Comments ed68wood has made

The defeat of the American dream.

Yes the Communists have won.

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

Earthquakes

The earths' crust is on the move.

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

Andrea Jo Rush

I kind of agree with your post. It really doesn't matter what is causing global warming.

The plain and simple fact is it is happening.

Whether it is caused by humans or just part of a natural cycle it is happening.

The question is what do we do about it?

If it is caused by a natural cycle there is nothing we can do to change it and it is about to get really cold as indicated in the chart above.

If it is caused by man then there is the distinct possibility that it is too late to do anything about it and it will stop when the oil runs out.

This will be a sad day for humanity for we will be virtually be thrown back into the stone age without some alternative.

I am not a particularly fond of any of the alternatives but I think we need to work on them while we still have a chance.

Nuclear Can be dangerous especially in the hands of irresponsible people.

Coal is seen as dirty even with carbon sequestration and merury filters.

Wind and solar can help but cannot provide all that is needed.

Geo thermal is a decent alternative but there is not enough of it readily available.

Fusion, We are spending and have been spending a lot on Fusion If the moon could be mined for Helium 3 (eliminating the nasty neutron problem)this may be feasible if you use inertial confinement or exo-superconductive magnetic confinement. Good luck on the tokomak designs I don't think they will work.

Space Based Solar, a 1KM array Could
provide all of our energy needs however the initial investmet is extreme. I actually like this alternative the best.

Bio Fuels If you believe in human caused global warming this is not the answer as most bio fuels are less efficent than fossil fuels and as such put out more Co2.

ZPE total pie in the sky alternative as I have said before if anyone has one of these that actually works I will be the first in line to buy it.

I fall on the natural cycle side of the debate as you can probably tell by my previous posts.

That does not mean I think we should not do anything to secure our energy future.

I just don't want some carbon cretit trading scheme whereby the US is goaded into meeting impossible goals while China and India (the largest polluters on the planet) get away with anything they want even if they are still the largest polluters albeit slightly less than before.

Right now the United States is one of the least polluting industrialized countries on the planet. In fact if it were not for the United States sending up all our satelites, paying for research into climate change, and inventing emissions standards the rest of the world would not have a concept of what climate change is. We need to keep up the good fight.

Please don't hand over our soveregnty to some world government based on carbon credits.

On a creepy paranoid note what element has 6 protons 6 neutrons and 6 electrons and is found in the form of a rock?

Have a nice day.
    Ed Wood

Ed Wood

Scare Tactics

bikingsasquach

What you say is true. Oil companies, environmentalist and many other political voices use fear to bolster their argument for whatever they are trying to convince you of.

It's really annoying.

It seems lately instead of intelligent conversation about what will best serve our energy needs there is an argument about what will kill us.

This makes for great dramatic speech not necessarily good energy policy.

We do have to eat and we need energy for the modern convinces of life. Whether it be for the tractor that plows the field, the gas guzzling SUV, the fuel efficient hybrid, the heat in our homes, the light, the computer, or even the remote control to your TV we need it.

We need to make a decision about what to do out about our energy needs. It'd be nice if we could all admit to ourselves that we will be using energy for the forseeable future to do what we want/need to do.

It would be nice if our elected officials would quit trying to scare us into their notion of what is best. It would also be nice if our elected officials would learn to get along and quit trying to get over on each other by scare tactics and come to grips with the plain simple fact that we need energy.

If they could do this maybe we could have a decent comprehensive energy policy that keeps us prosperous, safe and clean as possible.

I'll say it again can't we all just get along.    

Have a good life.  

Ed Wood

stucco car

Love the Stucco car. It is a great piece of art.

Ed Wood

Alternative energy

With the limited number of windmills currently in existance The same environmentalists that want to get rid of oil want at the same time to protect birds.

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

wussies

You are correct once one is spoiled by all the modern conviences like heat, air conditioning, the automobile and indoor plumbing they to not want to go back to the days of chopping wood sweating and crapping in a hole.

trickytank I see you have obviously found the modern convience of the computer which if I am not mistaken does use electricity. Unless your computer is running on solar, nuclear, or some new fangled zero point energy (that don't exist) you are generating greenhouse gasses.

Good luck with that no air conditioning thing when you use your computer in a room that is 110 degrees F.

By the way if someone out there has a working zero point energy I'd be interested in using it to cool my house in the summer and heat it in the winter,

Ed Wood

Then Go Nuclear

"You need to brush up on reactor designs. You're still thinking of the reactors which were built in the '50s which were basically nuclear bombs which we were trying to explode in a controlled manner. They also had a design requirement of producing enriched plutonium for nuclear weapons, though that side of the "big rush to nuclear power" isn't discussed very often."

I am all for nuclear Lets please switch to nuclear power it can be safe if the people using it are responsible safe people building responsible safe reactors.

I would let a power company build a nuclear reactor in my back yard. Will you?

My next car will probably be a hybrid car and I do turn my TV OFF. I do this not because of global warming I do this because it costs me money and I am tired of financing terrorists by buying their oil. So if the world needs an excuse to switch to nuclear and make more efficent cars then maybe human induced global warming works for you. I personally think it is a bunch of garbage. But if it gets the United States off the Middle Eastern Oil teet then Hooray global warming.

GO NUCLEAR POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ed Wood

Nuclear Power

Lets say just for the sake of argument that the human race is responsible for global warming by driving their cars, lighting, cooling and heating their houses, and mass production of trinkets in factories.

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

It wasn't only warmer in Greenland

Is this incorrect?

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

Actually it used to be greener.

So it was warmer in the year 1400 than it is now and it was at least this warm when mammoths roamed the earth. Some 600 years ago the climate was warmer than it is now.

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

CO2 and Water

Simplistic observations of a normal guy

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.  
On 'Global warming is part of a natural cycle'--This idea is one short step above appealing to magic posted 2 years, 9 months ago 39 Responses