conflicts around the world, and ready the world's resource use for expontentially increasing population.
All the while providing a new economic boom in science and technology which would offer many branching technologies, services, products, and jobs.
Not to mention, live healthier and longer lives.
One could argue those benefits alone make it worth it, even if global warming were later shown to be wrong.
_
So whats rather than arguing about the science, we can now say, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upphPTRr_PE&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">that the science is solid.</a>
And now we need to figure out what the most effective ways of reaching that goal are.
Meanwhile, by all means, continue the science to disprove global warming.
The only thing I can't seem to find is the graphs that show all the negative forcing components in the climate system that have not changed over the last 150 years while CO2 has been increasing temperature.
Oh well. Maybe someday.
<b>And whats the worst that can happen if we're wrong?</b>
Worst comes to worst, we become energy independant, and dramatically reduce global energy conflicts around the world, and ready the world's resource use for expontentially increasing population.
All the while providing a new economic boom in science and technology which would offer many branching technologies, services, products, and jobs.
Not to mention, live healthier and longer lives.
One could argue those benefits alone make it worth it, even if global warming were later shown to be wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You...uh...failed to mention the giant economic bust due to drastically reduced availability of current energy technologies in the transition period before the future technologies are available.
Or if you weren't planning on reducing access to current technology until the next generation technology is finished, thats fine, but even opponents of global warming theory are in favor of developing next generation technology...so in that case I don't see where the debate is.
Try economic boom.
You don't get anywhere through stagnation.
Innovation is what leads growth.
_
Actually if it were up to me,
I'd scrap all the liquid biofuel projects, the carbon sequestration projects,
And the "clean coal" projects, and put them towards making "BioCoal".
Mainly because making Biomass into a solid is much more energy effecient than making it into a liquid.
(Roughly 90% of the energy is maintained, and it can be processed in a few minutes)
This could be used in existing infrastructure right away.
(This would also be effective because, per unit of energy, Coal puts up about ~10x the carbon as Oil.)
The other advantage is that biocoal can be rather omnivourous.
Rather than needing any particular type of biomass.
_
BioCoal is also quite an ideal baseload energy source because it's the fuel-of-choice for Direct Carbon Fuel Cells. Mainly because it lacks any impurities, like heavy metal (mercury), and sulfur (acid rain).
Cool part about a DCFC is that it can process purified coal at 80% effeciency
Which is more than double a conventional facility running at 35%
And considerably more than the 55% effecient nextgen "clean coal" facilities.
_
Past that, I'd suggest we go GeoThermal. (Rather than Nuclear)
Raser Technologies has already developed an iron electromagnet motor that is orders of magnitude more powerful than the most rare materials for physical magnet motors.
Considering all the drilling motors are electric, this means a lot.
We've also gone quite a long ways with geo-sensing technology, which makes exploration a lot simpler.
While conventional geothermal needs there to be existing water in the ground. If you go a bit deeper and pump your own water down there, there's the potential for Geothermal practically anywhere.
_
Past that, I'd suggest we build a bunch of pumped hydropower storage facilities.
It'd only take about 50 square miles of water storage to backup the entire grid.
Reason for pumped hydro is that it's the most effecient large scale energy storage device.
And we've been building stuff like it for the past century.
_
Then those electric cars can both take and give electricity to the grid.
This would make them an excellent buffer for grid capacity.
Not to mention, it might even mean that people would fill up your car for free. (Charging you only for the wear and tear on your battery life. Which for next gen electric car batteries is millions of miles)
_
And past all that, you can merely have all the other renewables feed into the grid.
<!--quoteo(post=1624012:date=Apr 30 2007, 03:12 PM:name=Spooge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Spooge @ Apr 30 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]1624012[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Looking at graphs that show a temperature going up and CO2 levels going up obviously proves that humans are directly responsible. Easy cheesy.
The only thing I can't seem to find is the graphs that show all the negative forcing components in the climate system that have not changed over the last 150 years while CO2 has been increasing temperature.
Oh well. Maybe someday.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You mean like this?
<img src="http://www.greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
(1) Continue using fossil fuels on an industrial scale as we research advanced renewable energy.
(2) Stop using fossil fuels on an industrial scale, and hope the advanced renewable energy becomes ready before we all starve to death.
If you are advocating (2), then you are simply deluding yourself when you say "economic boom", because <i>everything</i> in the economy runs on Oil. If you are advocating (1), then you aren't actually suggesting anything different than what we are already doing. Its a fine plan, its just not <i>new</i>. And it doesn't require us to engage in any global-warming scaremongering to carry out. Its just the natural progression of technology.
None of this foot dragging BS we got going on now.
Furthermore, some actual funding.
Not listed in this chart is $12 billion for nuclear
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png</a>
As is, Ethanol gets 20x the funding of Solar.
And <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">Ethanol is craptastic</a>
And Nuclear gets more year to year funding than all renewable energy sources combined.
Which doesn't even include the anti-proliferation costs.
And hell, they won't even be able to build even 1 plant before 2015
You mean like this?
(image)
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I was thinking more like <a href="http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/current_and_past_radiative_forcing_from_human_and_natural_causes#metainfo" target="_blank">the graphic on this page.</a> One that shows what must be a more obvious balance of positives and negatives in natural terms based one the idea that if it were unbalanced, Earth would not be hospitable to life. Conveniently, it also clearly identifies the areas of scientific study that need to take place for a better understanding of how each forcing accurately effects the climate and weather.
Unlike the IPCC version.
Although I did clip off the "LOSU". Now I understand what that stands for.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg</a>
Except mine is from 2007, and yours is from 2005.
And considering this happened in 2006.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png</a>
Thats a pretty big difference.
_
As is Now three years later the only significant unknown is airborne dust.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/</a>
Thats the same chart.
Although I did clip off the "LOSU". Now I understand what that stands for.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/images/ipcc2007_radforc.jpg</a>
Except mine is from 2007, and yours is from 2005.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And there's very little difference between them. But, considering mine was complete as opposed to edited...
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->And considering this happened in 2006.
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/trends.png</a>
Thats a pretty big difference.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The actual report that you can't seem to link to <a href="http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/default.htm" target="_blank">is here.</a> Unfortunately, it seems to have left out <a href="http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/NR-143.pdf" target="_blank">some relevant and most likely contradictory peer-reviewed data</a> for politics.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As is Now three years later the only significant unknown is airborne dust.
<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/aerosols-the-last-frontier/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-last-frontier/</a><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, research into the effects of land use on surface albedo seems to be showing significance in regional climate changes. But, it appears that RealGroupThink.org doesn't spend much time worrying about it.
Roger Pielke Sr.
Hard to figure him out.
First off Roger Pielke Jr. also posts a lot of climate stuff.
But I'm trying to figure out what he's going on about
Was reading a bit through this.
<a href="http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/conflict-of-interest-in-the-ccsp-report-temperature-trends-in-the-lower-atmosphere-steps-for-understanding-and-reconciling-differences/feed/" target="_blank">http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/03/16/...fferences/feed/</a>
_
Haven't given it a good read through, but I'm not quite certain what he's talking about yet.
_
Also technically while credible this wasn't published in a peer reviewed journal as far as I can tell.
I'm advocating for 1, except at a "Space Race" scale.
None of this foot dragging BS we got going on now.
Furthermore, some actual funding.
Not listed in this chart is $12 billion for nuclear
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png</a>
<a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes.png" target="_blank">http://www.greyfalcon.net/fossiltaxes2.png</a>
As is, Ethanol gets 20x the funding of Solar.
And <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">Ethanol is craptastic</a>
And Nuclear gets more year to year funding than all renewable energy sources combined.
Which doesn't even include the anti-proliferation costs.
And hell, they won't even be able to build even 1 plant before 2015
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ethanol gets more funding then solar because you can't put solar fuel into the internal combustion engine. When we say our world runs on oil, that necessitates that most of the energy production devices currently used to run the world use oil. Therefore inefficient solutions that can replace oil cost less then rebuilding our entire basic production system.
It's really quite logical what they've done. They've noticed that they have a billion fireplaces, so instead of trying to convert every house to a gas stove they have made more efficient fire logs. The full conversion scale would be great to push towards, but it's all just not quite ready yet. When you say space race you're talking about putting a single rocket with a guy in it in space, when you say new energy solution you're talking about rebuilding a million power plants.
We're at the halfway mark.
It's merely getting more expensive.
So why are we trying to use an inheriently expensive source of energy to combat something which is merely a price issue?
(Especially when all the cost benefits get eaten up by agro-corporate companies like ADM and Cargil)
Wouldn't reducing demand on Oil do a better job at reducing the price?
_
At the rate we have projected to with "Replace" oil with biofuel.
We wouldn't even be able to replace the additional growth in domestic demand.
Much less reduce our imports by even 1 drop compared to todays imports.
Population Growth alone will make sure of that.
_
Also if we were to fund biofuels by the same per gallon subsidy we are now.
Given the target we have for the year 2020 that subsidy would be 350 billion dollars.
Which is more than 4x our entire military budget.
_
If Brazil is the best example in the world.
Thats a pretty crappy example.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/brazil.png" target="_blank">They pump just as much oil as Venezuela, and less than 14% of their fuel is ethanol.</a>
And they've been pushing hard for Ethanol for 3 decades.
Another <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/ethanol" target="_blank">recent study mentions that if we switched all of our cars to E85 Ethanol using cellulosic switchgrass.</a>
We'd get a mere 4% reduction in GHG emmisions
And an increase in Ozone emmisions, the primary component of Smog.
And that using Switchgrass it would take up about 1/6th the US landmass to plant.
_
How does any of that make sense?
Especially when if we wanted to deal with CO2 emmisions,
By far the worst source is not Oil. It's Coal.
(By about 10x worse per unit of energy)
We could get atleast 4x the energy by merely burning it inside a conventional coal power plant.
And 10x more energy out of the same biomass by making it into biocoal, and then running it inside an 80% effecient Direct Carbon Fuel Cell powerplant.
_
But I guess lastly, where it all falls to complete crap, is where they played the bait and switch recently.
Where they plant to make "alternative fuels" from Coal.
(Roughly 2x worse on carbon emmisions than normal gasoline)
The fuel of choice by the Nazis in World War II
Mit Romney, and sadly even Barack Obama have been suggesting we go that route.
With Bush and the US Energy Secretary pushing legistlation to do exactly that.
_
So remind me, why should we continue the status quo except on biofuels
if its just going to be much more expensive, and have almost neglible to worse environmental benefits?
The point is none of those technologies are currently at a stage to replace oil and other fossil-fuel power on an industrial scale. That leaves you with two choices:
(1) Continue using fossil fuels on an industrial scale as we research advanced renewable energy.
(2) Stop using fossil fuels on an industrial scale, and hope the advanced renewable energy becomes ready before we all starve to death.
If you are advocating (2), then you are simply deluding yourself when you say "economic boom", because <i>everything</i> in the economy runs on Oil. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well merely replacing all future existing capacity with near-zero emmisions sources would be a big step forward.
For instance:
1. <a href="http://www.insidegreentech.com/node/1088" target="_blank">GeoThermal Power Plants </a> (Using <a href="http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1206" target="_blank">vastly improved and cheap electric drilling motors</a>)
3. <a href="http://www.greenprices.com/eu/newsletter/GPBE_45_070329/Biogas.asp" target="_blank">BioGas Power Plants</a>
2. <a href="http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2006/11/sustainability-energy-independence-and.html" target="_blank">BioCoal Power Plants</a>
4. Electric Storage for Renewables
(Like <a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/212637/60" target="_blank">50sq miles worth of Pumped Hydro</a>, and <a href="http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/04/plugin_hybrid_c.html" target="_blank">Distributed Battery Storage</a> using <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZVSQ3bvI10&mode=related&search=" target="_blank">Plugin Hybrid Cars</a>)
<!--quoteo(post=1624040:date=Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1624040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
And it doesn't require us to engage in any global-warming scaremongering to carry out. Its just the natural progression of technology.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If only our politics were such that they operated on foresight, rather than hindsight.
Sadly we don't live in that world.
<!--quoteo(post=1624040:date=Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Apr 30 2007, 06:58 PM) [snapback]1624040[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
If you are advocating (1), then you aren't actually suggesting anything different than what we are already doing. Its a fine plan, its just not <i>new</i>. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
All they have on the table right now are the red herrings
1. Ethanol (And eventually <a href="http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_SN_155.html" target="_blank">making it from Coal</a>)
2. Hydrogen (And eventually <a href="http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/2005/07/why-hydrogen-is-no-route-to-renewables.html" target="_blank">making it from Coal</a>)
3. Burning Coal, with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage" target="_blank">undersea storage drilled miles below the ocean floor</a>
4. <a href="http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/powersystems/cleancoal/" target="_blank">Turn Coal into a gas, and then run it inside a power plant, for slightly more effeciency for large capital cost increases</a>
ALL of these are getting BILLIONS of dollars poured into them
And none of these are getting any results.
Nor will they, since they are limited by the laws of thermodynamics.
And it's rather hard to change those laws......
I would argue that investing in developing and more or less freely giving away "alternative" technology to these developing economies is the most cost efficient way of reducing the implied (current and future) effect of industry on climate change. As bonii we fuel the sectors of our economies that deal in green energy and create an industrial and economic basis for replacing our current infrastructure, reduce the risk for war by stabilising regions and reducing poverty, and we make ourselves feel better. Altruism rules.
For instance, most developing countries will now skip developing wired telephones and internet.
And "leapfrogs" straight into cellphones and wireless internet.
Which are drastically cheaper due to their lack of need for infrastructure.
_
Another one which is very effective is using pig manure as an energy source.
Basically they put the pig manure into an airtight vat, and then just siphon off some of the natural gas for heating an lighting.
_
Also there's a lot of ways that you can brand new buildings in their shape and orientation to drastically decrease their heating and lighting costs.
_
In short, building new is often cheaper than retrofitting.
on the subject of ethanol: if you want to pay for a new engine for my car, feel more than welcome. otherwise, i'm going to continue putting moderately volatile liquid fuels into it
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No problem there.
Mostly the study just points out that Ethanol isn't providing any meaningful reduction in harmful air pollutants, or CO2 emmisions.
All the while costing billions of tax dollars each year, and costing the consumer more per mile than gasoline.
And using up <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPB6uHm2p_Q" target="_blank">Niagra Falls worth of water resources</a>.
Or <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQMfPAsZqOM" target="_blank">as John McCain puts it,</a>
"I'm here to tell you the things you don't want to hear, as well as the things you do want to hear. And one of those things is Ethanol. Ethanol is not worth it. It does not help the consumer. Those Ethanol subsidies should be phased out. [...] We don't need ethanol subsidies. It doesn't help anybody."
So pretty much,
Do your part for the environment and the American people.
And buy Oil instead of Ethanol.
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6651295.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6651295.stm</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-White House Council on Environmental Quality+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(White House Council on Environmental Quality)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The US continues to lead the global effort on climate change." <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I was in the library reading this and I laughed out loud. Sigh.
Here we go again:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6651295.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6651295.stm</a>
I was in the library reading this and I laughed out loud. Sigh.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Washington objects to the draft's targets to keep the global temperature rise below 2C this century and halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For the first one... what's the plan there? magically change the warming pattern of the planet? It's impossible to "keep the global temperature rise below 2C", that will depend on what the globe and sun decide to do, not on weather or not we can decrease greenhouse gas emissions. That doesn't make decreasing greenhouse gas emissions a bad idea, but it's frankly idiotic to believe we have that kind of control over the global temperature.
I imagine the second objection is for a similar reason... but me not being a climatologist I can't really evaluate it fairly.
Rupert Murdoch, corporate CEO of FOX News, now fully supports the science behind global warming, and plans to make the whole corporate go carbon neutral.
He suggests Bill OReilly, and Shawn Hannity get on board.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch2" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch2</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch3" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/murdoch3</a>
_______________________
In other global warming news:
NewScientist magazine did a rather good piece on the warming science to dispell some myths
<a href="http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462" target="_blank">http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462</a>
Although Gristmill covers the subject more broadly:
<a href="http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics" target="_blank">http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics</a>
But in general, the take home point being increase solar activity can't be the cause of the recent warming, because there has been no increased solar activity for the past 30-40 years.
Most of the skeptics keep regurgitating <a href="http://www.greyfalcon.net/solar7.png" target="_blank">that one invalid study </a> that says otherwise merely because it agrees with them.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/solar4.png" target="_blank">But it doesn't line up with the facts.</a>
_
And as for the blow by blow on "The Great Global Warming Swindle"
Here's a formal complaint from 37 scientists about the faulty science used in swindle
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3</a>
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle4" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle4</a>
Here's a presentation by a Geosciences proffesor at the University of Edinburgh
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/swindle" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/swindle</a>
And here's a complaint by one of the <u>skeptics</u> claiming even his data was distorted in the show
<a href="http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html" target="_blank">http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html</a>
Martin Durkin is just a political hack.
<a href="http://greyfalcon.net/carbon" target="_blank">http://greyfalcon.net/carbon</a>