or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The biggest threat to the global warming scaremongers - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The biggest threat to the global warming scaremongers - Reality - Page 2

post #41 of 111
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_889897.html

Apparently, China is doing their part to combat global warming (jazzy, you'll love this one).
post #42 of 111
Haha! Thanks, ton!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #43 of 111
"Recent Carbon Trust research has shown that consumer demand for lower-carbon products and services is growing, despite the tough economic climate. The research also reveals that consumers are more aware that the products they buy come at a high price in terms of carbon emissions across the supply chain.


The Carbon Trust figures also reveal that 45% of shoppers would be prepared to stop buying their favourite brands if they refused to commit to measuring their product's carbon footprint, a rate that has doubled over the past year from 22%. Brand loyalty is also at stake: 56% of people would be more loyal to a brand if they could see at a glance that it was taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint.


The Centre for Retail Research predicted that sales of products with carbon labels will surge to £15.2 billion by 2015.

Consumer buying habits are constantly changing and evolving. If businesses don't act on carbon now and engage with consumers who are searching for information, they risk being left behind."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...onsumer-demand
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #44 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

"Recent Carbon Trust research has shown that consumer demand for lower-carbon products and services is growing, despite the tough economic climate. The research also reveals that consumers are more aware that the products they buy come at a high price in terms of carbon emissions across the supply chain.


The Carbon Trust figures also reveal that 45% of shoppers would be prepared to stop buying their favourite brands if they refused to commit to measuring their product's carbon footprint, a rate that has doubled over the past year from 22%. Brand loyalty is also at stake: 56% of people would be more loyal to a brand if they could see at a glance that it was taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint.


The Centre for Retail Research predicted that sales of products with carbon labels will surge to £15.2 billion by 2015.

Consumer buying habits are constantly changing and evolving. If businesses don't act on carbon now and engage with consumers who are searching for information, they risk being left behind."
~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...onsumer-demand

Of course. That story is from The Guardian. Meanwhile, people in the US are still buying gas guzzlers and they're proud of it.
post #45 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Of course. That story is from The Guardian. Meanwhile, people in the US are still buying gas guzzlers and they're proud of it.


They won't be so proud when Europe has not just cleaner air, (Americans spend a vast amount on healthcare resulting from air pollution and hundreds of thousands die from it each year) but a big market for cleaner products. The Europeans will buy less dirty products from the US and export more of their cleaner products to the US. It isn't far off that clean electricity just on a per watt basis will be cheaper than coal too, much cheaper.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #46 of 111
Hands, can you point us to information backing up your claim that hundreds of thousands of Americans die from air pollution each year?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #47 of 111
The UK has just more than doubled it's estimates of deaths from air pollution each year from 24,000 to 50,000. That in a country of only 60 million people.

It's now been proved that PFR's are being emitted from car exhausts and power stations. The US has more vehicle pollution than the Uk so expect the current US figures of around 70,000 deaths to be raised too. The US has nearly 5 times the population of the UK and far more air pollution from cars, which would take the US up to about 250,000 deaths, at least, a year.

Here's just how important these new discoveries are proving to be-

A previously unrecognized group of air pollutants could have effects remarkably similar to harmful substances found in tobacco smoke, Louisiana scientists are reporting in a study scheduled for presentation today at the 236th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society. Inhaling those pollutants exposes the average person up to 300 times more free radicals daily than from smoking one cigarette, they added.

The discovery could help explain the long-standing medical mystery of why non-smokers develop tobacco-related diseases like lung cancer, said H. Barry Dellinger, Ph.D., the Patrick F. Taylor Chair of Environmental Chemistry at Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge.

"Free radicals from tobacco smoke have long been suspected of having extremely harmful effects on the body," Dellinger said. "Based on our work, we now know that free radicals similar to those in cigarettes are also found in airborne fine particles and potentially can cause many of the same life-threatening conditions. This is a staggering, but not unbelievable result, when one considers all of diseases in the world that cannot currently be attributed to a specific origin."

Scientists have long known that free radicals exist in the atmosphere. These atoms, molecules, and fragments of molecules are highly reactive and damage cells in the body. Free radicals form during the burning of fuels or in photochemical processes like those that form ozone. Most of these previously identified atmospheric free radicals form as gases, exist for less than one second, and disappear. In contrast, the newly detected molecules — which Dellinger terms persistent free radicals (PFRs) — form on airborne nanoparticles and other fine particle residues as gases cool in smokestacks, automotive exhaust pipes and household chimneys. Particles that contain metals, such as copper and iron, are the most likely to persist, he said. Unlike other atmospheric free radicals, PFRs can linger in the air and travel great distances.

"You basically have to be in certain places to inhale transient gas-phase radicals," Dellinger said. "You'd have to be right next to a road when a car passes, for example. Whereas we found that persistent radicals can last indefinitely on airborne fine particles. So you're never going to get away from them."
~ http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-nda072308.php
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #48 of 111
That's very interesting information, Hands.

Now it's clearer to me how you arrived at that figure: pure speculation.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #49 of 111
France becomes the first country to ban fracking-

"France has become the first country to ban fracking. The drilling technique has come under increased scrutiny due to a rapid increase in its use for the production of shale gas. Bloomberg reports:
Energy companies that plan to use fracking to produce oil and gas in France will have their permits revoked and its use could lead to fines and prison, according to the law passed by a vote of 176 in favor, 151 against by the senators in Paris.
Under the bill approved yesterday, companies with exploration permits will have two months to declare whether they intend to use hydraulic fracturing. If they do, their permits will be revoked."
~ http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...for-shale-gas/
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #50 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

They won't be so proud when Europe has not just cleaner air, (Americans spend a vast amount on healthcare resulting from air pollution and hundreds of thousands die from it each year) but a big market for cleaner products. The Europeans will buy less dirty products from the US and export more of their cleaner products to the US. It isn't far off that clean electricity just on a per watt basis will be cheaper than coal too, much cheaper.

Based on all the coal plants they are building over there, I doubt that is true. Nuclear plants are much easier on your lungs.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #51 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Based on all the coal plants they are building over there, I doubt that is true. Nuclear plants are much easier on your lungs.

Europe isn't building lots of new coal plants. Most of the one's that had been planned have already been dropped or stand no chance of ever being allowed to be built. Some may still end up being built, but it's likely to be very few. CCS (carbon capture and storage) reduce the co2 output by up to 90% and the first one in the world is likely to be built in the UK. Those may end up replacing some of the old coal plants, but mostly they'll be replaced by renewables.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #52 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Europe isn't building lots of new coal plants. Most of the one's that had been planned have already been dropped or stand no chance of ever being allowed to be built. Some may still end up being built, but it's likely to be very few. CCS (carbon capture and storage) reduce the co2 output by up to 90% and the first one in the world is likely to be built in the UK. Those may end up replacing some of the old coal plants, but mostly they'll be replaced by renewables.

I don't think you are correct there - I have been reading tons of articles on new European coal plants, 53 under construction in Germany alone. And since they decided to go no-Nuclear due to the scaremongering, it will only get worse.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #53 of 111
"According to a recent BBC new report, studies have shown that air pollution is responsible for 310,000 premature deaths in Europe each year."
~ http://www.bradfordcollege.ac.uk/abo...emature-deaths
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #54 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I don't think you are correct there - I have been reading tons of articles on new European coal plants, 53 under construction in Germany alone. And since they decided to go no-Nuclear due to the scaremongering, it will only get worse.

I'm not 100% but I think there's maybe 10 that might likely get built. Like I say, most won't be built, they get cancelled beforehand.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #55 of 111
Let's put that figure in perspective.

The population of Europe was estimated to be at 854.4 million in 2009, according to the United Nations.

That figure of 310,000 (if true) accounts for .04% (rounded up) of the population of Europe.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #56 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I'm not 100% but I think there's maybe 10 that might likely get built. Like I say, most won't be built, they get cancelled beforehand.

They have to pick Nuclear or Coal, those are the two only viable options, and they (except France) have just announced that they will cancel a bunch of Nuclear plants, so they must be building coal plants.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #57 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

They have to pick Nuclear or Coal, those are the two only viable options, and they (except France) have just announced that they will cancel a bunch of Nuclear plants, so they must be building coal plants.

Merkel made it clear she's going with renewables, in part no doubt because it makes so much economic sense. She made that clear too. There's no real reason why any country on earth can't be run with 100% renewables. It's just the will that's lacking typically, as Scotland is proving by it's 100% clean renewables by 2020. Exporting clean power should help cut the deficit too. It's all good!
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #58 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Merkel made it clear she's going with renewables, in part no doubt because it makes so much economic sense. She made that clear too. There's no real reason why any country on earth can't be run with 100% renewables. It's just the will that's lacking typically, as Scotland is proving by it's 100% clean renewables by 2020. Exporting clean power should help cut the deficit too. It's all good!

I think you need to look into the economics of solar and wind a bit further.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #59 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I think you need to look into the economics of solar and wind a bit further.

Really?

"An in-depth article on the cost of renewable energy in Michigan in the Muskegon Chronicle notes that although a common argument from wind turbine opponents is that wind farms will significantly increase our electric bills, the State of Michigan reports initial contracts show significantly lower costs than the power generated from new coal plants. This excellent feature on the hard numbers and debate on renewable energy is well worth a read.

State regulators find the current cost of a new coal power plant over the life of the facility is $133 per mega watt hour of production.

Based on more than two dozen actual renewable energy contracts for solar, wind and bio-gas generated electricity, the average price is about $100 per mega watt hour of production. Bio-mass incineration is at $98, wind $101, landfill gas $113, digesters $128 and several small-scale solar installations at approximately $500."
~ http://michpics.wordpress.com/2011/0...than-expected/

Keep in mind that these technologies are rapidly becoming more efficient and the parts becoming longer lasting. New technologies that harvest wave power have vast potential too.


Here's another-

"In fact, clean energy is poised to compete with traditional fossil fuels. Mr. Bryce lists the costs of large clean energy projects, but ignores how the costs of producing and deploying clean energy are dropping. Whereas the global cost for manufacturing solar electricity was $65 per watt in 1976, it now costs $1.50 per watt according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent "Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources." Lower costs, combined with improved technologies, have enabled a dramatic growth in the installation of solar facilities and improved its affordability. In fact, some industry experts now estimate that solar power in sunny regions will cost $0.05 less per kilowatt hour than nuclear by 2020 and $0.03 less per kilowatt hour than coal by 2017. Thus, as clean energy becomes cheaper to manufacture and deploy, consumers will have an economic, as well as an environmental, incentive to choose clean energy."
~ http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...vironmental_a/

And then of course you've got billions of dollars spent in the US each year in healthcare costs from air pollution and lost time at work, and of course the 70,000 (official figure) - 250,000 or so people who die prematurely each year. Electric vehicles with clean electricity kind of wins on that front too.
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #60 of 111
East Coast offshore wind enough to meet all of the US's electrical needs-

"Individual wind turbines and even whole wind farms remain at the mercy of local weather for how much electricity they can generate. But researchers have confirmed that linking up such farms along the entire U.S. East Coast could provide a surprisingly consistent source of power. In terms of potential, wind-energy resources are tremendous. One estimate puts it at nearly five times as much as the world's entire existing electricity demand. And for environmentalists and anticarbon advocates, wind offers an energy source that does not require drilling, mining, or enriched uraniumand its carbon footprint is essentially zero.


This is the first time a study has demonstrated that offshore East Coast wind energy can provide "a relatively reliable supply of smooth power," says environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University in California. The findings are "important," he says, because the wind resources of the region are "tremendous and could theoretically supply all U.S. electric power demand."
~ http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceno...support-a.html
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #61 of 111
Your studies no doubt include government subsidies to get the costs down, there is no other way to make it look like solar or wind is cost competitive. Good luck with continuing government subsidies of solar and wind, we are broke.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-cont...on-per-kwh.jpg

Plus, wind power is dangerous - it slows down the global wind patterns and disrupts the climate, nuclear power does not do that. I am a big fan of hydro power, but we are pretty much maxed out there, plus it causes earthquakes (as would large scale geothermal).
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #62 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Based on all the coal plants they are building over there, I doubt that is true. Nuclear plants are much easier on your lungs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Your studies no doubt include government subsidies to get the costs down, there is no other way to make it look like solar or wind is cost competitive. Good luck with continuing government subsidies of solar and wind, we are broke.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-cont...on-per-kwh.jpg

Plus, wind power is dangerous - it slows down the global wind patterns and disrupts the climate, nuclear power does not do that. I am a big fan of hydro power, but we are pretty much maxed out there, plus it causes earthquakes (as would large scale geothermal).

e, can you please explain why there's no source, no background and no date on your graph, and it's posted on a pro-nuclear site? Don't be fooled by the date the graph was uploaded. The cost of these technologies is going down so fast, that we really need modern studies and can dismiss outdated studies completely.

I'm not entirely against nuclear, but there's absolutely no reason to play down the benefits of wind. And as the cost of solar panels continues going down rapidly, we're in business there, too. I do believe that's where we need to be putting our efforts, on getting that cost way down.

To say wind is dangerous because it disrupts global wind patterns is asinine. It's like saying holding up a pinwheel to your desk fan is going to wreck the airflow in your house.
post #63 of 111
If solar is so cost effective, why does the government need to supply a 63% subsidy in California? (30% federal, 33% Californa) Here are the DOE estimates on costs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...ergy_estimates

And you are wrong on the wind and climate change:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/20...-2053-2010.pdf
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #64 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Your studies no doubt include government subsidies to get the costs down, there is no other way to make it look like solar or wind is cost competitive. Good luck with continuing government subsidies of solar and wind, we are broke.

http://nuclearfissionary.com/wp-cont...on-per-kwh.jpg

Do you have a cloth so I can wipe the coke off my screen!

Nuclear power has had billions in taxpayer subsidies, as have coal, oil and gas.

I'm not convinced by your graph either. I bet it doesn't include the billions of dollars to dismantle a nuke plant or deal with the waste. I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't reflect the huge outlay in initial construction costs either that requires paying interest on the vast loans.

I'm not a fan of the Cato institute but nonetheless they cover how much nuclear has relied on government subsidies-

"Despite extensive and continuous government assistance -- including more than $66 billion in research and development alone -- no nuclear power plant has been ordered and built in the U.S. since 1973.

But nuclear power was ultimately rejected by investors because it simply does not make economic sense. In truth, nuclear power has never made economic sense and exists purely as a creature of government.

In fact, a recent report by Scully Capital Services, an investment banking and financial services firm, commissioned by the Department of Energy (DOE), highlighted three federal subsidies and regulations -- termed "show stoppers" -- without which the industry would grind to a halt. These "show stoppers" include the Price Anderson Act, which limits the liability of the nuclear industry in case of a serious nuclear accident -- leaving taxpayers on the hook for potentially hundreds of billions in compensation costs; federal disposal of nuclear waste in a permanent repository, which will save the industry billions at taxpayer expense; and licensing regulations, wherein the report recommends that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further grease the skids of its quasi-judicial licensing process to preclude successful interventions from opponents.

But even these long-standing subsidies are not enough to convince investors, who for decades have treated nuclear power as the pariah of the energy industry. Nuclear generated electricity remains about twice as expensive as coal- or gas-fired electricity. Although the marginal costs of nuclear are lower, the capital costs are much higher.

The most egregious proposal in the energy bill has the federal government providing loan guarantees covering 50 percent of the cost of building 8,400 Megawatts of new nuclear power, the equivalent of six or seven new power plants. The Congressional Research Service estimated that these loan guarantees alone would cost taxpayers $14 to $16 billion. The Congressional Budget Office believes "the risk of default on such a loan guarantee to be very high -- well above 50 percent. The key factor accounting for the risk is that we expect that the plant would be uneconomic to operate because of its high construction costs, relative to other electricity generation sources."
~ http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3134
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #65 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

If solar is so cost effective, why does the government need to supply a 63% subsidy in California? (30% federal, 33% Californa) Here are the DOE estimates on costs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of...ergy_estimates

And you are wrong on the wind and climate change:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/20...-2053-2010.pdf

So you're saying man's actions can affect the climate?
post #66 of 111
The costs for waste disposal the taxpayers brought on themselves, by outlawing ocean dumping and fuel reprocessing. You could dump waste in leaky barrels in the ocean for 1000 years and never be able to measure the difference, and longer than than if you solidified the waste.

The risk from accidents is much lower in modern power plants, almost nonexistent in pebble bed reactors. And the cost to run a breeder reactor is almost zero, since it produces more fuel than it uses.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #67 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So you're saying man's actions can affect the climate?

Just admit that you were wrong in that particular case, your statement was false and you are trying to get out of it.

"To say wind is dangerous because it disrupts global wind patterns is asinine. It's like saying holding up a pinwheel to your desk fan is going to wreck the airflow in your house." <-- not true

Also - if you were intimating that I am a global warming denier, you have me mixed up with somebody else. I think that our CO2 is warming the planet, partly offset by our natural slide out of the interglacial. I do, however, think that gradual global warming is necessary if we want to survive - the Holocene is a death trap.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #68 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Just admit that you were wrong in that particular case, your statement was false and you are trying to get out of it.

"To say wind is dangerous because it disrupts global wind patterns is asinine. It's like saying holding up a pinwheel to your desk fan is going to wreck the airflow in your house." <-- not true

lol

"Abstract: This study presents a parameterization of the interaction between wind turbines and the atmosphere and estimates the global and regional atmospheric energy losses due to such interactions. The parameterization is based on the Blade Element Momentum theory, which calculates forces on turbine blades. Should wind supply the world’s energy needs, this parameterization estimates energy loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to be ~0.007%. This is an order of magnitude smaller than atmospheric energy loss from aerosol pollution and urbanization, and orders of magnitude less than the energy added to the atmosphere from doubling CO2. Also, the net heat added to the environment due to wind dissipation is much less than that added by thermal plants that the turbines displace."
~ http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.
Reply
post #69 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

lol

"Abstract: This study presents a parameterization of the interaction between wind turbines and the atmosphere and estimates the global and regional atmospheric energy losses due to such interactions. The parameterization is based on the Blade Element Momentum theory, which calculates forces on turbine blades. Should wind supply the worlds energy needs, this parameterization estimates energy loss in the lowest 1 km of the atmosphere to be ~0.007%. This is an order of magnitude smaller than atmospheric energy loss from aerosol pollution and urbanization, and orders of magnitude less than the energy added to the atmosphere from doubling CO2. Also, the net heat added to the environment due to wind dissipation is much less than that added by thermal plants that the turbines displace."
~ http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/2/4/816/pdf

The big deal is not the heat added by the turbines, but the loss of wind speed. If you get a significant amount of energy from wind, you end up slowing down the global wind patters, which traps excess heat in the tropics.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #70 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

The big deal is not the heat added by the turbines, but the loss of wind speed. If you get a significant amount of energy from wind, you end up slowing down the global wind patters, which traps excess heat in the tropics.

Can you point out where the study you linked to says that?
post #71 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I'm a big fan of global warming. If we weren't stewing in our own excrement, we would be headed for a period of glaciation in the next 10,000 years or so.

The Holocene is a death trap. Screw the Holocene, I want the Eocene back - and that is what we will get. 2000 ppm co2 gives you tons of rainfall, tropical jungles over most of the earth, and temperate poles. Best of all, no cyclical ice ages.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

So we should figure that out - trying to fight global warming is a waste of time. Every time you conserve energy, it just drives down prices on oil so that the Chinese burn more.

I think that deoxignation is worse than acidification, also - you end up with anaerobic bacteria that excrete poison gas. We waste all our time trying to fight global warming instead of learning how to live with it, which is a bad move imho.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Trying to stop global warming is a total waste of time, I'm saying that you could not slow or stop it if you wanted to, no matter what you did (short of a one world authoritarian government). Show mathematically how you think you can stop global warming, I think that economic feedback loops make it impossible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

I'm saying that it will make absolutely no difference - if you stop trying to fight global warming nothing will happen at all. No differences, unless it is something subtle that you can see on a complex mathematical model - we burn (or turn into plastic) every ounce of oil that we can get, the only thing conservation does is to pick which country burns it.

In fact, conserving oil may be counter productive, since lower oil prices discourage investment in alternative energy.

Oil is so cheap to pull out of the ground that it can undercut the prices of any competitor.

So you're saying that we shouldn't fight global warming by controlling emissions because it's a waste of time, and because anyway, global warming is a good thing.

And then you go and say we shouldn't invest in wind energy because it causes global warming.

Forgive me for being confused, but you're all over the place.
post #72 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Just admit that you were wrong in that particular case, your statement was false and you are trying to get out of it.

"To say wind is dangerous because it disrupts global wind patterns is asinine. It's like saying holding up a pinwheel to your desk fan is going to wreck the airflow in your house." <-- not true

I'm saying tiny changes in surface temperature have negligible effect on atmospheric wind patterns. The surface temperature difference at wind farms is localized as well.
post #73 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So you're saying that we shouldn't fight global warming by controlling emissions because it's a waste of time, and because anyway, global warming is a good thing.

And then you go and say we shouldn't invest in wind energy because it causes global warming.

Forgive me for being confused, but you're all over the place.

Look at the temperature change image on page 2056. Wind does not add heat, it just cranks it up in the tropics - if we got 100% of our energy from wind the equator would be an uninhabitable wasteland, generating huge hurricanes that would destroy our offshore windmills (so there, I see wind as sort of self-limiting). I kind of want that to happen, so that we can build space elevators there without humans being in the way, but I only care a little bit.

Our Global warming is inevitable, my goal is to get to 1000 ppm co2 without triggering an extinction event, and while keeping our society intact and having breathable air.

The reason that I hate wind and solar is that "pro-solar/wind" anti nuclear people are implicitly pro-coal. I hate coal power, so that makes me automatically hate pro-solar people. The bad math abilities of the pro-solar/wind crowd are killing my ability to breathe by filling my lungs with coal particulates. It isn't that I particular care about wind or solar, they are joke side shows to make rich westerners feel good about themselves, it is only that a "pro-biomass/anti-nuclear" hippie is really a pro-coal operative and does not realize it.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #74 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Look at the temperature change image on page 2056. Wind does not add heat, it just cranks it up in the tropics - if we got 100% of our energy from wind the equator would be an uninhabitable wasteland, generating huge hurricanes that would destroy our offshore windmills (so there, I see wind as sort of self-limiting).

Our Global warming is inevitable, my goal is to get to 1000 ppm co2 without triggering an extinction event, and while keeping our society intact and having breathable air.

The reason that I hate wind and solar is that "pro-solar/wind" anti nuclear people are implicitly pro-coal. I hate coal power, so that makes me automatically hate pro-solar people. The bad math abilities of the pro-solar/wind crowd are killing my ability to breathe by filling my lungs with coal particulates.

You're almost there. The Earth is not warming abnormally. In fact, it may not be warming at all. The most extreme estimates show that the Earth has warmed by .6 degrees over 100 years. And a lot of that is based on old data which may not be accurate. Secondly, almost every scientist on Earth would agree that we're between Ice Ages right now. Our entire civilization has developed between ice ages. That threat, which we cannot do anything about, is much more of a problem.

I, for one, have no problem with wind and solar. But we need to do everything. Coal is not a sustainable option for the long-term, but it is needed now. The same goes for oil. To really be secure in our energy needs, we should use nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and natural gas.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #75 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You're almost there. The Earth is not warming abnormally. In fact, it may not be warming at all. The most extreme estimates show that the Earth has warmed by .6 degrees over 100 years. And a lot of that is based on old data which may not be accurate. Secondly, almost every scientist on Earth would agree that we're between Ice Ages right now. Our entire civilization has developed between ice ages. That threat, which we cannot do anything about, is much more of a problem.

I, for one, have no problem with wind and solar. But we need to do everything. Coal is not a sustainable option for the long-term, but it is needed now. The same goes for oil. To really be secure in our energy needs, we should use nuclear, solar, wind, hydro and natural gas.

Based on the latest information I have found, we have 10,000 years before the glaciers start to advance again and the interglacial ends. We will produce enough CO2 to get us back to Eocene like conditions well before then (like in 500 years or less - the Eocene had 2000 ppm co2).

And this is why I believe that we will have some significant global warming, it just hasn't happened yet, look at the huge co2 spike on the left hand side of the graph:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...0-400k_yrs.gif

The non-man made fluctuation of CO2 match up with temperature almost exactly, except that the CO2 follows by a couple hundred years (i.e. normally, without man, the CO2 changes are caused by the temperature, not the other way around). Still, the CO2 greenhouse effect is well understood, and any spike like that on the left side of the graph has to have some kind of effect.

I actually think that the scientists are underestimating the effect global warming will have, personally - I expect 270 foot sea rise in my children's lifetime based on all the ice melting.

SDW - do you really think that huge (and from a geological time period, very fast) CO2 spike will have no effect? And if so, how high can it get with no effect in your opinion?
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #76 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

Based on the latest information I have found, we have 10,000 years before the glaciers start to advance again and the interglacial ends. We will produce enough CO2 to get us back to Eocene like conditions well before then (like in 500 years or less - the Eocene had 2000 ppm co2).

And this is why I believe that we will have some significant global warming, it just hasn't happened yet, look at the huge co2 spike on the left hand side of the graph:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Pa...0-400k_yrs.gif

The non-man made fluctuation of CO2 match up with temperature almost exactly, except that the CO2 follows by a couple hundred years (i.e. normally, without man, the CO2 changes are caused by the temperature, not the other way around). Still, the CO2 greenhouse effect is well understood, and any spike like that on the left side of the graph has to have some kind of effect.

I actually think that the scientists are underestimating the effect global warming will have, personally - I expect 270 foot sea rise in my children's lifetime based on all the ice melting.

SDW - do you really think that huge (and from a geological time period, very fast) CO2 spike will have no effect? And if so, how high can it get with no effect in your opinion?

The fallacy you're succumbing to is that notion that this time C02 will cause warming instead of vice versa. We're already a hundred and 50 years into the industrial age, and there has been little if any increase in temperature. Even assuming there was some increase, the Earth's temp has varied by as much as 10 full degrees centigrade. Our entire civilization has developed at some of the coolest times in Earth's history. Take a look at this:

files.me.com/sdw2001/f5ccsv
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #77 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The fallacy you're succumbing to is that notion that this time C02 will cause warming instead of vice versa. We're already a hundred and 50 years into the industrial age, and there has been little if any increase in temperature. Even assuming there was some increase, the Earth's temp has varied by as much as 10 full degrees centigrade. Our entire civilization has developed at some of the coolest times in Earth's history. Take a look at this:

files.me.com/sdw2001/f5ccsv

Well, you are wrong.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/de..._anomalies.pdf

And you never answered my questions, also.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #78 of 111
Since I can't see that anyone has brought this up how about this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34239347...ure_of_energy/

Expensive at first but ultimately the biggest return in solar power that won't have to deal with weather or other difficulties. In the long run I'd vote for this one as being the most logical approach.

Here's how it would work.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21257449...-energy-orbit/
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #79 of 111
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Since I can't see that anyone has brought this up how about this?

I've only been hearing about that for forty years - along with the flying cars we'd have in every garage by now. Powered by Mister Fusion.

Leave it to MSLSD to resurrect a Popular Science story from 1971.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #80 of 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Since I can't see that anyone has brought this up how about this?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34239347...ure_of_energy/

Expensive at first but ultimately the biggest return in solar power that won't have to deal with weather or other difficulties. In the long run I'd vote for this one as being the most logical approach.

Here's how it would work.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21257449...-energy-orbit/

It has been brought up, but not in this thread I don't think. It is interesting however beaming 20 watts between islands is a long ways from beaming enough electricity from space to make this worthwhile. I think we need to see this work in reality before we try to make it work from space. Beam a real amount of power that can make a difference over an appreciable distance for a long time.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The biggest threat to the global warming scaremongers - Reality