71
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jan, 2008 04:11 pm
Thanks Ican (and Okie and CJ). Not that I would have hunted up and reposted the pages and pages of stuff I have posted so far on this thread. It is true that for us non-scientists, the opinion that AGW is probably not competently scientifically supported is indeed just an opinion. But it is not necessarily an uninformed opinion but is based on the scientific opinions of scientists I have read and the scientific opinions of scientists that you, me, Okie, Minitax, and many others have posted and posted and posted.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 12:07 pm
THE GLOBAL WARMING CONSENSUS FALSITIES
Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

Complete U.S. Senate Report Now Available: (LINK)
Complete Report w/out Intro: (LINK)
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 01:11 pm
a few people still believe the earth is flat. I'm not going to waste my time. (I looked up "Dr" Richard S Courtney, the only prominent British name...it seems he has no academic degree and works for the British Coal industry)


AGW is a fact. The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 01:43 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
AGW is a fact.

I agree, though there are sound reasons to dispute the predictions and the relative cost & benefits of the remedies proposed by the AGW zealots.

Steve 41oo wrote:
The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?
Many reasons - (1) it is much cheaper than any other source save only hydroelectric; (2) It involves zero environmental emissions; (3) the effect on public health is much less than that of burning gas or coal.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:11 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?
Many reasons - (1) it is much cheaper than any other source save only hydroelectric; (2) It involves zero environmental emissions; (3) the effect on public health is much less than that of burning gas or coal.


I'm not sure if it's really much cheaper - this is a graphic from today's The Guardian

http://i10.tinypic.com/6yklth5.jpg

Quote:
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat leader "The government must be honest about how much it will cost to build and run new nuclear power stations and who is going to pick up the bill. Even if energy companies could run them without taxpayers' money, consumers would just end up paying for them through higher fuel bills. The government should abandon these expensive white elephants and focus on increasing energy efficiency and the use of genuinely renewable technologies."


Actually, I think that you really need nuclear power to have a working "energy mix".

Britain doesn't get a lot of energy from nuclear power stations - compared to other European countries

http://i7.tinypic.com/7341rip.jpg

And if no more nuclear power stations were built, they would be left with just one in 2030 (Sizewell B).
However, under the new plans, plants closures would still mean that nuclear power will only generate half of what it now by then.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:16 pm
Steve 41oo wrote:
a few people still believe the earth is flat. I'm not going to waste my time. (I looked up "Dr" Richard S Courtney, the only prominent British name...it seems he has no academic degree and works for the British Coal industry)


AGW is a fact. The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?

What is your evidence to support your claim?

Quote:
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th [2007] letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

Quote:
Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
...
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
...


What do you have to say about the other more than 99 signatories?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
a few people still believe the earth is flat. I'm not going to waste my time. (I looked up "Dr" Richard S Courtney, the only prominent British name...it seems he has no academic degree and works for the British Coal industry)


AGW is a fact. The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?

What is your evidence to support your claim?

Quote:
The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th [2007] letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali [Link to List of signatories]:

Quote:
Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference
Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
...
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
...


What do you have to say about the other more than 99 signatories?


Here's the letter:
Quote:

http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20to%20the%20un%20secretary%20general.html

Here's the signatories:
http://www.nrsp.com/articles/07.12.13-open%20letter%20signatories-independent%20experts.html

(This site gives a bio for each person and the basis of their argument.)


And here's an excerpt from an article by Tom Harris and Dr. Courtney:
Quote:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/794
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:31 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
georgeob1 wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
The UK government announced yesterday a radical programme to build new nuclear power stations. Now why would they do that?
Many reasons - (1) it is much cheaper than any other source save only hydroelectric; (2) It involves zero environmental emissions; (3) the effect on public health is much less than that of burning gas or coal.


I'm not sure if it's really much cheaper - this is a graphic from today's The Guardian

...

What is the prorated construction costs, fixed costs, plus variable operating costs per megawatt hour generated by the various kinds of power plants?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 02:36 pm
Plant construction costs are a one-time event and they are amortized over the 50 or so year life of the plant. The differences walter claims are but an insignificant fraction of the total operating costs. Walter's data is deceptive.

in the U.S. our nuclear plants average $.06 per KW-Hr, and that cost includes on site storage of spent fuel and pre funding of the evetual decomissioning of the plant. Coal fired plants here average $.085 per KW Hr, and these costs do not include costs for the eventual decommissioning & cleanup of the plant. Both costs include depreciation of the original capital required for licensing & construction. Wind & solar power cost anywhere from $.12 to $.15 per KW Hr.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:14 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Plant construction costs are a one-time event and they are amortized over the 50 or so year life of the plant. The differences walter claims are but an insignificant fraction of the total operating costs. Walter's data is deceptive.

in the U.S. our nuclear plants average $.06 per KW-Hr, and that cost includes on site storage of spent fuel and pre funding of the evetual decomissioning of the plant. Coal fired plants here average $.085 per KW Hr, and these costs do not include costs for the eventual decommissioning & cleanup of the plant. Both costs include depreciation of the original capital required for licensing & construction. Wind & solar power cost anywhere from $.12 to $.15 per KW Hr.


I suppose that answers my questions on the "Republican" thread re why pols aren't suggesting we build enough wind and solar power plants to meet our energy needs. Smile
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 03:22 pm
I couldn't find out how these data are made up.
The following data are from the anti-windfarm association in the neighbouring government district and related to energy sources there in 2002 [published by the "Regional Council at the district goverment"]

- brown coal (Lignite) (28%): 2 Cent kWh
- nuclear power (30%) 2 Cent/kWh
- natural gas: (9%) 3 Cent/kWh
- biomass (2%): 3 Cent/kWh
- water (4%): 3 Cent/kWh
- bituminous coal (24%) 4.5 Cent kWh
- wind (3%): 9.1 Cent/kWh
- solar energy (0.03% of total): 50 Cent/kWh
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 06:55 pm
I posted this within the context of the discussion on the other thread, but it also seems appropriate within the context of the immediate discussion here:

http://www.valeslake.com/covr2.jpgWhen it comes to wind, Hayden shows wind farms can generate electrical power at the rate of about 1.2 watts (W) per square meter (m2) for most sites, and up to 4 W/m2 in rare sites where the wind always comes from one direction. The goal is to generate enough energy to replicate a 1,000 megawatts power plant operating around the clock. To do that in California, for example, would require a wind farm one mile wide stretching all the way from Los Angeles to San Francisco.


To produce as much energy as a conventional 1,000 megawatt power plant using solar would require a 127 square mile field of solar mirrors collecting enough heat to turn a turbine. Now that would have quite an environmental impact!


For decades, there have been delirious proclamations that the world would soon run on solar energy. Those statements have always sounded too good to be true and, sure enough, they have always been false.

Solar Fraud will arm you with the basic knowledge to understand all the physics of energy utilization. Energy use creates the power to run society, as well as the statistics that track man's lack of progress when attempting to overturn the laws of nature through the use of impractical energy sources.

Additionally, Hayden's collection of quotes from the purveyors of the solar fraud, when set side-by-side with the physical facts, will convince you that society is not being victimized by well-meaning, wrongheaded people. Instead, the purveyors of the solar energy fraud are intent on bringing industrial society to its knees by stifling society's true, nearly inexhaustible sources of energy.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10648

So this explains why we aren't running any villages, much less any large cities, let alone any countries, on wind or solar power these days, and we should probably raise our eyebrows should any Pols suggest that should be our goal. Continue research and development of course. But there are no magic bullets that are going to solve our energy crisis and I will look most favorably on those who suggest we will need to learn to live peacefully with oil, natural gas, and coal for some time to come as well as reinstate nuclear programs.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 09:16 pm
Foxfyre, what is that "other thread" you participate in? You have referred to it here more than once? I'm interested in participating in it too.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jan, 2008 10:16 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Foxfyre, what is that "other thread" you participate in? You have referred to it here more than once? I'm interested in participating in it too.


It's the
A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans
thread

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70220&start=2740

Right now they are discussing candidate stances on energy and that got us into solar and wind farms and nuclear and such rather than global warming perse'.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 12:27 am
The Wind Turbine Power Calculator is a nice 'toy'.


Oh, and an article (and an interview) about Sir David King's new book in today's The Guardian won't pleade many

Science chief: greens hurting climate fight

The war on hot air

Quote:
He says: "There is a suspicion, and I have that suspicion myself, that a large number of people who label themselves 'green' are actually keen to take us back to the 18th or even the 17th century."
...
People say 'well, we'll just use less energy.' Come on," he says. "And then there's the real world, where everyone is aspiring to the sort of standard of living that we have, which is based on a large energy consumption."

King calls global warming the biggest challenge our civilisation has ever faced, and famously, in a 2004 article in the journal Science, berated the US for its inaction, describing climate change as "more serious even than the threat of terrorism". But his vocal support for nuclear power and genetically modified foods has led to tensions with environmental campaigners.

In a new book, The Hot Topic, he invites further hostility, arguing that aviation has been unfairly scapegoated, and that a localist approach to grocery shopping, aimed at reducing food miles, may sometimes result in bigger carbon dioxide emissions than purchasing food transported from overseas. Making people feel guilty about their energy use, the book argues, "makes them less likely to act, not more". "What I'm looking for are technological solutions to a technologically driven problem, so the last thing we must do is eschew technology as we move forward," says King, 68.

His book prescribes a barrage of technological measures based on nuclear energy, wind power, cutting emissions from cars and buildings, increasing the global area of solar panels by a factor of 700, and capturing and storing emissions from fossil fuel power generation. Only with a nuclear component, he argues, might Britain "just about manage" to reach its commitment to reduce CO2 emissions by 60% on 1990 levels by 2050.



Quote:
Global-warming denialists will find no solace here, but neither will hardline campaigners preaching austerity: that approach is dismissed as too alienating. Besides, King argues, "going green" in our personal lives, however radically, marginalises the issue. We should be thinking about our larger role in the economic revolution we must bring about.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 01:48 pm
cjhsa wrote:
People are entitled to their opinion tko. Science is often a matter of opinion as well.


Says the non-scientist.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Jan, 2008 08:22 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Foxfyre, what is that "other thread" you participate in? You have referred to it here more than once? I'm interested in participating in it too.


It's the
A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans
thread

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=70220&start=2740

Right now they are discussing candidate stances on energy and that got us into solar and wind farms and nuclear and such rather than global warming perse'.

Thanks!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 04:45 am
Quote:
Climatic changes appear to be destabilizing vast ice sheets of western Antarctica that had previously seemed relatively protected from global warming, researchers reported yesterday, raising the prospect of faster sea-level rise than current estimates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011302753.html?hpid=topnews
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 07:54 am
Kudos to you, blatham, always on top of the news. Told ya the research showed Antarctica was melting. Told ya half of the continent was pretty much experiencing no net gain or loss, but the other half was melting faster than normal. Turns out the ice loss there has increased. Try reading something other than the head-in-the-sand denialists for a change, ican. Try looking at some of the actual research results. The Arctic, which denialists like Sallie Baliunas said would be the first affected and which they maintained was unaffected, is now undeniably melting. Greenland is melting. High-altitude glaciers, which are also "the canary in the coal mine" in terms of predictive signals say the glaciologists, are melting. The most vulnerable areas of Antarctica are melting. You are very shortly going to be sitting in a puddle of very cold water, ican. Okie too, for that matter.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/page/2/
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2008 07:55 am
Well, here, start from the beginning of the link, rather than page 2:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22643132/
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 03:27:52