Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect.............................................

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

Don't despair! it's still coming! See first the 2% additional CO2 we've added to the atmosphere and all the cow flatulance has to heat things up enough to melt the ice caps (watch for the Coke a Cola Bear on a boogie board), then while those of us in GA are enjoying our new, not so salty, beach front property (heck with peanuts man we got condos for rent now!) the ocean currents will change and then it will get cold and those of us in GA, now land locked again (dang where'd I park that combine?!?), will freeze to death (no really warm coats you see) as we watch the glaciers move down out of Tenn and S.C. The only consolation will be even if we can't take the cold like the Yankees at least we will have the pleasure of knowing all that is scraped clean ;) How's them horse apples Sherman!
I know this to be true, cause Big Daddy Gore told me so. Come on sing along. Oh you better not toot, ya better not poot cause the ice is coming to town...

Round about the 8th grade I did a science project on the coming climate change that was to destroy mankind as we knew him. Yes as far back as 1973 we were taught of the doom and gloom of the coming climate change. So I studied and I gathered all the info from all the top scientist of our day. By the time I was finished with my project I was a scared ****less little dude. Oh you bet I was I had all the "Facts" from all the "Scientists"
I was so excited to be the one to let man kind know about this coming doomsday. I worked my butt off I had the visuals and all the reports and the day of the science fair it was perfect.............................................

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

GLOBAL WARMING is new disaster what a CROCK. And to think I once as little dude trusted these Scientists with my science project. Oh well I still got an A

Thought someone might like this editorial in our local paper...
All problems should be made 'tradable'

Posted: 6/28/2007

Having contemplated the carbon credit proposal, I am struck with the sheer brilliance of the concept. It appears that if we trade carbon emissions as a commodity, then somehow we are addressing the source of the problem and remediating it. And I thought that to reduce the increase in CO2 we need to reduce the emissions of CO2.

If I am wrong and carbon trading is actually a viable method of reducing the CO2 increases, then I propose that we carry it to the next logical level, "disease credits." Countries with rampant disease such as malaria and AIDS could trade disease credits with healthier countries. By doing so we wouldn't have to actually do anything about disease but we could all feel better about it.

And what of "poverty credits"? Countries with many impoverished people could purchase "poverty credits" from countries with fewer impoverished people. I haven't figured out what they would pay with however.

It seems that if we can make all of our problems a tradable commodity, then we will have no problems at all. I am now going to speak to my kids about "chores around the house" credits.

Chris De Witt, Reno


http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070628/OPED02/706280301/1100/OPED

MY REPORT OF THE COMING ICE AGE THAT WAS TO DETROY ALL OF MANKIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Needless to say as I got older I was a relieved but also a tad disappointed that my first place project was in the not so distant future to be discovered as NOT TRUE the facts were all wrong, How could this be 34 years later and I am still waiting for the ICE AGE but no not so fast now.

What a shame that it was all journalistic hype!

newsweek 1975 - cooling world
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/newsweek-coolingworld.pdf

Please direct me to any peer reviewed science predicting an ice-age!
None have been found!

At the time, there was no scientific consensus, because the science of climatology was in its infancy. The cooling during this period was caused by the aerosols of sulphate & etc. liberated in the post-WW2 industrial boom.

There is no comparison between your claims and the state of the science of climate change in the early 21st century.

The science concerning the global warming is overwhelming and unequivocal.

The IPCC state that they have very high confidence [>90%] that the evidence points to the warming being anthropogenic in origin.

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

We, the ordinary Joes,the public, say all this "global warming is our fault" stuff is b*ll*cks and the science community say, (very stiff upper lipped voice) 'It's the facts, all the scientists have evidence for it. Evidence to the contrary isn't peer reviewed, so there'.

The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.

All those scientists wanting more money say 'aye', the steps to the bandwagon are this way. All those left behind we'll have to call them names like "Maverick, Nutter, layperson".

Those peers my friend, are ON the bandwagon.

Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.

Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.

Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.


Here you are using a computer, which means that you use technology. Technology uses science. Science is theory, research is done to prove or disprove theory. If the research provides evidence that does not match the theory [it happens] the theory has to be modified [if appropriate] or discarded completely. A theory is tested by whether it can predict previously unseen behaviour. Naturally, research is done to look for the predicted behaviour. The theory is confirmed or confounded as a result. Science is an iterative process.
This is briefly how science works.

In this respect, climate science is no different from the science of semiconductors that underpins the electronics in the PC or Mac that you are using.

Climate models are part of this. Climate models are quite different from your expressed opinion.

The fact that models have difficulty in modelling ice-melt is because the mechanisms are still not properly understood. Currently the models underestimate melting by a factor of three or so. If it was merely a matter of a little tweaking here and there, then where would the problem be?

Model modification requires SCIENCE! This is why you are wrong!

Very briefly, climate models calculate the climate by incorporating the known behaviour of the various components of the atmosphere and hydrosphere.

I suggest you read the following, it is an introduction:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/regional-climate-projections/#more-442

The following includes more information about climate models.
Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" (AIP)
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

All of these lead to peer-reviewed science.

The rest of your post was not worth commenting upon. No substance, just rant. Why not check your facts first!

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

Selfish, yes it is harder to become motivated about issues don't effect ourselves so most people are somewhat guilty of it. IMHO plauge is more likely to decimate mankind than human related climate change, that will also be our own fault due to largely overpopulation.

Many of us that call shenanagians against climate change still belive in stewartship of resources. I personally want to see viable alteranatives to fossil fuels in power production. I'm less worried about the CO2 than the poisions released, even if scrubbed as they have to be taken out of solution and disposed of somehow. I want nature to be something my daughter and her children can experiance, not just read about. I don't want them to have a lower standard of living than myself however.

As far as keeping quite, well that makes you sound like a US liberal. "We know what is best for the world by our unique moral insight so the rest of you unenlightened lessers just stay out of our way and keep quite". Sorry can't do that as I am acustomed to thinking for myself.

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

I think we are selfish and ignorant by nature and thats probably whats going to kill off mankind just like what happen to the dinosaurs. The only difference is that it wasn't the dinosaurs fault they went extinct.

Don't think about now. The world took billions of years to be where we are. Yes, yes, it will probably take another billion years before it destroy itself, I hear you say. But why even take that chance. It could happen in the next hundred years or so. If we don't think about ourselves, at least think about the next generation who is going to inhabit this place. Are you happy to leave this world knowing your children will not have a house to live in? I think not, so why not think the same for the future generation.

Forget the argument if global warming or global cooling is happening or not. Something good will always come out of this if we just put all our mind together instead of arguing with each other over the issue.

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

OK smoke another one Bro, The world has mabey 200 years left. And man will not destroy it nor will "Mother Nature" GOD will destroy this earth and all the evil that is in it. The best you can do for your childern is to teach them how to get saved and then when the rapture comes they will be lucky enough to be spared from all the nasty stuff that GOD has planed for mankind.

That is why I do not wory about global warming. I FEAR GOD MUCH MORE
SO does that mean we should poison the earth and let ne next gen worry about it, Hell no, But we need ro be reasonable too. You lib enviormental wackjobs have got so out of control that a guy can not even build a road now days with out going around every pile of pink lizzard crap he spots along the way.

Just let me build my home without the DEQ documenting ever blade of swamp grass too. It has just got out of control.

Bluesman

Maybe the better way is, let some of us who are concern about our future do our job to make this place a better world to live in. The rest of us can just keep quiet. But I guess that would be difficult for some of us to do huh.

Sounds good to me just don't expect me to shut up when you keep asking for my money to support your ideas.

They can't tell me if its going to rain in a few weeks.
They have been WAY OFF prediciting the past 2 years hurricane seasons activity.
When we do have a hurricane they can't tell me where it will go tomorrow.

Now please tell me why I should listen to these same people tell me about whats going to happen in 100+ years from now much less pay for their research.

I see it as a research grant free for all and if the scientist can get the politicians on board then they are on the free grant money gravy train. After all the government has my money to give away on such things. Of course the results of the research will be inline with what they want the results to be. Then at the end of the reports it will always say "more research is needed," as it always says. AKA we need more grant money so we can keep our jobs.

Considering how long earth has been here and how miniscule an amount of time they are using to base all their stats on its rather ridiculous. Seems A LOT of ice melted off all on its own long before internal combustion engines were around. If the ice is melting due to rising CO2 emissions soley then we should still be covered in ice from the last ice age. Its kind of big balls to make such claims on such limited timelines when considering the time line of earth itself. If we jump everytime a sensor twitches with new laws and regs we will end up with more of the same that we have now. Stupid laws and regs that do nothing but jack things up and cost us all more that in the end do nothing to stop the problem that was originally supposed to be fixed.

Give a grant to most any scientist and you will get the results you wanted to get, especially if they know more $$$$ is to follow once the initial "results," are in.

The whole carbon credit deal is nothing but a scam of a cottage industry that Al Gore expects to profit from. When people like him and Babs who preach global warming stop flying in private jets exhausting more CO2 than I will in my life on one trip in their plane I might listen. Then again, I could never see me listening to anything those blow hards have to say short of goodbye and good ridence.


Bowman

Please, get out of the mindset where you are surrounded by disasters an calamities all around you all the time. Stop having the arrogance to believe you can "make a difference". About the bogeyman de jour under the bed; he's not real, he's not there but he does make it easier to ignore what you should be doing.

You want to live a much happier, longer and more stress-free life? You want to do something that matters? You want to make a difference in this world? Turn off your TV and cancel your news magazine subscriptions. Unsubscribe from "the sky is falling" websites. Then help the people you know, care for those who could really use your support and love the ones who miraculously have found you worth loving. Fix it so when your time comes, someone cares. That will take your mind off of this global warming idiocy.

Your future ends in (75 - your age) years. Give no thought beyond whatever that number is. You won't be there but I assure you your great-great-great grandchildren will be. The future will take care of itself, with or without your concerns, as it has for 4.6 billion years now.

There are things more important in life than this popular, vulgar and hysterical fetish. It is a type of twisted religion and you should repudiate it. Our technology is not a sin and it does not require a sacrifice to atone for it. Have no use for a medieval religion, even if it's called environmentalism, that relies on superstition, fear, scientific ignorance and economic envy that offers to cure what does not ail.

Life is sweet and the sun shines and graces you with its light. You have the choice to see it for what it is or turn everything around you into darkness, fear and crap. The experience you have on life's one circuit on the Merry Go Round will be what you made of it. There are no second rides ever.

Optimist or pessimist?

Mariss

Well said Mariss.

It's funny that every other country in tghe world basically agrees that climate change is THE issue for the next century. Tomorrow a new report is coming out. As if the one that came out a couple of months ago, from the UN wasn't enough.

I'd like to know how any of the Global Warming deniers can literally see the ice melting before their very eyes and still think the way they do. Well, not really. If you can't see what's happening with your own eyes, then I can't be bothered to care about your opinion.

Most of you are probably old enough to have children. Maybe grown children. It's interesting to me that those of you who fit that description are prepared to leave a world that closely resembles a mad max movie to those kids so you can sound authoritative without doing any actual research yourselves.

The ONLY constant is change.
Consensus is political.
Science is demonstrable, repeatable exercise of facts.
There is NO consensus of science, there MAY me a consensus of scientists who are subject error.
The best state of climate is WHAT, WHERE and FOR WHOM?
And what kind of arrogance decides to "control the weather" for his own benefit?
Or is it just another power play to gain political dominance and financial gain?

dang

1) The scientific method does not rely on consensus. Only a herd is guided by consensus. In science one right person trumps 10,000 wrong ones. Think Albert Einstein, Issac Newton, Copernicus and even Dr. William Grey .

2) Deniers; what a strange an interesting word. Religious in connotation, a word reserved for heretics and blasphemers. It does frame the context though; the argument has nothing to do with reasoned thought, rather everything to do with belief, feeling, fear and superstition.

3) "Believe as I do or else your opinion and you are not worth my consideration." This is dehumanizing and this dehumanization is the first step on a trail that leads to the worst humans beings have done. All reason and humanity ends at that trail head.

My friend, you have been manipulated. No amount of 747s or i-pods, cars, plasma TVs or CNC machines differentiate you from our ancestors who also were equally susceptible. Here's how the manipulation works: First put into your head a tremendous calamity is looming. The cause of the calamity is something you are doing and therefore you are responsible for it. You are then offered a way you can deflect the calamity by doing something personally, as an individual, to rectify it. Something like separating green waste from glass and cardboard in your trash or buying a Prius; doesn't matter.

This is the clever part. Fear leads to a desire for action and an approved action is offered. Taking that action validates what you feared is real and that only your actions can forestall the feared consequence. Now you believe in what you might have doubted or at least kept an open mind about. Sin and atonement, fear and pagan sacrifice, carbon offsets and special dispensations. This trick has been played unchanged for thousands of years.

Yes, we have two young adult children. My wife and I have taught them well about many things.

Mariss

3) "Believe as I do or else your opinion and you are not worth my consideration." This is dehumanizing and this dehumanization is the first step on a trail that leads to the worst humans beings have done. All reason and humanity ends at that trail head.

My friend, you have been manipulated. No amount of 747s or i-pods, cars, plasma TVs or CNC machines differentiate you from our ancestors who also were equally susceptible. Here's how the manipulation works: First put into your head a tremendous calamity is looming. The cause of the calamity is something you are doing and therefore you are responsible for it. You are then offered a way you can deflect the calamity by doing something personally, as an individual, to rectify it. Something like separating green waste from glass and cardboard in your trash or buying a Prius; doesn't matter.

This is the clever part. Fear leads to a desire for action and an approved action is offered. Taking that action validates what you feared is real and that only your actions can forestall the feared consequence. Now you believe in what you might have doubted or at least kept an open mind about. Sin and atonement, fear and pagan sacrifice, carbon offsets and special dispensations. This trick has been played unchanged for thousands of years.
Mariss
Exactly what skeptics are doing. Don't believe in this thing. Its a lie, its fiction and etc etc etc. Lets put it in perspective here. When we the believers feels something should be done, what ever the outcome, and here I have to say its only good outcome, affects us all whether you believe it or not. But when we have to accept what your opinions are and if everyone does that, we might as well just go along the same route and pollute the air more and more and wait till the climate starts to effects us all. Which side should I go with? Its pretty obvious isn't it?

Look at the ozone layer, its scientifically proven that CFC caused the depletion of the ozone. When countries starts to ban the use of CFCs. The ozone layer starts to rejuvenate. What further facts do we need. Its staring us right in the face. When a chemical like CFC can do such a thing. Imagine the effects of what other pollutants we put out can do.

And yes, it is fear, fear for our humankind. Fear for the result that our ignorance will produce should we go along this route of self destruction. Human being are capable of doing that.

And because you "believe" the boogie man will get you, I should give away two thirds of my income. Abandon my life style because you "feel" SOMETHING should be done whether it is right or wrong.

No, chickenlittle, I won't follow you into the cold, dark night and starve my self on the basis of your faith. It is your religion, YOU follow it. As for me, I can recognize pagan gods at a huge distance and smell a B.S. story farther than that.

By the way, the last "crisis" with the ozone layer turned out to have NOTHING to do with chlorofluorocarbons. ANOTHER scientific consensus that has been PROVEN wrong after great expense!


To listen to todays lunatics you'd expect flying saucers on the White House lawn, souls flying off to the tails of comets and maybe Farrakhan's "mother ship" to be discovered in orbit. In the bargain maybe all those inductees will be released from the black helicopters.

When "the outcome" will be destruction of the world economy you can expect THAT change to be met with armed resistance.

As I sit here with a terminal case of COPD I'm VERY interested in clean air. So lets clean up the air for the sake of clean air. We can pick up all the trash without starving. We can hunt for a real answer to the energy question without adopting a Spartan life style.

And because you "believe" the boogie man will get you, I should give away two thirds of my income. Abandon my life style because you "feel" SOMETHING should be done whether it is right or wrong.

No, chickenlittle, I won't follow you into the cold, dark night and starve my self on the basis of your faith. It is your religion, YOU follow it. As for me, I can recognize pagan gods at a huge distance and smell a B.S. story farther than that.

By the way, the last "crisis" with the ozone layer turned out to have NOTHING to do with chlorofluorocarbons. ANOTHER scientific consensus that has been PROVEN wrong after great expense!


To listen to todays lunatics you'd expect flying saucers on the White House lawn, souls flying off to the tails of comets and maybe Farrakhan's "mother ship" to be discovered in orbit. In the bargain maybe all those inductees will be released from the black helicopters.

When "the outcome" will be destruction of the world economy you can expect THAT change to be met with armed resistance.

As I sit here with a terminal case of COPD I'm VERY interested in clean air. So lets clean up the air for the sake of clean air. We can pick up all the trash without starving. We can hunt for a real answer to the energy question without adopting a Spartan life style.

jhowelb

I actually agree with you on a great number of points, the ones we disagree on don't really matter. For me, consensus is irrationality defined. Who needs to think, when we can just agree, and get along, because I'm just too much of a spineless, ballless **** to stand for something and fight if necessary. That's what consensus is. The "can't we all just get along" mentality that searches for it's "leader", with the mewling, bawling sheeple following the shepherd to the brink, and morphing into some twisted lemming, jumping into the abyss while that "leader" stands by to pick up the pieces and find a new cause to poster-boy.

I am so sick of the Armageddon view point. People are their own problems. They cause them. They live them. They make the same mistakes, in repackaged form. NEW! IMPROVED!! and just as stupid as before. But it's NEW! IMPROVED!! it can't be wrong. Psychology is science, but just because it's twisted to invade the brains of millions or billions of people sucking MY air, doesn't mean that whatever point they pontificate and regurgitate is science. Just the method of brainwash or brainwiping.

Every living creature on earth evolves...or eventually goes extinct. So when man starts making those next jarring steps into evolution...will the rest of the devolved in our species make a consensus that they are an aberration and should be destroyed to preserve "humanity"? Evolution by committee? What a frightening idea to mull.

On a lighter note...what's wrong with a Spartan lifestyle? The Spartans were the greatest warriors the world has ever seen, until they were corrupted by outside influences. Influences they allowed. Sometimes maintaining pur sang in a subculture can allow a culture to flourish.

As sad as it makes me, we view violence as a necessary evil when diplomacy fails. But it makes heroes out of common men. If those same common men displayed those acts of violence out of that environment, he is called a criminal and penned like an animal for a length of time, sometimes the remainder of his life. Violence is part of nature...we are part of nature...and violence is very much a part of us. Just as the ability to reason, and to make art. As a species we need to remember why we are top of the food chain. Violence. We may have more mental capacity than other species, but we have soft bodies, no claws or fangs. It is only because of our untold penchance for violence, a carnal bloodlust, that brought us to where we are. That violence bred an instinctual fear in every animal on land. One that is still very much present in most of the animals still alive. One that is missing in modern man, when he sits in the relative comfort of home and makes decisions that affect others around him. Only when he is confronted with violence and his life put in jeopardy does he begin to use his facilities for reason.

I do not condone tyranny. Oppressed and oppressors alike can turn to either. I do suggest that an armed society is a polite society due to the unarguable fact that people think before they speak or act when under the influence of an untimely death. I won't harm you if you don't harm me.

The tie-in is that surrendering your freedoms or rights to those who mean you harm is more evil than the evil being done to you. Man was born a fighter, and when a fight is brought to you, you must engage with the full measure you are capable. This is what has brought civilization to the high-point (for what it is) we enjoy today.

Are you familiar with the Inquisition? Of burning witches at the stake? Violence being done in the name of (insert your cause here) against other men is evil. Violence done in response to those who do violence to you, is to establish balance and order to the chaos that flourishes.

We only seek to live. We do not have an agenda. We are not trying to convert. We do not seek to punish outsiders and reward those who have been loyal. So why do the neo-greenies seek to push an agenda, in which there is no room for anything other than their ceremonies & litagies. To establish a new world order that will destroy the middle class and further seperate the poor and the wealthy. Why are so many of the future slave-class willing to drink the kool-aid with bright-eyed enthusiasm?

Well, that was very flowery prose.
A consensus in scientific terms is when a group of ->scientists<- use scientific method to reach a conclusion which is published, reviewed and then agreed upon. Scientists live to bash each other's theories. Would ya'll have me believe then, that all these great minds have suddenly stopped nit picking with each other in order to follow the leader?

Also, how could the ultra rich better corner everyone else than to downgrade any new energy source, ya know aside from oil. I should, from now on refer to oil as peak oil, because it's very nearly gone all together.
I'm also not sure how multiplying the energy sources available to us, and thereby creating untold numbers of new jobs would further separate the rich and the poor. Oh, and did I mention that Oil is sold to us by people who HATE US?

Me thinks that the flowery prose hides within it a lack of consideration of these merely semi literate, but obvious points. You don't make soap for a living do you WYLD?

The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.


Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.

Dear cjmerlincnc,

Absolutely..,

Look at this " policy document "

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

Page 25, Treating Climate Change as Beyond Argument

Best wishes,

Martin

Dang,
Pull your head out of it. There isn't a consensus of scientists, only those nursing on the government teat. (our tax money) There have been no scientific methods applied, no repeatable experiments.

Not even observation bears out this trash masquerading as science, for example: " 50 million years ago the temperature averaged a full 20 degrees higher than today."

This is an observation by those same scientists. Was mankind also responsible for that? How about the melting of any one of the ice ages?

The above indicated "paper" has some VERY telling passages.

".........need to treat the argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.
The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra 2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.

But go ahead and have another glass of cool aid, after all it IS your religion.

I'm un-subsribing from this thread.

Whether global warming is real and whether the polar ice caps are melting because we are emitting too much co2 or from deforesting the equator or from natural causes, we all know that we are polluting this world and causing the extinction of species on a massive scale. I know that I have thrown out enough manmade garbage in the course of my 35 years to cover 10 acres and then some. All that while recycling everything I can. Each of my neighbors does the same thing whether it's two bags a week or four or ten. The air is not good in the city(pick a city). The water is not good in rural areas downstream from the city. The oil that we burn also spills into the ocean sometimes so the beaches we treasure aren't any good either.
Mariss, as a person who lives because of the earth not on it, I have to say I was a bit offended by this statement:
My friend, you have been manipulated. No amount of 747s or i-pods, cars, plasma TVs or CNC machines differentiate you from our ancestors who also were equally susceptible. Here's how the manipulation works: First put into your head a tremendous calamity is looming. The cause of the calamity is something you are doing and therefore you are responsible for it. You are then offered a way you can deflect the calamity by doing something personally, as an individual, to rectify it. Something like separating green waste from glass and cardboard in your trash or buying a Prius; doesn't matter.
I also happen to drive a Prius and also happen to be the kind of guy who separates green waste from glass and cardboard. The reason I like machining is because of the technology that it makes possible. If you can dream something you can build it. Like a Prius for example,which might just save you some money on gas, further the advancement of technology, reduce our country's dependance on oil, and save you from sucking on your own fumes at red lights. The power to build machines such as automobiles and warheads brings great responsibility. Mariss, I hope you are running your company in a responsible way. Anyone who owns a business has an ideal opportunity to make a difference today and tomorrow. And maybe even impress a few potential customers along the way.

Had it not been for fossil fuels the industrial revolution would never have occurred. You owe every thing you have, even your very existence to the discovery and utilization of them.

Any one offended by Mariss' statement is LOOKING for something to be offended about.

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings,Dang! Just wanted to make you think.

Grinderdust,

Please don't take offense at Mariss' statements. If you must take offense at any statements made here, take offense at mine. You see, Mariss is correct, although it doesn't "feel" that way to you when you look out on those 10 acres of non-recyclable trash, and hop into your Prius for a trip around the block. If every single one of us, alive on this planet today, were to only use our personal vehicles for trips that other people weren't making, or that public transit won't approach, if we were all to only purchase what was absolutely necessary, if we were to stop clear-cutting our rainforests, if we were to stop strip mining, and drilling for oil, and building new subdivisions and luxury condo units, if we only did what has been suggested by every "liberal" media print outlet from Mother Earth News to Mother Jones and all points in between...what would we have? The greatest economic disaster ever known. What would everyone do for a living & how would they collect their wages? Or even their supplies? Would any of this stop the next super-fire from devouring California's expensive summer homes? Would this halt or counteract the "demon" CO2?

While I agree that man is foolish and brazen with his use of technology to "fix" problems that never really existed, I don't think we should chuck it all in the waste bin and redact 10,000 years of history. Do I like the fact that compounds from Teflon are in ALL available drinking sources currently known? Absolutely not. Do I like the fact that triclosan, the ingredient in "anti-bacterial" hand soap is hitching a ride on our DNA, and is impossible to remove from our drinking water? Would I mention it if I did? Do I like the fact that big "agra" managed to lose track of 30 million bushels of genetically modified corn that then made it's way into the human food supply chain? Come on...

I didn't make those decisions. I am not responsible for the actions of others. I will not do penance for others' sins. Be careful with what actions you demand of others, lest the sins of the fathers be visited on the sons. Sound familiar? Religious undertones. You bet. And that is basically the phrase that is being repackaged & bantered about by the neo-greenies as a scare-tactic. Hypocrisy knows no bounds. Were that it did.

You see, 10,000 years ago, when the last ice age was still going on, attempting to recede, and our ancestors lived in clans and caves, we would overhunt an area until we were forced to move on in search of greener pastures. When the Native Americans of ancient times were hunting the bison, they would set fire to the prairie to make the bison stampede off a cliff. While they were busy butchering the dead & dying herd at the bottom of a ravine, that fire was ravaging the prairies, sometimes burning for months. Don't think that man's destructive capabilities are only available to modern man with modern tools. We are a very clever lot who have been "harming" mother earth for a very long time. Earth abides. When she tires of us, she will shrug her shoulders and shake us off. The few humans who survive will have to rethink their ways, or will go extinct like so many other species have. Only we have the ability to learn from our mistakes, through reason. Abandoning reasoning has no benefit for our kind.

Dear jhowelb,

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

Well, when I first read it, I thought it must be a spoof.
It is not.
It is a paper of breath-taking cynicism that attempts to circumvent any kind of scientific debate.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud that the art of this kind of propaganda has survived so long after his death.

Best wishes,

Martin

Yes, just to surface as a plan to subject mankind to another myth. (super race/man made climate change)

Same dream, (global domination), same "scientific" basis but this time perpetrated by those on the left and still "the big lie" repeated often enough and by "authority" to make believers.

The difference is that this time there are many to cry "foul"!

BTW, I didn't find the web page!!

BTW, I didn't find the web page!!


Dear jhowelb,

Which?

Best wishes,

Martin

Jhowelb, Had it not been for fossil fuels the industrial revolution would never have occurred. I believe the steam engine may still have been used without coal. I also read somewhere that the diesel engine was designed to run on vegetable oil. I've seen many a lathe that was designed to run on steam power and refitted to run on electric power as the technology became available.
You owe every thing you have, even your very existence to the discovery and utilization of them.
I can't imagine that mankind owes it's very existence to the events that have shaped the last 150 years or so.
WYLD,
what would we have? The greatest economic disaster ever known. What would everyone do for a living & how would they collect their wages? Or even their supplies? Many of us have found ways to benefit from the earths riches without exploiting them.
I am not responsible for the actions of others. I will not do penance for others' sins. Be careful with what actions you demand of others,
I have not demanded any actions that I am aware of. I am Sorry to everyone If It came out that way. I am only suggesting that we can be responsible,and it doesn't require a great deal of sacrifice. Sometimes it even has immediate benefits.(like a car that pays for itself in fuel savings) By the way, every breath you take and every time you go for a drink, you are doing penance for the sins of others.
we would overhunt an area until we were forced to move on in search of greener pastures.
This may have been more of a survival issue than the decision of whether to turn on the central air or what car to drive.

We are a very clever lot who have been "harming" mother earth for a very long time.If we were so clever, we would make better use of our technology to stop harming the world we live in.

Bait and switch, exaggerate, obfuscate, redirect, misdirect, deny something that was not directed to you, take from context and attack the punctuation rater than the obvious intended point.

All OLD tricks and not working here.

Electricity generated by what? Steam generated by what? The forests of Europe were striped to make steel and steam.

One person or even a generation doesn't equate to "mankind".

While you benefit from, I on the other hand am defined as an "exploiter"?


Martin, why can't you find the url you placed in your post?

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

I am not trying to offend anyone or be offended here. I am not trying to take things out of context. I am just giving my opinion. I truly believe that we can live in a better world without sacrificing our comfort or our economy. We simply must think about the things we are doing before we do them. That would be good policy mo matter what. I think we can all agree that we are doing damage and not all of that damage is necessary to our comfort. Whatever level of luxury you desire in life, there are still little things you can do and choices you can make to make the world a better place. If you still feel as though you need to trash the world and the people who are trying to show you what is going on with the world then feel free to flame away. By the way, some of you sound as if you are advocating the limitless use of resources for the short term financial benefit and the comfort of those who are fortunate enough to be at the right place at the right time.

FINALLY, an element of common sense.
"I truly believe that we can live in a better world without sacrificing our comfort or our economy. "
The USA leads the world in cleaning our messes. Can we do better? Yes and we can encourage the third world to a cleaner path.

When it is economically feasible another major source of energy will become predominate.

There are those who want to scuttle atomic, hydro-electric and fossil.
Even wind energy proponents say NIMBY (Ted Kennedy et al).

My God, we can't go back to the stone age!!

WYLD,
Many of us have found ways to benefit from the earths riches without exploiting them.

I have not demanded any actions that I am aware of. I am Sorry to everyone If It came out that way. I am only suggesting that we can be responsible,and it doesn't require a great deal of sacrifice. Sometimes it even has immediate benefits.(like a car that pays for itself in fuel savings) By the way, every breath you take and every time you go for a drink, you are doing penance for the sins of others.

If we were so clever, we would make better use of our technology to stop harming the world we live in.

Grinderdust...some of that circular and "can't see the forest for the trees" logic that I love so well. What is the added premium for the privilege to purchase a Prius? Ie, without state or federal subsidies to the manufacturers and purchasers. And what pray-tell will we do with all those lead-acid batteries in hybrids when they have reached their terminal service life? You're telling me that you have to purchase a Hollywood "image" car to conserve fuel, or to get great fuel economy? A VW Beetle circa '65 managed 45 mpg...and what does the Toyota Prius manage? With it's whiz-bang technology? Please, come back with something that has some real meat to it, I'm tired of chewing on synth-meat aka tofu.

Bleeding Christ nailed to a ships-mast, since when did CO2 become a pollutant? Plant more trees. Stop clear-cutting. Stop letting 3rd world countries violate the earth in their goal to become 1st world superpowers. Carbon sequestration, carbon-offsets...

How about a real solution? We stop importing from China & India. We stop helping out every 3rd world nation in the world. We let them starve to death from the impending famines and breed themselves to instability. When the earth no longer has to support 6 Billion humans, all of this nonsense will come to light. I shouldn't have to lower my quality of life because Habib Singh and Charlie Xang can't provide for their offspring. And I shouldn't have to turn off my lights, because the countries they live in are consuming quanities of fuel that were undreamable even in the heyday of American gluttony. I shouldn't have to sacrifice so others can say "so sorry" and continue on with their idiotic ways.

The problem isn't just with the propaganda, it's the solutions to a problem that has no definable structure. Global warming is the equivalent of seafoam. Give me something with a discernable shape, a skeleton, and a neural pathway. When I can "see" that, I'll be willing to play ball with all the looney tune ad-libs that pour out of ignorant frothing mouths.

I think we should change the name of this forum to something like "environmental interests" or hopefully something way better. The words Global Warming have become politically incorrect. There is so much debate about the exact effect of our impact that we are missing the impact itself. As far as living in a better world goes, my hybrid car is a pretty nice car in general. It seems to sacrifice nothing and even gain some. As machinists, we hold the key to developing the ideas that make other energy sources possible and economically feasable. I certainly don't want to go back to stone tools

So you drive a Pious... sorry a Prius? just a little joke........actually which one do you have?

Wyld, To answer your questions. A Prius costs somwhere around $25,000 base for a new one. Alot cheaper than a Hummer last time I checked. My state no longer offers anything to anyone for buying a prius. My prius happens to be a pre owned model from last year and I could probably sell it for more than I paid. The batteries are nickel metal hydride and there are recycling facilities available for them.They also have a 100,000 mile warranty. Since I live about as far from hollywood as you can get (or any major city for that matter) I can assure you that my purchase was made for sound financial reasons. The whiz bang technology in a prius can blow the doors off a '65 beetle while holding 5 passengers and their cargo at a level of safety and comfort that surpasses most autos in it's price range. It usually gets even better mileage in town. Plus it doesn't leave an oil spot on the driveway or make that ratty air cooled boxer sound.
That whiz bang technology is also an interesting topic of discussion. Especially the power split device which is an amazing use of mechanics to control two motors and an engine. Very ingenious, very few moving parts.

Yes, I run my business in a responsible way. I design the best product I know how, we manufacture right here in the USA and sell them at a price the Chinese find acceptable, we ship on time and we support our product after you buy it. I am responsible to make sure our lowest paid employee makes $35 an hour so they can raise a family without mom having to earn an income. It makes a difference to me if I have done my best or not for what I do and to those that work for me.

Is that what you meant by "responsible" and "make a difference"?

Mariss

I can appreciate what you are doing Mariss, I would never doubt the quality of your product or your responsibility to your employees. The kind of jobs your company keeps in the USA are priceless these days. I am just hoping that your idea of responsibility doesn't end there. Small changes in leaders like yourself lead to a big difference in the world.

All I can say is that change in this regard will be good. How much worse a situation is it going to be for us anyway? If climate change eventually is disproved, the legacy of that would be better technologies for all our benefit. And if it is real, at least we have already started the ball rolling on finding a solution (if we have not found one) that will help us eventually. So in my humble opinion, it is good what is being done right now by some environmentalists.

I don't think anyone in the right mind would want to spend countless hours away from families and friends to decipher the truth about global warming. What benefit will they get out of it. None that I can think of. If you ask me, it will the last thing I would want to do. I have better things to do in my life. But isn't it a great feeling to know that others are concern and working on our behalf?

So give them some credits is all I say. And for those of us that are skeptical, sit back and watch, you might just be surprised. And if at the end of the day its all a farce, you can always come forward and shout out "I told you so" and grin.

For me, the problem is real. Be it caused by human, geology, earth evolution and whatever terms anyone care to coin for this problem, it is still a problem. Are we doomed? Yes, we are doomed if we don't do anything.

As American Express would say it, don't leave home without it. Bring an umbrella before it rains. Prevention is better than cure. Don't wait until you need to got to the toilet to look for a roll of toilet paper. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

Martin, why can't you find the url you placed in your post?

http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

Dear jhowelb,

Sorry, I'm not sure which link you are searching for.

Is it this?

http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=485

Best wishes,

Martin

"That whiz bang technology is also an interesting topic of discussion."

Yup, electricity to charge it generated by burning coal or oil. The mechanical energy loss by the time it enters the car has to approach 75%. You have to account for the energy to make the batteries and all the whiz bang clap trap to make that lemon tick.

Jhowelb, The electricity to charge the batteries in hybrid cars does come indirectly from oil, I won't argue that. The oil (gasoline) is used to get the car moving just like any other car. the prius uses the oil more efficiently by using the atkinson cycle rather than the otto cycle used in most four stroke engines. When it is time to slow the car the whiz bang clap trap kicks in and uses the kinetic energy of the vehicle to charge the batteries with energy that otherwise would go to waste. The mechanical loss is indeed high but the stored energy is still significant. When descending hills it is downright amazing. I believe the energy reqired to make the batteries is offset by the energy saved in building a smaller engine and a mechanically simpler transmission (the power split device). The technology will only get better. I am hoping that when and if I replace my batteries, I will be upgrading as well. Lastly, Toyota is the dominating automaker of the known universe. They are not known for making lemons. What's under your wallet?

Wyld, To answer your questions. A Prius costs somwhere around $25,000 base for a new one. Alot cheaper than a Hummer last time I checked. My state no longer offers anything to anyone for buying a prius. My prius happens to be a pre owned model from last year and I could probably sell it for more than I paid. The batteries are nickel metal hydride and there are recycling facilities available for them.They also have a 100,000 mile warranty. Since I live about as far from hollywood as you can get (or any major city for that matter) I can assure you that my purchase was made for sound financial reasons. The whiz bang technology in a prius can blow the doors off a '65 beetle while holding 5 passengers and their cargo at a level of safety and comfort that surpasses most autos in it's price range. It usually gets even better mileage in town. Plus it doesn't leave an oil spot on the driveway or make that ratty air cooled boxer sound.
That whiz bang technology is also an interesting topic of discussion. Especially the power split device which is an amazing use of mechanics to control two motors and an engine. Very ingenious, very few moving parts.

Nickel/metal-hydride batteries are far more toxic to the environment than lead-acid batteries. Nickel is a heavy metal that congregates in the liver and brain. How pray tell, will you take your 6-8 batteries to the recycling center? Even our local recycling facilities load everything up at railhead and ship it east. 100,000 mile warranty...for 6-8 batteries that cost more to manufacture, purchase and dispose of than the lead acid battery in my Toyota Corolla which also has a 100,000 mile warranty.

Seems like a winning theory...let's continue. A hybrid mode vehicle is designed for in town driving, not highway. That's where the benefits of the technology shine. So you need a car that costs almost $30,000 to manufacture (Toyota's details...I can give you a website when I get home. They take a loss on every Prius with the hopes that the technology is viable for mass production...) that weighs approximately 400 lbs more than my car (same manufacturer) to travel to the grocery store & WalMart? Not to be a smartass, but my Corolla gets almost 30 mpg cruising around town. I deliver pizzas as a second job, and my commission for 2 nights' runs pays for a tank of gas. Commission...not tips. I digress...

I agree with you that the Prius is more driveable in today's conditions than a vintage Beetle. But to say that the Prius is better because it costs more and is more sophisticated is to buy into marketing and brand image. A vehicle is transport. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a penis extension, or your vehicular aura to the rest of the world.

Back to that whiz-bang technology...I know that it seems really cool...but why would you need TWO electric motors in hybrid mode? What's the point? Most 48V DC motors in the size range that motivate the Prius are torque monsters...producing more torque in fact than the 4-cylinder engine does at its peak. Torque is what moves you down the road...so again...why 2? And as for very few moving parts in the system...it's still a LOT more than in my Toyota Corolla. The majority of the system is electronics...controllers & sensors & software. Something like 100 lbs. more electronic components than are in my car...because I need a rolling PC. The only thing that would make the Prius better is if it were powered by Windows, and experienced a system crash during rush hour traffic.

I'm not knocking you Grinderdust, I just don't see how the Prius is a better car for the environment than my Corolla. And I also don't see how anyone in the world has the right to judge someone for purchasing a Hummer with money that they earned. That's what a free market allows for. When I have to purchase cookie-cutter clothes, components, houses & cars, because that's what "they" say is appropriate...where will innovation and research come into play? The old standard will be quite adequate thank you, we get by just fine with the ACME 200JX, my dad had one and I think it's quite the car. I loathe the day that the world echos the sentiments in books like 1984 and Brave New World. Hell, even Player Piano scares the bejeezus out of me. But that's what socialist agendas and praising homogeneity will bring. Guaranteed. A world of grey uniforms and pale faces. There is no room for individuality and alternatives in the path you suggest. For that alone, I'm willing to forego my winter heating bill, in exchange for that lovely tropical breeze y'all say is a-blowing.

So in my humble opinion, it is good what is being done right now by some environmentalists.... So give them some credits is all I say.

I humbly disagree: Environmetalists with too much political power will cause more harm than good - look at what foolish policies have been adopted in the name of saving the planet: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45545 Basic math skills should be a requirement for anyone in government.

All I can say is that change in this regard will be good... How much worse a situation is it going to be for us anyway? If climate change eventually is disproved, the legacy of that would be better technologies for all our benefit. Beware of unintended consequences: See post #14 at http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46615&page=2

Every change produces a spectrum of consequences ranging from bad to indifferent to good. You get into a car wreck. It's bad for you and your car. It's good for the doctor and the mechanic that fixes you both up and it's of no importance to the person that reads about it in the paper.

This is true for every change except global warming. Every consequence is bad with global warming. That sets off my BS alarm and it's ringing loud.

What I'm hoping for is the claims get more and more outrageous. Global warming will turn the earth into a boiling ball of lava, the oceans will rise 5,000 ft and cause everyone to get acne and bad breath. Then this fever will run its course and then we can move on to the next calamity. I still have my parka for the past and coming global cooling.

Mariss

Nickel/metal-hydride batteries are far more toxic to the environment than lead-acid batteries. Nickel is a heavy metal that congregates in the liver and brain. How pray tell, will you take your 6-8 batteries to the recycling center?
The whole point of recycling the batteries is to keep the toxins out of the environment and the batteries will probably get to their destination by oil power. In case you have forgotten gasoline and it's combustion byproducts are also deadly toxins.
Seems like a winning theory...let's continue. A hybrid mode vehicle is designed for in town driving, not highway. That's where the benefits of the technology shine.

The prius still gets 42+ on the highway thanks to it's atkinson cycle engine and great aerodymics.
So you need a car that costs almost $30,000 to manufacture (Toyota's details...I can give you a website when I get home. They take a loss on every Prius with the hopes that the technology is viable for mass production...) that weighs approximately 400 lbs more than my car (same manufacturer) to travel to the grocery store & WalMart?
Toyota no longer takes a loss on the prius. they actually are turning a profit. They did that to show the skeptics the benefits of the technology. I didn't buy the car to drive to the store and back. I bought it because I drive 45,000 miles a year in the course of my work and it is safe, comfortable and saves me money.
Not to be a smartass, but my Corolla gets almost 30 mpg cruising around town. I deliver pizzas as a second job, and my commission for 2 nights' runs pays for a tank of gas. Commission...not tips. I digress... Not to be a wiseguy but my Prius gets 45+ mpg in town, which is half again better than your corolla and it is indeed heavier which is an advantage if I should ever collide with a '65 beetle.
I agree with you that the Prius is more driveable in today's conditions than a vintage Beetle. But to say that the Prius is better because it costs more and is more sophisticated is to buy into marketing and brand image. A vehicle is transport. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not a penis extension, or your vehicular aura to the rest of the world.
I swear I only bought the car because I needed the best transportation I could find.
As for it being an extension of my penis, I plead the fifth.
Back to that whiz-bang technology...I know that it seems really cool...but why would you need TWO electric motors in hybrid mode? What's the point? Most 48V DC motors in the size range that motivate the Prius are torque monsters...
The reason the prius uses two motors is because of the way the power split device works to control the speed of the wheels vs engine.And as for very few moving parts in the system...it's still a LOT more than in my Toyota Corolla. The majority of the system is electronics...controllers & sensors & software. Something like 100 lbs. more electronic components than are in my car..
If you read up on the subject you will find that the power split device takes the place of your conventional transmission and actually does have alot fewer moving parts. Electronics are not moving parts,and don't forget the prius is drive by wire which also eliminates alot of mechanical components.
I'm not knocking you Grinderdust, I just don't see how the Prius is a better car for the environment than my Corolla.I hope the time I have taken to answer your questions will help you see how it might be. And I also don't see how anyone in the world has the right to judge someone for purchasing a Hummer with money that they earned. If you still want a hummer, I won't judge you. Just remember the hummer won't extend your "aura" either and it costs alot more to buy and drive. I'm just doing what works for me.When I have to purchase cookie-cutter clothes, components, houses & cars, because that's what "they" say is appropriate...where will innovation and research come into play? The hybrids are anything but cookie cutter. They are the bold standouts in the industry and are exactly the kind of innovation and research I like to put my money into. Heck, I am going to buy a car anyways so why not?

Mariss, I for one am boycotting the phrases "global warming" and "climate change" because they are broad and too far distant for most people to understand. If you can't see the consequences of environmental irresponsibility in your own backyard the just look up "eastern garbage patch" and you will see it on a more global scale. Just because you are in a comfortable position and can't feel it, doesn't mean pollution doesn't affect someone less fortunate every day. Only the wealthy and the polluters are feeling the bad consequences of the environmental legislation. The rest of humanity stands to benefit.

My dear friend, please don't throw that "wealth" thing around. I remember in the late '60s my eyes stinging from smog so thick you could look directly at the sun at 4PM. I cannot even remember the last smog alert here in Southern California. I remember being told as a kid in Ohio not to set step in the Miami river for all the industrial effluent it carried. People now fish in it and eat what they catch. Both wealthy and poor eyes stung and skin itched and mine were not wealthy.

So much real progress has been made and 99% of the problems have been repaired. Don't say things aren't better unless you are too young to remember when they were much worse. That leaves 1% and it's in the region of diminishing returns.

I offer for your consideration the ROHS debacle. In return for eliminating a minuscule percentage of the lead used in the world, a completely inferior production technique has been mandated for electronics manufacturers. Components have to be stressed at 50C higher temperatures, the resulting solder joints are clearly inferior and reliability is compromised. When something fails, the entire unit must be discarded now because ROHS renders rework to replace a component too difficult. Yes, you can eat solder paste now but your landfills are filling up with unrepairable electronics.

Products that once were repaired are now discarded because few care to learn the skills to do that. Repairing something requires far less resources and energy than it took to make it originally. That's "environmentally friendly", "green", "responsible", "makes a difference" and all the other enviro-cliches.

People who used to go into the service trades and become electronic technicians now yearn to become environmental scientists. That is much easier than having to learn something difficult like math or common scientific logic. Now all you have to do is "feel" or "believe", wring your hands and insist that the dwindling supply of the technically educated produce a solution; after all, if you can imagine it, it must be easy.

That remaining 1% is at the mercy of unintended consequences. It will increase to a much bigger number if we dismantle our technological society. Low technology is dirty technology and all the billions of people will have no choice but to use it. Unless of course you eliminate people from the earth. Recently some of the greatest Environmental Philosophers have seriously proposed exactly that. It's nice they tip their hand to show just how spiritually degenerate and nihilist the movement is becoming.

Mariss

What on earth is an "Atkinson Cycle" engine and how does it differ from an Otto Cycle?

Geof...here are a few of the "interesting" take offs on the spark-ignition internal combustion engine...

http://www.answers.com/topic/atkinson-cycle

http://www.answers.com/Miller%20cycle

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/cal/HCCI/

Geof...here are a few of the "interesting" take offs on the spark-ignition internal combustion engine...

Thanks WYLD. I know the mechanism from way back but didn't know it was called Atkinson.

And man will not destroy it nor will "Mother Nature" GOD will destroy this earth and all the evil that is in it. The best you can do for your childern is to teach them how to get saved and then when the rapture comes they will be lucky enough to be spared from all the nasty stuff that GOD has planed for mankind.
Bluesman

Pirates to the rescue.

My god, the FSM has touched me with his noodly appendage and I have been healed. Global warming is really a matter of not enough pirates. It is a fact that as pirate numbers have diminished, world temperatures have gone up.

Every night I clasp my hands and ask the noodly one for another day of annointed olive oil and garlic. Then I say, "Ramen" in ending and shut my eyes for a great nights sleep.

Don't forget to talk like a pirate. You too can help avert global warming.


Silly me, to think CO2 has nothing to do with it, and it's just a pissed off invisible friend after all. Why, I'm powerless to do a thing. Glad I have a clear concience that I'm not screwing my children's futures.

I also happen to drive a Prius....which might just save you some money on gas,...

How far do you have to drive a Prius before you break even with the equivalent non-hybrid Corrola or Yaris model and start "saving money"?

to hell and back :-)'

I had to read this entire two pages to come up to full speed. Everyone seems to have locked into their own arguments and no longer are swayed one way or another. A prius on the face looks like a great way to go. Less visible polution, so it has to be right, right? Hmmm. Charge the batteries with electricity, where does it come from? How is it made? How efficiently is it made? BTU to BTU, the Prius isn't all that efficient. Heat losses for the steam, line losses, transformer losses... Unless it is derived from Nuclear energy, CO2 and other bad elements are tossed into the air. Acid rain anyone? Ever go east and see the damaged forests from the acid rain? A Prius is on par with Fuel cells. Different way to store energy, not really all that efficient when all things are considered.

Mariss, Global warming is happening. Its sad that so much bad science preceeded it, and that there is such a huge movement to naysay it. My degree is one in subterfuge. There are agencies that do nothing more than pay people to come in and bombard websites with their form of propoganda. I mention this because there are a few posters with VERY high post numbers that have done nothing but posted in the Global Warming forum. I can't help but question their motives. You never see them give sources for the studies they quote.

My respect keeps going up for you when I read you pay your workers not just a living wage, but a wage they can hold their heads up like men and women. I just don't agree with your views on this issue. Your ROHR(?) compliance argument is a good one but falls short whn you say landfills are filling with broken electronics. Long before they break they become obsolete, and we seem to always want the newest, flashiest gizmo out there. I don't see broken, I see old, and old isn 't even old anymore.

What is hurting us more than anything else is the rampant consumerism we have embraced. It fuels the enegy needs, it fuels the polution from manufacture, it causes more grief than good.

Dynosor, I don't know how much a yaris or corolla costs, but I will try to shed some light on your question. I'm assuming by break even you mean make up the difference between the price of the cars. Since I was in the market for a car anyways and the prius is not what I would call an expensive car, I started saving money the first time I drove past a gas station. My winter car, a '98 Outback wagon, cost alot more new than the prius so everything is relative. It also should be noted that the prius is a top quality, safe ride and has a very high resale value. This car also really puts out when driven hard because it is always in the right gear. It never lugs when you floor it.

Last time I filled up, gas was $3.18 a gallon. Assuming gas stays at that price (which it won't) at 46 mpg (my real and verified lifetime average for the prius, driving hard) It will take 2,174 gallons of fuel to go 100,000 miles and cost $6,913. If your car averages 25 mpg in the real world (which is a stretch even for a honda believe me I know) it will take 4000 gallons of fuel and cost you $12,720. Since my prius will soon round the 100,000 mile mark I have saved about $5,807 on the cost of the fuel alone. It is my belief that the environmental savings is worth much more. The impact of manufacturing, shipping, storing and burning nearly 2000 gallons of fuel is much more than making and disposing of the batteries. In a couple of years I will trade up for the next generation prius and enjoy even better fuel economy and power thanks to the lithium ion batteries they are planning to use. The new batteries will also be easier on the environment.

MrWild, The prius does not get its power from a plug. It uses it's own kinetic energy by using a generator to slow the car and store energy that would otherwise be wasted on friction brakes. It also shuts off the engine when you take your foot off the gas, and uses a thermos to bottle hot coolant and keeep the engine warmed up for less emissions. A Prius is on par with Fuel cells. Different way to store energy, not really all that efficient when all things are considered.When all things are considered it is about the most efficient option available at this time. If there is something better I would love to drive it so please let me know.
What is hurting us more than anything else is the rampant consumerism we have embraced. It fuels the enegy needs, it fuels the polution from manufacture, it causes more grief than good.I couldn't agree more. If everyone only used what they needed, we wouldn't have such a mess. Also manufacturers should be held responsible for the end life disposal of the products they make. Plastic is great but it's permanent, and should not be used to make goods that are used once and tossed. It is also not as recyclable as some people think. I also agree with what you are saying to Mariss. Lead in the workplace and in the environment is not a good thing and the laws may be hurting his wallet but It may improve the health of his employees, which is priceless. I believe the technology will catch up and may just lead to a better process in the end. The only thing that puzzles me is that they use a ton of lead making car batteries and such so why is that not a big deal? Why pick on one industry and not the other? The only reason I can see is because you absolutely can't make a lead acid battery without the lead. Electronics on the other hand seem to be pretty reliable without the lead, even if it costs a little more to manufacture.

I apologize to everyone for hijacking this thread. It all started with one little post. I guess If I have to defend my decision to buy a hybrid car, recycle and reduce waste, and live a clean life that my children may learn and appreciate, I will.

where is the episode on the prius of south park when you need it. by the way, 10000 mile already! how long is your commute?

[QUOTE=MrWild;368694]There are agencies that do nothing more than pay people to come in and bombard websites with their form of propoganda. I mention this because there are a few posters with VERY high post numbers that have done nothing but posted in the Global Warming forum. I can't help but question their motives.

MrWild,

You are brilliant! You have noticed something I completely missed. Something smelled funny here but you put the finger on it; posters whose names I haven't seen anywhere else. You were the one to notice it.

If you are right, we all may be the unwelcome recipients of an outreach program to educate us technical savages into the right way of thinking. Think of it as a Mission Outpost erected amongst the heathen to attend to their global warming spiritual needs.

How do we know if it's true or not? We do research! The holiday weekend is coming up and I just set a mission for myself. I will compare names against posts. Any name that has even one coherent CNC-related technical post will pass. The working assumption is the purported missionaries are not technical people and wouldn't know a mill from a lathe; they live in a more spiritual realm.

I'll be doing this for my own amusement. I have no interest in "outing" or embarrassing individuals and I never would because it's unkind. I'm only interested to see if there is a trend and I'll only be doing what anyone else can if they wish.

Let's see what happens. I'll tabulate the aggregate results.

Mariss

4thseal, It's not so much the commute,my office is at the bottom of my stairs. It's the field work. I drive all over five counties doing real estate appraisal. And to think I gave up the predictable gloom of a cozy machine shop for this! More money = more stress.

i live in s cal and i thought i drive great deal.i hope you have a nice stereo!

Mariss,

Please don't get me wrong. I respect you as a person, as a fellow member of CNCzone and a friend in this interesting thing we call machining. But I have to ask why apart from you thinking that you will lose your earning and rights to the government if they are to impose such a regulation to control climate change, would you be so against what is being done.

Of course there are bad scientists and environmentalists but there are many more good ones who do this for the sake of mankind. As much as it is a pessimistic view some of us hold in regards to GW, but it is as much a pessimistic view you hold of these scientists, government and environmentalists. If what you believe is true of these people, we are f&*ked either way. Is that what you are saying? We are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't? I prefer to do something then just sit back. Wouldn't you?

alexccmeister, I do know your post wasn't directed to me but I must respond.

The most fearful words ever spoken; "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."

Just take a look in any Social Security or DMV office and you will see government excellence at work.

How many "good" environmental scientists do you really know and what makes you think that they are doing this for the sake of mankind?

Why must we "DO SOMETHING!"? The sky isn't falling! Chill out, we have a far greater problem to tackle in the form of Islamic radicals who want us all dead!

There are agencies that do nothing more than pay people to come in and bombard websites with their form of propoganda. I mention this because there are a few posters with VERY high post numbers that have done nothing but posted in the Global Warming forum. I can't help but question their motives. .

Dear MrWild,

How can I become one of them?

Well, I wish I could say that I've been hanging around in underground parking lots, in the early hours, waiting for a thick brown envelope stuffed with cash from a geezer employed by those wicked oil companies.

Believe me, I need their cash.

Since you mentioned it, any chance of posting any evidence that these organised and prostituted people exist????

Read post #20, and go to page 25.

Therein you will discover the true depth of cynicism as regards the "Climate Change" debate.



Best wishes,

Martin

alexccmeister, I do know your post wasn't directed to me but I must respond.

The most fearful words ever spoken; "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you."

Just take a look in any Social Security or DMV office and you will see government excellence at work.

How many "good" environmental scientists do you really know and what makes you think that they are doing this for the sake of mankind?

Why must we "DO SOMETHING!"? The sky isn't falling! Chill out, we have a far greater problem to tackle in the form of Islamic radicals who want us all dead!
Government everywhere is the same. Not just in the states. You try to check out the government offices where I am from. People taking their sweet time doing things. Giving looks as if they are the lord al'mighty. And believe me when I say they even cook noodles inside their closed cubicles during break time. The smell just drifts all over the office.

I agree though that the government has alot of agendas beside trying to do something good. Bush's administration (and many other around the world) is all about self interests (guns and oil). Look at the supply of food and weapons to the troops in the middle east, all belong to people in the bush admin. People like Dick Cheney should have been kicked out long ago. Bush too. Its ridiculous. This practice amounts to what we call corruption in the civilised world but its allowed to carry on.

No individual can solve the problem we are facing. And not one government can do the same. And I wouldn't even dare to suggest a way out but if we put our heads together and work as a team (not with the islamic radicals or course), I am sure we will benefit at the end of the day. As the saying goes 'good things don't come cheap'. So we need to sacrifice a little now in order to have something better in the near future. We can't be so selfish as to say "I am not going to give up what I have now for some lame ass excuse for GW".

We all want clean air, we all one less pollution, we want to have clean cheap alternative power source. That is undeniable, but if we are not willing to sacrifice a little, how can we have them at all?

No, thank you. I won't sacrifice anything just because you are sure that we will all benefit in the end.

I haven't agreed yet that there is a problem that needs attention, let alone a draconian solution.

I'm just as sure that we will never benefit from allowing thieves to pillage our pockets to stoke the larder of Algore and his ilk.

I don't trust this government let alone yours and a collection of nare do wells like the U.N. (just as one example) is the ultimate evil.

As far as Bush, Chaney et al, we quit allowing folks from across the pond choose our leaders in 1776. I'll keep them, warts and all, over the likes of Neville Chamberlain, Hugo Chavez, Jacques Chirac or Vladimir Putin.

In short, the whole issue is a load of barn litter being foisted upon us to gain power.

Not by the hair on my chiny, Chaney, chin, chin!!!

jhowelb...

I must agree with you. Something about the word sacrifice, with its religious undertones. Same goes for compromise. Compromise is such an easy word. So easy to say, so easy to ask for. Just not that easy to do if you're the one compromising. And it's not just the words, it's the way that it's phrased. I don't need any psycho-lingual mutterances that are intended to "train" my brain to see a different view point. I don't give two ****s for political correctness, so it's not that they aren't using the right words...it's that they aren't using words that make any sense to a person capable of working through problems and making deductions on their own. I rather like doing my own thinking thank you.

Also note that alexccmeister is from Brunei...isn't that calling the kettle black? One of the richest countries in the world...home to more supercars per capita than any other country in the world...home to more extravagant displays of wealth than anywhere else in the world. And from whence did this fortune arise? Oil of course...

I's be HEPPY to fetch da watta fo ya massa, mebbe I's can have a drink when I's done suh?

Never ask for a sacrifice you're not prepared to make yourself. In totality. Ask any soldier, sailor, airman, Coastie or Marine. I'll stake my life for a brother. Because I know a brother would stake his life for mine. As for anyone else...better you than me.

Mariss & MrWild,

Before you “show me the instruments” I’d like to confess that I joined CNC Zone because of the Global Warming forum and all but 3 of my 63 posts are GW related. I don’t own or use a CNC machine, but before you write me off as a paid propaganda agent let me tell you what my goal is:

I want to provoke people into thinking for themselves so as to develop their own point of view on GW, rather than adopting the views expressed by authoritative politicians or charismatic entertainers.

I happen to think that the earth’s climate is prone to change without asking permission and that trying to prevent this is both futile and arrogant. The GW fear campaign has all the earmarks of a religion, complete with guilt, penance, sacrifice and indulgences (carbon credits). But, as I have stated in other posts, salvation is unattainable, even if we get rid of all cars and fully implement Kyoto. I think the key motivation behind the GW movement is not to save us, but rather to enslave us.

I am a mechanical engineer by training and work in inkjet printer R&D. While I love internal combustion engines, I speak for myself, not for Big Oil. I do have a manual mill and lathe at home and am attempting to build a model IC engine.

Mariss, I would like to see a list of “agent” names. Now if you are using your real name, I can see your reluctance to post this.


You have noticed something I completely missed... posters whose names I haven't seen anywhere else. Mariss

If you are right, we all may be the unwelcome recipients of an outreach program to educate us technical savages into the right way of thinking. Mariss

How do we know if it's true or not? ... I will compare names against posts. Any name that has even one coherent CNC-related technical post will pass. The working assumption is the purported missionaries are not technical people and wouldn't know a mill from a lathe; they live in a more spiritual realm. Mariss

I have no interest in "outing" or embarrassing individuals and I never would because it's unkind. I'm only interested to see if there is a trend and I'll only be doing what anyone else can if they wish. Let's see what happens. I'll tabulate the aggregate results

There are agencies that do nothing more than pay people to come in and bombard websites with their form of propoganda. I mention this because there are a few posters with VERY high post numbers that have done nothing but posted in the Global Warming forum. I can't help but question their motives. You never see them give sources for the studies they quote.

In the quoted part of your post, I'll agree with you.
"Mariss" is the name he does business under, I've done business with him myself and I suspect that he will agree as well. He has a dry sense of humor and may be easily misunderstood but in all the dealings he has had with folks on the Zone he has never displayed an ounce of malice and in situatiopns where I would have come on hammer and tong.

[QUOTE=dynosor;369065]Mariss & MrWild,

........................let me tell you what my goal is:

I want to provoke people into thinking for themselves so as to develop their own point of view on GW, rather than adopting the views expressed by authoritative politicians or charismatic entertainers.

I happen to think that the earth’s climate is prone to change without asking permission and that trying to prevent this is both futile and arrogant. The GW fear campaign has all the earmarks of a religion, complete with guilt, penance, sacrifice and indulgences (carbon credits). But, as I have stated in other posts, salvation is unattainable, even if we get rid of all cars and fully implement Kyoto. I think the key motivation behind the GW movement is not to save us, but rather to enslave us.

There are indeed groups of ideologically driven folks calling talk shows and hitting any kind of "chat room" with the intent to push the "party line".

These be lunatics and need to be recognized.

stupid computer can't even spell!!!!

jhowelb...

I must agree with you. Something about the word sacrifice, with its religious undertones. Same goes for compromise. Compromise is such an easy word. So easy to say, so easy to ask for. Just not that easy to do if you're the one compromising. And it's not just the words, it's the way that it's phrased. I don't need any psycho-lingual mutterances that are intended to "train" my brain to see a different view point. I don't give two ****s for political correctness, so it's not that they aren't using the right words...it's that they aren't using words that make any sense to a person capable of working through problems and making deductions on their own. I rather like doing my own thinking thank you.

Also note that alexccmeister is from Brunei...isn't that calling the kettle black? One of the richest countries in the world...home to more supercars per capita than any other country in the world...home to more extravagant displays of wealth than anywhere else in the world. And from whence did this fortune arise? Oil of course...

I's be HEPPY to fetch da watta fo ya massa, mebbe I's can have a drink when I's done suh?

Never ask for a sacrifice you're not prepared to make yourself. In totality. Ask any soldier, sailor, airman, Coastie or Marine. I'll stake my life for a brother. Because I know a brother would stake his life for mine. As for anyone else...better you than me.

How I wish I am where you are not where I am.

Sorry my friend, Brunei is rich but the people don't own it. Its owned by a family here and thats as far as it goes. The supercars are owned by the same family. There are many poors here and too much self interests by a minority group that gives me a headache just thinking about it. I am ashamed to be even be called a Bru%$^en. Seriously.

And I am not religious at all, I am not a muslim, nor am I a christian, I am a buddist but by birth and I don't practice it as much as I should. So you don't really know me and can't judge me just because I come from a rich country and a few words that has religious connotation. Who is paranoid here?

Where I come from to insult the family is a crime punishable by jail term. Who dares to criticize? No one and those that does are outside of the country and do so under an assumed name.

But here's the difference, you live in a country that is a democracy. And you can (so to speak) pick and choose who to run for office and take care of the country and the world. I believe USA has the capability to take the lead and to be the big brother to look after the world (and I am willing to accept that simply because some governments in the east couldn't care less), but not with the people like bush who just want to reap for his benefit. You like him and people like cheney because he doesn't want to accept the kyoto protocol not because he is looking after your welfare, its because he is looking after his and his alone.

[QUOTE=MrWild;368694]
I'll be doing this for my own amusement. I have no interest in "outing" or embarrassing individuals and I never would because it's unkind. I'm only interested to see if there is a trend and I'll only be doing what anyone else can if they wish.

Let's see what happens. I'll tabulate the aggregate results.

Mariss

I did it four monthis ago. Like I said, I have a BS in Technical and Profesional Communication out of RIT. All profesions have their code of ethics, but many in this field are as shady as politicians. We go hand in hand you know. My findings were showing some posters with 200 to 10 post ratios of Global warming to technical forums and the posts in the tech forums were not really followed well. The only reason for my research was boredom and due to my knowing of the latest ways things are done to sway public opinion. Sadly your point of view has the most phonies pushing it.

When we push for the named studies, we will find that at a third level of ownership, the studies will actually be paid for by energy interests. This isn't some Iliminatie thing, it's just big business looking out for itself. It's what ad agencies do the best. We sway public opinion. And to really sway it well, you need Engineers saying the sciientists are full of it. Who do people believe. Scientists? HAHAHAHAHA Engineers? Oh yeah, they still speak the language.

Am I in an ad agency? No. I find manipuating public opinion reprehensible. We (I use this loosely) use psychological studies to design ways to reach, grab attention, hold the attention, and once we have it, place ideas. Once an idea has been placed, it becomes cemented and folks can have reason drilled at them intensly and it does no use. Once the idea is entrenched, it takes very little effort to keep it entrenched.

Yes I have a degree in communication, but Shakespear was never mentioned.

Dear MrWild,

How can I become one of them?

Well, I wish I could say that I've been hanging around in underground parking lots, in the early hours, waiting for a thick brown envelope stuffed with cash from a geezer employed by those wicked oil companies.

Believe me, I need their cash.

Since you mentioned it, any chance of posting any evidence that these organised and prostituted people exist????


Best wishes,

Martin

Martin,

Very easy to check. Just look up posters and view their activities. Number of posts and where they have posted are listed. Like I said, I checked four months ago and wrote a number of posters off. My senior year I took eighteen credits a quarter of senior studies.. This works out to about four semesters at a "normal" college. Some courses were true eye openers. I'm not talking like a conspiracy lunatic. As I said, it's just a fact of life. People are easily manipulated when you use the current psychological studies on what to say, how to say it, and when to say it.

Want to place a big 3' x 5' sign in your neighbors yard? Start by asking if they will put a 4" x 4" placard in their picture window. Stuck with having to give bad information in a proxy statement? Here are three ways. Put the information in a pie chart. Normally this is a very bad way to do things as a pie chart is easily understood by the human eye. Turn it into a 3D disk. Now lay it into an iso view with the bad segment to the rear. 3D allows the good information at the front to seem larger than it is and bad to the rear smaller. You say, "Things started good but have progressively gotten worse?" Change the time frame. Go most recent on the left leading to the present. People expect charts to grow. They see the chart rising, assume growth and don't look at the fine print. The best one is just bury the numbers in a spread sheet. People HATE looking at them for information. Lazy wins out.

Like I've said, I have a degree in communcation and Shakespeare was never mentioned. Yes, you can make money chatting on the internet. Designing what the drones say is a lot more money though. Not what I want to do. My senior year turned me off to that end. I'd rather write technical manuals.

.... The best one is just bury the numbers in a spread sheet. People HATE looking at them for information. Lazy wins out....

And I thought I was the only one who wrote a long boring introduction, put the important stuff in the middle followed by a long boring conclusion, when I wanted someone to agree to something in writing but not know exactly what they had agreed to. :)

Mr Wild do you have a degree in communication or mis-communication :D .

How I wish I am where you are not where I am.

Sorry my friend, Brunei is rich but the people don't own it. Its owned by a family here and thats as far as it goes. The supercars are owned by the same family. There are many poors here and too much self interests by a minority group that gives me a headache just thinking about it. I am ashamed to be even be called a Bru%$^en. Seriously.

And I am not religious at all, I am not a muslim, nor am I a christian, I am a buddist but by birth and I don't practice it as much as I should. So you don't really know me and can't judge me just because I come from a rich country and a few words that has religious connotation. Who is paranoid here?

Where I come from to insult the family is a crime punishable by jail term. Who dares to criticize? No one and those that does are outside of the country and do so under an assumed name.

But here's the difference, you live in a country that is a democracy. And you can (so to speak) pick and choose who to run for office and take care of the country and the world. I believe USA has the capability to take the lead and to be the big brother to look after the world (and I am willing to accept that simply because some governments in the east couldn't care less), but not with the people like bush who just want to reap for his benefit. You like him and people like cheney because he doesn't want to accept the kyoto protocol not because he is looking after your welfare, its because he is looking after his and his alone.

alexccmeister

I apologize if I have offended you. I did not intend to. I normally do not apologize for what I say, however, with any webforum, physical cues and inflection do not come through, so without very careful wording, it is easy to sound different than what was intended.

As for being paranoid...if I were exhibiting signs of UNHEALTHY paranoia, it would be possible to shake off my words as ranting from an unstable person. I have literally been around the world and seen combat in 5 countries. I know what it's like to have unknown enemies who want you dead for no reason other than you are a convenient target or are unliked as an outsider. I have experienced several different cultures. I have enjoyed most of them. Some I have learned to be grateful for my own culture.

As for Bush, like a lot of service people, I voted for him because I knew he'd take care of the military. Our first question when he started running for president, was when are we going to Iraq? I found out a year later. Since then, I have had the dubious honor of meeting both him and Cheney. Cheney also happens to be from my state and home town. I think he's an alright person, definitely misguided by his fundamentalist beliefs, and a horrible leader. His one saving grace is his ability to recognize the abilities in others. Say what you will about the current group holding high offices, they know how to play ball.

I don't practice any religion and I tolerate others' beliefs, so long as they do not interfere with mine. When I was stationed in Saudi Arabia, it infuriated me that our service women were made to wear burkhas. That is NOT part of our military uniform. For chrissakes, we couldn't have Playboy in our PX. I personally don't care for porn, but if some guy wants to look at airbrushed models and read inane article, more power to him. When we're "guests" of another country, we have to abide by their rules, no matter how backwards they may be.

As for the US being the "big brother" and "leading the way", I say no thank you. Our constitution says nothing of spreading democracy, promoting democracy or establishing democracies. Only to guarantee ours. Besides, we are technically a democratic republic, and thank god for that, because true democracy would have ruined our country at least 150 years ago. Most people are barely able to care for themselves, let alone make decisions that affect people besides themselves.

So...India and China together have 3 billion (BILLION!!!) people...America has 330 million people. I should forego, give up, go without (and many other meaningless phrases) my standard of living to "lead the way" while 10 times as many people do far worse things environmentally to "bootstrap" themselves to economic superpowers? We're about to give away our middle class so that they can gain theirs? Not the world I care for my children to inherit. Give me a real solution. For a real problem.

but not with the people like bush who just want to reap for his benefit. You like him and people like cheney because he doesn't want to accept the kyoto protocol not because he is looking after your welfare, its because he is looking after his and his alone.

Alex

Bush did NOT reject signing the Kyoto protocol. Signing Kyoto came up during the Clinton administration, but Clinton was forbidden by the US senate from signing it.

I am no Bush fan. As proof of this statement, read what I posted here: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36037


I suggest you research signing Kyoto yourself. Google is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=signing+kyoto+clinton+senate

For instance:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:gTeEMy7VHeMJ:www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_27262038.shtml+signing+kyoto+clinton+senate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/2266/newsDate/17-Nov-1998/story.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/why_this_matters.php

Hi WYLD,

No worries, none taken. You are right, sometimes its difficult to sound mild and saying something strong over the net in text form. TBH I have always looked up to the states for being the perfect candidate for a big brother. For being the balancer of evil. History has seen many a times where USA has done her bit to rid the world of really bad people. I am glad when they caught Saddam and hanged him for what he did. But it would be a big responsibility to look after the whole world though.

Maybe the day will come when USA has to take up the lead role again to sort out the mess we put ourselves in, i.e. pollution and the likes. Who else would? China? India? I don't think so. After all we are living under the same roof, so to speak. So when the s4!t hits the fan, everyone gets it.

Maybe I have been watching too much movies. LOL.

"Mariss"...has a dry sense of humor...
So do I.

My "confession" was intended mainly for entertainment.

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I had set my humor setting to "very dry". Maybe too dry it seems. A dark conspiracy was suggested so I ran with it by replying in kind.

Mariss

I'd rather write technical manuals.

DearMrWild,

Well, I suppose that the paper I drew attention to in post #20 is a "technical manual" to some people.

Best wishes,

Martin

Please see the attached gif file. It should put things into perspective regarding what has happened to our earth in times past.

Tides we know flow and ebb every day and measure a few feet. The earth has many time scales, the kinds that take a day and the kinds that take place on a scale we cannot imagine.

The graph shows the flow and ebb of tides that measure in millions years. The Pleistocene is our current era. It is what came after the extinction of dinosaurs, our current era and about an hour on earth's scale of time.

Please interpret the graph with me. See that the amplitude of the sea-level ranges from near 300 feet higher than now and 400 feet less than now. Note the graph gets finer with time as we near the present; there are more fluctuations. This is only because there is clearer evidence of what our earth's history is.

Note the very small "H" at the right-hand side of the timeline. It is the Historical time period starting with the advent of civilization and it spans only 10,000 years.

The sea-level has risen 350 feet in the last 10,000 years. Heat-producing human activity spans less than 200 years, or only the last 1/50th of the tiny 'H' span of the graph. It is less than 1 pixel of the graph and it is of no consequence.

10,000 years ago glaciers covered the northern 1/3 of the US 2 miles deep. They melted and raised the sea. I grew up in Ohio and remember marveling at the terminal moraines the ancient glaciers left. In my imagination, I tried to see what the land looked like as they retreated. It must have been a very sad place where life could only find purchase 1 or 2 months out of the year.

Most of us live in a temperate climate and it is the same way. Life thrives for 6 months and then it dies; we call it winter. Is it natural? Not for most of earth's natural history, life has simply adapted to a harsh reality. We also have a very nice place in Hawaii we call home. Life here thrives 12 months out of the year. To me it seems like the natural order of things. Why should life have to adapt by dying every year when the more natural course is to continue uninterrupted? It makes no sense unless it is trying to hang on in a hostile environment from which it didn't originate.

The earth will warm, the remaining ice will melt and the seas will rise whether we are here or not. It is blissfully uncaring of our concerns. From the graph, the seas will rise another 300 feet before the cycle repeats in another 100,000 years. Between now and then, everywhere will become semi-tropical and life will be as it was for countless millions of years before.

Global warming alarmists cry the seas will rise 30 feet if we don't do something now. Look at the graph. What is 30 feet on it if nothing but a blip? Where do these alarmists get the arrogance to believe something done in 20 years means anything one way or the other? It doesn't even rate a single pixel. We can "do" something about it? No; we are less than fleas on an elephant.

These changes shown on the graph are monumental both in amplitude and time. We should have a little humility about where we fit in.

Mariss

Granted. But I still would like to see new energy efficient, non polluting technology in my lifetime so I can enjoy the fresh air.

Mariss
To state that the weather has varied a great deal in previous epochs is doubtlessly true. But that doesn't negate the possibility of human activity causing global warming. I doubt we know enough to know for sure, my guess is that it's having an effect. I really don't think all those scientists are just trying to garner research grants although some probably are. Also the folks who say it isn't happening probably have an interest in doing so as well. If only to assuage their conscience for driving a Hummer. When the best minds out there are saying it's happening you have to consider the possibility that it is.
Donna

Granted. But I still would like to see new energy efficient, non polluting technology in my lifetime so I can enjoy the fresh air.

The processes of living (breathing, digestion, reproduction, etc.) produce pollutants no matter how large or small the organism. (You get sick from something as small as a virus) Therefore you have impractical unattainable expectations.

As far as fresh air, save your pennies and take a cruise to Hawaii.

In the mean time use YOUR money to search for a method to trap the by products of internal combustion. Build a better "mouse trap" and get rich!!

Who knows,
My "interests" are in designing electronic circuits. I'm not a part of some diabolical dark cabal intent on making the earth a steaming and polluted cesspool. What would these conspirators do? Ruin the earth, then take their profits and move to Mars?

I do have a reverence for science and reason. The barbarians have already debased the soft sciences and are now mounting their assault on the remaining hard sciences. Mathematics is next. Maybe in the future 10,000 renowned Green Mathematicians will sign a petition that 2 + 2 is no longer 4. Consensus is everything in our New Age.

Mariss

Mariss
To state that the weather has varied a great deal in previous epochs is doubtlessly true. But that doesn't negate the possibility of human activity causing global warming. I doubt we know enough to know for sure, my guess is that it's having an effect. I really don't think all those scientists are just trying to garner research grants although some probably are. Also the folks who say it isn't happening probably have an interest in doing so as well. If only to assuage their conscience for driving a Hummer. When the best minds out there are saying it's happening you have to consider the possibility that it is.
Donna

Neither does it prove the possibility of man caused warming, you yourself state that we don't know for sure. One thing we DO know for sure is that there are human sharks out there looking to clip the gullible with any brand of snake oil available.

I believe that they ALL are trying for grant money to fund "research"!

I don't own a "Hummer" but rest assured I feel NO guilt going down the highway in my 36" motor coach. It's mine, I bought it with MY money as the fuel it comsumes as well. NO APOLOGY extended to anyone!

We will also argue over "the best minds" as long as you have lunatics like Algore proffering his brand of bilge water.

None of you can tell me what the weather will be next month let alone next century. Take for example the predictions of many and massive hurricanes in the wake of Katrina. What an amazing failure! ZERO land falls and only a few real storms.

Again, the REAL threat of Islamic terror and even the still more realistic (than warming) possibility of being struck by a giant comet go unattended!

Go back to the "causes bin" and pick a more likely winner to scare us with because we ain't buying this one!!

..... I feel NO guilt going down the highway in my 36" motor coach....

I would feel no guilt in a 36 inch motor coach either. How many pedals does it have :D:stickpoke ?

A different take on the subject could be this is what happens when a movement becomes senescent, when it has accomplished its purpose and there is nothing more left to do.

The Women's Rights movement entered this phase about a decade ago. After all the goals were accomplished, the activists and their organizations had no further meaningful purpose. The more strident and outrageous they then became, the sillier they looked and the easier they were to dismiss. They worked themselves out of a job and they were the last to know it.

Environmentalists have done a good job. 45 years later the air is clear, the water is sparkling, species are protected, people are kind to little and big animals and there are no toxic chemicals to be found on the land, in the sea or in the air. Drugs and products are safe for children and adults. Congratulate them; the world is a better place than I remember it from my childhood.

The problem is vast organizations were built in those 45 years and hundreds of thousands dedicated their careers to the cause's maintenance and growth. These people and those organizations are left with a rapidly diminishing purpose for existing now. Like any organic system, survival is a primary instinct and environmentalism cannot be faulted for trying to avoid the inevitable. Global Warming is their attempt to retain what fading relevance they have left. It will get sillier and it will get more outrageous than this before it's finally over.

Mariss

Granted. But I still would like to see new energy efficient, non polluting technology in my lifetime so I can enjoy the fresh air.
The air must be really bad in Brunei. Do you live downwind of an oil refinery? If so, move.

From my perspective, insisting on solving the "global pollution problem" with aggressive changes is just as smart as removing healthy organs to prevent cancer.

Mariss explained what is going on better than I could in post # 87 above.

I would feel no guilt in a 36 inch motor coach either. How many pedals does it have :D:stickpoke ?


Typical left wing tactic, take an obvious typo and attempt to blow up into an indictment. Typical and transparent. When you have nothing else, criticize on a personal level for minor human failings.

Typical left wing tactic, take an obvious typo and attempt to blow up into an indictment. Typical and transparent. When you have nothing else, criticize on a personal level for minor human failings.

Touchy touchy, did you not see the BIG GRIN which is a hint that I was not being seriously critical or anything. You need to take a few deep breaths and calm down.

Atta boy! Deflect! Next comes equivocate then redirect by intimation! Accuse the opposition of being over sensitive or of taking unnecessary offense whether any was taken or not.

Right from the play book. Anything to avoid admitting defeat on any point. This way we have a perpetual argument with no chance of any slight amount of agreement.

Any way, good job! At least you haven't lost any ground.

I really don't think all those scientists are just trying to garner research grants although some probably are. Also the folks who say it isn't happening probably have an interest in doing so as well. If only to assuage their conscience for driving a Hummer. When the best minds out there are saying it's happening you have to consider the possibility that it is.
Donna

Dear xyzdonna,

1) I quite agree that all scientists are not "bigging-up" the problem in order to , cynically, get more research funding. Some may be though.

2) To suggest that those other scientists who have a different opinion are all in the pay of others, with a vested interest, stretches credulity.

3) Who are the "best minds". Only those with whom you agree ? Might it not be possible that there is room to consider, and debate, the scientific views of others?

Best wishes,

Martin

Atta boy! Deflect! Next comes equivocate then redirect by intimation! Accuse the opposition of being over sensitive or of taking unnecessary offense whether any was taken or not.

Right from the play book. Anything to avoid admitting defeat on any point. This way we have a perpetual argument with no chance of any slight amount of agreement.

Any way, good job! At least you haven't lost any ground.

Um; are you and I both using the same language? Have you read any of my posts on the topic of Global Warming? What perpetual argument are we having, you and I are fundamentally on the same side when it comes to discussing Global Warming. I really do think you should take the deep breaths...and go back and read what I have posted. When I have been in a serious mood.

Again, the REAL threat of Islamic terror and even the still more realistic (than warming) possibility of being struck by a giant comet go unattended!
Scientists are already doing their job in patrolling the skies for any comets that may come our way. Its when these thing hits you then you realise that money is no object and our government should spend in order to eliminate the problem. Just like in the case of 911. You would even sell your 36 (inch or foot) motor coach just to support the work towards getting rid of the radicals and getting a comet out of Earth's way. Global warming hasn't done that yet. So who cares.

The air must be really bad in Brunei. Do you live downwind of an oil refinery? If so, move.

See, thats the problem with the critics, they always think about themselves. Can't you spare some thoughts for others and offer some sort of solution than to fight every environmentalists and believers. And all I hear from the critics are "you are not going to take away my this and that". What is it that you are so afraid of? What exactly are they taking away from you?

BTW, Brunei still has clean air but it won't be for long if the number of cars and industries keep springing up cos we don't have any other better technologies that will reduce the pollutions.

And where do you suggest I move to? Earth is my home as much as it is yours. So please don't s4it in your back yard is all i can say. :)

Um; are you and I both using the same language? Have you read any of my posts on the topic of Global Warming? What perpetual argument are we having, you and I are fundamentally on the same side when it comes to discussing Global Warming. I really do think you should take the deep breaths...and go back and read what I have posted. When I have been in a serious mood.
I am afraid the critics are getting paranoid here. Even with their own. Sorry just had to put that in.

You can enjoy all that technologies are offering right now. Nobody is stopping anyone from doing that. I sure hell can't do that. But while we are enjoying the current technologies in terms of cars, mobile homes and etc, why not work towards a new goal of achieving new technologies that will (ok not eliminate pollution) reduce it to a considerable degree. Can we not at least agree on this?

Fear, fear, fear, fear. Comets now, Global Warming before. Haven't you ever wondered what life would be like without fear? What it would be like if you were to put all your burdens down? If you could disconnect from all that?

Imagine a life without fear. Imagine a life where you wake up every morning and you truly feel refreshed. Imagine a day from morning until evening when you'd say, "this was the happiest day of my life". Then you do it again after endless day again.

If you can't or you say you would like to, then something isn't right. It is the way life was meant to be enjoyed. It is the way I live my life. I don't think it's anything special.

Mariss

Fear is good. Its part of who we are. Its human nature. Fear gets us out of trouble. Whats wrong with that. Before the Tsunami in Indonesia happened, animals of all sorts ran away from the beach towards higher ground and thats why they don't perish. People on the other hand, due to their curiosity, ran towards the beach to investigate. No fear and what happen?

Its a more dangerous world to have this concept of no fear. Look at the extremist who blow themselves up because they say "I am not fearful of death".

See, thats the problem with the critics, they always think about themselves. Can't you spare some thoughts for others and offer some sort of solution than to fight every environmentalists and believers. And all I hear from the critics are "you are not going to take away my this and that". What is it that you are so afraid of? What exactly are they taking away from you?

BTW, Brunei still has clean air but it won't be for long if the number of cars and industries keep springing up cos we don't have any other better technologies that will reduce the pollutions.

And where do you suggest I move to? Earth is my home as much as it is yours. So please don't s4it in your back yard is all i can say. :)

Alex, I am all for the development of improved technologies - I am in that business myself. However, before I spend YOUR money to solve a problem I consider to be important enough to solve, I think you have the right to all least know what the problem is and what my proposed solution will be.

I don’t expect you to give me a blank check up front because I know best what needs doing. My problem is that the politicians pushing GW want us to trust them to do whatever they want without full disclosure, especially any kind of cost benefit analysis.

Before solving a problem you first have to define it properly. I have a problem with people who use "pollution" and CO2 interchangeably. I am all for you implementing or developing efficient & effective strategies at preserving your clean air. If I am contributing to your lack of clean air, then I need to be involved in bringing your solution. That is, if you truly face a pollution problem. If the problem is defined as too much CO2, then I will fight you all the way.

I don't want to force you to leave home. My statement about you moving is an effort to establish if you truly have an air pollution problem - an oil refinery would qualify. Then the question is if the refinery was operating when you moved there, or if was built after you arrived...

In other words, how much control do you have over the air quality you breath by the choices you make and have made? Are you truly soliciting help to solve a real problem facing mankind or is it local to your neighborhood, or Brunei. If it is local to Brunei, I am willing to help if I can. Just don't expect a blank check.

Fear is good. Its part of who we are. Its human nature. Fear gets us out of trouble. Whats wrong with that. Before the Tsunami in Indonesia happened, animals of all sorts ran away from the beach towards higher ground and thats why they don't perish.
Fear is a natural mechanism that drives humans and animals to run from the lion and survive. It is a good mechanism, but not intended to operate for more than a few minutes at a time.

It is not fear that is bad, it is those that instill lifelong fear in their fellow men so that they may have their way unopposed.

Neither does it prove the possibility of man caused warming, you yourself state that we don't know for sure. One thing we DO know for sure is that there are human sharks out there looking to clip the gullible with any brand of snake oil available.

I believe that they ALL are trying for grant money to fund "research"!

I don't own a "Hummer" but rest assured I feel NO guilt going down the highway in my 36" motor coach. It's mine, I bought it with MY money as the fuel it comsumes as well. NO APOLOGY extended to anyone!

We will also argue over "the best minds" as long as you have lunatics like Algore proffering his brand of bilge water.

None of you can tell me what the weather will be next month let alone next century. Take for example the predictions of many and massive hurricanes in the wake of Katrina. What an amazing failure! ZERO land falls and only a few real storms.

Again, the REAL threat of Islamic terror and even the still more realistic (than warming) possibility of being struck by a giant comet go unattended!

Go back to the "causes bin" and pick a more likely winner to scare us with because we ain't buying this one!!

jhowelb
We do know that we ourselves are funding Islamic terrorism with our petro dollars. Going green with synthetic fuels would have the duel purpose of reducing this cash flow to the middle east and possibly benefiting the environment as well. Of course we are going to be 8 years behind the curve until we can get the current moron in chief out of office and put someone in who actually has a viable energy policy. This idiot is proposing ethanol which currently takes about as much energy to produce as it creates. Biodiesel would be a better choice but ultimately hydrogen is going to be the answer.
As to nuclear energy I think it is viable. Although I'm a liberal, (yes I like Al Gore he's from my state) I think it can be safely implemented. The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike. This avoids much of the laborious regulatory process of having some engineer revue each element of the design. I also have a friend who's a nuclear engineer that oversaw the deconstruction of Three Mile Island after that mishap. After many conversations with him I'm sure it can be done right, it just takes a commitment.
We also know that a lot of ice is melting in the world. The question becomes why. No doubt there are many reasons with a good possibility that some are man made. We don't know for sure but we do know that some (but not all) with a vested interest take a position one way or the other. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. We need to look at the evidence dispassionately. I think this will happen, especially if the situation worsens.
As to your comet concerns this should be addressed as well. But it will probably have to wait until we can get religion out of politics. The Christian conservatives would probably think this is just what god had planned.
Donna

jhowelb
We do know that we ourselves are funding Islamic terrorism with our petro dollars. Going green with synthetic fuels would have the duel purpose of reducing this cash flow to the middle east and possibly benefiting the environment as well. Of course we are going to be 8 years behind the curve until we can get the current moron in chief out of office and put someone in who actually has a viable energy policy. This idiot is proposing ethanol which currently takes about as much energy to produce as it creates. Biodiesel would be a better choice but ultimately hydrogen is going to be the answer.
As to nuclear energy I think it is viable. Although I'm a liberal, (yes I like Al Gore he's from my state) I think it can be safely implemented. The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike. This avoids much of the laborious regulatory process of having some engineer revue each element of the design. I also have a friend who's a nuclear engineer that oversaw the deconstruction of Three Mile Island after that mishap. After many conversations with him I'm sure it can be done right, it just takes a commitment.
We also know that a lot of ice is melting in the world. The question becomes why. No doubt there are many reasons with a good possibility that some are man made. We don't know for sure but we do know that some (but not all) with a vested interest take a position one way or the other. This is the antithesis of the scientific method. We need to look at the evidence dispassionately. I think this will happen, especially if the situation worsens.
As to your comet concerns this should be addressed as well. But it will probably have to wait until we can get religion out of politics. The Christian conservatives would probably think this is just what god had planned.
Donna
+1

Alex, I am all for the development of improved technologies - I am in that business myself. However, before I spend YOUR money to solve a problem I consider to be important enough to solve, I think you have the right to all least know what the problem is and what my proposed solution will be.

I don’t expect you to give me a blank check up front because I know best what needs doing. My problem is that the politicians pushing GW want us to trust them to do whatever they want without full disclosure, especially any kind of cost benefit analysis.

Before solving a problem you first have to define it properly. I have a problem with people who use "pollution" and CO2 interchangeably. I am all for you implementing or developing efficient & effective strategies at preserving your clean air. If I am contributing to your lack of clean air, then I need to be involved in bringing your solution. That is, if you truly face a pollution problem. If the problem is defined as too much CO2, then I will fight you all the way.

I don't want to force you to leave home. My statement about you moving is an effort to establish if you truly have an air pollution problem - an oil refinery would qualify. Then the question is if the refinery was operating when you moved there, or if was built after you arrived...

In other words, how much control do you have over the air quality you breath by the choices you make and have made? Are you truly soliciting help to solve a real problem facing mankind or is it local to your neighborhood, or Brunei. If it is local to Brunei, I am willing to help if I can. Just don't expect a blank check.
Dynosor,

I really don't have a problem with current technologies such as oil refineries and such as long as we do our part (or some scientists and researchers I should say) in finding new ways to improve on what we have currently. As what XYZdonna said, looking towards getting hydrogen as the fuel source would be the best and this does not mean the by-product of oil which hydrogen is currently obtained from but the production of this clean fuel from some means. I will leave the task to some experts that I am sure are working hard as we speak to develop it. And if they get rich in the process, so be it, they deserve it. Whether the money comes from you or the general public to do so I don't know. But I am sure there are groups of experts probably doing this via grants from NGOs rather than the government.

But I can understand your situation, with politician you can't be so sure where your money will end up. And its probably a good thing that other governments are involved as well to tackle this issue.

xyzdonna ,

When you resort to personal attacks (....current moron in chief ....) you lose all credibility even if personal attacks are straight from the left side play book. There has never been a moron capable of piloting a jet aircraft. (Can you do it?)

"Going green with synthetic fuels........"

These fuels are MORE caustic to the environment than oil and have the added effect of driving the cost of corn and grain sky high. (All those Latin types can't afford their tortillas, tamales, enchiladas etc)

"....hydrogen is going to be the answer."

Yes, the by product there is water, Check it out, water vapor is the #1 green house gas!

"The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike."

this is called group think and it discourages innovation, which is the greatest detriment to progress brought on by socialism as seen in the USSR.

"But it will probably have to wait until we can get religion out of politics. The Christian conservatives would probably think this is just what god had planned."

Well there ya go! THERE is your problem! THIS has become your religion because you have no faith in God (CAPITOL G) nor man and want to force your faith upon the rest of us.

Religion is spine of politics, politics is war continued by other means and war is the perpetual state of mankind. Try to separate then and they fold in upon you!

Nice try but you still haven't shown me any reason to open my pocket book to your cause especially at the expense of our national economy. Sell it first in China and India!!

Fear, fear, fear, fear. Comets now, Global Warming before. Haven't you ever wondered what life would be like without fear? What it would be like if you were to put all your burdens down? If you could disconnect from all that?

Imagine a life without fear. Imagine a life where you wake up every morning and you truly feel refreshed. Imagine a day from morning until evening when you'd say, "this was the happiest day of my life". Then you do it again after endless day again.

If you can't or you say you would like to, then something isn't right. It is the way life was meant to be enjoyed. It is the way I live my life. I don't think it's anything special.

Mariss

Mariss,
What a beautiful philosophy! I'm in awe of you both for your outlook on life and your technical expertise. I own 9 of your drives in current and planned machines and they have proved flawless.
I'm certainly not a fear monger, but I do think caution is prudent. Until we know for sure what is happening it would be best to proceed to develop some solutions since many of the solutions are things we should be doing anyway. As I said previously, we're going to be 8 years behind the curve and I'm sure a lot more misdirections until we get a change of administration.
Nobody talks much about the root cause of the problems; over population. I suppose it's not politically correct. I think only the Chinese have taken any substantive steps in this direction. If global warming is real, it may well solve the problem of overpopulation. If it isn't, then we'll still have a planet with too many people on it and that will bring plenty of other problems. We've definitely got to develop a strategy that doesn't involve junk science or quixotic solutions. This is going to require intelligent & visionary leadership. Think Hillery!
Donna

BTW; I don't think you're quite on the mark when you say the women's movement has culminated. Legislatively perhaps but not in attitude of the populacewise.

"..................since many of the solutions are things we should be doing anyway."

Should be doing, according to WHO? And just who can show me that these things ARE solutions and not just MORE PROBLEMS?

Overpopulation? Chinese? Oh yes, THEY are the ones who allow the unauthorized babies to starve to death!

xyzdonna ,

When you resort to personal attacks (....current moron in chief ....) you lose all credibility even if personal attacks are straight from the left side play book. There has never been a moron capable of piloting a jet aircraft. (Can you do it?)

I don't think so, personal attacks against political leaders are a time honored tradition in our country, it's what makes politics interesting. Forgive my being a bit facetious, of course he's not really a moron, it's just his policies that are idiotic. No I can't fly a jet, but I got my student pilots' license once and soloed a small plane, does that count? Well actually I might, I asked a jet pilot that question once. As a small plane pilot would I be able to get a jet down if there were an emergency and I had to do it? He said I probably could if the weather were good and there were no other problems other than the incapacitation of the pilot and copilot. Never had to do it though.

"Going green with synthetic fuels........"

These fuels are MORE caustic to the environment than oil and have the added effect of driving the cost of corn and grain sky high. (All those Latin types can't afford their tortillas, tamales, enchiladas etc)

I dispute that they are more caustic to the environment, everything I've read says they are more benign, and besides we're running out of oil,

"....hydrogen is going to be the answer."

Yes, the by product there is water, Check it out, water vapor is the #1 green house gas!

Water vapor is a lot better than CO or CO2. It'll just join up with other water vapor, form clouds, block out the sun, cool the earth and make rain.

"The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike."

this is called group think and it discourages innovation, which is the greatest detriment to progress brought on by socialism as seen in the USSR.

At the present state of development I think they could come up with a nuclear plant design that would be about 95% optimum. The cost of further development would yield much diminished returns. The cost of designing all new plants every time with the regulatory and safety issues is one of the reasons it's so expensive.

"But it will probably have to wait until we can get religion out of politics. The Christian conservatives would probably think this is just what god had planned."

Well there ya go! THERE is your problem! THIS has become your religion because you have no faith in God (CAPITOL G) nor man and want to force your faith upon the rest of us.

Religion is spine of politics, politics is war continued by other means and war is the perpetual state of mankind. Try to separate then and they fold in upon you!

Those of us who are atheists are perfectly capable of gentility. Religion implies faith, and faith implies belief without proof. This is the diametric opposite of the scientific method and is where all the trouble comes in. Believing in something because you want it to be true. "I don't like global warming so I'll just say it isn't true." Hey, that was easy, now let's try evolution, "I don't believe in that either because that's not the way god, err, excuse me God said it was done in the bible." Pretty soon you're creating policies based on what feels good. "God wouldn't like stem cell research so we can't have that either." Never mind that the tissue was going to be thrown away anyway. People are dying because of the imbecilic policies of this administration and conservatives in general.

Nice try but you still haven't shown me any reason to open my pocket book to your cause especially at the expense of our national economy. Sell it first in China and India!!

Now imagine what the world would be likeif Al Gore hadn't had the election stolen from him by the supremes. He would have encouraged conservation. What did this president do, why the Hummer exemption, buy the big gas guzzler, use all the fuel you want, I'll go over and bump off Sadam and steal all his oil. No, we wouldn't be embroiled in this Iraq debacle, we could have done the same thing with conservation. The insane policies of the current administration will soon have added about a trillion dollars to the national debt. About $6,000 for every man woman and child in the country. A trillion here and a trillion there, pretty soon your talking real money, to update the Everett Dirksen quote. The middle class would certainly be better off. This presidents war on the middle class has made all of us poorer. More and more of the tax burden is being loaded off of the rich on to the middle class. Even some of the very rich are scratching their heads over the illogic of it. Warren Buffets recent remarks that his secretary pays more in taxes as a percentage of her income than he does comes to mind. No my friend, we are a lot worse off because of the imbecilic policies of this administration. Plus, in the midst of all our other problems, he's about to get the cold war cranked back up! Did I say he wasn't a moron? Maybe I was wrong.
Donna
.

I'm sorry, my previous post made it confusing as to who said what, let me post again. I wasn't familiar with how it worked. Ignore my previous post and read this instead, I've made it clearer as to who said what. jhowelb conveniently put quotes in where he was quoting me.
Donna

jhowelb:When you resort to personal attacks (....current moron in chief ....) you lose all credibility even if personal attacks are straight from the left side play book. There has never been a moron capable of piloting a jet aircraft. (Can you do it?)
Donna:I don't think so, personal attacks against political leaders are a time honored tradition in our country, it's what makes politics interesting. Forgive my being a bit facetious, of course he's not really a moron, it's just his policies that are idiotic. No I can't fly a jet, but I got my student pilots' license once and soloed a small plane, does that count? Well actually I might, I asked a jet pilot that question once. As a small plane pilot would I be able to get a jet down if there were an emergency and I had to do it? He said I probably could if the weather were good and there were no other problems other than the incapacitation of the pilot and copilot. Never had to do it though.

jhowelb:"Going green with synthetic fuels........"

These fuels are MORE caustic to the environment than oil and have the added effect of driving the cost of corn and grain sky high. (All those Latin types can't afford their tortillas, tamales, enchiladas etc)

Donna:I dispute that they are more caustic to the environment, everything I've read says they are more benign, and besides we're running out of oil.

jhowelb:"....hydrogen is going to be the answer."

Yes, the by product there is water, Check it out, water vapor is the #1 green house gas!

Donna:Water vapor is a lot better than CO or CO2. It'll just join up with other water vapor, form clouds, block out the sun, cool the earth and make rain.

jhowelb:"The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike."

this is called group think and it discourages innovation, which is the greatest detriment to progress brought on by socialism as seen in the USSR.

Donna:At the present state of development I think they could come up with a nuclear plant design that would be about 95% optimum. The cost of further development would yield much diminished returns. The cost of designing all new plants every time with the regulatory and safety issues is one of the reasons it's so expensive.

jhowelb:"But it will probably have to wait until we can get religion out of politics. The Christian conservatives would probably think this is just what god had planned."

Well there ya go! THERE is your problem! THIS has become your religion because you have no faith in God (CAPITOL G) nor man and want to force your faith upon the rest of us.

Religion is spine of politics, politics is war continued by other means and war is the perpetual state of mankind. Try to separate then and they fold in upon you!

Donna:Those of us who are atheists are perfectly capable of gentility. Religion implies faith, and faith implies belief without proof. This is the diametric opposite of the scientific method and is where all the trouble comes in. Believing in something because you want it to be true. "I don't like global warming so I'll just say it isn't true." Hey, that was easy, now let's try evolution, "I don't believe in that either because that's not the way god, err, excuse me God said it was done in the bible." Pretty soon you're creating policies based on what feels good. "God wouldn't like stem cell research so we can't have that either." Never mind that the tissue was going to be thrown away anyway. People are dying because of the imbecilic policies of this administration and conservatives in general.

jhowelb:Nice try but you still haven't shown me any reason to open my pocket book to your cause especially at the expense of our national economy. Sell it first in China and India!!

Donna:Now imagine what the world would be like if Al Gore hadn't had the election stolen from him by the supremes. He would have encouraged conservation. What did this president do, why the Hummer exemption, buy the big gas guzzler, use all the fuel you want, I'll go over and bump off Sadam and steal all his oil. No, we wouldn't be embroiled in this Iraq debacle, we could have done the same thing with conservation. The insane policies of the current administration will soon have added about a trillion dollars to the national debt. About $6,000 for every man woman and child in the country. A trillion here and a trillion there, pretty soon your talking real money, to update the Everett Dirksen quote. The middle class would certainly be better off. This presidents war on the middle class has made all of us poorer. More and more of the tax burden is being loaded off of the rich on to the middle class. Even some of the very rich are scratching their heads over the illogic of it. Warren Buffets recent remarks that his secretary pays more in taxes as a percentage of her income than he does comes to mind. No my friend, we are a lot worse off because of the imbecilic policies of this administration. Plus, in the midst of all our other problems, he's about to get the cold war cranked back up! Did I say he wasn't a moron? Maybe I was wrong.
Donna

Mariss,
Here is one of those you described.
xyzdonna
Join Date: 11-24-2007
Total Posts: 7 (3.01 posts per day)
All of them in The Coming Climate Change or related subjects.

=============================
In a Thurmont, Maryland , cemetery:
Here lies an Atheist, all dressed up and no place to go.
=============================

=============================
In a Thurmont, Maryland , cemetery:
Here lies an Atheist, all dressed up and no place to go.
=============================
At least we know where we are going, I think most Christians don't.
Lindsay

I believe the Christian theology. If I am wrong I will have lived a better, fuller life for it and lost nothing.

On the other hand, if you are wrong you will pay a tragic price.

"What profit is it to a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

I will not argue my religion with you, neither will I argue your religion of the church of global climate change. I now know the purpose for which you are here in this forum and will from this point ignore you.

Have a nice day!

nothing like the sanctimony of the religion of atheism. you do realize that science cannot prove that atheism is right. Logic does not allow the proving of negative so it is not possible to make a logic argument that states that there is "no god". so your faith in atheism seems similar to the religions that you have contempt for. if you need some help, i can refer you to several college logic texts to give you a hand coming to grips with logic. that is what science is supposed to use in problem solving....though many scientists confuse their opinions with facts.........

I believe the Christian theology. If I am wrong I will have lived a better, fuller life for it and lost nothing.

On the other hand, if you are wrong you will pay a tragic price.

"What profit is it to a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

I will not argue my religion with you, neither will I argue your religion of the church of global climate change. I now know the purpose for which you are here in this forum and will from this point ignore you.

Have a nice day!

Thank you for the nice day wish, same to you.
If you wish to ignore me that is fine but you are wrong about why I came to this venue. I just picked up on this thread and jumped in, I love repartee with someone who totally disagrees with me and I think you and I would disagree on just about everything. In a previous post I mentioned that I had 9 Gecko drives. I have one CNC router running and another under construction. Next is a plasma cutter. No hard feelings, I just love a good political argument. I hope I didn't offend.
Take care,
Donna

nothing like the sanctimony of the religion of atheism. you do realize that science cannot prove that atheism is right. Logic does not allow the proving of negative so it is not possible to make a logic argument that states that there is "no god". so your faith in atheism seems similar to the religions that you have contempt for. if you need some help, i can refer you to several college logic texts to give you a hand coming to grips with logic. that is what science is supposed to use in problem solving....though many scientists confuse their opinions with facts.........

Actually I misstated, I'm more of an agnostic. I'm not contemptuous of religion, I just don't know. Was raised in the church but now find the Christian religion to be nonsensical. Science can make no proof about god or religion because it is outside the realm of the scientific method. You can't do experiments on god.
Donna

actually i am ok with whatever ....i just have some very aggressive atheists for neighbors who go around complaining about Christmas lights and everything else,,,,,they are very very very aggressive.

actually i am ok with whatever ....i just have some very aggressive atheists for neighbors who go around complaining about Christmas lights and everything else,,,,,they are very very very aggressive.

Any athiest who complains about Christmas lights is an idiot. The Christmas celebration, like many other so-called Christian celebrations, was stolen from the Pagans. It was not called Christmas and had different names but they all had in common the fact that they were a mid-winter festival, Winter Solstice actually, and these predate the coming of Christianity by hundreds or thousands of years.

I am contemptuous of religion and i am an atheist!

I believe the Christian theology. If I am wrong I will have lived a better, fuller life for it and lost nothing.

On the other hand, if you are wrong you will pay a tragic price.

"What profit is it to a man to gain the world and lose his soul?"

If there was an all encompassing god, it wouldn't care about you and if it did, it controls everything so who cares.

If you you believe in god you go to a better place? If that ends up being true good for you, but since i am a heathen, I will go to hell?

Sounds like a human concept, to fear you into believing something...a real god doesn't need me to believe....

I personally think i am a better person because I choose to be good and help my fellow man, not because I fear an all powerful super being that tells me I am going to hell if i don't.

And just a side note... most atheists think life ends when you die... if it am wrong and go to hell (even though i am good) still a win win because I just thought I ended.

Better a life in hell than no life at all! :D

I cant wait for that all over tan! The chicks will really dig me then! ;)

wasn't this a discussion on GW?

Damn Ive turned into a forum troll! ;)

As to nuclear energy I think it is viable. Although I'm a liberal, (yes I like Al Gore he's from my state) I think it can be safely implemented. The Europeans do it by settling on a standard design that has all the kinks worked out and then building them all alike. This avoids much of the laborious regulatory process of having some engineer revue each element of the design. I also have a friend who's a nuclear engineer that oversaw the deconstruction of Three Mile Island after that mishap. After many conversations with him I'm sure it can be done right, it just takes a commitment.
.
Donna

Dear Donna,

Leaving aside the current religious debate, and returning to the original one about "global warming" or "whatever", I'm entirely with you.

France has had a comprehensive nuclear programme for many years and , I believe, stuffs a whole load of nuclear-generated electricity through submarine cables to the UK. France has had no problems, and neither has the UK. It seems to work as a renewable energy source without any great impact as the depletion of fossil fuels which might be better deployed otherwise for the manufacture of plastics, lubricants, etc etc. This is a vital natural resource.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of pissing away fossil fuels, and it has nothing to do with "global warming" or "climate change".

My modest take on this, is that it would be a huge tragedy to see my tiny country covered in wind-farms that will have an absolutely minimal prospect of large-scale electricity generation, recommended by "experts" with snouts in the trough, and crowed about by politicians who attempt to convince the electorate that they are some kind of "planet saving" saints .

Most of our leaders trained as lawyers. No need for further comment.

End of rant....

Best wishes,

Martin

...Damn Ive turned into a forum troll! ;)

And you have been hiding under your bridge like good trolls do for a very long time.:)

Dear Donna,

Leaving aside the current religious debate, and returning to the original one about "global warming" or "whatever", I'm entirely with you.

France has had a comprehensive nuclear programme for many years and , I believe, stuffs a whole load of nuclear-generated electricity through submarine cables to the UK. France has had no problems, and neither has the UK. It seems to work as a renewable energy source without any great impact as the depletion of fossil fuels which might be better deployed otherwise for the manufacture of plastics, lubricants, etc etc. This is a vital natural resource.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of pissing away fossil fuels, and it has nothing to do with "global warming" or "climate change".

My modest take on this, is that it would be a huge tragedy to see my tiny country covered in wind-farms that will have an absolutely minimal prospect of large-scale electricity generation, recommended by "experts" with snouts in the trough, and crowed about by politicians who attempt to convince the electorate that they are some kind of "planet saving" saints .

Most of our leaders trained as lawyers. No need for further comment.

End of rant....

Best wishes,

Martin
Yes, lawyers seem to be running our country. You are from the US aren't you? I do, like you, think that a lot of junk science and impractical solutions will be bandied about. I only hope that reason prevails and practicable steps will be taken. The past has been bad but the bankrupt ideas of the radical right have demonstrated themselves quite well of late. This presidents approval rating is hovering around 30%, that gives me hope. I do believe in GW but admit that it's not a proven thing, only about a 95% certainty. Yes, oil would be better used for making commodities. Less pollution and more value. Nuclear is a good interim answer, fusion is the ultimate goal.
Take care,
Donna

I do believe in GW but admit that it's not a proven thing, only about a 95% certainty. Yes, oil would be better used for making commodities. Less pollution and more value. Nuclear is a good interim answer, fusion is the ultimate goal.

Donna

Dear Donna,

IMVVHO...GW or CC should not be a matter of "belief". Where did scientific debate go???? It is a horrible sight to see politicians with an agenda meet the people they fund come to a mutual conclusion.

Yep, nuclear is a good move, IMHO.

Best wishes,

Martin

.....GW or CC should not be a matter of "belief"....

Global Warming is not a matter of belief it is a fact. If Global Warming had not occurred over the past few thousand years Donna would be prevented from travelling North much further than the Wisconsin border by a big pile of ice; that was about the maximum Southerly extent of the Ice Age that ended about 12,000 years ago. So I suppose Climate Change is also a fact.

What is not necessarily a fact is that human activity has had any role in Global Warming. What I think is pure delusional thinking is the belief that we can do anything about it whether or not human activity has had an role in causing it. Actually if you read the pontifications coming out of the IPCC they acknowledge that any changes that are put into place now will not have an effect for about 100 years; while also saying (and I paraphrase a bit) unless we do something we will go past a "Tipping Point" in twenty years or so. Which to me seems a bit contradictory; if what we do now only has an effect 100 years from now how can we prevent something that will happen in 20 years?

IMNVHO the only person in this whole shemozzle who is talking or writing sense is Bjorn Lomborg.

We ourselves are funding Islamic terrorism with our petro dollars.

You mean like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4y-waHLz-TU

Warning: This video contains scenes that some people may find amusing.

Same thing at: http://www.break.com/index/achmed-the-terrorist.html

Global Warming is not a matter of belief it is a fact. IMNVHO the only person in this whole shemozzle who is talking or writing sense is Bjorn Lomborg.

Dear Geof,

An entirely fair comment on my lazy post.

BTW, Bjorn Lomberg published with the Cambridge University Press in the UK.

Shortly after the "Skeptical Environmentalist" was published, a financially significant number of climate change experts refused to deal with CUP.

That comes from a quite reliable source within that publishing house.

Best wishes,

Martin

Dear Geof,

An entirely fair comment on my lazy post.

BTW, Bjorn Lomberg published with the Cambridge University Press in the UK.

Shortly after the "Skeptical Environmentalist" was published, a financially significant number of climate change experts refused to deal with CUP.

That comes from a quite reliable source within that publishing house.

Best wishes,

Martin

Hi Martin,
Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over.
Take care,
Donna

Hi Martin,
Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over.
Take care,
Donna

Dear Donna,

I very much doubt it. That book is seriously hard pornography.

Best wishes,

Martin

Hi Martin,
Is it possible to read the article "Skeptical Environmentalist" by Lomberg online? I'd love to look it over.
Take care,
Donna

Run the gauntlet of the Global Warming Afficionados and buy your own copy :D.

Geof,

Thanks for the tip on Bjorn Lomborg's book. I just ordered it from Amazon.

Mariss

Wouldn't the fact that there were prior periods of global heating and cooling, set precedent to establish that "GW" and "CC" are real...and also at the same time, wouldn't that fact be enough to establish that humans, regardless of their industrial proclivities and "greenhouse gas" contributions, are not responsible for the current climate change? Or is that the same kind of circular logic the neo-greenies employ?

Geof,

Thanks for the tip on Bjorn Lomborg's book. I just ordered it from Amazon.

Mariss

He also has a more recent one in which he points out that it would be much more sensible to spend money on solving a lot of other problems rather than wasting it on trying to combat global warming...which is more or less impossible anyway. Or something along those lines, I am paraphrasing to some extent. I have not read his books but have seen excerpts.

What Lomborg writes about is agreeable to some and not to an equal number of readers. Hardly conclusive. We agree with someone because they write exactly on what we believe in. That's human nature.

And its funny reading the comments from the Amazon website about his book. The fan calls the critic wackos just for not liking his book. Which is the religion here I ask.

I have been reading the amazon review of Lomborg's book and I bring to your attention of a comment by a reviewer and he/she says, taking Richard Branson ' as an example, why he spend 3 billion dollars to find the most efficient fuel technology which may not be of benefit, rather than spend the money on getting clean water to the needy and poor. What Mr. Branson's doing, beside the fact that he will get even richer, is to find a technology that will exist long term and help not just us now but us in the future.

Remember the exercise you do when inside the plane? If there is decompression, you are suppose to put the oxygen mask on yourself before putting it on your child. There is a reason for doing this. It may sound cruel but it saves life.

I am not saying that we ignore clean water. But the truth is we are not, as i am sure there are people and NGO's out there who are working hard to get clean water to the masses. And who is to say Richard Branson isn't doing exactly that in his philantrophic lifestyle.

Giving large sum of money to some countries to help the poor isn't the best way as we all know. Corruption runs rampant when money is pledged to do something good in a developing country. A large portion of it will probably go to some greedy politicians and middle men leaving just a small amount to help those needy poor.

Run the gauntlet of the Global Warming Afficionados and buy your own copy :D.

Oh, I see, it's a book. I thought it was an article put out by the IPCC. Thanks to Marisse's post I went to Amazon and read some of the reviews, many were quite thoughtful. Here is an excerpt from one review that I found insightful.
Donna

"I was surprised that Lomborg conceded that global warming is quite real and clearly caused by human activities of burning fossil fuel. Yet he somehow managed to minimize all the negative consequences of the warming world that he expects his great grandkids to inhabit. At least they will never freeze to death he says, apparently with great seriousness. The economic model that he applies clearly does not recognize the complexity of climate on the natural systems on which we depend for our survival and the likelihood of species extinctions and crop failures."

So they are starting to come around and admit that it's happening and that it's man made. Brilliant, the delay in figuring out what to do about it will no doubt exacerbate the damage. I've said before that the Bush administration has put us 8 years behind the curve in implementing a meaningful energy policy. So now the debate shifts from whether or not it's man made to "let's just sit back and enjoy the nice warm winters. They're cute but we really didn't need all those polar bears and penguins anyway."

We should have been working on energy independence a long time ago for a lot of reasons. The petro dollars we send over to the middle east not only fund terrorism, they also adversely effects our balance of payments deficit and and thereby reduce the value of our currency. Under this current administration the dollar has been reduced in value by about one third. Middle eastern countries are growing weary of holding dollar denominated assets and are grousing about dumping the dollar for the euro. If that should happen the consequences will be dire for the US economy. Maybe all those conservative Republicans will take a different view of things when they see their dollar assets drying up.
Donna

Wouldn't the fact that there were prior periods of global heating and cooling, set precedent to establish that "GW" and "CC" are real...and also at the same time, wouldn't that fact be enough to establish that humans, regardless of their industrial proclivities and "greenhouse gas" contributions, are not responsible for the current climate change? Or is that the same kind of circular logic the neo-greenies employ?

Ever heard of the post hoc fallacy? It's considered the greatest (or at least most overused) fallacy in logic. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, Latin for after this therefore because of this. Extensively employed by preachers, politicians, conservative talk show hosts, and other unsavory characters. Whether or not climate change is the result of human activity doesn't depend on the order of occurrence of events. You have to use science to evaluate this, not circuitous logic.
Donna

.... Whether or not climate change is the result of human activity doesn't depend on the order of occurrence of events. You have to use science to evaluate this, not circuitous logic.
Donna

Perfectly correct, however, the Anthropogenic Global Warming disciples do use fuzzy logic. Their basic premise is that Global Warming is occurring; no denying that it is, CO2 levels are going up, no denying that they are and most of the new CO2 is from fossil fuels, it is. Ergo; fossil fuel generated CO2 increase is causing Global Warming. They make the mistake of assuming a correlation means a cause. Then they extrapolate and predict all manner of catastrophes; extinctions and all manner of things. However, 6000 years ago global temperatures were some 6 to 8 degrees higher than now; this was known as the Climatic Optimum and there is ample evidence for it. So if mass extinction and wordlwide disruption of ecosystems are going to occur in the future due to an increase of 2 degrees surely it must have occurred in the past with the warming of the Climatic Optimum? There is absolutely no evidence that this did occur and the alarmist claims that it will occur in the future are without foundation.

1) It's a book. It is nothing to be afraid of. It's OK to read all sorts of books.

My bookshelf has a dogeared copy of Algor's "Earth in a Lurch". It sits next to Herrnstein's "Bell Curve". Next to it is Cleaver's "Soul on Fire" followed by Friedrich Nietzsche's works. There are many, many more books. They all get along; my bookshelves have not caught on fire yet. Read the books first, then read the critics. Give the authors' ideas a fair hearing; form your own opinion before reading other's opinions.

2) Making gratuitous political and religious insults serves no one; it only lessens the person saying it. By some genetic defect I personally am unable to have faith, however I immensely respect those who can and do. It is the apex of being human and is as separate as reason is from emotion. Faith gives sublime certainty life has a purpose; reason and emotion cannot do that.

Politically, I have my heroes and villains. They may or may not be yours. I won't inflict you with my list, please have the perspicacity to not inflict me with your list. I kindly suggest it takes away from the mutual regard we all have for one another here. Avoid the urge, it does not add.

Mariss

Read "A tsunami of nonsense"

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d7884287-ad94-454a-809c-55a6bedd690e

If the link does not work just put the quote above into Google.

Sadly my current reading list is comprised of the collected works of the great philosopher Verilog. Dense reading.

Mariss

Remember Katrina and how Global Warming was making hurricanes more numerous and stronger?

Well last year was nothing spectacular and this year was just average; 14 named storms and 6 hurricanes.

Perhaps Global Warming has gone on vacation for a couple of years.:)

Twenty-Two Ways To Be A Good Democrat


1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.


2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.


3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat
than U.S. Nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.


4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.


5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical documented
changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer moms driving SUV's.


6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being homosexual is natural.


7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.


8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach fourth graders how to read
is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.


9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have
never been outside of San Francisco do.


10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something
to earn it.


11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make
"The Passion of the Christ" for financial gain only.


12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution,
while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.


13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.


14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to
American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and A.G. Bell.


15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides
are not.


16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.


17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is
because the right people haven't been in charge.


18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex
offender belonged in the White House.


19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality
should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.


20. You have to believe that illegal Democrat Party funding by the Chinese Government is
somehow in the best interest to the United States .


21. You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast, right wing conspiracy.


22. You have to believe that it's okay to give federal workers the day off on Christmas Day
but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas".



Ready to vote???







"Imagination is more important than knowledge.
Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the
world."
Albert Einstein

jhowelb...

You crack me up! Ultimately though, the parties aren't any different. Remember after the last election when many Republicans & Democrats switched parties to get the votes they needed to be reelected? The same party swap that gave the Republicans the majority in the Senate & the House? That leads me to believe that either pols have no idealogy (which I take as a given) or that fundamentally and in action both parties have the same agenda. The speeches might change and partylines differ, but I didn't really notice much of a socialist aspect to Bill Clintons reign. Call me naive, but JFK was a Democrat, and he did more for America the nation during his altogether too short term, than Reagan or Bush Sr. did for the duration of theirs.

I don't think that Global Warming/Climate Change has anything to do with party platforms (Al Gore is a Dem...so what? He's also from Tennessee...does that mean he paints himself orange and takes off his shirt at Volunteer games?) as much as it does have a similarity to religion. The fanaticals of any religion are often the loudest voices...sometimes all you hear is screaming from the pew...and the screaming of people after a bomb goes off.

From my experience and perspective, GW/CC is the new Armageddon that all religions preach and pray for. The one cause that "everyone" hopes to unite us with will be the one cause that creates further divides. Moreso than what's being exhibited in this forum. I fear that there will be very dire consequences in the name of GW/CC and that we may be at the very beginning of a new series of Crusades. Let's hope they don't make it to a Childrens' Crusade this go around...

Ever heard of the post hoc fallacy? It's considered the greatest (or at least most overused) fallacy in logic. Post hoc ergo proctor hoc, Latin for after this therefore because of this. Extensively employed by preachers, politicians, conservative talk show hosts, and other unsavory characters. Whether or not climate change is the result of human activity doesn't depend on the order of occurrence of events. You have to use science to evaluate this, not circuitous logic.
Donna

Thank you Donna

I agree with you. Using what scientific data we have...both corrupted and uncorrupted...establishes that we DO NOT know for fact that humans have caused global warming. That is a hypothesis, not even a theory. What we do know for FACT is that the planet has undergone periods of heating and cooling prior to mankinds arrival, let alone as a dominant species. We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition. We haven't tried to establish if it is caused by a single event or a series of events that have been in motion prior to the industrial age. What egotistical creatures we are to believe that trees only make sound when we are there to hear them fall, and that the Earth gets warmer because we burn gasoline. Cause and effect...there are so many variables that it will be damn near impossible to accurately determine if we are THE problem, ONE of the problems, a contributing factor, or simply a new phenomenon to a cyclical event.

There was no party swap, majority and minority changed as result of elections.
Sadly, there some in GOP who are also liberal (socialist) but by and large that position belongs to the dems.
If you can't see a socialist bent to both Klintons you are in bad need of spectacles, not paying attention or don't want to look.

GW/CC is the new Armageddon of the fanatic newage climate faction of the great liberal religion to replace all religions. On that much we agree.

Get this, YOU WILL NEVER WIN THE DISCUSSION WITH THESE GUYS AND NEITHER WILL YOU MAKE ONE CONVERT OR EVEN SWAY ONE!
That is the way with all fanatics from Islamic extremists to Communists to even certain Christian fundamentalists (Jim Jones) to comet chasing lunatics. They are devout and unswerving nut cases.

I'm sure I've just thrown gasoline on the fire, but it's true and the denials and attacks that will follow will prove me right.

Most of us have traveled from the intercity to the rural country side, or have spent the day under the shade of a great tree and noticed how much cooler it is. And most of us realize that if we add even a little warm water to an ice cube the ice cube will melt. So why is the concept of temperature change any different?

I do not know about the effects of co2 but I know without a doubt that we continue to expand and create concrete highways and that the urban sprawl is at its highest point ever, sooooo we remove the trees--which add a cooling effect--and build buildings and highways which will scold you when touched or walked on.(The reflective quality alone, not to mention the ability to retain heat has to do something to the surrounding air). You know that if you come next to a building that is in the direct sunlight that the surrounding air is hotter, Why is this hard to imagine on a global scale??

How far fetched is the global warming due to co2, that is debatable, but as for adding to the global temperature by deforestation and urban sprawl, I don't think that any of us have much of a debate.

As a side note--What if we live our entire lives thinking that co2 emissions is not contributing to global warming and we are WRONG?? What is wrong with trying to limit what we know is bad, Yah I know that cows and a thousand other thing emit tons of co2 daily but that should only be more of a reason to control what we can. Kind of like life itself--control what you can control and deal with the rest.

Just a though.

Wonderful.......on YOUR money!

..... We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition.....

I understand that ice cores taken in both Greenland and Antartica show that CO2 levels have varied cyclically in the past so it is possible to make the claim that the current increase is not out of the ordinary. However, the isotopic make up of the current atmospheric content has changed in a manner that suggests most of the increase is due to fossil sources of carbon that have been sequestered away for millions of years so it is also valid to make the claim that the current increase is caused by humans.

But it really does not matter whether it is a natural change or a man made change it is pretty well impossible to do anything about it. Even the IPCC gurus say that no matter what is done the current CO2 levels will continue to cause increases in temperature for about the next hundred years. The increase at the end of the hundred years will be less if CO2 emissions are cut in half but for the next fifty years the temperature increase will be more or less the same whether anything is done or not. At the same time these gurus predict that catastrophic irreversible changes will occur within twenty years if we do not do something. It does not compute...if we cannot have any influence ess than fifty years how can we have an influence in less than twenty years?

And all this overlooks that it is impossible to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% without causing a mind boggling disruption in the world economy and everybody's way of life. Energy consumption is embedded in everything we do and the only way to reduce CO2 emission is to reduce energy consumption. Look at post 14 in this thread; http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36211
It is a semi-flippant discussion but I have yet to find anyone who can find a flaw in the underlying premise.

Geof,

You are SPOT ON!

But, you see, these guys want our tax money and much increased taxes in addition to our heads under their collective foot!

As I said earlier, fanatics just a Kamikazes!

What if we live our entire lives thinking that co2 emissions is not contributing to global warming and we are WRONG?? What is wrong with trying to limit what we know is bad...



What's wrong with burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2? Fossil fuels come from dead plants. These plants grew off CO2 in the air. When we burn fossil fuels, we put that CO2 back where it came from. If you want to "do something", plant some trees.

MORE trees in North America than there were in 1492!!

are you saying there are more trees now than there were 1492???:-(

What's wrong with burning fossil fuel and emitting CO2? Fossil fuels come from dead plants. These plants grew off CO2 in the air. When we burn fossil fuels, we put that CO2 back where it came from. If you want to "do something", plant some trees.
That has to be most childish remark I have ever seen. Its not wrong if its limited. The earth can only take care of so much CO2 emitted in the air. In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense.

BTW, plant and trees only produced oxygen when there is sunlight. I think we tend to forget this very important point. At night or when there is limited sun light, trees produce CO2 just like we do.

MORE trees in North America than there were in 1492!!

I can assure without a doubt there is less tree in Borneo now then there were in a 100 years ago. The same with the Amazon and other tropical countries. Why I l know? Just look at the amount of concrete that has replaced the acres of forested land. So I don't think there is more trees in North America now than there were in 1492. Where do you get this figure from?

That has to be most childish remark I have ever seen. Its not wrong if its limited. The earth can only take care of so much CO2 emitted in the air. In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense.

BTW, plant and trees only produced oxygen when there is sunlight. I think we tend to forget this very important point. At night or when there is limited sun light, trees produce CO2 just like we do.


I agree that my response was flippant - I was trying to make several points without restating
them for the Nth time.

CO2 is not pollution, but part of the natural cycle of energy exchange that happens
between plants and animals. Yes, plant metabolism includes the oxidation of carbohydrates in
the absence of light - how is that a problem? The fact that a tree becomes taller and heavier
year after year is direct evidence that it has absorbed more CO2 than it has released,
despite the lack of sunlight every night.

CO2 is not toxic at low concentrations - heck, even oxygen is toxic at high concentrations:
http://www.inspect-ny.com/hazmat/CO2gashaz.htm Yes, there is more CO2, but even a 100% increase
would go unnoticed, and no GW fanatic is claiming that is going to happen.

If the proportion of free oxygen in the air starts to drop significantly I would be concerned
because this could indicate an imbalance; that too much oxygen is attached to other
elements. Why don't they try and scare us with "plummeting oxygen levels"? Could it be
because the CO2 increase is due not to new combustion, but rather to a release from the
oceans that resulted from the slight temperature increase we are arguing about?

When you burn hydrocarbons you create CO2 and water vapor. Water vapor is a much more
potent greenhouse gas than CO2 and you can see its effect immediately - no waiting 100 years
for a 1 degree change: Cloudy days are cooler, cloudy nights are warmer, yet nobody is
complaining about the contribution of water to global warming. Why is that? To see
the effect of water on GW models see: http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

I believe CO2 is no more a problem that water vapor and that even if we are contributing to
a very small temperature increase, this is a good thing, rather than bad.

Just how much CO2 can the earth take care of before the balance is tipped? The tipping point
that we have been warned about can only be avoided by "immediate and drastic action", but
cutting our CO2 emissions 50% won't have any measureable effect on GW until all witnesses
present today are dead and gone. I smell a rat.

I maintain that GW is a politically motivated issue used by the left to achieve their goals,
much like the war on terror is used by the right to achieve their goals.

******************************************************************



More info on CO2 toxicity at: http://wasg.iinet.net.au/Co2paper.html


CO2 Concentration:

Comments

0.03%

Nothing happens as this is the normal carbon dioxide concentration in air.

0.5%

Lung ventilation increases by 5 percent. This is the maximum safe working level recommended for an 8 hour working day in industry (Australian Standard).

1.0%

Symptoms may begin to occur, such as feeling hot and clammy, lack of attention to details, fatigue, anxiety, clumsiness and loss of energy, which is commonly first noticed as a weakness in the knees (jelly legs).
2.0%
Lung ventilation increases by 50 percent, headache after several hours exposure.
Accumulation of carbon dioxide in the body after prolonged breathing of air containing around 2% or greater will disturb body function by causing the tissue fluids to become too acidic. This will result in loss of energy and feeling run-down even after leaving the cave. It may take the person up to several days in a good environment for the body metabolism to return to normal.
3.0%
Lung ventilation increases by 100 percent, panting after exertion, Symptoms may include:- headaches, dizziness and possible vision disturbance such as speckled stars.
5 - 10%
Violent panting and fatigue to the point of exhaustion merely from respiration & severe headache. Prolonged exposure at 5% could result in irreversible effects to health. Prolonged exposure at > 6% could result in unconsciousness and death.
10 - 15%
Intolerable panting, severe headaches and rapid exhaustion. Exposure for a few minutes will result in unconsciousness and suffocation without warning.
25% to 30%
Extremely high concentrations will cause coma and convulsions within one minute of exposure. Certain Death.

Thank you Donna

I agree with you. Using what scientific data we have...both corrupted and uncorrupted...establishes that we DO NOT know for fact that humans have caused global warming. That is a hypothesis, not even a theory. What we do know for FACT is that the planet has undergone periods of heating and cooling prior to mankinds arrival, let alone as a dominant species. We also know that burning hydrocarbons releases CO2 into the atmosphere. We have not established that the rising amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is a recent phenomenon or a reoccuring condition. We haven't tried to establish if it is caused by a single event or a series of events that have been in motion prior to the industrial age. What egotistical creatures we are to believe that trees only make sound when we are there to hear them fall, and that the Earth gets warmer because we burn gasoline. Cause and effect...there are so many variables that it will be damn near impossible to accurately determine if we are THE problem, ONE of the problems, a contributing factor, or simply a new phenomenon to a cyclical event.

True enough, as I've said before the answer is indeterminate. That said, as the data comes in and the analysis is done, the picture should begin to take shape. Truthfully, in the end it really doesn't matter. It will be the perception that will prevail. People will think it is happening , if things begin to worsen and the climate does make mayhem, then they will assume that it's man made and look for answers. Right now we just have to rely on the scientists who are the experts and they seem to be in agreement. The folks who don't agree seem to be from the right wing and need to be taken with a grain of salt. With some exceptions, you seem amenable to reasonable discourse and I think there are many like you who take a wait and see attitude, let more evidence come in. I used to listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time before I began to lose my hearing. One comment that he made was that Rupert Murdoch wouldn't allow anything on Fox News that alluded to global warming. I find this unbelievable. That a major news organization should try and suppress dialog like this. But then again to use the word Fox and news in the same sentence is an oxymoron. There is an agenda by the right wing to suppress the global warming thing. This fact doesn't prove the theory or hypothesis if you will, but it does point out that a lot of vested interests are mudding up the waters of the debate. The decision to take action will be made by our political leaders based on the best science available and the prevailing public mood. Something is going to happen and action will be taken, we'll just have to wait and see. Hopefully the actions taken will be based more on science and less on public mood, but I doubt it. That's not the way politics usually works and that's why we're having this discussion.To influence our fellow man into thinking our way.
Donna

In nature, co2 in the air is recycled by the plant and trees but add human factor, and the balance is tipped. Its common sense.


Pray tell what happens to the balance when a lightening strike starts a forest fire and millions of tons of CO2 are released into the air. Seems like nature can take care of some pretty large and sudden releases of CO2 just fine without any noticible effect except the loss of the trees.

How much fuel do humans burn compared to all the wild fires going on around the globe?

We lament the loss of Amazon forest and would like to stop harvesting of "old growth", but if we leave large areas covered in closely spaced trees they will catch fire sooner or later due to man or nature and more will be lost than if we thin them out.

Some tree seeds can only germinate after being exposed to fire. For instance:
http://www.csu.edu.au/special/bushfire99/papers/kenny/

This suggest that fire and combustion are natural, and that humans burning fuels is not un-natural.

If you must "do something", plant some more trees.

True enough, as I've said before the answer is indeterminate. That said, as the data comes in and the analysis is done, the picture should begin to take shape.

Haven't you heard that the temperature peaked in 1998:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=temperature+peaked+1998+global+warming

We must "act now" before it becomes obvious.

Perfectly correct, however, the Anthropogenic Global Warming disciples do use fuzzy logic. Their basic premise is that Global Warming is occurring; no denying that it is, CO2 levels are going up, no denying that they are and most of the new CO2 is from fossil fuels, it is. Ergo; fossil fuel generated CO2 increase is causing Global Warming. They make the mistake of assuming a correlation means a cause. Then they extrapolate and predict all manner of catastrophes; extinctions and all manner of things. However, 6000 years ago global temperatures were some 6 to 8 degrees higher than now; this was known as the Climatic Optimum and there is ample evidence for it. So if mass extinction and wordlwide disruption of ecosystems are going to occur in the future due to an increase of 2 degrees surely it must have occurred in the past with the warming of the Climatic Optimum? There is absolutely no evidence that this did occur and the alarmist claims that it will occur in the future are without foundation.

Good point, but I think now you have a confluence of events that taken together, may make the situation much worse. In addition to global warming you have an unsustainable population growth that is probably an even greater concern. When global warming occurred in the past there were many less people on the planet. Now, with the increased population, you will have greater dislocations and more dire effects. When global warming happened in previous times, some areas of the planet remained blissfully unaware of the occurrence. Nowadays we'll all feel the pain as people in coastal areas move inland by necessity of survival and islanders abandon their homes. BTW,the Climatic Optimum event that you referred to was not evenly distributed around the world and was probably caused by variations in the earth's orbit around the sun. The southern hemisphere was less affected, or perhaps affected at different times than the northern. In other words everything wasn't happening simultaneously on a global scale as it may be now.
Donna

xyzdonna you did not actually address any of the points I made, just talked around them. What is your confluence of events? How will we feel pain as people move inland and abandon islands this is going to be spread over a long time scale. But more important can anything be done to prevent it?

BTW I do know the dogma that the Optimum only affected the Northern Hemisphere. It used to be dogma that the major Ice Ages only affected the Northern regions until clear evidence was found in Southern and Tropical glaciers.

It is insanity to try to use reason and logic to persuade these folks on such an emotional subject. It is their religion and they are devout.

When you lay down facts and logic in such fashion as to make an irrefutable point the response will go something like this; "Oh yes, I agree, but we must rely on (have faith).....yada yada! Ad infinitum!

May as well just have a bit of fun tweaking their tails because nothing will ever be accomplished here!

are you saying there are more trees now than there were 1492???:-(

HHHmmmmmmmmmm! Kick started yur motor!

No one to put out fires before the white man, tree farms, reforestation projects, houses all thru the mid west and west where there were no trees...........yup! I said it, it's a fact and can be verified.

If you really care dig up the data yourself, it's out there!


If today we could produce an equivalent amount of CO2 to the total amount man has ever produced it would make 1/10 of 1 degree temp change in 100 years.

GW/CC is crap, all crap, nutin but crap thru and thru!

i have not looked up the tree thing but i have seem forest maps of the US and england and the amount of wooded area was huge as opposed today. logging ect. as for the fires, man makes them worse by stopping small ones, which increases fuel to unnatural levels,which makes the fires worse. i am not arguing your point, it may be one of those odd facts that flies in the face of convention. its just with deforestation in the amazon and Asia it just seems tough. interesting though.

I have seen this claim before but like in this thread I have not seen it backed up with a reference to the original source and how the data was collected for the comparison. It could be simply an Urban Myth but I haven't looked for it on Mythbusters.

But having said that there is a way it could be possible.

I have seen pictures from the beginning of the 1900's showing Ponderosa Pine forests and then pictures in the same region taken 80 or 90 years later. The difference was dramatic with a much denser tree cover in the later pictures; I seem to remember it was stated that in the early forest the average distance between trees was something like 10 meters but the recent forest had a spacing of 3 meters. This is a result of fire management; trees and forests over just about the whole of the North American continent are adapted to exist with fairly frequent low intensity forest fires, the trees can survive a little scorching. These fires naturally thin the trees out because if there happens to be a stand of trees that are closely spaced the fire is hotter and some of the trees get scorched too much and die.

The closer spacing results in about three times as many trees in the same area so even though there is less treed area across the continent there could be more trees.

But it is irrelevant to Global Warming and human released CO2. Do a calculation and figure out how many barrels of oil a tree is equivalent to; especially a scrawny Ponderosa Pine. On a dry weight basis wood contains about as much Carbon as the same weight of gasoline; the about is plus or minus say 50%, I am not talking high precision here. So you can figure out how much weight the trees in your backyard need to put on each year to compensate for the petroleum products you have used in the same year. You will need a very big backyard with a lot of trees but most important you are not allowed to let them die and rot away...ever! Because if they do then the CO2 is back in the atmosphere again.

i understand that in the united states this "might" be true. but global deforestation is rampant and i think outstrips us based planting ...i do not have facts as to tree numbers it just seemed very counter intuitive .I have been looking around for facts on this but it is hard to find actual data that does not obviously from some interest group. i am finding this to be a problem in general on this topic. any ideas?

Nowadays we'll all feel the pain as people in coastal areas move inland by necessity of survival and islanders abandon their homes.

I guess somebody forgot to tell these future islanders of the catastophic sea level rise that is coming? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dubai+world+islands

To see the logic behind it, follow the money: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42162

FACTS???? ACTUAL DATA???? REAL HARD NUMBER STUFF???? You must be dreaming!!!!!:D:D

Actually there are some facts related to Global Warming; it is a fact that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased, it is a fact that spring time plant growth is earlier in the year in some locations, it is a fact that glaciers in many locations have receded. It would be possible to go on for a long list.

Is it a fact that worldwide deforestation exceeds re-forestation? That is a good question but I think it would be impossible to verify it. Anyway it is irrelevant to the aspect of CO2 emissions from fossil fuels which are the important ones; putting all the forests back would not compensate for very much of the accummulated fossil fuel CO2 and it would be a one shot deal. Forests do not continuously accummulate Carbon: A growing tree is accummulating Carbon and removing CO2 from the atmosphere; a decaying tree is returning the Carbon back to the atmosphere as CO2. A mature forest is comprised of trees at all stages of the growth and decay cycle so it is nuetral overall. There is a lot of puffery and nonsense spouted about sequestering Carbon and suggesting it can be done in green plants is simply idiotic; as I point out you have to stop then rotting away forever.

My approach is to use a bit of common sense and knowledge to evaluate whether something could or should be done and whether it will have any useful effect.

What ways are proposed to combat global warming? Carbon Credits or a Carbon tax are two.

Carbon Credits are a farce. These are like the Indulgences sold by the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages; wealthy folk who had sinned all their life could make a payment to the Church to guarantee entry to Heaven. They bought absolution for their sins; now you can buy absolution for contributing to CO2 emissions. Does it reduce the emissions? No, your money goes to making somebody or some company wealthy.

Carbon taxes as they are proposed in some cases are also a farce. A significant tax is to be put on fossil fuels but at the same time other taxes will be reduced; the intent being to make the Carbon tax revenue neutral. So now a gallon of gas will cost me five dollars but my monthly tax bill has declined by a few hundred dollars so I can afford to keep driving my gas guzzler.

And measures that are not a farce, if they are put in place, i.e. if they do indeed significantly reduce fossil fuel use will knock individual country economies or the world economy into a tailspin. Earlier I put in a link to an analysis I had posted in a different thread. I run a business, I do know what I am talking about, the only way my business can use significantly less energy is to make less product. In other words, lay off employees, buy less material, pay less in taxes while making less income. Who wants to volunteer to join me in committing business suicide? And before anyone tries to argue I could improve efficiencies I will point out that over the past five years I have improved efficiency enough that I absorbed a 60% decline in the value of the currency of my major export customer; I have SFA efficiency improvment left.

Do I have a solution for Global Warming? No, I don't think there is a solution I also don't think that most of the horrendous scenarios that are postulated will occur. Predicting more violent storms or wildly varying weather patterns arising from a 1 or 2 degree increase is silly. Extrapolate backwards through a similar decrease in temperatures; was weather and were storms much more predictable and milder? Of course not.

And this is why I think Lomborg is about the only one talking sense; the only practical approach is to adapt to Climate Change because any effort to significantly combat it will cause enormous economic and social upheaval in the short, medium and long term and will probably do nothing useful. Even the IPCC gurus admit that no matter what measures are put in place the changes predicted for the next fifty years will take place. So the World would be face with relocating millions of people while in the middle of economic and social upheaval. I think it is a much better approach to face up to the fact that relocation is going to occur, but it will not be overnight it will be spread over decades. And it will be done in a stable society.

xyzdonna you did not actually address any of the points I made, just talked around them. What is your confluence of events? How will we feel pain as people move inland and abandon islands this is going to be spread over a long time scale. But more important can anything be done to prevent it?

BTW I do know the dogma that the Optimum only affected the Northern Hemisphere. It used to be dogma that the major Ice Ages only affected the Northern regions until clear evidence was found in Southern and Tropical glaciers.

Hi Geof,
Sorry, didn't mean to be equivocal. Let's take it from the top. I pointed out that the Optimum perhaps wasn't as pervasive as what we're facing now. You summarily dismissed this. You may be right. Perhaps the Optimum was the genesis of the biblical floods, (pardon the pun) who knows. Let's conjecture on and assume you're right. What I meant by a confluence of events was a large increase in global population in conjunction with man made global warming. I think that the increase in population is what is causing global warming. I think that this may be an even greater problem than the global warming. You pointed out that because CO2 is going up, that didn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship with global warming. Kind of like the point I made about the post hoc fallacy, just because one event precedes another doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. Maybe, in this case I think it does. What happened 6,000 years ago? Maybe a lot of volcaneos went off at once and spewed a lot of stuff, maybe changes in the earth's orbit, something happened. Something else is happening now and it's probably man made. The question becomes how far will it go. Will we totally melt the polar ice caps and have to deal with the sea level rise that would portend. It may make those 6 to 8 degrees that you allude to look like a cold front. We need to consider what we are doing to the planet with rationality and science. Then take action if it looks like it's going past the tipping point. We may be taking our world way past what happened 6,000 years ago.
Donna

Hi Geof,
Sorry, didn't mean to be equivocal. Let's take it from the top. I pointed out that the Optimum perhaps wasn't as pervasive as what we're facing now. You summarily dismissed this. You may be right. Perhaps the Optimum was the genesis of the biblical floods, (pardon the pun) who knows. Let's conjecture on and assume you're right. What I meant by a confluence of events was a large increase in global population in conjunction with man made global warming. I think that the increase in population is what is causing global warming. I think that this may be an even greater problem than the global warming. You pointed out that because CO2 is going up, that didn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship with global warming. Kind of like the point I made about the post hoc fallacy, just because one event precedes another doesn't necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. Maybe, in this case I think it does. What happened 6,000 years ago? Maybe a lot of volcaneos went off at once and spewed a lot of stuff, maybe changes in the earth's orbit, something happened. Something else is happening now and it's probably man made. The question becomes how far will it go. Will we totally melt the polar ice caps and have to deal with the sea level rise that would portend. It may make those 6 to 8 degrees that you allude to look like a cold front. We need to consider what we are doing to the planet with rationality and science. Then take action if it looks like it's going past the tipping point. We may be taking our world way past what happened 6,000 years ago.
Donna

xyzDonna...

Not to attack you from two fronts....but....

If we, humans, are these horrible parasites slowly killing our host, Earth...then how do you explain not one, but several meteorite impacts throughout history (The one in Siberia (Tanguskie?), the one that supposedly ended or ushered the end of the dinosaurs reign, the one in Mauritania, the one in the Nazca Plains in Central America...) that would have had an impact considerably greater than any nuclear blast...and surely contributed to global weather patterns (When Mt. St. Helens exploded, its ash traveled as far away as Italy on the air currents and released millions of tons of toxic gases...and had an adverse effect on the following winter) but miraculously, Earth survived those catastrophic bombardments, but now, little puny man, with his SUV is killing the earth? Give me a break. Please.
ADAPT or DIE. That is how man has managed to go from hairless ape to top of the foodchain. Harsh as it sounds, adapting is better from an EVOLUTIONARY standpoint than any technological solution. We are after all, organic, biologic creations. We must evolve or go extinct. Technology is not our savior, it is our creation. I will not bow to any virtual "Jesus" that the NEO-GREENIES parade about as the way to salvation...but I just may pass on stronger genes to my children that will keep them alive if this impending BBQ you call GW/CC is indeed the new Armageddon. I hope that you have strong genes to pass on to your children as well. I damn sure don't want my children having machines be their protectors. I want my children to be strong enough to deal with adversity. Not coddled in some bubble-wrapped air-conditioned techno nanny cubicle.

Actually the Biblical Flood, and other flood legends, are most likely related to the refilling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean some 8000 or so years ago. The Climatic Optimum was a solar orbit phenomenon being one of the Milankovich cycles.

Regarding taking action before going past a tipping point. What action do you propose? Do you have some magic way to cut CO2 emissions by 50% in the next twenty years without bringing much of the World's economy to a crashing halt?

November 29, 2007
Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links)
Christopher Alleva
Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, runs a website called numberwatch. He has compiled what has to be the most complete collection of links to media stories ascribing the cause of everything under the sun to global warming. He has already posted more than six-hundred links.

The site's stated mission is to expose all the "scares, scams, junk, panics and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats and so-called scientists and others that try to confuse the public with wrong numbers" Professor Brignell's motto is "Working to Combat Math Hysteria."

This exercise is not merely a lark to show the abject absurdity of this global warming nonsense. Brignell wrote a great book titled Sorry Wrong Number, The Abuse of Measurement on this very subject.

Dr. Brignell is accepting additions to the list so if you have any send them along.

[http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html

Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa hit hardest, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic lakes disappear, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, boredom, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, cancer deaths in England, cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cremation to end, crime increase, crocodile sex, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frostbite, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, hazardous waste sites breached, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, illness and death, inclement weather, infrastructure failure (Canada), Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insurance premium rises, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, Kew Gardens taxed, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lush growth in rain forests, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, mammoth dung melt, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, marine dead zone, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, more bad air days, more research needed, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains taller, mortality lower, mudslides, National security implications, new islands, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychosocial disturbances, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, rape wave, refugees, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, riches, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, rivers dry up, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, salmon stronger, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, spectacular orchids, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, suicide, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, tsunamis, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus displaced, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

xyzDonna...

Not to attack you from two fronts....but....

If we, humans, are these horrible parasites slowly killing our host, Earth...then how do you explain not one, but several meteorite impacts throughout history (The one in Siberia (Tanguskie?), the one that supposedly ended or ushered the end of the dinosaurs reign, the one in Mauritania, the one in the Nazca Plains in Central America...) that would have had an impact considerably greater than any nuclear blast...and surely contributed to global weather patterns (When Mt. St. Helens exploded, its ash traveled as far away as Italy on the air currents and released millions of tons of toxic gases...and had an adverse effect on the following winter) but miraculously, Earth survived those catastrophic bombardments, but now, little puny man, with his SUV is killing the earth? Give me a break. Please.
ADAPT or DIE. That is how man has managed to go from hairless ape to top of the foodchain. Harsh as it sounds, adapting is better from an EVOLUTIONARY standpoint than any technological solution. We are after all, organic, biologic creations. We must evolve or go extinct. Technology is not our savior, it is our creation. I will not bow to any virtual "Jesus" that the NEO-GREENIES parade about as the way to salvation...but I just may pass on stronger genes to my children that will keep them alive if this impending BBQ you call GW/CC is indeed the new Armageddon. I hope that you have strong genes to pass on to your children as well. I damn sure don't want my children having machines be their protectors. I want my children to be strong enough to deal with adversity. Not coddled in some bubble-wrapped air-conditioned techno nanny cubicle.
Hi WYLD,
These natural disasters did a lot of damage. I'm not sure I follow your logic, just because these things happened what does that have to do with what we are doing to the planet now? I'm not saying we won't survive, I'm just saying things won't be good. Think, if we melt the ice caps you'll have a sea level rise that will be catastrophic. That in conjunction with the population explosion will be devastating. Your allusions to evolution are interesting. You don't evolve by destroying your habitat.
Donna

FACTS???? ACTUAL DATA???? REAL HARD NUMBER STUFF???? You must be dreaming!!!!!:D:D


Geof, that was one of the best summaries I have read on GW!

You are quite right that fully grown trees don't absorb CO2 and if they die and decay, CO2 is released. I might counter with "use the wood of mature trees to build houses for the continually increasing human population before the trees self-destruct. Then replant new trees." That is, if I really believed we need to do something to reduce CO2, which I don't.

My mantra of "plant more trees" is meant in the same vein as I might have said "go buy a Prius". If anyone believes this "we must act now" BS then let them do something that makes them feel good and is benign from my point of view. So, go plant a Prius.

The idea of artificial carbon sequestration scares me - that is if it holds CO2 for longer than the natural lifespan of a tree and its possible wood products. By burying sealed containers of CO2 we will eventually reduce the breathable oxygen available in air - remember the "O2" in "CO2" represents oxygen. Better to spew the CO2 into the air and let Nature find its own balance.

Actually the Biblical Flood, and other flood legends, are most likely related to the refilling of the Black Sea from the Mediterranean some 8000 or so years ago. The Climatic Optimum was a solar orbit phenomenon being one of the Milankovich cycles.

Regarding taking action before going past a tipping point. What action do you propose? Do you have some magic way to cut CO2 emissions by 50% in the next twenty years without bringing much of the World's economy to a crashing halt?
Hi Geof,
I propose using science to implement more energy sources that don't use carbon. Burning natural gas in our vehicles might be a better alternative while other sources of energy are being developed. I know that still uses carbon but maybe not as much and we don't send as much of our money overseas to fund terrorism. Energy efficiency is another good strategy. Research is the answer. It won't happen overnight, we have to get started right away. We'll soon have had 8 years of the most incompetent administration in the history of our nation. It may take decades to recover from what this moronic Bush administration has done to the country and to the world. We're way behind. But it can be done and new energy sources will create new opportunities. People hate change. But I've found that you can adapt and change and create new directions.
About 15 years ago I got fired from a job I really liked but truthfully, wasn't that good at. I didn't let it defeat me, I started my own business. I succeeded because I adapted and changed. That's what's needed now.
Donna

Hi Geof,
I propose using science to implement more energy sources that don't use carbon. Burning natural gas in our vehicles might be a better alternative while other sources of energy are being developed...

Okay what are your energy sources? Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Solar, Nuclear Fission and possibly Nuclear fusion if you are being very pie in the sky. Worldwide about 75% of the energy consumed comes from fossil fuels so at the present time 25% comes from the sources I list. You can remove Tidal because it is truly negligible. Solar is minuscule and it is debatable whether it is truly a net source because of the limited lifetime of solar panels and the energy used for their manufacturer. Wind in some countries is approaching 10%, maybe more, but the problem with Wind is that it is intermittent so it needs to be combined with a steady source and cannot comprise more than somewhere between 15 to 20% of the total.

The only practical large scale alternate energy sources are Hydro and Nuclear Fission and if they are to fill the hole left by not using fossil fuels it will be necessary to build three times as many dams and three times as many Nuclear facilities as currently exist.

But perhaps you are thinking of a different type of science? Perhaps you can point out the flaws in my analysis.

Okay what are your energy sources? Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Solar, Nuclear Fission and possibly Nuclear fusion if you are being very pie in the sky.

You forgot geothermal, not that it changes the validity of your point any...

Hi WYLD,
These natural disasters did a lot of damage. I'm not sure I follow your logic, just because these things happened what does that have to do with what we are doing to the planet now? I'm not saying we won't survive, I'm just saying things won't be good. Think, if we melt the ice caps you'll have a sea level rise that will be catastrophic. That in conjunction with the population explosion will be devastating. Your allusions to evolution are interesting. You don't evolve by destroying your habitat.
Donna

xyzDonna

Those disasters happened and Earth Abides. Abides well enough that not only did the reign of dinosaurs end and the slooooooooooooooow rise of man began, but that several of those incidents occurred during the time of man. Man was barely out of trees and living in caves during the last Ice Age...gee, how could we possibly survive as a species during this next cyclical global weather phenomona...probably through evolution. Evolution is driven by responses to external stimuli. If the stress of the external stimuli is great enough, beneficial evolutionary traits develop within a few generations. I would daresay that while the Armageddon scenario of GW/CC is fetishistic philosophical porn for all the survivor buffs, it's going to be no more of a destruction of our habitat as the impending Ice Age and its effects were to Neanderthals and Cro Magnons.

A sea level rise that is catastrophic? Man has known better than to build at or below water level since his first campsite was flooded and his rations and belongings were lost. I don't feel sorry for ignorant 3rd world countries whose populations are so out of proportion to their resources that they consciously choose to breed themselves into a situation they are unable to resolve. I live in the middle of the US in the most sparsely populated state. It's also the 7th largest in land mass. The Rocky Mountains run through my backyard. I'm sure I'll survive the impending flood. Just because people have babies, doesn't mean that all people are important to the survival of the species. I'm sure that I sound cold and heartless, but I believe in Darwinian evolution. If you cannot support yourself or your offspring, you are expendable to the species. I will not bear the burden of people too stupid to remember the first rule of survival. Take care of yourself. So, for myself, the "impending disaster" will not affect me. And should I find myself in a situation where the displaced immigrants are clamboring for harbor and demanding that I give them what they need, I will respond in kind. With lots of 5.56mm & 7.62mm FMJ rounds. I will fill their hungry bellies with heaping helpings of lead. And have lots of compost for my garden. Care for a homegrown tomato from the hothouse? ;)

ok....i am an engineer.... and i love data.....lots of data....never too much data :-)..i am thinking that the ability to measure the earth's temperature is a current ability using satellites ect. that leads me think the temperature assessments that predate the satellite are suspect. or should i say that they lack fidelity????? i know when i am trying to make a design if i do not have good data than i am screwed. am i alone here in thinking that there is not great data on this topic?. we have had global heating and cooling cycles in that past that exceed what we have now or likely to see , right?
i am getting the feeling that this is just pissing in the wind....or maybe a global warming hurricane....oops they were wrong, there were far fewer hurricanes than predicted. O buy the way ,does anyone know if the global warming models are more accurate than the climate models for hurricane prediction? i am getting the feeling that our understanding is way light to make any serious analysis possible. Or are we all just picking a position thats suits our personal points of view? thoughts?

i love data.....lots of data....

See post #165 of this tread for an excellent summary on GW and the facts/data that predictions are based on: http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=39529&page=14

Okay what are your energy sources? Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Solar, Nuclear Fission and possibly Nuclear fusion if you are being very pie in the sky. Worldwide about 75% of the energy consumed comes from fossil fuels so at the present time 25% comes from the sources I list. You can remove Tidal because it is truly negligible. Solar is minuscule and it is debatable whether it is truly a net source because of the limited lifetime of solar panels and the energy used for their manufacturer. Wind in some countries is approaching 10%, maybe more, but the problem with Wind is that it is intermittent so it needs to be combined with a steady source and cannot comprise more than somewhere between 15 to 20% of the total.

The only practical large scale alternate energy sources are Hydro and Nuclear Fission and if they are to fill the hole left by not using fossil fuels it will be necessary to build three times as many dams and three times as many Nuclear facilities as currently exist.

But perhaps you are thinking of a different type of science? Perhaps you can point out the flaws in my analysis.

Hi Goef,
No you can't negate solar. Let me quote from a website I perused:

Two German scientists, Dr Gerhard Knies and Dr Franz Trieb, calculate that covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts with a technology called concentrated solar power (CSP) would provide the world's entire electricity needs, with the technology also providing desalinated water to desert regions as a valuable byproduct, as well as air conditioning for nearby cities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/nov/27/renewableenergy.environment

I agree with you that solar panels aren't the way to go with current technology but mirrors that track the sun and heat water, that works now. Again let me quote from the website above:

CSP technology is not new. There has been a plant in the Mojave desert in California for the past 15 years. Others are being built in Nevada, southern Spain and Australia. There are different forms of CSP but all share in common the use of mirrors to concentrate the sun's rays on a pipe or vessel containing some sort of gas or liquid that heats up to around 400C (752F) and is used to power conventional steam turbines.

There is of course the problem of nighttime when there is no sun light. Here in Tennessee where I live, TVA has a lake that they built high up in a mountain called Raccoon Mountain. During off peak hours they pump water into it with excess electrical generating capacity. They use it to store water for peak periods of electrical usage. When they need more power, they just let water out though a turbine and generate it. Probably not real efficient but cheaper than building a whole new electrical plant for peak demand periods. The technology is there, it just takes a commitment to implement it.
Donna

xyzDonna

Those disasters happened and Earth Abides. Abides well enough that not only did the reign of dinosaurs end and the slooooooooooooooow rise of man began, but that several of those incidents occurred during the time of man. Man was barely out of trees and living in caves during the last Ice Age...gee, how could we possibly survive as a species during this next cyclical global weather phenomona...probably through evolution. Evolution is driven by responses to external stimuli. If the stress of the external stimuli is great enough, beneficial evolutionary traits develop within a few generations. I would daresay that while the Armageddon scenario of GW/CC is fetishistic philosophical porn for all the survivor buffs, it's going to be no more of a destruction of our habitat as the impending Ice Age and its effects were to Neanderthals and Cro Magnons.

A sea level rise that is catastrophic? Man has known better than to build at or below water level since his first campsite was flooded and his rations and belongings were lost. I don't feel sorry for ignorant 3rd world countries whose populations are so out of proportion to their resources that they consciously choose to breed themselves into a situation they are unable to resolve. I live in the middle of the US in the most sparsely populated state. It's also the 7th largest in land mass. The Rocky Mountains run through my backyard. I'm sure I'll survive the impending flood. Just because people have babies, doesn't mean that all people are important to the survival of the species. I'm sure that I sound cold and heartless, but I believe in Darwinian evolution. If you cannot support yourself or your offspring, you are expendable to the species. I will not bear the burden of people too stupid to remember the first rule of survival. Take care of yourself. So, for myself, the "impending disaster" will not affect me. And should I find myself in a situation where the displaced immigrants are clamboring for harbor and demanding that I give them what they need, I will respond in kind. With lots of 5.56mm & 7.62mm FMJ rounds. I will fill their hungry bellies with heaping helpings of lead. And have lots of compost for my garden. Care for a homegrown tomato from the hothouse? ;)

Hi WYLD,
Glad to see you have a plan in place. Here in Chattanooga we're OK as well, I think about 600 ft. above sea level. If it comes to that then global warming may well solve the problem that caused it, overpopulation of the earth.
I'm an optimist though, I think we can get things under control if we can convince people there is a problem. That is the hard part. Conservative Christians, you won't convince them. My whole family is radical right wing conservative, everyone voted Bush. Most of them still support this idiot, yep they are in that 30% that are still loyal. They won't even hold a conversation with me about politics anymore. I wear them out.
Your comment about evolution may be on the mark as well, I see what you mean now. Yep, things may well get bad before they get worse but we'll survive.
Donna

ok....i am an engineer.... and i love data.....lots of data....never too much data :-)..i am thinking that the ability to measure the earth's temperature is a current ability using satellites ect. that leads me think the temperature assessments that predate the satellite are suspect. or should i say that they lack fidelity????? i know when i am trying to make a design if i do not have good data than i am screwed. am i alone here in thinking that there is not great data on this topic?. we have had global heating and cooling cycles in that past that exceed what we have now or likely to see , right?
i am getting the feeling that this is just pissing in the wind....or maybe a global warming hurricane....oops they were wrong, there were far fewer hurricanes than predicted. O buy the way ,does anyone know if the global warming models are more accurate than the climate models for hurricane prediction? i am getting the feeling that our understanding is way light to make any serious analysis possible. Or are we all just picking a position thats suits our personal points of view? thoughts?

Hi,
I think that's exactly what we're doing, picking a position thats suits our personal points of view. I know I am a dyed in the wool unapologetic liberal and am going to argue that perspective. I agree with you that the historic records are suspect. I don't think we had a major melting of the ice caps 6,000 years ago during the Climatic Optimum that Geof referred to. I just allowed his assumptions for the sake of argument.
Sure, we've had these cycles before, but the earth was a lot less populous then. If we go into a sustained warming trend now a lot of people are going to die. The CSP (concentrated solar power) technology that I told Geof about is competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Where is the downside?
I can think of much better uses for oil than sticking it into the atmosphere.
Donna

.....I don't think we had a major melting of the ice caps 6,000 years ago during the Climatic Optimum that Geof referred to. I just allowed his assumptions for the sake of argument.
Sure, we've had these cycles before, but the earth was a lot less populous then. If we go into a sustained warming trend now a lot of people are going to die. The CSP (concentrated solar power) technology that I told Geof about is competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Where is the downside?
I can think of much better uses for oil than sticking it into the atmosphere.
Donna

How big of you "I just allowed his assumptions". I wasn't really aware I made any, I referred to evidence that does exist showing that the Optimum did occur and did not coincide with any evidence of mass extinctions. You are quite correct major ice caps did not melt (and here is an assumption just to warn you) probably because the time span was too short. However, Arctic ice cover in Northern Canada did melt back dramatically allowing plant growth that subsequently was buried beneath snow and did not re-emerge until the 1950's or 60's (I think, I have a book but it is a while ago since I read it). Here is another assumption for you; probably Alpine snow melted away significantly...that is in the Austrian/Italian Alps. Sufficient for there to be passes that were open to foot traffic in the snow season. Otzi is the evidence for that.

On the CSP front. Yes IF notice the word IF!!!! 0.5% of the world's deserts wer covered. Where are the world's deserts located? Where is most of the energy consumed? Where are the high valleys for the pumped storage to carry through the night. I am sorry to say it but you are displaying the same fuzzy brained thinking as most of the Global Warming Doomsayers who prattle on about "Oh it is easy to cut Carbon Emissions" but do not have clue about what it really entails and how dependent our society is on abundant low cost energy. But you are correct on one aspect there are a lot more people around to die now.

I am dissapointed I thought you might have been capable of intelligent informed discussion but now I see your comment about repartee is apropo.

A few new terms to enlighten the subject!

Bozone (n.): The substance surrounding stupid people that stops bright ideas from penetrating. The bozone layer, unfortunately, shows little sign of breaking down in the near future.


Dopeler effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.


Ignoranus (n): A person who's both stupid and an a--hole.

Dopeler effect (n): The tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.



I thought the Dopelar effect was defined as:

The tendency for ideas to seem smart when they are moving away from you, but to seem stupid when they are moving towards you.

I thought the Dopelar effect was defined as:

The tendency for ideas to seem smart when they are moving away from you, but to seem stupid when they are moving towards you.

Only when you are on a one way street, the rules change according to the advantage held by the opposition!! ROFLMAO (wedge):argue::bs:

How big of you "I just allowed his assumptions". I wasn't really aware I made any, I referred to evidence that does exist showing that the Optimum did occur and did not coincide with any evidence of mass extinctions. You are quite correct major ice caps did not melt (and here is an assumption just to warn you) probably because the time span was too short. However, Arctic ice cover in Northern Canada did melt back dramatically allowing plant growth that subsequently was buried beneath snow and did not re-emerge until the 1950's or 60's (I think, I have a book but it is a while ago since I read it). Here is another assumption for you; probably Alpine snow melted away significantly...that is in the Austrian/Italian Alps. Sufficient for there to be passes that were open to foot traffic in the snow season. Otzi is the evidence for that.

On the CSP front. Yes IF notice the word IF!!!! 0.5% of the world's deserts wer covered. Where are the world's deserts located? Where is most of the energy consumed? Where are the high valleys for the pumped storage to carry through the night. I am sorry to say it but you are displaying the same fuzzy brained thinking as most of the Global Warming Doomsayers who prattle on about "Oh it is easy to cut Carbon Emissions" but do not have clue about what it really entails and how dependent our society is on abundant low cost energy. But you are correct on one aspect there are a lot more people around to die now.

I am dissapointed I thought you might have been capable of intelligent informed discussion but now I see your comment about repartee is apropo.

Hi Geof,
First an apology, looking back at my post I did come off as somewhat condescending. That was not my intent. Secondly I misstated, I used assumptions in the plural, I should have used the singular "assumption". That is what I thought you were doing when you stated that the Optimum was more widespread, not just limited to the northern hemisphere. I ceded the point in deference to your greater knowledge on things climate. I'm not at all an expert on climatology, I debate to learn. I felt that I could stay in the discussion even if what you said was true. I didn't know if it was or not I just accepted your word for it and proceeded with the debate.
Abundant, cheap energy, oil? Have you seen the price of a barrel of oil lately? CSP becomes viable when oil is $60 a barrel, it's over ninety now. It would only provide a part of the solution and there would have to be other ways of storing and transporting the power around. Water on top of mountains wouldn't work everywhere. Got to go now, meeting spouse for dinner, will get back at you later tonight.
Donna

The only practical large scale alternate energy sources are Hydro and Nuclear Fission and if they are to fill the hole left by not using fossil fuels it will be necessary to build three times as many dams and three times as many Nuclear facilities as currently exist.

.

Dear Geoff,

Leaving aside nuclear fission, perhaps Hydro could be the way forward...

After all, with all those melting glaciers , due to "GW", that gushing water is going to be a swelling source of energy. (Ultimately solar, like all the other alternatives).

All we have to do is build a few lower mountain ranges, with suitably shaped Venturi valleys.

Just a thought...

Best wishes,

Martin

....All we have to do is build a few lower mountain ranges, with suitably shaped Venturi valleys....

Martin

I have a suspicion that you are not entirely serious :) however, I think this suggestion is only a bit less likely to be successful than the idea of tripling the World's supply of Nuclear Power stations in the next twenty years. Especially since I found this snippet of information in the most recent issue of 'New Scientist';


A report commissioned by The Greens, a European parliamentary group, points that many ageing reactors are due to close before 2030 and 338 new ones would have to be built just to replace them. ....The world has five fewer reactors operating today than it did in 2002, they say. Only 91 reactors are now being planned, and a further 32 are under construction, mostly in Asia and eastern Europe. Construction work on 11 of those has been undereway for 20 years or more. ...The idea that nuclear power is about to experience major growth is "pure fantasy", says the report's author, Mycle Schneider.

I know I am at risk of being viewed as an incurable pessimist when I point out the impossibility of developing alternate energy sources that could replace fossil fuels but obviously I am not the only one.

Oh, by the way Donna, the abundant cheap energy is primarily coal although oil is still pretty cheap even at $100 compared to other sources. Your deserts fractionally full of CSP installations notwithstanding.

I have a suspicion that you are not entirely serious :) .

Dear Geof,

No , I was not.

As regards "New Scientist", I have read reports that they take a general editorial attitude that is less than sympathetic to GW/CC doubters. No source for that assertion available at present.

Best wishes,

Martin

Dear Geof,

No , I was not.

As regards "New Scientist", I have read reports that they take a general editorial attitude that is less than sympathetic to GW/CC doubters. No source for that assertion available at present.

Best wishes,

Martin

I could be your source :). I have been subscribing to New Scientist for the last eight years or so after a hiatus of about 20 years. When I initially re-started the subscription I was intrigued how the version 8 years ago seemed to have slipped in rigour compared to what I recalled from my university days. But I thought maybe it was my ancient brain putting a rosy colour on memories. However, about two (three? I think closer to two) years ago there was a distinct editorial change from being more or less neutral on the AGW issue to being decidely in favour of the anthropogenic aspect; "they have identified the culprit and he is us". At the same time they drifted toward more of a 'golly gee whiz' attitude toward a lot of science and started feature articles on totally far out issues in quantum mechanics treating them almost as if it was applicable to everyday life. Sad really but not much different to a lot of science these days which seems to spend a lot of time rediscovering the wheel, as it where, with less rigour than I recall.

Oh, by the way Donna, the abundant cheap energy is primarily coal although oil is still pretty cheap even at $100 compared to other sources. Your deserts fractionally full of CSP installations notwithstanding.

Hi Geof,
Yes, but you're burning carbon. We don't know what that is doing. What I'm trying to say is if a green technology is cheaper, why not use it. Why continue to pour money into carbon energy when the other stuff is safer, cheaper and easier. Is it laziness, we just don't want to learn how to do the new stuff, the old ways are more comfortable?
That isn't just dumb, that's proactive stupidity!
Donna

Hi Geof,
Yes, but you're burning carbon. ....

Yes, I do know what coal is. No Green technology is cheaper and no Green technology exists in the same reserves. What I am getting at is the the entire world economy, and indeed the very survival of billions of people, is crucially dependent on abundant cheap energy; fossil fuels. Coal and oil provide about equal amounts of energy and combined they provide many times the energy currently obtained from Green sources even when you include Hydro and Nuclear as being Green. To replace only half of the energy currently obtained from coal it would be necessary to at least double both the number of current Hydro installations and the number of current Nuclear installation. Designing and building both Hydro dams and Nuclear facilities takes multpile decades even if sufficient locations are found to place them. It is not going to happen quickly enough to obtain the pontificated CO2 emission reductions said to be essential within 20 or 50 years to avoid catastrophe. Never mind that it is not going to happen; if by some strange fluke the needed dams and reactors could be built they would result in an enormous surge in CO2 emission due to their construction. The production of cement for concret generates huge amounts of CO2, you can probably Google and find out the number; dams and reactor buildings use enormous amounts of concrete.

The bottom line is that alternate sources of CO2 free energy are simply not available. We cannot wave a magic wand, stop using fossil fuels and blythely continue with our energy intensive society. And we cannot suddenly cut energy use in half because that will create even greater social catastrophe in the form of mass starvation. Cheap abundant energy is essential for cheap abundant food promptly distributed from its source to where it is needed.

There is no avoiding continued, and increased CO2 emissions for a long time into the future. If this is going to cause worldwide climate and weather upheavals (most of which I think are nonsensical predictions) we are going to have to adapt to them. It could be easier than adapting to having a good portion of the world's population starve to death over a few years.

Kind of disappointed with post #190. An ill-constructed question followed by a facile and pedestrian answer to a self-serving setup question, all in the same post no less. Something dumb from someone I expected better of. In a word, sophomoric.

What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea. Does anyone know what eventually came of it?

Mariss

..,,,,What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea.... Mariss

I have never heard of this theory. I do know a little bit about chemistry, like enough to have earned a doctorate degree, and I think the idea that complex hydrocarbons can be synthesized from water and carbon is a little bit out to lunch.

I'm referring to T. Gold's theory that terrestrial petroleum may be abiogenic. Gold argued:

1. The geographical distribution of oil seems derived from features much larger in scale than individual sedimentary features.

2. The quantities of oil and gas available are hundreds of times those estimated on the basis of biological origins.

3. The so-called "molecular fossils" found in oil and claimed as proof of a biogenic origin are simply biological contaminants, particularly bacteria that feed upon the petroleum.

4. Petroleum is largely saturated with hydrogen, whereas buried biological matter should exhibit a deficiency of hydrogen.

5. Oil and gas are often rich in helium, an inert gas which biological processes cannot concentrate.

6. The great oil reservoirs of the Middle East are in diverse geological provinces. There is no unifying feature for the region as a whole and, especially, no sediments rich in biological debris that could have produced these immense concentrations of oil and gas.

Anyway, the Siljan Ring in Sweden, an ancient 70km diameter meteor impact was drilled in the late '80s to a depth of 10km. The idea was the impact had fractured the overlying rock to a depth exceeding 40km and this fracturing would allow the postulated abiotic hydrocarbons to seep upwards to a recoverable depth. The last I heard was the results were inconclusive. Because the theory seems dormant today, I assume it may be either unverifiable or has been debunked. Here's a link which gives a synopsis of the theory:

http://www.rense.com/general58/biot.htm

Mariss

I read the link and I still think it is an out to lunch idea. I put it in the same category as the 200 mpg carburetters that were "supressed" by the oil companies, etc. Because it is impossible to disprove it, it must have some merit.

I'm glad you took the time look it over and render an opinion based on your expertize. I don't have the necessary background to make an informed appraisal. I pretty much have reached the same conclusion as you albeit for different reasons. If the idea had merit then it would have been pursued and any tangible results would have resulted in publicity. There are no suppressed ideas; a good idea always sees the light of day.

I don't subscribe to the "If you can't disprove it, it must have merit" concept either.

Mariss

Yes, I do know what coal is. No Green technology is cheaper and no Green technology exists in the same reserves. What I am getting at is the the entire world economy, and indeed the very survival of billions of people, is crucially dependent on abundant cheap energy; fossil fuels. Coal and oil provide about equal amounts of energy and combined they provide many times the energy currently obtained from Green sources even when you include Hydro and Nuclear as being Green. To replace only half of the energy currently obtained from coal it would be necessary to at least double both the number of current Hydro installations and the number of current Nuclear installation. Designing and building both Hydro dams and Nuclear facilities takes multpile decades even if sufficient locations are found to place them. It is not going to happen quickly enough to obtain the pontificated CO2 emission reductions said to be essential within 20 or 50 years to avoid catastrophe. Never mind that it is not going to happen; if by some strange fluke the needed dams and reactors could be built they would result in an enormous surge in CO2 emission due to their construction. The production of cement for concret generates huge amounts of CO2, you can probably Google and find out the number; dams and reactor buildings use enormous amounts of concrete.

The bottom line is that alternate sources of CO2 free energy are simply not available. We cannot wave a magic wand, stop using fossil fuels and blythely continue with our energy intensive society. And we cannot suddenly cut energy use in half because that will create even greater social catastrophe in the form of mass starvation. Cheap abundant energy is essential for cheap abundant food promptly distributed from its source to where it is needed.

There is no avoiding continued, and increased CO2 emissions for a long time into the future. If this is going to cause worldwide climate and weather upheavals (most of which I think are nonsensical predictions) we are going to have to adapt to them. It could be easier than adapting to having a good portion of the world's population starve to death over a few years.

Hi Geof,
I did a Google search as you suggested and found it fascinating. By some accounts concrete production contributes as much as 10% to C02 emissions. Who would've thought that? It is possible, however to make concrete that is less polluting.

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/04/concrete.html
“Concrete usage around the world is increasing, and for most applications such as roads and buildings there are no viable alternatives on the horizon,” said Thomas. “However, it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future."

As to your contention that it'll take multiple decades to put the green infrastructure in place, that's been the case in the past. With a political commitment I think the time line could be reduced. It will take an attitude change of the people to recognize that there is a problem before our government will get behind that though. Fortunately we are beginning to see peoples' attitudes change in that regard.
Your statement that the entire worlds economy and the lives of billions of people depends on abundant cheap energy is probably correct as well. But that is changing. Fossil fuels are becoming more expensive and less abundant. I think that the prudent course is to mandate greener sources of energy through legislative initiatives. Of course more research is needed. This is the kind of big, expensive research that only government can afford to implement. My thinking is the sooner the better. We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.
I think we should look to Europe for a role model. Through the use of rather large taxes on fuel they encourage conservation. That could be done here in small increments. Let's say a 10 cent increase per year in fuel taxes. That wouldn't hurt too badly, the petroleum market is doing more than that to us already. The money could fund research on alternative energy sources.
As to your contention that alternate sources of CO2 free energy aren't available, think conservation. Rail as opposed to tractor trailers would save a great deal of oil usage and free up our highways as well. 40 MPG cars replacing 20 MPG vehicles would save also. This is all doable. It just takes a commitment on the part of the public to recognize that there is a problem.
Donna

Kind of disappointed with post #190. An ill-constructed question followed by a facile and pedestrian answer to a self-serving setup question, all in the same post no less. Something dumb from someone I expected better of. In a word, sophomoric.

What prompts my post is I remember reading about a Swedish or Norwegian theorist who suggested oil is not a fossil fuel at all but instead is being continually synthesized from primordial carbon and water deep within the earth's mantle. It then oozes upwards into the crust to form oil fields. Evidently the theory was good enough to have some very deep wells drilled in an attempt to test idea. Does anyone know what eventually came of it?

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Facile, pedestrian and sophomoric all in one post? I knew I was good but I didn't think I was that good! Surly you'll allow me a little hyperbole in addressing a problem of the magnitude we're discussing. I was just saying that there are alternatives out there that would be competitive with $60 a barrel oil. Look at what we have now, over $90 a barrel. We have not had the political leadership to move us in the direction we need to go. My point is that reducing oil usage is paramount. It's also doable. The government through fuel taxes, could stabilize the price of gasoline at a level high enough to encourage the development of alternative sources. With gas at bargain basement prices, where's the incentive to save?
Donna

Donna you are certainly a Pollyanna :)

Okay we all trade in our 20 mpg vehicles for 40 mpg and feel very virtuous.

But now we have created a huge CO2 pulse making those new vehicles so it is going to take more time before emission levels start declining.

All truck traffic is going to be transferred from highways to rail.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future.

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I could continue but I need my morning coffee.

Why continue to pour money into carbon energy when the other stuff is safer, cheaper and easier. Is it laziness, we just don't want to learn how to do the new stuff, the old ways are more comfortable?


Why then isn't "easier" chosen if "laziness" is the reason? Sillier yet is comfortable "old ways" and learning "new stuff". Do brief review of the last 100 years.

Why not ask the question again but give it some thought before offering a reason. Maybe you'll find a problem with the question, perhaps the assumption it's "safer, cheaper and easier".

Non-renewable energy is fossil fuel and nuclear. Renewable energy is solar-cells, solar concentrators, biomass, ethanol, hydroelectric, windmills, wood-burning stoves, etc. All renewable energy is solar energy and that is a major problem. In fact it's a show-stopper for a technological civilization.

Solar energy is feeble. It is at best (noon, clear day, on the equator) 1kW per square meter. 10% of that is recoverable as usable energy so make it 100W per square meter.

Let's use it in a car. A car needs 75kW minimum at 100 kM/hr. To get that, 750 square meters of collector area is required. The collector diameter is 31 meters (about 100 feet) sitting atop your vehicle. OK, not practical.

Let's grow corn, convert it to ethanol and put it in the car. You drive 15,000 km a year, your car gets 10 km/l so you need 1,500 liters of ethanol a year. A square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year. You need 5,000 square meters of farmland for your personal transportation needs.

That's 10,000 miles a year, 25 MPG, 400 gallons annually, 300 gallons ethanol per acre or 1.3 acres of corn. That's a lot of corn.

Solar energy conversion efficiency for ethanol is a not so hot 0.1%. A square meter receives 8 X 10^9 Joules of solar energy a year. A square meter produces 0.3 liters of ethanol a year whose energy content is 7 X 10^6 Joules.

The bigger picture. US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year. Solar energy is 8 X 10^9 J / m^2 / yr. Assuming a very optimistic 5% conversion efficiency, every man, woman and child would need over 1000 square meters of solar "collector area". That's over a 1/4 acre per person of very expensive technology. Get it all from low-tech corn? Now you need 50 times more land; 50,000 m^2 or 12.5 acres per person.

Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence.

I did the math myself. I hope I didn't slip a decimal point somewhere.

Mariss

And a point Mariss did not include in the Ethanol example is that more energy is consumed in the growth of the corn and all the subsequent processing steps than is produced in the resulting Ethanol. This has been and still is denied by the Ethanol advocates with the silliest argument I have seen so far being the statement that it is not correct to include the energy utilized to make pesticides and fertilizer used on the corn crop as an input energy.

And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence. really is the bottom line. It is a long way off even at current levels of fossil fuel consumption because there are still immense quantities of coal, and, if a successful way of tapping them is developed, even vaster deposits of methane hydrates.

And I can hear you saying that these all release CO2 which is correct. If we want to continue with our energy profligate lifestyle there is no alternative. If all the predictions from the IPCC are correct our descendants have some serious problems to solve. I think that all the stuff about mass extinctions and greater weather extremes is nonsense. As I have mentioned previously there is no evidence that this has happened with earlier warm spells. And as Lomborg points out some of the changes such as agriculture being enhanced in northern regions actually are positive.

The really big problem certainly will be sea level rising; this is likely but may be overstated. The Antarctic continent is still going to remain frozen and already there are indications that some regions are experiencing increased precipitation which is going to increase the amount of water tied up in that ice mass. In addition while permanent sea ice cover in the Arctic will diminish it is possible that precipitation in the form of snow could be greatly increased on the land area surrounding the Arctic Ocean. This is something that does not seem to have been considered but fifty years ago the possibility of greatly increased snow fall arising from increased open Arctic waters was postulated. The context was not global warming but a proposal by the Soviets to increase the shipping season for their Arctic ports by spreading coal dust on the ice. The theory was that the black would absorb solar radiation better leading to an earlier and more extensive summer melt. This would lead to a delayed freeze up in the Fall giving the extended port accessibility. The plan was not put into practice because of the fear that the extra open water in late Fall and early Winter would create a moisture source for enhanced snow fall. The concern was not and is not without merit; the prevailing winds blow from the north, i.e. from the water, and greatly enhanced snow fall down wind of open water is well know. This is the 'lake effect' experienced down wind of the Great Lakes. It is too early to know for sure whether this has already started but definitely the freeze up in the Canadian Arctic is occurring later in the season; we know that from the hungry Polar Bears. I have seen reports that some areas in the north have had greater than average snowfalls for several years now but it is impossible to say whether this is just a weather cycle with a period of a decade or so or whether it is a permanent change; only time will tell. However, if this increased precipitation does occur it is possible that it could enhance the mass of the permanent land based snow and ice cover in the north including the Greenland Icecap. Combined with increased accummulation in the Antarctic the future may hold lower sea levels not higher.

Nice post Mariss, My initial impression is that this type of analysis points at the most fundamental flaw in the discussion of GW or CC. While our modern culture has certainly increased our literacy, sadly our numeracy is pretty dismal.

</flame bait on> Our most vocal Greenies, spouting their rhetoric, inevitably are lacking in fundamental math skills. This is why they are so easily convinced of the security proffered by biofuels , solar power and (IMNSHO the biggest scam of all) hydrogen . </flame bait off>

As a reality check on your, "US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year" I checked my electric utility bill and found my yearly consumption to be about 15,000 kWh per year for a family of 6. My gasoline consumption for 25,000 kM per year at 10 kM per litre is about 2500 litres . So while not accounting for my natural gas consumption ( 'cause I don't know how to relate it to the correct units) and not including all the energy used to fuel my "consumer" goods, I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle.

Geof, ... "some regions are experiencing increased precipitation" ... yeah it was all in my driveway this morning... 6 inches of heavy wet snow with a three foot drift blocking the entrance to my shop. And inevitably as soon as I finished shoveling the driveway... the snowplow came by and buried me in again.LOL

You are absolutely correct in your consideration of energy consumption required in the growing or manufacturing of alternate energy sources, as any accountant will tell you. The same energy cost must be applied to manufacturing "greenie" technology such as modern batteries, fuel cells and solar panels; the amortisation of these costs reveals a large energy footprint.

" And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak?
Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

I estimate my 6 person family usage to be less than the PER CAPITA US energy consumption... and we're not living a particularly "green" lifestyle....

" And Mariss' bleak Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence." Why so bleak?
Once you know what is real and what is imagined, you have the opportunity to move towards your clearly perceived goal. This is a positive thing.

Regarding your per capita consumption you admit you have not added in the natural gas; actually maybe you could check your gas bills and see if they quote consumption in joules, ours do. This omission accounts for some lower consumption but I think published figures are obtained by dividing total energy consumption by population so they include energy used on your behalf in making the products you buy. They also include energy used making products that may be exported and used by someone else and this makes them unreliable for country to country comparisons. Per capita consumption in Europe is certainly lower than here but if energy intensive products are made here and used there the energy consumption is assigned to Canada when really it should follow the product.

Bleak conclusion??? That is from my perspective and personal history. I grew up on a farm in New Zealand. We did not get electricity wired into our house until I was ten years of age. Life was a long way from being 'a primitive agrarian existence' but when I was old enough my day started by splitting wood for the stove so we could cook breakfast. We also did not have an automobile until I was around twelve and I had to leave at around 6:30am for a 1/2 mile walk to the road and then a 1-1/2 hour bus ride to get to school.

And actually the historical record shows that the primitive agrarian existence was bleak with chronic malnutrition, people were smaller then, repetitive strain injuries from constant heavy toil and a short life span.

1) I didn't include the energy necessary to produce ethanol only because the numbers are bad enough even were it 100% efficient. The second reason was to deflect any criticism the calculated costs are inaccurate or inflated.

2) Numerous published estimates of US per capita energy consumption is 8,000 kg of oil per year. A little math yields 4.5 X 10^11 Joules. I assume that number includes the energy required to produce all the goods and services we enjoy.

3) Year-averaged insolation is generally agreed as being 6kW-hrs/m^2/day here in Sunny Southern California where I live. In the US Northwest and the Northeast it is about half that value. A little calculator work gives 8 X 10^9 Joules per year for here.

4) Published data shows an acre of land gives 120 bushels of corn and a bushel gives 2.5 gallons of ethanol. The calculator says that's 7 X 10^7 Joules/m^2/yr.

5) The conclusion is only bleak if human wealth and ingenuity is directed in the wrong direction. Forget about "alternate energy sources", develop nuclear fusion. We are awash in literal oceans of energy; a liter of ocean water contains 2.7 X 10^11 Joules of energy in the form of eminently fusible deuterium. That's equivalent to 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water.

Fossil and nuclear energy is potent only because it is stored energy that can be released quickly and on demand. You cannot flush a toilet a drop at a time. Anyone can check the numbers; I didn't know what they were either. All it took was a calculator, Google and 2 hours out of my fine Sunday morning.

Mariss

......

5) The conclusion is only bleak if human wealth and ingenuity is directed in the wrong direction. Forget about "alternate energy sources", develop nuclear fusion. We are awash in literal oceans of energy; a liter of ocean water contains 2.7 X 10^11 Joules of energy in the form of eminently fusible deuterium. That's equivalent to 300 gallons of gasoline for every gallon of water.....

Mariss

Yes bleak is much to gloomy a sentiment. Possibly influeneced by the view out the window of a grey sky and a white landscape with a prediction for gale force winds and heavy rain tomorrow.

Regarding fusion I don't hold to much hope. Fusion has been only ten years away for about 50 years :). And even if net energy is eventually produced it is not as clean as many proponents make out. Lots of high energy neutrons are produced and eventually the materials of the structure become transmuted so radioactive waste is produced. There is also the not so
minor problem of the materials losing structural integrity because now they are something different, or at least part is.

In a perfect world I think the nuclear solution is fast breeders because this way you can have them eat their own waste. But it really does not matter what future energy sources are developed I think we will have to get by on a lot less than we do today.

Why then isn't "easier" chosen if "laziness" is the reason? Sillier yet is comfortable "old ways" and learning "new stuff". Do brief review of the last 100 years.

Why not ask the question again but give it some thought before offering a reason. Maybe you'll find a problem with the question, perhaps the assumption it's "safer, cheaper and easier".

Non-renewable energy is fossil fuel and nuclear. Renewable energy is solar-cells, solar concentrators, biomass, ethanol, hydroelectric, windmills, wood-burning stoves, etc. All renewable energy is solar energy and that is a major problem. In fact it's a show-stopper for a technological civilization.

Solar energy is feeble. It is at best (noon, clear day, on the equator) 1kW per square meter. 10% of that is recoverable as usable energy so make it 100W per square meter.

Let's use it in a car. A car needs 75kW minimum at 100 kM/hr. To get that, 750 square meters of collector area is required. The collector diameter is 31 meters (about 100 feet) sitting atop your vehicle. OK, not practical.

Let's grow corn, convert it to ethanol and put it in the car. You drive 15,000 km a year, your car gets 10 km/l so you need 1,500 liters of ethanol a year. A square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year. You need 5,000 square meters of farmland for your personal transportation needs.

That's 10,000 miles a year, 25 MPG, 400 gallons annually, 300 gallons ethanol per acre or 1.3 acres of corn. That's a lot of corn.

Solar energy conversion efficiency for ethanol is a not so hot 0.1%. A square meter receives 8 X 10^9 Joules of solar energy a year. A square meter produces 0.3 liters of ethanol a year whose energy content is 7 X 10^6 Joules.

The bigger picture. US per capita energy consumption is 4.5 X 10^11 Joules per year. Solar energy is 8 X 10^9 J / m^2 / yr. Assuming a very optimistic 5% conversion efficiency, every man, woman and child would need over 1000 square meters of solar "collector area". That's over a 1/4 acre per person of very expensive technology. Get it all from low-tech corn? Now you need 50 times more land; 50,000 m^2 or 12.5 acres per person.

Conclusion: There are no "alternative energy sources". It's oil or it's nuclear or we go back to a primitive agrarian existence.

I did the math myself. I hope I didn't slip a decimal point somewhere.

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
The 400 gallons per year you mention. At 15 mpg that yields 6,000 miles. At 25 mpg that gives you 10,000 miles. Quite a saving, don't you think? It starts to make sense that greater efficiencies make solar more attractive. I agree it would take a lot of corn to do that. Not really practical as Geof pointed out. Biodiesel is a better and more efficient choice.

I quote: Does biodiesel take more energy to make than it gives back?
No. Biodiesel actually has the highest “energy balance” of any transportation fuel. The DOE/USDA lifecycle analysis shows for every unit of fossil energy it takes to make biodiesel, 3.2 units of energy are gained. This takes into account the planting, harvesting, fuel production and fuel transportation to the end user.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/CommonlyAsked.PDF

I'm not sure how that corolates with your square meter analysis, I'm not sure how many acres per person would be required to produce fuel for that person. It does point out that increased efficiencies start producing results that make sense. I think that over the eons plants have developed amazing efficiencies in turning sunlight into fuel by photosynthesis. Ethanol is about a break even energy wise (takes about as much energy to produce as it provides). Biodiesel produces about 3 times as much energy as is required to make it and is much lower on pollution. When you are dealing with such small yields as we are talking about here ("a square meter of land produces 0.3 liters of ethanol from corn a year") slight increases in efficiency start producing profound results. If my logic is right then this is a three fold increase over your ethanol analysis. Again, I'm not sure just how many acres would be required to produce an amount of biodiesel that was equivalent to your ethanol.
Donna

Geof,

Why give human creativity such a short shrift? Look at what we have done and extrapolate what we can do. The advent of science coincided with the Renaissance 500 years ago. That marks the beginning of our understanding of the Universe in a manipulatable way.

250 years ago marks the beginning of the Industrial Revolution when theory gave birth to engineering. It set the foundation for all our technology we have today by marrying theory with its practical expression. The two have run in tandem harness ever since.

Less than 250 years ago modern representative democracy germinated and set root. It provided the benign environment needed for science, engineering and mercantilism to thrive. That enriched the lives of people universally unlike nothing else has in all of human history.

100 years ago we learned how to fly and communicate instantaneously around the world. That latter gift was electronics. 50 years ago we understood physics enough to manipulate nature's matter into fission, generate nuclear energy and, as a side note, create artificial elements that the earth hasn't ever seen since its creation 4.6 billion years ago.

25 years ago electronics gave us widespread use of computers, the harbinger of what will eventually be artificial intelligence. 10 years ago the internet was created which will eventually unite all the tribes of Man and it more than anything else ever done will lead to the death of war.

Pessimistically you can say the first part of this progress is due to Newton and the second part is due to Einstein and that is probably true. 300 hundred years separates them. If fusion and things more marvelous than we can imagine requires another genius of the first magnitude then expect it in 250 more years. Einstein died in 1956.

We have always been afflicted with Luddites. The current spoor are greens, environmentalists, progressives, whatever. What marks them is fear and self-loathing; we are bad, everything we do is bad. Every change is a disaster, nothing good can come of it, we must do something to return things to where they were. They are conservatives actually though ironically they call themselves otherwise. They have no regard for or even the comprehension of the majesty of the human spirit. They are indeed mud-people.

The first evidence of human spirit to me dates back 40,000 years to the cave paintings in France. We have come such a long way and so rapidly recently. In part that is my near physical revulsion for the mud-people. I'm sure their proud ancestry is replete with untold losing battles to stem progress and to stifle the full expression of the human spirit. They are the inevitable friction that tries to retard motion.

Life is good. There is much yet to be discovered. Being a human is good. You are a part of nature as is everything around you. There are no catastrophes looming around every corner, there are no bogymen. Keep a childlike sense of wonder about everything around you. Keep an open heart and an unafraid mind. Fear shackles, particularly the ones you put on yourself. Relish life.

Mariss

xyzdonna,

Biodiesel or ethanol, it makes no difference. It comes from plants whose first, second or 100th purpose for being does not include generating earth-friendly fuels for people to use. The energy still comes from the sun and it is a feeble source. Less than 0.1% of that gets converted into friendly fuels. Plants have other imperatives; generating oil or sugar is way down on their list of things to do.

Should you discover an absolutely altruistic plant that somehow converted 100% of incident radiation to gasoline and to the exclusion of everything else (like living), you'd still get only 50 gallons of gasoline a year per square meter. Tip-off: Look for an absolutely matte-black plant. It will reflect no light at all.:-)

Mariss

Mariss

Nice post Mariss, My initial impression is that this type of analysis points at the most fundamental flaw in the discussion of GW or CC. While our modern culture has certainly increased our literacy, sadly our numeracy is pretty dismal.

</flame bait on> Our most vocal Greenies, spouting their rhetoric, inevitably are lacking in fundamental math skills. This is why they are so easily convinced of the security proffered by biofuels , solar power and (IMNSHO the biggest scam of all) hydrogen . </flame bait off>

Hi Dr. Motion,
Grrrrr, you mathematical types can be insufferable. Your brains are wired up differently. A confession, I had to repeat every course in calculus I took. But it did cement into my brain everything I learned about algebra and geometry. That I'm pretty good at. And you know what, I find you don't need calculus in everyday life. Even engineers rarely use it. Oh, maybe if your studying quantum mechanics or something.
I consider myself a greenie, and I think I can manage fundamental math skills as long as you don't try and run an integral equation past me. I won't flame you, although I'm tempted. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

Hi Dr. Motion,
Grrrrr, you mathematical types can be insufferable. Your brains are wired up differently. A confession, I had to repeat every course in calculus I took. But it did cement into my brain everything I learned about algebra and geometry. That I'm pretty good at. And you know what, I find you don't need calculus in everyday life. Even engineers rarely use it. Oh, maybe if your studying quantum mechanics or something.
I consider myself a greenie, and I think I can manage fundamental math skills as long as you don't try and run an integral equation past me. I won't flame you, although I'm tempted. BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

xyzDonna...
It's not a net process Donna. You need electricity to perform hydrolysis to obtain the hydrogen anyway. Where does the electricity come from? The frustrating part is that such seemingly motivated & educated people (the greenies) can be so intentionally obtuse. And you have it backward...you take water & electricity to get hydrogen, to burn, to get water....

......BUT WHAT THE HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST HYDROGEN!!!!!! HOW GOOD CAN IT GET???!!!!! YOU TAKE HYDROGEN AND WHAT COMES OUT? ELECTRICITY & WATER.
Donna

I am disappointed and feeling ignored. Go back to Post 199 and read it. You could have saved yourself the embarassment if this somewhat uninformed comment.

xyzdonna,

Biodiesel or ethanol, it makes no difference. It comes from plants whose first, second or 100th purpose for being does not include generating earth-friendly fuels for people to use. The energy still comes from the sun and it is a feeble source. Less than 0.1% of that gets converted into friendly fuels. Plants have other imperatives; generating oil or sugar is way down on their list of things to do.

Should you discover an absolutely altruistic plant that somehow converted 100% of incident radiation to gasoline and to the exclusion of everything else (like living), you'd still get only 50 gallons of gasoline a year per square meter. Tip-off: Look for an absolutely matte-black plant. It will reflect no light at all.:-)

Mariss

Mariss

Hi Mariss,
Haven't seen a matte black plant, there might be some in the Amazon rain forest, if they haven't been clear cut by now. I appreciate the analysis you did on ethanol. I'll try and dig up some facts on biodiesel. It will be fun to compare the two.
Donna

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

2) Hydrogen. It does not occur naturally in molecular form as a gas. It is made from good old coal or oil directly or from electricity produced in (1). It is compressed or cryogenically liquefied (useful if you are launching the Space Shuttle) and transported by truck, rail or pipeline to distant places. It is then burned or run thru fuel cells to power a very few cars or Space Shuttles.

It is far more dangerous than electricity. Hydrogen is a metal (in some sense) and it readily alloys with steel, embrittling the tanks holding it. It is very light, even liquified, making it a miserable energy vehicle. It's energy density per volume is very low, meaning you have to have a very large volume to be useful. Kind of like burning styrofoam peanuts in your furnace for heat. Take into account its flammability, the danger of 5,000 PSI gas tanks and you have a cantankerous and unpleasant energy vehicle.

Yeah, hydrogen power is the future alright.:-)

Mariss

Donna you are certainly a Pollyanna :)

Okay we all trade in our 20 mpg vehicles for 40 mpg and feel very virtuous.

But now we have created a huge CO2 pulse making those new vehicles so it is going to take more time before emission levels start declining.

All truck traffic is going to be transferred from highways to rail.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

it is possible to make concrete that incorporates significant amounts of recycled materials, such as slag and fly ash, reducing the amount of Portland cement that is needed. That is the kind of strategy that will help cut CO2 emissions in the future.

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I could continue but I need my morning coffee.

Hi Geof,
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore your post. I did actually read it. Let me deal with what you said.

A very large proportion of long distance truck freight already goes by rail; that is what is meant by Intermodal. The bulk of the trucks you see on the highways are relatively short haul or final delivery and rail is not suitable for this. In addition according to the business magazines I read most rail systems are working close to capacity.
I think this is partially true, it's been a long time since I was involved with the trucking industry. I do have a friend who is a long haul trucker. He mostly goes from Chattanooga to the west coast and back. I really don't know why his company doesn't do the intermodal thing. It make sense, put a trailer on a flat bed and send it out. Let a local driver deliver it. I don't think it's used as much as it should be.

We should move toward a hydrogen rather than a carbon based economy.

This time I am going to be blunt: The hydrogen economy is nonsense.

Carbon containing fossil fuels are a source of energy which occur naturally. Free hydrogen does not occur naturally, hydrogen is not a source of energy. Hydrogen can be used as a fuel but first it has to be generated using an energy input. And a significant proportion of the input energy is lost during the generation of the hydrogen. One energy source that is used for the direction generation of hydrogen is natural gas but it is idiotic to use natural gas for this application because it can be used for almost all the applications the hydrogen can be used for. And natural gas consumes less energy for compressing and transporting because it is an easier gas to deal with. The other way to generate hydrogen is by electrolysis of water and this needs electricity so you are back to need greatly increased generating capacity. And in many cases it is probably more efficient to use the electrical energy directly.

A thought, CSP can be used to super heat water, is this not correct? At high temperatures you can more easily disassociate the water molecule. Maybe apply a little direct current to the process and viola, hydrogen and oxygen.
To quote Bob Dylan, "I think it can be easy done".

Quite correct. You have probably seen the concrete blocks with holes through them used for concrete wall building. In England they are called Cinder Blocks because they were a cheaper alternative to true concrete. Also a weaker alternative, much weaker. I don't think I want tall buildings, Nuclear reactors or big bridges made out of 'Cinder blocks'.

I agree, I'm getting ready to build a house and I won't use cinder blocks. This is because my foundation must be about 20 feet high. We're building on a very steep slope. Nope, its poured walls for us. Solid concrete 12 inches thick.
Donna

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

2) Hydrogen. It does not occur naturally in molecular form as a gas. It is made from good old coal or oil directly or from electricity produced in (1). It is compressed or cryogenically liquefied (useful if you are launching the Space Shuttle) and transported by truck, rail or pipeline to distant places. It is then burned or run thru fuel cells to power a very few cars or Space Shuttles.

It is far more dangerous than electricity. Hydrogen is a metal (in some sense) and it readily alloys with steel, embrittling the tanks holding it. It is very light, even liquified, making it a miserable energy vehicle. It's energy density per volume is very low, meaning you have to have a very large volume to be useful. Kind of like burning styrofoam peanuts in your furnace for heat. Take into account its flammability, the danger of 5,000 PSI gas tanks and you have a cantankerous and unpleasant energy vehicle.

Yeah, hydrogen power is the future alright.:-)

Mariss

Hi Mariss,

Think electricity when you say hydrogen. Both are vehicles that transport energy from here to there.
Yes but electricity requires transmission lines, hydrogen allows a vehicle to not be tethered to an extension cord.

1) Electricity: Good old coal or oil is burned in a boiler to produce steam. Steam spins a turbine, turbine spins a generator. The resulting electricity is sent by transmission cables atop towers to distant places where it is converted back to heat in microwave ovens, toasters, light bulbs and of course TVs, the idiot's delight. Some of it runs CNC machines.

Yes, bad old coal or oil is burned and there's the rub. CSP should be used to make the electricity. Hydrogen is a way of storing energy. Once you make hydrogen you have effectively stored energy. That's a pretty awesome thing.

Donna

xyzdonna,

I have hope you can be persuaded away from the dark side. You still have an open mind.:-)

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Mariss

What's with the acronyms? What is CSP, a new dietary supplement, a new psychological syndrome or a new disease I should be concerned about?

Mariss

.....A thought, CSP can be used to super heat water, is this not correct? At high temperatures you can more easily disassociate the water molecule. Maybe apply a little direct current to the process and viola, hydrogen and oxygen.
To quote Bob Dylan, "I think it can be easy done".....


No, no matter what you or Bob think you cannot get around the laws of thermodynamics. I have come across the misconception you have here many times. In a chemical reaction you are dealing with two separate properties; the rate of the reaction and the energetics of the reaction. They are connected but only in the sense that a reaction which releases a lot of energy will often proceed very fast; this is why some reactions are explosive or burn very fast. But the amount of energy involved in a reaction is not dependent on how fast it proceeds.

When electrolysing water to generate hydrogen and oxygen the rate of this energetically unfavorable reaction can be influenced by the electrode design, temperature, solute composition. So you can produce hydrogen faster or slower but the amount of energy going into breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is the same. All the energy that is released when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen has to be put into the system in the first place just to get the hydrogen.

And it is actually worse than that because during the electrolysis some of the electrical energy supplied to the electrolysis cell is wasted as heat so for every 100 units of electrical energy in you get fewer than 100 units of chemical potential energy out in the hydrogen. Then when you utilize the hydrogen in a fuel cell you lose more of the energy as heat. There is no way around it. The full cycle from electrical energy used for the electrolysis back to electrical energy has an overall efficiency of 50% or less for the polymer fuel cells proposed for the 'hydrogen economy'. So half the energy is lost even before the compression, storage and transport of the hydrogen is taken into account.

What's with the acronyms? What is CSP, a new dietary supplement, a new psychological syndrome or a new disease I should be concerned about?

Mariss

Concentrated Solar Power; aka focussing collectors. There is a setup in CA someplace that operates with a Stirling enegine and has an efficiency pretty close to 30%, I think. It was mentioned in a different thread some time ago.

xyzdonna,

I have hope you can be persuaded away from the dark side. You still have an open mind.:-)

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

Mariss

Thanks Mariss,
Yes, I think I have an open mind.

Most important principles of Nature: (1) There is no free lunch, or (2) You cannot break even; you're lucky if you come close. Nature is Las Vegas; you can't beat the house. You cannot "super-heat" this and "zap" it with that. The energy put in to break molecular bonds will always be more than what you get back when you burn it again and reform those bonds.

I know this, it's not going to be 100% efficient. If we could get 15% conversion efficiency it might be worthwhile.

Look up the Third Law of Thermodynamics.

I'm afraid to, I think there might be calculus involved.
Donna

No, no matter what you or Bob think you cannot get around the laws of thermodynamics. I have come across the misconception you have here many times. In a chemical reaction you are dealing with two separate properties; the rate of the reaction and the energetics of the reaction. They are connected but only in the sense that a reaction which releases a lot of energy will often proceed very fast; this is why some reactions are explosive or burn very fast. But the amount of energy involved in a reaction is not dependent on how fast it proceeds.

When electrolysing water to generate hydrogen and oxygen the rate of this energetically unfavorable reaction can be influenced by the electrode design, temperature, solute composition. So you can produce hydrogen faster or slower but the amount of energy going into breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is the same. All the energy that is released when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen has to be put into the system in the first place just to get the hydrogen.

And it is actually worse than that because during the electrolysis some of the electrical energy supplied to the electrolysis cell is wasted as heat so for every 100 units of electrical energy in you get fewer than 100 units of chemical potential energy out in the hydrogen. Then when you utilize the hydrogen in a fuel cell you lose more of the energy as heat. There is no way around it. The full cycle from electrical energy used for the electrolysis back to electrical energy has an overall efficiency of 50% or less for the polymer fuel cells proposed for the 'hydrogen economy'. So half the energy is lost even before the compression, storage and transport of the hydrogen is taken into account.

Hi Geof,
You paint a bleak picture indeed. Usually I'm just trying to get around the speeding laws, these thermodynamic laws I'm a little hazy on.

So you can produce hydrogen faster or slower but the amount of energy going into breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is the same. All the energy that is released when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen has to be put into the system in the first place just to get the hydrogen.

OK, but use what Mariss said, about a 50% efficiency. Wouldn't this work? It is after all a method of storing energy. I realize you're going to lose some in the translation, but it is a method of storing energy for use vehicles.
Donna

Hi Geof,
You paint a bleak picture indeed. Usually I'm just trying to get around the speeding laws, these thermodynamic laws I'm a little hazy on.

So you can produce hydrogen faster or slower but the amount of energy going into breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bond is the same. All the energy that is released when the hydrogen reacts with oxygen has to be put into the system in the first place just to get the hydrogen.

OK, but use what Mariss said, about a 50% efficiency. Wouldn't this work? It is after all a method of storing energy. I realize you're going to lose some in the translation, but it is a method of storing energy for use vehicles.
Donna

xyzDonna...

even if you use carbon-fiber pressurized tanks to avoid the problems with hydrogen embrittlement, you still have the pesky problem of how to avoid any ruptures in event of an accident...and then there's the volatility of the fuel to be considered. Care to see 10,000 mini-Hindenbergs every day??? That's the average number of car crashes in this country. I'm good on driving a ticking time-bomb thanks...

xyzDonna...

even if you use carbon-fiber pressurized tanks to avoid the problems with hydrogen embrittlement, you still have the pesky problem of how to avoid any ruptures in event of an accident...and then there's the volatility of the fuel to be considered. Care to see 10,000 mini-Hindenbergs every day??? That's the average number of car crashes in this country. I'm good on driving a ticking time-bomb thanks...

Hi WYLD,
Good point, you're gonna have a rupture in the event of an accident. Yes, hydrogen is probably the most volatile fuel, very low molecular weight. That also means it will go up in the air very quickly and dissipate. Unlike gasoline which will linger around and burn everything up.
Donna

Hi WYLD,
Good point, you're gonna have a rupture in the event of an accident. Yes, hydrogen is probably the most volatile fuel, very low molecular weight. That also means it will go up in the air very quickly and dissipate. Unlike gasoline which will linger around and burn everything up.
Donna


uh...how many cars in accident have you seen that just burst into flames and burn up? The problem with hydrogen is that the flash point is insanely low. Too little humidity will cause static discharge...kaboom! And when the hydrogen is escaping at 5000 psi or higher...do you really want to be in its path? I'm thinking not...

.... It is after all a method of storing energy. I realize you're going to lose some in the translation, but it is a method of storing energy for use vehicles.
Donna

When all the losses are taken into account and the complexity of hydrogen storage and refuelling and all the myriad details, coupled with the awesome cost of fuel cells it works out to be pointless. Have a look at Wikipedia on the topic of polymer fuel cells and you will see a company called Ballard Energy Systems mentioned. Then go onto some of the stock market websites and start looking up Ballard Energy Systems. They have blown umpteen millions of dollars on developing polymer fuel cells suitable for automobile applications...and failed.

Here is some food for thought.

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, corn-based ethanol provides 26 percent more energy than is required for its production, while cellulosic provides 80 percent more energy. And while conventional ethanol reduces greenhouse-gas emissions 10 to 20 percent below gasoline levels, the reductions with cellulosic range from 80 percent below gasoline to completely CO2 neutral.
http://grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/montenegro/

Switchgrass -- A perennial prairie grass native to North America, switchgrass requires little water or fertilizer to grow and thrives in places unsuitable for most crops, ranging from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada and from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Some five to nine feet tall, this gangly weed also yields twice as much ethanol per acre as does corn.

That said, researchers at the University of Minnesota and St. Olaf College recently found that biodiesel production is highly efficient, generating 93 percent more energy than is required to make it.

Enough biodiesel to replace all petroleum transportation fuels could be grown in 15,000 square miles, or roughly 12.5 percent of the area of the Sonora desert (note for clarification - I am not advocating putting 15,000 square miles of algae ponds in the Sonora desert. This hypothetical example is used strictly for the purpose of showing the scale of land required). That 15,000 square miles works out to roughly 9.5 million acres - far less than the 450 million acres currently used for crop farming in the US, and the over 500 million acres used as grazing land for farm animals.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

The above article is an excellent treatise on biodiesel from algae. This is doable, cost effective and probably the way to go. The scale of land required would also be much less than from ethanol. The land could be desert land that is not currently used in food production.
Donna
PS: It does assume a reduction in fuel usage through the use of hybrid diesel engines, but that has to be taken as a given.

Land that is presently desert is desert because there is no water. Where pray tell would the water come from to grow these wonderful plants? The only river of significance here in the Southwest is the Colorado. Its water is already used to 100% capacity.

Mariss

Donna; Regarding "Here is some food for thought." I am disappointed, you are cherry picking. I pulled down the Montegnegro article, started reading and thought I might pull out a few of the inconsistencies and assumptions.

The list was getting a bit long but then I came across this:

Incidentally in the context of your "This is doable, cost effective and probably the way to go. comment on bio-diesel from algae take notice of the first two sentences in what I copy below. Also in the case of the algae source never mind economic feasibility it has not been done on anything other than a research scale and it is very difficult to scale this type of thing up.

Making biodiesel from algae is analogous to making ethanol from cellulose. Both technologies hold great promise but neither has been proven economically feasible.

The following two sentences sound contradictory:


Over its lifetime, pure biodiesel emits about 78 percent less CO2 than conventional diesel ... They also found that biodiesel reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 41 percent compared with fossil fuels.
Also note that this is for soy biodiesel. Palm oil biodiesel is far more CO2 neutral but about 100% more destructive of biodiversity, which makes it worse from a global warming perspective because further production of palm oil will require destroying remaining carbon sinks (the destruction of which presently accounts for about 20% of all global warming).


When Tier 2 emissions standards bring biodiesel up to par with gasoline and ethanol for air pollutants, biodiesel seems like it should be a no-brainer for green energy.
Note also that these standards will bring cars that burn regular diesel up to par with gasoline cars. In other words, one of the biggest reasons to use biodiesel (less pollution) will be mooted. That will leave energy independence and reduced CO2 as the remaining arguments. But, since we can only replace half of a percent of our diesel (as you point out) the energy independence argument is a farce and should be tossed. That leaves one argument for its use. It produces less CO2. But, is that 78% less or 41%? But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent. These numbers make the CO2 argument rather farcical as well since we will leave 99.75% of our CO2 production from diesel untouched by using soy biodiesel.

I have never used the word farcical but it is appropriate.

Land that is presently desert is desert because there is no water. Where pray tell would the water come from to grow these wonderful plants? The only river of significance here in the Southwest is the Colorado. Its water is already used to 100% capacity.

Mariss

We are going to burn all the hydrogen that has magically appeared. :)

Am I being too flippant?

Donna; Regarding "Here is some food for thought." I am disappointed, you are cherry picking. I pulled down the Montegnegro article, started reading and thought I might pull out a few of the inconsistencies and assumptions.

The list was getting a bit long but then I came across this:

Incidentally in the context of your "This is doable, cost effective and probably the way to go. comment on bio-diesel from algae take notice of the first two sentences in what I copy below. Also in the case of the algae source never mind economic feasibility it has not been done on anything other than a research scale and it is very difficult to scale this type of thing up.

Making biodiesel from algae is analogous to making ethanol from cellulose. Both technologies hold great promise but neither has been proven economically feasible.

The following two sentences sound contradictory:


Over its lifetime, pure biodiesel emits about 78 percent less CO2 than conventional diesel ... They also found that biodiesel reduces greenhouse-gas emissions by 41 percent compared with fossil fuels.
Also note that this is for soy biodiesel. Palm oil biodiesel is far more CO2 neutral but about 100% more destructive of biodiversity, which makes it worse from a global warming perspective because further production of palm oil will require destroying remaining carbon sinks (the destruction of which presently accounts for about 20% of all global warming).


When Tier 2 emissions standards bring biodiesel up to par with gasoline and ethanol for air pollutants, biodiesel seems like it should be a no-brainer for green energy.
Note also that these standards will bring cars that burn regular diesel up to par with gasoline cars. In other words, one of the biggest reasons to use biodiesel (less pollution) will be mooted. That will leave energy independence and reduced CO2 as the remaining arguments. But, since we can only replace half of a percent of our diesel (as you point out) the energy independence argument is a farce and should be tossed. That leaves one argument for its use. It produces less CO2. But, is that 78% less or 41%? But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent. These numbers make the CO2 argument rather farcical as well since we will leave 99.75% of our CO2 production from diesel untouched by using soy biodiesel.

I have never used the word farcical but it is appropriate.

Hi Geof,
You said: But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent.

I'm lost, why can we only replace less than one half of a percent of our diesel?
I really thought ya'll would be easier to convince, this is proving much harder than I envisioned. Here's a plan, build a nuke plant on the west coast next to a desalinization plant. Nuke plant powers the desalinization plant and pump the water into the desert to make biodiesel out of algae. Why is it I can here Mariss laughing all the way from the west coast and I'm almost deaf? Well you could run the numbers and see how it came out, might be feasible. Might yield $5 a gal gas as well. But that would give you a baseline for figuring what it was going to cost.
Donna

Hi Geof,
You said: But again, because we can replace less than half of a percent of our diesel use, we can only reduce our CO2 production by half of that, making CO2 reduction about a quarter of one percent.

I'm lost, why can we only replace less than one half of a percent of our diesel?
I really thought ya'll would be easier to convince, this is proving much harder than I envisioned. Here's a plan, build a nuke plant on the west coast next to a desalinization plant. Nuke plant powers the desalinization plant and pump the water into the desert to make biodiesel out of algae. Why is it I can here Mariss laughing all the way from the west coast and I'm almost deaf? Well you could run the numbers and see how it came out, might be feasible. Might yield $5 a gal gas as well. But that would give you a baseline for figuring what it was going to cost.
Donna

No I did not 'say' anything. I took a section from the article you referenced in support of your points and made it bold and italised. I was pointing out that you cherry picked numbers to support your points but the very article you used has conclusions that support the points Mariss and I make.

I have not bothered to check whether the person I quoted was correct in their analysis; you can do that if you want to dispute it, after all it is your link.

Does it not occur to you that the reason Mariss and I are hard to convince is because we do understand the technology, the energetics, the thermodynamics? I do not need to run numbers to know that using nuke power to desalinate sea water for irrigation of deserts is totally unfeasible.

I think allot of greenies forget the main overriding reason you can not compete with Petroleum products is We as humans don't make it we just refine it. Thus its already stored energy from millions of years of mother natures work.

And I think allot of people on my side of the fence overrule other technologies with that as a comparison.

There are allot of unfeasible ideas out there, but some of them obviously would be a good avenue to explore, if for no other reason than, we need them to reach other planets.

Because as far as we know there isn't a huge wealth of petro on the moon or mars and we need a storage mechanism to get there... I am all for atomic fusion or fission.

No I did not 'say' anything. I took a section from the article you referenced in support of your points and made it bold and italised. I was pointing out that you cherry picked numbers to support your points but the very article you used has conclusions that support the points Mariss and I make.

I have not bothered to check whether the person I quoted was correct in their analysis; you can do that if you want to dispute it, after all it is your link.

Does it not occur to you that the reason Mariss and I are hard to convince is because we do understand the technology, the energetics, the thermodynamics? I do not need to run numbers to know that using nuke power to desalinate sea water for irrigation of deserts is totally unfeasible.
Hi Geof,
I mentioned that to simply make the point that there are alternatives to fossil fuels, the cost will simply be higher. At some point the cost of making synthetic fuels will equal that of fossil fuels. Yes there are difficulties, but it's not impossible. I didn't intentionally cheery pick that article, I just read enough to see what I wanted and left the source so you could examine it. I should have read it more throughly.
Sorry,
Donna
I'll do some more research and get back to you.

Hi Geof,
I mentioned that to simply make the point that there are alternatives to fossil fuels, the cost will simply be higher. At some point the cost of making synthetic fuels will equal that of fossil fuels. Yes there are difficulties, but it's not impossible. I didn't intentionally cheery pick that article, I just read enough to see what I wanted and left the source so you could examine it. I should have read it more throughly.
Sorry,
Donna
I'll do some more research and get back to you.

I give you credit for the statment; "I just read enough to see what I wanted". This is what a lot of people but they are not honest enough to admit it. Which makes me happy I have persisted in presenting arguments to you that explain things that maybe you 'don't want to know'. This entire discussion can have one of three outcomes; 1) we simply give up somewhere along the line with nothing resolved; 2) you look into things in greater detail, seek out cons as well as pros, develop an understanding of the underlying science, and come to the realisation that a lot of what is written and spoken about with regards to reducing CO2 emissions and developing alternate energy sources is a lot of hokum; 3) or you find enough basic sources that demonstrate unequivocally with proven technology brought to full industrial level that it will be possible to do something like cutting CO2 emissions by 50% in about twenty years without drastically altering energy consumption patterns.

You may think it is arrogant of me to say that I put the probability of the outcome being 3) very low, indeed vanishingly small. That is okay, I used to be a University and College lecturer, I am familiar with being called arrogant. it comes with that kind of position...or it is necessary to succeed in that kind of position.

If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

There is no hope of ever reducing atmospheric CO2 levels; it is approaching impossible to even slow down the rate of increase. There is no worry about plants not getting enough CO2.

Ah ha, now I've found something! Get a load of this.
"While hydrogen can also be produced by high-temperature steam electrolysis,"
So my idea does have validity! This guy is doing it with high temperature (think solar concentrators) and membrane technology.
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6726893-description.html
Hydrogen production by high-temperature water splitting using electron-conducting membranes
I can envision a world where natural gas is replaced by hydrogen.
to quote further: "Water disassociates into oxygen and hydrogen at high temperatures, and the disassociation increases with increasing temperature"
Yep, my thought exactly,
It's looking doable again!
Donna

... "Water disassociates into oxygen and hydrogen at high temperatures, and the disassociation increases with increasing temperature"
Yep, my thought exactly,
It's looking doable again!
Donna

No it is not. The high temperature dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen is old hat. You must have heard of coal gas? I do not know how extensively it was ever used in North America but it was widely used in the UK. You maybe also know that it was highly poisonous and this was due to the carbon monoxide content.

Coal gas is made by heating coking coal, not all coal is suitable, in an oxygen limited atmosphere. Some burns to provide the heat but there is a lot of coal unburnt and is incandescent. Water in the form of steam is injected into the hot bed of coal and is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen by the heat. Reactions take place between the oxygen but because there is a great excess of carbon over oxygen the end product is not carbon dioxide but is carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen being gases can be separated from the coal residue and they are mostly what comprise coal gas although there are some gaseous carbon compounds such methane and ethane.

But it is energetically inefficient, far more inefficient than the eletrolysis of water to get hydrogen and oxygen. Any high temperature dissociation process is energetically inefficient.

Mariss said it; there is no free lunch.

If we reduce CO2, then how are the plants going to live? If you want to the world to be greener then you need plants, right?

The plants will be fine because the goal is not to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (by much). The goal is to reduce human emissions of CO2 by 50%; specifically by reducing fossil fuel consumption.

When you dig deeper you'll find the goal isn't even to reduce global warming, but rather to tax and control everyone using energy.

No it is not. The high temperature dissociation of water into oxygen and hydrogen is old hat. You must have heard of coal gas? I do not know how extensively it was ever used in North America but it was widely used in the UK. You maybe also know that it was highly poisonous and this was due to the carbon monoxide content.

Coal gas is made by heating coking coal, not all coal is suitable, in an oxygen limited atmosphere. Some burns to provide the heat but there is a lot of coal unburnt and is incandescent. Water in the form of steam is injected into the hot bed of coal and is dissociated into hydrogen and oxygen by the heat. Reactions take place between the oxygen but because there is a great excess of carbon over oxygen the end product is not carbon dioxide but is carbon monoxide. The carbon monoxide and hydrogen being gases can be separated from the coal residue and they are mostly what comprise coal gas although there are some gaseous carbon compounds such methane and ethane.

But it is energetically inefficient, far more inefficient than the eletrolysis of water to get hydrogen and oxygen. Any high temperature dissociation process is energetically inefficient.

Mariss said it; there is no free lunch.
Hi Geof,
It may be inefficient but if the input energy is free CSP, then it can be done with less electrical (not free) energy. I'm just saying there are ways of doing these things that have to be analyzed on a cost benefit basis. You will admit that these things can technically be done. The question is only one of cost. You have to find a process that can be done cheaply enough to be viable. Some process out there will work. There always is, whether it's biodiesel from algae, or hydrogen from water, there will be a process found that will be cost effective. These processes that I've mentioned can be done, the question is the cost. And at some point as the price of crude continues to climb, one of these processes will prove cost effective.
Donna

Hi Geof,
It may be inefficient but if the input energy is free CSP,.....

.....And at some point as the price of crude continues to climb, one of these processes will prove cost effective.
Donna

Couple of comments:

First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs.

Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions.

So what really are you after?

Couple of comments:

First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs.

Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions.

So what really are you after?

that ever elusive rush of warm fuzzies....

Couple of comments:

First the energy is not free no matter how it is collected. The device doing the collecting cost money and incurs maintenance costs.

Second you seem to be switching track here. Now you are talking about something becoming cost effective 'eventually' as the cost of crude climbs. I thought your original focus was on replacing fossil fuels in the short term to reduce CO2 emissions.

So what really are you after?

Hi Geof,
Valid point, I seem to be floundering around don't I. My only excuse is I purchased a new Blackberry and was spending too much time learning how to use the stupid thing. I finally took it back and told the salesman I had read the whole manual and couldn't find where it said how to turn the thing on or off. He gave me that look but I swapped out for a simpler device.
Now, where were we. I've been doing a little more research and I'll spend a little more time looking stuff up. Check this out:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10381404
They have a commercial plant in New Zealand that has biodiesel from algae in production. They are taking waste sewage for the growing medium. Mariss was wondering where the water would come from, there it is. This is early development so I don't think it would be so easy to get the numbers to do an analysis but there you have it, someone thinks it's viable. Algae gives a much higher energy yield per acre than soybeans, corn etc. And that dark green color is going to be about as close as you can get to Mariss' matte black with a living organism.
My focus is to replace fossil fuels to reduce emissions and develop cost effective synthetic fuels. Checking Wikipedia I find that Europe is the largest producer of biodiesel, I quote: "100% Biodiesel is now available at many normal service stations across Europe." As economies of scale accrue, I think this technology will prove cost effective as a short term solution until hydrogen can be perfected.
I'm not an engineer so I can't argue your contention that thermal dissociation of water isn't valid due to the inefficiencies. I can only point out that research is being done. Maybe you are right, perhaps it would be more efficient to use CSP to generate electricity for electrolysis of the water. Perhaps we'll never have cars that run on hydrogen, the problems may well prove insurmountable. I think hydrogen could, however, replace natural gas in the home for clean and relatively efficient heating. Think about it, no heat exchanger required. Just have a fan blowing across the flame and ducting the combustion products into the home. It would provide the benefit of adding humidity to the home since the product of combustion would be water vapor.
As you pointed out, there is a cost associated with all this. My thinking is the cost thing will be worked out and energy will be produced that is clean and cost effective with oil. We just have to avoid the obvious problem of political interference with the science of it. If all the mid-western farmers put pressure on Washington to go with corn ethanol then we'll have problems. I don't think the energy density will be there. The production of energy per acre will be much less than what is needed and it will drive food prices up. Nope, pond scum algae is probably the way to go.
Donna

Here is another interesting article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/us/02algae.html?ref=environment

I quote: "An acre of corn can produce about 20 gallons of oil per year, Dr. Ruan said, compared with a possible 15,000 gallons of oil per acre of algae.
An algae farm could be located almost anywhere. It would not require converting cropland from food production to energy production. It could use sea water and could consume pollutants from sewage and power plants."
As they point out it's going to take more research, but the outlook is promising.
Donna

The plants will be fine because the goal is not to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (by much). The goal is to reduce human emissions of CO2 by 50%; specifically by reducing fossil fuel consumption.

When you dig deeper you'll find the goal isn't even to reduce global warming, but rather to tax and control everyone using energy.

I made the plant comment just to add some sarcasm. :D

I know that the only reason for most of the global warming hysteria is to make somebody rich. It’s the people that have no ties to oil that want what the oil bums have.

That being said, I have no problems with renewable energy if it is economical. I've priced converting my home to an off the grid system and at $70,000 there is no way it would be worth it unless my electric bill increased $750 a month. I can't wait until the technology drops in price to make it worth implementing. I'm tired of giving my money to "the man."

I made the plant comment just to add some sarcasm. :D

I know that the only reason for most of the global warming hysteria is to make somebody rich. It’s the people that have no ties to oil that want what the oil bums have.

That being said, I have no problems with renewable energy if it is economical. I've priced converting my home to an off the grid system and at $70,000 there is no way it would be worth it unless my electric bill increased $750 a month. I can't wait until the technology drops in price to make it worth implementing. I'm tired of giving my money to "the man."

Totally off grid, not the way to go.
Implementing energy conservation, doable. In new construction, you can add insulation etc. and probably use about 50% of the energy of a normal home.
Not exactly sure of the numbers but I can look them up.
Donna

...I think hydrogen could, however, replace natural gas in the home for clean and relatively efficient heating. Think about it, no heat exchanger required. Just have a fan blowing across the flame and ducting the combustion products into the home. It would provide the benefit of adding humidity to the home since the product of combustion would be water vapor....

For your information the product of natural gas combustion is mostly water with a bit of CO2; natural gas is CH4. You can burn it safely inside using a catalytic heater and you get far too much moisture inside with resulting mould problems where the moisture condenses on cooler walls.

But anyway using hydrogen in place of natural gas is not sensible: As I mentioned much earlier there are currently in use two sources for hydrogen; natural gas and electricity. Either of these can be used for home heating with better overall efficiency.

Many of the ideas, suggestions, etc to combat global warming are no more sensible and no more logical than this.

P.S. Dig up a chemist friend that you trust, maybe also a physicist; both of whom have no vested interest in making money from global warming or conning you into investing in their wonderful ideas. And ask them about the energetics of generating hydrogen. You display the same attitude of many people do who do not have a good education or understanding in science and technology. They believe the people who tell them the message they want to hear and do not believe the ones who, correctly, say it will not work.

Here is an opinion piece from a person who states they do believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. And who also thinks Lomborg is on the correct track. So there is at least one AGW disciple who has his head screwed on tight and facing the correct way.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/story.html?id=142441

I quote: "An acre of corn can produce about 20 gallons of oil per year, Dr. Ruan said, compared with a possible 15,000 gallons of oil per acre of algae.
An algae farm could be located almost anywhere. It would not require converting cropland from food production to energy production. It could use sea water and could consume pollutants from sewage and power plants."
As they point out it's going to take more research, but the outlook is promising.
Donna

Sorry Donna. The "15,000 gallons" is a totally ridiculous number. Try 820 gallons as a realistic number.

I guess I didn't get my point across; solar energy is feeble and all "alternate energy" is solar.

Sun energy falling on the US in 1 year: 1 X 10^23 Joules.
Total US energy consumption in 1 year: 1 X 10^20 Joules.
US land area: 1 X 10^7 Km^2.

If you could convert 100% solar to fuel, then an absolute minimum of 0.1% of the US must be covered with solar collector area (solar cells, farmland or algae swamps). That is 10,000 square kilometers or 3,900 square miles. That is more than Delaware and Rhode Island put together.

But wait, it gets far worse. Algae Oil yields 2.4 X 10^13 Joules per square kilometer per year so 4.2 million square kilometers would be needed to meet US energy needs. That is 1.6 million square miles or 42% of the entire US land area covered by a slime swamp! An absolutely Jurassic vision.

Mariss

P.S. Even using your "15,000 gallon" number means covering Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and you would still be 4,000 sq miles short.

For your information the product of natural gas combustion is mostly water with a bit of CO2; natural gas is CH4. You can burn it safely inside using a catalytic heater and you get far too much moisture inside with resulting mould problems where the moisture condenses on cooler walls.

But anyway using hydrogen in place of natural gas is not sensible: As I mentioned much earlier there are currently in use two sources for hydrogen; natural gas and electricity. Either of these can be used for home heating with better overall efficiency.

Many of the ideas, suggestions, etc to combat global warming are no more sensible and no more logical than this.

P.S. Dig up a chemist friend that you trust, maybe also a physicist; both of whom have no vested interest in making money from global warming or conning you into investing in their wonderful ideas. And ask them about the energetics of generating hydrogen. You display the same attitude of many people do who do not have a good education or understanding in science and technology. They believe the people who tell them the message they want to hear and do not believe the ones who, correctly, say it will not work.

Hi Geof,
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I take no offence at all to your saying that I don't have a good education or understanding of science. You don't know me so you couldn't know my background. I don't profess to have your understanding of chemistry or Mariss' knowledge of electronics. I have taken college level chemistry and physics however. I've also studied electronics. So I'm not a complete idiot when it comes to things scientific. I think to assume that everyone who is doing research in this field is only out to garner research grants is a stretch.
I did a little more research and came up with this:
"The results from this analysis show that the price of hydrogen from a 50,000 kg/day wind-hydrogen system can range from $5.69 per kilogram of hydrogen in the near term to $2.12 per kilogram of hydrogen in the long term."
They are talking about producing hydrogen from a wind turbine conventional electrolysis system.
It goes on to say:
"In the previous explanation, the amount of energy needed to produce one kilogram of hydrogen was presented for a reason. Typically, when discussing hydrogen for transportation fueling needs, a kilogram of hydrogen is the unit used. This is because a kilogram of hydrogen is roughly equivalent in energy to a gallon of gasoline. A gallon of gasoline has roughly 108,000 – 123,500 British Thermal Units (BTU) per gallon, while hydrogen falls between those two values at 116,000 BTU per kilogram."
So the upshot is that hydrogen would currently cost about $5.69 to produce the energy equivalent of a gal of gas, not too good. But the calculations are that in the future the price could come down considerably and probably here there is some speculation.
The source: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy05osti/38210.pdf
So it just may be that hydrogen will prove viable, you can't discount it entirely. Again, I went in and did a rather cursory take on the article, cheery picked as you say. Just to let you know.
Donna

..."The results from this analysis show that the price of hydrogen from a 50,000 kg/day wind-hydrogen system can range from $5.69 per kilogram of hydrogen in the near term to $2.12 per kilogram of hydrogen in the long term."
....
But the calculations are that in the future the price could come down considerably and probably here there is some speculation.....

The whole thing is speculation, the facility does not exist.

Let's go back a little bit to the start of this whole discussion because it definitely has drifted into alternate energy sources but actually started out on the topic of reducing CO2 emissions. And most of these references you are coming up with have the "in the future" component. What is important right now, as important as cost, is timeliness.

I am repeating myself somewhat but I will reprise the issues raised by the IPCC people.

Global Warming is occurring.

Human activity is to blame.

Something must be done.

If nothing is done quickly we will pass 'tipping points' and go into irreversible warming.

The time deadline for one of the tipping points is 20 years away or something like that.

CO2 emissions must be halved by the year 2050.

This can be done without destroying the world's economy.

This is not a complete list but I think it is correct as far as it goes.

My contention is that nothing can be done without destroying the global economy simply because energy consumption and economic activity are inseparably linked. The only way to reduce CO2 emissions is to reduce consumption of fossil fuels and fossil fuels are the major source of energy. There are two options that are inescapable; simply reduce energy use drastically or find alternate energy sources that can substitute for fossil fuels.

There are no viable substitutes never mind cost; cost is a minor problem compared to the quantity of energy required. The only alternate energy source that could potentially deliver the magnitude of energy required is nuclear and this would take years to bring on stream and would create an immense upfront surge in CO2 emissions. For at least ten years, more realistically in my view at least twenty years, CO2 emissions would be climbing and by then we are past the 'tipping point'. And anyone who thinks that consideration of the design and construction of literally hundreds of nuclear plants worldwide is going to be entertained is certainly dreaming.

It is simply not possible to find substitute energy. Conservation could reduce consumption by a few percent but again it is necessary to be careful of up front costs. If everyone ran out and bought a hybrid car, quite apart from the fact that a lot of raw materials for the electrical/electronic side would be in short supply, the manufacture of these would creat a near term surge in emissions. The same thing applies to many other conservation/efficiency improvements and the only thing that could reduce emissions in the near term without an initial surge are the simple ones like turning the thermostat down or up depending on whether you are heating or cooling, and driving less. Going deeper you could start consuming less; did you read my post about 3 days out of 20 which describes lowering energy consumption by 15% simply by doing literally nothing for the 3 days. What I describe would work, energy consumption would go down. But if everyone consumed 15% less in general that would trigger a world wide recession to beat everything.

There is no fix we have to adapt to the change. Consumption certainly has to decline but it has to do so incrementally and slowly to avoid creating a situation which would make the Great Depression seem like a picnic.

So what really are you after?

Geof, you asked this of XYZDonna. I believe that Donna is employing the strategy espoused in this documant on
"telling the GW story better":

From: http://www.countryguardian.net/warm_words.pdf

"Treating climate change as beyond argument
Much of the noise in the climate change discourse comes from argument and counter-argument, and it is
our recommendation that, at least for popular communications, interested agencies now need to treat the
argument as having been won. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that
individual actions are effective. This must be done by stepping away from the ‘advocates debate’ described
earlier, rather than by stating and re-stating these things as fact.

The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken. The certainty of
the Government’s new climate-change slogan – ‘Together this generation will tackle climate change’ (Defra
2006) – gives an example of this approach. It constructs, rather than claims, its own factuality.
Where science is invoked, it now needs to be as ‘lay science’ – offering lay explanations for what is being
treated as a simple established scientific fact, just as the earth’s rotation or the water cycle are considered."


Donna wants a reduction in CO2 emissions. You and others explain that CO2 does not seem to be the proven cause of GW, and even if it was, reducing CO2 significantly won't have much of an effect, even if it could be done, which is highly unlikely. Donna says yes and seems to get the point; then immediately goes back to "CO2 can be reduced", "will be reduced", "must be reduced".

Donna and alexccmeister are cut from the same cloth. See their responses to Mariss's post #80 at http://www.cnczone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=369935#post369935


I have seen post by people like Donna on the Democratic Underground "Guns" Forum: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=118

They contend that the number of guns in the hands of private citizens should be reduced. A number of people patiently explain that disarming law-abiding citizens does not reduce crime and tends to make life easier for crooks. These arguments are backed up by FBI crime stats and logic. The "Donna-types" follow by stating that they concede the point, but would still like to see a reduction in the number of guns in circulation. Except in Donna's case, read "CO2" in place of "guns".

I think Donna should start emitting less CO2 by not quoting entire posts when this is not pertinent to the discussion. All of those bits add up and it takes electrical power to push them through the system. Most of that power is generated from coal. So please Donna, you need to do your bit to conserve energy and cut pollution otherwise no one can take you seriously...

Sorry Donna. The "15,000 gallons" is a totally ridiculous number. Try 820 gallons as a realistic number.

I guess I didn't get my point across; solar energy is feeble and all "alternate energy" is solar.

Sun energy falling on the US in 1 year: 1 X 10^23 Joules.
Total US energy consumption in 1 year: 1 X 10^20 Joules.
US land area: 1 X 10^7 Km^2.

If you could convert 100% solar to fuel, then an absolute minimum of 0.1% of the US must be covered with solar collector area (solar cells, farmland or algae swamps). That is 10,000 square kilometers or 3,900 square miles. That is more than Delaware and Rhode Island put together.

But wait, it gets far worse. Algae Oil yields 2.4 X 10^13 Joules per square kilometer per year so 4.2 million square kilometers would be needed to meet US energy needs. That is 1.6 million square miles or 42% of the entire US land area covered by a slime swamp! An absolutely Jurassic vision.

Mariss

P.S. Even using your "15,000 gallon" number means covering Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and you would still be 4,000 sq miles short.

Mariss, If what you say is true we're doomed, to quote Charley Brown. I can't believe the numbers are that bad! I'll run this by my friend and get back at you, he's a no BS kind of guy. A nuclear physicist, a certified genius a little crazy like me.

xyzdonna,

Numbers is numbers.:-) A trusty calculator, Google, a pencil and paper is all you need. Mostly thanks to you, I hadn't realized what a monumentally pointless dead end all the alternate energy schemes are until I looked into it last Sunday. That opened my eyes.

Doomed? If you run into a burning house, you are doomed. If you realize it's burning and run the other way, you'll live to see another day. This alternate energy thing is a burning house.

Mariss

Reading for your coffee break.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=145246

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=145245

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=145246

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=145245

These documents effectively state there is no GW problem.

Waiting for xyzdonna and alexccmeister to pipe-up here: "Shouldn't we be reducing CO2 and other pollution anyway, just to be on the safe side?"

These documents effectively state there is no GW problem.

Waiting for xyzdonna and alexccmeister to pipe-up here: "Shouldn't we be reducing CO2 and other pollution anyway, just to be on the safe side?"

No not really, well I think not really. Here is my take: They show that the recent 'surge' that is 'anthropogenic' is not a surge and is not out of line with what has happened during similar intervals at times when the claim fo anthropogenic influence is not made.

I think it is necessary to be careful and consider things separately. I have posted this before, there are three questions to answer; is global warming occurring; is due it to human activity; can we do anything about it?

The first answer is yes and it is silly to claim otherwise because there is ample evidence in glacier melt back, plants germinating earlier on average in spring time, insects species being found further north.

The second answer is 'not proven'. Human activity may be having some influence but there is nothing in the hard data that can prove it one way or the other. The CO2 increase is probably largely due to human activity burning fossil fuels; changes in carbon isotope ratios suggest this. But any other conclusions rests on so many assumptions and so much data manipulation it is smoke and mirrors.

The third answer is no. Well not without reverting back to a primitive agrarian existance as Mariss puts it, and having around 80% of the world population die of starvation.

Reading for your coffee break.

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=145246


Dear Geof,

Thank-you for the two links.

This first one made me laugh. A while ago I posted something about CC conferences always being in places like Phuket, rather than Margate or some breezy UK seaside town.

Presumably the international "pink snouts in the trough" delegates walked there to avoid the ghastly global consequences of air travel, and will not be using the air-con.

Yeah, right...

Best wishes,

Martin

...is global warming occurring;...? The first answer is yes...

When I said GW is not a problem, I mean it is not a problem; as opposed to not happening at all.

Anyway, as usual you wrote a good summary.

A while ago I posted something about CC conferences always being in places like Phuket, rather than Margate or some breezy UK seaside town.

The reason for going to warm places where you will need to use A/C is to help support the idea that things are getting too hot. Just imagine a GW conference being cancelled due to a snow storm... And I know this has actually happened.

When I said GW is not a problem, I mean it is not a problem; as opposed to not happening at all.

Anyway, as usual you wrote a good summary.

I am not too sure it is not a problem natural or not; whatever the cause if sea levels come up a meter I am going to have a very damp basement. :drowning: Or at least my grandchildren are :). Or great grand children could be more likely.

Hi all,
I caught Dr. Reid A. Bryson on TV this morning, interresting quy, some call him the father of climatology.
Quoting:
http://www.wecnmagazine.com/2007issues/may/may07.html#1
Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate.
“I was laughed off the platform for saying that,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

That's what he says and he's a sharp ol bird, who knows. Me I'm scared. I don't know the science but something is happening.
Donna

Uh huh.. "I'm scared", "something is happening", "I don't know science". Back to that again. Here I thought we were making some real progress.:-)

How does "human activity could alter climate" square with "not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”? His conclusion are contradictory.

By the way, how did things check out with your certified genius?

Mariss

....How does "human activity could alter climate" square with "not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”? His conclusion are contradictory....

Contradictory over a forty year time span. So, in my view not really contradictory, you have to take each statement independently and review it in the light of what was known at the time and also the person's state of knowledge development.

Uh huh.. "I'm scared", "something is happening", "I don't know science". Back to that again. Here I thought we were making some real progress.:-)

How does "human activity could alter climate" square with "not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”? His conclusion are contradictory.

By the way, how did things check out with your certified genius?

Mariss

By the way, how did things check out with your certified genius?

Hi Mariss,
Suffice it to say he was not pleased. Before I can post what he said I'll have to doctor it up somewhat. Delete a few expletives and what not.
Donna

By the way, how did things check out with your certified genius?

Hi Mariss,
Suffice it to say he was not pleased. Before I can post what he said I'll have to doctor it up somewhat. Delete a few expletives and what not.
Donna

Ah go on, just put in a few asterixes and put it up verbatim; you harm your credibility sucggesting you will delete 'what not'. And it is fun reading the opinions of 'certified genii'; almost as much fun as listening to 'intellectuals'.

Geof,

So, It take it to mean his more recent conclusion is the operative one, i.e. “Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air.”

OK, there you have it; human activity is not the cause of Global Warming.:-)

Mariss

Ah go on, just put in a few asterixes and put it up verbatim; you harm your credibility sucggesting you will delete 'what not'. And it is fun reading the opinions of 'certified genii'; almost as much fun as listening to 'intellectuals'.

I should mention that John is somewhat right wing, he raises hell with me for being a liberal. BTW I did look up the definition of a Quad, it's 10^15 BTU.
TVA stands for Tennessee Valley Authority, they supply the electricity around here.
But OK, you asked for it, here is Johns reply:

Quoting from John:
Right, wrong, who knows? Anyone who'd throw around any unit of measure with an
exponent that large hasn't a clue. Is it 10^23 or ^22 or ^24? Would he know the
difference? I wouldn't. Heck, Avagadro's number, the number of atoms or molecules
in a mole of a substance is 6.022*10^23. Do I have any concept of how many that is?
Hell no.

FYI, the unit of national energy consumption normally used in actual real studies is
the "quad". I believe that stands for quadrillion BTU but don't hold me to it. In
any event, it results in nice small numbers that one can get his mind around.

People who engage in these sorts of arguments are what I call "bookshelf warriors".
They don't have any actual experience or training to draw on so instead they reach
for their bookshelves (or the internet equivalent) and sling "facts" and figures that
they haven't a clue as to the veracity. When I see someone doing that, this image
always jumps to mind:

http://jabusites.1hwy.com/images/naked_fat_man.jpg

This guy is correct about solar being a dead end but for mostly all the wrong
reasons. Rather than quoting big impressive numbers of dubious origin, I ask you to
consider this smaller and more mundane example. Look around the net until you find a
photo of a house that has converted to solar power. Not one of those eco-nuts who
shivers in the dark and reads by LED flashlight, but a conventional house like you
and I would live in, complete with AC and appliances, that gets its power from solar
panels instead of TVA.

Look at the size of them ****ers! Sheets of silicon everywhere. And look at the
price. I used to subscribe to "HomePower" Magazine before they went over the
eco-loonie edge. In one of the last issues I got was an article on the conversion of
a small office to solar. The cost was over $40,000. Damn!

The automatic response of the loonies is "subsidies will make them affordable".
"Subsidy" means having the government take money from you and me at the point of a
gun and giving it to someone else who didn't earn it. Just remember that "subsidy"
is another word for "government sanctioned theft". Don't think that will work.

That's one issue but it's a relatively minor one in terms of energy supply. In
common with the other sources of energy that rely on ephermal natural actions (wind,
waves, etc), the sun has a nasty way of going away, sometimes very rapidly and for
long periods.

Consider Chattanooga. If my fuzzy memory is working, Chattanooga requires about 600
megawatts, averaged over a year. Let's suppose half the load were transferred to
solar. Ignore the capital cost and the ugly factor for a moment. Now suppose one of
those afternoon thunderstorms blows up that we're all so familiar with. When the sun
goes behind the clouds, that 300 megawatts of solar generation instantly goes away.

Folks don't like their lights to go off so good ole TVA has to be able to fill in.
That means that they have to have rotating reserves lying in wait, ready to pick up
the load literally at a moment's notice. It should be evident that the solar
generation saved little. TVA had to have the reserves in place, fired up and ready
to go. The reserves would likely be gas turbines, the most expensive large
generation there is to operate. The cheap generation, nukes and coal, can't respond
fast enough.

Or consider our lovely winter weather when we're socked in with clouds for weeks at a
time. Solar isn't working there either. TVA again has to fill the gap. They won't
run the expensive peaking generation for that long a duration. That requires base
load generation. The base load generators have to be there. That is, they have to
have been built and paid for. Now comes sunny weather again and the solar cells perk
back to life. All this expensive base load generation is now sitting idle. All that
capital is tied up in non-revenue producing hardware. That isn't the way to run a
utility. That also isn't the way to generate cheap electricity.

The bleary-eyed radicals love to shout at us utility types that we're
knuckle-dragging troglodytes for opposing such "enlightened" concepts as "alternative
energy". Quite the contrary. We simply believe that it is quite important that when
you flip a light switch that the light actually come on. Every time. We can't
afford to "make statements" and other balderdash when simple math shows that such
actions would de-stabilize the grid. Believe it or not, us utility types really do
know more about generating reliable and cheap electricity than those granola-munching
green weenies. If some folks want their lights to go off every night then they're
free to move to South America or Africa.

Another consideration is that these green weenies have no concept of scale or
magnitude. After all, a megawatt isn't much different than kilowatt, right? Just
different letters involved.

Let's consider two familiar local structures, Sequoyah nuclear plant and the
Chickamauga dam. They're about the same physical size so they have to generate about
the same amount of power, right? Wrong. Sequoyah generates almost 15 times as much
electricity.

Chickamauga generates 160 megawatts of power - when there is enough water to run all
the turbines.

http://www.tva.com/sites/chickamauga.htm

Sequoyah currently generates 22,000 megawatts. That's at the present. TVA is in the
process of uprating the Sequoyah generators. That should be good for another 200-300
megawatts. The Nuclear Steam Supply System was designed with uprating in mind, once
the design was proven entirely safe and reliable.

Heck, the standby-diesel generators at Sequoyah make almost as much power as
Chickamauga. Sequoyah needs around 100 megawatts just to start up! A joke at TVA
used to be that we really ought to just run a cable over to Dupont from Chickamauga,
since Dupont consumes essentially all that Chickamauga makes.

Let's consider another aspect of the green loony agenda - electric cars. I happen to
know a thing or three about EVs since I own several. Let's run some numbers and see
what the effect would be on the electrical grid of any significant BEV (battery EV)
market penetration.

A mid-sized BEV now achieves around 400 watt-hours per mile. Let's say one drives 25
miles round trip to work. I think that the government says that's a national
average. That would be 400*25 = 10,000 watt-hours or 10kWh. Given a 5 day work
week, that's 5*4*10 = 200kWh a month.

TVA says that the average residential electric bill is now around $60 (from fuzzy
memory, in case some bookshelf warrior finds other numbers. In any event, that's a
good enough number). At 8 cents/kWh, that's 750kWh a month. Let's suppose now that
we get a BEV and add that 200kWh to the monthly consumption. The average residential
demand has now risen 750/200+750 = 21%.

Let's put that in perspective for the grid. Back in the good old days before
eco-nazis and overbearing government regulation, when the utilities could run their
operations according to best practices, the practice was to keep about 10% of the
demand available in ready reserves and 1-3% in rotating reserves. "Ready reserves"
are generators that are ready to run, are not running but can be started with a few
hours' notice. A coal plant in hot standby, for example. "Rotating reserves" are
generators capable of rapid load acceptance that are fired off but are carrying
little load.

Rotating reserves pick up the load every night when everyone comes home from work,
turns the TV on and starts cooking supper. Ready reserves handle seasonal load
variations and deficits left when plants go down for maintenance.

A 21% increase in the grid's load would completely swamp all reserves, ready or
rotating. No utility could supply that increase in load without a massive power
plant building campaign. The problem is, the same eco-loons who advocate massive
forced conversion to EV transportation are the ones who erect pickets and file
lawsuits at the mere mention of building new power plants.

Let's suppose that somehow the utility could build the new plants. The distribution
grid could not handle the load. Again, because of obstructions from the greenies, it
has become almost impossible to build major new transmission lines. Utilities have
been having to make do for decades. The major make-do is overloading existing lines.
An overloaded line that got hot enough to sag into trees is what caused that big
northeastern blackout of a few years ago. Other techniques involve stacking new
conductors on top of old on existing towers. Few towers can handle the extra load
without major upgrades.

These are, of course, all political problems. The solution is to do as the French
did. The French government long ago declared that the energy supply was a national
security matter and so they did what was necessary, often behind military-like
secrecy and without allowing any interference from the public. That's why France's
energy situation is the best in the world, with almost all their power coming from
nuclear. The same thing needs to happen here.

John

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 21:22:24 -0500, <xdonna@comcast.net> wrote:

>Thanks for that John I posted that to the list. Now maybe you can help me
>out with what Mariss is saying. He's saying solar energy won't solve our
>energy problems. I quote:
>
>I guess I didn't get my point across; solar energy is feeble and all
>"alternate energy" is solar.
>
>Sun energy falling on the US in 1 year: 1 X 10^23 Joules.
>Total US energy consumption in 1 year: 1 X 10^20 Joules.
>US land area: 1 X 10^7 Km^2.
>
>If you could convert 100% solar to fuel, then an absolute minimum of 0.1% of
>the US must be covered with solar collector area (solar cells, farmland or
>algae swamps). That is 10,000 square kilometers or 3,900 square miles. That
>is more than Delaware and Rhode Island put together.
>
>But wait, it gets far worse. Algae Oil yields 2.4 X 10^13 Joules per square
>kilometer per year so 4.2 million square kilometers would be needed to meet
>US energy needs. That is 1.6 million square miles or 42% of the entire US
>land area covered by a slime swamp! An absolutely Jurassic vision.
>
>Mariss

>Does this sound correct to you?

...OK, there you have it; human activity is not the cause of Global Warming.:-)

Mariss

Which thread has the thing from the Hudson Institute quoting 500 scientists who believe that is the case?

I should mention that John is somewhat right wing, he raises hell with me for being a liberal. BTW I did look up the definition of a Quad, it's 10^15 BTU.
TVA stands for Tennessee Valley Authority, they supply the electricity around here.
But OK, you asked for it, here is Johns reply: .....

Donna, Donna, Donna, do you read what you post???

First let me mention that I do, and did many decades ago, know what TVA stands for.

I will cease being slightly disparaging and referring to your friend as a certified genius.

John's reply parallels almost exactly what Mariss and I have been saying. Different words, slightly more colorful phrasing, possibly a bit more arrogant but the deviation in overall sentiment is negligible.

Or perhaps I am not reading it correctly? We will have to wait on Mariss' comments.

Seams like a blatant flip flop to me as well!

Geof ,
He may not be a certified genius, but certainly makes sense to me. Especially in referance to "Green Weenies" (SNARF....!!!) and his assessment of certain "bookshelf" types!

Now I know that man kind never made progress till one generation could pass knowledge to all subsequent generations in the form of the written word. It is when that is the sole source of edification that one gets into the "loony valley" with no practical sense at all.

Walla, Algore, et al!

Donna, Donna, Donna, do you read what you post???


John's reply parallels almost exactly what Mariss and I have been saying. Different words, slightly more colorful phrasing, possibly a bit more arrogant but the deviation in overall sentiment is negligible.

Or perhaps I am not reading it correctly? We will have to wait on Mariss' comments.

Hi Geof,
I didn't say he was going to agree with me. On the contrary. He's slightly right of right wing. Interesting guy though. Fun to talk to and very opinionated. Arrogant? Yup, that's John, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly. He's put me in my place a few times.
Donna

Quoting from John:
...
Look at the size of them ****ers! Sheets of silicon everywhere. And look at the price. I used to subscribe to "HomePower" Magazine before they went over the eco-loonie edge. In one of the last issues I got was an article on the conversion of a small office to solar.
...


See attachment for the panels on my house.

There are 24 24x48 inch panels. My meter spins backwards during the day, even on cloudy days. It runs the house when the power goes out, and if I wanted to get a bank of batteries and go off the grid, I probably could without adding more panels. They came with the house when I bought it over 2 years ago, so I didn't really notice the cost.

I have to completely disagree (from personal experience) that solar is a dead end, especially considering that they're getting more and more effecient and cost effective.

...Arrogant? Yup, that's John, and he doesn't suffer fools gladly. He's put me in my place a few times.
Donna

But who are the fools he is not suffering? He agrees with us, that is Mariss and me.

I will say though that he is making the same error you are making and that is not listening tol, or reading all the words and fully understanding the meaning intended to be conveyed. His response suggests he has interpreted what you said (or wrote) as being pro-solar, pro-alternate energy and anti-nuclear and in response has dumped on it and said tactless things about the person you were ascribing it to. It appears to me that he jumped to the conclusion you were asking for an opinion on something proposed by a liberal greenie, and gave a knee-jerk response with the emphasis on jerk.

Seams like a blatant flip flop to me as well!

No, not really, it is obvious that John is of pretty much the same view as us. He has just jumped to a wrong conclusion that we differ with him.

xyzdonna,

Aw geez,...that kinda hurts.:-) As a certified non-genius EE, I use "big numbers" in my daily work so I have a passing familiarity with them. At one end a femto-amp is 1 X 10^-15 Amps, and at the other end 100 giga-ohms is 1X 10^14 Ohms. These are numbers whose scale I grasp and use. The dynamic range of my EE world is about 1 : 1 X 10^30. Caution; I have a scientific calculator and I know how to use it.:-)

I don't know about being a "bookshelf warrior" but I do know how to get information. Yes, I used the internet to get the total mean annual US insolation at the surface as 250 Watts / m^2. Looked up several sources for that number even. I also used the internet to get the US land area as being approximately 1 X 10^7 Km^2. I figured one source would do.

I like to use Joules as a unit of energy. Even real live Scientists use Joules for that purpose. BTU (British Thermal Unit) is not an SI unit so I don't bother with it. Instead I use my calculator and "roll my own" data. Let's do math!

1 Watt-second is a Joule. There are 3,600 seconds in an hour, 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year, so:

250W * 3600 sec * 24 Hr * 365 days = 7.9 X 10^9 Joules / square meter / year.

A square Km is 1,000 * 1,000 m^2 or 1 X 10^6 square meters. The US land area is 1 X 10^7 Km^2 so the US is 1 X 10^6 * 1 X 10^7 or 1 X 10^13 square meters. OK, we're nearly there.

7.9 X 10^9 Joules * 1 X 10^13 square meters = 7.9 X 10^22 Joules for the mean annual US insolation. I took the liberty of rounding it off to 1 X 10^23 Joules.

There, that wasn't so bad, was it? You can actually calculate your own data using just a few constants (250W, 10-million square Km). I did the rest of the calculations in a similar fashion to arrive at the numbers that formed my conclusions.

Mariss

P.S. I like your friend's no B***S*** attitude. My kind of person.

But who are the fools he is not suffering? He agrees with us, that is Mariss and me.

I will say though that he is making the same error you are making and that is not listening tol, or reading all the words and fully understanding the meaning intended to be conveyed. His response suggests he has interpreted what you said (or wrote) as being pro-solar, pro-alternate energy and anti-nuclear and in response has dumped on it and said tactless things about the person you were ascribing it to. It appears to me that he jumped to the conclusion you were asking for an opinion on something proposed by a liberal greenie, and gave a knee-jerk response with the emphasis on jerk.

Yup, by fool he didn't suffer gladly I meant myself. He agrees with you and Mariss. I think he just didn't like all the exponents Mariss was bandying about. He knows I'm pro-solar/alternate energy and I think what he was saying is it wasn't practical. It would screw up the electrical grid. You'd still have to have just as much generating capacity available for when the sun went away and everybody went back to the grid. For what it's worth, I'm not anti neuclear. It is my fervent hope that we could develop alternative liquid fuels for automobiles. Algea into biodiesel. Mariss doesn't think this is possible. I just don't know.
John is an interesting character, when he worked for TVA they sent him to engineering school and paid him to go. Not many companies will do that. He's supposed to come down for a visit in a few weeks and of course I'll ply more interesting tidbits out of him. We have some good conversations. He had a laboratory in his house when he lived in Cleveland, TN. I used to love to go in there and see all the neat stuff he was working on. He was into neon at the time and he was pumping glass tubes with all sorts of esoteric gases. I'll bet no one here has heard of uranium glass. It's radioactive glass that was made in the early 1900's. He had some pumped with argon and mercury vapor. It gave off the strangest most ethereal yellow glow I've ever seen.
xyzdonna

... I'll bet no one here has heard of uranium glass. It's radioactive glass that was made in the early 1900's. He had some pumped with argon and mercury vapor. It gave off the strangest most ethereal yellow glow I've ever seen.
xyzdonna

There you go again assuming your audience is uninformed. Uranium gas made even early than the 1900's in Bohemia now part of the Czeck Republic. Been there actually, twice, my spouse imports antiques including uranium glass antiques from there on a small scale. Actually I should be precise; she got some items that were claimed to be uranium glass but we suspect she was diddled because they do not fluoresce correctly under UV.

And regarding large exponents does he really know what Avogadro's number is? I used to keep things like that in my head; it is more or less expected of you when you are a graduate student in chemistry. I have to admit I had to check the exact number; memory fails a bit after thirty years.

And with a friend like John why are you still clinging to the forlorn hope that solar or wind or algae or anything else can substitute for fossil fuels?

You should ask John about his opinion on the chances of building enough Nuke Plants to substitute for 50% of the world's current energy consumption of fossil fuels by 2050. Or is he one of these physicists like Freeman Dyson who figures on genetically modifying humans to live directly from sunlight or colonize the planets or some other kokamaimee idea.

There you go again assuming your audience is uninformed. Uranium gas made even early than the 1900's in Bohemia now part of the Czeck Republic. Been there actually, twice, my spouse imports antiques including uranium glass antiques from there on a small scale. Actually I should be precise; she got some items that were claimed to be uranium glass but we suspect she was diddled because they do not fluoresce correctly under UV.

And regarding large exponents does he really know what Avogadro's number is? I used to keep things like that in my head; it is more or less expected of you when you are a graduate student in chemistry. I have to admit I had to check the exact number; memory fails a bit after thirty years.

And with a friend like John why are you still clinging to the forlorn hope that solar or wind or algae or anything else can substitute for fossil fuels?

You should ask John about his opinion on the chances of building enough Nuke Plants to substitute for 50% of the world's current energy consumption of fossil fuels by 2050. Or is he one of these physicists like Freeman Dyson who figures on genetically modifying humans to live directly from sunlight or colonize the planets or some other kokamaimee idea.

Hi Geof,

Geof said: There you go again assuming your audience is uninformed. Uranium gas made even early than the 1900's in Bohemia now part of the Czeck Republic. Been there actually, twice, my spouse imports antiques including uranium glass antiques from there on a small scale.

WOW, I didn't know that! Made before 1900 eh, amazing. Now you know, I love talking with people who know more than I do. I learn so much. All my friends know more than me. I like to be the dumbest person in my group. I learn and people cut me some slack. I don't have a big ego to maintain.
xyzdonna

..... I don't have a big ego to maintain.
xyzdonna

That is the difference; we do. :D:D:D It's a men thing you know.

The reason for going to warm places where you will need to use A/C is to help support the idea that things are getting too hot. Just imagine a GW conference being cancelled due to a snow storm... And I know this has actually happened.

Dear dynosor,

Do tell......

Best wishes.

Martin

Hi Geof,

Geof said: There you go again assuming your audience is uninformed. Uranium gas made even early than the 1900's in Bohemia now part of the Czeck Republic. Been there actually, twice, my spouse imports antiques including uranium glass antiques from there on a small scale.

WOW, I didn't know that! Made before 1900 eh, amazing. Now you know, I love talking with people who know more than I do. I learn so much. All my friends know more than me. I like to be the dumbest person in my group. I learn and people cut me some slack. I don't have a big ego to maintain.
xyzdonna

xyzDonna

I wouldn't boast of such things. Makes the rest of us who aren't dumb feel like we're dealing with special-ed kids...and that requires a degree. I suppose that those of us non "certified genius" people without a wall full of degrees are just completely useless? Considering that I was reading at a college sophomore level in 5th grade, skipped a grade and turned down TWO scholarships to West Point, I don't feel like I've missed out on much life having skipped the route through academia. I also don't have a large ego to stroke...in fact I pointed out three facts about my "intelligence" as a balm for your naivete in accepting that because someone is more intelligent than you, that they must in fact be a "certified genius". Now please let the grownups talk and stop stirring the pot. You must be so used to the smell of bull**** that you enjoy it.

... Now please let the grownups talk and stop stirring the pot. You must be so used to the smell of bull**** that you enjoy it.

WYLD can't we have some fun? I get enough serious stuff during the day figuring out how to make things cheap enough and good enough so they will sell at a good price giving me a bit left over at the end of everything. I need some relaxation. :D And just think of the satisfaction we must be giving the certified genius; surely it is worthwhile making your fellow human being happy?

More coffee time reading. Not as funny as the Crosby Hope version.

If the links don't work I will try to find better ones.

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=eec03f41-5fa7-41b9-b179-614151eaf15e&k=87348

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=eec03f41-5fa7-41b9-b179-614151eaf15e&k=87348&p=2

xyzDonna

I wouldn't boast of such things. Makes the rest of us who aren't dumb feel like we're dealing with special-ed kids...and that requires a degree. I suppose that those of us non "certified genius" people without a wall full of degrees are just completely useless? Considering that I was reading at a college sophomore level in 5th grade, skipped a grade and turned down TWO scholarships to West Point, I don't feel like I've missed out on much life having skipped the route through academia. I also don't have a large ego to stroke...in fact I pointed out three facts about my "intelligence" as a balm for your naivete in accepting that because someone is more intelligent than you, that they must in fact be a "certified genius". Now please let the grownups talk and stop stirring the pot. You must be so used to the smell of bull**** that you enjoy it.

Hi WYLD,
What's the old addage, "a fool can ask questions a wise man can't answer"? Sometimes a plain o'l ordinary person can posit questions of those that know more and take the thinking to another level. That I've always been good at. So that no one feels put down by John's wrath I should mention that much of it was directed at me! I remember running the Roswell incident by him one time and that may have been a dig at your's truly. I don't take it personal, it's just not always possible to get a reply out of him unless I get him mad. Then he waxes eloquent.
xyzdonna

See attachment for the panels on my house.

There are 24 24x48 inch panels. My meter spins backwards during the day, even on cloudy days. It runs the house when the power goes out, and if I wanted to get a bank of batteries and go off the grid, I probably could without adding more panels. They came with the house when I bought it over 2 years ago, so I didn't really notice the cost.

I have to completely disagree (from personal experience) that solar is a dead end, especially considering that they're getting more and more effecient and cost effective.

Hi Rekd,
Now that is interesting and hopeful as well! I think John's point was that if everybody did that it would totally mess up the electrical grid, there would have to be some mechanism for people with solar systems to come back on the grid during off peak times. If everyone came on at once during sunset it would require as much generating capacity as without solar. Well, that proves the point though, solar is practicabable.
xyzdonna

More coffee time reading. Not as funny as the Crosby Hope version.

If the links don't work I will try to find better ones.

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=eec03f41-5fa7-41b9-b179-614151eaf15e&k=87348

http://www.financialpost.com/analysis/story.html?id=eec03f41-5fa7-41b9-b179-614151eaf15e&k=87348&p=2

Now Geof,
Didn't you read that post from that guy who went over to China and couldn't see the sky? Don't forget Mariss went he first went to California and his eyes burned from the polution. We don't want people selling stuff to us who are unfairly competing while trashing the planet. Then they have the audacity to want to ask us to pay for their cleaning up their polution problems so that they can sell stuff to us cheaper than we can make it!
Did I mention that I'm not a knee jerk liberal, sometimes I can take the conservative postion as well. In those rare instances when it makes sense.
xyzdonna

Now Geof,
Didn't you read that post from that guy who went over to China and couldn't see the sky? Don't forget Mariss went he first went to California and his eyes burned from the polution....

Cleaning up pollution has little to do with preventing global warming. Actually it is possible that energy consumption can increase simply because a generating station needs to use some of the energy to run the systems that do the clean up.

Yes China does need to clean things up but your point about 'selling' and trashing has it half way backwards. Who are the people buying? The people who will by cheap trash they mostly like do not really need from a place that is trashing (more or less on the buyer's behalf in a sense) rather than buy quality products in the amounts they do need from their domestic manufacturers?

And regarding your adage: Perhaps an additional difference between fools and wise people is that while wise people ask fewer questions they listen to the answers.

There is a huge solar-electric installation at Barstow, CA. Must have cost millions of bucks to build and yet each time I've driven past it for a couple of years it's been shut down even on the hottest sunny days.

Could it be that it is costing more to run than it produces?

I think I smell a rat in there somewhere!

More coffee time reading. This one is bound to get the greenies buzzing.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=150830

Me again,
Ya'll might want to examine this:
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html

I quote: Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources. We found that at NREL's yield rates, 15,000 square miles (3.85 million hectares) of algae ponds would be needed to replace all petroleum transportation fuels with biodiesel. At the cost of $80,000 per hectare, that would work out to roughly $308 billion to build the farms.
Hmmm, That's roughly one third of what the idiot in chief has spent on the Iraq war trying to steal their oil. Sounds like a bargain to me.
xyzdonna
PS: Don't discount it completely Mariss!

..........idiot in chief has spent on the Iraq war trying to steal their oil. ................


A statement like this disqualifies anything else one might have to say. The man is a graduate from an Ivy League college with pretty good marks and a jet pilot to boot. That's no dummy.

Where is all that stolen oil? Why wouldn't we just have taken the oil in Kuwait? Or Mexico? Cuba? Argentina? Venezuela?

And then we are supposed to believe that some group can replace oil with a bunch of cesspools?

Imagine the fuss over the environmental impact reports there! We can't even build a Walmart!! That says nothing of the NIMBY crowd!

PLEASE!!!!!

...I quote: Ponds equivalent to their design could be built around the country, using wastewater streams (human, animal, and agricultural) as feed sources...

Okay I will stand in for Mariss and discount it for the reason embodied in the part of the quote I retained.

jhowelb has it correct "cesspools". Well maybe that is an overstatement but not much. Your proposed feedstock, wastewater, is available at a location that is not going to be suitable for the ponds, ergo, you need to transport a dilute, high volume feedstock long distances. No matter what some high-falutin academic says with long and short words it will not work.

Every community has a waste water facility, some cities (Phoenix, Az for one) have harnessed the methane (gasp! a GREENHOUSE gas!) to create enough energy to operate the plant and to put some juice back on the grid. STILL a very long way from replacing petrol. That is, after all, the genie that made modern civilization possible. Without it and coal the industrial revolution would have fizzled right after all the forests were consumed.

The real problem is that NONE of us has a real grasp of just how much energy it takes to make the 21st century tick!!

.....The real problem is that NONE of us has a real grasp of just how much energy it takes to make the 21st century tick!!

Most people simply do not recognize that energy consumption is embodied in everything. They just think of what they use personally for automobile use or home heating which it is possible to cut back on by quite a bit just by driving less or wearing more warm clothes in the winter.

I think it is very likely an amount of energy possibly similar to these two combined may be consumed in growing, processing and distributing a person's food requirement. This one is not easy to cut back on siginificantly without eating less or changing eating habits and moving away from meat. Although less food in total and less meat in particular would probably improve overall health for many people.

........ Although less food in total and less meat in particular would probably improve overall health for many people.

EEHHH..........NO, that would result in much more (GASP!......OH NO!) methane to be released!

EVERY item one sees or touches in todays world required energy to produce.

A wise man once told me that there is no such thing a work saving device. Devices cause some one or something else to do the work. Same amount of work, some one else does it.

EEHHH..........NO, that would result in much more (GASP!......OH NO!) methane to be released!.....

No, less methane. Less meat consumption means fewer cows, steers, beefs, whatever you call them, means fewer cow belches and farts means less methane. And all the grain that is not fed to the bovines can be used to make ethanol. Double win situation.

And it doesn't affect me in the least, I don't eat meat anyway :).

Let's face it, the only way to solve this is for 90% of mankind to cease to exist and the rest to return to an agrarian life style.

Now let me guess just who would be the ones to make the necessary decisions.........

OF COURSE! OBVIOUSLY it would be the one with the VISION to see the problem in the first place, those illuminated ones!

Beg your pardon, I KNOW what cabbage and beans do to ME!