Global Warming: The science is settled

[Guest nicemac]

Science getting settled | Financial Post

[Guest drv2fst]

Finally, the obvious is revealed.

[Guest bkelm18]

The obvious may or may not have been revealed but the issue is far from over. Too much politics and too much money are in this debate for it to be settled, assuming it can be settled.

[Tncobra]

So..............I dont have to worry about Aliens attacking?

Or just Al Gore attacking/flipping out again?

[Caster]

Al Gore invented aliens.

[Sandman]

Don't you see? Thanks to our lack of awareness, we have caused the cosmic rays to warm up Earth. If you go green, you will kill those nasty cosmic rays and all will be well.

[strickj]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

I could care less if global warming is real or bogus. Fact is, the green race and GW hype has caused a lot of great things that wouldn't have happened without the GW hysteria. Supply ad demand, et all.

And it is leading us to even more unimaginable technology.

I, for one, can live with the lie if it means cutting oil dependency and cleaner air/environment. And until then, I proudly welcome anything that makes our gas guzzlers more efficient (reads; the green chickens are saving me gas money)

[analog_kidd]

Wait a minute! So, you're saying the sun makes it hot?

[G27]

Cracks me up that scientists can't tell me what the temp is going to be next Tuesday with any degree of reliability, yet somehow they can tell me what the temp will be 25 years from now...

[Guest drv2fst]

Breaking news...scientists recently discovered that the sun is hot...and apparently the sun's heat also effects earth...In other news water is wet.Our crack investigative journalists expose: The Pope might be Catholic.

[Just2Honor]

Say it isn't so...Al Gore is wrong. I thought he was the guy who invented the internet?

[Guest bkelm18]

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

I could care less if global warming is real or bogus. Fact is, the green race and GW hype has caused a lot of great things that wouldn't have happened without the GW hysteria. Supply ad demand, et all.

And it is leading us to even more unimaginable technology.

I, for one, can live with the lie if it means cutting oil dependency and cleaner air/environment. And until then, I proudly welcome anything that makes our gas guzzlers more efficient (reads; the green chickens are saving me gas money)

Well said. People act like reducing our impact on the environment and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is akin to devil worship. For whatever reason you want to subscribe to, it needs to happen.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Well said. People act like reducing our impact on the environment and reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is akin to devil worship. For whatever reason you want to subscribe to, it needs to happen.

What techs do you see coming out of a green push that are so earth-shaking?

I think low-power electronics is an interesting development, but that advance seems fueled by the concept of saving people money right away, rather than forcing them to spend more money on low-power-density tech such as solar. Even low-power gadgets have their dark side.

Flimsy high-mileage vehicles often are less safe in a crash, though some of the teeny cars are built safe. The safest teeny cars cost so much that you would need to drive em a long time to get your money back in fuel savings.

In the past big old heavy energy-sucking appliances would last a long time. A refrigerator or washing machine seemed to last forever. So long you would forget when it was even purchased. The newer ones use less energy but they fail sooner so you have to spend more energy manufacturing shipping and installing replacements. It stands to reason that big heavy components might last longer and also use more energy. The light components might use less energy but fail quicker. Unless they eventually start making the light components out of titanium or new fabulous materials. A durable and also light-weight high tech appliance is gonna be expensive. Most folks will probably just buy the cheapest "eco-friendly" light weight window air conditioner then replace it every three years when it goes up in smoke. There was a time when window air conditioners would last for decades, and they required two strong men to safely tote them. Nowadays one man can easily tote the modern equivalent, but they don't last very long.

They started "perfecting" solar back in the Carter oil embargo era. I'd love to have a roof full of solar assuming I would live to see them break even against conventional power. Maybe they will eventually get there. There seems to be plenty of power from the sun if we can economically harvest it.

Whenever we get completely-solar-powered solar cell manufacturing we might be onto something. Including solar-powered mining machinery and solar-powered transport of raw materials, etc.

For instance the following articles do some hand-waving to make the case that current-tech solar can make a little more power over its lifetime, than the costs of assembly, installation, and operation. Maybe just maybe current tech can save a little energy compared to the conventional energy and the necessary industrial pollution required for manufacture and eventual disposal.

Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture

Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens: Scientific American

Efficiencies have likely improved since the date of the first paper but on the other hand the cost of conventional energy may have increased as well. The kind of energy investment discussed for current tech shows that you have to use the panels several years before they MIGHT begin to break even on the energy of their manufacture.

Maybe an industrial installation would pay for itself better/quicker, but for instance if I install a roof full of panels and a big doghouse full of deep-cycle batteries and a bank of inverters-- By the time the panels have optimistically paid for their energy, the batteries and inverters are gonna be near the end of life cycle and need replacing. So then in the next period the poor solar panels will have to make at least as much energy as is required to recycle the old batteries and inverters and manufacture new batteries and inverters. Hopefully if the solar panels can do that trick, by the time the solar panels have paid for the second generation of batts and inverters, it is time to install the third generation of batts and inverters. The gear has got to get very energy-cheap to manufacture before we break even after 30 years and the panels need replacing. Assuming the panel warranty is correct.

Am not talking bad about progress. We just need to define progress. Dunno if it is progress to pay thru the nose on current solar tech "just because" if it doesn't really save power or reduce pollution in the total cycle. If I had enough money I'd spend more and install solar "just because" it would be fun, but resources wasted on wasteful processes suck the resources away from other possibly more productive uses of the capital. As soon as solar can generate enough power to manufacture more solar, it will take off without gov assistance or mandates. Dunno if the gov "wasting" money on less-than-unity current tech is really gonna make the tech improve any faster than it would otherwise.

[Guest bkelm18]

What techs do you see coming out of a green push that are so earth-shaking?

I think low-power electronics is an interesting development, but that advance seems fueled by the concept of saving people money right away, rather than forcing them to spend more money on low-power-density tech such as solar. Even low-power gadgets have their dark side.

Flimsy high-mileage vehicles often are less safe in a crash, though some of the teeny cars are built safe. The safest teeny cars cost so much that you would need to drive em a long time to get your money back in fuel savings.

In the past big old heavy energy-sucking appliances would last a long time. A refrigerator or washing machine seemed to last forever. So long you would forget when it was even purchased. The newer ones use less energy but they fail sooner so you have to spend more energy manufacturing shipping and installing replacements. It stands to reason that big heavy components might last longer and also use more energy. The light components might use less energy but fail quicker. Unless they eventually start making the light components out of titanium or new fabulous materials. A durable and also light-weight high tech appliance is gonna be expensive. Most folks will probably just buy the cheapest "eco-friendly" light weight window air conditioner then replace it every three years when it goes up in smoke. There was a time when window air conditioners would last for decades, and they required two strong men to safely tote them. Nowadays one man can easily tote the modern equivalent, but they don't last very long.

They started "perfecting" solar back in the Carter oil embargo era. I'd love to have a roof full of solar assuming I would live to see them break even against conventional power. Maybe they will eventually get there. There seems to be plenty of power from the sun if we can economically harvest it.

Whenever we get completely-solar-powered solar cell manufacturing we might be onto something. Including solar-powered mining machinery and solar-powered transport of raw materials, etc.

For instance the following articles do some hand-waving to make the case that current-tech solar can make a little more power over its lifetime, than the costs of assembly, installation, and operation. Maybe just maybe current tech can save a little energy compared to the conventional energy and the necessary industrial pollution required for manufacture and eventual disposal.

Can Solar Cells Ever Recapture the Energy Invested in their Manufacture

Dark Side of Solar Cells Brightens: Scientific American

Efficiencies have likely improved since the date of the first paper but on the other hand the cost of conventional energy may have increased as well. The kind of energy investment discussed for current tech shows that you have to use the panels several years before they MIGHT begin to break even on the energy of their manufacture.

Maybe an industrial installation would pay for itself better/quicker, but for instance if I install a roof full of panels and a big doghouse full of deep-cycle batteries and a bank of inverters-- By the time the panels have optimistically paid for their energy, the batteries and inverters are gonna be near the end of life cycle and need replacing. So then in the next period the poor solar panels will have to make at least as much energy as is required to recycle the old batteries and inverters and manufacture new batteries and inverters. Hopefully if the solar panels can do that trick, by the time the solar panels have paid for the second generation of batts and inverters, it is time to install the third generation of batts and inverters. The gear has got to get very energy-cheap to manufacture before we break even after 30 years and the panels need replacing. Assuming the panel warranty is correct.

Am not talking bad about progress. We just need to define progress. Dunno if it is progress to pay thru the nose on current solar tech "just because" if it doesn't really save power or reduce pollution in the total cycle. If I had enough money I'd spend more and install solar "just because" it would be fun, but resources wasted on wasteful processes suck the resources away from other possibly more productive uses of the capital. As soon as solar can generate enough power to manufacture more solar, it will take off without gov assistance or mandates. Dunno if the gov "wasting" money on less-than-unity current tech is really gonna make the tech improve any faster than it would otherwise.

They're called fossil fuels for a reason. Once they're gone, they're gone. Doesn't really matter if you like it or not. Progress away from them needs to happen, either by choice or by necessity.

[strickj]

They're called fossil fuels for a reason. Once they're gone, they're gone. Doesn't really matter if you like it or not. Progress away from them needs to happen, either by choice or by necessity.

Not to mention that a lot of oil comes from unstable areas.

We may just wake up one day to hear a big ole FU.. no more oil for zee 'Mercins [ insertbest W voice].

Far as solar power goes, look up Solar City. They provide everything needed, including installation, with absolutely no start-up cost, equipment buying or maintenance costs. They charge you 20 bucks or so per month for the"lease".

The only catch is they keep the check the power co. sends for adding power back into the power grid.

Not a bad trade off to trade a 200 dollar light bill for a ~20 dollar solar lease bill, eh

Edited August 31, 2011 by strickj

[Guest lostpass]

people have an odd idea of how science works. In theory once a new discovery is made that disproves and old theory the theory is immediately rejected but what really happens is that the adherents of the old theory cling bitterly to it. Continental drift was rejected by a lot scientists well into last century even with ample evidence that the continents were moving.

That said, climate change brought on by terrestrial organisms isn't exactly farfetched. It has happened before. If you're imagining the earth is so unfathomably large that nothing humans do could possibly effect something as random as weather I invite you to visit shark bay and the stromatolites found there. The fact that you'll only find them there will tell you something interesting about the effect living organisms can have of a planet's atmosphere.

As for global warming, I couldn't say either way with any conviction. All I can say is with certainty is that the earth is remarkably resilient, if we kill ourselves out the earth won't care.

[Guest bkelm18]

As for global warming, I couldn't say either way with any conviction. All I can say is with certainty is that the earth is remarkably resilient, if we kill ourselves out the earth won't care.

Something I read from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a rather well known astrophysicist (kind of a Bill Nye for adults), he put it like this: When we talk about saving the planet, we aren't really talking about saving the planet. We're talking about saving the human race. The planet Earth will be here long, LONG after we're gone.

[Guest lostpass]

Something I read from Neil DeGrasse Tyson, a rather well known astrophysicist (kind of a Bill Nye for adults), he put it like this: When we talk about saving the planet, we aren't really talking about saving the planet. We're talking about saving the human race. The planet Earth will be here long, LONG after we're gone.

Tyson is, of course, correct. Extinctions happen fairly frequently and sooner or later it will happen to humans. It could be or a meteor impact or even a volcanic eruption. The "what" doesn't matter nut the certainty that it will happen does matter. Luckily these things tend to happen on time scales we can't fathom.Today, a million years from now, ten million years from now? That's a long time if you're a person but if you look at it from the perspective of the earth it is barely a breath.

We won't be the first organisms to kill ourselves. But we might be the first species to realize that we could pull it off.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

They're called fossil fuels for a reason. Once they're gone, they're gone. Doesn't really matter if you like it or not. Progress away from them needs to happen, either by choice or by necessity.

Hi bkelm18

I'm not against progress and hope they get solar to the point that it is nearly free.

Am interested in the break-even point in energy usage. Not necessarily a break-even point in dollars. Break-even in dollars might be about the same as break-even in energy, or they might be different, depending on cost differentials and gov subsidies and such.

A simple no-growth static proposition-- Say we have 400 years of coal at current consumption rate.

If we use the coal power to manufacture solar equipment-- We go big-time into solar manufacture and invest half of each year's coal energy budget into solar equipment. Not necessarily panels and inverters. There are many solar strategies including such as nanotech direct sunlight-to-methanol.

If the solar equipment delivers EXACTLY the same energy as the cost of manufacture, install, operation and salvage over the amortization period of the equipment, then we use EXACTLY the same amount of coal per year long-term regardless whether we just directly burn the coal or whether we manufacture solar equipment with half the coal.

If it turns out that the full product life energy cost of the solar equipment is GREATER than the energy generated by the solar equipment, then we will eventually be running a lot of our civilization off solar, while at the same time burning more coal than we otherwise would have if we had never bothered with solar. If we can't get more energy out of the solar than the energy expended to manufacture, operate, and recycle the solar equipment, then we will run dry of coal even sooner than if we never started in on the solar building program. We would be losing energy on every transaction but trying to make it up with volume.

The solar equipment must be cheap enough and efficient enough to deliver more energy than is required to install, operate and salvage before solar will actually reduce coal usage and make our coal supply last longer than the 400 years.

Given that coal and even petroleum/natgas remains relatively inexpensive, and it is energy-dense, we could have a short-term situation perhaps lasting decades where it is cheaper IN DOLLARS to make expensive solar gear with cheap coal and appear to make a dollar profit off the solar. But if the solar doesn't deliver more energy than what is required to build and operate the system, we would be making a short-term dollar profit while burning thru the coal even quicker that we otherwise would.

That is why solar will definitely prove its worth when we can mine and transport raw materials running totally on solar power, and then manufacture new solar equipment at a volume greater than the replacement rate, totally on solar power. A situation where the solar industry is delivering enough energy to support its own expansion.

Until we reach that point, building up solar is like running on empty, and so you floor the accelerator so you can get to the gas station quicker. You are burning thru the fossil fuel even quicker than if you hadn't messed with solar at all.

[Guest PapaB]

Maybe it's because of my age but I wonder what happened. It used to be that scientific theory was considered something to study and scientific fact was what you relied on. Now it seems even the scientists confuse theory with fact. Global warming is a theory and should be treated as such. It's time to take the politics out of it and stop teaching our young people that it's fact.

Just my 2 cents.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Maybe it's because of my age but I wonder what happened. It used to be that scientific theory was considered something to study and scientific fact was what you relied on. Now it seems even the scientists confuse theory with fact. Global warming is a theory and should be treated as such. It's time to take the politics out of it and stop teaching our young people that it's fact.

Just my 2 cents.

Smartest thing said on this thread! Bravo

It's a complicated issue that got politicized when certain politicians and scientists decided

to use it to take more money from us "lesser" people.

The Global warming scam is only about wealth redistribution and not too many facts are

involved. You can build all the windmills you want, but you can't power a nation with it.

the "green" is just the money flowing out of yours and my pockets.

[1gewehr]

They're called fossil fuels for a reason. Once they're gone, they're gone.

Hogwash. Oil is not made by dinosaurs. That theory has long been discredited. Oil has been found many places where there has never been any possibility of biological material. Oil is made by geo-chemical processes. Oil fields renew themselves over time. There are wells in TN, KY, PA, and TX that were shut down in the '60's that could produce again if the Feds would allow it. The question is whether we are using oil faster than the earth produces it.

As for 'green energy', so far it has been a bust. I'm all in favor of the concept. But when it takes more energy to produce a solar panel than that solar panel will ever produce over it's lifespan, then it can hardly be called 'green'. Likewise, electric cars sound neat, but the batteries, plastics (oil product, don't you know) and electronic components all use lots of energy to manufacture. Likewise, the energy used to charge those batteries is mostly generated by burning 'fossil' fuels. Distributing electricity is very wasteful. There is a significant transmission loss the further you get from the power plant. It is much more efficient to actually transport gasoline and power the car directly.

There are some extremely efficient gasoline and diesel engines available and being developed. Compared to the very heavy battery packs, this seems to be a much more reasonable way to increase efficiency and lower emissions. In most cases, we could already be using this technology if government regulation would just get out of the way.

[Armed Aviator]

NEWS FLASH . . . . . Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant! Carbon Dioxide is a good thing. . . .

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Yes the ideal energy source would be 'relatively' dense, small, safe, and inexpensive. Maybe there are petroleum/coal replacement technologies in the future which fit the specs, but wind and solar are not dense, small or (yet) inexpensive.

We can make many devices use less energy which I don't see a downside to as long as device function is not compromised. A wind/solar world would likely be a world without much air conditioning anyway. If the equipment was cheap enough, you could probably run an energy-efficient house on a combination of wind/solar/geothermal/etc (depending on locality) but you probably can't harvest enough energy to run heat and air. Unless you deploy so much that it becomes environmentally-unfriendly in its own right.

If they get nanotech sunlight-to-methanol cheap as dirt and low-maintenance and safe, you could have a roof device dripping methanol into a home storage tank to run an efficient generator or run an automobile. But due to the limited roof area and low sunlight energy density, it probably won't be as much methanol that you would really want. If you have to expand the solar devices to cover green areas of the property to expand methanol production, it would begin to hurt the environment.

Maybe we could carpet all desert areas with various solar devices to generate electricity or methanol. Run pipelines from the desert to populated areas and replace a lot of our oil consumption. The tree huggers would scream bloody murder at that use of the desert, harming all the rattlesnakes, lizards, cactus and sagebrush. Even to a non-tree-hugger, it may turn out that those wide open desert areas would be better-used for something other than industrial solar some time in the future.

Fusion if it ever pans out. Or a network of giant solar power satellites. Or even an industrialized nuclear fission breeder cycle with safe standardized pebble bed reactors or whatever. Stuff like that seems more environmentally friendly and desirable than panels and windmills everywhere, if they can ever get it economical.

On the other hand, if it becomes cost-efficient to plaster solar cells on all non-green city surfaces, it might not replace other energy sources but it would be worth doing.

[robin48]

Breaking news...scientists recently discovered that the sun is hot...and apparently the sun's heat also effects earth...In other news water is wet.Our crack investigative journalists expose: The Pope might be Catholic.

What! Oh my gosh!

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk