3 ways to tackle climate change through energy innovation

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by busigator96, May 13, 2014.

  1. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +364
    A high school calc teacher called in to Rush... says it ain't so...

    Wow. This issue is wrapped up. No need to discuss this any further.
  2. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    I can tell people have missed the point (the math teacher was just pointing out the absurdity of the alarmists)!

    Then again the absurdity that Man/Woman can actually change the earths temperature is believed by some...

    That said here is the transcript. The math teacher part is near the bottom. A lot of satire as AGW may provide the greatest opportunity to use it!

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2...o_death_of_a_melting_glacier_in_the_antarctic
  3. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,896
    Likes Received:
    275
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,338
    Affecting and controlling are two different things. Obviously, our abilities to control the climate are very limited--we can seed rain clouds, but that's about it. Affecting the climate is a different issue. I really believe that we don't know enough to say how much effect humans have on the climate. It is possible that humans have a significant effect, through burning fossil fuels, generating excess CO2, releasing methane through cattle ranching, etc. No one thought in the 1960's that refrigerant releases could open a hole in the ozone layer the size of Australia, but it happened. Obviously, human behavior in this case nearly created a global catastrophe with the planet. If we are not the cause of global warming, then whatever natural process that is causing it should eventually reverse, and we'll be fine. If we are the cause, then things will only get worse, and in a hurry.

    I think we need to change our behavior, but not primarily because of global warming. The primary cause of behavior change should be the dwindling supply of fossil fuels. We are flush with the recent victory of successful fracking for oil and gas production, so we are naturally inclined to think that technology will always solve our problems BEFORE the problems devastate our economy (and drive desperate nations to war), but that will not always be the case. As more and more of the world modernizes and starts consuming its own share of fossil fuels, the margin for error will be even smaller. I am o.k. with paying slightly higher taxes on fossil fuels and electricity, and using that money to finance research into alternatives. I also don't mind small subsidies to people who are using alternatives (not $7500 for a Chevy Volt, of course). I don't agree with subsidizing companies in general terms (tax breaks, maybe).
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    I dont have much to disagree with here at all.

    I probably do not do a great job at letting people understand my position which is similar to what you stated here. The alarmists can be so absurd that I like to use absurdity to discuss. Whenever you see me say it is cold outside so it is global warming...you can rest assured I am using satire and know that one cold/hot day (shoot one cold/hot season) does not define whether "man/woman" was the reason that day/season was hotter or colder than normal.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +364
    First I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of his numbers, I don't have time to mess with that. But assuming he is right and hasn't slipped a few decimal places, the problem this guy has is he doesn't seem to have a clue (or want to comment on) how much power the sun delivers to the earth every day. Huge numbers are easy to bounce out to the un-informed (ie., Rush listeners) and make them THINK it is impossible.

    Here is a big number for you - 1.8 x 10^17 J/s.

    That is the amount of energy the earth receives PER SECOND from the sun. http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#burn

    Now how many seconds are in 100 years?

    I agree that if we set out to intentionally "raise the temperature of the earth" it would be DAMN near impossible.

    But if we were to try to do it, we would basically do what we are currently doing. Pump MASSIVE amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere so that we could slightly slow down the amount of energy coming from the sun that doesn't get radiated back to space.
    • Like Like x 1
  6. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +364
    You ol' chain yanker you! LOL!
    • Like Like x 1
  7. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    13,229
    Likes Received:
    191
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +738
    I agree with you other than I do not think we are dumping anywhere close to enough CO2 to make a significant difference. Therefore I dont think we are trying to. :)

    That said I think the tides will be the next big breakthrough gor harnessing energy. Not sure whether batteries will get there or not for vehicles. While they are far better now there is still a ways to go....
  8. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Some of that energy never reaches the surface of the earth, and some of it radiates back out into space. Briefly on Antarctica:

    Most of East Antarctica is above 3000 m above sea-level, rising to exceed 4 km in a small area at about 82� S/ 80� E, though the highest point in Antarctica is the Vinson Massif at 5,440 m in West Australia. The high land in East Antarcica is known as the Antarctic Plateau, where the ice is more than 2 km thick. The average elevation of the continent is 2.2 km, far above the 700 m for other continents.

    Obviously, the elevation of Antarctica contributes to its low temperatures...

    Antarctica is extremely cold. The extreme temperatures at the permanently-manned South Pole station are -14 to -81C, and at Vostok -21 to -89C. Near the coast above-freezing temperatures occasionally occur, and they are common on the Palmer Peninsula. But the annual mean is below 0C everywhere

    Not a circumstance to contribute to melting. In fact, annual snows continue to increase the thickness of the ice over most of the continent. And as has been discussed on other threads, Antarctic sea ice extent is currently at record levels.

    Due to Antarctica's location on the bottom of the earth, I doubt it receives anywhere near the energy from the sun that you posted above.

    http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap03/antarctica.html
  9. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter...

    Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.)

    To produce any significant warming from CO2, the climate models must assume other feedbacks that amplify the warming. The models are wrong. They have assumed too much climate sensitivity to CO2 and produced models relying on strong positive feedbacks while ignoring climate factors that contribute negative feedbacks.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
    • Like Like x 1
  10. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +364
    It does seem to be a large source of untapped energy. I've seen a few things being done with wave energy that looks very promising too.

    For the record, I think the bio-fuels approach (as currently implemented - ie, using food to make gasoline substitute) is a bad one. But some interesting work is being done with algae that could be a player in the long term. I saw something about algae farms grown in the gulf of mexico's "dead zone" that would potentially be a game changer.

    I think the solar energy grants that were given out were not a great idea either. We would have been better off saying "We are going to buy X billion dollars worth of solar panels from US firms and install them on Gov. buildings and/or other public buildings such as schools over the next Y years."

    We would have supported domestic solar companies, would have reduced our on going power costs, created jobs building and installing the panels, etc., etc. Would have been much closer to a "win win win" solution.

    I watched a great movie about Global Warming (can't remember the name) a few years back where it was all gloom and doom for the first 50 minutes or so.

    Then at the very end, one of the main scientist in the movie said that in the end, he KNEW that a solution would be found. That someone somewhere would "think outside of the box" and make a game changing discovery that would make the use of fossil fuels obsolete.

    Time will tell.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. enviroGator
    Offline

    enviroGator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,495
    Likes Received:
    78
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +364
    I wasn't implying that that was the energy hitting antarctica. That is the energy hitting the whole earth.
  12. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    I understand that. Since Antarctica's ice was being discussed in the context of earth energy budget, I just wanted to remind everyone of that
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    2,843
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,046
    "3 ways to tackle climate change...."

    1.
    We could stop the Earths periodic wobble from happening.

    2. We could stop the Earth from periodically changing it's elliptical orbit around the Sun.

    3. We could tax our domestic energy sector into extinction and laugh all the way to the bank (the governments
    of the world and the UN that is) and pretend that it's working...
  14. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,650
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,384
    An comparison I read someplace else: If 97 percent of the world's structural engineers said the Golden Gate bridge was unsafe to drive on, would you still drive on it because you believe deeply in your heart that bridges can't possibly deteriorate?
  15. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,989
    Likes Received:
    861
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,808
    Depends on if it actually is. See, no number of people agreeing with the prediction makes the prediction any more or less accurate, only the actual math. Consensus is useful for counting judges, not scientists. Better question -- if the bridge stubbornly ignores that prediction and several subsequent ones, when should the 97% go back to the drawing board.

    Scientific authority isn't established by the scientific community agreeing with speculation, but by repeating observations.
  16. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Problem with the "97% consensus":

    In 2009, a paper by Doran and Zimmerman published in EOS claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that mean global temperatures have risen since before the 1800s and that humans are a significant contributing factor. This study, too, has been debunked. The survey asked the wrong questions. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming also support those statements. The survey was silent on whether or not the human impact was large enough to constitute a problem or would cause a problem in the future. Moreover, the “97 percent” figure represents the views of only 79 of the 3,146 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than 50 percent of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. This is not evidence of consensus.

    http://heartland.org/policy-documents/research-commentary-myth-global-warming-consensus
  17. 108
    Online

    108 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    18,538
    Likes Received:
    498
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    NYC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,911
    it's pointless with this lot

    the fossil fuel industry spends millions a year on filtering down doubt, to the base of the political party they sponsor
  18. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,684
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,125
    Are these 97% the same ones producing these climate model projections? They may agree with each other, but they have no agreement with actual observations.

    [​IMG]
  19. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    32,650
    Likes Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +2,384
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
  20. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,749
    Likes Received:
    221
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +908

Share This Page