It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Fiction Of Climate Science

page: 4
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 





Recognize anything? Like where one of the scientists quoted is located?

Excellent find Jack. You have answered the question as to whether the climatologists that pushed the "Coming Ice Age" are the same ones that now are pushing Global Warming- at least the same INSTITUTION in East Anglia.
Thank you for the research.
Starred.




posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd
 





There is a total lack of really critical thinkimg. The poster's positions correlate perfectly with their political persuasion. Hate Obama=CC denier, etc.

Actually, if you read the OP, you'll see that my point was that they were so CERTAIN that the ICe Age was coming. TV shows talked about it, magazines stated that we were headed for an Ice Age, and the Government was sure that an Ice Age was coming.

Now, we have the opposite. I'm not committed to either position, because you cannot just look at a microcosm of data, and draw macro-cosmic conclusions. The reason for the post was to show how easily climatologists' positions can change on a dime.

As Jack pointed out, East Anglia was part of the "Coming Ice Age", and is now pushing AGW.

As I have posted on many threads in great detail, there are too many unknown variables, and too many interactions to draw any legitimate conclusions as to AGW. There are undoubtedly variables that haven't even been identified yet.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by buddhasystem
 


Here’s another one for you: wouldn’t the CO2 screen work both ways and block IR from the sun and thus protect us from overheating? Do you notice how it’s nice and warm when the sky is clear, but cold and nasty when the clouds cover the entire sky? I presume you do get out


Below is the spectrum of the sun, it has visible wavelength as well as invisible (UV on one end and IR on the other)




Did you notice the amount of IR in the spectrum? That’s anything between 0.7 and 300 micrometres. What this means is that


“Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of about 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared light, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet light.”
(h/t wikipedia)

And what that means is that more than half of the energy from Sun to Earth comes in IR. Now if CO2 retains IR inside the planet converted from the visible and UV half then it is equally effective in blocking the IR half from getting in and warming up the planer, right?

And by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and letting the visible-and-UV-converted-to-IR half out, wouldn’t we let in the IR half that was blocked in the first place?

Before you stop me, yes IR is accumulating over time, I know. But that’s the point; wouldn’t the removal of CO2 induce the extremes in our climate? Also bare in mind that not all visible and UV light is converted into heat (i.e. IR) but is converted into mechanical energy by animals, stored and used by plants growing, and so forth. This is why it is called greenhouse gas, because it creates a pleasant environment for life.

Therefore removing too much of CO2 and suchlike will cause more extreme weather than adding too much CO2. The greener the greenhouse effect the less extreme is the climate. And I leave you with another wikipedia pearl pearl:



Greenhouses protect crops from too much heat or cold,…



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


Used deep fryer grease makes Bio Diesel.

Grass Clippings are better for making Ethenol (E85).

These aren't exactly concepts that rob us of our food sources or land to grow them on.



posted on Dec, 8 2009 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I just read this in the New York Times article: "Climate Deal Likely to Bear Big Price Tag":


WASHINGTON — If negotiators reach an accord at the climate talks in Copenhagen it will entail profound shifts in energy production, dislocations in how and where people live, sweeping changes in agriculture and forestry and the creation of complex new markets in global warming pollution credits.

So what is all this going to cost?

The short answer is trillions of dollars over the next few decades....


Well heck that sounds worse than global warming to me! I can't believe the magnitude of this swindle.

[edit on 8/12/09 by Avon8]



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Avon8
 





Well heck that sounds worse than global warming to me! I can't believe the magnitude of this swindle.

That is EXACTLY what it is, a swindle. Al Gore, before leaving office, had a net worth of around one million dollars. After his "Inconvenient Truth" (Lie) his worth shot up to over $100,000,000.00 If cap and trade becomes law, he will become a Billionaire, and you and I will pay for it.
The man is nothing less than a Crook, stealing from the taxpayers for this phony AGW scam, and before the "left" starts yelling about partisan claims, this does not mean that I think that Republicans are any better. George Bush and Cheney made plenty of money, between oil profits and Halliburton. Politicians are crooks, pure and simple. You can count on one hand the number of national politicians of both parties that are not crooks.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Thanks, all the credit goes to google news archive


With the agenda driven pro - anti GW we are currently being bombarded with, it's good to go back in time and see how the topic is presented..

Here is another lengthy article which shows the differences in opinion back then and does a decent job of breaking down the past in regards to the scientists' attempts to predict the future of the climate..

Weather Forecast for the Future?

It's one of those microfiche looking examples from a newspaper, that's the reason for no ex quotes..

I am in tune with the posters who are requesting common sense here, we can all do our part by respecting the earth, and those in power don't need a sledge hammer to bring the emissions down, they just need to make way for the progress of cleaner technology, and scale back the processes that they believe is part of the problem. IMO, the powers that be are the one's to blame in the first place, how much effort by the powerful, has stifled clean green technology? All to protect their interests.. Now that they have all positioned themselves to capitalize on the climate change mandate, all of a sudden it's an emergency and this must be done to save us from ourselves? Give me a break..


It reminds me of the folks I used to see walking with the signs saying "END of THE WORLD is COMING!!"

the big difference here is...

The guy with the sign isn't looking to get rich off of his message, he was trying to inform.

These folks in Copenhagen are after everyone's wallet.. even some of the researchers greed is apparent in those leaked docs from the CRU..


What a fine example this generation is leaving for the future, selling out on a cash coerced agenda.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 

From what I could read, it is an interesting link. However, as you said, it is a microfiche copy, and I had a hard time making out much of the text.
Regardless, from what I could read, it is obvious that even then, climatologists were taking data and segments that favored their theory, and ignoring those things which either did not support their theory, or FOR WHICH THEY HAD NO EXPLANATION. The part that I placed in caps, is central to what is going on today. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt today, what they are putting out is only THEORY. I am not willing to risk the future of the earth on THEORY.
We should, as you said, concentrate on things such as pollution, and the development of cleaner sources of energy, while at the same time NOT HARMING our economy or jobs. We can do both. We just have to have the will to do it.



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by JacKatMtn
 


Well, look at it this way, the worldwide taxes for CO2 will probably be around 6 trillion dollars a year (and that's conservative knowing these fools), so roughly about a thousand dollars a year for every man woman and child on earth, or three thousand dollars for a family of three. BUT, 4.5 billion people don't have squat or are mud farmers in Africa. So, we in developed nations get to "donate" nine thousand dollars a year per family from all that "disposable" income we have now that the NGOs and corporations have sent so many jobs to third world countries. That other 4.5 billion get a free ride. However to make matters worse, all those scum bag politicians and their buddies get to skim off the top. Look what happened with the EU, two billion dollars went "missing" and no one accounts for it, no one has been investigated and no one has been charged. Expect more of the same.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 4nsicphd

The poster's positions correlate perfectly with their political persuasion. Hate Obama=CC denier, etc.

I am afraid you see something that only exists on the fringes of the movement.

For example, I fit into that classification. I hate Obama and I openly deny anthropogenic carbon dioxide based warming. But what you don't know (apparently) is that I voted for Obama in the last election. My disgust of him began not because of climate science, but because of rising taxes and increasing spending. I hated Bush as well, because of his extravagant spending, his impotency in Iran (which should have been a short, quick operation), and his unconstitutional Patriot Act.

In that respect, perhaps there is a correlation: I pay enough taxes!. Between Federal income tax, state income tax, FICA tax, property tax, excise tax, garbage tax, tobacco tax, fuel tax, automobile tax, electrical tax, phone tax, 911 tax, and a whole slough of other taxes and fees, I believe I am doing quite enough to pay my 'fair share', thank you very much. I already [pay more than half of everything I can manage to earn in a failing economy; I am not happy with increased taxation.

As to Greenland: I will not try to counter your observations. They are correct; Greenland is melting. I will not even try to counter the claims that recent decades show some global temperature rises. It happened. What i will try to counter is that a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide equal to 0.01% ot the volume of the atmosphere is the primary cause of that, or that by taxing me more the resulting temperature rises, even if they were affiliated with the carbon dioxide levels, would stop.

Yes, Greenland is melting. But if your concern is based on that, would an understanding of why it is melting not be essential to stopping it? I know from your other posts that you are indeed a person of critical thinking and of scientific knowledge; so examine the situation critically. How many dollars will it take to stop Greenland from melting?

Infinity.

Taxation has nothing to do with climate change.

There is no program being presented to stop Greenland from melting that needs to be paid for. There is no agenda touted that will even claim to reduce the temperature of the planet. The only thing being presented is that companies will now have to break the laws of physics and produce energy from something that does not contain carbon.

Be the scientist I know you can be.

Consider the evidence.

Consider the possible outcomes.

Consider history. Lest we be forced to repeat it.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 9 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 





Yes, Greenland is melting. But if your concern is based on that, would an understanding of why it is melting not be essential to stopping it?

Good Evening, my friend.
There is an interesting study by Vinther, et. al., concerning Greenland. Gavin Schmidt & Michael Mann have discussed the techniques used in that paper. I urge people that are interested to read both the article, and the link, if they are interested ins seeing how complex the issue of Greenland, melting, and warming are, based upon data available, as well as model data.
www.realclimate.org...

Let me post the essential problem, and then the observations:

First, the problem:


Extending the instrumental record of climate beyond the late 19th Century when many of the national weather centers were first started is an important, difficult and undervalued task. It often is more akin to historical detective work than to climatology and can involve long searches in dusty archives, the ability to read archaic scripts and handwriting, and even Latin translations (for instance, when going through the archives of the Paris Observatory) (sounds like a recent bestseller, only less lucrative, no?).

Why bother? Well, it is unfortunate, though probably not coincidental, that the modern record starts at the same time that significant modifications of atmopsheric composition (greenhouse gases, aerosols etc.) were occuring on a global scale. Thus this period is not ideal for assessing the magnitude of natural changes (both intrinsic and forced by natural processes like solar variability or volcanic eruptions) since there is likely a contamination from human-related causes. So extending instrumental records back as far as possible is an important approach to providing a context for modern changes.
...
The work by Vinther and colleagues in Southern Greenland is therefore key to helping calibrate the Greenland ice core records, and impressively, the correlations to the older data are as good as to the recent record, allowing us to have a little more confidence in the even longer term proxy data for this region. So a good result then, and a paper worth reading for anyone who is actually interested in how these things are done.

However, there is a bit of a cottage industry of people who micro-parse every new paper to see how it projects onto a narrow view of the climate change debate regardless of their actual relevance. This is a travesty of the way science is supposed to work and all too often ends up getting the story completely wrong. One persistent abuser of this technique is Pat Michaels, and in a recent piece he was unable to resist claiming that the century-scale trends (~0.8 C from 1891-1900 to 1991-2000 in the annual mean) seen in this extended Southern Greenland data apparently invalidate the notion of polar amplification as predicted by the ‘models’. This of course was not the conclusion of the authors themselves (though presumably if they felt that this was true they might have said so).



Now the observations and conclusions:


So what is wrong with this claim? Firstly, models do indeed predict polar amplification (particularly in the Arctic and particularly in winter) of global warming trends (see our previous piece on this concept) in general. But do they predict it for the 20th Century trend? and specifically in Southern Greenland? Michaels doesn’t enlighten us, preferring generalized vague statements to actual data-model comparisons.

Indeed, the dampened late 20th century winter warming over a substantial part of Greenland, particularly the western and southern regions emphasized by the network of stations analyzed by Vinther et al, is known (see e.g. this NOAA page) to be associated with a trend toward the positive phase of the Arctic Oscillation (’AO’) pattern. Whether or not this latter trend can, in turn, be related to anthropogenic climate change is not yet agreed upon, but a plausible argument for this has indeed been made in the peer-reviewed literature. Nonetheless, even if the substantial recent trend in the AO pattern is simply a product of natural multidecadal variability in North Atlantic climate, it underscores the fact that western and southern Greenland is an extremely poor place to look, from a signal vs. noise point of view, for the large-scale polar amplification signature of anthropogenic surface warming. This is a fairly basic point.

What would a rational data-model comparison look like? Since the data show southern Greenland temperatures over the last 150 years, it would be most useful to look at model simulations for exactly that period, run with the best guesses for CO2, solar and volcanic forcing etc. Fortunately, over 20 model groups have deposited these simulations in a public database at PCMDI – and anyone who is actually interested in seeing what the models produce can have access (you need to register, but it’s just a formality).

What do they show? Interestingly enough, the models do not predict large trends in the vicinity of Southern Greenland over the last 100 or so years (the figure shows the ensemble mean results just from the GISS model, but others are similar). Mainly this is because these areas are relatively close to both open water and the ice sheet and that keeps temperatures pretty stable. Like a glass of water with ice cubes, any extra energy tends to go into melting rather than temperature changes. And in this region, changes in the AO pattern discussed above also appear to play some role. (It should also be noted that the trends in this region are not larger than the standard deviation, and so any one realisation is likely to have a lot of variability, as is seen in the observations).

But if the models don’t show much change over the last 100 years, surely the predictions for the future indicate that this area will be hit hard? Again, no. Southern Greenland turns out to have one of the slowest rates of warming of any land area in any of the scenarios (the figure is the mean over all models for the SRES A1B scenario). To some extent, this is again due to the factors mentioned above, but additionally, the models predict that the North Atlantic as a whole will not warm as fast as the rest of globe (due to both the deep mixed layers in this region which have a large thermal inertia and a mild slowdown in the ocean heat transports). This is of course some positive news for the Greenland ice sheet, but the warming there is already substantial enough to cause significant net melting.

All this to demonstrate that when people use vague generalisations – ‘models’ predict this, ’scientists’ say that – when there are specific data that could be used instead (which model? what period? which scientist?), be wary – they are usually trying to pull a fast one.


The issue, as you can see, is fairly complex, and does not lend itself to the linear thought process that advocates on both sides of the AGW issue tend to employ.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
Reply to mushibrain:

Please back up your statement about solar power.

www.eia.doe.gov...

Even without too many electric cars on the road...the world, in 2006, used about 18 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity.

Please show your calculations of how large on area must be covered by solar panels in order to produce that much electricity.


Hey, TiredofControlFreaks, thanks for the link, very informative. Before I start my reply let me repeat my position, for the benefit of other readers. I do not argue that a certain energy source is the best way to go, partially because none of us would write down the same meaning behind the word "best". There is even disagreement on what is economical (see my next reply-post).

Now first things first.
Area to cover.
My original claim (more of passing information) was based on a documentary (in English) copied onto yutube about the German solar business. Yes, they had incentives from the government, but this is not the point.

The point is that the documentary also talked about various technologies, not just solar, various countries, etc. The director of one such company said, that area of France placed in a desert would provide all current world energy needs (not just electricity needs but all energy needs). I know it sounds far fetched, but here it is, I'll try to find that video somehow. For now I'll leave you and other readers with this wikilink:
Wikipedia
hotovoltaics

Please note the image in Overview section on the right:

and the caption that says:


The small black dots show the area of solar panels needed to generate all of the world's energy using 8% efficient photovoltaics.

I don't believe, if you combine all the dark blobs on that image, it will even cover the area of France and that's with 8% efficient photovoltaic panels. The guy in the documentary was talking about the solar-thermal-turbine-thingey stations, I think, which are more efficient. A bit lower down the wiki page it even talks about commercial photovoltaics that give 23% and research shows 45% efficiency in the lab.

I must stress again, I am happy to go nuclear, or coal if it makes sense. Nice and fluffy notions like be nice to environment are all good, if the price is right. What I like about wind or solar is that it gives possibility to individuals and small communities to be energy independent of big companies. Coal can do it possibly, nuclear? People would never be allowed to have a reactor in the back yard. So in a one sided sense, solar is "better" because it gives independence. Price wise, not sure, just wait till the dollar con (as in oil for gold, but masquerading as oil for dollar) is completely uncovered by our Middle Eastern and Russian friends, then we can talk about economically viable. Now? The numbers are cooked.

To be continued …



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:02 AM
link   
In my second chapter
let’s talk money.

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
And while you are at it...please read the little paragraph about renewable energy in the link I have provided. Note how it says that renewables cannot compete economically with nuclear or coal-fired plants. That renewable projects can only be built with the funding of government. Now how can that be...isn't the sun "free" energy.


Yes, very insightful. As with any report, including the wiki link I supplied in the previous post, one must read carefully
let’s read:


Although renewable energy sources have positive environmental and energy security properties, most renewable technologies other than hydroelectricity are not able to compete economically with fossil fuels during the projection period outside a few regions .

I think the key words here are projection period and outside a few regions . Put the right value on these two parameters and it appears that it becomes economically viable
funny, isn’t it? Then add to it more efficient consumption (LED bulbs bought commercially today are 15 times more efficient, CPUs get more efficient, for example), and approximate the price of solar technology dropping just like any other technology, then I guess, it may make sense risking (investing) if the reward is good. It may be possible to do the same with nuclear, I am cool with that. I just fear that nuclear is too political and thus we’ll loose a lot of time on that.


Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
If we relied solely on renewable energy - we have to be prepared to pay at least twice as much for each kilowatt than what we currently pay.
Tired of Control Freaks.

Again, I may be prepared to pay more, depending what else it gives me. I am certainly not prepared to go solar if it means reducing my freedom in one way or another.

I hope I provided a useful input, but I agree with your point in general
there are just too many variables in this conversation that are assumed and I don’t think our assumptions are necessarily the same. Please note, I think that Copenhagen meeting is not much about climate, or most efficient ways to solve energy problem. For example, nuclear has too big a political price tag. Where is that cold fusion …



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
...
Actually, if you read the OP, you'll see that my point was that they were so CERTAIN that the ICe Age was coming. TV shows talked about it, magazines stated that we were headed for an Ice Age, and the Government was sure that an Ice Age was coming.
...


Yes, sorry about my diversions from the OP topic. The problem with science is politics
Yesterday BBC showed yet another documentary about AGW. Apparently, now live stock is also an issue, so we should either all go vegetarian or scientists are now growing cells in the lab, hoping to produce meat this way in the future. I am not against advancements in science, but there are too many things that amount to a conspiracy.

I think this is how it works, scientists try and pursue what they think is interesting, (guided) politicians come along and start interfering by funding some projects/directions over others. Then other scientists jump on board the money train.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mushibrain
 


www.chinadaily.com.cn...


Yes, sorry about my diversions from the OP topic. The problem with science is politics Yesterday BBC showed yet another documentary about AGW. Apparently, now live stock is also an issue, so we should either all go vegetarian or scientists are now growing cells in the lab, hoping to produce meat this way in the future. I am not against advancements in science, but there are too many things that amount to a conspiracy.

No problem.
If we wait long enough, they'll have another excuse.
Oh, WAIT, they already do.
NOW, it is people, not just people using carbon products, but people just LIVING:


Population control called key to deal
The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".


and this from CANADA'S National Paper:
www.financialpost.com...




The "inconvenient truth" overhanging the UN's Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world. Read more: www.financialpost.com... The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.


All we need to do is just die quickly, without giving birth to any more humans, and then there will be no more global warming.
Oh, wait, isn't that what the new Health Care bill wants seniors to do?- Die quickly.

Now I completely understand how health care and AGW are connected!

See, if you just look at the problem long enough, a solution will come along!



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Yeah sure lets destroy the economy because mankind produces less than 4% of the CO2 in our atmosphere.

Just do it... If we are stupid enough to collectively fall for this fraud, then perhaps we deserve the man-made economic disaster that will result from restrictive and punitive energy policies.

By the way, I encountered global warming first hand over the last 48 hours, it began as rain, I was stuck for several hours yesterday, and last night, on a highway, in below zero bitter cold, snowy weather in KANSAS... Waiting for 15 FOOT snow drifts to be cleared, the standard snow plows couldn't move it.... This morning where I was the actual temperature was 16 below, wind chill was 28 below... I had to keep my engine running through the night or die!

According to the local radio report that temp broke the record for cold on that date by several degrees, and that record was 6 below recorded in 1913.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Walkswithfish
 





Yeah sure lets destroy the economy because mankind produces less than 4% of the CO2 in our atmosphere. Just do it... If we are stupid enough to collectively fall for this fraud, then perhaps we deserve the man-made economic disaster that will result from restrictive and punitive energy policies.

I've just posted a new thread, listing the top 10 FACTS concerning Global Change, and the top 10 Myths concerning Global Change:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

These facts and myths are a result of research done by By Prof. Robert M. Carter, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, Global Research.ca
(Robert M. Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University (Queensland) and the University of Adelaide (South Australia). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist with more than thirty years professional experience.)



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   
Mushibrain

Thanks for the clarification on solar energy. I think if you really examine everything you have posted, you will see that the effeciency really relates to how much energy can be produced.

As I posted before and will repeat: ANY FOOL CAN PRODUCE ELECTRICITY. SOME WIRES AND A POTATO WILL DO IT! Producing electricity is NOT the issue!

Once electricity is generated, no matter what the source, it CANNOT be stored efficiently. We just don't have the technology to store it. The renewable sources of energy cannot just be fed into the grid. The way a grid operates is that the amount of electricity carried in the grid must match the demand at the moment!

If the amount of electricity being produced by a solar panel exceeds the demand on the grid, the excess electricity cannot be stored...it must be discharged or wasted someplace else.

Alternatively, if the demand for electricity exceeds the amount of electricity available.....blackout!!!

This is the bottleneck issue!

Writing an article talking about how solar energy is capable of producing enough electricity to meet world demand is nothing more than propaganda! How MUCH electricity it produces is not the issue. The constancy of the electrical production is! You may only need solar panels equal to the area of France but you would need Batteries the size of all of Europe as well!

The dirty little secret of renewable sources of energy is that for every kilowatt of energy that a solar panel can produce (or windmill), there has to be a back-up source of energy (usually its a gas powered turbine) that is capable of producing the exact same amount of energy.

When the sun fails to shine - the gas powered turbine is available to meet the demand and stop the grid from collapsing into blackout.

Until technology can resolve the problem of how to store electricity until its needed....renewable sources of energy CANNOT be relied upon!

Not to say that renewables don't have a place in the grand scheme of things of course. Certainly, they are great for remote locations where a grid is not involved and demand can be scaled to size. And they do supplement traditional sources of energy.

But you can't use them to power a city or village. Imagine trying to operate a manufacturing facility if the power is prone to shutting down at any moment.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
...
If we wait long enough, they'll have another excuse.
Oh, WAIT, they already do.
NOW, it is people, not just people using carbon products, but people just LIVING:


Population control called key to deal
The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".

....

Is that less carbon because unborn are not requiring the energy that produces 2billion tonnes or people actually breathing out 2 billion tons? Killing is not nice, if they really want to reduce population why not create some agent that makes people sterile. Oh wait, don't they do it already
?

How much carbon is in one human? One can argue that the more people are on the planet the more carbon is trapped in their bodies
or crap, not enough, only 18% of our mass is carbon, perhaps we can eat more, go fat and store more crabs
it's a solution.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
...
Thanks for the clarification on solar energy. I think if you really examine everything you have posted, you will see that the effeciency really relates to how much energy can be produced.
...
Once electricity is generated, no matter what the source, it CANNOT be stored efficiently.
...
You may only need solar panels equal to the area of France but you would need Batteries the size of all of Europe as well!


Good point, TiredofControlFreaks, the grid is a funny thing, you can divert the electricity back and forth, but it must go somewhere. How do coal and nuclear deal with this issue? Do they just shovel less coal and insert the graphite rods into the reactor? Anyways. It’s a fair point, but I was under the impression that those molten salt storage barrels are a good solution:
the molten salt tank looses something about 1% over day's period, which I guess is fine. From the picture in the linked article it looks like the size of those tanks is not that bad compared to the area covered by solar receptors, so fine, add Luxemburg to that area of France and you've got your battery
or dig a nice hole for it and stick a few mirrors on top, pretty
just giving you something to think about, I am sure I missed lot's of problems with that.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join