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

BernardR wrote:

I am sorry, Mr. Hinteler, I read my post again and I do not find where I said that" the Netherlands or Hungary were a Scandanavian Country"

You narrowed it even more, sorry:

BernardR wrote:

If Bjorn Lomborg has a weakness, it would be only that he is from the same area as Nimh.

Not a big point, really, I accept that everything outside the USA is one area.

0 Replies

I may be mistaken, Mr. Walter Hinteler. I was informed that Nimh was from the Netherlands. His profile reads--The Netherlands/Hungary. I took his FIRST country as the primary one.

Is he strictly from Hungar y?

0 Replies

You really are a strange person Bernard, but not without some entertainment value.

George I accept that the US has huge amounts of coal. I was of course thinking of oil and (natural) gas. Surely its a fact that the US and other industrialised countries do indeed depend on oil - and conventional oil is about to peak as far as I can assertain. This looming gap between supply and demand cant be easily made up by tar sands or shale or even oil from coal, because of the drastically inferior EROEI ratio c.f. conventional oil. (Energy Return On Energy Invested). Oil is just such good stuff. We (the industrialised world, but in particular the US) have not only become dependent on it, President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that America was "addicted" to oil.

Nevertheless perhaps something will turn up to get us out of this mess. Perhaps someone will develop the world's first coal powered aeroplane, or get energy from a beaker of water and a couple of palladium electrodes as Fleischmann and Ponds claimed to have done 20 years ago.

Hoping something will turn up might be all right for Dicken's Mr Micawber, but its a strange way to run the energy policy of the United States.

On the other hand, perhaps I am being unfair to policy makers in the US. Perhaps there is a very clear strategic plan to deal with the looming energy crisis, and perhaps we are today witnessing the implementation of those plans in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

0 Replies

George, Ash et al:

In addition to renewable technologies such as wind, coal and geothermal power, I am a strong supporter of nuclear research and technology.

To many an environmentalist from a generation before mine, the concept of supporting nuclear power is horrendous and against their principles. I suspect this is because they lived through some of the scares that we had with early nuclear plant technology such as three mile island, chernobyl etc. Whereas I have not lived through such scares, they are nothing more than stories to me and it is difficult to balance these stories against the near-limitless power opportunities offered by nuclear power.

Nuclear power truly is in its infancy. Generating power by using radioactive rods to heat water into steam is probably the least efficient way we could harness nuclear power, and it is far more powerful than any other generation technique that we have. Of course, with further research, the great dream - Fusion power plants - may be able to be achieved within my lifetime, and when that happens, you can say goodbye to the power limitations that hold our society back.

Steve is right when he says

Quote:

Hoping something will turn up might be all right for Dicken's Mr Micawber, but its a strange way to run the energy policy of the United States.

Every society throughout history has been limited by the amount of energy available to that society, and cannot grow without an influx of new energy. It is foolish to not avail ourselves of energy which is simply going to waste (wind, geothermal and solar); energy which literally could not be used for any other purpose.

I would propose greatly increasing research on Fusion and pellet-Fission technologies, solar, wind, biomass, AND cleaner coal and oil burning. Besides space travel, this is literally the most important thing we can do as a species to ensure our survival.

In the meantime, I ride my bike to work every day; I grow a garden in the backyard; I recycle and reuse products. Individual education and lifestyle adjustment can have a large impact upon our ecosystem over time, with little changes in the technology.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

Individual education and lifestyle adjustment can have a large impact upon our ecosystem over time, with little changes in the technology.

Virtuous bastard.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

You really are a strange person Bernard, but not without some entertainment value.

George I accept that the US has huge amounts of coal. I was of course thinking of oil and (natural) gas. Surely its a fact that the US and other industrialised countries do indeed depend on oil - and conventional oil is about to peak as far as I can assertain. This looming gap between supply and demand cant be easily made up by tar sands or shale or even oil from coal, because of the drastically inferior EROEI ratio c.f. conventional oil. (Energy Return On Energy Invested). Oil is just such good stuff. We (the industrialised world, but in particular the US) have not only become dependent on it, President Bush said in his State of the Union address this year that America was "addicted" to oil.

Nevertheless perhaps something will turn up to get us out of this mess. Perhaps someone will develop the world's first coal powered aeroplane, or get energy from a beaker of water and a couple of palladium electrodes as Fleischmann and Ponds claimed to have done 20 years ago.

Hoping something will turn up might be all right for Dicken's Mr Micawber, but its a strange way to run the energy policy of the United States.

On the other hand, perhaps I am being unfair to policy makers in the US. Perhaps there is a very clear strategic plan to deal with the looming energy crisis, and perhaps we are today witnessing the implementation of those plans in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very interesting post. Particularly interesting conclusion with what evidently for some is a satisfying conspiracy theory.

May I ask just what is the UK's energy strategy? I note the ongoing debate on the forthcoming obsolescence of Britain's ageing nuclear plants: what will replace them? The North Sea oil fields are now past their production peak, and I see no other sources of energy within their control. Shall I conclude that Britain's support for the U.S. intervention in Iraq is a part of the same conspiracy? (believe me that if oil was our only motivation, we would have taken Venezuela instead - closer and much easier.)

France does indeed have a coherent strategy, with nuclear plants now generating over 80% of the electrical power consumed in the country. Evidently the rest of continental Euriope will become increasingly dependent on Russian (and Lybian) oil and gas: is that their strategy? Are the standards for national strategy you are applying for the U.S. different from those you apply to the rest of the world?

In fact the U.S., with less government interference in the economy, will find the technological solutions required sooner and with less cost than will Europe.

0 Replies

Speaking of Russia, in debating this issue on another board, I ran across the following. Who would have thought it would be Russia pushing for good science in this issue?

This gives me hope that there are still open minds out there wanting the whole truth, not just the politically correct truth. Let's hope that notion doesn't get completely squelched by the 'me too' crowd.

Quote:

The story starts about nine months ago. At that time the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) sent a list of questions to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), probing the science of global climate change as well as and the potential impacts of actions designed to mitigate man's impact on the climate. The IPCC never replied.

Despite the snub, the Russians continued to promote scientific debate. In May, the RAS held a three day "Council Workshop" with 28 well-known experts, most of them academicians, in which they debated all aspects - including science and policy -- of the climate change issue. They concluded that there was a lack of scientific basis to many of the claims on climate change reported in the popular press, and on the costs of Kyoto Protocol, the treaty designed to regulate climate change.

In June, the British government, a firm support of the Kyoto Protocol, suggested a high level delegation of scientists visit Moscow to discuss their views with the RAS.

The Russians accepted, but also invited some of those respected academics who are skeptical of the current alarmism over climate change. These included MIT's Richard Lindzen (who raises significant question about the current modeling of clouds used by the IPCC), the Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter (who challenges the notion that temperature increases will lead to more insect-borne disease) and Nils-Axel Morner of Stockholm University (who doubts evidence of sea-level rise).

The Russians sent a program to the British. The British objected to the program; in particular they were reluctant to participate with several of the skeptics. The Russians stood firm.

On Wednesday morning, the day the conference opened, Sir David was mysteriously absent. He was to have opened the proceedings with RAS President Yuri Osipov, and with Andrei Illarionov, Chief Adviser to Russian Premier Vladimir Putin.

According to conference participant Dr. Paul Reiter, "we waited for two hours. Apparently, [Sir David] was appealing to British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw," to intervene.

Despite Sir David's no-show, Sir John Houghton, who used to run the IPCC, eventually began the program. Given genuine dissent from good academics the conference was apparently very interesting; with widespread debate about the science of climate, the exchange was reportedly electric. Climate alarmists, who usually get their own way and are never challenged, were scrutinized by the other participants and the audience.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/Article.aspx?id=071904F

0 Replies

And this from the Opinion Journal today

Quote:

From: "Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."

(excerpted. . . .)
So what, then, is one to make of this alleged debate? I would suggest at least three points.
First, nonscientists generally do not want to bother with understanding the science. Claims of consensus relieve policy types, environmental advocates and politicians of any need to do so. Such claims also serve to intimidate the public and even scientists--especially those outside the area of climate dynamics. Secondly, given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade.

Lastly, there is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition. An earlier attempt at this was accompanied by tragedy. Perhaps Marx was right. This time around we may have farce--if we're lucky.
--Richard S. Lindzan PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

Quote:
Individual education and lifestyle adjustment can have a large impact upon our ecosystem over time, with little changes in the technology.

Virtuous bastard.

0 Replies

What can I say, lol, I just care about both my body and the environment and other people's bodies and environment as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
...

Hoping something will turn up might be all right for Dicken's Mr Micawber, but its a strange way to run the energy policy of the United States.

On the other hand, perhaps I am being unfair to policy makers in the US. Perhaps there is a very clear strategic plan to deal with the looming energy crisis, and perhaps we are today witnessing the implementation of those plans in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Very interesting post. Particularly interesting conclusion with what evidently for some is a satisfying conspiracy theory.

May I ask just what is the UK's energy strategy? I note the ongoing debate on the forthcoming obsolescence of Britain's ageing nuclear plants: what will replace them? The North Sea oil fields are now past their production peak, and I see no other sources of energy within their control. Shall I conclude that Britain's support for the U.S. intervention in Iraq is a part of the same conspiracy? (believe me that if oil was our only motivation, we would have taken Venezuela instead - closer and much easier.)

France does indeed have a coherent strategy, with nuclear plants now generating over 80% of the electrical power consumed in the country. Evidently the rest of continental Euriope will become increasingly dependent on Russian (and Lybian) oil and gas: is that their strategy? Are the standards for national strategy you are applying for the U.S. different from those you apply to the rest of the world?

In fact the U.S., with less government interference in the economy, will find the technological solutions required sooner and with less cost than will Europe.

I dont think using US military power to ensure the vital strategic interests of the United States is conspiracy theory. Its real-politic if you ask me. Besides to my mind nothing else makes any sense.

The UK's energy policy is under review right now. A very important paper will be published in the autumn. You are quite right George that North Sea oil is depleting fast. (Worse than the Norwegian sector because of our mad scramble to extract it quickly). We are going to have to import more (liquified) natural gas from Algeria, but somehow we haven't got round to building the infrastructure to handle it...this is being done now, far too late imo. We wil also pipe gas in from the Norwegian sector of the north sea, and of course we can always rely on that nice Mr Putin to sell us gas, that is if those dastardly continentals dont nick it first (we are at the end of the pipe).

The nuclear option is like a lightening conductor here for many on the environmental/left. But things are getting serious. The fact is I see no alternative than to build a new series of nuclear power plants, but again we've left it late.

Last year gas supplies were cut to some high use businesses, and the spot price for gas quintupled. Ministers are just praying for a mild winter or some people are going to get cold, and VERY angry.

Of course we've still got lots of coal in our flooded coal mines (who needs coal when you've got N Sea oil?) and we will build a few wind turbines and maybe a tidal estuary scheme at the river Severn.

The fact is we are going to need all these things and plenty of conservation too if we are going to successfully make the transition to not only being an oil importer, but living in a post peak oil world. Its not going to be easy. And yes I do believe British support for American action in Iraq and elsewhere is predicated on this, despite the heart warming stories about liberation and bring democracy. (I'm making no moral judgement...just calling it as I see it).

0 Replies

For Cyclo-

Quote:

In response to a Parliamentary question by Blaenau Gwent MP Llew Smith, Welsh Secretary Peter Hain said this week that 180,000 sheep in Wales remained affected by radioactive fall-out and were under restricted movement.

A total of 359 - 100 more than 1998 - holdings fall within the current monitored areas, mainly mountain grazings.

The news coincides with Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma - currently hosting pan-European talks - appealing for help to continue the recovery after Chernobyl.

As the three-day talks continue, back in Westminster Llew Smith stressed the need to reconsider any idea of building more nuclear plants in the UK.

Keeping ramifications of the Chernobyl disaster in the spotlight on a European scale is important to the future of our community.

Snowdonia farmer Glyn Roberts
"The very fact that 17 years after the accident in the Ukraine, radioactive contamination can still contaminate farms some 2,000 miles away, demonstrates the deadly dangers of nuclear power," he said.

Back in March, the BBC revealed that almost 400 sheep farms in England, Wales and Scotland remained affected.

That's a bit more than a story.

And that's just Wales.

0 Replies

Sure. But just because things are dangerous, doesn't mean that we can't do them; just that we need to be careful doing them.

I would also say that modern pellet-driven reactors have a far lower chance of 'meltdown' than the old clunkers which have suffered accidents in the past.

One earlier poster (George?) made a point that the burning of coal releases Uranium and other radioactives into the environment at quite a high level. So for us here in the US, it seems to be 6 of one, Half a dozen of the other when it comes to contamination from nuclear sources.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

The BBC is to gather expert evidence this week on whether human-induced climate change is a crisis for planet Earth, as James Lovelock believes.

The originator of the Gaia concept wrote in his recent book "...the fever of global heating is real and deadly".

He says nuclear power is the only short-term way to provide enough energy without causing more climatic harm.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

[...conservation too if we are going to successfully make the transition to not only being an oil importer, but living in a post peak oil world. Its not going to be easy. And yes I do believe British support for American action in Iraq and elsewhere is predicated on this, despite the heart warming stories about liberation and bring democracy. (I'm making no moral judgement...just calling it as I see it).

It is a conspiracy theory that doesn't pass the test of rational scrutiny. The major consumers of Mid East oil are in Asia, not Europe and not North America. (One could, however, construct a theory based on the surmise that we are merely trying to keep the Chinese out of our sphere of influence). Most importqantly for us though is if we were truly motivated by the desire to secure future sources of petroleum, we would not do so much to promote and sustain the world-wide free market for it, and we would look to Venezuela for our source - much closer, easier, and with no local competitors. We have done none of those things, so your theory sits in defiance of the salient facts.

I agree that a major investment nuclear power is the only way to meet the requirements of the global warming fright-mongers. So-called renewable sources and increased recycling of waste materials to create biofuels (gas and deisel) will contribute to the solution, but without a major increase in nuclear generation there will be no solution. Although we are about ten years more distant from the UK on the obsolescence of our nuclear [powerplants, we will, soon enough, face the same problem with respect to ours.

It certainly doesn't appear that any of the European signatories of the absurd Kyoto treaty will come close to meeting the obligations they took on with such pious hypocrisy. Will the realization of that prospect cause any rethinking of policy in Europe?

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

It certainly doesn't appear that any of the European signatories of the absurd Kyoto treaty will come close to meeting the obligations they took on with such pious hypocrisy. Will the realization of that prospect cause any rethinking of policy in Europe?

1) We'll miss our targets, but we'll be better at avoiding CO2 emissions than you are. This is true both for levels and for rates of change.

2) Whether we meet our targets or not, we set them in the first place, which makes us holier than you. And that's what this is all about.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
...I do believe British support for American action in Iraq and elsewhere is predicated on this, despite the heart warming stories about liberation and bring democracy. (I'm making no moral judgement...just calling it as I see it).

It is a conspiracy theory that doesn't pass the test of rational scrutiny.

ok, so why are British and American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? I've forgotten.

0 Replies

Oil is at the root of the worlds problems. imo. Its both a blessing and a curse. It supports our high standard of living, yet it's turned us into hydrocarbon junkies.

We have become addicted to oil, and kicking the habit is very difficult. Whilst oil supply is now being constrained by geology, demand is increasing. Yet we must get our fix. Ever since oil's potential was first exploited, we have never held back from interfering in those parts of the world which had plenty of it. We are doing the same now with added urgency, and the backlash comes in the form of terrorism. On top of this we now understand the link between climate change and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Our addiction to oil causes wars and terrorism and burning it in the way that we have been doing, risks making planet earth uninhabitable.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

On top of this we now understand the link between climate change and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Well, if oil and coal run out soon, as you suggest they do, the problem of man-made climate change will prove self-limiting. So at least we don't have to worry about that part anymore -- right?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
On top of this we now understand the link between climate change and CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Well, if oil and coal run out soon, as you suggest they do, the problem of man-made climate change will prove self-limiting. So at least we don't have to worry about that part anymore -- right?

Hey I never said coal is going to get scarce. But essentially I agree with with you. I think there is very little we can do to ward off the affects of global warming. Its in the pipeline, caused by burning prodigious amounts of fossil fuels over the last 150 years. (Every year we burn fuels that took the equivalent of 1,000,000 years to form). However I dont think that provides us with any excuse to do nothing, and clearly we should cut back on CO2 emissions as much as possible. But my fear is that we will kill ourselves fighting over scarce resources before we have a chance to burn it and suffer the consequences later on.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know