Global Warming Happening on all Planets

[kuzadd]

Just gonna throw this into the mix. Hope you all read it...

Princeton Physicist Calls Global Warming Science "Mistaken"

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

[GostHacked]

You realize that this planet has been around for almost 5 billion years and during the history of complex, multicellular lifeforms (which only goes back a little over 500 million years, there have been at least 15 mass extinctions that resulted in the majority of plant and animal species becoming extinct and allowing the few survivors to flourish and fill all sorts of ecological niches that they previously couldn't compete in.

So this is nothing new to Planet Earth. We are just the first to have enough intelligence to understand that it is happening.

When geologists and paleontologists started developing a science of analyzing the deep rock layers a couple of centuries ago, they noticed sharp distinctions between the "age of amphibians", the "age of reptiles" and the "age of mammals" where there seemed to be almost complete changeovers in plant and animal life, with less dramatic abrupt changes within each age. They didn't know the reasons for these abrupt changes in lifeforms then, but increased knowledge has revealed that the agent of change came from the planet itself. If one of those extinctions was total and completely eradicated life on earth, there would be no environmental skeptics around today to take a nonchalant attitude towards the present crisis.

So if it has happened before, there is not much more we can do except be part of history when we become extinct. 500 million years is an infinity for us mortals who have an average life span of about 80 years. And we are children still in terms of human existance.

Ever get too much of a good thing? Past mass extinctions line up with periods when volcanic activity caused huge increases in CO2 levels, and CO2 works in an inverse relationship with oxygen; the periods when O2 levels are high, Co2 is low and vice versa. An increase in atmospheric CO2 levels not only means rising air temperatures, it also means more CO2 absorbed in groundwater and in the oceans, and lower oxygen levels in the oceans. This would be a return of anoxic conditions that killed off marine life during some of the worst extinctions such as the Permian/Triassic.

You are forgetting about the ash that is spewed into the atmospehere. And at those levels, it blocks out the sun. Plants need sunlight to work and get rid of the CO2 in the air. Something you overlooked. Without living vegitation to absorb and process the CO2 and produce oxygen, you can sure bet that CO2 levels will rise. CO2 emmisions can be offset by more plantlife. Simple as that.

coal burning = bad when it is the single greatest source of sulphur emissions from man-made sources and the biggest source of man-made CO2 production, and utility companies all around the world want to build more coal-fired generating stations. And, like I mentioned previously, that toxic waste dump in Tennessee shows that "clean coal" is a danger to land and groundwater when it is prevented from reaching the atmosphere.

See now we are getting away from CO2 and getting to the nitty gritty of it. There is much more to worry about than just Co2. Watching the reports on CNN and FOX. One man said he is moving to another city. He said if the coal company can't tell what is in the sludge, then there is no way for the average person to know. CO2 is not the culprit here.

I grew up in Niagara Falls, and we had our own problems with sulphur from the abrasive and carborundum plants that used to be in the south end of the city, so I know what it smells like! But that giant smokestack you had up there at Inco dispersed its carbon dioxide for hundreds of miles, and was a contributor to rising CO2 levels.

How does it add to Co2? Killing vegitation around the area possibly? Trust me, Sudbury was a barren place for decades. Only after 30 years of regreening the area, do you notice any green around. So yes, it kills plantlife that can take care of the CO2. NASA held missions here because of the landscape was as close as they could get to the moon.

Unfortunately, since dinosaurs are about the only extinct animal forms that capture the public attention, this is the only one of previous mass extinctions that the public has any awareness of. And the popular theory that the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction that wiped them out was caused by an asteroid hitting the Yucatan Peninsula and leaving the Chixulub crater, has never been universally accepted as THE main cause of the K/T extinction. There is a volcanic flood plain in India that formed at the time of the K/T, known as the Deccan Traps. Most geologists assumed that the Traps were formed over a long period of time, but new research indicates that the volcanic flood basalt formed during a shorter period of time and closely matches the patterns of extinction found in the rocks. On the other hand, new analysis of the Chixulub crater indicates that the asteroid or comet that caused it, hit the earth 300,000 years before the extinction cycle started -- this effectively removes the asteroid impact as having any strong connection with the demise of the dinosaurs and other animals and plants that died out at that time:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,467764,00.html

So looking at JUST CO2 as a cause is not the way to go. It could be a part of it sure, but I really doubt it is the major contributing factor. And if volcanoes started errupting all over the planet at once, or you may only need a few to go off to change this planet. We can do all we can to save ourselves, but there are things on the planet we cannot control.

So if scientists were wrong about the meteor impact. What else could scientists be wrong on?

Up till now, the K/T has been the only one of the past extinctions that had been regarded as caused by an extraterrestrial event; now even that one seems to have been caused by more mundane planetary changes.

What if the planet purges this illness a little sooner than you expect, since you seem to view it as something far off in the future that we won't have to deal with.

If it happens, it happens, and when it does, there is SFA you or I will be able to do about it.

And right now, if methane-rich deposits on the Arctic Ocean sea floor start bubbling up, releasing massive quantities of methane into the atmosphere next summer, this could be one of those "tipping point" events that could cause a runaway greenhouse effect that have so many climatologists worried about

What CO2 now?

Riverwind

Well, for starters claiming that AGW is a fraud and that we should do absolutely nothing is as wrong as saying the end of the world is coming in 20 years. After all the science does tell us with a high degree of certainty that CO2 is a GHG and it will cause some warming. The problem we have is we have no way to determine how much warming will occur nor can we determine what the consequences of the warming are likely to be.

And looking at just Co2 emmisions is the wrong thing to do. As both of us have pointed out that there are many other contributing factors to this global warming. If we are looking at such a narrow view of this GW with just Co2 as a factor, then we are not doing it right. If we are not doing it right, all data collected from the narrow view won't give us the big picture.

We also should invest in alternative energy sources because we will eventually need no matter what. However, we still need to use fossil fuels and any policy that attempts to outlaw existing fossil fuel sources is brain-dead.

I plan on solar and wind for my first house. I want to be off the grid as much as possible, and be self sustaining. Now I just need a peice of land.

Eyeball

Boy, this is were the rubber of denial really hits the road. Numerous US politicians don't understand the first thing about climate science but they sure know a lot about the science of sophistry.

AL GORE'D !!!!!!

WIP

Oh please! You're not going to count the wildlife killed off by smokestacks or polluted ground waters, but all of a sudden are concerned about birds getting caught in the blades of a turbine.

You are correct, it really is not much of a concern. There are a few individuals that are developing much smaller turbines because of that. Reducing the impact even more. It was a neat idea on how he got more out of less. I will have to find the links.

and it's still missing proof that the Arctic Ocean melted during that time!

Oceans don't melt.

Riverwind

Only when the wind blows. Wind power is a joke and cannot provide more than 10% of the system. Thermal solar is better but is useless in northern latitudes.

Tell that to Iceland. Geothermal is huge there. They even use it in large skycrapers there. And there is a way to store the energy when the wind blows, same with solar, both can charge a battery that is in the house. and you can use that stored energy when it is needed.

[Riverwind]

Tell that to Iceland. Geothermal is huge there.

I said thermal solar - not geo-thermal. Geo-thermal is like hydro power - great when the geography co-operates but useless in most places.

[GostHacked]

I said thermal solar - not geo-thermal. Geo-thermal is like hydro power - great when the geography co-operates but useless in most places.

Ahh gotcha, mis-read the post.N

Would Geothermal work well in Canada?? I would hazard a guess and say yes.

http://www.geosunnrg.com/financing/

Little on the pricey side, but in the long run, the benefits are there.

Wind, solar panels, and geothermal. I need to find a vacant lot so I can build this house !!!

[eyeball]

But it is clear that you are prefer to believe in the fantasy that scientists are these noble creatures who *never* let ego or financial concerns interfere with their interpretation of data.

But it is clear that you are prefer to believe in the fantasy that economists are these noble creatures who *never* let ego or environmental concerns interfere with their interpretation of data.

You just willfully refuse to get it don't you?

[eyeball]

So? My point is the people who are trying to tell us that the "science is settled" are not trustworthy and there is a lot of documented evidence which supports this claim.

So? My point is the people who are trying to tell us that the "economics is settled" are not trustworthy and there is a lot of documented evidence which supports this claim.

Edited December 30, 2008 by eyeball

[eyeball]

Ah yes. The conspiracy theories. Skeptics are motivated by for their "own ends" but other scientists are paragons of virtue only interested in scientific knowledge. Ironically, the reality is likely the reverse. Most of the people supporting the consensus are motivated by their egos and a desire to advance their careers where the skeptics speak out because they honestly feel the "consensus" is wrong.

There is nothing to apologize for.

I couldn't have said this any better so I left it as is.

[eyeball]

No. I am just ridiculing your naivety and hypocrisy.

Yes. I am just ridiculing your naivety and hypocrisy.

[Riverwind]

So? My point is the people who are trying to tell us that the "economics is settled" are not trustworthy and there is a lot of documented evidence which supports this claim.

What is it with the obsession with economists? My only comment on the point was we know from experience what works and what does not and what we have now more or less works (the banking crisis is not the end of the world - we will get over it and it will be a footnote in history 20 years from now). There was a time back in the 70s or 80s when you could have argued that politicians were putting people at risk by pursuing untested economic theories but those times are long gone so it rather pointless to be going on about it now. Edited December 30, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Only when the wind blows. Wind power is a joke and cannot provide more than 10% of the system. Thermal solar is better but is useless in northern latitudes.

Tell that to T. Boone Pickens: The Department of Energy reports that 20% of America's electricity can come from wind. North Dakota alone has the potential to provide power for more than a quarter of the country.A 2005 Stanford University study found that there is enough wind power worldwide to satisfy global demand 7 times over — even if only 20% of wind power could be captured.

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

That's a lot of money, but it's a one-time cost. And compared to the $700 billion we spend on foreign oil every year, it's a bargain.

From the wikipedia:

"Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites."

In other words, there is no question that temperatures were warmer than today. So why didn't the permefrost melt?

Trees take time to re-establish themselves so the distribution of flora tell us nothing about the temperatures.

Well, I did a little reading myself, and as I suspected, the global warming deniers are cherry-picking findings that could lead the reader to assume that all the ice melted up north, including the Arctic Ocean...not likely:

There is still considerable uncertainty, however, with

regard to the relative global, annual mean warmth at this

time, because much of the evidence for warmer conditions

comes from the extratropics and appears biased toward

warm season conditions. The orbitally induced insolation

changes likely favored warmer high-latitude summers but

cooler winters and slightly cooler tropics, with any net

hemispheric- or global-scale changes representing a subtle

competition between these seasonally and spatially heterogeneous

changes.

Recent modeling studies suggest that mid-Holocene

surface temperatures for annual and global means may

actually have been cooler than those of the mid-20th

century, even though extratropical summers were likely

somewhat warmer [Kitoh and Murakami, 2002].

http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W440...s_mann_2004.pdf

The paleoclimatic data for the mid-Holocene shows these expected changes, however, there is no evidence to show that the average annual mid-Holocene temperature was warmer than today's temperatures. We also now know from both data and "astronomical" (or "Milankovitch") theory that the period of above modern summer temperatures did not occur at the same time around the northern hemisphere, or in the southern hemisphere at all.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/holocene.html

All of the ice shelves off Ellemere Island were formed in the last 5000 years. That means they either neer existed before then or melted and then reformed. When you combine this data with the proxies that show that warmer than today temperatures then it means one of two things: either the arctic was ice free then or it is going to have to get a lot hotter before the arctic becomes ice free.

Well, doesn't it seem more logical that a previous ice shelf had broken away, and then a new one replaced it 5000 years ago? How could Ellesmere Island have been ice-free during the last Ice Age? As noted above, the Holocene Thermal Maximum is being overblown by focusing on summer temperatures. Ice core samples taken from Greenland and the Antarctic have indicated that this was a period of much wider temperature fluctuations than we've had during the last 5000 years.

And regardless of how warm things got 6000 years ago, the key difference between then and now is that there was no 6.7 billion people living in the world back then to force the climate. There are numbers thrown around, back and forth in the climate change debate, but the key points are: population growth with no immediate sign of leveling off; that same population industrializing and increasing individual impact on climate; the resulting steady increase in CO2 levels each year; increasing ocean acidification because of the extra CO2 absorbed by seawater -- as long as these trends keep going in the direction they are now we are headed for disaster -- the only questions left are how big and when it really starts to hit us.

[Riverwind]

Building wind facilities in the corridor that stretches from the Texas panhandle to North Dakota could produce 20% of the electricity for the United States at a cost of $1 trillion. It would take another $200 billion to build the capacity to transmit that energy to cities and towns.

Boone is looking for federal subsidies. There are no places in the world where the wind provides more than 10% of the power - even Denmark which has invested massively in the technology and produces the equivalent of 40% of the annual electrical consumption with wind but only 6% of that can be used by the Danes. The rest has to be sold to its neighbors (often at a discount because they may not really need the excess supply).

If you want an example of how bad the economics of wind power is take a look at: Texas Wind Farms Paying People to Take Power

Because of intense competition, the way wind tax credits work, the location of the wind farms and the fact that the wind often blows at night, wind farms in Texas are generating power they can't sell. To get rid of it, they are paying the state's main grid operator to accept it. $40 a megawatt hour is roughly the going rate.

In summary, the mid-Holocene, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. More over, we clearly know the cause of this natural warming, and know without doubt that this proven "astronomical" climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.[/i]

Sorry. Any paper by Micheal Mann of Hockey Stick fame is not worth the paper it is printed on. I find it amazing that this guy is still producing papers that anybody takes seriously. His most recent attempt at erasing the Medieval Warming Period (Mann 2008) is another hodge podge of cherry picked datasets and bogus statistical methods. The jounrnal that printed it already accepted a response by Steve McIntyre that points out some of the flaws. Unfortunately, the jounrnal limits responses to 250 words which is not enough to cover all of the problems which are explained in Steve's blog.

In short, I feel the long standing scientific view that the Holocene was hotter than today is the more credible claim - especially when you consider the other evidence like the age of the Ellemere Island ice shelves, the ice core records and the age of artifacts exposed by glaciers melting.

Well, doesn't it seem more logical that a previous ice shelf had broken away, and then a new one replaced it 5000 years ago? How could Ellesmere Island have been ice-free during the last Ice Age?

It wasn't. The ice most likely melted and the reformed as the planet gradually cooled. Are you sure you really want to claim that an ice shelf that has been around for 5000 years previously broke off when the planet was cooler? If so, you are claiming that ice shelves breaking off are not evidence of higher temperatures.

BTW - it does not really matter why it warmed in the past. The point is the temperatures were likely higher yet we saw no run away warming caused by melting permifrost.

as long as these trends keep going in the direction they are now we are headed for disaster -- the only questions left are how big and when it really starts to hit us.

Ocean acidification is a red herring since the CO2 levels were much higher in the past which would have caused the same acidification without affecting the ability of the oceans to support life. The studies I have looked at all make the mistake of assuming life cannot adapt to changing conditions. A really interesting study on coral demonstrated that the coral could survive with different bacterium if the ones it currently relies on cannot handle the decrease in alkalinity. I also have yet to see any credible evidence that CO2 has the large effect claimed by the climate models. All of the real data collected over the last 30 year suggests that the CO2 effect small. Edited December 31, 2008 by Riverwind

[WIP]

Boone is looking for federal subsidies. There are no places in the world where the wind provides more than 10% of the power

That 20% number was taken from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, take it up with them! They seem to believe there is a lot more potential for wind power.

Sorry. Any paper by Micheal Mann of Hockey Stick fame is not worth the paper it is printed on. I find it amazing that this guy is still producing papers that anybody takes seriously. His most recent attempt at erasing the Medieval Warming Period (Mann 2008) is another hodge podge of cherry picked datasets and bogus statistical methods. The jounrnal that printed it already accepted a response by Steve McIntyre that points out some of the flaws. Unfortunately, the jounrnal limits responses to 250 words which is not enough to cover all of the problems which are explained in Steve's blog.

Which doesn't tell me a whole lot about who's right, except that like most scientific debates, the layman is not equipped to examine claims and counterclaims by statisticians, so we are left with going by the consensus of expert opinion -- and that's the one thing that makes me so suspicious of the anti-global warming groups -- they represent the minority among people in climatology, paleontology, etc., and the deniers have a habit of connecting with groups like "Friends of Science" that are funded by the energy companies.

It wasn't. The ice most likely melted and the reformed as the planet gradually cooled. Are you sure you really want to claim that an ice shelf that has been around for 5000 years previously broke off when the planet was cooler? If so, you are claiming that ice shelves breaking off are not evidence of higher temperatures.

The papers I read indicated that there is not enough detailed information to determine how much ice melted. There certainly is no evidence that the Arctic Ice Cap melted 10,000 years ago, and the present trends indicate that it will disappear in summer during the coming years.

BTW - it does not really matter why it warmed in the past. The point is the temperatures were likely higher yet we saw no run away warming caused by melting permifrost.

That map you showed earlier did not indicate any areas currently covered in permafrost would have melted.

Ocean acidification is a red herring since the CO2 levels were much higher in the past which would have caused the same acidification without affecting the ability of the oceans to support life. The studies I have looked at all make the mistake of assuming life cannot adapt to changing conditions. A really interesting study on coral demonstrated that the coral could survive with different bacterium if the ones it currently relies on cannot handle the decrease in alkalinity. I also have yet to see any credible evidence that CO2 has the large effect claimed by the climate models. All of the real data collected over the last 30 year suggests that the CO2 effect small.

And this overpopulated world is so dependent on dependable weather patterns that allow mechanized agriculture to feed the almost 7 billion people on the planet now, we can't afford even the most insignificant changes without having food riots and soaring prices. You can talk about adapting, but even the slightest changes are having now, are having an impact on crop yields worldwide. How will the world adapt to the more extreme fluctuations such as what happened during the Holocene Thermal Maximum.....and we have had such a dramatic impact on CO2 levels in such a short period of time, the coming climate change will be much worse than during that time.

[White Doors]

To emphasize how distorted the media coverage is wioth regards to "Global Warming" or Climate Change, one only has to look at the poster child for the movement - the Polar Bear. You've all seen the alarmist propaganda - the disappearing Polar Bear - the lonely bear on the small little iceberg. We now know - although the propaganda continues unabated - that the Polar Bear population is stable, if not increasing. The scary part is that the alarmists just keep up the same rhetoric - and people keep swallowing it with the help of naive or agenda-driven journalists.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.htm...39-b71a9e5df868

Yep, I will never support WWF again. They have gone from a credible organization to a blow-hard mouth peace up there with greenpeace. too bad.

[Wild Bill]

That 20% number was taken from the U.S. Dept. of Energy, take it up with them! They seem to believe there is a lot more potential for wind power.

Well, they have their own agenda as well!

Riverwind makes a good point that seems to have floated over the heads of 90% of the people who discuss wind power. If you're not a techie it's easy to make the mistake of assuming that wind power production is a lump sum. If the turbines can produce a megawatt then you have added a megawatt to your grid. Unfortunately, mother nature doesn't work like that at all.

Electricity cannot be stored. You need it when you need it. If you don't have enough any excess you had an hour ago is irrelevant. Also, any excess from conservation is also irrelevant. This means that you have to take the MINIMUM amount of wind power generated as all you can count on, which is much less than the maximum!

So the more wind generation you add to your system the more standby capacity you also have to add, from sources that can be almost instantly brought on line. This means methods like coal or gas-fired turbines.

If your grid is big enough you tend to get some averaging of your power demands which helps the problem. The east coast demand is lower when the west coast is higher. Still, now you need a much more sophisticated distribution system that can monitor and adjust for those conditions. Not something we have today and not something we can MacGyver up in a weekend for $50.

Robert Heinlein said it years ago. TANSTAAFL! "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch! If the sandwich is free then you overpaid for the beer!"

Battery storage for national power grids are about as technically possible with today's technology as a Star Trek warp drive. The only practical use is with decentralized power generation. It is practical for your own house, perhaps. Not for even your own neighbourhoood, let alone a state or province.

As someone who makes his living with a soldering gun and electronic parts, I find it interesting that I NEVER hear this point about wind power addressed in the media. Certainly not by politicians, who for the most part seemed to have dropped any hard science about Grade 5, after their beans in that jar of toilet paper barely sprouted and then died.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Battery storage for national power grids are about as technically possible with today's technology as a Star Trek warp drive. The only practical use is with decentralized power generation. It is practical for your own house, perhaps. Not for even your own neighbourhoood, let alone a state or province....

Excellent observation.....but it has come to the forefront in the alternative energy trenches. Most people don't even realize how inefficient their Otto cycle automobile engines are, let alone the peaks and valleys of electrical power generation. The economics of energy density, distribution, and consumption will bring about change, not the tree hugging - polar bear GW whiners.

I'm betting some of my own money on hydrolizers for both the storage, production, and consumption of distributed electrical power as part of the solution.

[GostHacked]

Wild Bill

Electricity cannot be stored. You need it when you need it. If you don't have enough any excess you had an hour ago is irrelevant. Also, any excess from conservation is also irrelevant. This means that you have to take the MINIMUM amount of wind power generated as all you can count on, which is much less than the maximum!

Ever recharge a battery?? Electricity CAN be stored. And the current powergrid/system did not take overnight to develope as well. So anything new will take time to implement. But the earlier we start with developing a new system the sooner we can get off the one we have.

It can be done. It will have to take major rethinking on everything including how we use and store energy.

Battery storage for national power grids are about as technically possible with today's technology as a Star Trek warp drive. The only practical use is with decentralized power generation. It is practical for your own house, perhaps. Not for even your own neighbourhoood, let alone a state or province.

The system can still be centralized. But homes will need to invest in a energy storing system, like a battery. Many homes that are off the grid are self sustaining in this aspect. If you use wind and solar to collect the energy, store it in a battery, ... use when needed. Sure you may need some kind of back up system. (you even need one with the current system we have, like needing a gas powered generator) With the back up system and storage system, you won't have to worry about downed powere lines or if the grid takes a shit.

Well at least it is possible for warp drive. and it is possible to check into a large storage system.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/WA...MATHENATICA.HTM

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

BC

Hydrolyzers .. I am checking it out online and I am not sure of what they are. I get hits for waste management soultions.... or along that nature.

[eyeball]

the layman is not equipped to examine claims and counterclaims by statisticians, so we are left with going by the consensus of expert opinion --

I'd still have my instincts but more precise information on exactly what this consensus is would be helpful. This is why I'd like to see an official registry that quantifies it. It would be easy to put this information on a webpage that could be updated as minds changed one way or another.

The layman, like it or not, will ultimately be who decides if when and what action on climate change is to be taken. That said it doesn't surprise me in the least to see the clouds of doubt and uncertainty that are being seeded over the utility or usefullness and even the validity of democracy - the most threatening thing there is to our economy. The doubters have learned their lessons well. Gather a few experts together, cobble up a little controversy and preach it - a little dab will do you.

Is it any wonder scientists are being consigned to the same dustbin of disdain and disgust that's generally reserved for lawyers, politicians, and corporate lobbyists and pedophiles? I wonder who the poor ignorant lay people in a runaway climate will most feel like venting their rage and angst towards? Who better to burn at the stakes then the wizards and witches who delivered us unto evil? Consensus will be really really easy to generate in such a world.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hydrolyzers .. I am checking it out online and I am not sure of what they are. I get hits for waste management soultions.... or along that nature.

I was referring to direct methods for energy production, storage, and consumption using hydrogen (generated from electrolysis). In the case of wind energy specifically, hydrogen represents an opportunity for both storage and fuel. But as long as the price of higher energy density fossil fuels remains low in comparison, hydrogen will not be economically viable on a large scale. My short term investment strategy is for early adopters of "green energy", regardless of the cost, and niche applications like fork lift trucks and cell phone tower backup power.

[WIP]

Electricity cannot be stored. You need it when you need it. If you don't have enough any excess you had an hour ago is irrelevant. Also, any excess from conservation is also irrelevant. This means that you have to take the MINIMUM amount of wind power generated as all you can count on, which is much less than the maximum!

And that's why the pro-oil and coal lobbyists keep quoting those minimum figures! They are just assuming that wind and solar energy storage won't be built, because it's not there now. But how much sense does that line of reasoning make? There is no point to building or designing new alternative energy storage systems if the carbon lobby keeps them sidelined for their own projects -- offshore drilling, tar sands and shale oil.

So the more wind generation you add to your system the more standby capacity you also have to add, from sources that can be almost instantly brought on line. This means methods like coal or gas-fired turbines.

No it doesn't! The energy can be stored during peak output periods to use later.

Battery storage for national power grids are about as technically possible with today's technology as a Star Trek warp drive. The only practical use is with decentralized power generation. It is practical for your own house, perhaps. Not for even your own neighbourhoood, let alone a state or province.

Batteries are improving all the time, and take a look at those new Ipods and cell phones if you want to see how fast necessity can spur invention. There are other energy storage proposals being considered, but it is possible to design cheap, high performance batteries that can be used in large systems like energy storage:

Smarter Energy Storage For Solar And Wind PowerScienceDaily (Nov. 29, 2007) — Development of the first hybrid battery suitable for storing electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind is now a step closer.

But, it doesn't have to be with batteries, as the oil, gas and coal lobbyists would have us believe:

Store wind power for later use? Cities bet on itIowa project would compress air in underground caverns It's a new twist on the idea of using wind energy in a way that removes the unreliability of nature. The plant will use power from its own wind turbines, supplemented by cheaper electricity bought at off-peak times, to force air into rock formations at least 2,000 feet underground.

Current plans call for pressurized storage of tens of billions of cubic feet of air in rock formations deep underground.

In Europe, they are planning on using the North Sea as a reservoir for energy storage:

Where to store wind-powered energy? Under water!

Hydroelectric plants like the Sir Adam Beck powerstations, use some of their generators to pump water into reservoirs during off-peak hours; what's stopping building similar systems for wind storage:

A strategy that's used in California, that could be used for electricity from wind power, is to pump water uphill. Since electricity rates are low at night there's an economic argument to make that one can use night-time electricity to pump water to an uphill reservoir, and then release that water through hydroelectric facilities during the day when electricity rates are higher. Indeed this does happen in California and probably elsewhere.

or

Another strategy might be to use excess electricity to electrolyze water and extract hydrogen. Store the hydrogen in a tank, then release it later to generate electricity. This can be done either with fuel cells or by burning in a turbine.

So, the problem of energy storage is not an insurmountable barrier to developing new, innovative ways to store electricity. Necessity is the mother of invention -- as long as the market isn't closed off by a diversion into offshore oil and tar sands.

[Wild Bill]

Wild Bill

Ever recharge a battery?? Electricity CAN be stored. And the current powergrid/system did not take overnight to develope as well. So anything new will take time to implement. But the earlier we start with developing a new system the sooner we can get off the one we have.

It can be done. It will have to take major rethinking on everything including how we use and store energy.

The system can still be centralized. But homes will need to invest in a energy storing system, like a battery. Many homes that are off the grid are self sustaining in this aspect. If you use wind and solar to collect the energy, store it in a battery, ... use when needed. Sure you may need some kind of back up system. (you even need one with the current system we have, like needing a gas powered generator) With the back up system and storage system, you won't have to worry about downed powere lines or if the grid takes a shit.

Well at least it is possible for warp drive. and it is possible to check into a large storage system.

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/WA...MATHENATICA.HTM

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

BC

Hydrolyzers .. I am checking it out online and I am not sure of what they are. I get hits for waste management soultions.... or along that nature.

Yes, energy CAN be stored! Just not in the gigawatts involved in a national power grid. That was my point. Batteries as storage for your house are one thing. For a city it's quite another. How many 'AA' cells do you suggest for a steel-making plant?

You seem to have misunderstood me about a backup system. I'm not talking about when the wind stops blowing. I'm talking about when dawn breaks, everybody's TV's comes on, air conditioning kicks in, offices and factories start rolling and your electrical demand hits a sharp peak. In a house system a battery storage system would have stored power when demand was low to provide it when demand is high. This allows a much smaller and less expensive generating system. It's a lot cheaper in solar cells or turbines to keep a battery bank charged than to be able to power the entire house at peak demand with NO storage system!

You also may technically be right about a warp drive, in the future. The problem is (to quote Firesign Theater) "Yeah, but it's TODAY!" Not only do we need solutions for today's problems but to echo the original point, wind power advocates seem to add up generating numbers TODAY as if they are all that we need to consider! This tells us that they frankly don't understand what they're talking about.

It's always the details! Blue sky talk is nice but any engineer knows that when it comes from non-technical people it usually is no more than "verbal diarrhea", where lots of ideas are spewed out but they're all based on crap. To make something WORK you HAVE to answer the details! What's more, details ALWAYS take more time and money than you would expect! In fact, they often make what sounded like a great idea just not cost-effective.

Nothing infuriates a techie more than some artsie type making a decision based on inadequate technical understanding who then walks away after delegating the problem to those who DO understand and have to deal with the REAL problems!

Anybody with hair in their ears can dream up something that WON'T work!

Edited December 31, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Wild Bill]

And that's why the pro-oil and coal lobbyists keep quoting those minimum figures! They are just assuming that wind and solar energy storage won't be built, because it's not there now. But how much sense does that line of reasoning make? There is no point to building or designing new alternative energy storage systems if the carbon lobby keeps them sidelined for their own projects -- offshore drilling, tar sands and shale oil.

But, it doesn't have to be with batteries, as the oil, gas and coal lobbyists would have us believe:

So, the problem of energy storage is not an insurmountable barrier to developing new, innovative ways to store electricity. Necessity is the mother of invention -- as long as the market isn't closed off by a diversion into offshore oil and tar sands.

Those are some practical ideas! I'm not denying there's NO way to do it! I'm just pointing out that what we hear from the wind power advocates never seems to address these factors.

You've given some good links. How come we never heard about them from David Suzuki? He just told us that if we disagree with him we should be thrown in jail.

Maybe it's the media's poor scientific understanding. It's easier if they hear we need an extra 10 megawatts to assume we can just put up 10 megawatts worth of wind turbines.

And I wouldn't write off the carbon lobby. The most practical solutions may well be to continue to use some old fashioned methods, just in much smaller amounts. For many cities energy storage may not be cost-effective considering their own unique situation. Green generation for the larger percentage of their needs with perhaps a gas or coal-fired generator or two with the best possible emission scrubbers would be a quantum jump better than what we do now. 'All or nothing' approaches may show strong passion and commitment but good engineering couldn't care less about anything but the numbers.

Does anybody know of ANY MP's with any sort of hard science background? Are we having the blind make the decisions of which paths we should take? According to which paths are politically sexier?

[WIP]

I'd still have my instincts but more precise information on exactly what this consensus is would be helpful. This is why I'd like to see an official registry that quantifies it. It would be easy to put this information on a webpage that could be updated as minds changed one way or another.

The layman, like it or not, will ultimately be who decides if when and what action on climate change is to be taken. That said it doesn't surprise me in the least to see the clouds of doubt and uncertainty that are being seeded over the utility or usefullness and even the validity of democracy - the most threatening thing there is to our economy. The doubters have learned their lessons well. Gather a few experts together, cobble up a little controversy and preach it - a little dab will do you.

They've taken a few notes from the "intelligent design" advocates, who present selective, complex information and statistics supporting their arguments, and use appeals to their own authority and ad hominem attacks on their adversaries to influence a general audience. Interesting thing is that religious right bloggers, talk show hosts and rightwing news sources have been promoting their message as aggressively as the Creation/ID movement's attacks on teaching evolution. For the most part, they are all singing from the same hymnal.

When it comes to consensus of expert opinion, I am not convince by misleading tactics such as a recent one of getting 31,000 scientists and engineers (most of whom work in fields totally unrelated to climate research) as an argument from authority. I'll take the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change over this motley crew! If anything, interference from nations that want to pump and use oil and coal, are using their political leverage at the U.N. to water down the IPCC reports:

The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming. By excluding statements that provoked disagreement and adhering strictly to data published in peer-reviewed journals, the IPCC has generated a conservative document that may underestimate the changes that will result from a warming world, much as its 2001 report did.

For example, after objections by Saudi Arabia and China, the report dropped a sentence stating that the impact of human activity on the earth's heat budget exceeds that of the sun by fivefold. "The difference is really a factor of 10," says lead author Piers Forster of the University of Leeds in England: compared with its historical output, the sun currently contributes an extra 0.12 watt of energy for each square meter of the earth's surface, whereas man-made sources trap an additional 1.6 watts per square meter.

The document's conservatism also reflects the nature of climate change science. Various models running different scenarios predict sea-level rise as little as 18 centimeters (seven inches) or as much as 59 centimeters (23 inches). None of these models, however, completely includes the potentially greater contributions to such a rise from the melting of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica. Climate modelers do not include effects on land-based ice in these regions because they cannot reduce them to equations, such as x amount of extra heat equals y amount of melting. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=conservative-climate

So, at a time when energy company funded disinformation pervades the debate, the problem is more likely much worse than the mainstream climate science reports are willing to tell us.

[Riverwind]

I'll take the findings of the International Panel on Climate Change over this motley crew!

The IPCC was set up to determine what effects humans have on climate. It is as biased and as reliable as a committee set up by the oil companies. When they wrote the latest report the prepared the summary for policy makers first and then told the authors of the other sections to write a report that supported the predetermined conclusions.

I realize that the IPCC may appear to be "moderate" when compared to many of the "end-of-the-world" types out there but that does not mean it is any more credible.

]The summary describes the existence of global warming as "unequivocal" but leaves out a reference to an accelerated trend in this warming.

B.S. The is NO evidence of "accelerated trend in this warming". In fact, there has been no warming for 10 years. Over the last 4 years the oceans have been cooling and the sea level has been dropping.

http://climatesci.org/2008/12/30/erroneous...e-in-the-times/

This is a erroneous report on the climate system! The rate of increase is NOT accelerating. There is absolutely no question that global warming has stopped for at least 4 years (using upper ocean data) ; e.g see

Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.

http://www.climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-334.pdf

So, at a time when energy company funded disinformation pervades the debate, the problem is more likely much worse than the mainstream climate science reports are willing to tell us.

Again. Any objective analysis of the data is tells us that the problem is likely a lot LESS serious than previously thought.

The one thing that really burns me up in this debate are the number of people who mindlessly trust the IPCC and/or the climate science community after they have been caught repeatedly promoting bad science. I realize that most people cannot understand the math and statistics involved but I can and there is no doubt in my mind that people like Steve McIntyre are right and there are many in climate scientist community who are trying to deceive the public on some pretty critical issues.

Edited January 1, 2009 by Riverwind

[WIP]

B.S. The is NO evidence of "accelerated trend in this warming". In fact, there has been no warming for 10 years. Over the last 4 years the oceans have been cooling and the sea level has been dropping.

http://climatesci.org/2008/12/30/erroneous...e-in-the-times/

And your source -- Roger Pielke Sr. -- who could be described as being in the moderate wing of climate change deniers, seems to agree that there is an overall warming trend, but claims it has leveled off for the last four years. That may be true, if for no other reason than the present economic collapse may slow the degree of man-made influences on climate, but he cites different data, on atmospheric and ocean surface temperature trends, then those who believe the pace of global warming is accelerating -- they see conclusive evidence that glaciers all over the world are melting at an accelerating rate.

Greenland's glaciers are melting and moving faster on average, but those shifts do not follow a simple, upward linear trend. For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea. Additionally, roughly 80 percent of its recent increase in water discharge occurred in just one year before stabilizing, according to Ian Howat of the University of Washington. As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: "The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea-level rise--but it matters." In fact, many variables come into play in Greenland's ice sheet. "You're trying to figure out what is going on with an immense, remote and complex beast, and it isn't easy," Alley adds.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=conservative-climate

Besides the IPCC report, NASA and research for the American Geophysical Union claim evidence for the same accelerating pace of melting glaciers:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9833411-39.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/12/16/melting.ice/

No doubt the Earth's climate is a very complex system, so there may be some systems or some parts of the world that are out of synch with the rest of the world. Is Pielke just pulling the ocean and atmospheric data that supports his arguments? What does he have to say about the shrinking glaciers in the Arctic and the Antarctic? The links from his article didn't refer to this problem either.

Edited January 2, 2009 by WIP

[dlkenny]

Global warming died in 2008.

Will Canada see its first white Christmas since '71?

Link

Bitter cold, high winds chill Midwest, East

Link

Frightful: Wind Chills Plummet To Nearly 30 Below

Link

Bitter Winter Blast Puts Big Chill In Retail Sales

Link

Chill Map

Link

SEVERE COLD WAVE TO HIT EUROPE

Link

Beijing's coldest December day in 57 years

Link

Yet, I kid you not, there's leftwing radio hosts claiming that this is just an example of how quickly the earth is warming!

I just finished reading an article (http://bruderheim-rea.ca/warming4.htm) that shows temperatures deciphered from the past 3000 years. It shows that the trend over the last 3000 years has been in cooling from an interglacial maximum. Of course, this is the mean temperature and the actual temperatures vary, however if you consider interglacial periods to be approximately 10,000 years and extrapolate the graph one could deduce that a peak occured some 4000 years ago after a gradual warming from the last ice age. Moreover, temperatures have been gradually cooling since then and have included two "little ice ages." One could deduce then that these "little ice ages" will become gradually more frequent until the earth enters the next big ice age.

When looking at the chart closer from 1100 to now some scientists (specifically Dr. Stephen Schneider, Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, & Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski) have suggested that the current warming is just a spike in the general cooling trend and a few have suggested another "little ice age" is likely to show up in the next 50 years. Particularily notable is Dr. Landscheidt's work in accurately predicting global weather patterns by watching solar activity. From his work he has been able to draw close correlations between past and present weather patterns, deduced and real temperature records, and solar activity. I would suggest that his work may have significant validity in predicting the future of the earth's climate.

Edited January 2, 2009 by dlkenny