Global Warming..Science and Politics

[GTB_an_Owl (Geoff)]

Mmmmmmmmm!

seems to me that if it is gunna get HOTTER - thats what we should be looking to as an energy source

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Oh well another End of the Word is coming. Soon. I have seen few of those go by in my time. Only this time the Prophets of Doom have learned that predicting definitive time of our demise is dangerous, it does not happen on time and they finish with the egg on their faces. So the Apocalypse will happen soon, maybe in ten to hundred year’s time. And our brightest and incorruptible scientists concluded that we the humans are with 90% certainty responsible for it. The United Nations that infallible institution rubber-stamps it. We do things against the nature. We cut the trees and clear the land, burn the fossil fuels, destroy biodiversity of our planet. We are the cause of global warming. We are doing things against the nature??? Hold on, we have to make up our mind, are we part of the nature or are we not? If we are, then what ever we do (and the consequences of doing it) is natural and it is just another step in the evolution. If we are not (being put here on the Earth by God, Aliens or Whatever) then yes the environmentalists and the clerics are right and we are doing things (depending to which religion you believe) we should not.
We humans, together with few other species (cockroaches, rats and mice, sparrows, rabbits, mosquitos and some others) are at present most adaptable species in the world. We got this ability to survive and adapt because we are constantly facing challenges to our survival presented to us by the nature and by ourselves.
Just look at time, effort and the money we spend on trying to eradicate above species. And still they thrive. That pales to insignificance to the time, effort and resources we spent over the millennia trying to eliminate ourselves. And still we thrive.
Just look at sunny side of the things. Even if we have caused the GW, we may have delayed onset of Ice Age.

[Tiroch]

Please to read you agree that the warm is followed by an Ice Age. We are in a short term interglacial period of about 12,000 years so far and and it is considered by those expert in the Climate History of Earth this period will last a short time longer.

Short term is maybe another 500-1000 years which, of course, is of no interest to us as we will be long dead.

Where I live was covered by 2 miles of ice and this left quickly as explained here:

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmu...ge2/03_3.shtml

http://www.backwoodshome.com/article...veira86lw.html

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

and a different read:

http://www.templeofsolomon.org/orbit...g/variance.htm

An Ice Age is always preceded by a Warm Age.

So the little humans contribute to GW is just bringing on the inevitable Ice Age a bit faster.

[Tiroch]

Has this gone dead?

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by Tiroch

Has this gone dead?

I've expressed my opinion a few times, replied to posts and given lots of links to material I think is relevant. There doesn't seem to be any point in doing much more.

I'll continue to keep in touch with the original scientific data. If others wish to believe in politicised versions, so be it.

I am however looking forward to posting in the 'Global Ice Age' thread when it starts around 2020.

[xelasnave]

It probably goes this way John most of us realize how the world works and that climate change is real, but that the facts will be distorted to suit vested interests. .. It is frustrating and little can be done other than to feel anger that even those we choose to lead us can not stand in the way of the sky is falling corporations drive for cash. It is a worry that the UN can be corrupted to produce such a report.
I have been harsh on our PM about his apparent roll over but he is a good man who has stopped Australia from signing the paper work that adds weight to the fear .
Even you have expressed an opinion that solar power can’t do the trick whereas of course it can... have you wondered who put such an idea in your head . I find it extraordinary the lame reasons why solar could not be made viable.
The prospect of Solar power has been has been marginalized. The energy the Sun delivers to this planet far exceeds the consumption per metre humans use.
We were told GST (Goods and Services Tax or value added tax mm value taken away tax more like it) was needed to catch the black money floating around to give the people a reason for accepting it...but its introduction meant every business in Australia was forced to use a computer or die.. I mean the smallest of enterprises now needs a computer... I see a little irony in that...
Who was really driving that push? which boys in which revenue department.. a Government Tax Department Committee? or a computer marketing department?
You have an ability to see the world at large so please ask yourself where did I get this negative response to the prospect of solar power being viable,..
I think you have made your point very well that the sky is falling corporation has us spending money on ineffectual solutions to a problem we can not even manage let alone cure and we should move past that and plan for a future where it will be different.
I doubt if there is any scientist who has looked at the data available would confine his enquiry simply to a period covering industrialization.. and then conclude the outrageous propositions that are being established as facts for all of us to believe. I mean it is going around out here that basically if we don’t go nuclear our Great Barrier Reef dies and we will have blackouts so you cant use your air conditioner. Hard to beat such emotion.
How did the world survive the y2k bug .. was that nonsense started by the computer dept or the baked bean dept of the sky is falling corporation . The food shortages, the civil unrest, the cut off of water supplies, people getting stuck in lifts, people dieing on operating tables... all are embarrassed to recall just how they were sucked in so those memories have been erased from memory banks. Let’s get the banks to display their books and tell us how much they were touched for... a little embarrassing I feel.
If our PM can be got at and can not resist the pressure who can...
If tree planting gets tax relief yet our farmers most of who are in desperate situations can not what does that tell you. Farmers have to fight for drought assistance yet tax concessions on forests of pulp timber. what does that tell you. Tells me there is no hope.
You are good at working things out so I ask you look at your opinions on solar energy and ask ..well why do I think that it is not viable have they slipped one in on me ... have I been a little fast in dismissing the proposition?
I hope your pleas to do something constructive on global warming (or as I will call it from now on historic climate fluctuation... mm is it more or less than that??) gains following and will filter thru to people but really what can we do.
I did not want this thread to go this way I wanted to point out that science is in danger here and scientists should consider the possibility that politics can corrupt scientific method… sorry to have opened a can of worms.

Alex

[Tiroch]

Thank you and so 2020 that is as good as any guess anyone can make. Meanwhile enjoy the warm as it will not last very long.

I really believe these people that are TOLD to fret about the warm have no clue about warm as this is an aberration Cold is the Historical Reality except for the periods I mentioned.

When the Himalaya mountains came up 40 million years ago that is when Ice Ages started. The weather patterns became screwed up. Check that out if you will.

I too have given links that are relevant to that which we face: Ice Age.

And your quite correct. It is pointless to do much more as the world is full of 98 percenters that buy into the line of the day which is GW by humans.

Maybe in the next 6 months they will buy into another media line of the day.

How ever shallow is that!

Really I have nothing more to say and agree with you on that.

Sheep and lemmings are of the same ilk - follow each other to death.

[Tiroch]

Alex,

It is not that solar power and wind power are not viable.

It is that both have an efficiency of about 25% and electricity cannot be stored. So when the Sun shines and the Wind blows power is made. Problem is that the grids can take the power but not at peak times in daylight. The grids are handling what these handle and an excess cannot be handled.

So at night the Sun does not shine and generally the wind does not blow.

So if you can figure a way to handle that then you win. Then these will be viable.

Power systems need/require continuity and a thing called turn up and turn down fast. Coal/gas/nuclear/water plants do that.

And that is the problem!

So to have 'environmentalists' get on the file of Solar and Wind is to say they don't have a clue as to how things work.

Nothing wrong with being green. Everything wrong with not knowing what the greenie is talking about. And that is dangerous as most people have no clue. Al Gore anyone?

[acropolite (Phil)]

electricity cannot be stored

Simply not true, batteries are most often used to store solar, wind and micro hydro power and as has been already mentioned, water can be pumped back into reservoirs and reused. Most importantly power from both solar and wind power (even house sized installations) can be fed back in to the grid to lessen the load on thermal power sources.

[Tiroch]

Why say simply not true as that is not my post? My post is the grids and not a house.

Batteries cannot store mega watts. Batteries can store a few kw.

Ontario use 25,000 MW. So where do you get batteries so big.

It is not to lessen the load by having solar and wind power. It is that the production comes at the wrong time.

I'm not writing about house installations. I'm writing about really big stuff.

Do you not understand turn up and turn down? If a system cannot do that then we have blackouts and that is the fact of the way it is.

So if you can figure the way then you get rich.

And yes - electricity cannot be stored except in condensers but these have a natural habit of discharging all at once - blow out everything to which it is connected unless it is dampered by a sink and only exit that which the connected load wants. Not practical.

If you want to save power go with MEG.

Link here and been studying this for years:

http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/meg.htm

USA patent and frozen out by Big Oil it seems. Want 'free' energy?

Ever read T. Henry Moray?

http://www.totse.com/en/fringe/free_energy/moray.html

Have a go.

[tbentley]

Lies, damn lies and statistics as they say. I'm no expert (on anything) but I do generally investigate further when I hear information that is of some consequence. Just like I did when I first heard about the concept of global warming some years back.
To date I have found no evidence that shows me anything more than a small trend over a miniscule number of years. Statistically insignificant they would say if they had data going back to the ends of time. As it is they have data going back one or two hundred years. Ice data is no good in proving or disproving anything as it is all based on a series of assumptions which we may or may not have got right in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned it seems to me that we humans are big noting ourselves again to believe that we could be capable of influencing anything so large. The world will cope and if not we will adapt to the new environment. We have probably another 50 years before we have viable nuclear fusion anyway and then we will have all of the tools to fix this if it is even our problem in the first place.
Frankly, if you use anything electrical or drive a car and then complain about our irresponsible carbon emisions you are a hypocrite. Every individual can make a difference no matter how small if they so chose. If global warming is true then we simply value our comforts more than our environment. Well that's what survival of the fittest is all about, isn't it? Blow the rest, we'll be alright.
But the original question was really one of more a political nature. Are we being manipulated by our government into a position of supporting uranium mining by an emphasis on global warming? Well the answer is probably yes, of course. That's how democracy works.
Unfortunately 99% of the population is stupid. If it wasn't, a democracy would never work. If everybody was intelligent enough to make a reasoned, informed choice nothing of worth would ever get done. Fact is, a lot of things that are good for us as a group (nation, etc.) would be very unpopular on an individual level.
Look at the greatest civilizations of all times. Autocracy, autocracy, autocracy. When Rome changed to a true democracy it was the beginning of the end. Only an intelligent, benevolent individual, unfettered by the need to gain favour or approval from their peers or subjects can ever make the right decision 100% of the time because they do not have to consider the consequences to the individual. Every democratic system at some point comes down to the interests of the individual and not the group. Bad decisions are made for the group in the interests of the individual.
It is only by the manipulation of the general population that a democracy can ever get anything done. And we are the idiots my friends, you and me. We don't like to think of it that way but it's true.
Man's greatest deception is and always has been self-deception. On every level we are but a very small cog in a very large machine. Every time you get to a dark sky look up and try and convince yourself that you are significant in the big scheme of things. I dare you. (That's for me not anyone else!)
Travis

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

... have expressed an opinion that solar power can’t do the trick whereas of course it can... I find it extraordinary the lame reasons why solar could not be made viable. The prospect of Solar power has been has been marginalized. The energy the Sun delivers to this planet far exceeds the consumption per metre humans use.

Oh no, I just can't help myself, was going to sign off here!

Alex, solar irradiation on the Earth's surface does not exceed about 850W per square metre.

When you add it all up, it looks like unlimited power. The trouble with solar is its very DILUTE power - what we need is concentrated stuff.

As you are no doubt aware, the 850W is greatly reduced by geographical location and climate, sun angle, nightime (100% reduction!) and losses in conversion and storage. Every time energy is converted into another form, efficiency is reduced, so electrical storage makes the whole idea even less viable.

Transport and transmission losses are a big factor - there's a reason coal-fired power stations are right next to the mines (e.g. in the Hunter) and to the cities. The 'Nullarbor option' as mentioned by another contributor is just not on.

There's nothing wrong with solar in the right application. it's great for the ISS and outback phone boxes, and I'll soon be relying on it when I'm a grey nomad, but it's piddle power when it comes to base-load supply and industrial production.

There are no lame reasons, only well-understood physical ones. You won't come across any working electrical/power engineers who believe solar can do the job. (Challenge!?!)

[okiscopey (Mike)]

Alex et al., just to follow up with a book on the 'solar' topic and (probably of more immediate interest) a link to a fairly detailed review of it:

The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World (second edition) by Howard C. Hayden [who does NOT receive money from the 'energy' industry]
Vales Lake Publisher LLC, January 2005 ISBN 0971484546

Read the review by Jay Lehr here:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17185

Here's an extract, to be read whilst bearing in mind the proportion of solar power fed into the grid of the leading industrial nations is less than 1% and declining every year:

"Hope springs eternal ... so the news media continue to publish glowing stories of solar homes despite years of failed predictions. Coincidentally or not, most high-profile solar enthusiasts tend also to be anti-capitalist collectivists who wish every family unit operated off its own individual windmill or photovoltaic cell instead of the 1,911 U.S. power stations containing 9,493 power generating turbines driven by steam provided from water heated by coal, natural gas, nuclear energy, or liquid petroleum.

The usual socialist suspects have been polyannaishly predicting the success of the futile wind/solar venture for more than 40 years. Examples abound.

* In 1977 Dennis Hayes, founder of Earth Day, predicted that by the year 2000, 40 percent of global energy would be from renewable sources.

* In 1978 Ralph Nader said all power would be solar in 30 years. In 1997 he repeated that claim.

* In 1996 Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) predicted solar energy would be the primary source of energy in the twenty-first century."

By the way, an anecdote:

Many years ago I ordered a book called "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear". The young lady wrote down my order as "The Health Hazards of Going Nuclear".

If you want to order the 'Solar' book, make sure they write the title down correctly - brainwashing is subtly alive in our society.

[xelasnave]

I dont know what I am talking about but what I am driving at is what we need to be doing as far as solar is concerned and to look at how we can solve the problems raised. The Sun shines somewhere all the time. It is humans that see the night and day as a problem It is a system that is in the future that we can not see yet. Thats why I say I did not know what I am talking about yet it is not even an idea yet and it certainly wont be my idea we end up following but an idea along these line is what I suggest.. Just as those of 200 years ago could not imagine a computer or build one we cant imagine what we need as far as as new global energy, and fall back to trying to build our own Sun . I wait until a forrest fire to do any big burn offs..work with nature not try to copy it . So all I say here is solar with future newer better ways rather than say we are not up to it ..it cant work..why because we have decided it cant work..well someone has who could that be? not me that for sure.. just look at we can do and ask cant we do something like I suggest..think about it is what I ask.. so maybe we need a global approach.an attempt to see the future realistically for a species I hope will last past the spiders time on this planet.. even leave this planet and extend our species futher .. like ants setting off for new nests ..we do other more difficult things can we not build a solar power system firstly in our minds rather than say it can not work with what we have today.
Even our petrol is solar fuel if you put a fine point upon it . There is a message there if nature can store solar power why cant we .
Heck I want out of this thread or I will be laughed at .I hope you are laughing with me not at me ..but thats your call .. But its great to hear.. the views .
Other species who have been here longer than us realise that the Sun is it .. its the thing thet get their energy from absolutley all their energy as do we, follow the solar trail if you dont believe that one.. only those little aliens on the heat stacks get their power form Earth and they are not going any all place.. well just look at all they species they get their energy from the Sun.. We are greedier but smarter I say simply lets think of how we can make it work not why it wont work..and lets not try and build our own Sun there is one out there that will outlast any we can build .
Hey thanks for the links
alex

[ispom]

there is the term „net energy gain“:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erntefaktor


it means, how much energy one really wins,
take the energy which produces a plant during its life span and subtract the energy which one had to spend for production evenly this plant.
in this respect the Votovoltaics score completely badly. It is therefore the by far most expensive energy.
And if one could not use the cheap energy from conventional power stations for the production of the photocells, solar power would be still many more expensive ….
or differently expressed: while a modern Votovoltaik plant needs 100 months to work in order to bring the energy back needed for itself production, a modern nuclear power station needs only 1 month.

[mickoking]

I think economical Fusion power is less than 20 years away now. That will make all the coal, oil and nuclear (fission) obsolete power and help drag our planet back.
Until then we as a global community have to wake up and deal with the problem at hand. Solar and wind power are not perfect but they are hell of a lot better than Coal or fission power. We as a society may have to make a few small sacrifices for the common good (to help the fragile planet we call home, our only home), sadly I see little of that.
Talking of sacrifices we have no problems sending troops to a futile and counter productive war but if it is ever suggested we slightly modify our lifestyle to reduce excessive energy consumption poo poo hits the fan

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by ispom

there is the term „net energy gain“:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_energy_gain

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erntefaktor


it means, how much energy one really wins,
take the energy which produces a plant during its life span and subtract the energy which one had to spend for production evenly this plant.
in this respect the Votovoltaics score completely badly. It is therefore the by far most expensive energy.
And if one could not use the cheap energy from conventional power stations for the production of the photocells, solar power would be still many more expensive ….
or differently expressed: while a modern Votovoltaik plant needs 100 months to work in order to bring the energy back needed for itself production, a modern nuclear power station needs only 1 month.

Thank for the links .
Its like a real estate investment being expressed in years taken to recover capital. Lets face it the sooner you get into the black the better I understand that...So our problem is to do better than what is there at the moment . Finally the return on investment controlls the game . I understand that . Seeing your post I thought I had better get those sausages out of the fidge cooking with electricity is convenient but I like the inefficient fuel to cook them ..some nice dry iron bark (wood) but down here I dont think you can use a fire.. not sure on that.. but all b.b ques seem to be gas.
Thanks again for the links and the sausage reminder .
alex
alex

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Even our petrol is solar fuel if you put a fine point upon it . There is a message there if nature can store solar power why cant we .
Heck I want out of this thread or I will be laughed at .I hope you are laughing with me not at me ..but thats your call .. But its great to hear.. the views .
Other species who have been here longer than us realise that the Sun is it .. its the thing thet get their energy from absolutley all their energy as do we, follow the solar trail if you dont believe that one.. only those little aliens on the heat stacks get their power form Earth and they are not going any all place.. well just look at all they species they get their energy from the Sun.. We are greedier but smarter I say simply lets think of how we can make it work not why it wont work..and lets not try and build our own Sun there is one out there that will outlast any we can build .

Spot on Alex, We should make the Sun work for us. Australia is bathed in sunlight. But only a miniscule amount, a flys fart of that energy is collected

[xelasnave]

Er I did not mean to equate it to finacial gain but was trying to show I understood efficiencies. Very interesting reading. Still got more stuff to go.
Got the sausages out...
alex

[ispom]

of course, you should construct enormous reflectors for heating up and demineralization of sea water,
use the Sun and convert your deserts to flowering landscapes,
leave the coal in the earth!