DIY Electric Car Forums banner

The Climate Change Debate Thread

628K views 5K replies 108 participants last post by  duremars 
#1 ·
If you would like to debate the various tenants of Climate Change, here is the only place to do so. If you are easily offended then you should probably avoid this thread but we urge all members to civil and respectful. DIY Electric car doesn't have an official stance on this issue but please limit discussion to this thread only so that we can all get on with the job of building EVs. Both sides of the debate are here to build electric cars, so don't forget what unites us here.
 
#1,822 · (Edited)
Aside from automobiles burning petrol, the biggest offender is coal burning plants - particularly in China.

There are some significant advances there indicating we can reduce those emissions 90% or more in a reasonably short time.

Scrubbing CO2 Cheaply
Using Rust to capture CO2

There are more there - just search on "CO2" + "Coal."

A 90% reduction would take us back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 creation, effectively relegating our activities to the magnitude of "background noise" within the ecology.
 
#1,824 ·
Aside from automobiles burning petrol, the biggest offender is coal burning plants - particularly in China.

There are some significant advances there indicating we can reduce those emissions 90% or more in a reasonably short time.

Scrubbing CO2 Cheaply
Using Rust to capture CO2

There are more there - just search on "CO2" + "Coal."

A 90% reduction would take us back to pre-industrial levels of CO2 creation, effectively relegating our activities to the magnitude of "background noise" within the ecology.
First link didn't work for me but I think I found it:
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22259/page2/

I like Calera's process: http://calera.com/
It's like a double shot of CO2 capture as it uses power plant CO2 to create cement, locking up the CO2, which also means conventional cement plants don't have to operate and put out CO2 emissions. Hopefully it can work as planned.
 
#1,829 ·
Heard on the radio last week that if all man-made C02 was removed, 98% would still be there because of water vapor.

Time to get rid of clouds!!!!!!!!!!
H20=CO2?
A great time waster is this column......just my .02.....
And yet here you are....
 
#1,836 ·
No - H2O = Greenhouse gas, makes up 98% of all greenhouse gasses.
Which of course misses the whole point. A catalyst can be a small percentage of a formula but still drives the reaction. The atmosphere may be relatively stable with 98% water, but maybe not when other greenhouse gases start to increase in volume.
 
#1,840 ·
Which of course misses the whole point. A catalyst can be a small percentage of a formula but still drives the reaction.
Please point us to an article proving that CO2 is both a greenhouse gas (just like H2O) and also has an additional catalyst role? Oh, that's right - there isn't one. I've already done that search...

The atmosphere may be relatively stable with 98% water, but maybe not when other greenhouse gases start to increase in volume.
Sounds like pure speculation to me - kind of like all the rest of the hype around AGW. 15 million years ago CO2 levels were around double what they are today - but do not correlate to temperature in a way even remotely predicted by the AGW model.

The conclusion, Dickens said, is that something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models -- the same ones used by the IPCC for current best estimates of 21st Century warming -- caused a substantial portion of the warming that occurred during the PETM."
The most likely answer seems to be that rising temperatures caused higher CO2 levels, not the other way around, and that some other mechanism (duh, could it be the sun?) caused the heating.

As always, the "real" answer is entirely moot. The earth has been hotter and colder, and CO2 levels have been higher and lower, for millions of years. Inside of 10 years we will crack the battery problem and the solar cell problem and all angst about man-made CO2 will be a bad joke. Those of you yelling "AGW!" today will have found a new disaster to believe in, and thus it ever was...
 
#1,833 ·
We might be reaching a tipping point. Obama has been effectively stopped from legislating any sort of cap & tax scheme - so naturally canada will follow that lead:rolleyes:. And in a surprise turn of events at cancun, Japan has walked away from the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile china and india continue their relentless march into industrialization while at the same time pointing the finger at the united states.

Oh, and a new paper suggests that previous estimates of "unprecedented warming" in Antarctica have been exaggerated.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/

Steve McIntyre is at it again!:D

I love the reference to the "one reviewer in particular"
It's not the first time a scientist has attempted to sabotage the review process to keep dissenting views out (peer reviewers do not have to reveal their identities in the final paper if they don't want to). I wonder if a transcript of that exchange will ever see the light of day. There was another one a couple of years ago that did - hilarious stuff!

The review process unfortunately took longer than expected, primarily due to one reviewer in particular. The total number of pages dedicated by that reviewer alone – and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.
 
#1,837 ·
Oh, and a new paper suggests that previous estimates of "unprecedented warming" in Antarctica have been exaggerated.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/01/skeptic-paper-accepted-on-antarctica-rebuts-steig-et-al/

Steve McIntyre is at it again!:D
Not exactly a huge condemnation of previous data:
Overall, we find that the Steig reconstruction overestimated the continental trends and underestimated the Peninsula – though our analysis found that the trend in West Antarctica was, indeed, statistically significant. I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement. In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound.
 
#1,834 ·
Ok , I think allot of people have at least heard of peak oil ...

But I don't think I had previously heard much about ... peak fish.

;)

Similar concept as Peak Oil ... except it is fish instead of oil ... we are at or very near our limit of fish production ... and if we over fish to supply one year , it will have compounding effects on reducing the following years ... which oddly continues to put more pressure on more fishing ... as the supply of fish levels off ... if the demand continues to grow the short term value of more fishing will continue raise the prices ... which continues to further encourage more over fishing.

;)

hahaha ... take that sea food lovers.
 
#1,841 ·
Ok , I think allot of people have at least heard of peak oil ...

But I don't think I had previously heard much about ... peak fish.

;)


hahaha ... take that sea food lovers.
I have heard of over fishing, but never heard it called that before:)

Not exactly a huge condemnation of previous data:


If you can't see the difference, there's not much I can say.

The quote you posted was likely required for the paper to be published. Its not the first time some chapstick was needed to clear hostile review. Steve has some choice words for some of the reviewers on his blog.

I know lots of Canadians, and none are frightened in the least at the prospect of a 2 degree temperature rise.
We already had one nasty cold snap out west this year with snow in november which is supposed to be abnormal for this time of year. However since central canada and much of the american "heartland" to the south seems to get the odd heat wave around the same time (the most densly populated areas of both countries), that is usually all the news ever covers. Right now its right at normal with frost at night and above freezing in the day with a near daily freeze/thaw cycle. Ski slope reports exellent snowpack though. Opened a week early:D

Summers have been unimpressive in the west as well but once again, whenever we do get some nice dry, warm weather, David Suzuki is out front and center screaming like a banshee and using canada's CBC as his podium (my tax dollars at work:rolleyes:).
 
#1,855 ·
Why Antarctica isn't melting much – yet

Antarctica is warming, but not melting anything like as much as expected. In fact, during the continent's summer this time last year, there was less melting than at any time in the 30 years that we have had reliable satellite measurements of the region.
As the saying goes, all is not what it seems and it seems the Antarctic is not a strong case for the skeptics and will become less so.
 
#1,858 ·
#1,866 · (Edited)
Let's put the blame where it really should be on climate change. Blame HAARP..

Global warming or climate change is not caused by you or me, but by HAARP as it pushes the atmosphere 15 miles out into space like a tumor into the solar winds which heats up the upper atmosphere over 1500 degrees.
They are pushing 30 to 100 miles of ionosphere as far as 20 miles out into space. They plan to go further and see the limits of our ionosphere.
Well just watch the HAARP video and see for yourself. Hear it directly from those who work at HAARP.
http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/activism_non_profit/watch/v19132880EEjK5JKs

HAARP.com which has a lot of nice info about HAARP. There are 3 HAARP stations in Alaska.
http://www.alaska.net/~logjam/HAARP.html

When you push 30 to 100 miles of ionosphere into space, that void is filled up quickly causing wind change and altered weather patterns. When the bubble is released, that force is then pushing more wind currents and changes the weather patterns yet again.
What happens when they push it too far? It is not a magnetic field, it is a vaccum pressured atmosphere. Like inside a space shuttle.
Even water when expanded far enough has a breaking point, as they say its like playing with water. Expand it and what happens?
So, just pointing these things out so you won't kill your cow for farting and putting CO2 in the air, when it is not CO2 causing global warming. CO2 meters are not that expensive. Buy one and see what the results are over a period of months, you will see it will be the same levels in 5 months.

Time to get HAARP shut down. It is after all your tax dollars going to waste and HAARP causing all the climate change.
 
#1,868 ·
Let's put the blame where it really should be on climate change. Blame HAARP..

Global warming or climate change is not caused by you or me, but by HAARP as it pushes the atmosphere 15 miles out into space like a tumor into the solar winds which heats up the upper atmosphere over 1500 degrees.
So you have gone from saying there is no AGW to saying there is, but it is caused by HAARP? :confused:
What's the motive for knowingly screwing with the weather?
Care to substantiate this further?
 
#1,878 ·
Hi Karlos

In summary, all I can say is, you give the impression you don't mind paying whatever the oil cartels want and see your govt as being far more sinister. My position is the opposite, we both have our reasons.

I think I see the problem - we live in a parliamentary democracy and as citizens we are used to having an influence on our government

Phantom lives in an aristocracy of money - he knows that as a non millionaire citizen he effectively has no influence on his corporatist two party state.
 
#1,884 ·
Hi Guys
When you are arguing economics I will go back to Adam Smith - with the invisible hand

Karlos
Correctly states that the invisible hand can not operate when some of the costs/benefits are hidden.
This results in a distortion
It is government's job to help level that playing field

There is another issue - the free market is a positive feedback machine
(Adam Smith described it differently but I am an engineer so I use engineering terms)

Them as has gets more -

Such a system is not stable - money concentrates and then it buys the levers of power
(Exactly as Adam Smith said all those years ago)

It is the job of our elected government to guide and operate the market to avoid it falling into this trap
 
#1,885 ·
Karlos - I understand your intent and actually approve of your underlying motivation, but unfortunately it just doesn't work the way you wish it would / believe it will. Thinking that somehow "it will be different with energy" is like believing in "Hope as a Strategy." All it will accomplish is to hurt the many without appreciable speeding of the process towards a better solution.

IF (a big if, and in fact demonstrably not this situation) we had proven a workable theory to develop real solutions in the lab and were only a year or two away under a Manhattan Project, AND those taxes were actually USED for a Manhattan Project, then high taxes MIGHT speed the solution to market by a few years - but still for an extremely stiff premium. But, no such set of technologies (magic batteries and solar panels) have been PROVEN in the lab, and thus such an undertaking is pointless. Furthermore, we ARE at the "tipping point" where more taxes and spending will simply stagger the economy even more, slowing research and development.

Too, we KNOW the theoretical maximums of efficiency. ICE is only 30% efficient; electric motors > 90% efficient. Whatever it costs today to pump and process petroleum cannot compare to what we have shown in the lab as far as what is possible with solar energy collectors that cost almost nothing to build and last for decades - sunlight is free, and pumping oil cannot be better. Metal Air batteries can theoretically hold more energy per kilo than gasoline - and even if they get only 40% of theoretical capacity it will exceed the usable energy in gas. Three puzzle pieces, one of which is here today and the other two have working theories, but not completely proven in the lab. There is NOTHING government can do that will hasten the time to market in the next year or two (about as long as a Manhattan Project can run and be even marginally effective), and in any event the governments proposing the whopping taxes aren't but the tip of the iceberg in the problem anyway - China, India, and the other developing nations are our greatest threat and these taxes will not help slow them down at all.

For the long haul, the fastest way to make scientific advances is real prosperity. Are we still dumping some stuff into the air? Yes - but PRUDENT regulation (80-90% solutions like catalytic converters - did you know the Black Forest is now recovering from the acid rain problems of the 90's?) keeps the economic engine humming with profits big enough for many more companies to invest in research and development - and perhaps generates enough extra to provide incentives to China & India etc. to USE available technology to reduce their spew. Government research NEVER gets as big a bang for the buck. Make China and India start using stuff like THIS or THIS or THIS, and we are effectively on the road to recovery without crippling our economy.

Duncan - this may come as a shock but I agree with your thoughts about the "positive feedback machine" wherein the very rich cannot help but get richer. However, that group affected is less than 1/10th of 1%, and since "income" is in no way an indicator of that group all theories suggesting "income tax as a leveler" are simply lies meant to perpetuate that group's control over our society (most people who make over $1 million in a year do so only for one or two years of their lives; never accumulate appreciable wealth; and within two generations whatever they did save is squandered). The reason I despise the Marxist approach to this issue they so loudly denounce is that their "solution" is a lie designed NOT to level the playing field but rather to make damn sure no new blood gets into the aristocracy (e.g. Marxism / Communism / Liberalism / Progressivism are simply new marketing platforms for re-creating the Aristocracy & Kings). I say, let's put an end to Kings for without them we have never had wars - they are our greatest threat to real liberty.

The Founding Fathers forbade a "direct tax on wealth," because the very real threat they faced from kings in their day was arbitrary taking. Yet, it is only a very small percentage of the population who destabilize the free market - probably more like 0.1% to 0.01% - and those are virtually exempt from taxation under our laws and those of European countries. Were we to acknowledge that it is only "Kings of Commerce" who cause virtually all financial upheaval and design our tax laws logically, we would only need to tax the remaining population around 10% as a simple sales tax to provide a similar level of tax revenues as we generate today.
 
#1,886 ·
Karlos - I understand your intent and actually approve of your underlying motivation, but unfortunately it just doesn't work the way you wish it would / believe it will. Thinking that somehow "it will be different with energy" is like believing in "Hope as a Strategy." All it will accomplish is to hurt the many without appreciable speeding of the process towards a better solution.

For the long haul, the fastest way to make scientific advances is real prosperity.
Sen Bernie Sanders seems to understand the tax problems and to be a downright decent politician. He wants tax reform like you Phantom and it's easy to see why. Now if there is going to be a Rep President wouldn't this be the guy to run? Of course not, too many powerful interests would not allow that. it's not that the US can't afford to empower alternative energy, they can't afford not to find a way.
On Global Warming, he has balls as well and sees the situation for what it is, all power to him.
 
#1,887 ·
Hi Phantom

I have recovered from the shock and I would like to do some prodding,

There is a difference between wealth and income, I had believed that the richest personal income was dividends and the like,

Tim Noah's article (I think I have attached it) tells a different story - the highest income bands are job income (CEO's, hedge funds....)

Such people don't earn only for one or two years of their lives;

they "earn" for decades

Given the positive feedback why do you say
"and within two generations whatever they did save is squandered"

Once a family has substantial funds most families lock them away so even the G W Bush's of this world can't squander it.

The top 1% in America "earn" 24% of the total earnings (the rich)
The top 0.1% in America "earn" 7.7% of the total earnings (the stinking rich)

If you were talking wealth - the numbers get even more extreme!

Attempting to level this completely is futile,
but the tax system used to try to make it less extreme - remember 90% tax bands?


Some of the rich do remember that if the levels get too extreme the blazing torches and guillotines come out, these guys would support some leveling just out of self defense
 

Attachments

#1,891 ·
Hi Phantom

I have recovered from the shock and I would like to do some prodding,

There is a difference between wealth and income, I had believed that the richest personal income was dividends and the like.
Most wealthy earn the vast majority of their increase in wealth through Capital Gains, which is taxed at a flat rate of 15-20% (forget what it is right now). None of that growth is subject to employment taxes (7.75% for the income earner, 7.75% employers portion / self employed portion). So, right off the bat the MAXIMUM tax the wealthy pay constitutes ONLY the amount that the poorest self-employed person pays BEFORE income tax. Too, "Employment Taxes" are capped (it was the first $70k, don't know today). Oh, and because the LEGAL DEFINITION of "income" is "that which is subject to income tax," if you experience a $1 billion dollar gain in the value of your stocks it will NEVER be reported on the news as "income," nor included in statistics on "income." It will be taxed at a flat 15% (if at all, there are more tricks) ONLY when you sell the stock.

The net result is that EVEN if a wealthy person reports every dime of increase in their net worth, their sum tax rate is less than that of a person making $50k.

Tim Noah's article (I think I have attached it) tells a different story - the highest income bands are job income (CEO's, hedge funds....)

Such people don't earn only for one or two years of their lives;

they "earn" for decades
Read "The Millionaire Next Door." Most millionaires accumulate a few paltry millions by hard work saved over many years, and generally accumulate most of that in the last few working years. CEOs making the kind of money you describe number about the same as asshat Hollywood entertainers, who contribute bupkis to real wealth in the country (they create no durable goods & services). Stop watching the news, read the actual numbers.

Given the positive feedback why do you say
"and within two generations whatever they did save is squandered"
Read, "The Millionaire Next Door." Couple of bucks used from Amazon. Two researchers decided to do a study on "Who are the Millionaires?" and discovered that everything they assumed to be true about the "wealthy" was pretty much bogus.

Once a family has substantial funds most families lock them away so even the G W Bush's of this world can't squander it.
What do you consider "substantial?" How many standard deviations from the median makes a "rich person evil?" The dirty little secret of Liberalism is that it is really a tiny percentage of people in our society that lead, persuade, bully, and otherwise convince the productive 50% of our society to do anything useful at all - and absent a sufficient reward to make them feel superior to the ants doing the work, they will earn just enough to retire and play tennis. Level the playing field in the way proposed by Marx, and everyone suffers from a stagnated economy. Me? I sure as hell won't work my ass off if all I can get for it is enough to stay home and watch tv.

The top 1% in America "earn" 24% of the total earnings (the rich)
LOL - statistics can say just about anything you want them to. The bottom 50% of Americans earn nothing. That doesn't mean that they have no disposable income - over a third of that population are kids. They love to talk about the "top 1%." Why? Because those are the most productive, excluding the top 0.01% - 0.1% who hold 95% of the accumulated wealth of that group. As in any war, you should probably positively identify the enemy before you shoot. The Liberals aim at the Productive, not those who are the Royalty (such as George Soros) who pull strings without actually producing anything of value. By persuading enough voters that the top 1-2% of "income earners" are the enemy, what they really are doing is enlisting an army of zombies to legitimize stealing the just reward of the productive to keep those productive from attaining equal stature with the incumbent royalty - all in the name of "equality." It is slavery disguised as freedom - just like 1984 by George Orwell portended.

The reality is that a system that taxes everyone on consumption a modest amount and then caps wealth to eliminate the "positive feedback" flaw in capatalism MIGHT be a better system, but will never be allowed by the incumbent aristocracy short of a revolution - or short of Liberals waking up and realizing how they've been duped for over 100 years.

The top 0.1% in America "earn" 7.7% of the total earnings (the stinking rich)
Yep - their reported "income" (that money received which is subject to the income tax, the legal definition of "income") is neither reflective of their relative wealth nor the actual money they accumulated in a year. Push back the veil, understand what the numbers are really saying, before you believe the slant the media puts on things. Is George Soros more productive than a millionaire? Not on your life - and quite the opposite, if you believe even a tiny portion of what Glen Beck and his team have reported based on Soros' own words. Such "stinking rich" are actively among the most destructive forces in our world.

If you were talking wealth - the numbers get even more extreme!

Attempting to level this completely is futile,
but the tax system used to try to make it less extreme - remember 90% tax bands?
You, and others, had already lost the argument when you accepted any validity to the income tax (and thus the way they report "income" and "wealth"). You are stuck arguing about "how much," rather than "is this system even valid?"

Some of the rich do remember that if the levels get too extreme the blazing torches and guillotines come out, these guys would support some leveling just out of self defense
In 1954 when marginal rates were about 90%, no one paid those rates. Until you understand that, from the point of view of the ultra-rich, the income tax is simply a charade, you will forever be fooled into believing that those promoting higher rates are the friends of the working man.

Try this exercise. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all politicians lie. Which politician will pretend to be your friend?

Answer: The one with his knife furthest up your sunshine...

:eek:
 
#1,901 ·
Hi Phantom, IamIan,

Current batteries like TS are about 10kg/Kwhr
Petrol is about 10 Kwhr/Kg
100 : 1

I believe it would become a no brainer long long before it is 1/2 or even 1/3 as good

At 1 kwhr/kg a 500 mile pack would weigh 100kg - thats 10 hours driving!

This would replace the required 30 Kg of petrol - and the reduction in other required stuff (gearbox, exhaust, radiators .....) would easily save the other 70Kg

Thinking about it

At 0.5 Kwhrs/kg a 500 mile pack would weigh 200kg -

This would replace the required 30 Kg of petrol - and the reduction in other required stuff (gearbox, exhaust, radiators .....) would easily save most of the other 130 Kg

Somewhere about 0.5 Kwhrs/Kg a petrol car will become an obvious loser,

This is about 1:20th of the energy density of petrol
 
#1,902 ·
Hi Phantom, IamIan,

Current batteries like TS are about 10kg/Kwhr
Petrol is about 10 Kwhr/Kg
100 : 1
10 kg / kwh = 100 Wh / kg ... That is ok ... but if you have the money you can buy better than 100 wh / kg.

Modern Batteries are topping out just over ~200 Wh / kg ... so the modern ratio is closer to 50 : 1

I believe it would become a no brainer long long before it is 1/2 or even 1/3 as good

At 1 kwhr/kg a 500 mile pack would weigh 100kg - thats 10 hours driving!

This would replace the required 30 Kg of petrol - and the reduction in other required stuff (gearbox, exhaust, radiators .....) would easily save the other 70Kg

Thinking about it

At 0.5 Kwhrs/kg a 500 mile pack would weigh 200kg -

This would replace the required 30 Kg of petrol - and the reduction in other required stuff (gearbox, exhaust, radiators .....) would easily save most of the other 130 Kg

Somewhere about 0.5 Kwhrs/Kg a petrol car will become an obvious loser,

This is about 1:20th of the energy density of petrol
Excellent point ... the 1:2 and 1:3 is just looking at the energy efficiency difference ...

An Electric motor of equal power for acceleration and cruising is much smaller and lighter than an equivalent ICE... which further helps the BEV.

1:20 does seem like a obvious one sided scenario.

Which is about double current modern day battery energy density.

Given the historical trends ... and if we assume there is no significant physical limitations we will hit hard into , which would greatly slow the historical trends down ... we might see that kind of energy density in ~20 years or so.

Much more ( could add several decades or more ) if we do run into major technological issues as CPU clock speeds have ... much less ( maybe as little as ~10 Years ) if HEVs, PHEV, and BEVs sell very well and become embraced by the mass market consumer.

But given the average turn over rates of new vehicles ... unless something major happens ... I would currently bet on a more 30 to 50 year time frame for mass market acceptance of BEVs.
 
#1,904 ·
Damn people - there is no man made climate change and there is not one bit of evidence that carbon is the cause and/or result of it.
it is all based on the angle of rotation of the earth, the distance from the sun, solar winds, sun spots, and factors way beyond our ability to control, is the cause.
and what if the earth gets a few degrees warmer from natural causes - we have lots more water, a lot more land to farm and grow crops on, more forests, more creatures, more life in general.
more water for the dry areas of the world would be great. less cold in the forzen north would be great.
get over it - you can'd do a darn thing about it except screw up the lives of billions of people.
but i do like the idea of electric cars, but it is unfortunate that the same people who pretend there is man made global warming are the same fools that don't want us to have enough cheap constant electricity to keep their electric eutopia from being realized.
want cheap electricity in unlimited amount - go nuke.
 
#1,905 · (Edited)
want cheap electricity in unlimited amount - go nuke.
Unlimited is an exaggeration.... of course.;)

Fission:
If you add up all the fissionable fuel on the planet ... even if you are generous with the amounts ... and even you are also generous with the % efficiency of the reactors producing electrical energy from all of this fissionable fuel ... it is not unlimited.

There is more potential solar energy than potential Fissionable energy... we have billions of years of potential solar energy ... and there is allot of solar energy out there ... it adds up.

Fusion:
If / when we ever figure out all the issues with Fusion ... I think that would far surpass all other potential energy sources... however ... that is not happening any time soon.

Intermediate:
Perhaps the best argument in favor of fission is as a intermediate energy source ... until we install better options ... such as RE , or Fusion.

Reality:
Good or bad ... ideal or not ... we as a species seem to be skipping past Fission directly to RE ... the amount of global fission power generation is not growing any where near as fast as RE ... RE not only already ahead on a yearly newly installed energy base ... but the growth rate is also much higher.

Nuclear Fission is far behind ... and is the turtle to the RE's rabbit... although at the end of the race ... nuclear Fusion has a good chance to pull ahead in the end ... but not any time soon.
 
#1,906 ·
The problem with fusion/fission is the huge red tape delay to get/keep running. It just takes too long to get/renew permits. Unless you can get the govt to decide on a non-partisan direction, you can't get anywhere. Ask NASA how that works.

Solar is making great price progress (80% drop in 5 years), once good efficiencies come down to those levels it'll be win win win.
 
#1,907 ·
well children still hiding from the boogyman - the unreal man made global warming? reports as of today say the coldest winter in 30+ years. yes, yes, i know the mantra, if it is too hot, it is glabal warming; if it is too cold it is global warming, but THERE IS NO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!
other than a nuke blast of say 300+ weapons, man cannot effect the weather.
and on a brighter note - consumer groups call for an end to the incandescent ban because your pig tail light bulb - if broken, and they do get broken, will have mercury levels 20 times higher than same around that area for upto five hours. http://www.thelocal.de/national/20101203-31563.html.
so the choice is a bulb that is safe and one that poisons the environment with the deadly heavy metal, mercury.
i don't mind you children believing in the boogyman, what i mind is your demanding that i believe in it, and that i lieve my life, by law, according to your childish beliefs. your religion is your problem, keep it out of my life.
 
#1,908 ·
Saying that "Global Warming" is grossly overstated is a far cry from saying we cannot affect the environment. Cut down the rain forests, and we WILL affect the climate. Cut down green trees that absorb sunlight and convert it to chemical energy, and replace that land with asphault which absorbs sunlight and re-radiates it as infrared energy, and you WILL change local temperatures (and perhaps add to the net heat gain of the earth).

Add together all of the influences of mankind and I don't question we will shift temperatures and climatic winds and currents a bit. Whether that is harmful is another matter, and the answer depends on whether you ask an Arab or an Eskimo.

However, the theory of Global Warming that attributes 100% of the observed temperature changes (if any are actually "real") to the man made contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is clearly false if you accept the OBVIOUS facts that
a) other activities contribute to or offset that change, and that
b) that change is not yet accurately predicted by current models.

Those two facts make the theory of Global Warming at best inaccurate, at worst a malicious fear-mongering propaganda tool.

No matter - whether true or false, the goal of reducing ALL of our emissions is a good one. My personal preference is to start with reductions in unregulated human reproduction - but world leaders aren't asking me, and in any event politicians in general are uninterested in real solutions. If we want better solutions, we need to stop relying on Government and faux "leaders" and start doing it ourselves.
 
#1,909 ·
I seem to remember the EU wanted to ban lead acid batteries a couple years ago. I don't remember if it was part of a greater policy to ban lead entirely or not. They had to back down since replacements were not yet available for all critical applications. Would have been inconvenient if emergency response vehicles didn't start when needed in extreme hot or cold weather.

I am not a fan of the edison light bulb but I don't think it should be banned like this. Anyone that wants to use CFLs or LEDs should be allowed to, not forced to.

That idea seems to most closely resemble my opinion on this whole topic. Allow choice instead of taking it away. Nothing would horrify me more if people were forced to drive electric cars under some moral authority. "Moral authoriy" - an oxymoron if I ever read one.
 
#1,910 · (Edited)
David,
I agree that banning the incandescent light bulb is seemingly drastic but here in nutty California we have a rule called Title 24 which requires commercial lighting to be daytime dimmer automatically and for kitchens to have at least 50% of the wattage to be fluorescent or LED. I don't like the method but you can't argue with the results. California's electric consumption has been flat for over 30 years:

"Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent. "

I firmly believe that without regulation, consumers would not take the logical steps to save money - it seems crazy to waste money on a product that is installed by the consumer. I am not a tree hugger but I swap out every bulb that burns out with a CFL or LED. My consumption has dropped enough to cover charging two or three EV's. I laugh at the longer tailpipe argument that is throw around when referring to electric vehicles. Those same people are probably not conserving power or using solar - their houses have the same long tailpipe!
 
#1,912 ·
Tim, can you post a link to that info?

I'm assuming there are reasons other than lighting policies that are responsible for that discrepency but that still seems like a huge spread.

For what its worth, our house and shop are full of fluorescent lighting including my own office lamp. The darn thing is surprisingly resiliant despite falling over every other night (don't ask...:rolleyes:)
 
#1,913 ·
I firmly believe that without regulation, consumers would not take the logical steps to save money

Unfortunately I agree

Example
I am now living in the warmest (winters) country I have lived in - much warmer than Indiana or Scotland and a bit warmer than the South of England
BUT the houses here are cooold!

The minimum insulation is simply not enough and most houses are built to the minimum, this is where regulation comes in the government needs to set a good minimum then all of the houses will be built to that

We have had the ridiculous situation of million dollar houses with pipes that froze!

The house I had built in Christchurch had nearly double the minimum insulation - unfortunately we moved!

I suspect that most houses everywhere are built to the local minimum insulation standard so the only way to improve is to increase the minimums (regulation)
 
#1,914 ·
Phantom said

However, the theory of Global Warming that attributes 100% of the observed temperature changes (if any are actually "real") to the man made contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is clearly false if you accept the OBVIOUS facts that
a) other activities contribute to or offset that change, and that
b) that change is not yet accurately predicted by current models.


Fact (a) - Global warming models are trying to take account of all of the other changes

Fact (b)
The models used are tracked against actual data as time goes on
The models I have seen have been pretty bloody good
Here is a useful website
http://www.realclimate.org/
 
#1,915 ·
I was waiting for some one to mention the issue of housing insulation in NZ or OZ. The truth is, I don't think anyone here in canada would even buy a house that didn't have it even if it wasn't required by code. But there too, many houses in australia don't have any form of internal climate control other than opening a window. Up here, many builders take it on themselves to try and do better than the code as an edge over competition. Home owners are also quite active in making updates to older buildings that might not have the latest PVC double glass windows. Anyone who wants to work in renovations never runs out of contracts here.

I tried to follow realclimate briefly when I first found it but after reading their glowing review of algore's movie including all the emotional sidelines, I began to wonder about their impartiality. Evidently there is even a financial connection to algore and other influential eco campaigners. Simply put, they are the reason blogs like Wattsupwiththat and climate audit exist. But if you want that side of the argument, that is the place to get it and they have a very large group of followers. Deltoid, Tamino and Desmogblog are a few others.

Judith Curry and Lucia seem to be a bit more impartial and therefore often on the receiving end of attacks from the crowds like realclimate.

The models I've seen have not been very accurate other than a few lucky guesses.
 
#1,916 ·
Here is a link to a comparison of models and real data

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/12/updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

Its a year out of date I hope they do an update soon


Home owners are also quite active in making updates to older buildings

Yes they do that here - but new buildings are still built to minimums -
and double glazing is Aluminium!

I have UPVC but almost everybody else is aluminium - there are only two companies in NZ doing UPVC!!

maybe its because you can get away with almost no insulation here - in Canada you would DIE!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top