Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe area of floating ice in the Arctic has shrunk more this summer than in any other summer since satellite tracking began in 1979, and it has reached that record point a month before the annual ice pullback typically peaks, experts said yesterday.
The cause is probably a mix of natural fluctuations, like unusually sunny conditions in June and July, and long-term warming from heat-trapping greenhouse gases and sooty particles accumulating in the air, according to several scientists.
William L. Chapman, who monitors the region at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and posted a Web report on the ice retreat yesterday, said that only an abrupt change in conditions could prevent far more melting before the 24-hour sun of the boreal summer set in September. "The melting rate during June and July this year was simply incredible," Mr. Chapman said. "And then you've got this exposed black ocean soaking up sunlight and you wonder what, if anything, could cause it to reverse course."
Mark Serreze, a sea-ice expert at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., said his center's estimates differed somewhat from those of the Illinois team, and by the ice center's reckoning the retreat had not surpassed the satellite-era record set in 2005. But it was close even by the center's calculations, he said, adding that it is almost certain that by September, there will be more open water in the Arctic than has been seen for a long time. Ice experts at NASA and the University of Washington echoed his assessment.
Dr. Serreze said that a high-pressure system parked over the Arctic appeared to have caused a "triple whammy" - keeping away clouds, causing winds to carry warm air north and pushing sea ice away from Siberia, exposing huge areas of open water.
The progressive summertime opening of the Arctic has intensified a longstanding international tug of war over shipping routes and possible oil and gas deposits beneath the Arctic Ocean seabed.
Last week, Russians planted a flag on the seabed at the North Pole. On Wednesday, Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, began a tour of Canada's Arctic holdings, pledging "to vigorously protect our Arctic sovereignty as international interest in the region increases."
© 2007 The New York Times
113 Comments so far
Show AllHi Tech2 It'a a Maytag from Sears, American brand made in Mexico. It cost $60.00 more than the standard type. Same as our washer/dryer set. We usually hang our wash out to dry though.___ Gets it full of DU particles.
On the divergent ducting. I have read that website, but my design is NOTHING at all like those. For one thing, mine has no fan, it is more like the turbine blades in the first stage fan of a turbo fan jet engine. It also utilizes the principal of free power from a heavy flyweight.
A nuclear physics professor at Princeton University was impressed with the idea, we discussed it for an hour several years age. I don't have the cash to invest in a prototype and have never done anything about it, except draw plans and figure the math. I'm at the age now where I don't believe I'll live long enough to see anything happen about the enviromental disasters we have and continue to create. Like Costeau, I gave it sixty years forty five years ago, but at that time had no idea we would be spreading nuclear waste all over the globe. Sorry about being rude too.___ Kem
KEM,
Gee, there is a huge amount of research and literature on flow enhancement.
I think the most fun webpage I can think of is:
http://www.ifb.uni-stuttgart.de/~doerner/diffuser.html
He has some other links and quotes some well known researchers etc...
As for using either the natural landscape or buildings where there is local enhanced windflow (more laminar or higher velocities) - well - lots of companies are experimenting with this. Just do an internet search.
Hey, I don't know you. You might just be the next paradigm shift a la Tesla, in wind turbine engineering, who am I to say otherwise.
My point is there is lots of good simple alternative energy technology out there that has not been transformed into products for the general public, and it hasn't becuase companies have learned the hard way that your typical Wal-MArt shopper is not interested, so the technology stays on the fringe.
ITs up to the general public to support alternative energy products, or they won't become widely used.
Be honest, how many of your neighbours have a fridge like yours - I would love to know the company website or the brand name of this fridge.
TECH2: You have misread me. I didn't say the earth's climate is simple. It is a COMPLEX system. However, all complex systems have similar ways of operating, one of which is that they contain negative and positive feedback cycles. I used a few examples to explain how these feedback cycles operate, and why we need to be aware of them. I have taken a class on complexity science and it is, well, complex, but just about anyone can understand the basic mechanisms, and why they matter.
I am more hopeful than you are about our capacity for change. Over the last few years I've seen the issue of climate change and alternative energy floating to the surface of American politics. Al Gore's movie helped a lot. There has been a flood of newspaper articles on the subject, and even some coverage on TV news, which I rarely watch.
While the federal government has been bogged down on this issue, a lot of change is happening at the state and local levels. We need to be aware of these changes, and encourage them. What works in one place will quite likely work in another. I suggest you check with your local utility to see what they're doing, and also look for local climate change / alternative energy activists to work with.
To see what Germany has done, read "Energy Switch" by Craig Morris.
Lynn Porter
TECH2 What do you know about divergent ducting designed for the purpose of inhancing wind power? Let me hear your explination, as you say so many are aware of it. Do you have a clue of what you are taking about? Of course you don't, but I'd be interested to read your reply, which I don't expect to, because you don't have one. Troll on Tech2, troll on.
TECH2. We don't care it you stay and rave on with your nonsense. So far, it still is a free country,__sort of. Rave on tech2, knock yourself out. BTW we have one of those type refrigerators you mentioned, it's two years old, works great, only it was made in Mexico instead of America. It has an American brand name.
Progressives understand that all systems are intimately interconnected, and that even slight changes in one area, effects everything else.
That understanding is so easily thrown out the window, when somone reduces the entire complexity of the earth, and all its systems to one small thread and says:
"the melting of polar ice, exposing darker water which absorbs more of the sun's heat, warming it and causing more ice to melt, etc., etc.
"As arctic permafrost melts it releases methane, which causes more global warming, which melts more permafrost, releasing more methane, and so forth.
All I can say, is that if its really as simple as all this, then lets close down the universities and fire all the professors because all their research into the symbiotic nature of the planet is a waste of time.
Alternative Energy solutions have been around for hundreds of years - I always bring up the example of the British who built a huge solar powered steam plant in Egypt in the 1800's.
I certainly applaud those communities and small power companies that some people here have mentioned that invest in alternative energy even though it is very expensive. But they are the exception - and whose fault is that??
All the alternative energy solutions have been around for years. Yet they are still are on the fringe of the economy. Why??
During the last oil crisis of the 1970's volumes of research was done on alterntive energy, and as soon as the price of oil dropped back down to 30.00/barrell it was all thrown out.
Why??
Today, instead of designing small simple systems everyone can use, the best engineers are working on mega solutions, so the corporations can continue to control energy production.
Why??
Each one of you has to accept some responsibility for these failures.
People have been working in the alternative energy business for years, giving up lucritive salaries with large corporations, yet customer's were and still are almost non-existent. Except for Toyota with their hybrid technology, and the huge wind turbine manufacturer's have a waiting list of about 2 years.
Anyway, each one of you has to use your purchasing power and your vote to change things. And it has not changed because the general public is not interested. The engineers and the dreamers have been around for years and years beating their heads against a wall. (I know I was one of them.)
Finally:
I hate to burst your bubble KEM, but ducting to increase windspeed is very well known and all the variables are well understood. ABB, Hitachi, etc.. all the big corporations have or are looking into this.
You need to understand that technically, the solutions are all their, and have been for years. I could list literally hundreds of good ideas:
I will give you one example:
During the 1970's some people started to make super insulated refrigerators for the home, they looked stylish, and used a fraction of the electric power, but these companies died, and no major manufacturer has ever changed, but still makes the same crap. Something so simple, like adding extra insulation to a fridge and having a special, expensive door seal to keep the cold air from leaking out.
WHY????
Just one of you dreamers answer that one question satisfactorily, and I will shut my mouth.
I keep reading that per dollar invested we get the most return, in energy saved and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, through conservation.
So I believe that should be our top priority, followed by solar and wind. Nuclear has way too many negatives for me to ever support it. See the book "Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott.
I also recommend the book "Energy Switch" by Craig Morris. He holds up Germany as a model we might follow. Germany has invested heavily in wind and solar. They have solar "farms" and freeways lined with solar panels. To encourage people to install solar, they pay people more for solar-generated electricity than it would cost to buy the same electricity from the utility company. So you make a profit to help pay for installing solar panels on your roof.
My local utility here in Eugene, Oregon is also doing that. The idea is to change the rules by which the market operates so the market works for the common good rather than against it.
Another good book is "Plan B 2.0" by Lester R. Brown.
Lynn Porter
GALEN, sounds good, if you plan it right, you could have property overlooking the beaches and make a fortune. One little problem kiddo, before the water rises ten feet of the projected sixty, the release of the methane gas in the arctic will have killed everything on the planet.______ We're gonna miss you Galen.
I think it will be very interesting to watch as the economists who are crowing about 'trans-polar' shipping routes slide into despair as they realise that the cargo and container ships will have no where to dock. All of the great port cities of the world will be underwater, and the world economy will not be able to tolerate the massive crash building of new port facilities.
I know it may sound smug, but I am very happy to be living well above the projected sea level.
Thank you Billy,__ I have designed on paper, a wind generating system, that will double wind velocity before it reaches the turbine wheels of the power plant. I e-mailed a copy of blueprints to Hope For The Future,( a blogger here at CD ) six weeks ago, but have not heard anything fom him since about the plan.
He's an electrical engineer. My plan uses the principle of automatic-divergent ducting, combined with the phenomen of increased wind velocity when wind strikes high rise buildings. So a wind velocity of say 15 MPH, would be 30 MPH when it reaches the rotors blades of a heavy flyweight turbine wheel at ground level. Construction costs would not be high and the towers would hold the new, tube-type solar panels. The tower height would be far less than the Australian power towers, about twenty stories max. There would be four turbines and generators for each tower.
Hope wouldn't give me his real name or address so I don't know who he actually is. Haven't seen him blogging here for quite awhile. He said he was going to go over the plans with some mechanical enginners. Anyway, I believe my plan is feasible and would be very helpful in the area of wind generated electrical power. If you return tomorrow, will see you then.____ Don't bang your head. __Kem
Kem,
You have the right idea for siting. Most of the commercial solar installations are in the desert southwest. Wind is more scattered but generally in areas of nearly constant wind. (There is a lot of both solar and wind power in California because of state subsidies.)
To get up to 50 or 60% of capacity you will need more than a constant breeze. If would really have to be blowing. To get to the name plate capacity on a wind turbine you usually need 35 or 40 mph winds.
You are also correct on wanting a large wind farm if your are doing wind. By having a large number together, you save on power conditioning (tuning the power generated to match the grid) and on your maintenance costs. This reduces the costs considerably. You probably won't get much of a quantity discount though, the wind turbine manufacturers are backlogged for a couple of years.
While looking for data to answer donkey, I came across some interesting looking articles on renewables at www.my.epri.com. I haven't had time to read them yet. The site is not as user friendly as it used to be but rummage around and you can find them.
I'm off to bed. Tomorrow is another day in the nuclear salt mine.
regards,
Bill
Something funny happening here, I wasn't finished and my prior blog printed before I submitted. Oh well.
Okay, thank you Billy.
Therfore, we have to bring down the cost of the intiial equipment by insurng we purchase a large number of wind powered generators. Then insure the wind towers are in locals where wind is constant and bring the 25% figure up to say 50 to 80%. I know areas of the U.S. where the wind seldom stops, then there is the solar/wind towers. It seems to me, if we had solar in locals of the west where sunshine averages 335 days a year, combined with wind power located in prime areas, we could bring the cost per kw-h to at least equal Atomic popwer and have no dangerous emissions or more atomic waste to store forever.
Donkey,
I'm the one who posted wind costs. I cannot find my reference for capital costs. I believe it was from an EPRI presentation that has been pulled down. Your cited price for the 3.6 MW GE turbine sounds low but I have not been able to verify it. This is the largest of the GE turbines and is specifically for offshore applications.
Earlier in wind power development some of the designs looked really different. There was one vertical shaft unit that looked like an egg beater. I have also seen recently (I can't remember where) of multiple turbines on one tower. There have also been some proposals for both kite and helium balloon based wind turbines to get extra altitude.
Kem,
No evasion intended. There are two common ways of looking at electricity costs: The cost to build the plant and the cost to the consumer.
The cost to build is what I was citing earlier when I said that the cost of nuclear and wind were about the same. (The wind cost is the one I now cannot verify for donkey.) To compare apples to apples, you have to figure in how much of the time the plant operates. On shore wind on average operates at about 25% of its rated capacity; nuclear operates at about 90% of it rated capacity. Therefore, the cost of the plant, for a given amount of power delivered, is more expensive for wind than nuclear.
The other way to look at cost is the cost to the consumer. This is a price per kilowatt-hour. This is what you pay for on your electric bill and it should be listed on your bill.
Included in the price per kilowatt-hour is:
Mortgage payments on the power plant
Maintenance, operation and depreciation on the power plant
Reserve to dismantle the plant at the end of life
Fuel costs (zero in the case of wind or solar)
Delivery costs (i.e the power lines and maintenance)
Markup for profit
Some comparative costs (from EPRI-does not include delivery)
Coal based electricity $0.04 per kw-h
Natural gas based electrity $0.055 per kw-h
Nuclear based electricity $0.047 per kw-h
Wind based electricity $0.075 per kw-h
I assume that the cost analysis on wind power is based on the wind collectors from General Electric and perhaps some European Manufacturers. If I am mistaken in any of this and the following, someone please enlighten me. The last time I checked, a large GE windmill cost somewhere around $750,000 dollars. I don't recall its output capacity for sure, but I believe it was 3.5 mw. Here is, in any case, a fine example of the "market based" method of approaching the problem. I suspect that GE prices this equipment to maximize their profit, setting the price at the maximum possible within the parameters of economic feasibility--- a clumsy way to say that Market trumps Earthlings welfare.
I believe it is possible to get outside this box and make wind generated electricity the off grid norm for much of the world. All of the designs look alike. Is there nothing new to try? I would like to hear what ideas anyone may have along this line, and to have some engineering help for some ideas of my own. I do not have all the skills nor time necessary to develop some ideas that I believe can contribute to at least a partial solution to the energy "crisis". I believe we have one because we have an "imagination
Crisis."
Lynn Porter,
You explained it well. One non linearity in the control system is the melting of the tundra. CO2 and methane get released causing more warming, which causes more melting and so on.
Since we do not know the real mechanism and the consequences are so serious we should be very cautious. Couple that with pollution, price, war, security and you have a situation where we should be reducing our consumption of fossil fuels anyway.
I've read all of the above with great interest and will add only three things:
1. I'm seeing the glaciers melt with my own eyes here in Alaska, immense bodies that took thousands of years to form-- dripping, flowing away to nothing in just a few years. I am not amused.
2. Please do read James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia"...it's not some new age nonsense but a clear description of the present global climate change situation and a reasonable description for solutions (including renewables as well as nuclear). Lovelock is a respect British scientist who was a pioneer in the '70's in the study of climate change.
3. I AM AFRAID--but I don't live in fear...afraid my grandchildren face a bleak world unless we grownups get our trip together and damn soon...but i don't live in fear of bullies and criminals like Cheney and Bush and their idiotic environmental policies--I stand up to them and work towards their impeachment. Their willful foot-dragging is unconscionable, fueled by greed and neo-con ideology.
thanks to all for the info above and keep working to enlighten and inform your neighbors!
Beware the God of Chaos along with the little known spectre of "Global Dimming".....incredibly short sighted, again, to even talk about replacing a centralized energy/delivery model with another even more deadly ponzi scheme of nuclear power as a stop gap measure. Clean Renewable, Sustainable forms of Energy are free and all around us the only problem is how does the bush mafia and related scum worldwide get their pound of flesh and bucket of blood to fuel the torture camps in Paraguay etc. I am also sick and tired of both sides using "cost benefit and return on investment" analysis to justify staying with artificially cheap albeit deadly forms of energy production/delivery/use and or as a reason to NOT go with Renewables. If we can print enough money to slaughter 600,000 Iragis we can print enough to put ALL fossil fuels to bed, in the ground, where it belongs. Read, Donella Meadows-The Limits of Growth and see the online video "Delusion".
Billy, are you purposely evading my question, or did I fail to ask it properly? I was asking about the cost of free fuel, (sunbeams, wind, geo-thermal, tide power). Those types of fuel costs, which are ZERO, in comparisson to the cost of uranium fuel costs over a twenty year period of time.
Then there was the question of a massive nuclear accident cost? In all honesty, do you really believe, nuclear power is worth the risk, even if the price per KW is a little less? Wish Paul Smith were here,___ I'm not very smart. ___I'm smarter than SANDYK77 though.
Lynn: Well said. Thank you. It is the divergent systems, including the unknown ones, that make global warming so threatening.
Kem:
The delivered cost of nuclear generated electricity are, like the various renewables, largely determined by the front end costs. It is true that, like fossil plants, nuclear has ongoing fuel costs but these are a small fraction of the cost of delivered electricity.
With fossil energy plants, the fuel cost are significant. With a natural gas plant, maybe 75% of the electrical power price is the cost of the fuel.
It is true that the market price of uranium has gone through the roof. It has gone from $5/pound to over $120/pound in about 10 years. This is not a sign that the world is running out of uranium. It is more a sign that we have insufficient mining and refining capacity.
Thank you Lynn, I didn't want to show my ignorance and ask. I didn't understand the negative and positve feedback comments until you explanied it. Your blog did make it easy to comprehend.
I'm serious, Thank you for your post, as usual you help a lot,__ for me anyway. I'm not well educated, except for reading tons of books, I don't know much.
Hi sandyk77
If you have a mouse and know how to use it, scroll up to the blog written by SRELF at 12:18am and you may discover that SOFUCKEDUP was replying to a comment by one who uses SRELF for a code name, unless this is their name. I prefer to use my own name and am sorry my spelling disturbs yu.
BTW do you have anything to contribute to the subject matter that would be appropriate or perhaps helpful, or are you just an ignorant, big mouth egotist?
Negative and positive feedback mechanisms operate in all complex systems, including the earth's climate.
Negative feedback tends to stabilize a system around a set point. A simple system example is a thermostat. When the room temperature falls below a certain set point the thermostat turns the heat on, bringing the room back to the set temperature. When the temperature goes above the set point the thermostat cuts the heat off, pulling the room temperature back down.
Positive feedback is a self-reinforcing cycle that tends to destabalize a system, potentially forcing it away from its current stable state toward another possible stable state that may be much different. (Complex systems have multiple possible stable states and are unstable in between those states.)
The most commonly given example for the earth's climate is the melting of polar ice, exposing darker water which absorbs more of the sun's heat, warming it and causing more ice to melt, etc., etc. It is, potentially, a runaway effect.
There are other positive feedback cycles in the earth's climate. As arctic permafrost melts it releases methane, which causes more global warming, which melts more permafrost, releasing more methane, and so forth.
Another example is warmer air and drought drying out forests, causing them to burn, releasing more CO2 into the air, causing more global warming....
When a complex system switches from one stable state to another, it can happen very quickly. The earth has come out of ice ages in less than a decade. (Temperature-wise; it takes a lot longer for the ice to melt.)
So global warming may not be linear. It is possible that the earth's climate might suddenly snap to a considerably higher average temperature, which could persist for thousands of years. This is not a risk we should be taking.
Someone said that the earth's climate is like a dangerous animal, and we are poking it with a sharp stick.
Lynn Porter
Common Dreams would not be awsome if that was not so SRELF
SRELF ??? Can't you people speak English? And learn how to spell? Not all of us with a computer are text friendly and most of us can afford to pay for an extra WORD or so. You texters are SOFUCKEDUP.
Those of you with "common sense" that follow Faux News as a source for information as evidenced by your link above.
HA! Now why would you post on this site AND quote Murdoch's POS Faux news?
OOPS! Forgot there's a 4th generation war profiter living in the "White House". God what are you racists gonna do when Barack O and his family move in?? Australia and Greenland are already FULL!
About costs - in our county we have two wind farms and a lendfill/methane operation, all producing clean energy. Between them they supply the power for all the county/municipal buildings in the county and have leftover to sell to the grid. The kicker is, if I as a lowly citizen (and taxpayer) want to use this extra clean power, I have to buy it from the grid for a bit more per KH than otherwise. We're willing and we do, but we're still tied to the grid.
Between wind, solar, and landfill, locally built according to the local conditions and locally used, there is no longer any need for "the grid" or large corporate energy suppliers. Bad luck for them but good for the rest of us. Every house can be energy independent, using whatever form of energy is appropriate for their weather/climate, and as this takes hold and better equipment is designed the costs will come down. It may still be necessary to use small localized "grids" in city neighborhoods, but that's easily possible too.
Yes - I know it's a pipe dream.
Common Dreams would not be awsome if that was not so SRELF.
Okay Billy, since the price of uranium is going out of sight now, and the sky is the limit on any type of fuel. What would the cost for electricity be, if supplied by solar/wind, and the other electrical power plants where the cost of fuel is zero, in comparrison to nuclear power. In say over a twenty year time frame.
I realize that is a question that would be very difficult to answer, but it is a fact, that the cost of fuel is a major factor and should be heavily considered. We also should figure the hidden cost of a potential disasterous nuclear accident, one that could wipe out an area the size of Texas, or New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey combined. Forever. When that does occur, you must realize all nuclear plants will be phased out very quickly. What do you suppose that would cost? Tons of gold, we don't have that much gold on the planet, except that which is in the Earth's core maybe.
And if any say the price of uranium will 'always' depend upon the economic 'theory' of supply and demand. I answer, Like the oil companies, who have their own economic theory in that respect. When the demand goes up, the price of fuel goes up. When the demand drops, the price of fuel goes up. It works quite well, just ask the CEO of Exxon/Mobil.
I've got two words for ya - SOYLENT GREEN!
(And PS: the webmaster on this site is awesome!)
It's not a problem! The companies that supply your homes and offices with electricity, gas, water and sewerage will be more than happy to pipe in "scrubbed" breathable air. For a considerable fee, of course. The poor will just have to make do.
Paul Magill Smith, come back, Billy is smarter than me with math. Help, you can argue this so well and I know Billy is wrong.__ This time.
No, not this time,___ I mean again.
Hi Kem,
No, the numbers I cited are "front end" or capital costs.
You are correct that solar and wind have no fuel costs. Nuclear has low but real costs. I also have not included other operating expenses such as labor and decommissioning etc. Nuclear obviously has a significant security cost which is not included either. Nuclear also has a waste disposal fee that is paid to the gummint for used fuel disposal.
After including the ongoing costs, including fuel, nuclear is still a great deal lower cost than either solar or wind. EPRI cites, in a 2006 presentation, nuclear electrical cost at 4.7 cents/kwh versus 7.5 cents/kwh for wind. They didn't have a number for solar but it is higher than wind.
Regards
Bill
Paul, there are more than two types of scientists and when any of them start taking responsibility for thier actions and start telling the truth I might consider trusting them. They can start by explaining what is in our food, our toothpaste, and who exactly owns our genes.
Hi billy, I wonder if you are absolutely correct on your math, concernig the cost of using solar/wind power, versus nuclear. I have asked you this previously but have not recieved an answer. That is possibly because the string ended up in the archives and few bother to go there. Here is the question.
Have you figured the cost of fuel for solar/wind generated power is (zero) and how does that zero number figure into your calculations?
Actually, I find this entire string of comments in some cases, to be both bizarre and amusing. Here we have an article about the melting of the arctic ice, which the analysts describe as ___'incredible'.
Incredible is a big word, similar to writing, tremendous, amazing, holy smoke, gollllee. Only with respect to the nature of the subject matter, the word incredible is not very funny, and should give one with any intellect cause for concern. It does me anyway, perhaps I have a mental problem and should shut my computer off and do sometihng more poductive, than to blog here and attempt to do so without making spelling errors.
Why do I find several comments by seemingly intelligent people, to be both amusing and rather bizarre? Well, early on in the comments discussion, after Chicken Little had his/her opinions expressed, the subject matters of methane gas and phytoplankton were raised. Are those two subjects important? Maybe again, it is just me, but I believe they are of vital importance, since either of the two are subjects that have a direct influence upon the survival of all life on this little world called Earth.__ That was ALL life.
Of course by writing that, I can foresee some person coming back and explaining to me, it is not sensible to say ALL life and that by doing so, I'm a doomsayer and fear monger. That's what happens more often than not and some also seem to love to play word games and point out spelling errors like fifth grade school teachers who MAY not know a phytoplankton from a minature poodle.
The point is, those two subjects should be among the top five of extreme importance, to everyone living on the planet, and few of the progressive, intelligent people who comment even address the issues. It's amusing to me and really strange. Now, of course that is MY opinion, and I'm not a scientist by any means and my opinioos are Not worth alL that much and I am fully aware of that.
I DO however, believe those scientists who claim, if the phytoplankton die off another twenty per cent or so, and may do so in avery short period of years, it will be most difficult for humans to breathe and Medicare will not even pay for required oxygen for patients who suffer from sleep apnia. When those vital to ALL life plants are eradicated to the fifty percentile level, there will not be enough oxygen in our atmosphere for any life, as we know it, to live on Earth.
So, unless those highly educated, scientific minded people, are totally incorrect, after spending their entire adult lives studying the subject, I really do believe we should be concerned.
Afraid?___ No, unless I say, I fear for our future generations. Then yes, I am fearful and saddened and with ample justification. Therefore, when some person comes in and writes a long blog saying nothing productive and ends with this bizarre and self rightious statement.
'True knowledge gives confidence and therefore I must conclude, that many of YOU do not possess it'.
No specific names pointed out by this highly educated individual,__ just many of YOU! Wow, I am nothing, my beliefs are all wrong, there is nothing to be concered about after all. Hmmmm. Do I take it personal? Indeed I do, but what really concers me, is the seemingly lack of concern about those two vitally important subjects, by almost everone.__ Why?
First, let's all come to agreement that fear and caution are two different things. I don't believe irrational fear is productive, but rational precaution is a very sane attitude.
Next, our society has necessarily become very specialized. Not everyone has a PhD in Ecology, but we don't need them to, and it would prove very counter-productive to society if they did. Hence, we must rely on the expertise & experience of others to make educated 'guesses' and formulate policy to deal with societal problems.
Who is telling the truth? The altruistic scientist who approaches his field of study out of a desire to serve humanity? Or do you trust the scientist who went into their field because they thought they could find monetary rewards, and be self serving? Money has definitely clouded the debate about global climate change, and the consequences of our actions.
Finally, if you are driving down the road and discover you are lost what do you do? Keep driving hoping to find your way, or turn back until you find a place you are familiar with?
I don't think reactive is the solution to climate change because by then we could already be hopelessly lost for good. Scientific information assures us the problem is real, and will get worse, unless we become proactive addressing the threat extant. The roadmap shows us we 'must' devote massive resources immediately toward 'green' technologies to find our way back to the home we once knew & loved.
Tech 2 - thanks for the clarification - you were correct - I had not seen your recent post - I think we are in agreement. Wouldn't it be great if we understood the problem - and did the right thing. We can only hope.
I'm sorry it scared you Kem Patrick. I think people are scared because they have given up thier place in the natural world and no longer understand it. And with this discovery realize how much they have lost and how difficult the road back is.
Yes, we are all living with a great sadness without truly understanding it.
Thank you Treefrog. I saw that, it helped to make me fearful.
I wonder if many of humanity realize, that more than a thousand specie of sea birds alone, have become extinct since the beginning of the industrial revolution?
I don't know how many specie of land birds have suffered the same fate. I do know there are few birds coming to our feeders this year, hardly any, and we have seen a total of five humming birds and we normally had dozens every year before this one.__ It is a sad fact. What poison is killing them so quickly? In the archives, there is an excellent article on that very subject.
Tech 2.__ Reacting to fear? Fear of what for example?
Should we fear pollution is killing off the phytoplankton or that global warming, which very well may be the fault of mankind, is melting the arctic permafrost and the release of millions of tons of methane gas WILL destroy the planet. Are those rational fears that we should ignore, wait until we are absolutely certain of the cause and effect of our actions?
I don't stand on a soap box on the streets, wear a white sheet and loudly proclaim that the end is near. I don't hide under my bed all day and cry either. I do hand out papers explaining the dangers of DU use at the local coffee shops, have many very good discussions with others on that and other enviromental issues. But yes, I do fear we are destroying the only water planet known to exist in the entire universe. If there are others, we have no way to reach them and kill them too. I'm sure if we could, __we probably would.
KEM PATRICK and others - mea culpa! You're right, phytoplankton doesn't like warm water, and it's dying off. I got that from some site but can't find it again.
Here's a British site/page that tells all about the various forms of plankton and what's happening to them.
http://www.conservationinstitute.org/csi_report/csireport12_05.htm
Sorry tech2, your logic escapes me. I'm obviously not as smart as you are. You seem to me to contradict yourself. You in one sentence write we must clean up our messes and in the next write do nothing due to unfounded fears. Not your exact wording but that is your message. At least that is what I and others are reading.
It doesn't matter, we all have opinions, I just do not understand yours. My favorite is, "if sunbeams were adequate weapons of war, we would have had solar energy supplying our energy needs for at least the past century".
DavidRushton,
Perhaps you have not read my posts just above yours.
I am not arguing for continuting our environmental catastrophies cause by the excesses of industrialization.
We need to clean up the way we live.
I am arguing against fear, and acting out of fear.
I am trying to encourage people not to just read about a scientists conclusions, take some time and look into what sort of experiments or data they use to substantiate their conclusions.
I also think now that this issue is one that will not go away, we all have to start becoming more educated about the technical research, and differentiating between the following:
1) Research that is solely directed at understanding how the atmosphere works and how all the different energy inputs and material substances interact.
2)Research that tries to model how the earth's atmosphere reacts to a major disturbance, of say, a large change in energy input, or a major change in the constituents of the atmosphere.
Such research would have to span many fields - geology, climatology, physics, chemistry, to name only a few.
Another important area of controversy is the role of computer simulation, as opposed to the traditional methods of observation, experiment.
I know wikpedia is a popular site - so I found this article, just as an introduction to how complicated the research is in this area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientif...
My favourite quote is:
"I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."
tech2 - We are in agreement that we need to study and learn as much about the problem as we can - and make the most intelligent response we are capable of. I fail to see your logic about doing nothing. Scientists are telling us the earth is warming - green house gases are a major factor in causing that warming - projections are that the higher the green house gas levels go - the more severe will be the consequences (weather patterns, sea level rising etc.) How do you then conclude that the appropriate course of action is to continue producing green house gases? Doing nothing would entail continuing to pump the atmosphere full of green house gases. Surely if we want to 'do nothing' while we study the problem further - we should stop pumping the green house gases until we are sure either way if they are the problem. It sounds to me like you are arguing for us to continue polluting - until we determine for sure if polluting is a problem. Wouldn't it be better to stop polluting - until we determine for sure if polluting is a problem??
tech2,
Yes, I understand feedback mechanisms and systems control. I am not, however, a climatologist so I must trust those I think honest. James Hansen is, I believe, my honest man. When I read his writing, I read his entire paper. I generally understand his stat speak.
It is quite true the models are incomplete. The models do, however, fit the collected data. Extrapolation is, of course, fraught with peril.
The earth has warmed notably in the last 50 years. Atmospheric CO2 has been increasing steadily since the data started to be collected. Anthropogenic CO2 (fossil fuels together with slash and burn agriculture) more than accounts for the changed atmospheric concentration of CO2. The effect of CO2 on the infrared emissivity of the earth has been well understood since Arrhenius.
The ultimate error is to do nothing. The imperfect models show us destroying our atmosphere if we do nothing and continue to increase our CO2 emissions. Any prudent person would say that the best course of action is to reduce anthropogenic CO2 release.
The only suitable questions are:
How fast must we reduce our CO2? How fast can we reduce our CO2? How best to reduce our CO2?
Given that electric power generation is the biggest single source of CO2, how can we either reduce our consumption and/or how best to replace CO2 emitting power generation?
Given that transportation is the second biggest source of CO2, how can we reduce our travel and/or how best to replace CO2 emitting travel technology?
Scientists should continue to refine their models but we cannot wait for the improvements. It is quite likely that our efforts will be inadequate and our species will go extinct or nearly so. Earth will go on but it may have to do so without us.
When I post on CD or Greencarcongress, I try to be precise and cogent. I do not try to BS my point with multisylabic jargon or hairy statistics. I feel comfortable enough with my knowledge that I can converse in plain English.
I feel that those concerned citizens who post here ought to have and express their opinions whether they have a technical background or not.
Anandakos, PolarBearLady, badgersouth and everyone else,
Please consider this:
We humans need to clean up our act, stop polluting, wasting energy, stop inventing horrible chemicals and spreading them all over the earth, stop abusing the plant and animal life on this planet regardless of whether there is climate change or not.
Climate change is nothing to be afraid of, any geologist will tell you the earth has undergone many radical changes, and many geologists (I studied under several before I got switched into engineering) theorize that many of the changes the earth has gone through have not been gradual and slow, but have been dramatic and catastrophic.
The earth is too big and too complex a system for us to modify, so we just have to live with it the way it is now.
Lets clean up our act because its the right way, the healthy way, to live, not because we are afraid of some catastrophic distaster predicted by some computer simulation.
I am very concerned that we are all going to be lead down a very dangerous path, by people who want to prey on this unreasonable fear.
Let's decouple these issues, and just clean up our act because its the best way for humans to live on this planet.
It can be fun!
If you want to understand the earth, then look at the earth. (trust your own information) The Emperor Penguins have survived all the earth changes for thousands of years. (I think mostly because they are isolated from humans and human interventions) See March Of The Penguins there is a lot of information about survival. Science is not going to save you, science is part of the problem that is why people look to science because they no longer understand the earth they live on and have given thier voice to science. If you have to believe in science then you should ask where has science been in the last hundred years and why do you always here about scienific mistakes years after they occur. Is it because science is first and formost defining what you see and know. If that is the case then you need to ask a lot different questions.
See March of the Penguins.
Kem Patrick,
I will condense what I said:
Knowing their is a problem is only the first step in finding a solution.
Most of the research up to this point has been decieding if there is a problem and how bad it is, if it has ever happened before, etc.....
Very little is known about how the earth systems react to major disturbances. There is very little data on this.
We need to know more about this before we should attempt any human intervention. Its safer to just do nothing rather than undergo a major human intervention.
How having said that, whether there is global warming or no global warming, we should all be trying to end pollution, runaway energy consumption, destruction of the atmosphere and plant/animal life by industrial waste, etc.. etc.. etc.. Our industrialized society is out of control and is destroying the beauty of our environment - we need to change the way we are living. Global climate change or no global climate change -
We need to change because its the right way to live, not because we are afraid of what some vague scientific theory predicts.
As for using my brains... I come to this site to read other peoples opinions, not voice my own, therefore I rarely post.
If my particular area of expertise allows me to contribute something then I try to.
If I sound like I have some brains - then you would be well advised to listen.
For anyone in the readership who leans conservative, think about insurance. Do you have it on your auto? On your home? On your life? Depending on circumstances and family status, most serious people have all three.
What is the probability that your house will burn down before you sell it or die? Considering that there are communities in New England that still consist mostly of dwellings from the 1700's and 1800's, and in your neighborhood there has probably not been a major fire in ten years, the likelihood is obviously pretty small. Still you have homeowners' insurance.
What is the probability that you will be in an injury automobile collision which is adjudicated to be your fault? If you're over 30 it's quite small, but you still have insurance, even in the few states that don't require it.
How much of your disposable income do you devote to insurance? In my case I can say it's about 4%. Since my wife and I have a fairly modest home, I expect that may be somewhat below the mean. In ancy case the expenditures for insurance -- for which I have not received any premium payout in over twenty years -- reduces my disposable income by that amount. To me it's "lost" money but I wouldn't think of forgoing the coverage because the potential loss could wipe us out financially.
Most prudent estimates of the "cost" of global warming put the expected reduction in gross world product at between 1 and 2 percent. I expect that's somewhat too low given the speed at which conditions are worsening, but even at twice the predicted rate, it only reaches the level of personal insurance. Is it not worth a similar level of expenditure to avoid the possibility of what would be at a minimum financial losses on a stupendous scale and at the worst a dystopian end to humanity should some irreversible tipping point be passed?
The only possible explanation for the obsessive denial of dorks like Chicken Little is that they hate their grandkids and subscribe to the first law of the Publican financial jungle: "I got mine; Fuck You!"
Geneva, 7 August 2007(WMO) - Weather and climate are marked by record extremes in many regions across the world since January 2007. In January and April 2007 it is likely that global land surface temperatures ranked warmest since records began in 1880, 1.89°C warmer than average for January and 1.37°C warmer than average for April. Several regions have experienced extremely heavy precipitation, leading to severe floods. The Fourth Assessment Report of the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) notes an increasing trend in extreme events observed during the last 50 years. IPCC further projects it to be very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent.
Anyone frightened? I am very frightened. For humans and for the innocent arctic animals, like the polar bear and penguins, who are struggling everyday and dying everyday due to the melting of the glaciers, ice and permafrost.
I URGE EVERYONE to see the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" (now on DVD) and stop joking. What is happening in the arctic and around the world is NO LAUGHING MATTER.
Our beautiful planet is way beyond praying for hope. Everyone one of us have to take action NOW to stop global climate change! GO TO THIS WEBSITE: http://www.climateprotect.org/list_view/climate+crisis and read the information, take action and DO SOMETHING NOW!
Tech2. You sound like a pretty smart cookie, likely highly educated. Do you have a doctorate in some field of education?
Am I afraid of the problems we have been duscussing here? No, not really. I'm 71 years old now, had my face shot to pieces once, lost an eye and have suffered from four kidney stone attacks over the years, nothin much scares me anymore.
I fear for my kids and their children, their future and for the long term future of eveyone's children. Where did I get my infomation about this subject, since I'm not a high rated scientist? Well, in case you missed it, this written article for instance is one of my sources, many, many others written by scientists, or quoted by scientists are among my sources. My favorite is a book written by a family friend, "The Ocean World". Another is what I can see with my own eye, the dramatic decline in our bird populations for one example.
I never intend to pretend to be an expert, I quote the experts I happen to choose to believe. I read your comments and saw nothing there except your personel opinions, mostly which were critical of all of us. You wrote nothing that would make me feel better about global warming or the decline of phytoplnakton. Who are you?
Then you talk about we should do nothing, like what for example? Not attempt to use clean energy and stop the pollution of our planet by burning coal? What the heck are you rambling on about? If you'd use less big words and write so us dopes could understand your message, you may help in some small way. You obviously have some brains. Use em.
DavidRushton
What action to take is the right question. How many times have humans tried to "modify" natural processess and ended up making things worse?
If climate change is human caused, then we have proven that we can cause perhaps irreversible damage to this planet by playing around with processes we don't fully understand.
If you don't know precisely what to do, with a reasonable amount of certainty, THEN DO NOTHING.
To "assume the worst", and then act without really understanding the consequences, could make things worse.
I think some of these environmental radicals are in the same class as Monsanto with their"Round-Up ready" corn, cotton, and canola - just absolutely completely insane, with no respect whatsoever for the planet.
Short Term, ill conceived "solutions" that have unforseen consequences seem to be a human specialty.
Without trying to get into too much technical gargon,
If this large injection of gases into the atmosphere (CO2 etc..) by man is a pulse or disturbance to the earth's system, and has taken us out of a state of equilibrium (assuming we were ever in some sort of equilibrium), we need to identify and understand, at least partially, the feedback components to the equation.
All scientists have done is identify a potential problem, through statistical analysis.
through computer modelling (models that are full of assumptions and grossly inadequate empirical equation that represent natural processes) they have predicted that things can get "worse".
However, there is very little understanding of how the earth "reacts" to disturbances, especially major ones like are being discussed.
To date we have not identified all the processes that can effect the out of balance state (through either positive or negative feedback) to bring us back to where we were
(quater damped would be nice)
What really is a problem is these uninformed people who automatically assume that the feedback will be "counterproductive" and make things progressively worse (positive feedback).
However, the just the fact that the earth is able to support life, is very substantial proof that "productive" feedback - or negative feedback that compensates for the disturbance and brings the system back to equilibrium
I stood thirty miles from the fastest nuclear reactor in the world. A 20 megaton Hydrogen Bomb.
Naah, let's look for alternatives, even if we have to cut our usage a bit.
Paul,
It is true that, worldwide, renewables generate more electricity than nuclear. Most of that is hydroelectric. Hydroelectric alone generates more electricity than nuclear. Wind is less than 7% of the hydro number and solar is less than 0.1% of the hydro number (eia.doe.gov for 2005).
Hydro is pretty well tapped out in the US. Domestically, hydro is not an option for major expansion (although we could expand our hydro based imports from Canada).
Land based wind power has about the same or slightly higher capital cost as nuclear for a given capacity. Wind on average operates at about 25% of capacity; nuclear operates at about 90% of capacity. Wind is therefore more than 3x as expensive per kwh as nuclear and it is only available when the wind blows.
During a severe heat wave in California in the summer of 2006 the electrical generation was stretched to the limit. The California wind generation during the heat wave operated at less than 5% of capacity.
A 64 MW solar plant was recently brought on line in Nevada. Capital cost was about $4000/Kw. New nuclear costs are estimated to be between $1400 and $2000/Kw. Solar operates at approximately 25% of capacity. Nuclear operates at 90%. Solar is therefore about 8x the cost of nuclear per kwh.
About 70% of the electricity in the US comes from fossil fuels. This is the US's biggest single source of CO2 emissions. If you want to seriously address global warming, electrical generation by fossil fuel without sequestration must eventually be phased out. Renewables are not suitable or affordable for baseload power generation.
Uranium is, like all minerals, a limited resource. That is why we must, within 50 years or so, start to deploy fast (i.e. not water cooled) reactors. They are far more fuel efficient and they will permit us to address the long term nuclear waste issues. They will also permit us to use thorium, in addition to uranium, as a nuclear fuel.
Climate Deniers = Climate Dodos
"The Dodo (Raphus cucullatus) was a flightless bird that lived on the islands of Mauritius. Related to pigeons and doves, it stood about a meter tall (three feet), lived on fruit and nested on the ground.
"The dodo has been extinct since the mid-to-late 17th century. It is commonly used as the archetype of an extinct species because its extinction occurred during recorded human history, and was directly attributable to human activity. The phrase "as dead as a dodo" means undoubtedly and unquestionably dead." -- Wikepedia
tech2 - of course you are correct that we should base our thinking and decisions on the best information - as it becomes available. However - when dealing with this massive force of global temperatures, and climate - we understand that it is something we have very little control over. So at what point do we take action??? When we think there may be a problem in the making - or wait until we know for sure - and perhaps it is then too late? Surely it is better to assume the worst - and be wrong - than to assume there is no problem - and be wrong. I think that a healthy dose of fear is probaby a smart option at this point - and as you say - based on the facts as they become available.
Its amazing how some of you can make such vast and far reaching predictions. Its like being on a site full of Nobel laureates.
It may very well be true that there are fundamental changes going on in the earth. Scientists are trying to figure out what is going on. And, if there is something we can do about it, we should all try and do it,
But to hear layman talk with such assurance, and be so full of fear and doom! Where is this from??
Again - I am not trying to say climate change does not exist - what I am saying is that some of you sound far too confident in your knowledge and predictions, without the scientific knowledge base to back it up.
I would like to know if any of you even understand what negative and positive feedback is. A mathematical definition related to system modeling and control theory would be preferrable.
If you cannot, then all you can really do is quote others that can, or relate your own personal experiences and observations about how things are changing.
Moreover, when you quote or read the conclusions that a scientist makes, at least try and look at their data, or their experimental methods and statistical assumptions. In doing so you will far better understand the conclusions.
The truth is that upon further research it might turn out things are not as bad as you all claim, or they might be much worse.
To be full of fear because of a theory or prediction is
absurd. Even if that prediction is your own death.
Lack of knowledge can create fear. Some of you think that fear is the only way to motivate people.
True knowledge gives confidence, therefore I must conclude that many of you do not possess it.
There isn't a human on this Earth that couldn't put a dent this second on the release of co2 into the atmosphre. How? just by using less and reusing things already manufactured.
You body will not boil or freeze unless certain ttempatures are reached.Common outside air still dry clothes.
Hot water is not essential to keep the human body going.
That is only a few anybody can do suggestions without falling off the planet.
Or Soylent Green can really be Tuesday. It is your choice.
all we have to is pray. that will solve everything.
A single Power Tower, will generate enough electrical power, to supply the electrical needs for 10,000 homes and the fuel costs are zero. The pollution emitted is zero. Zero plus zero adds up to zero. I'm gettin smarter every day.
If we used power towers generated electricity to crack sea water to produce hydrogen, the cost to produce the hydrogen would be very low. Pollution from using hydrogen fuel in anything, home heating, vehicles,__ is also zero.
Butttt, let us see just how fast the experts say the permafrost is melting in the Arctic before we spend any money on anything. because if we only have say five to ten years left, I'm gonna open a Viagara pill store and sell bootleg whiskey at the back door to Canuck and his friends. Then move to the Greek Isles and wait for the end and laugh at Chicken little.
Actually, the Plankton produce their best in the cooler waters of the South Atlantic and Pacific, naturally some would be carried along with ocean currents, no matter where they flow. Plankton float near or on the suface of the ocean waters, the very word plankton means wanderer; they have no way of determining where they go, so they don't knowlingly follow the heat.
The problem is, they are dying off and no one is sure of why? It is known it was a problem which began years before global warming began to create unusual ice melts in the Arctic and Anarctic. Man made pollution is the most likely cause of their alarming decline in the past few years.
It is a fact that the plant type of plankton, the phytoplankton, supply a water planet with the necessary oxygen to sustain life and therefore are an absolute necessity for a water planet to have any life.
RE: Billy_y4 August 10th, 2007 9:44 pm
Ike,
"Wind, solar and biofuels are not up to the task alone."
How do you come off saying that, Billy, we've never funded renewables for decades (massively), so we don't even know (nor do you) if your statement is true. One thing we DO know, as I have stated to you on a number of occasions, is that from a study dated over TWO YEARS AGO renewables are generating more power than ALL the world's nuclear power plants combined. Also, on a number of occasions, I've told you there is a finite supply of nuclear fuel and it will run out, so the 'nuclear option' (not the republican one about filibusters) is just a temporary fix, so why devote precious dwindling resources (up to trillions of $) to a technology that is not sustainable in the long run?
RE: grandma August 11th, 2007 12:52 am
Thanks my lady friend for providing some information on plankton I asked about earlier. Makes sense that an organizim that provides so much oxygen would migrate to the most conducive natural environment, AND have an effect on their surrounding environment. Do you remember the study this info came from? I'd like to look at it (probably KEM, too) because it may prove very important.
RE: Robert Settgast August 10th, 2007 7:32 pm
Thanks for your astute & well expressed comments, Robert. I hope you come back to the CD blog often. I think information dissemination is the key, but also in a manner the MSA (Main Stream Audience) can understand & accept it. Logical, informational, non-confrontational, and simplified works best perhaps, to make the MSA take notice.
Good comments grandma. I will add, it is known, the phytoplankton are dying off, a ten percent drop in the past few years. There is a scientific group in California who are planning on seeding a large area of the South Pacific with iron dust to feed them. Is that a good idea? We'll find out one way or another if they do it.
There is so much methane frozen in the permafrost, that when it thaws and gets into the atmosphere, it will eventually ignite. That will be doomsday.
Kem Patrick and others - Here's the much simplified scoop on plankton (from the Conservation Science Institute). As the Gulf stream warms, the plankton move north to follow the heat. Thus the plankton count becomes a marker of the warming. At the moment they are found further north than ever in our lifetimes.
About the methane in the permafrost - news flash, excess of methane in the atmosphere is thought to be the cause of the Permian extinctions (including the dinosaurs). This came about because of warming global temps which thawed the permafrost of that day (sound familiar?) (Not to mention a possible meteor strike.) Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, much more so than CO2.
Thought I should clarify that -
Billy, is the nuclear power fratenity interested in making money? Or are they interested in just blithly ignorng the facts, and piling up so much deadly nuclear waste, with a childish "hope" it won't eventually destroy the Earth?
I've been a good little girl: I compost most of my green rubbish [in Hawaii, I am 'older than dirt!"]; I recycle; I limit my trips to town; and most importantly, I taught my kids to practice birth control.
So, as we face what is, probably, the end of the world as we know it, I have the comfort of knowing I have NO grandchildren. Nada! None!
It is a comfort to know this mess will not impact my very closest loved ones, but think of all the babies who could have been avoided and not been born into this world of pain and suffering! Take a look at those babies in Iraq and ask yourself if the lucky ones are not the ones who never were!
And still we criminalize abortion and women of 60 are encouraged to get pregnant. There is a real issue of responsibility and self control that has been swept under the rug in the bedroom!
The chemistry and physics used to support global warming are as good as gold. But there are many misconceptions among the public. Hopefully, the upcoming documentary "the llth hour" will create a more favorable situation.
Ike,
The fossil fuel industry is interested in making money, not saving the earth. The only way to effect the changes you suggest is through political action.
I don't think you will be able to sell the effect your plan would cause without nuclear power to largely replace our current level of electricity production by fossil. The effect on lifestyle would be too great. Wind, solar and biofuels are not up to the task alone.
I really do like you Ike, yeah but I'm not taking any trolling bait either.
Just off the topic for a moment, on tonight's news, this was the report. Half of the people in the United States who have home mortages, HALF, are more than 90 days behind with their payments.
I'm not a wizard, and use a calculator to add anything higher than 2 plus 2, but even as stupid as I am, I sense that report is rather alarmng. I'm goin back to the article titled, Very Scary Things, and then finish stocking my cave.
The only solution to global warming is to stop burning coal, oil and gas for energy - period. These energy sources need to be replaced with solar, wind, biofuels and biochemicals, and energy storage and conservation.
This is a human problem - life is quite robust and will go even if humans go extinct. We might wipe out a lot of other species as well, but nature is really indifferent.
At this moment, there's a certain amount of warming in the pipeline, and we can expect a yearly decreasing trend of Arctic sea ice. Even if we halted all human CO2 emissions this moment, the poles will continue to melt, and the planet will continue to warm, for around 50 years.
So, the extreme weather, crop losses, heat waves, rising sea levels - it's in the post. What we'd like to do is head off the more catastrophic results, by a minimal 90% reduction in CO2 emissions - which can easily be achieved if people and countries mobilize to do so.
However, that will only work on a massive, global scale - meaning that industrial nations need to give the technology to the developing world (where the tropical forests are - and we'd like to see those forests preserved, not burned).
The coal, oil and gas industries and their associated financiers are simply unwilling to change their business models. ExxonMobil gives $10 million to PR front groups, and the American Petroleum Institute gives another $100 million to Edelman PR services...
For a while there, commondreams was refreshingly free of fossil fuel PR trolls - but, as usual, here they are. Took long enough, didn't it?
Kem,
Naw, no head bangi