Global warming coming faster and sooner

[del]

Thanks for the heads up, stored for future reference.



BTW, nice Elvis Costello sig.

you're welcome and thank you.

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, most major scientific societies have issued more recent statements stating that natural causes along with many human activities, not simply the emission of CO2 by man, may contribute to climate change. The AMS, for example, lists natural reasons first among the suspected causes. AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

So to be on the safe side, we should be reducing CO2 emissions as well as reducing the potential for more problematic gases such as methane, from escaping into the atmosphere unburned. A prioritized list to achieve this would look something like this:

1. Use as much nuclear power as possible;
2. Extract natural gas from shallow deposits and utilize it in efficient combustion engines for motive power;
3. Use solar energy only on surfaces that are needed for non power producing activities, such as roofs and suspended above roads and parking lots;
4. Reduce reliance on wind turbines since they may have the potential to change regional or even global wind patterns.

So I can count you in as a red-blooded supporter of these initiatives, right?

Quite on the contrary, the site that you posted has some very pointed things to say about the GHGs that are causing the warming. Here is an excerpt;


Direct human impact is through changes in the concentration of certain trace gases such as carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor, known collectively as greenhouse gases. Enhanced greenhouse gases have little effect on the incoming energy of the sun, but they act as a blanket to reduce the outgoing infrared radiation emitted by Earth and its atmosphere; the surface and atmosphere therefore warm so as to increase the outgoing energy until the outgoing and incoming flows of energy are equal. Carbon dioxide accounts for about half of the human-induced greenhouse gas contribution to warming since the late 1800s, with increases in the other greenhouse gases accounting for the rest; changes in solar output may have provided an augmentation to warming in the first half of the 20th century.

Carbon dioxide concentration is rising mostly as a result of fossil-fuel burning and partly from clearing of vegetation; about 50% of the enhanced emissions remain in the atmosphere, while the rest of the Earth system continues to absorb the remaining 50%. In the last 50 years atmospheric CO2 concentration has been increasing at a rate much faster than any rates observed in the geological record of the past several thousand years. Global annual-mean surface temperatures are rising at a rapid rate to values higher than at any time in the last 400 (and probably in the last 1000) years. Once introduced in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide remains for at least a few hundred years and implies a lengthy guarantee of sustained future warming. Further, increases in greenhouse gases are nearly certain to produce continued increases in temperature. Such changes in temperature lead to changes in clouds, pressure, winds, and rainfall in a complex sequence of further effects.

 

[glockmail]

Quite on the contrary, the site that you posted has some very pointed things to say about the GHGs that are causing the warming. ....

Again, The AMS lists natural reasons first among the suspected causes.

I did notice that you ignored my recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases. I suspect that's because they are scientifically sound and go directly against your political agenda.

 

[deaddude]

Probably from them starting up their "Black Hole" machine.

while they have indeed turned the large hadron collider on, they have not yet performed any collisions therefore no black holes have been generated.

Even after they do some collisions the chance of a self sustaining black hole being formed are something like 1 in 1000000000000000000000000000000000000

 

[Old Rocks]

Actually, most major scientific societies have issued more recent statements stating that natural causes along with many human activities, not simply the emission of CO2 by man, may contribute to climate change. The AMS, for example, lists natural reasons first among the suspected causes. AMS Information Statement on Climate Change

So to be on the safe side, we should be reducing CO2 emissions as well as reducing the potential for more problematic gases such as methane, from escaping into the atmosphere unburned. A prioritized list to achieve this would look something like this:

1. Use as much nuclear power as possible;
2. Extract natural gas from shallow deposits and utilize it in efficient combustion engines for motive power;
3. Use solar energy only on surfaces that are needed for non power producing activities, such as roofs and suspended above roads and parking lots;
4. Reduce reliance on wind turbines since they may have the potential to change regional or even global wind patterns.

So I can count you in as a red-blooded supporter of these initiatives, right?

Nuclear is good ballast, but has many problems inherent in the first and second generation reactors. It is also very expensive.

Natural gas is an improvement in energy per ton of CO2 put into the atmosphere, but still puts over 2 tons of CH2 into the atmosphere for every ton of CH4 burned.

I am all for putting as much solar as possible on roof, industrial, commercial, and residential. But thermal solar does not work well on roofs, and produces power 24-7.

That is pure bullshit on the effect of wind turbines. We need to put in as many as the terrain and grid allow. Clean power with few side effects.

 

[Old Rocks]

That should have been CO2 instead of CH2.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nuclear is good ballast, but has many problems inherent in the first and second generation reactors. It is also very expensive.

Natural gas is an improvement in energy per ton of CO2 put into the atmosphere, but still puts over 2 tons of CH2 into the atmosphere for every ton of CH4 burned.

I am all for putting as much solar as possible on roof, industrial, commercial, and residential. But thermal solar does not work well on roofs, and produces power 24-7.

That is pure bullshit on the effect of wind turbines. We need to put in as many as the terrain and grid allow. Clean power with few side effects.

Dead birds are not a problem ehh? Building and maintaiing them is problematic and they are unsightly. We also haven't any major free space to put them They are a hazard to low flying aircraft as well. They can not be put up in Hurricane or Tornado prone areas unless you like the idea of 200 foot steel towers with their blades coming down all over the place.

That wipes out the southeast coast and the gulf coast and most of the middle of the country. Not sure how well they would react to earth quakes either, so much for the west coast.

 

[Chris]

Dead birds are not a problem ehh? Building and maintaiing them is problematic and they are unsightly. We also haven't any major free space to put them They are a hazard to low flying aircraft as well. They can not be put up in Hurricane or Tornado prone areas unless you like the idea of 200 foot steel towers with their blades coming down all over the place.

That wipes out the southeast coast and the gulf coast and most of the middle of the country. Not sure how well they would react to earth quakes either, so much for the west coast.

The Danes already get 20% of their power from wind. Are they smarter than us? There is a wind corridor from Texas to the Canadian border that is perfect for wind turbines. Utilities are already building them.

 

[dilloduck]

The Danes already get 20% of their power from wind. Are they smarter than us? There is a wind corridor from Texas to the Canadian border that is perfect for wind turbines. Utilities are already building them.

yes-the danes are smarter than us. Everyone knows that

 

[glockmail]

Nuclear is good ballast, but has many problems inherent in the first and second generation reactors. It is also very expensive.

Natural gas is an improvement in energy per ton of CO2 put into the atmosphere, but still puts over 2 tons of CH2 into the atmosphere for every ton of CH4 burned.

I am all for putting as much solar as possible on roof, industrial, commercial, and residential. But thermal solar does not work well on roofs, and produces power 24-7.

That is pure bullshit on the effect of wind turbines. We need to put in as many as the terrain and grid allow. Clean power with few side effects.

What the fuck is nuclear ballast? Nukes are cheap when done right. When I lived in NY Niagara Mohawk told us that our rates were high because they had nukes. When I moved here Duke told us that our rates were so low because they have nukes. My neighbor in NY worked for Ni-Mo and he had a lot of stories about the union workers. NC is a right to work state.

Natural gas in shallow deposits will leak into the atmosphere unburned if we don't extract it, and the unburned gas is about 50 times worse a greenhouse gas then the CO2 generated when burned.

Solar only works when the sun shines. It is probably the most expensive power available.

Its no bullshit on the windmills. Take energy out of the wind and you have less energy in the wind. Try putting ocean mills in the east coast Gulf Stream, which would be much more efficient since water is so much more dense, and see how Europe will fight you on it.

 

[Old Rocks]

What the fuck is nuclear ballast? Nukes are cheap when done right. When I lived in NY Niagara Mohawk told us that our rates were high because they had nukes. When I moved here Duke told us that our rates were so low because they have nukes. My neighbor in NY worked for Ni-Mo and he had a lot of stories about the union workers. NC is a right to work state.

Natural gas in shallow deposits will leak into the atmosphere unburned if we don't extract it, and the unburned gas is about 50 times worse a greenhouse gas then the CO2 generated when burned.

Solar only works when the sun shines. It is probably the most expensive power available.

Its no bullshit on the windmills. Take energy out of the wind and you have less energy in the wind. Try putting ocean mills in the east coast Gulf Stream, which would be much more efficient since water is so much more dense, and see how Europe will fight you on it.

We tried nuclear here on the West Coast, and the costs were far greater than anticipated. Any power that is 24-7, and can be controlled is a ballast power. It means that you can ramp it up and down to keep up with demand, or lack of it. Hydro power is ballast for wind power here in Oregon.
You are only taking the power out of a very small area of the wind. Do you thing that the wind ceases to blow at elevations of 300 ft above ground? Ocean mills in the Gulf Stream is a hell of a good idea. Some interesting engineering challenges.
Solar is only as expensive as it is at present because of demand. First Solar, and one other company that I know of are manufacturing thin film panels for a less than a dollar a watt. Applied Materials of Japan is building a factory that will put out better than a Gwatt of solar a year, at a manufacturing cost of about 22 cents a watt. All of the factories coming on line at present have already sold their first two years production. When we begin to see excess capacity in solar, then there will be a dramatic drop in prices. Comprable to what we have seen in computer memory.
Thermal solar works 24-7.The Energy Blog: About Solar Towers

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Danes already get 20% of their power from wind. Are they smarter than us? There is a wind corridor from Texas to the Canadian border that is perfect for wind turbines. Utilities are already building them.

Remind me? Do the Danes have earthquakes, Tornados or Hurricanes in their Country?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We tried nuclear here on the West Coast, and the costs were far greater than anticipated. Any power that is 24-7, and can be controlled is a ballast power. It means that you can ramp it up and down to keep up with demand, or lack of it. Hydro power is ballast for wind power here in Oregon.
You are only taking the power out of a very small area of the wind. Do you thing that the wind ceases to blow at elevations of 300 ft above ground? Ocean mills in the Gulf Stream is a hell of a good idea. Some interesting engineering challenges.
Solar is only as expensive as it is at present because of demand. First Solar, and one other company that I know of are manufacturing thin film panels for a less than a dollar a watt. Applied Materials of Japan is building a factory that will put out better than a Gwatt of solar a year, at a manufacturing cost of about 22 cents a watt. All of the factories coming on line at present have already sold their first two years production. When we begin to see excess capacity in solar, then there will be a dramatic drop in prices. Comprable to what we have seen in computer memory.
Thermal solar works 24-7.The Energy Blog: About Solar Towers

Nuclear costs so much not because of the need of the power source but because of the idiotic regulations DESIGNED to drive it from the market.

 

[glockmail]

We tried nuclear here on the West Coast, and the costs were far greater than anticipated. Any power that is 24-7, and can be controlled is a ballast power. It means that you can ramp it up and down to keep up with demand, or lack of it. Hydro power is ballast for wind power here in Oregon.
You are only taking the power out of a very small area of the wind. Do you thing that the wind ceases to blow at elevations of 300 ft above ground? Ocean mills in the Gulf Stream is a hell of a good idea. Some interesting engineering challenges.
Solar is only as expensive as it is at present because of demand. First Solar, and one other company that I know of are manufacturing thin film panels for a less than a dollar a watt. Applied Materials of Japan is building a factory that will put out better than a Gwatt of solar a year, at a manufacturing cost of about 22 cents a watt. All of the factories coming on line at present have already sold their first two years production. When we begin to see excess capacity in solar, then there will be a dramatic drop in prices. Comprable to what we have seen in computer memory.
Thermal solar works 24-7.The Energy Blog: About Solar Towers

That's what I figured you meant but you are wrong, or you have the wrong definition for ballast. A nuclear reactor, once turned on, is left on to produce 100% output 24/7 since it is so cheap to operate. Here we have pumped hydro storage during off-peak hours to use up the excess power, then run the process in reverse to make up some of the peak. We also use coal and some natural gas to help match supply with demand.

For the past 40 or so years they've been telling us that cost breakthroughs for PV cells were just around the corner. I'll believe it when I see it. They're putting up a big farm here and its total bullshit because the use of alternate energy is mandated, so my rates will be forced up. It will also consume valuable farmland so will actually contribute to global warming.

No one has answered what windmills and ocean turbines will do to the climate. That doesn't mean that my issue is bullshit, but it does point to a hidden agenda, just like the mandated PV farm.

 

[WhiteLion]

That's what I figured you meant but you are wrong, or you have the wrong definition for ballast. A nuclear reactor, once turned on, is left on to produce 100% output 24/7 since it is so cheap to operate. Here we have pumped hydro storage during off-peak hours to use up the excess power, then run the process in reverse to make up some of the peak. We also use coal and some natural gas to help match supply with demand.

For the past 40 or so years they've been telling us that cost breakthroughs for PV cells were just around the corner. I'll believe it when I see it. They're putting up a big farm here and its total bullshit because the use of alternate energy is mandated, so my rates will be forced up. It will also consume valuable farmland so will actually contribute to global warming.

No one has answered what windmills and ocean turbines will do to the climate. That doesn't mean that my issue is bullshit, but it does point to a hidden agenda, just like the mandated PV farm.

Would they float like the oil rigs???

 

[glockmail]

Would they float like the oil rigs???

Ocean turbines? Yes. They'd be anchored to the ocean floor with cables to hold them in place below shipping and most fish migration. A vertical turbine is the best configuration since it doesn't have to be steered with the current.

 

[WhiteLion]

Ocean turbines? Yes. They'd be anchored to the ocean floor with cables to hold them in place below shipping and most fish migration. A vertical turbine is the best configuration since it doesn't have to be steered with the current.

Be cool if they had one like a windsock with a tail or rudder that would follow the direction of the flow current???One good thing is that the ocean current is constant and doesnt die down near as bad as the wind with windmills... At anyrate we couldnt have windmills near us because the area i live in is so hurricane prone i couldnt imagine a 200 foot wind prop blade flying at me at 150 mph lol

 

[Old Rocks]

I can easily tell you what wind mills and ocean turbines will do to the climate. Nothing. The amount of water and air that they are affecting is completely insignificant compared to the total amount of energy in the atmosphere and ocean. They will have no more affect than a small hill, or dune under the ocean, would have.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I can easily tell you what wind mills and ocean turbines will do to the climate. Nothing. The amount of water and air that they are affecting is completely insignificant compared to the total amount of energy in the atmosphere and ocean. They will have no more affect than a small hill, or dune under the ocean, would have.

I notice no one wants to mention the fact that the Dutch have no Hurricanes, earthquakes or Tornados and why areas prone to those conditions can not be used for Wind Turbines, cutting off most of the Country to their use.

Further no one wants to discuss the fact that Nuclear energy plants are regulated into the red so are not built and that idiotic challenges prevent them breaking even.

Remind me again where we get a source to replace the 60 percent of our electrical Grid that President Obama plans to regulate out of existance?

 

[glockmail]

I can easily tell you what wind mills and ocean turbines will do to the climate. Nothing. The amount of water and air that they are affecting is completely insignificant compared to the total amount of energy in the atmosphere and ocean. They will have no more affect than a small hill, or dune under the ocean, would have.

A hill or dune doesn't remove energy from the system like a turbine does. Fluid simply speeds up to go around the obstruction then slows back down on the other side with next to no energy loss. When we have greenie weenies complaining about radiation form a nuke that is 1/100 of ambient then I bring up this issue. So far all the only response is a dismissal like you just did, devoid of actual analysis. I think it is something that needs to be addressed before we fuck up the environment big time.