What Do We Think About Climate Change

wardd,
In my case it is not a visceral reaction to the reduction of CO2 emmisions at all. As a matter of fact I support the reducing of CO2 emissions by means of a more efficient fuel burning and/or urgent substitution by other sources of massive energy the big world population needs, like the nuclear. We should keep as much as possible of oil reserves for other purposes than burning them.

What is regrettable, in my opinion, is the present disingenuous scaremongering with threatens of doom we are suffering, just for the profit of banks, cap traders, opportunistic false greenies, politicians and politized scientists. That bunch are sacrificing in the altars of their interests the lifes and wellbeing of the poor populations in this planet, by deriving most necessary development funds to idiotic and unnecessary climate-fighting spendings, just useful only to fill their pockets.

And although this is political ranting, I know , I think the real confrontation is much deeper and basic than the simplistic left-right one, several of the posters here are so fond of. It is just a power and money game, as always.

Cheers.

 

Hand-shakes and high-fives.

Hand-shakes and high-fives.

 

More on climatic cycles:

How would global-mean temperature change in the 21st century?
WeiHong Qian, Bo Lu and CongWen Zhu
From the issue entitled "Special Topic Climate Changes in the Past Century (1961–1992)"

Chinese Science Bulletin
Volume 55, Number 19, 1963-1967, DOI: 10.1007/s11434-010-3258-5


http://www.springerlink.com/content/k55q600145456481/fulltext.pdf

Abstract
The time series of HadCRUT3 global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) anomaly, Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) index, and the equatorial Pacific sea surface temperature (SST) were utilized, and their long-term trends and multiple time-scale periodic oscillations were explored in this study. A long-term trend with a warming rate about 0.44°C /century during 1850–2008, two cool floors occurred respectively around 1910 and during 1950–1970, and three warm flats happened in the 1870s, 1940s and since the year 1998 were found in the GSAT. In this duration, the variability of GSAT can be well reconstructed by the quasi-21-year, the quasi-65-year, and century-scale oscillations. The recent decadal warm flat is caused by their positive phase overlapping from these three oscillations. The maximum rising temperature reached 0.26°C was simulated in 2004 by the three oscillations. The quasi-21-year and the quasi-65-year oscillations were possibly caused by solar radiation and internal variability of the ocean-atmosphere system. Therefore, an outlook of GSAT for the 21st century was made based on the long-term trend and these three oscillations. It was expected that a cool floor and a warm flat of the GSAT would appear in the 2030s and 2060s, respectively. However, the highest warming range is predicted about 0.6°C, it is less than the threshold 2°C and IPCC projection.

 

in the recent past the ic engine was the answer to another form of pollution namely horse manure on city streets and that started an industry the was a financial boom

there were times before that when one fuel became scarce and the successor fuel fueled a financial boom, wood to coal

i believe that going from fossil to electric would do like wise and the thing is there is no technical reason it can't be done. It is just a matter of engineering.

if we do it then the issue of man made co2 disappears.

I see it as a win win

good for the planet and good for the economy , well maybe not good for those with vested interest in the current system


history shows that when change was made it spurd economic activity

 

Electric is not a fuel. It is one form of energy developed by burning fuel, usually petroleum or natural gas or coal based, since The Left has left us with so few nuclear reactors..

 

I'm not against nukes per sey as long as the failure mode will be stop and not melt down and a way to handle spent fuel is found

I saw on the internet today a guy was developing a way to put solar cells on road ways and had a grant from the energy dept, the figures according to him is the road ways in the us could supply all we need at current demand

I'm not saying this is the way or that it is correct but using it as an illustration of thinking that may satisfy our energy demands

even making carbon fuel out of plant waste would be neutral

when you think about it fossil oil is too valuable to burn

 

Correct...

It is more accurate to discuss "energy storage and transportation mediums" rather than "fuel" in the traditional sense.

In this case we are usually talking about petroleum based liquid, or electro chemical storage (batteries).

The facts are that liquid fuels, weather they are gasoline, diesel, alcohol, methanol, or whatever else, are actually very energy dense compared to the current state of the industry for electro-chemical batteries (hopefully this changes sooner rather than later).

This is why fuel-cells are so popular, you have a very energy dense, easily containered, stored, refilled, "energy storage and transport medium" that can be converted to a motive force very efficiently.

It's a complex topic, and I don't think any of us have the time to get into it exhaustively. But lets just leave it saying that "it is v. complex" and it is hard to say what the ideal situation is for "now" and the "immediate" and "near immediate" future.

Both batteries and fuel cells (for now) create environmental disasters in their manufacture and disposal. Batteries really are only good for 4-10 years (being generous). They have other warts.

I invite others to continue this more verbosely as I.

 

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

I am also big fan of pyrolysis/gasification.

 

Let's go back to clean, efficient and cheap whale oil.

 

One need only look at the devastation left behind at the Canadian nickel mine that supplied the mineral for the Prius batteries.

http://www.hybridcars.com/forums/nickel-hybrid-batteries-t1700.html

 

even I don't believe we will change overnight, what I'm for is a serious beginning toward change and the people may have to drag the politicians and vested interests along kicking and screaming

 

I think we should save the Anthropomorphic Global Warming (climate change) argument for message boards like this, academia, research institutions, etc. And step back for a second and realize we have consensus on many, many, many other environmental issues.

If instead of fighting and bickering we focused on the things that we all want. Clean water, cheap and reliable power that doesn't choke up the sky or poison our rivers, intelligent use of national and global natural resources so that we can use them in the future.

If we move forward on these other things than, the ball will move forward for everyone in a way that doesn't disenfranchise the developing world, crash the global economy, or rob the next generation of the promise of having a better future than our own.

I think an important thing (you may disagree with me on this point) is that even if the worst CO2 related catastophic anthropomorphic global warming predictions are true (End of the World as We Know It [EOTWASWI]) the solution isn't going to be flushing your toilet with a gallon of water, or driving a motorcycle instead of a sedan, or using cotton instead of synthetic fabric.

The answer is going to lie in a discontinuity type leap forward in technology that empowers everyone in the world.

Thats where we should be spending our time/effort/aggravations. We need more people becoming scientists, and we need investors, companies, institutions and governments willing to invest in the future.

 

I consider myself a left of center progressive but when I hear the term "the left" I don't know what that means

It seems to infer I belong to some monolith and march in lock step to dictates given to me, which is as far from what I am as can be

I kinda read what's out there and make up my own mind

 

Well, Duh! It would seem to imply, from that you may infer.