71
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:49 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The more energy that is produced by wind, solar, and nuclear, the more Americans reduce their reliance on mid eastern potentates; and the less pollution is produced simultaneously.

Cycloptichorn

The more energy that is produced by ME personally, "the more Americans reduce their reliance on mid eastern potentates; and the less pollution is produced simultaneously."


Whoops! That is true only if you don't count my exhalations, my perspirations, my defecations, my urinations, and my regurgitations.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:56 am
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The more energy that is produced by wind, solar, and nuclear, the more Americans reduce their reliance on mid eastern potentates; and the less pollution is produced simultaneously.

Cycloptichorn

The more energy that is produced by ME personally, "the more Americans reduce their reliance on mid eastern potentates; and the less pollution is produced simultaneously."


Whoops! That is true only if you don't count my exhalations, my perspirations, my defecations, my urinations, and my regurgitations.


We weren't really discussing the quality of your posts here. But I suppose those adjectives are accurate enough.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 11:58 am
Foxfyre wrote:
Well now. . .in the wake of Dr. Chalko's prophecy of doom related to increasing seismic activity on Earth--an increase caused by global warming of course (cough)--we now have an opinion that all the great seismic activity could solve a lot of the world's energy problems:

Harness volcano power, energy experts sayBy Catherine Elsworth in Los Angeles
Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 26/06/2008

Volcanoes and hot springs could supply up to 25 per cent of America's power needs, energy experts have said.

Have your say: Is harnessing more geothermal energy just a pipe dream?
As fuel prices soar, Alaskan officials announced the exploration of the state's volcanoes, saying they could be exploited to provide energy for thousands of homes.


'High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest'


Companies are being invited to lease the rights to explore geothermal resources beneath Mount Spurr, a snowcapped 11,070-foot volcano that most recently erupted in 1992 showering much of Anchorage with volcanic ash.

The state Division of Oil and Gas hopes the lease sale, due to go ahead in August, will be the first of many. It is also considering allowing exploration of the 4,134-foot Augustine Volcano, 171 miles southwest of Anchorage.

The move echoes a trend underway across much of the US as fuel prices, worries about dependence on foreign oil and climate change trigger a surge in geothermal projects, particularly in the West and along the Gulf Coast.

According to experts, America is only just waking up to the ancient power source lying beneath dozens of states that has the potential to supply as much as 25 percent of the nation's energy needs.

"High prices and climate change are definitely creating a renaissance in geothermal interest, particularly on a state and local level," said Karl Gawell, executive director of the Geothermal Energy Association.

"There really is a tremendous amount going on right now."

As well as Alaska, geothermal projects, which are eligible for tax benefits, are underway in most Western states and across the Gulf Coast from Texas to Florida, he said.

"It's only the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is possible," said Mr Gawell.

"If we really want to go all out for it, we could easily achieve a substantial amount, 20, 25 per cent of US energy needs within a few decades. We're limited more by public policy than the resource - the resource is enormous."

The Bureau of Land Management has just surveyed 11 western states and Alaska for "lands with high potential for renewable geothermal resources".

But he estimates 80 per cent of geothermal systems remain undiscovered as they have no tell-tale surface feature such as a hot spring. "We're still just finding the obvious stuff."

Alaska, which is rich in oil and gas, sits on the Pacific Rim of Fire but despite "clear evidence of geothermal resources" the state had shelved its geothermal development "in the 1970s once they hit the major oil streaks", Mr Gawell said.

"It's really only been rediscovered in the past couple of years in part because prices are up."

The biggest challenge to harnessing underground power is working out how to access and tap heat buried deep under earth or rock.

Interest has partly been spurred by the Alaska's successful geothermal venture at Chena Hot Springs, a resort near Fairbanks, which is completely powered by underground energy.

Mr Gawell said that although mentioned this week by Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, during a speech about alternative energy policies in Nevada, geothermal power had yet to receive enough attention in the national energy debate.

"The problem is it's only being produced in a handful of states. It's well known in those states but it's unknown in others," Mr Gawell said.

Geothermal power is also enjoying a renaissance in Europe, home to the first geothermal steam power plant in Larderello, Italy, which began operating in 1904.

The GEA estimates that the number of countries producing geothermal energy will more than double by 2010 to 46 countries.
LINK

I'm a fan of geothermal. geothermal heat pumps are really cool too for private homes. Look into it.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 12:02 pm
Geothermal is the way to go in the long run, and there have been some recent strides made in locating good spots for it.

On another topic, here is why we don't trust companies who pollute to self-regulate -

http://www.popsci.com/environment/gallery/2008-06/worlds-dirtiest-cities

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 12:03 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

155.
Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine declared his climate skepticism in 2007. "Long-term temperature data suggest that the current - entirely natural and not man made - temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century could continue for another 200 years. Therefore, the best data available leads to an extrapolated value of about 1 foot of rise during the next two centuries," Robinson wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007. "There is no scientific basis upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error - but it is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea level rise at all. No one knows," he added.


Red added.

I'm pretty sure you've posted yourself that the number is closer to 1 degree average rise. 50% error.

T
K
O

I posted that the 30 year increase in average global temperature, 1975 to 2005, was 0.6 to 0.7 degrees Celsius or Kelvin. Dr. Robinson wrote: "temperature rise of about 0.5 degrees C per century." He's correct about the average temperature rise per the two centuries 1807 to 2007. Please note that average global temperature has been decreasing since 2005.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 12:14 pm
from NASA :

Quote:
Five-Year Average Global Temperature Anomalies from 1880 to 2006

Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1880 to 2006, the warmest ranked year on record.


for a good graphic illustration of world temperatures see the link to NASA below :

NASA
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 01:29 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:

...
[Arthur B. Robinson] is ... yet another in the list of scientists whose area of study have nothing to do with climatology whatsoever, yet are held up by your bunch as 'experts.' He is no more an 'expert' then I am on the subject.

Cycloptichorn

Everyone who is a scientist is far more an expert on climate than you are. Furthermore, they are far better at detecting phony science than you are.

Check the UN IPCC's list of signers. A majority are not even scientists. Of those that are scientists, only a minority are climatologists.

Quote:

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

As of December 20, 2007, over 400 prominent scientists--not a minority of those scientists who have published their views on global warming--from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS


Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

157.
Meteorologist Chuck F. Wiese, the president of the Portland Oregon based Weatherwise, Inc., lambasted "fancy computer models that can be manipulated" and "are absolutely incorrect and fraudulent." Wiese called computer model predictions of climate doom a "bunch of baloney." "The physics of this is in support of anyone who is a skeptic. As I have said, CO2 is of secondary importance; anything that we did to reduce CO2 emissions is going to make no change in my opinion that you could really measure in the climate response at all, because other things are going on that just overpower the small contribution you get from CO2, it does not make a dog's bit of difference," Wiese said in a January 18, 2007 radio interview.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 01:38 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The more oil that is lifted to supply world demand, the lower will be the price at constant dollars for that oil that satisfies that demand.


oligopoly

You didn't get around to look it up, did you?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 01:55 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
The more oil that is lifted to supply world demand, the lower will be the price at constant dollars for that oil that satisfies that demand.


oligopoly

You didn't get around to look it up, did you?

I learned what an oligopoly was when I was in high school studying history.
Quote:

As I currently understand it, there are a great many nations and companies that lift oil.

So would you please name what you think are the members of the oil oligopoly. In the event you are referring to OPEC, you have a point. However, the best way to fight the OPEC oligoply is for non-OPEC oil lifters to lift more oil:
The more oil that is lifted to supply world demand, the lower will be the price at constant dollars for that oil that satisfies that demand.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:00 pm
No, the best way to fight the Oil Oligopoly is to transition to non-oil energy sources. That path leads to being completely done with them much, much faster then adding on a few percentage points to the world's total oil supply.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:04 pm
Collectivist Democrats have been and are sabotaging the USA economy by voting to limit domestic oil drilling. As they are increasingly successful, they will increasingly sabotage the security of our God endowed rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:16 pm
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:25 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
No, the best way to fight the Oil Oligopoly is to transition to non-oil energy sources. That path leads to being completely done with them much, much faster then adding on a few percentage points to the world's total oil supply.

Cycloptichorn

Your expectation of "much faster" is either your fantasy or your fraud.

The time and money and pollution it will take to adequately supplement our current oil generated energy supply with nuclear power, with solar panels, with windmills, with subterranean heat probes, is far greater than the time and money and pollution it will take to successfully drill and lift more oil. We know where the oil is. We know how to drill for it and lift it. What we don't know is how to stop the collectivist Democrats from preventing us from doing what we know how to do.

By the way, your real or feigned hypochondria about pollution generated in the USA by current energy sources neglects the fact that since the early 1930s the life expectancy of Americans has increased from less than age 60 to more than age 78.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:30 pm
miniTAX wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Oil is a commodity!
No its not. Its an inheritance of stored sunlight. Its a precious and finite resource, but a resource like no other because everything else depends on it.
Oil is just energy, very cheap energy...
its energy certainly. And its priced such that its value in terms of work done is not appreciated. Work is done by the expenditure of energy. Work done is valuable.

With machines and enough machine food you can do almost anything. And become very wealthy in the process.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe this might mean somthing good for Daimler Chrysler. Test out the latest technology on the status cars that are purchased by more afluent wealthy types first, make it popular, then produce middle and lower end vehicles in their other companies that are more affordable after they have production figured out better.

Sounds like a nice shift to me and moreover a great way to rebuild a brand and offer something new.

T
K
O

P.s. - An electric MB would be cool ass car to have.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 02:54 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn

"Plans Question to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles" and replace them with what? Natural gas? Batteries? Solar Panels? Nukes? Hydrogen?

If it's natural gas they can do that in less than 7 years with minor conversions of engines, but natural gas is a petroleum byproduct.

If it's batteries that can be done in less than 7 years by charging those batteries with electric power generated by oil, gas, or coal driven generators. What's causing the delay? Could it be the size/weight of those batteries and/or time and money required to redesign their production facilities?

If it's solar panels, that will require much more than 7 years to make solar panels small enough to be carried by vehicles, yet powerful enough to charge batteries for non-solar night driving.

If it's nukes, we will have to wait quite a few more years than 7 for that to happen. If it's hydrogen, developing a means to produce an adequate supply of hydrogen and safe hydrogen driven engines will also take a lot more than 7 years.

It's certainly responsible to attempt to develop adequate alternate sources of energy. However, it is irresponsible to not at the same time to lift and mine what we already know can be made available over the next 50 years.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 03:15 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe this might mean somthing good for Daimler Chrysler. Test out the latest technology on the status cars that are purchased by more afluent wealthy types first, make it popular, then produce middle and lower end vehicles in their other companies that are more affordable after they have production figured out better.

Sounds like a nice shift to me and moreover a great way to rebuild a brand and offer something new.

T
K
O

P.s. - An electric MB would be cool ass car to have.


On the other hand, the person writing that piece does not write like a high tech professional and cites only blogs for his sources. I have to wonder why a prestigious auto maker would announce that the very expensive petroleum fueled cars that it wants to sell now will be obsolete in less than seven years. That doesn't strike me as a really smart marketing ploy.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 03:18 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn

Maybe this might mean somthing good for Daimler Chrysler. Test out the latest technology on the status cars that are purchased by more afluent wealthy types first, make it popular, then produce middle and lower end vehicles in their other companies that are more affordable after they have production figured out better.

Sounds like a nice shift to me and moreover a great way to rebuild a brand and offer something new.

T
K
O

P.s. - An electric MB would be cool ass car to have.


On the other hand, the person writing that piece does not write like a high tech professional and cites only blogs for his sources. I have to wonder why a prestigious auto maker would announce that the very expensive petroleum fueled cars that it wants to sell now will be obsolete in less than seven years. That doesn't strike me as a really smart marketing ploy.


I suppose the person who authors an environmental blog and travels to pretty much every auto show in the world, keeping up with the new auto technologies, might be a slightly more authoritative source then you, Fox.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 03:26 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Wow

http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1800/69/

In less than 7 years, Mercedes-Benz plans to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles from its lineup completely.

Cycloptichorn

"Plans Question to ditch petroleum-powered vehicles" and replace them with what? Natural gas? Batteries? Solar Panels? Nukes? Hydrogen?

If it's natural gas they can do that in less than 7 years with minor conversions of engines, but natural gas is a petroleum byproduct.

If it's batteries that can be done in less than 7 years by charging those batteries with electric power generated by oil, gas, or coal driven generators. What's causing the delay? Could it be the size/weight of those batteries and/or time and money required to redesign their production facilities?

If it's solar panels, that will require much more than 7 years to make solar panels small enough to be carried by vehicles, yet powerful enough to charge batteries for non-solar night driving.

If it's nukes, we will have to wait quite a few more years than 7 for that to happen. If it's hydrogen, developing a means to produce an adequate supply of hydrogen and safe hydrogen driven engines will also take a lot more than 7 years.

It's certainly responsible to attempt to develop adequate alternate sources of energy. However, it is irresponsible to not at the same time to lift and mine what we already know can be made available over the next 50 years.


Biodiesel and electric. MB obviously sees a profitable future in this area, but then again, they are professionals who are paid to chart a profitable future for their company, and you are just an idiot who likes to spout off on the internet about stuff he doesn't really understand.

Your insistence that we remained shackled to a wasteful and pollutive energy source is about as intelligent as your insistence that we remain shackled to a wasteful and costly Iraq policy; and both are in the process of being soundly rejected by the American people.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 26 Jun, 2008 04:00 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
On the other hand, the person writing that piece does not write like a high tech professional and cites only blogs for his sources.


You can also read it in the Sun, if you want to...


Foxfyre wrote:
I have to wonder why a prestigious auto maker would announce that the very expensive petroleum fueled cars that it wants to sell now will be obsolete in less than seven years. That doesn't strike me as a really smart marketing ploy.


Any car you buy today will be obsolete in seven years...

And don't forget that gas it currently at about $10/gallon in Europe. Bigger cars need more gas than the smaller cars competitors are offering, and if gas prices keep on going up, potential costumers will reconsider whether it's really worth the cost.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 08:13:23