Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

@farmerman,

Thanks for the correction. it was no typo - I've been misspelling Tsunami for a long time. Red card accepted.

If I'm not mistaken the Bay of Fundy has the highest Tidal fetch (the height difference between high & low water), as well as perhaps the fastest tidal currents in the world. (There may be some remote narrowing inlets in Alaska the rival it, but none so large & well known. ) I agree this is as reliable (as steady as the moon) , and, on a human scale, inexhaustable source of energy as can be found anywhere, and the scale of its potential warrants the capital investment involved to do it right.

I agree about biodeisel as well. However scaling up the feedstock collection and distribution is still a problem. Wind and solar applications have that problem too, in addition to enormous land use issues, but their zealous advocates appearently don't see their defects.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

At 3% wind power is still a niche industry.

And you completely ignore that it will by 20% of power in 2030.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

And you completely ignore that it will by 20% of power in 2030.

My use of the word "niche" is being taken the wrong way by all sides. Perhaps it was me who used it wrong. Regardless, it is not being taken quite in the way that I meant it.

When I used the word "niche" I was only arguing against the idea that solar/wind/renewables are able to cover 100% of our energy needs.

In other words, we need something in addition to renewables, like nuclear power.

I'm not saying that renewables shouldn't/won't/can't play a large role in our energy supply. They in fact can, and should, and will, play such a role.

But nuclear has an important role too.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And we need something in addition to nuclear power. Relying solely on ONE power source puts us at risk. That means EVERY one of the sources is a "niche" by your definition.

I never said wind would be 100% of our energy needs. That would be your strawman.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
At 3% wind power is still a niche industry.

And you completely ignore that it will by 20% of power in 2030.

It is easy to ignore something that doesn't yet exist and which, based on experience so far appears to be extremely unlikely.

The simple fact remains that wind power costs about three times as much as readily available conventional sourcers of power, and that the 20% share you (very unrealistically) forecast would therefore involve a roughly 40% increase in the cost of the electrical energy consumed in the country. Such an increase in the cost of a commodity so ubiquitous and fundamental to economic activity would have a profoundly adverse effect on our economic activity and our competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I never said wind would be 100% of our energy needs. That would be your strawman.

No strawman. You may not say it, but there are plenty who do.

0 Replies

Really? Name two.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Really? Name two.

Pass.

If you'd like to discuss the reality that renewables can never supply 100% of our energy needs, I might be game for limited discussion however.

0 Replies

Himalayan glaciers have lost no ice in the past 10 years, new study reveals

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

From your link

Quote:

"The total amount of ice lost to Earth's oceans from 2003 to 2010 would cover the entire United States in about 1 and one-half feet of water," Wahr said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features#ixzz1m67B2ciU

0 Replies

No ice loss in 10 years, the ice coverage has actually expanded.

1 Reply

Didn't read it very thoroughly, did you, H2? That headline is total misdirection, when the body of the article, and the study, say the Himalayas in fact are losing ice, tho not as much as one previous calculation, loss 4 billion tons a year. Lower altitude glaciers and ice caps are losing 150 billion tons of ice a year. That's what your own cite says. Even Fox News can't spin that. 90% of the world's glaciers are melting. Sea level is rising. Climate change is real, and we're doing it.

0 Replies

And here's a rather more unbiased account (i.e. non-Fox-News) report of the same study, which in fact shows that when we look at all the earth's ice, including particularly Greenland and the Antarctic, which are far more extensive than the Himalayas (and which, for some reason, guess what, Fox doesn't talk about), ice loss amounts to 385 billion tons a year.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/from-2-satellites-the-big-picture-on-ice-melt/?src=recg

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

I wonder why they call it fox news? Wouldent fox propaganda network be more appropriate?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

No ice loss in 10 years, the ice coverage has actually expanded.

What ever came of those scientists' efforts to cover up the fact that snow levels in the Cascades are increasing?

They succeed in sweeping everything under the rug?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I wonder why they call it fox news? Wouldent fox propaganda network be more appropriate?

Not at all. They may not be to my own personal tastes, but Fox does a decent job of presenting accurate news.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

If you had read the story oralloy, you would have known that the statement you quoted was false.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

If you had read the story oralloy, you would have known that the statement you quoted was false.

Perhaps. But I was not interested in the article or the quote. I was just curious about whether people had managed to successfully suppress the data from the Cascades.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Why would they need to suppress the data? Do you even have any evidence of them suppressing data?

Oh.. it's just a narrative of pretending that something is happening so you can claim it's a conspiracy. Do you need to go out and buy more tinfoil?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Why would they need to suppress the data?

They don't. People who suppress data do it because they are dishonest.

parados wrote:

Do you even have any evidence of them suppressing data?

Well, there was all the squawking from the scientists whose data was being suppressed. It seems that good scientists object to having bad scientists censor their data for political reasons.

parados wrote:

Oh.. it's just a narrative of pretending that something is happening so you can claim it's a conspiracy. Do you need to go out and buy more tinfoil?

The idea of scientific integrity has nothing to do with tinfoil.

1 Reply

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know