jay: As I have said, climate change is something that has occured back and forth, sometimes very quickly, since the beginning. Look at the temperature shift and how far the oceans rose at the end of the last ice age, for example. Some of the other examples are obvious things that are already being addressed, some of the others (Robots?) are kind of out-there. Moore's law won't hold up for another 20 years if the current thinking is correct. Perhaps with new methods and materials, but that wasn't really what Moore was talking about.

REGARDLESS... there's nothing wrong with trying to get people to act. Like I said, clean energy, peace, a healthy environment, no killer robots, all of it is fine with me. You have to weigh the cure with the illness though. In so doing if you overestimate the danger, you settle for more dangerous fixes, and risk harming yourself more with solutions.

Just tossing in my two cents...

About a year or so ago on C-Span, on their morning Journal show I listened as Brian Lamb spoke to the Danish Ambassador to the US. The Ambassador told a tale of how when the first oil shortage hit in 1973-74, Denmark was VERY hard hit. They immediately began seeking alternatives. At the time, the only place in the world with any experience in so-called "alternative energy" sources was the U.S. So, his gov't came to the U.S. and learned all they could. They took it home and began building, experimenting, testing, improving. He concluded the story with two points:
1) today the nation considered the world's leading expert in wind energy is Denmark; and
2) today Denmark gets over 30% of its energy needs met by wind energy.
He also noted that they were moving into solar power and ocean current energy, and they hoped that within 20 years would
satisfy over 75% of all their energy needs through "renewable" alternative energy sources.

Yet most times I've seen people suggest wind and/or solar here in the U.S. midwest, and the most common reaction is to dismiss it as wishful thinking and a wasteful dream that will never work...

You have to weigh the cure with the illness though. In so doing if you overestimate the danger, you settle for more dangerous fixes, and risk harming yourself more with solutions.

Yes, I've seen some bizarre things proposed to try to ameliorate global warming. One, would be to fertilize the ocean with minute iron filings (they support algae growth), in the hopes of drawing CO2 out of the atmosphere. No one knows what the long-term of that solution would be. That's why I agree with you - I think the lowest tech methods - most common sense should be explored first. "Green" energy, increase fuel efficiency, etc.

As to Robots being "out there" yes, I suppose, but we are getting closer to it than ever before, otherwise someone "in the business" (Joy) wouldn't be so worried about it. It's not really outside the realm of what's conceivably possible in the relatively near term future. Moore's law, despite the current limitations of silicon, will be extended with new discoveries I think.

JW

No one knows what the long-term of that solution would be. That's why I agree with you - I think the lowest tech methods - most common sense should be explored first. "Green" energy, increase fuel efficiency, etc.

Right on! Brother.

Still not sure why people who are not worried about global warming are so worried about CO2 levels?

There are three effects that CO2 has on the atmosphere

a) Breathing
Heating
c) Ozone damage

a) is the most serious, as we will all drop dead if levels raise too high due to poisoning. In reality though we can burn ALL the coal, oil and gas before this is likely to happen. So this is not a major threat. Possibly a localised threat though is major polluting areas. Higher CO2 levels are good for plants and froests though!

Heating. As many people here disagree that global warming is our fault or even a problem, i can't see them worrying about CO2. CO2 is known to increase heat retention and therefore cause global warming, but so what? Many other greenhouse gases are far better at this. CO2 is not the major player.

c) Ozone damage is indeed a worrying issue, but as said CO2 is NOT the major factor in causing this. Other gases such as CFC's like 1,1,1 trichloroethane (in most fridges) are 34,000 times worse. So worrying about the wrong thing here.

We know from deep core ice samples that CO2 levels are much higher than at any time in the previous 200,000 years. We know from sedimentry rock analysis that CO2 samples are higher than at any time in the past 600 million years (or so). But I haven't yet heard a good reason as to why we are worried. The environment as a whole (including global warming) is an issue or it is not.

Paul.

Paul,

I'm confused about the effects of CO2 you have listed. Can you provide links that CO2 levels are poisonous? Maybe you mean CO (carbon monoxide) which is indeed lethal. Perhaps you mean that we can't breathe 100% CO2, but really what you are saying is we need O2 to survive.

I also don't understand how CO2 causes ozone damage. Can you provide a link for that point? I certainly could be ignorant, but I've never heard about such a thing.

CO2 is known to increase heat retention and therefore cause global warming, but so what? Many other greenhouse gases are far better at this. CO2 is not the major player.

This is not true. While there are sustances much better at trapping heat than CO2 (such as methane, and CFCs for instance), the shear volume of CO2 outweighs this factor. In fact, if you refer to the link referenced here, you'll see an EPA report (see table 5) that shows by GWP (an equivalency unit, GWP = Global Warming Potential), CO2 emmissions accounts for better than 2/3rds of the heating effect. Even with other substances, such as methane, some 24% of that comes from burning fossil fuels. Others in that category also include nitrous oxides, and carbon monoxide.

Link

JW

It appears that everybody knows the threat is real; but as in pre-9/11, no one wants to roll up his sleeves and get with it.

Inigo,
you can get carbon dioxide poisoning as well as carbon monoxide poisoning. Humans along with most animals cannot live in low level CO2 environments irrespective of the levels of oxygen present. Any material safety data sheet for CO2 will list exposure limits. A 2% volume will cause a 50% increase in breathing rate. A 3% volume causes a 100% increase. A 4% volume is dangerous. Only 4%!!! This is what happened on Apollo 13 by the way.
CO2 does not itself cause ozone damage. I should have been clearer here. The generation of CO2 through fossil fuel burning (the primary source) however generates ozone damaging gases (such as CH4). What I was trying to imply here was that if fossil fuel burning and CO2 is a problem then it also has ozone damaging effects associated with it.

Jay,
I'm well aware that CO2 is a major player in global warming, but the point I'm trying to make is that for someone who doesn't accept global warming as real then CO2 is not an issue. Especially if they consider CO2 to be a natural gas and atmospheric levels to cycle naturally over time. The major players are then the man made gases, which cannot be blamed on nature.

paul.

Thanks for educating me, Paul!

Yet most times I've seen people suggest wind and/or solar here in the U.S. midwest, and the most common reaction is to dismiss it as wishful thinking and a wasteful dream that will never work...

Probably because (in the US) it is a wasteful dream that will never work. 

Have you ever sat down and looked at how much energy it takes to produce a solar cell or windmill? Then, have you looked at how much they generate in Kilojoules? Then have you looked at how much in Terrajoules of energy per hour our country uses? Then calculate how many windmills and solar cells it would take to make up even 1% of that use? Obviously not or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Windmills and such work great -- in Simcity.  But in the real world, they simply don't generate enough power.  Does that mean we shouldn't bother? No.  If I were emperor, I would require every house to have a solar cell put on its roof.  And I would use vast spaces of the empty desert to put windmills and solar panels.  And try to encourage more farms and other rural areas in the plains states to put up windmills.

But will they put a dent in our energy use? No. They merely slow down the rate of increase. 

If you want to actually reduce our dependence on fossil fuels today:

1) Begin building a massive infrastructure of new nuclear power plants (the new ones supposedly produce much less waste)

2) Raise the fuel economy on all consumer vehicles to 30MPG.  I think it could be done (I live in the Detroit area) with Hybrid technology today.

3) Begin migrating industry to nuclear powered electricity.

4) Push for fuel cell adoption as quickly as possible with nuclear powered energy as the means to generate the power (again for non-techies, fuel cells are not a power source, they are a power container - the energy in a fuel cell doesn't just pop into existence out of nowhere).

Now, bear in mind, I am very skeptical that the earth's temperature is being significantly affected by CO2 emissions. I would argue that deforestation is at least as much of a reason for CO2 to increase than emissions and I don't think CO2 is the reason the temperature is growing.  But at the same time, I really don't like being reliant on foreign oil and believe nuclear power, which exists today, could solve most of these problems.

But the problem is, the same people who want Kyoto and  other such nonsense enacted are the same people who tend to protest nuclear power.

I absolutely agree with your four recommendations, Draginol. A fifth would be to have the government heavily subsidize research into nuclear fusion power plants. That is the long term holy grail for energy.

And I too am frustrated that the majority of environmentalists do not see that we have to make hard choices. An energy crisis is looming. Dependence on oil is dangerous to our national security and economic vitality. The risk of nuclear fission is outweighed by these more serious threats.

Now, bear in mind, I am very skeptical that the earth's temperature is being significantly affected by CO2 emissions.

I'm confused. Your sub-title says global warming is moving from theory to fact, yet here you seem to argue the opposite. What's up?

Does that mean we shouldn't bother? No. If I were emperor, I would require every house to have a solar cell put on its roof.

I think that's a great idea and have often wondered why cities and counties haven't demanded that in their building codes. They're often the ones to lead this kind of change, then state and federal governments follow.

Jw

I think that the case for global warming is getting better. I think that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen. But I am not convinced that CO2 *emissions* are the principle cause.

LIke I said, in that same post, that deforestation could be having a signficant effect.  And I am also not convinced that CO2 levels are the primary mover of the temperature.

I would argue that deforestation is at least as much of a reason for CO2 to increase than emissions and I don't think CO2 is the reason the temperature is growing

No offense, but if you sat down, found out how much coal and oil we've burned over the past century, calculated the amount of CO2 produced by industrial emissions over the past century, figured out the fraction of the atmosphere that comprised, and compared it to deforestation effects, you wouldn't be saying that.

Some aspects of global warming science are up for debate... but this really isn't one of them.

On solar cells:

I think that's a great idea and have often wondered why cities and counties haven't demanded that in their building codes.

some cities and states give tax incentives for them.

Solar cells have the potential, eventually, to power our economy--but it would take a really big investment in covering a few square miles of desert in Arizona with the things. Just to give you a sense of the scales involved, here's a quick calculation: earth gets 1400 watts of sunlight per square meter on average, assume 10% efficiency in the cell so 140 W/m^2, say 100 for simplicity. The US uses ~4 trillion kilowatt*hr annually, or (again rounding up) an average power of about a billion (10^9) watts. So we need 10^9/100=10 million square meters of solar cell, or 10 square kilometers, or a couple square miles of solar cells, give or take, to provide all our electricity.

That's a HUGE investment--solar cells are expensive. But the costs are decreasing, and efficiency is increasing--so it's possible that in a decade this will be a worthwhile project.

A fifth would be to have the government heavily subsidize research into nuclear fusion power plants. That is the long term holy grail for energy

The government already does heavily subsidze fusion research, and most physicists see fusion power plants as several decades off.

This brings up a lot of interesting points.  I wrote an article that talked about global warming a few weeks back which you replied on.  I also believe like many others we definitely need to move away from fossil fuels, if not for the pollution it is causing (which is evident) in cities like Houston and L.A. then for the other reason that we are largely dependent on fossil fuels which are imports from other countries.  I also believe that we should have stronger gov't backing from this administration into actual research for these questions on whether CO2 is actually causing the earth to warm up. 

The government already does heavily subsidze fusion research, and most physicists see fusion power plants as several decades off.

Not heavily enough in my opinion.

Have you ever sat down and looked at how much energy it takes to produce a solar cell or windmill? Then, have you looked at how much they generate in Kilojoules? Then have you looked at how much in Terrajoules of energy per hour our country uses? Then calculate how many windmills and solar cells it would take to make up even 1% of that use? Obviously not or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Renewable energy is not as much of a fairy tale as you are making it out to be. It will take a while to get the appropriate infrastructure in place, but renewable energy certainly has a place in the US's future. In fact, many states have Renewable Portfolio Standards which require that a certain percentage of all energy consumed come from renewable resources. I think that Maine uses up to 30% renewables. The Federal Government is looking to pass a similar standard.

In addition to looking at alternatives for electricity, we should be looking at alternatives for motor fuel--ethanol and bioethanol have a ways to go before they are completely viable. However, Congress has an affinity toward both, and ethanol might boom due to federal subsidies, high import tariffs and the banning of MtBE.

And there is always the interest in fuel cells and a hydrogen economy. Gov. Schwarzeneger (sp?) has tried to get his Humvee converted to a hydrogen vehicle. It comes at a price tag of upwards of $200,000 and currently hydrogen fuel stations are few and far between. But this coupled with President Bush's $5 billion in hydrogen R & D suggests that hydrogen may actually be the fuel of the future.

An interesting book to read : Kicking the Sacred Cow by James P. Hogan

A look at how science is abandoning its principles as pure pursuit of knowledge for political concerns.

CO2 is less than 1% of all total greenhouse gases
less than 2% of global CO2 production is due to the activities of man

the primary "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
You can't blame a corporation for water vapor production.
the earth's climate has warmed 1/2 of a degree since 1900, but most of that increase happened before 1930, most of our rise in co2 production happened after 1950.

In fact: why are we discussing a scientific issue on a political discussion board ( I am willing to bet that none of us are climatologists)?

Hmmmm...

don't let politics corrupt science like it did to religion.

Shadesofgray: Assertion isn't proof.  You didn't answer any of the questions I put forth. You just waved them away.

I'll ask you again:

Have you ever sat down and looked at how much energy it takes to produce a solar cell or windmill? Then, have you looked at how much they generate in Kilojoules? Then have you looked at how much in Terrajoules of energy per hour our country uses? Then calculate how many windmills and solar cells it would take to make up even 1% of that use? Obviously not or else we wouldn't be having this conversation.

As an Electrical Engineer, I do have some understanding of power requirements.  Windmills and solar cells simply don't generate enough power. It's a scaling issue.

Before I get sucked into having to explain this, I'll point to Steven Den Beste's article where he spent some time trying to explain this:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/09/Obscureenergysources.shtml

I realize that we all really really want to believe in these things, the problem with wind power and solar panels isn't a matter of will, it's a matter of scale.

I'd agree with the author about US reliance on foreign oil (it's not going to be easily reduced) and that alternative power sources aren't a waste of time for anything other than the largest and most crowded of cities.

The argument that only massive sources of power are in any way useful is ludicrous. If the average house can collect enough power through solar cells to be self-sufficient in energy terms for 15 years (a rough shelf-life for some of the cells being developed for power needs in Australia now), and every house in a city uses this as the main power source, the only need for massive sources of power would be for heavily built-up commercial areas and industry, both of which could benefit from more efficient energy use. WIth the increasing energy efficiency of domestic appliances it's entirely possible that many houses would run at a energy surplus, thus providing power to the grid and decreasing reliance on other power sources. In the event of severe cloud cover then back-up plants would have to be run, but nuclear is not the best solution in my mind. A modern coal plant would provide enough power without the risk and without the necessity of either highly trained and expensive technicians or always running at full power. It's pollution output would be similar all up as well to a nuclear plant.

As everyone knows, nuclear power plants are very clean to run, but the ore they require is extremely dirty to mine and dangerous even in its natural form. Uranium mines in Australia frequently are the cause of serious accidents and poisonings, despite a green movement that ensures that safety is world-best-standard. The high cost of radioactive power in both the environmental and practical sense (nuclear plants can't be turned off easily) make then an unnecessary waste of energy.

The other weakness of the article is that it also holds as a given that efficiency for alternative energies is stagnant, whilst ongoing research has shown that this is by no means the case. Solar cells have vastly increased in efficiency over the last 20 years, and wind power continues to grow in viability. It's unreasonable to assume that they will not improve more over time, especially as he/she is willing to speculate on the viability of technologies that haven't even been trialed with much success.

I can't speak for the average Australian but I can tell you that the Average American home, which is 2500 square foot, couldn't be powered by solar cells even if the roof was covered and they were in the desert. In addition, I suspect these houses in Australia use natural gas for their stoves and laundry.

Americans like things like air condition, big screen TVs, large refrigerators, dish washers, ovens, micro wave ovens, washer and dryer.  That's not going to be powered by solar cells. Some (much) of it would have to be powered by something like natural gas which is - a fossil fuel.

What I find a bit..frustrating are people who just come in and talk about this in fuzzy issues.  How much power we use isn't an unknown. How much power an average house uses isn't an unknown.  How much power a modern 10x20 rooftop solar cell generates isn't unknown (nor is figuring out how much it would generate if you double its efficiency).

And yet some of you jsut want to throw up your arms and say "Well if we increase efficiency of solar cells than voila!".  This is precisely why advocates of alternative energies don't get taken seriously.  Too often they passionately debate these issues without having even done a slight amount of practical research.

Try this: My house in July averaged using 2.5 Kilowatts of power.  That's not counting the washer and dryer that run on natural gas.  That's 2,500 watts 24/7 (much higher during peek times no doubt).

A top of the line 4'x4' solar panel will generate 80 watts of power.  Figure I can fit 4 of these on my house (they're pretty pricey but hey, no problem). Of course, this is assuming my neighbors don't have a fit about putting these on.  So I'm now getting 320 watts. Which is great! Right? 1/8th of the way there. Right? No, wrong.  Because it's only sunny 1/3rd of the day (it's night for 12 hours and and dusk/dawn for a couple more hours).   Realistically, you should only assume 1/5th of the day of getting sun (assuming you live in a sunny area).  So it' actually 1/8 X 1/5 so it would generate 1/40th of my power.  Of course, bear in mind, I'm still using fossil fuels too - natural gas. This is just taking care of electrical.

So for a lot of effort and making my house's roof look a bit odd, I might, if I'm lucky, during the summer months anyway, be able to get 2% to 3% of my power from solar.

OR

We could try to get nuclear power going again and get 100% from that without any emissions.

I'm not anti-solar. I personally would like a law that required all new homes to have a solar cell on them. Anything is better than nothing and making solar cells acceptable would be a nice start. Even 1% or 2% of power coming from the sun would be nice. But don't kid yourself that we can somehow power our houses with solar cells.

 

The guy knows there is a limit to how far he will fall, and it will be catastrophic when he hits that limit. He is accelerating as he falls, faster and faster towards the ground. He should be building a parachute and doing everything possible to slow himself or create drag.

umm, bad analogy. "Building a parachute" in mid fall only works in roadrunner cartoons.

I can't speak for the average Australian but I can tell you that the Average American home, which is 2500 square foot, couldn't be powered by solar cells even if the roof was covered and they were in the desert. In addition, I suspect these houses in Australia use natural gas for their stoves and laundry.

Not entirely true, Brad. I live in an area where it is done routinely. Most people, though, if they use solar power are smart enough to supplement it with wind power.

But again, we DO live in the middle of the desert, and although it's practical for us, it is not practical for an urban setting (except as supplemental energy), so your arguments still hold true. Just don't dump the waste here is all I ask...lol