Global Warming - yes, no, maybe?

[packsaddle]

Vol, I would add that because the federal government did not open Yucca Mountain on time, those taxes are now being repaid to the industry. At least that is what my industry contacts have informed me. They are rather proud of their pile of spent fuel, anticipating reprocessing in the future. And getting their money back to boot.

[GaHillBilly]

"The total energy generated in the expected lifetime of the windmill is approximately equal to the energy required to fabricate and construct the windmill."

 

Vol, you don't happen to have access to a source document or link on that, do you? If valid, that's a very cool statistic. But I don't think I have to tell you that no one advocating "Go Green, All Green!" would believe it without support.

 

GaHillBilly

 

[le Voyageur]

Wow, Voyageur, after all your talk about Indians, I would have thought you and those around you had real skillz. I guess you are a fan of 'virtual Indians'? Does that mean that all your facts about Indians are just 'virtual facts', too? GHB

 

Not a fan, and you're starting to push the race card...on my father's line, I'm a Nansemond/Powhattan, a descendant of Matoaka, dau. of Wahunsenacawh; and Keziah,a Christianized Nansemond, and wife of John Basse. On my mother's line, Yellow Horse, who as of yet we know very little about. As he was incarcerated in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) we suspect he may of been a combatant at Greasy Grass. And, Guwisguwi, an Anglo Metis and Principal Chief of the Cherokees. Thus being an Anglo Metis myself, I guess that qualifies me as a virtual Indian, and a fake in your book?

(This message has been edited by Le Voyageur)

[packsaddle]

GHB, I think you can find the answer to your question here:

http://www.awea.org/pubs/documents/FAQ2002%20-%20web.PDF

 

According to the studies I've read, wind energy not only pays back all that invested energy but does it in a shorter time than most other technologies. If sited correctly the payback time can be measured in months. This kind of analysis is sometimes referred to as 'energy return on investment' or back in the 1970's the EPA referred to it as 'net energy analysis', which is the term that sticks in my mind. But the idea is the same - account for all of the energy invested in manufacturing the machine (from mining the ore to drilling the holes), marketing, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, and then disposal afterwards - and comparing that total energy investment to the expected output to see if there is a net gain. There are a lot of variables, however so if, for example, I invested in a wind turbine and put it in my backyard where wind is very rarely available, I would probably never get a net return. But put that same turbine where it's capacity factor is, say, 30% or greater and it could 'pay' for itself very quickly.

Of course there still are unknown variables that engineers are trying to overcome using models. These include things like the ability to withstand storms (hurricanes). We won't really know some of the answers to those questions until there is a reality test. But wind energy, if designed right, is a pretty good thing.

 

Me, with my perpetual doldrums, I've invested in geothermal, using well water as an energy exchange medium. Next on the list is solar hot water - that one is probably going to save me a bundle over the long run.

[Eagle92]

I just found this today.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

 

It appears that the AGW proponents are cherry picking data to suit their needs.

 

le V,

Didn't know you were Tsalgi.

[DanKroh]

vol_scouter, sorry, but you lost me. I never made any comments about fuel or waste. Or reactors. My only comments have been specifically about the effects of TMI.

 

I think from my belief that there are significant detrimental effects from the TMI accident that you have concluded I am against nuclear energy. That is an incorrect inference. I am in favor of nuclear energy; however, I think we need to be realistic about the dangers. All forms of energy production have risks, as well as benefits. However, given that nuclear power has the potential to effect thousands of square miles (or more) around the plant, I think the government still doesn't have a good enough risk management strategy. They have never, ever been able to mount a good evacuation of the population, even with advance notice (can we say, Katrina?).

[scoutingagain]

I've been following this thread with a bit of a chuckle but got a good one with

 

"It appears that the AGW proponents are cherry picking data to suit their needs."

 

Especially if the link used to support the statement is an example of the objective data folks are using to convince themselve AGW isn't happening. LOL.

 

For me the survey posted in the inital post pretty much locks it up. I looked through it and based on those responding there is a general consensus that:

 

Global Warming is happening and

Mankind and his/her actions are signficant contributers.

 

After that there seems to be less consensus on just what the consequences will be.

 

For me, I'm relatively certain GW is occurring and I'm relatively certain the governments of the world will never come together to formulate a plan to sufficiently prevent it. So, as I look around thinking about downsizing my abode with the kids out of the house and desiring to maybe closer to the ocenan, I will be looking at properties at least 50ft or so above current sea levels. This is not an idle issue around here. Every year along the coast, houses are literally washed out to sea.

 

But thanks for posting the initial link to the survey. I do believe it was an honest attempt to take some of the politics out of the issue, but to no avail.

 

SA

 

 

[GaHillBilly]

@ packsaddle:

Thanks -- that was an interesting summary. I file it away -- stuff tends to become un-findable on the Internet over time, and now that terabyte drives are cheap, I can save and index everything I find interesting. I did note that it was a wind energy association document, so I assume it was best-foot-forward data for wind power. As such, it wasn't what "vol" was talking about.

 

 

@ vol:

Still would like your data too, if you can lay hands on it, or find a link.

 

 

@ eagle92:

Thanks for the UK Telegraph link. I'd missed that one, even though that guy has been the primary originator in the MSM. Drudge of course pushed it front page in the US, but the Telegraph seems to be the one who's been lifting the info out of the ASM, and then Drudge posts it.

 

 

@ voy:

Ok, I understand now. You didn't grow up with English as your native language. That explains a lot! (Lots uh foks thank anyone from roun heah didunt grow up speaking rite, either.)

 

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[Beavah]

Yah, this is a really interestin' example of how da internet isn't always the best for news. Lots of folks who in the old days wouldn't have had a forum because anybody with a brain thought they were political hacks and would be embarrassed to publish 'em now have vanity press blogs that get picked up here and there just because of da traffic generated by other fools and political hacks.

 

And science gets corrupted in da process, too, as outsiders and political hacks jump into things too early and with too little understandin' of the process, and take things out of context or grab at stuff that supports their politics. Scientists are human, too, and will go after the friends and the funding, and will typically overestimate the precision/accuracy of their conclusions.

 

Calm down, breathe deep. Let good scientists do their job, puzzle things out, debate things and deal with da occasional bad egg. And fer cryin' out loud, whether you're liberal or conservative, stop listening to just your own political echo chamber. Readin' the Daily Kos or the Drudge Report is entertaining and humorous, but it's no way to inform yourself on da issues.

 

On my honor I will keep myself mentally awake and all that.

 

Beavah

 

[GaHillBilly]

On several levels that have nothing to do with political viewpoints, Drudge is nothing like The Daily Kos.

 

It's not often somebody does something really novel or unique.

 

Bill Gates did it, when he turned MS on a dime, and made IE the focus of the company overnight. I'd bet that's the fastest strategic move by a big company ever.

 

Google did it, when they set out to index the Internet . . . and did. Alta Vista was good in its day, but never had the vision or tech. My boys find it difficult to imagine living in the world I did at their age, with a single immediately accessible reference source (World Book Ency.).

 

Drudge did it too. Prior to Drudge, the Wash Post / NY Times / AP / CBS News cabal essentially dictated what US news was. I can remember in high school being puzzled about why Newsweek and Time Mag always seemed to cover the same stories. US News & WR had some original content. But, basically everybody else covered the same few stories . . . and ignored everything else.

 

Drudge, almost by himself, broke that system.

 

You may hate his politics, but what he accomplished was amazing. If the NY Times & sons news cabal had been conservative, a liberal Drudge could have done the same thing. But, since the NY Times was liberal, Drudge had to be conservative. There would have been no point to a liberal Drudge. I wouldn't be surprised if, when he writes his autobiography, it turns out he personally trends liberal, but took Drudge more conservative simply because that was where the niche -- and it turned out to be a HUGE niche -- was.

 

What he did -- and does -- is mostly 'mine' the back pages of the MSM for buried stories. In his early days, that's almost all he did. Even now, I think he links to the NY Times and W Post more than any other source. But, he 'un-buries' stories they buried. And, especially with the W Post, they hate him, but can't live without him. I've seen suggestions that he alone accounts for 50% of their Internet traffic!

 

'Climategate' is a great example of what he does. Without Drudge, the CRU emails would almost certainly have been ignored by the US MSM. Before Drudge picked it up, I'd seen a thread on Slashdot, and a few other geek sites. But, that would have been it. But, Drudge noticed and started picking up the UK Telegraph articles by the guy posted earlier. Fox noticed it on Drudge, and saw it as a piece their audience would like and started running a bit. Then USA Today ran a small piece. Then, and only then, the NYT and WP started running articles. I don't watch TV, so I don't know if it ever made the jump to TV news. But, once the NYT and WP picked it up, Drudge immediately started linking those articles, driving huge numbers of readers to those quite liberal papers.

 

Unlike Kos or other content creator / aggregators, Drudge hardly ever offers content he's written. He used to do so a little, but he's almost completely stopped. And, ironically, much of his so-called "conservative" content takes the form of links to articles on liberal media sites!

 

More recently, he largely created the ASM or blogosphere as a media force. Again, Climategate offers an example of how he injects content from those sites into MSM discussions.

 

Besides Google, and Drudge, only Wikipedia seems likely to have that sort of impact over the next decade.

 

By comparison, Kos is just another media content generator and aggregator.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

[packsaddle]

GHB, yeah I noted the same thing about that document. I also suspect bias, although as you note, in a 'best-foot-forward' kind of way. These kinds of documents are almost always biased to some extent. The objective view is often restricted to the primary literature, and sometimes not even there.

 

"Calm down, breathe deep. Let good scientists do their job, puzzle things out, debate things and deal with da occasional bad egg."

 

You know, I have mixed feelings on this. I tend to agree, especially on that 'bad egg' part. (If some climate scientists HAVE been dishonest, as suggested by some, then once they have been clearly identified as such by their peers, their careers are over permanently - I'm currently studying the far-reaching effects and outcome of the Lysenko affair as an example of this)

 

However, I also enjoy the people who are willing to lay it on the line to try to poke holes in ideas, no matter who the critics are. I think that the ones who are truly honest about their criticism and who are willing to honestly consider and admit their own fallibility actually do us a service through their willingness to point at the occasional naked emperor.

 

The ones who engage in deception in order to promote or attack an idea are destructive to progress. I wish they'd just devote their attention to retail marketing or something along those lines "...would you like regular or extra crispy?".

 

Edited a typo: (and I just made myself incredibly hungry...headed to KFC!!!)(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[vol_scouter]

There are two distinct issues in this debate - 1. Integrity and 2. Consensus opinions in science.

 

Integrity - Some scientists get enamored with an idea (i.e. - AGW) and sacrifice their integrity to defend their position. Sometimes this is more innocent in nature such as a scientist who gets a good idea that seems to be correct and then doggedly pursues the idea discounting the negatives and highlighting the positives; this is something that we all do as in these discussions. A relatively rare but more serious and damaging problem with integrity is where poor science is pursued for non-scientific reasons. There are good points on both sides of the AGW debate though from my personal reading, I see absolutely no convincing evidence for AGW. There are some who see AGW as a method to achieve other goals. One goal is that they believe that society would be better served by 'greener' transportation, etc. or that our country should decrease dependence upon foreign oil. Others see the USA as evil and exploitative so would like to punish it. True scientists would want to make their data available and their models known so that others can verify their work. That has not been done in some of the centers who provide information to the IPCC which advises the UN.

 

Also, a factor is funding. There are few scientific endeavors that can be done in one's garage any longer. Scientists are depend upon funding that is primarily from the government. Since there are limited funds available, the government funding agencies set priorities. Some areas of research are well funded (HIV/AIDS, heart disease, breast cancer) whereas others are not likely to be well funded. An example is the etiological factors in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In this country, there is funding for cholesterol research but little for infectious disease links to the disease. It is all in all a good system but it does limit areas of research. In the global warming arena, getting funding to demonstrate that there is no global warming would be difficult because the scientists who assist in those decisions believe in global warming. I have first hand knowledge of a well respected scientist who would like to discuss why he believes that global warming is not correct. He cannot get someone to sponsor him (ask him to be their guest) at a major research organization due to fear of the impact career of the researchers.

 

2. Consensus. From time to time, science will make consensus statements. Scientists realize that this is a well educated vote. It does not define what is correct or decided. If the issues were well worked out, there is no need for consensus. Mature scientific ideas are such things as quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, general relativity, and special relativity. Our knowledge and the repeatability of the experiments has convinced all scientists that these ideas not likely to be shown to be wholly incorrect although there may be small corrections in the future. In the later part of the 1800's after Maxwell had unified electromagnetism, it was felt that the physical laws had been determined and all that needed to be done was to work out the specifics. The history of science is full of consensus opinions that were later shown to be wrong. Political decisions should not be made on consensus opinions unless it is an emergency situation.

 

The weather models are not accurate for several days but we are considering major changes in our economies based on these models. The models did not predict the current world wide cooling. That data has now been added and the predictions are for a few years of cooling followed by more warming. That could well be so but it could be that the models are incomplete. Mars has been warming as has the earth which says that the sun is the primary driving force, not us. To some extent, AGW is man wanting to be more significant than he really is. Whether we are affecting the slope of that curve is far from clear. It is prudent to take reasonable measures to decrease greenhouse gases based upon the consensus opinion. If we do not wreck our economies, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions is likely good rather than a bad.

 

Finally, I have consistently used the word belief in referring to global warming. As noted above, consensus opinions are needed when science is no sure that an idea is largely correct. It is important to realize that it is a belief to say that the earth is warming (raw data must be 'adjusted' to support that conclusion) though that evidence is rather good. It is much more of a belief that there exists AGW.

[Basementdweller]

I read this thread a shake my head. reminds me of the story about a group of blind men and the elephant. It is a snake, it is a tree, it is a wall.

 

In all seriousness, You cannot believe that humanity and our current style of living do not have an impact on the planet.

 

Waste heat from air conditioning, waste heat from our vehicles. Waste heat from heating our buildings.

 

 

In a typical American style, It is all great till it effects me. You better not impact my life one bit, and I do not care what the cost to anyone else as long as it doesn't change the way I live or where I live.

 

It is ok if I commute 20+ miles to where I work, you know burning all that gasoline or diesel has absolutely no impact on the environment.

 

Keeping my house heated to 75 degrees all winter and it has no impact on the environment, I wear shorts and sandals in the winter because I don't like long pants or sweaters.

 

I keep my house cooled to 65 degrees in the summer because I don't want to sweat.

 

I shower 4 times a day because I sweat....Please.

 

on and on and on.

 

I find it interesting in my reading the thread that those living in the south believe that man has no impact on Global climate. Those in the north understand the climate is changing, some believe we are causing other are not sure.

 

 

You cannot be naive enough to believe we have no impact on the environment. everything from the fertilizer and weed killer you put on the yard to make it green, to that v-8 scout hauler you drive.

 

It would be funny if all of our fates were not tied together.

[BrentAllen]

Yep, it's a good thing we have global warming, otherwise, those RECORD snow falls hitting Alaska and the northeast would be REALLY BAD!

 

Good thing we have Cap & Trade on the way to save us all from this massive problem (or HOAX.) But, wait...

 

"The top cops in Europe say carbon-trading has fallen prey to an organized crime scheme that has robbed the continent of $7.4 billion -- a massive fraud that lawmakers and energy experts say should send a "red flag" to the U.S., where the House approved cap-and-trade legislation over the summer amid stiff opposition.

 

In a statement released last week, the Europol police agency said Europe's cap-and-trade system has been the victim of organized crime during the past 18 months, resulting in losses of roughly $7.4 billion. The agency, headquartered in the Netherlands, estimated that in some countries up to 90 percent of the entire market volume was caused by fraudulent activities."

 

Imagine that! Fraud in Cap & Trade. Fraud in the science. What's not to believe??

 

 

[vol_scouter]

I really get tired of the narrow minded prejudice of the left to Southerners because they do not like some of the viewpoints. Why do you think that northerners are more knowledgeable? It is an arrogant, narrow minded, and bigoted attitude. Many of us who are extremely well educated and knowledgeable do not agree with your conclusions. Furthermore, global cooling is a far more serious problem for human survival than is global warming. The earth was much warmer during the eras of dinosaurs and it is felt that it was lush with plant life. Ages with global cooling have a far less surface area available for plant life. Glaciers covered much of north america with much of our bread basket covered with snow and ice. So the larger risk is global cooling. If you wish to argue scientific beliefs, then do so. Do not insult me because I do not hail from your section of the country.