RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Raechard -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (12/7/2008 1:30:38 PM)

I can also confirm it is raining in my back garden if this is any help to anyone?



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (12/7/2008 2:23:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

The points you make regarding "quality of life" benefits are well taken.  We have seen the USA and a number of other countries benefit from increased pollution standards,...
You mean regulations? I thought you righties were against regulations?
quote:

...our rivers are running cleaner...you can't walk across Lake Erie as you once could,...
When could one walk across Lake Erie due to pollution? 
quote:

Interestingly,  all of this has been done with "productive, profit motivated industry" pushed by more stringent government regulation, and not by the use of "windmills".tidal energy, and solar cells.
Forced to clean up by the Federal Govt. while fighting every miniscule improvement to air and water quality tooth and nail. BTW, much alternative energy tech didn't exist 40 years ago. Strawman.   
quote:

We are in the midst of one of the greatest financial implosions in all of our lifetimes and my concern is that the politicians will take advantage of such increased control over spending tax payer money that billions will be sqandered.
Politicians SHOULD exercise control over how tax dollars are spent. That is their primary duty. Just think of the infrastructure we could have upgraded if it weren't for the Neocons attempt to remake Iraq into a Libertarian paradise.
quote:

  Take windmills, for example, We would need tens of thousands of windmills to provide the power an economy like the USA requires, along with significant infrastructure.  However, I have not heard one "expert" in Congress discuss the engineering requirements of windmills.
I have not heard anyone suggest we get all of our power from windmills. Another strawman. 
quote:

The USA does not produce the very large and finely engineered "ball bearings" that allow those bird killing panels to turn...only Germany and Japan do that...and the lead time for these bearings is over a year!
Do you have a link for this? 
quote:

We should focus, instead, on nuclear which is clean and does not add Co2 to the atmosphere.  Clean coal technologies should also be utilized and wherever possible retrofitted into exhisting facilities.  We should drill for oil and gas (gas is also a very clean burner) and diminsh the impact of OPEC and Russia on world oil markets.
How do you propose disposing of radioactive waste? Are you advocating that the Fed Govt force the power companies to upgrade their facilities, and construct new ones?

Here's a bunch of data about crude and drilling. Have you ever been on a rig? Do you know what is involved in drilling? It's not like drilling a water well.
Rotary rigs in operation: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_drill_s1_m.htm

Lead time from lease acquisition to production
"ARI also predicts that oil could start flowing as quickly as three years after offshore areas are opened up, at least in those areas where leasing could begin immediately. But Phyllis Martin, an EIA senior energy analyst, projects a longer lead time. She predicts it would take two to three years for the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service to put a leasing program into place, and another two to three years for oil companies to explore and drill the first producing wells, for a total delay of four to six years." Factcheck.org 8/14/2008

Cost of deep-water rigs
" "A lot of these areas may not be economically attractive to produce at this time." Indeed, it's reported that the cost of renting a high-end deep-water drilling rig now runs between $500,000 and $550,000 a day. Other reports put the going rate at $600,000 a day." Factcheck.org 8/14/2008

"No deep-sea drilling rig is available anywhere in the world for hire before 2010. The lead time to build new ones is three years."
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/09/20/stories/2008092050320200.htm

Offshore rigs aren't cheap, either.
http://www.iadc.org/dcpi/dc-septoct05/Sept05-rigdemand.pdf

Interesting tech stuff about a land rig upgrade
http://www.drillingcontractor.org/dcpi/2001/dc-septoct01/s1-upgrades.pdf

Mud can be really toxic - you can't just dump it anywhere.
http://www.anp.gov.br/guias_r8/perfuracao_r8/Bibliografia/DRILLING_FLUIDS.PDF

The US has a small percentage of world reserves anyway
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html

20 billion bbl and we consume about 2 million bbl/day. Y'all can figure this out, right?



samboct -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (12/8/2008 7:38:32 PM)

Jennie

I think the relevant equation under discussion is:

O3 + hv --> O + O2

ozone plus a uv photon yields singlet oxygen and dioxygen (what is commonly called oxygen even by chemists.)  Note that since singlet oxygen is highly reactive, a common reaction following is going to be the reverse.

Is this reflection?  Well, not really.  You're correct- it's absorption followed by emission, but the adsorption and emission are not necessarily equal which would be the case for reflection.

Cory

OK- you say that pollution regulations are a good idea in the case of NOx, SOx, CO, etc?  Why not CO2? 

Wind turbine technology is far faster to add than either drilling or nuclear power.  Combined with energy storage technology (flywheels, batteries, supercapacitors), they'd work fine for a large chunk of our energy requirements.  May I suggest that you have a little faith in what's remaining of this country's science and technology base?  We don't have to rely on technologies which have shot their bolt (and uranium supplies are not unlimited either), we can transition in the next decade to renewables.  It's this generation's equivalent of Kennedy's challenge to put a man on the moon within a decade.  Note that Kennedy didn't say it would be easy- he said it would be hard- but a test of our national character.  Have we turned into a bunch of wimps?

Sam



ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/14/2009 2:47:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Lets dismiss all the global warming stuff.

Nevertheless we find that from a strategic point of view, we'd best get away from reliance on fossil fuels that come from areas of the world which exert unwanted influence over us because of our addiction to their supply. Whether that supply is limited and dwindling - or infinite, is merely an expression of the length of time they will wield this unwanted influence and the degree of unwanted influence they will wield.



You mean unwanted influence from the gulf of mexico, alaska, canada and colorado ? All areas of large oil concentration and which are off limits to the US oil industry ? If these areas were properly exploited it would crash the price of crude oil and reduce the influence of the middle east and Russia. Or are you one of those people that think oil only grows under turbaned people ?

quote:


Nevertheless we find that from an economic point of view, the technology for the conversion of that supply to the uses for which we require it has likely run its course and that hence it has little further potential to produce the innovation required for future economic growth. Meanwhile green solutions possess such potential to drive technological and thence economic growth for our societies for many years ahead simply in their development to replace those aspects provided now by our fossil fuel supplies, and if we add in the many likely spin off possibilities that will be discovered by such development such solutions have a clear economic advantage.


Yes, mystical green processes which can't produce the volume of energy we need and can't produce it for a cost even remotely competitive with a modern refinery. Somehow wasting money in this way is going to help our economy. Brb, I'm going to go piss on the spark plugs of my Jetta TDI now so i'll get better mileage this week.

quote:



Nevertheless we find that the countries in which we live now are much more pleasant than they were 30-40 years ago when their economies were based on highly polluting industries, with that pollution almost exclusively derived from the far wider use of fossil fuels. There is therefore also an argument from the point of view of quality of life, to move away from fossil fuels.

There may well be other arguments that dont rely on the often hysterical predictions (which may or may not be accurate) about global warming for why we ought to get away from our fossil fuel economy and into a greener alternative.

The key is that such greener alternatives must provide sufficient prosperity - and added prosperity, such that our economies can grow and our peoples be supported thereby, in a cleaner and more pleasant environment and relieved of undue influence from those who currently control our nations by way of our addiction to fossil fuels.

And coincidentally we may minimise, or even avoid the dire consequences predicted.

E


Fairy tales. Environmental controls reached the point of greatly diminishing returns decades ago. The air and water we breath now would not be noticeably dirtier if we froze environmental regulations at say the mid 1970's level and *trillions* of dollars would of been put to more productive use, which would of increased the standard of living of everyone in this country.

The only competitive energy alternative that exists is nuclear energy and harnessing that would require trillions of dollars of electrical grid build-out. Environmentalists have way too much power in this country, through a corrupted court system, to ever allow a modern nuke plant to be built today.




ArizonaSunSwitch -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/15/2009 10:49:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

As for not refuting the lack of evidence for global warming, I have long since realised it is a waste of time, the vast majority, no, the overwhelming majority of respected scientists believe global warming is due to human activity


...actually MC, you're not being entirely accurate here. The majority of scientists believe that the data supports the hypothesis that human activity is a contributing factor in global warming.
There is a reasoned discussion of what level this contributing influence is at, whether it is reversible and what impact it would have.


Whenever you see phrases like "the majority of scientists" or "the consensus of scientists" you're dealing with politics not science. If it was science they would have peer reviewed, repeatable by anyone experiments to prove their theories. Consensus is not fact is not science.



samboct -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/15/2009 5:20:27 PM)

"Yes, mystical green processes which can't produce the volume of energy we need and can't produce it for a cost even remotely competitive with a modern refinery. Somehow wasting money in this way is going to help our economy. Brb, I'm going to go piss on the spark plugs of my Jetta TDI now so i'll get better mileage this week."

From Wikipedia
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

Global energy usage is about 16 Terrawatts (TW)

From an energy talk from a VC guy-
 
Geothermal- theoretical capacity is 45 TW, but locations limit it to 2 TW.
 
Tidal Energy- 1-3 TW- possible for coastal areas- but major engineering challenges.
 
Hydroelectric Potential- 4.6 TW, Most dams already installed- currently at 0.6 Tw, maybe can get 0.3 Tw increase, but environmental effects can be pernicious.
 
Wind max potential ~ 10 Tw, + offshore of 5 Tw.
 
Biofuels- currently about 50% of arable land in use to grow food- could get to 8-10 Tw.
 
Solar 175k TW of solar hits the earth/yr.  ~ 1% of what hits the earth would power us fine.  Assume 10% efficiency- then  60k sq. meters of solar gets 4 Tw.  All rooftops at 10%- would be 6-7 k sq. meters or 10% of what we need.
 
Oh yeah- note that to get 1 gal of oil in Saudi Arabia takes 0.5 gal of water- but to get 1 gal out of oil shale in Colorado- 18 gal.  Basically a lot of oil recovery is water restricted. 
 
Somehow these "mystical green processes" seem to be quite theoretically possible.
 
Sam
 
 
 



Hippiekinkster -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/15/2009 5:59:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

..be fair Merc, you're equating weather prediction with climate prediction........i gave an example of this on another thread.......take a NASCAR race. To predict the precise actions of any given car for a few seconds ahead in absolute detail is very tricky......to predict every shake, rattle and roll....................however to predict the bigger picture is easy, the car will go round and round a lot. Perspective makes things a lot easier in prediction.........


From one of the comments at the realclimate citation:
" Regarding Peter Wetzel’s footnote 2 (in #5), certainly one can say that frantic propaganda like Crichton’s is a sign that the awareness of human-caused climate disruption is permeating into parts of society that don’t like its implications. Crichton is just the most prominent of a number of libertarian SF writers who dislike the current climate science consensus because it fundamentally conflicts with their world view. I won’t try for a complete definition of this world view (read Ayn Rand for that), but in this context it results in desperate objections to the concept of an environment that might bite back when over-stressed by the net effects of human personal choices (or at least the current ones being made by these folks)."

So true. It's the right that is politicizing (or trying to) the science. I especially like this comment:
"Am I that far off to say that the average reader who agrees with George Will is likely use their own experience of local weather as a guide to Global Warming?" Hahahaha he NAILED it.

Pseuso-scientific denials are becoming fewer and fewer as the deniers slowly figure out that their objections aren't even refuted anymore - they're laughed at. Now, the attacks are all political and/or economic.
The general form of the "argument" goes something like this:
>Stopping Global Warming would require that we would have to drastically change our lifestyles to ward off disaster.
>We don't want to change our lifestyles;
Therefore, we (the deniers) have to deny that Global Warming is occuring.

Evility's comment reminds me of an exchange from "Armaggeddon"
Steve Buscemi said something like "so your going to strap our asses to a rocket and send us around the moon."
Billy Bob: "Something like that."
Buscemi: "'Cause that didn't work out too well for the Coyote."
Billy Bob: "We have better rockets than the Coyote."



ArticMaestro -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/15/2009 7:41:09 PM)

But Obama and Chu are going to give us Clean Coal Technology...problem solved.



samboct -> RE: The myth of the "1970s global cooling hysteria" (1/15/2009 8:59:01 PM)

We can get "cleaner coal"- but the best way to deal with the carbon dioxide is to leave it stored in a very stable form that's been shown to last centuries with no problem- coal.  But improving the efficiency and cleanliness of existing plants isn't a bad thing to do.  Might even save some money long term.

Sam



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875