Global Warming

[seremtan]

did you read the bit about thorium?

not to mention possible fusion, helium-3, etc

for a problem of this magnitude wind and solar are joke solutions. they're niche technologies, very useful and worth developing for space flight, or providing temporary power to remote areas, but they're never going to provide the solid energy base we need to avoid a glorious future in the new seventeenth century that eco-campaigners have in store for us

[Foo]

fields of magnifying glasses focused on a single point to power steam turbines?

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/21/sev ... wer-tower/

[shadd_]

fields of magnifying glasses focused on a single point to power steam turbines?

http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/21/sev ... wer-tower/

yeah its really not that far fetched. i happened to see them using a reflective array on discovery channel today. they had a large focused beam(3 feet wide maybe)hitting test material for the space shuttle. i never caught how hot it actually got but it must be over 2000c. hot enough to vaporize any stray birds.

[R00k]

did you read the bit about thorium?

not to mention possible fusion, helium-3, etc

for a problem of this magnitude wind and solar are joke solutions. they're niche technologies, very useful and worth developing for space flight, or providing temporary power to remote areas, but they're never going to provide the solid energy base we need to avoid a glorious future in the new seventeenth century that eco-campaigners have in store for us

Well that's kinda the point here. We're not going to be able to continue exactly as we have been. Lifestyle changes are going to be required.

But to dismiss certain types of alternatives out of hand as insufficient seems a little premature at this point. We barely even have any real competition going on to find new ways of collecting and distributing energy.

The thought of going all nuclear scares me because it seems we would be trading CO2 and warming for nuclear waste.

I think there is surely some way to harness heat and solar power to a degree that would be significant enough to make a real difference. I can't help but think that if we had spent the last 60 years working on that, instead of finding new ways to burn dead dinosaurs, then we would probably be most of the way there already.

Of course that's nothing but speculation. Still, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility of using something relatively clean outright.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

seremtam is wrong on this one. small scale water and wind and solar can provide a large % of our needed energy.

[seremtan]

Well that's kinda the point here. We're not going to be able to continue exactly as we have been. Lifestyle changes are going to be required.

i don't think so. this so-called trade-off between the planet and our lifestyles reminds me of the so-called trade-off between liberty and security. it's just something that's drummed into us every day until it's widely believed but of questionable truthiness

But to dismiss certain types of alternatives out of hand as insufficient seems a little premature at this point. We barely even have any real competition going on to find new ways of collecting and distributing energy.

i didn't dismiss renewables. i said they were niche technologies, worth developing for certain things, and maybe one day they might contribute to the energy base to a significant level - but not today, when we actually need a solution

The thought of going all nuclear scares me because it seems we would be trading CO2 and warming for nuclear waste.

yes but nuclear waste is a lot less than you might think, can be re-processed to reduce its harmful life, and unlike CO2, doesn't melt the arctic. plus if you're going to appeal to future technology to support a case for renewables, you must allow pro-nuclear people to make the same appeal in respect of future waste-disposal tech etc

I think there is surely some way to harness heat and solar power to a degree that would be significant enough to make a real difference. I can't help but think that if we had spent the last 60 years working on that, instead of finding new ways to burn dead dinosaurs, then we would probably be most of the way there already.

yes but we didn't, so that's that. to paraphrase rumsfeld, you solve problems with the technology you have, not the technology you don't have

[seremtan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... 42,00.html?

interesting article arguing that without economic good times, people will drop environmentalism like a hot rock

[Nightshade]

seremtam is wrong on this one. small scale water and wind and solar can provide a large % of our needed energy.

Are you talking on a residential scale? Because if you mean industrial as well, then I'll need to see some numbers to back that claim up.

[Dave]

yes but we didn't, so that's that. to paraphrase rumsfeld, you solve problems with the technology you have, not the technology you don't have

The Manhattan Project comes to mind....

[Dave]

btw cocks:

http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/re ... shine.html
https://lasers.llnl.gov/

Technology we don't have yet, courtesy of America's national labs.

[seremtan]

btw more cocks

http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity ... e10630.htm

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

and this surprised me:

According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998.

[tnf]

Saw tom delay on hardball the other day saying it was 'arrogant' to think that humans could impact climate change.

[seremtan]

that's a new one. like if god had a lawyer, he would make a case something like that

[Nightshade]

Saw tom delay on hardball the other day saying it was 'arrogant' to think that humans could impact climate change.

The sad thing is that there are sooooooo many fuckknuckles out there that believe this to be truth. I really can't recall a time at which this country has been more polarized over more issues...

It's time for the aliens to invade so we can as humans have a common enemy against which we can unite. Short of that I'd say we're fucked. Of course, when the motherships blast the world's major cities with their advanced hyperweapons, there will be reams of fundie nutjobs screaming that the alien hordes are a punishment from god.

[seremtan]

It's time for the terrorists to attack so we can as americans have a common enemy against which we can unite. Short of that I'd say we're fucked. Of course, when the airliners blast the world's major skyscrapers with their advanced boxcutter-wielding nutters, there will be reams of (our own) fundie nutjobs screaming that the terrorist hordes are a punishment from god.

see what i did there?

[Nightshade]

Yes, you took a serious commentary on the state of human affairs and made an extremely obvious and exasperatingly unfunny jab at the Bush administration and America.
*sarcastic slow clapping*

[Massive Quasars]

Nope, semencunt is right.

You need to introspect your way out of this problem, no more distractions to externalize your collective attention.

[Nightshade]

Wow, that's completely irrelevant. And when did you become retarded?

[seremtan]

Yes, you took a serious commentary on the state of human affairs and made an extremely obvious and exasperatingly unfunny jab at the Bush administration and America.
*sarcastic slow clapping*

so that would be a no then

[Captain]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/ ... cl=7132088

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29658424/

COPENHAGEN - Hundreds of leading climate scientists wrapped up a three-day conference with a warning Thursday that global warming is accelerating beyond the worst predictions and threatening to trigger "irreversible" shifts on the planet.

Attended by some 2,000 experts, the conference aimed at updating the findings of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of U.N. talks in December on a new global climate treaty.

"The worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized," a team of scientists wrote in a concluding statement. "There is a significant risk that many of the trends will accelerate, leading to an increasing risk of abrupt or irreversible climatic shifts."
The IPCC predicted a sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century, which could flood low-lying areas and force millions to flee. But more recent research presented at the conference suggested that melting glaciers and ice sheets could help push the sea level up at least 20 inches, and possibly as much as 39 inches.

'Highly vulnerable'
"Recent observations show that societies are highly vulnerable to even modest levels of climate change with poor nations and communities particularly at risk," the statement said.

(more if you click)

[seremtan]

global warming is accelerating

it stopped in 2000

[Tsakali]

it started up again in 2008

[seremtan]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 742023.ece

A wind-powered fleet of 1,900 ships would criss-cross the oceans, sucking up sea water and spraying it from the top of tall funnels to create vast white clouds.

These clouds would reflect a tiny proportion, between 1 and 2 per cent, of the sunlight that would otherwise warm the ocean. This would be enough to cancel out the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide emissions. The ships would be unmanned and directed by satellite to locations with the best conditions for increasing cloud cover. They would mainly operate in the Pacific, far enough from land to avoid interfering with rainfall.

interesting idea, and it would deal with the CO2 we've already pumped out. estimated cost: $9bn

or we could have yet another treaty that the big polluters won't sign up to and everyone else will fail achieve the targets of, while we sit around bitching about it

guess which is most likely

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1381174/

Chinta Puxley

Winnipeg — The Canadian Press Published on Friday, Nov. 27, 2009 10:22PM EST

One of Canada's top northern researchers says the permanent Arctic sea ice that is home to the world's polar bears and usually survives the summer has all but disappeared.

Experts around the world believed the ice was recovering because satellite images showed it expanding. But David Barber says the thick, multiyear frozen sheets crucial to the northern ecosystem have been replaced by thin “rotten” ice which can't support the weight of the bears.

“It caught us all by surprise because we were expecting there to be multiyear sea ice – the whole world thought it was multiyear sea ice,” said Dr. Barber, who just returned from an expedition to the Beaufort Sea.

“Unfortunately what we found was that the multiyear [ice] has all but disappeared. What's left is this remnant, rotten ice.”

Permanent ice, which is normally up to 10 metres thick, was easily pierced by the research ship, said Dr. Barber, who holds the Canada research chair in Arctic science at the University of Manitoba.

The team finally reached what it thought was stable ice, only to watch a crack appear just as researchers were preparing to descend onto the floe.

“As I watched, over the course of five minutes, the entire multiyear ice floe broke up into pieces,” Dr. Barber said. “This floe was 10 miles across. Something that's twice the size of Winnipeg, it just broke up right in front of our eyes.”

The ice is unable to withstand battering waves and storms because global warming is rapidly melting it at a rate of 70,000 square kilometres each year, he said.

Multiyear sea ice used to cover 90 per cent of the Arctic basin, Dr. Barber said. It now covers roughly 19 per cent. Where it used to be up to 10 metres thick, it's now two metres at most.

The findings, which are soon to be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, comes as a shock to experts worldwide. Although northern sea ice hit a record low in 2007, researchers believed it was recovering because of what they were seeing on satellite images.

But the satellites the experts relied on were misleading because the rotten ice looked sturdy on the surface and has a similar superficial temperature, Dr. Barber explained.

“The satellites give us only part of the story. The multiyear ice is disappearing and it's almost all gone now from the northern hemisphere.”

The deterioration has far-reaching consequences for the North and its iconic mammal. Polar bears that rely on the permanent ice to survive the summer have fewer and fewer places of refuge, Dr. Barber said.

“Polar bears are being restricted to a small fringe of where this multiyear sea ice is. As we went further and further north, we saw less and less polar bears because this ice wasn't even strong enough for the polar bears to stand on.”

The lack of sea ice may be good news to some who want to see the North opened to industry. Without thick ice blocking the way, ships can more easily gain access to the Arctic's natural resources.

“We were doing almost the same speed we'd do in open water through what we thought was multiyear sea ice,” Dr. Barber said. “Transportation and all the issues of navigation across the pole all become very real when you no longer have any multiyear sea ice.”

But opening the Arctic to international shipping could have an impact on the ecosystem if freighters bring with them new contaminants and species, he added.

Dr. Barber said the sea ice is virtually beyond repair and it would take years of cold weather to restore the Arctic to its former state.

“I think we're on our way to an Arctic ice cover that will be seasonal and not perennial.”