(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)
Objection: Current warming is just part of a natural cycle.
Answer: While it is undoubtedly true that there are natural cycles and variations in global climate, those who insist that current warming is purely natural -- or even mostly natural -- have two challenges.
First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle. Absent a forcing of some sort, there will be no change in global energy balance. The balance is changing, so natural or otherwise, we need to find this mysterious cause.
Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature. Theory predicts temperature will rise given an enhanced greenhouse effect, so how or why is it not happening?
The mainstream climate science community has provided a well-developed, internally consistent theory that accounts for the effects we are now observing. It provides explanations and makes predictions. Where is the skeptic community's model or theory whereby CO2 does not affect the temperature? Where is the evidence of some other natural forcing, like the Milankovich cycles that controlled the ice ages (a fine historical example of a dramatic and regular climate cycle that can be read in the ice core records taken both in Greenland and in the Antarctic)?
Is this graph a candidate for explaining today's warming? A naive reading of this cycle indicates we should be experiencing a cooling trend now -- and indeed we were gradually cooling over the length of the pre-industrial Holocene, around .5C averaged over 8,000 years.
Not only is the direction of the change wrong, but compare the speed of those fluctuations to today's changes. Leaving aside the descents into glaciation, which were much more gradual, the sudden (geologically speaking) jumps up in temperature every ~100,000 years represent a rate of change roughly ten times slower what we are currently witnessing.
So could current changes be part of a natural cycle? Well, no natural cause has been identified. There is no climatological theory in which CO2 does not drive temperature. And natural cycle precedents do not exhibit the same extreme changes we're now witnessing.
In short: No.
Climate psychology in cartoons: clues for solving the messaging mystery
Jon Stewart praises ‘SuperFreak’ author
The big stories out of Tuesday’s Senate hearing on Kerry-Boxer
Comments
View as Threaded
dobermanmacleod Posted 5:16 pm
18 Dec 2006
The planet Venus is hotter than the planet Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the sun. Venus is hotter because her atmosphere contains more CO2.
The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling. As CO2 levels shoot up, so do temperatures. Carbon is both removed from the air, and added to the air by nature. Sometimes, this carbon balance is upset by volcanic activity, a meteor impact, or more/less heat from the sun.
As the earth warms, carbon sinks (like forests, the permafrost, or the sea floor) become carbon emitters big time. CO2 and methane flood the atmosphere and overwhelm the carbon eco-system. For instance, 55 million years ago a natural runaway global warming episode (nicknamed the PETM) caused mass extinctions. About 500 million years ago the global warming episode was so bad that most life died (that's why it was nicknamed the "Great Dying).
Mankind is triggering the same kind of severe runaway global warming episode by releasing tremendous amounts of greenhouse gas mainly by burning fossil fuels. Do we really want to trigger another "natural" episode of severe warming? Extinctions are natural, but do we want to cause another?
One final note: I think that our climate is more sensitive to CO2 increases than is currently commonly understood by science. Positive feedback loops (where a little warming causes carbon sinks to become carbon emitters, leading to larger warming) are not currently included in most climate models. Particularly, the melting of methane hydrate in permafrost and under the ocean.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 8:50 pm
18 Dec 2006
because we have open 'outer space' (like the windows are full open in the greenhouse) above our heads.
LOL, amazing... please Gristmill supply ALL the predictions due to an overpressure of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
LOL, only one prediction is even remotely correct, drought and that really can not be predicted by a greenhouse effect because the atmosphere is supposed to get wetter. Heating, there is no heating, just no clouds...everyday is summer, but really the world is cooling as the air dries out (humidity is lowered) and the nights get colder....
The whole world is in total denial, scientists and lay people alike.
LOL, lucky I have a way outa here, cause you guys will still be debating fantasies right up until the last days.
I though talking to laypeople about scientific matters could be beneficial, now LOL, I see whatever is said is like blowing into the wind.... the foundations of science are just are not there.
It has been nice being here, you are a great bunch, but I retire.
Stay updated at my website
omegafour.com
Goodbye
<:)
Permalink
djnoll Posted 9:43 pm
18 Dec 2006
In a natural cycle the heat from the Earth's core does generate a significant percentage of the Earth's warmth and climate, ultimately dissipating int o the atmoshere. CO2 does naturally occur in our atmosphere. These two facts go back millions of year and are not in dispute. This is where the human element enters the picture in the last 100 years, because we have affected the ability of the Earth's heat generation from dissipating into space. Like a greenhouse that traps heat inside to warm plants and help them grow in an artificially created climate, the excessive CO2 and other greenhouse gases generated by man have created the walls of the "greenhouse" that holds in the Earth's life giving warmth.
Our problem is though that unlike a greenhouse which can be manually opened and closed to moderate the effects of the trapped heat, we have created a shell that is encasing the Earth in such a way that the heat is trapped. It is then magnified by the solar heat that would normally reach us as well. In essence, you create a super-heater of the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. The Earth, in its natural cycle, cannot then release the heat it generates the way it should and you get global warming.
So the argument is partly right and partly wrong, but it is only when you understand how a greenhouse works do you see in terms that most non-scientific types can understand. For that matter, even engineers when they understand how a greenhouse works begin to change their opinions as well. My father may never be the same, now that he understands that he and Al Gore are not arguing apples and oranges, only seeds and fruit.
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 5:08 am
19 Dec 2006
Check here for a nice schematic overview of energy flows in the climate system:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig1-2.htm
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
lgl Posted 5:57 am
28 Dec 2006
It's here: http://virakkraft.com/climateyear.doc
Around every 3500 years there is a temp minimum, 1360 years after that there is a max. There was a min 1160 ago, i.e the next max will be in about 200 years from now. The curves show a 150 years cycle and maybe a 75 years cycle (causing the decrease between 1940 and 1975) so it's likely there will be a couple of intermediate declines before the next max, so for the temp to reach this next max in time it must rise at about the current rate. The source of this natural cycle may be debated but it's existence is a fact.
lgl
Permalink
polarbear0206 Posted 6:29 am
28 Dec 2006
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 7:11 am
28 Dec 2006
You have offered no mechanism (forcing) at all, just an over active imagination. Those alledged 3500 year cycles look nothing like each other, nor are they all 3500 years long nor do they all follow back to back.
The temperature trends you are examining are also entirely from Greenland. Greenland is not the globe.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:39 am
28 Dec 2006
Mark Twain quote from Gore's movie.
"It's not what we don't know that gets us into trouble."
"It's what we know for sure, that just ain't so."
Do yourself a favor watch the movie, it'll save you a lot of fruitless arguing. Maybe get a copy for your dad too?
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 7:40 am
28 Dec 2006
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
lgl Posted 10:15 pm
28 Dec 2006
The trend is from greenland simply because I have not found any curve for the global temp over that timespan that detailed, I'd be grateful if you could point to one. It would surprise me if the extremes do not coincide.
lgl
Permalink
Coby Beck Posted 4:56 am
30 Dec 2006
Here is a graph of 20k yrs of antarctic temperatures:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig...
There is a link there to the actual data going back several hundred thousnd.
Invent a clever saying, and your name will live forever!
-- Anonymous
Permalink
lgl Posted 7:58 am
30 Dec 2006
Amazing, a max every 200 years, 800,600,400 and 200 years ago, so there should be one about right now and another one in about 200 years, and some of us should be able to live long enough to see the drop in between. Or is it just my over active imagination again ...
lgl
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 3:02 am
06 Feb 2007
Is CO2 causing global warming or is CO2 a result of global warming? (When the earth is warmer there are more CO2 expelling animals.)
In the graph above pretty much the temperature rises on average at least a few hundred years before CO2 levels increase. (More CO2 expelling animals?)
The graph above also shows sometime after temperatures fall at least a few hundred years CO2 levels fall. (Less CO2 expelling animals?)
Also in the Graph there is 1 other thing the earth has not yet reached the maximum temperature of the previous 3 warming peaks. I personally find this very alarming. What if the earth has reached it's peak temperature already? If so in the next thousand years the northern hemisphere could become uninhabitable.
How did Greenland get its name? Did it used to be green?
I live in Michigan and when there are clouds at night the temperature does not drop as much as when there are no clouds.
I (maybe incorrectly) would guess that water in clouds has a bigger effect on global warming than any amount of CO2.
When the next ice age happens and it will 60% the northern hemisphere will become covered in a 2 Kilometer thick sheet of ice. As this happens ALL habitats human and otherwise will be completely decimated. 80% of all CO2 expelling life forms will be forced south or DIE. The few left will have a really hard life.
Permalink
Bruupo Posted 7:05 am
08 Feb 2007
It's not about being incorrect, it's about putting the carriage before the horse. Water exists in basically a finite amount in a closed system, it does not simply decide to go up in the clouds, something has to put it there. CO2 is not a finite constant in our system, it's existence in our atmosphere is almost totally as a byproduct of organic life, and it's concentrations can vary based on that source, unlike water. The amount of water absorbed and held by living beings is trivial compared to the total amount of water on the globe.
"Like i don't need to know about the earth's orbit around the sun nor an over active imagination to assume it will get warmer in the spring. The cycles are not identical and they don't have to. The 3500 years cycle is the result of several other shorter cycles and then the max and min may slide."
Right, well the papacy once had an active imagination, but screw Copernicus. Did anyone notice he outlined a quarter annual phenomenon, an annual phenomenon, and the longest phenomenon addressed, 3,500 years...
3,500 years is nothing in geologic time. Nothing. It certainly isn't enough to make concrete predictions on, you aren't considering the number of variables for a second. When you look at a geologically significant time period, all kinds of crazy shit has happened to and in our climate. Hell, even the old Testament had a flood that probably doesn't correspond to that cycle ;)
Take, for example, the eruption of a giant calderra volcano. The last time a really really big one went was 75,000 years ago in Java, and it had such a severe impact on the worldwide human habitat that our ancestors were bottlenecked from a population of millions to around 15,000 individuals.
Yellowstone could erupt tomorrow. You go far enough on those cycles some people seem so sure of, and these giant eruptions and impact events happen all the time.
We can't prepare for those, but the ingenuity and perseverance that has seen 6 billion humans descend from the 15,000 who barely survived an unbelievably harsh climate aught to mean something to us. It would be cartoonish to throw away everything they clung to so desperately simply by not admitting what is we are doing.
Anyone who believes the earth is our garunteed safe home, stocked with resources for our use, has only a religious understanding of science or our world. That kind of understanding was as misguided and useless in Copernicus' time as it is now.
People who can't accept a scientific consensus in this day and age should definitely turn off their computers, they must be run by black magic, after all.
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 4:06 am
13 Feb 2007
What would happen.
Is it not true tat when you burn hydrogen it produces steam?
Is it not true that all this steam would be released in to the air?
Would this steam not serve as a greenhouse gas?
Closed system ok so when you make a lot of steam where does it go?
Ed Wood
Permalink
lgl Posted 5:15 am
17 Feb 2007
That steam would be nothing compared to the 500*10e15 kg evaporation from the oceans and surface every year.
And how did Greenland get it's name? Actually it used to be greener. The viking Eirik Raude gave it that name to allure people to come there around year 1000, and they did. 3000 "colonialists" lived there until the little iceage (from yr 1400) when climate change made farming impossible. Eirik Raude would have loved todays return of a warmer climate, so would the Mammoths that are now thawing out of the permafrost in Siberia...
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 3:05 am
19 Feb 2007
The mammoths died because of an Ice Age that is only now after thousands of years finally going away.
How is this a bad thing?
it seems to me that for a creature as large as a mammoth to evolve it would take thousands if not millions of years. that said, the earth would of had to be at least somewhat warmer than it is today for thousands to millions of years.
Isn't global cooling vastly more dangerous to the creatures of the earth than global warming?
Given that global cooling can happen in a very short period of time and that it can be caused by volcanoes which are virtually unpredictable; If one truly believes man can have an effect on the earths climate would it not behoove the human race to do everything in their power to lessen the effect of global cooling rather than exacerbating it?
We may actually be able to shorten the next Ice Age.
Ed Wood
Permalink
lgl Posted 7:35 am
19 Feb 2007
1000 years ago it was about as warm as now, on Greenland, but it was much warmer 3500 and 7000 years ago, I have collected some curves here:
http://virakkraft.com/greenland_curves.html
But remember this is not the global temp, I haven't found a proxy for the global temp with sufficient resolution that far back in time.
I agree with you that warming is certainly not the greatest danger of our time, our activities that reduce the earth's ability to biological production is far worse, but unfortunately at present the idea of the curse of CO2 seems to take all the space in the minds of media and politics.
Permalink
Ivriniel Posted 5:34 am
24 Feb 2007
I'm your neighbour over in Ontario, and I like to point out something about our regional climate that you may not realize.
In the winter time, when the weather is clear and cold, it is because we are under the influence of an arctic airmass. Air coming in from the arctic is very cold, and also very dry (since there's little to no open water to evaporate up into the sky up there), so there are little to no clouds in the sky.
When it is cloudy and warmer, it is because we are under the influence of an Atlantic airmass. Air coming in off the Atlantic is warmer and also wetter (since there's plenty of open water to evaporate into the sky).
You're assuming that clouds cause warmer weather, when different factors are influencing both the temperature and the level of cloud cover.
Ivriniel
Permalink
Ivriniel Posted 5:44 am
24 Feb 2007
First off, Eric the Red was a salesman. He wanted to attract settlers, truth in advertising wouldn't cut it. Calling it "Iceland 2" wasn't going attract people already living in Iceland.
Secondly 80% of Greenland has been covered in ice for the past few hundreds of thousands of years. There's no evidence that it was any better back then than it is today. And today, most of what is not covered by ice is rock or permafrost. The Greenland Norse had to be highly selective about their settlement areas, and had to stick small areas that had the microclimate to support them.
Might I suggest you read the relevant chapter (and hey, the rest of the book while you'er at it...It's fascinating) regarding Greenland in Colapse: How Societies Chose to Succeed or Fail by Jared Diamond. Or barring that, you could read the summary provided on this website:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/13/22437/993
Ivriniel
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 3:26 am
01 Mar 2007
He did build several settlements there right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
He must at least sort of believed what he was telling the people he convinced to move there was true. Unless you are saying he was an outright liar.
If I understand things correctly the settlements lasted 450 years. Did Eric The Red live that long?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
Is Wikipedia incorrect on this subject?
"The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Norwegian kings converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well, subordinate to the archdiocese of Nidaros. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway"
If so maybe you should have someone correct the entry in Wikipedia.
Ed Wood
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 3:47 am
01 Mar 2007
A 1500-Year Climate History of Northern Eurasia
Volume 9, Number 23: 7 June 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a special issue of Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, Solomina and Alverson (2004) review and synthesize the findings of a number of papers presented at a conference held in Moscow in May of 2002, which brought together more than 100 local paleoenvironmental researchers from Bellarussia, Estonia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan, plus another 30 scientists from 18 additional countries. The two researchers report the meeting's overall findings for five distinct regions: The Arctic and Sub-Arctic, The Russian Plain and Caucasus, Central Asia and the Caspian Region, Eastern and Southern Siberia, and The Far East. We here summarize their conclusions, mostly in their own words.
The Arctic and Sub-Arctic. "The 9th-14th centuries were relatively warm, though at least two colder periods probably occurred in the 11th and 13th centuries," after which "the 15th-early 20th centuries were generally cold," while "subsequent warming is recorded with almost all proxies."
The Russian Plain and Caucasus. "The climate of the Russian plain was relatively warm from the 11th to 14th centuries, with the exception of the late 12th-early 13th centuries, and colder from the 15th to 19th centuries, except for a warm interval in the first half of the 16th century." In the Central Caucasus, they also report the existence of a "relatively warm climate around the end of the first to the beginning of the second millennium AD," followed by "numerous glacier advances...during the 14th-19th centuries," the timing of which correlates well with those in the European Alps.
Central Asia and the Caspian Region. "A milder, less continental climate with more precipitation approximately from the 9th to 12th centuries" was indicated by most of the available data, while "cold conditions dominated from the 13th to 19th centuries, though interrupted by a brief warm period from the end of the 14th-early 15th century," after which "the coldest conditions were probably in the 17th and 19th centuries, when glaciers advanced several times, lake level was high, and permafrost depth increased."
Eastern and Southern Siberia. "Two periods of warmer and drier climate can be roughly identified in this huge area as having occurred from the 9th to 11th centuries and in the 14th century," while "the 15th-19th centuries were clearly cold and the 20th century has seen a return to warm conditions."
The Far East. "There is some evidence suggesting moderately warm conditions in the North Pacific region from the end of the first to the beginning of the second millennium," with "a subsequent cooling after the 14th century."
In summarizing their findings for the bulk of the Northern Eurasia region, Solomina and Alverson say "a number of records allow one to distinguish the climatic pattern of the 9th-13th centuries [i.e., the Medieval Warm Period] from earlier and later colder conditions [i.e., the Dark Ages Cold Period and Little Ice Age, respectively]." They also say "the spatial pattern of temperature anomalies ca. 1000 years ago is similar to the earlier mid-Holocene 'optimum'." Last of all, they remark that "the warming of the 14th century in several regions, including the Russian plain, Altai and Central Asia, was at least as intense as the earlier one at ca. 1000 years before present or even warmer [our italics]." This latter widely-detected event might possibly correspond to what we have called the Little Medieval Warm Period. Just as easily, it may well be what we have called "the 'last hurrah' of the Medieval Warm Period before it relinquished control of earth's climate to the Little Ice Age," as stated in the conclusion of our Little Medieval Warm Period summary.
Taken together, the many observations summarized by Solomina and Alverson bear strong testimony to the reality of the natural, as opposed to anthropogenic-induced, millennial-scale oscillation of earth's climate that has most recently resulted in the development of the Current Warm Period.
Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso
Reference
Solomina, O. and Alverson, K. 2004. High latitude Eurasian paleoenvironments: introduction and synthesis. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 1-18.
Ed Wood
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 4:50 am
01 Mar 2007
Is our Co2 output having an effect on mars as well?
I somehow do not think that is possible.
Ed Wood
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 8:01 am
03 Mar 2007
Naturogenic Global Heaters don't have to account for everything that happens in the world. That is the most twitty kind of science in the world.
The fact that you "think" its CO2 and you see a correlation doesn't mean anything. I can find hundreds of things that correlate with increased temperature.
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
ronj Posted 4:33 pm
20 Mar 2007
"First, they need to identify the mechanism behind this alleged natural cycle."
I am to identify the mechanism behind something that occurs naturally. Could you please explain how magnetism works other than unlike pole attract and like poles repel or why your heart beats continually without you telling it to do so. Can anyone really explain the driving force behind why nature does what it does?
"Second, they need to come up with an explanation for why a 35% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas does not affect the global temperature."
It has yet to be proven that a "35% increase" in CO2 does affect global temperature. This is all speculation based off computer models. These computer models are as accurate as the information that goes into it or the models can be "tweaked" to say whatever you want it to say. Another point to ponder is the fact that we are relying on computer models that are predicting what the weather is going to do decades into the future and we can't even predict with 100% accuracy what is going to happen next week.
Anyone who believes that global warming is man made or will be the destruction of this planet has just been scammed. The scientific approach to global warming has been thrown out the window and has really become big business.
Permalink
adrianne Posted 2:24 am
21 Mar 2007
Naval warfare during the two World Wars determined two major climate changes: a sustained warming which started at the end of World War I and lasted 20 years, and the next climatic shift which started during the winter 1939/40 and caused a four-decades global cooling. The extensive fighting at sea was a real threat for the normal course of the climate
I have read a thesis on "Naval War changes Climate", in which the ocean's main role in the climate change is explained.
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 4:18 am
21 Mar 2007
Who amongst us is honestly willing to give up their car, that comfortable 72 degree temp, their lights, TV's, movie theatres, trinkets and basically all the modern conviences that come from being the smartest animal on the planet.
My guess is unless something better comes along maybe about 1%.
In the absence of Zero Point Energy Nuclear Energy is the only option. That is if your goal is to eliminate the carbon produced by man.
If anyone thinks they have a viable ZPE device the rest of the world and I waiting for proof.
Who is willing to let power companies build nuclear power plants in their back yard Let alone store nuclear waste?
Don't get me wrong I really believe if we were to put up enough windmills, solar panels and ocean based tide generators we could replace the big bad beast of fossil fuels.
That being said one has to ask; How many of these devices would be enough to supply enough electricity to power the human race in a manner it would be comfortable with?
The answer is every square inch of land and 1/3rd of the ocean would have to be covered. Unfortunately this would cause a problem for the other animals on this planet.
So the only viable option is nuclear energy.
Is it dangerous? Yes
Could it satisfy all the worlds' energy needs? If better batteries and more efficient transmission methods are developed, Yes
What can be done with the waste?
I would suggest launching it into space and burying it on the moon or some other lifeless planet preferably something big enough that it will not be knocked into the earth by any rouge asteroids.
Best practices for launching nuclear waste into space should include a limit on the amount launched in a single shot so as to limit the fallout in the event of a launch failure and supremely indestructible containers for the waste for the same reason.
Nuclear energy could actually live up to its potential.
Ed Wood
Ed Wood
Permalink
the inhabitant Posted 9:05 pm
04 Aug 2007
However, below is an issue, which personally I think is interesting, that is never spoken about in this debate. No doubt it will be regarded as irrelevant and dismissed. Thought I would mention it anyway:
In the global warming debate there is always much talk about natural balances, and how humans are upsetting that, or changing the way the earth 'should' be.
But are not humans themselves a 100% 'natural' product of the earth? (and therefore everything that we do?) It would seem that the earth produced daises, bacteria, volcanoes, dinosaurs, proteins etc... and humans also. Humans have a long history of thinking they are different to everything else, and we continue to do so today, believing that what we do is not 'natural' whereas the rest of the universe somehow is. At first humans thought they were special, the centre of the universe, and that the earth had to be dominated. Now in remorse we think we are bad, and that 'nature' somehow knows best, and that we have messed that up. But still we think we are seperate and different. We still do not realise that we ARE nature, we ARE a part of the earth and the galaxy, not seperate from it.
Is a comet crashing into the earth and instantly wiping out the dominant species for all time, natural? Yes. Then why is what humans do, un-natural?
Along with this observation must also be the surely indisputable fact that the earth has never had a 'balance' as such, because history shows very clearly that it has been in a constant state of never ending change, since it was molten lava, to the present day. The idea of balance is only ever an isolated set of parameters within a certain time frame and place, as put together by the human mind.
I believe that much of humans reaction to the issue of global warming, is in fact a sublimated fear of change and death. (oh dear, I fear I have really lost my audience now)
However I am not saying that this attitude is a license to do nothing, accept it all and shrug. Not at all.
However, it does change the very nature of the way we look at life and our being, and our place in the world. On the contrary, I feel if humans felt they were a natural part of the earth from the beginning, we wouldnt have so many problems today.
Just a thought.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:27 am
05 Aug 2007
That being said one has to ask; How many of these devices would be enough to supply enough electricity to power the human race in a manner it would be comfortable with?
The answer is every square inch of land and 1/3rd of the ocean would have to be covered. Unfortunately this would cause a problem for the other animals on this planet.
Okay, then we can.
http://greyfalcon.net/greenenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/ethanol.png
Geothermal also makes a nice baseload system, with a lot less hassle than nuclear, with even better reliability.
http://greyfalcon.net/raser2
That said, your "every square inch" figure is rather silly.
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 2:50 am
09 Aug 2007
Birds are killed by windmills.
Not to mention the noise several cities in the US already have ordinances prohibiting windmills due to the noise.
Not in my backyard strikes again.
So if it only takes 10 percent of the planets surface and that 5 percent happens ot be @ shorelines where you have migrating birds or where Liberal democratic senators happen to live the environmentalists will be sure to put a stop to any talk of windmills. If Ted Kennedy won't allow a windmill farm in his back yard because they are ugly what aspiring liberal will?
There are many homeowners who will not allow solar panels as well. I really don't get this one. what the hell is wrong with a black roof?
So solar panels are limited in their deployability as well.
Geothermal is great Iceland has been using it for years. It seems to have very few drawbacks.
in fact they use electricity from it to make hydrogen.
However, here in Michigan I don't think you could drill deep enough to make it worth while.
Maybe you could though.
Maybe Geothermal is a large part of the answer to global energy needs. I'm all for it I am all for windmill farms,windmills on every house, Solar farms and solar panels on every house, and tidal energy farms as well.
In my perfect world this would be where all energy came from.
I would not like to purchase another ounce of oil from a foriegn interest, terrorist sponsor, or third world dictatorship.
If man made global warming (even if it is crap science) is the catalyst for this change then so be it.
All hail to the global warming Hypocrite Al Gore.
in about 5 years when summer ceases to arrive for the first of many years to come I will be sad he was wrong.
Ed Wood
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 10:37 pm
30 Aug 2007
Every aproximately 25 thousand years the sun and its solar system crosses the galactic plane coincidentally the earth heats up. approximately every 125 thousand years the earth really heats up to the levels we are seeing today. To explain this by blaming it on humans and their carbon emmissions is invalid.
While I think it is a good thing to find an alternative to fossil fules because we cannot sustain the current rate of production to meet current demand let alone future demand.
I don't think it requires us to be ignorant of the root cause of global warming.
The root cause of global warming is the supergiant rotating black hole at the center of our galaxy. you see as this giant matter sucking beast spins it disturbs space time twisting it aparrently emitting dark energy forcing anything gravitationally bound to this object to the galactic plane where dark energy is being thrown from jets on opposite sides of the object as matter is sucked in dark matter is pushed out and as we ( the sun and its solar system ) crosses the the galactic plane the local gravity increases as we are bombarded by dark matter. every 25 thousand years something very interesting happens every 125 thousand years as we come into close contact with one of the jets causing extra heating in the earth and the other planets of the solar system. as evidence of this certain things will happen over the next few years.
1 The rotation of all the planets will increase.
2 The temperature of all the planets will increase.
3 The temperature of the sun and rotation of the sun will increase.
4 As the jet passes us the mass rotation and temperature of the solar system objects will decrease very quiclky and we will be in a new ice age.
The the crossing will take place in december of the year 2012 and as the dark matter jet could be somewhere between 10 and 100 light years wide and moving around 50 percent of the speed of light the peak temperature depending on the distsnce from the earth as we cross the galactic plane could be within 10 to 100 years and if it lines up perfectly with the sun and the earth it will occure on december 21 in the year 2012 there will be massive earth quakes solar storms and bizarre weather. As the most intense portion of the jet moves away days will get longer and the earth will cool very fast.
My advise be prepaired.
Build or locate a bomb shelter with plenty of food where you can stay underground for a while. Be prepaired to move south. Attempt to move away from earthquake and volcanic prone zones as over the next few years these will become very dangerous.
Sounding the true alarm. Good Luck and may god have mercy on us all.
Ed Wood
Ed Wood
Permalink
nowwicked Posted 12:04 am
30 Dec 2007
it's me.
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 2:47 am
06 May 2008
Over the past 20 years the number of worldwide earthquakes per year has doubled.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0197840.html
Since 1890 the number of earthquakes per year have more than quadrupled.
Given this and the fact that global warming is happening on other planets in our solar system:
Is it not possible this is somehow responsible for the majority of global warming?
Ed Wood
Permalink
enki Posted 10:58 pm
14 May 2008
Mike Johnston
Permalink
randy33 Posted 10:52 am
15 May 2008
LOL!
Dear Coby, can you help me? I need some help figuring some things out!
Help me figure this out first. In 1990 my annual income was $60,000. Sometime between 2:00 AM and 5:00 AM this morning, $240 dollars was deposited into my checking account. So I earned $240 in three hours. Coby, can you tell me what my total income is expected to be next year?
Dear Coby, for the past 4 years, it has rained an average 4.5 inches per year here at my home in Phoenix. Between January 13th and January 19th, it rained a total of 2.8 inches. Coby, what is the expected total rainfall for Phoenix next year?
Dear Coby, on the graph in your blog, what is the average rate of change during the period t1=102,458ya to t2=102,300ya? How does this compare with the average rate of change during the period t3=10980ya and t4=10822ya?
Dear Coby, My math teacher and I are both heading to Denver. My math teacher is 59,000 feet directly above me. I have been accelerating for 5.1 seconds and I am now traveling at 60 mph. My math teacher has been decelerating for 16 seconds and is now traveling at 614 mph. Coby, who will arrive in Denver first?
Dear Coby, can you help me find 1980 on this graph?
http://tinyurl.com/39gnm4
In short: Coby's aptitude.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 1:44 pm
15 May 2008
Hi randy33,
In an earlier Coby Beck thread at
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329#com ...
It ended with my comment as follows:
In your lead article [Coby] you illustrate a global temperature graph from 2005, whilst there is a background discussion of an evident plateau in temperatures over the past decade.
Here is a 2008 version to which I have attached some comments.
Why did you not use the 2008 version instead of 2005?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3140/2461371188_3f2ee147fa ...
It seems that Coby and others such as Tim Phillpott simply do not respond if given a hard question.
Great post of yours Randy!
Permalink
randy33 Posted 4:41 am
16 May 2008
You know what they say: the narrower the dataset, the angrier the globalwarmingist.
Actually, after I posted my comment, I looked at some of this Coby person's other posts. Conclusion: He seems to just be a propagandist (a very dedicated one); nothing I found was even remotely analytical.
Permalink
Black Wallaby Posted 5:46 pm
22 May 2008
You might find some entertainment in reading some of Andrew Dessler's blogs on Gristmill, here is his site CV:
I am a professor in the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M University. My research focuses on the physics of climate change, in particular, climate feedbacks. I spent 2000 as a Senior Policy Analyst in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. While there, I became extremely interested in how science gets used in policy decisions. I have also published a book, The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the debate (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2006).
He is a master of avoiding the hard question, but his more recent threads have been less strident in his pursuance of AGW alarmism, and less in character assisnation of other scientists who disagree with him.
I could fill you in with detail of some of the more interesting threads if you are interested
Permalink
ed68wood Posted 3:26 am
23 Jun 2008
While our government sits on their collective asses conducting endless investigations into political B.S. like Steroid use in baseball and how to best stab the military in the back in the middle of a war most of them Voted for, they have let our ENERGY infrastructure DIE in the hopes someone will invent some magical replacement for oil that doesn't exist. In the meantime we are stuck PAYING $4.00 plus a gallon and the Communists and Ruthless Dictators around the world who Don't give a DAMN about GLOBAL WARMING are drilling in their own back yard and Screwing us at the pump.
Global Warming or not this is not right. We are about to become a third world country and as such we will have no say over what anyone does to us or anyone else. We will no longer have the resources to influence Mexico Let alone anyone else. Our existance will be under the thumb of third world dictators and Communists.
Maybe it has gone too far and we cannot drill our way out of this mess. Does that mean we shouldn't try, NO!
Washington BOTH PARTIES You have DROPPED THE BALL!!!
Time to pick it up and get back in the game or else.
Drill Here Drill Now Pay Less!!!!
Ed Wood
Permalink