Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Like, if we REALLY want to do anything, the hippies need to drop their opposition to nuclear power. You'll get a LOT more agreement if you rally around an actual solution that some people who doubt global warming still like. This way, a lot of them are like "well, don't think global warming is happening, but I am pro-nuclear so I'll go along for that"

Everyone wins.

Rented Tritium wrote:Unfortunately, it's just as hard selling the gore crowd on nuclear power as it is selling the right on climate change, so it's going to be remarkably hard to do anything about this.

Its inevitable. If prudent we begin converted to an electricty based economy, with underlying electricity powered by (say it together now chillins) "nuc - you - ler," and where efficacious solar, and wind.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rented Tritium wrote:Like, if we REALLY want to do anything, the hippies need to drop their opposition to nuclear power. You'll get a LOT more agreement if you rally around an actual solution that some people who doubt global warming still like. This way, a lot of them are like "well, don't think global warming is happening, but I am pro-nuclear so I'll go along for that"

Everyone wins.

Exactly, well the good guys win anyway. The ME and certain dictators on death's door due to cancer, not so much.

notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.

You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.

If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.

Yep.

Now as far as non-nuclear clean energy goes, wind is the most ready for prime time currently. Solar is way below break even still and will need some creative applications to even BEGIN to replace things. Wind though, has some REALLY interesting innovations coming up.

They're experimenting with what are effectively giant kites with turbines on them that are tethered up higher where the winds are more constant and faster. You can even hook them up to sea platforms so they aren't even visible from land.

If we can get power out of those in excess of their materials cost, even only a small net, we can just crank them out.

as Biccat says though, harvesting kinetic energy from very important natural cycles can do damage if you go overboard. I will say though that you'd need to harvest a TON of energy before you noticed it, like, wayyy more than we can actually get.

notprop wrote:Why does the Global Warming debate revolve around Al-flipping-Gore all the time?

...
...

Because he is left wing in American terms, and it is mainly right-wing Americans who are against global warning.

Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.

Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.

So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.

Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.

So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?

Regards,

Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?

Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?

This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.

To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.

biccat wrote:

notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.

You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.

If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.

Hmmmm, scared of tidal energy now?

How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean? You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you? They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.

Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?

Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.

Rented,

As an apparent global warming advocate, here is the cross you bear...

Your side cheats. Your side lies. Cheaters and liars have ZERO credibility.

I really don't know or care how you do your math, because I don't trust you (the plural you).

If you insist on doing math, what percentage of the total heat was due to the ski mask? Would it melt a snowflake?

Regards, and have a nice day - its Friday,

Rented Tritium wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.

Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.

So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?

Regards,

Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?

Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?

This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.

To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.

Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with global warming-definitely climate change (cause er duh the climate constantly changes derp derp) but the cause is a major dispute. Indeed, if solar cycles are indeed tied to Earth temp changes, then we are in for a cool spell. Thats why, under the enlightened Frazzled administration, while Canada and Greenland are definitely ours, we're only putting down an option on Antartica.

notprop wrote:

biccat wrote:

notprop wrote:I agree on the clean/renewable energy sources. The sooner we have Fusion energy and or enough Wind/Solar/Tidal energy the sooner we can cut the Middle-East and Balkans loose to fight it out amoungst themselves and for our entertainment.

You're worried about climate change (global warming being a subset thereof), and yet you're advocating wind, solar, and (most importantly) tidal energy? Do you realize the catastrophic effect that pulling tidal energy out of the oceans would have on the global climate? If you think a small change in atmospheric CO2 is bad, wait until you start fething with the oceans.

If we harvested enough wind and solar energy to replace our current consumption you'd likewise see a lot of environmental disruption.

Hmmmm, scared of tidal energy now?

How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean? You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you? They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.

Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?

Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.

I don't think we have to worry as much as he does, but theoretically he's absolutely right. Wind and tidal energy absolutely have consequences. First off, law of conservation of energy. When you harvest energy from the ocean, you are robbing the ocean of movement. You are only taking a tiiiiiny fraction of it, but if you had ENOUGH of them, you absolutely could change ocean currents. Even a 1% drop in overall kinetic energy could completely screw up major currents.

Same with wind. Wind farms work because they take energy from the wind. The wind is slightly slower on the other side of the turbine. The energy has to come from somewhere. The issue is that the pressure difference on either side of a sufficiently large wind farm HAS BEEN PROVEN to slightly change cloud patterns and temperature gradient in a variety of ways. Again, these things aren't obvious on the scale that we are usually doing it, but if you expand it enough you WILL SEE SOME CHANGES that can add up.

Even on the small scale, the noise of a wind turbine can screw with animal migration etc, and tidal energy can change the erosion deposition patterns of a given shore just like how sea walls increase erosion on either side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

Phanatik wrote:Frazzled - Good call (and thanks), I took the plunge 5 years ago.

Rented - While the sun does go through cyclic periods of warmer and cooler periods, its still the hottest object in this solar system. Without it, the earth would eventually cool off far below the level to support life.

So, turn your oven to 450 degrees F and stick your head in, and then turn it down to 400 degrees F and stick it in again. Notice a difference?

Regards,

Are you under the impression that the fact that the sun is hot is not part of the math here?

Do you think I don't view the sun as part of the system?

This post is insulting drivel. We're arguing that greenhouse gases are keeping too much of the sun's energy on earth. Do you really not get the concept here? "SUN IS HOT" does not disprove even a little bit of our thesis.

To use your own analogy, stick your head in at 400, now put on a ski mask and do it again. Your head got hotter the second time because of the ski mask and both times because of the oven.

Solar cycles are just now being explored as a cause for temprature changes on Earth and Mars (it was noticed Mars is heating up at the same rate as greanhouse gas guzzling Earth). I'm not necessarily disagreeing with global warming-definitely climate change (cause er duh the climate constantly changes derp derp) but the cause is a major dispute. Indeed, if solar cycles are indeed tied to Earth temp changes, then we are in for a cool spell. Thats why, under the enlightened Frazzled administration, while Canada and Greenland are definitely ours, we're only putting down an option on Antartica.

There's a chance that we're in for a cold spell either way. There's a good deal of evidence suggesting that with a large enough melt, the salinity of the oceans drops and convection falls apart, making the gulf stream turn off for a few hundred years. This is PROBABLY what happened in each ice age. The north freezes harder and the south gets hotter. The colder north regenerates the ice caps and increases salinity, restarting the current.

It's sort of like a temperature safety valve.

At issue is that A) if we ARE causing the increase this time, we can't be 100% sure that safety valve can handle the extra energy and B) even if it's 100% natural, a natural cycle that kills millions still kills millions.

This is the science that the day after tomorrow was LOOOSELY based on (ice tornadoes are uhh not part of the thesis haha)

I dunno, thermodynamics innit?

Either we're in one of three states - loosing energy, gaining energy or equal loss and gain which will balance themselves out.

Now clearly not ALL of the energy from the sun gets removed by radiation, some goes into the food chain. But assuming that there isn't a net loss then we've miraculously been in homeostatis until the last 200 years or else we've not actually been cooking for the last 4.x billion years. (Also I'm not convinced about the age of the earth myself)

Phototoxin wrote:I dunno, thermodynamics innit?

Either we're in one of three states - loosing energy, gaining energy or equal loss and gain which will balance themselves out.

Now clearly not ALL of the energy from the sun gets removed by radiation, some goes into the food chain. But assuming that there isn't a net loss then we've miraculously been in homeostatis until the last 200 years or else we've not actually been cooking for the last 4.x billion years. (Also I'm not convinced about the age of the earth myself)

Like I said about the gulf stream, the earth thermo cycle has a series of pressure valves to get it back to relative homeostasis. Earth isn't a perfect black body, but it is able to swing back and forth with an average at approx the level of a black body, so it's cool.

But the extra co2 emissions are keeping us in a net increase. The good news is we'll eventually hit a pressure valve (an ice age), the bad news is that said pressure valve will kill a lot of people.

Also, there's the theory that if we screwed up the balance FAR ENOUGH, we could break through the pressure valves and just become venus, which obv would suck.

Now, next point, you aren't convinced about the age of the earth? Uhhh, wut? Explain your position there.

notprop wrote:Hmmmm, scared of tidal energy now?

Scared of tidal energy? Well, I'm scared of the consequence of drawing tidal energy out of the oceans. Because thermodynamics says you can't get energy from nothing.

notprop wrote:How do you pull tidal energy out of an ocean?

Not by harvesting the energy of what most people consider waves. You pull energy out of the ocean by exploiting the difference in kinetic energy between moving water and a reference point, for example the air or non-tidal part of the ocean.

notprop wrote:You do realise tht those wavey things disapate on contact with the coastline don't you?

Even if the waves did dissipate when they contact the coastline (they don't), it's incredibly inefficient to try to harvest the energy from the waves, it's much easier to harvest energy from tidal streams.

notprop wrote:They don't bounce off Ireland and head back to the US in one long never ending game of tag.

Yeah, they do. It's called reflection.

notprop wrote:Seriously, there are problems with tidal energy, damming effects and siltation for example which can be planned out/managed; but you seem to be inferring that the ocean is like a battery and that it might be drained of power?

Actually, I imply, you infer.

The problem isn't drawing energy out of the ocean, but that when you withdraw energy from the system you change the characteristics of that system.

notprop wrote:Still we will see what the mass effects of that o-so-dangerous wind energy use is when the Londo Array is finished in the near future. Thats 40km2 of wind turbines in the Thames Estuary. Thats on top of the huge numbers already installed off of the Kent coast. I like them and think the're pretty.

The effect of 40 square km. will actually be pretty minimal, globally speaking, because the system only generates ~1200 MW of power. That's about as much energy as two traditional coal plants, which would also have a fairly minimal environmental impact. The biggest difference will be in the area downwind of the turbines.

It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?

As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.

I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.

<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:
Your side cheats. Your side lies. Cheaters and liars have ZERO credibility.

Since everyone cheats, and everyone lies, that should indicate that no one has any credibility; which is basically the foundation of critical thinking.

Phanatik wrote:
I really don't know or care how you do your math, because I don't trust you (the plural you).

You could, of course, do the math yourself, or investigate the methodology in question; rather than relying on trust. I know it requires more work, but with an IQ of 151 that work shouldn't prove challenging.

Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?

As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.

I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.

<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.

Regards,

Thre last time I grilled I had to hose down a large swath so I wouldn't start another 30,000 acre fire. But the steaks were worth it. Seriously.

biccat wrote:Even if everyone were to accept the standard model of CO2 -> OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DROWN, we should still have a debate about what the proper role of government and regulation should have on the issue. Specifically, is anthropogenic global warming a bad thing and is it better to

Unfortunately, neither side is really interested in advancing the debate. The right, correctly IMO, is arguing against the underlying position of global warming while the left refuses to discuss anything other than Kyoto or the like.

Strangely, this isn't all that far from my position on the debate, as it stands. I think that the left has put too much faith in the anthropogenic nature of global warming, and that the right spends too much time denying basic climate statistics.

The planet has gotten warmer over the period relevant to most statistics, and that's difficult to deny given that there's little, non-political challenges to it. The real questions are whether or not we caused it, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not we should do anything about it.

Porterhouse, maybe? yum yum

I lived in San Angelo for 4 months (during the summer - gasp) and loved it. That was 1986 though, when I believe they were still switching over from global cooling to global warming.

I'm waiting for Texas to secede.

Best,

Frazzled wrote:

Phanatik wrote:It saddens me that my backyard grilling has been increasing the co2 on Mars all of these years. Who knew?

As pittance, I think every nation's economy should be revamped to fight insidious backyard grilling that is ruining the ecology of Mars.

I'm perfectly willing to return to living in caves until thousands of years in the future when solar/wind energy technology will finally be sufficient to make it possible for me to once again turn on the lights.

<stands up>
I admit it. I'm a dirty little energy user.

Regards,

Thre last time I grilled I had to hose down a large swath so I wouldn't start another 30,000 acre fire. But the steaks were worth it. Seriously.

Oh Frazzled, you're carbon footprint is so large it mould make a clown blush.

Anyways, the only possible fix I can see to this is a nuclear winter. You see if we make the planet really, really cold then eventually gloabl warming will heat everything back up and everything will be hunky-dory for any surviving humans and/or mutants still left around. What other actions can force an evolutionary change, save the Earth, and give us a chance to live out any post-apocalyptic Earth fantasies we may have?

dogma wrote:The real questions are whether or not we caused it, whether or not we can do anything about it, and whether or not we should do anything about it.

Truer words have never been spoken.

I don't bother trying to reconcile data over snapshots of time for a planet that is over 4 billion years old; that has in it's time been a cooling ball of magma, a big snowball, or wavered between ice ages and balmy sunny days.

I don't lose sleep over what amounts to about 1 degree of difference over the short term. Today it's warm; tomorrow it may be cold, but it will be warm again.

I have more fascination for the possibility of crustal shifts, and have they occurred in the past, and possibly the future? Now that is global climate change.

Regards,

Earth is a pretty awesome planet, in fact its my preferred planet over any in our solar system. Pluto used to be my favorite planet until science said it wasn't a planet anymore, so that makes Earth my favorite plaent currently. I also really don't know how to feel about rising water levels, I know how to swim, I like fishing, and maybe there's a chance we could build underwater bio-domes but I also like knowing that I can't drown in a field of grass.

I'm lucky to live in an area juuust inside where the water would be if we had a complete cap melt AND I'm juuuust south enough that if the north atlantic conveyor shut down, my local climate would be roughly the same temp it is now.

Of course, it would be much more crowded, since it would get much hotter south of me and much colder north of me, but still, advantage is advantage.

I believe it was the Atlantic conveyor shutting down that caused the drought that wiped out the Maya. Or, maybe they didn't sacrifice enough people. One of those two.

Or, maybe they didn't sacrifice enough people. One of those two.

That would be the Aztecs. Obviously, the sun wasn't impressed enough to save them from the Spanish

Phanatik wrote:I believe it was the Atlantic conveyor shutting down that caused the drought that wiped out the Maya. Or, maybe they didn't sacrifice enough people.

I suppose one could have caused the other.

LordofHats wrote:
That would be the Aztecs. Obviously, the sun wasn't impressed enough to save them from the Spanish

The Maya did it too, though not as much.

dogma wrote:

LordofHats wrote:
That would be the Aztecs. Obviously, the sun wasn't impressed enough to save them from the Spanish

The Maya did it too, though not as much.

Oh spoil the fun why don't you

Amaya wrote:What other evidence? The only reliable information on the climate we have is less than 200 years old. Earth is alleged to being millions of years old. There might be a climate change, but I think it is much more believable that Earth goes through cyclical climate changes than to say that this is a man made issue.

Right there... 'millions of years old'. Anything you say beyond this point is going to be highly questionable.

I think what we decide in the West might become a bit of a moot point, considering the CO2 that India and especially China are pumping out into the atmosphere. The fastest rising economies in the world are even less likely to hamstring themselves than the West is, even if we do come up with some punitive measures to reduce environmental pollution it's almost certain that they aren't going to follow suit.

Really, before any kind of measures can take place that will reduce profit margins, history has proven that what needs to happen is some kind of massive environmental disaster that can be reliably attributed to global warming. It will need to kill a lot of people - not poor people, we can just simply flip over the channel and watch something else - it has to kill a quantity of the rich, and preferably the famous. Perhaps something like a super-hurricane hitting Beverly Hills. The site of a teary-faced Tom Cruise and family fleeing from the onslaught of a 200mph wind would be sure to quench the doubts of even the most ardent climate-change denier.

Regarding the Nuclear issue, it will be interesting to see how it develops. Some governments (again, mostly in the Far East, but also in Europe) have started stock-piling supplies of Thorium. Not only is this an excellent material for making cool looking suits of armour in World of Warcraft, but it's also a fissionable material that does not possess the qualities that will allow it to explode and make an area of the earth glow in the dark for thousands of years. Back in the 50's and 60's it was ignored in favour of uranium because a) the reactor technology was not at a level to make sufficient to make use of it b) It couldn't be used to make bombs.

The waste produced by Thorium has also got a much shorter half life than Uranium. The stuff was practically being thrown away when mining operations were looking for Uranium, and some scientists think that at current levels of energy consumption Thorium reactors could power the earth for more than a 1000 years (by which point we will have long since moved on, or will have gone back to living in caves). Apparently India is about to bring the first Thorium reactor online later this year, with the Chinese not far behind. So, I think there is some hope for cheaper, less polluting forms of energy production, and an alternative to wind farms and tidal farms. Again though, these energy groups need to get some more money behind them and therefore some political clout to rival the kind of lobbying that goes on between the oil industry and Washington if they are to become more numerous.

Monty Python has an answer for all of life's dilemmas.

I still chuckle at "Come and see the violence inherent in the system."