Global Warming a fake?

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

So Basically what you're saying is no matter what we're really really screwed but it might just be a bit sooner (but still very long after we are all dead) rather than later?

[BrianG]

Is a cooler climate better than a warmer climate? Wouldn't this be merely a matter of opinion, not fact? How much greenhouse warming does doubling the amount of [ce]CO2[/ce] in the air contribute? Aren't experimental simulations in the neighborhood of less than [math]0.5\celsius[/math] for each doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide?

[CraigD]

To summarize, characterizing the temperature of the Earth on long time scales as a steadily cooling isn’t accurate. However, best theory states with high certainty that the long term future of the Earth will be one of steady heating, due to the steady increase in luminosity of the Sun. In about 2 billion years, they predict that Earth will have no remaining liquid water on its surface and a temperature of about 70 °C. About 3 billion years after that, they predict that the Earth will be either rendered molten by or consumed by the then giant Sun. (see wikipedia article “future of the Earth”).

So Basically what you're saying is no matter what we're really really screwed but it might just be a bit sooner (but still very long after we are all dead) rather than later?

We – the human species – are on the order of 10,000 years old culturally (farming, etc.), and 200,000 years old biologically (looking like modern humans inside and out). Our ancestor species – pithecans – tended to appear then disappear in about one million (1,000,000) years. Whether we humans will be around, in a cultural or species sense, in 1,000 or 2,000 million years to witness the long term consequences of the increasing luminosity of the Sun, or in 5,000 million years to see if it’s consumed or merely melted by the Sun’s red giant phase, is nearly impossible to confidently guess.

 

If we are, in some sense (if not still technically the same species as not, or even purely a biological species, but in at least a cultural sense, descended from present day humans) still around 2 or 5 billion years from now, what our technological capabilities will be is at least as hard to guess. IMHO, it’s fairly certain to include the ability to live on planets, moons, asteroids and in free space beyond the destructive range of the Sun. It’s not implausible that it may include the ability to move the Earth to a safe distance, and repair damage to its environment.

 

It’s also not implausible that in the not very distant future, assuming we survive as a technological culture, our descendents will essentially dismantle the Earth along with much of the rest of the solar system to use as raw materials for gigantic engineering projects, such as spacecraft or a matrioshka brain. As generations of SF teaches us, assuming we survive, future technology may strain the limits of our imagination.

 

Both our long-term survival, and these sorts of advanced future technology, will require the ability to not only accurately observe natural phenomena such as Earth’s environment, but predict and alter them, which requires in turn capable physical and social sciences. This is why, in the long term, I believe the present controversy over the motives and credibility of specific scientist, anti-scientist, and scientific and anti-scientific institutions is far less important than progress in environmental science, including climatology, and its underlying formalisms – primarily computerized numeric modeling – and progress in worldwide cooperation – in essence, advancing beyond the short-sighted belief that the interactions individuals and nations must constitute a zero-sum game contesting the division of inherently scarce resources among always over-sized and demanding markets. The former – mature environmental science – will, I suspect, be much easier than the latter. If we fail to achieve both, however, I don’t think we’ll be around in any sense to worry about the inevitable, Sun-driven warming of the Earth millions and billions of years in the future.

[BrianG]

I agree we need "progress in environmental science, including climatology, and its underlying formalisms – primarily computerized numeric modeling" but I would add, we need better physical models. The ISS is a physical model of an ecosystem, and it's inadequate to test climate or environmental principles. We need better, larger physical models to adequately explain and understand climate systems.

 

If we wanted to spend a few billion dollars on a physical simulation of Venus' climate, that would be cool, if we spend the same money on futzing with our own climate, that's a different proposition.

[Michaelangelica]

We – the human species – are on the order of 10,000 years old culturally (farming, etc.), and 200,000 years old biologically (looking like modern humans inside and out). Our ancestor species – pithecans – tended to appear then disappear in about one million (1,000,000) years.

. . .

Both our long-term survival, and these sorts of advanced future technology, will require the ability to not only accurately observe natural phenomena such as Earth’s environment, but predict and alter them, which requires in turn capable physical and social sciences.

This is why, in the long term, I believe the present controversy over the motives and credibility of specific scientist, anti-scientist, and scientific and anti-scientific institutions is far less important than progress in environmental science, including climatology, and its underlying formalisms – primarily computerized numeric modeling – and progress in worldwide cooperation – in essence, advancing beyond the short-sighted belief that the interactions individuals and nations must constitute a zero-sum game contesting the division of inherently scarce resources among always over-sized and demanding markets. The former – mature environmental science – will, I suspect, be much easier than the latter. If we fail to achieve both, however, I don’t think we’ll be around in any sense to worry about the inevitable, Sun-driven warming of the Earth millions and billions of years in the future.

Well said; however i am beginning to disagree.

For the first time in our history we are being asked to operate in a planet wide consensus. in this i see us failing.

Hence the reason i started the thread on the psychology and sociology of this debate. While i believe our technology is up to the task of re-engineering climate (just); I am less convinced of the psychological and social factors keeping in step/in synch. with the technology. Getting agreement on climate mitigating proposals whether it be dumping iron in the ocean or burying charcoal in our soil, needs a consensus and understanding and acceptance of the technology that i don't see. It also needs bravery, an acceptance of risk, an ability to cope with ambiguity, compassion for each other and acceptance of possible failure. Qualities our present education and other systems do not promote to a degree equal to the challenge.

 

Already people in Siberia see a new era of tourism opening up for them. While those in Bangladesh see their country under water. So the winners and loosers her will have different agendas.

 

But that is the mere tip of the iceberg. I don't see our social Systems being flexible enough to cope. Many were designed when obedience and conformity were the qualities to enhance ( Roman Legions, Catholic Church, Corporate Structures) in order to promote our power and survival. Will they help or hinder us now?

 

I also see our acceptance of new ideas--as a species-- as far too slow for the present rapid change happening around us. the WWW is helping but i am pessimistic.

[CraigD]

The ISS is a physical model of an ecosystem ...

This is incorrect.

 

Like the predecessor systems that went into it, derived primarily from Mir, The ISS Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) was not and is not expected to ever be intended to model the Earth’s or any other planet’s ecosystem.

 

Although experimental spacecraft LSSs that are truly closed have been successfully prototyped on the ground since the 1960s, those that have been flow, including the current regenerative system that was installed in the ISS last year (2008), are open systems. They vent gas into space, and require periodic resupply. The ISS’s system [ce]H2[/ce] and [ce]CO2[/ce] into space, and require a supply of [ce]H2O[/ce]. A high-level schematic diagram can be seen here.

 

Although spaceflight recycling ESSs like the ISS’s consume large amounts of electricity, which is available on spacecraft like the ISS from their large photovoltaic panels, small closed systems, such as Bioglobes (great XMass gifts :)), can remains stable and alive for decades with no input other than sunlight. However, even these are not intended to model the Earth’s or any other planet’s ecosystem. Attempts to scale such systems up to ones that can sustain humans, however, have not yet been completely successful. The best known, largest, and longest lasting such attempt was the 9/26/1991 to 9/26/1993 first Biosphere 2 mission.

 

I agree we need "progress in environmental science, including climatology, and its underlying formalisms – primarily computerized numeric modeling" but I would add, we need better physical models.

You’d better try a different phrase than “physical model” for what I think you’re suggesting, Brian, as “physical climate model” usually refers to computerized numeric simulation of the Earth’s atmosphere, not a small-scale physical model of an actually planet’s climate.

 

I found it interesting, to read concerning Biosphere 2:

In 1995, Columbia University took over management of the facility for research and as a campus until 2003. In 1996, they changed the virtually airtight, materially-closed structure designed for closed system research, to a “flow-through” system, and halted closed system research. They manipulated carbon dioxide levels for global warming research, and injected desired amounts of carbon dioxide, venting as needed.

and

On June 26, 2007, the University of Arizona announced that it took over management of Biosphere 2, using the site as a laboratory to study climate change, among other things.

As you seem interested in such experiments, Brian, I’d be curious to see what you can uncover with some follow-up research on Biosphere 2’s climate change.

If we wanted to spend a few billion dollars on a physical simulation of Venus' climate, that would be cool, if we spend the same money on futzing with our own climate, that's a different proposition.

This is an intriguing idea, but short of building a full-size planet and waiting millions of years for its environment to stabilize, I’m not sure how one could actually do it, at any cost, let alone a mere few billion. Clearly, it’s necessary to scale such a model down by a large factor, and I can’t imagine any way this could be done using present day technology.

 

The major problem, I think, would be creating an accurate small-scale model of a planets atmosphere, which are critically dependent on being thin spherical shells kept against the planet’s surface by gravitational attraction. Unless you’ve the ability to change the constant of gravity – which nobody even vaguely has – the only way to simulate this is with a centrifuge, and you can’t make a centrifuge that produces a spherical centripetal force. Unless you have the ability to alter the flow of time (eg: by “fast forwarding” you “model planet” by making a near approach to a black hole), I can’t imagine any solution to the “waiting millions of years for its environment to stabilize” problem.

 

Given these difficulties, I can’t imagine any serious alternatives to the present day approach of computerized numeric simulations. As computers continue to become large, faster, and less expensive, however, the prospect of increasingly high-resolution models – ultimately, ones in which every atom in the atmosphere would be individually modeled – appear to me not unfeasible in the near future (10 years or so).

[BrianG]

...

For the first time in our history we are being asked to operate in a planet wide consensus. in this i see us failing...

 

I see the problem as the lack of convincing experimental tests, real wold physical models and the high cost from working off pure theory and computer simulations. The best AGW theory gives us to mitigate climate change is, "Stop, go back!" and we want better science.

[Blaibner]

Global warming is a swindle. My research shows that there is evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

[C.Neustaedter]

Tru Dat Blaibner:eek_big:

[REASON]

Global warming is a swindle. My research shows that there is evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

 

Please provide a link or reference to support your claim.

[Bored Wombat]

Global warming is a swindle. My research shows that there is evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.

 

Looks unlikely if you plot the CO2 concentrations from the Vostok core and current instrumental CO2 concentrations on the same graph:

 

 

My guess is about 100ppm lower 11,000 years ago.

 

Because the snow doesn't seal for about 100 years after falling, there is a bit of a low pass filter effect on the vostok core data, but if you're talking about a very short increase in CO2 there are two questions:

1) How was the CO2 removed from the atmosphere?

2) Was the increase long enough to affect the climate?

 

An increase in CO2 takes 400 years to clear, aproximately. (Lam, 2003)

And 60% of the climatic effect of an increase in CO2 takes 25 to 50 years. (Hansen et al, 2005)

[prometheuspan]

global warming denialism is just crackpotted nonsense sponsored by exxon; and thats all it is.

 

Global warming was a proven fact by 1970.

 

Over and over again, no, solar increase is a real contributing factor which contributes to less than a billionth of the problem.

 

Cryosphere Today - Current Sea Ice and Snow Cover

The Facts About Global Warming Denial : TreeHugger

Global warming skeptics - SourceWatch

ClimateScienceWatch

Global Warming Denial - Skeptico

RealClimate: Index

A. Siegel: "Bipartisan" Global Warming Denial?

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/ExxonSecretsAnalysis.pdf

Think Progress » Global warming denial has its benefits.

Cartoon guide to global warming denial « BraveNewClimate

Runaway Global Warming - Denial By Bill Henderson

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Denial Machine

The Rag Blog: Fight Global Warming Denial : George Will Distorts the Facts

Kevin Grandia: A Troubling Trend in Global Warming Denial on the Internet

[C1ay]

Global warming was a proven fact by 1970.

 

1970? Global warming was a fact when the dinosaurs lived. Earth is a tropical planet by nature that is still recovering from the last ice age....

[prometheuspan]

ha ha. no, man mad global warming is a fact, and warming rate has increased by a factor of millions,

so this is not natural warming.

 

natural warming happens slowly enough for life to adapt. This isn't.

 

The end result of this warming if we don't stop it will be the death of all life on earth as we know it.

 

And for every dollar we spend on fossil fuels since about 2004 at the main tipping point, we will end up having to spend thousands or millions of dollars to scrub the atmosphere.

 

You obviously didn't bother to read the links provided, and you are arguing from ignorance, and from an opinion generated by propaganda and disinformation.

 

Anti Intellectualism;

Anti-intellectualism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Renaissance of Anti-Intellectualism - Archives - The Chronicle of Higher Education

Amazon.com: Anti-Intellectualism in American Life (9780394703176): Richard Hofstadter: Books http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170

Deep thinkers missing in action / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

http://mtprof.msun.edu/Spr1997/TROUT-ST.html

Anti-intellectualism | Way of the Mind

https://urresearch.rochester.edu/retrieve/6552/Anti-Intellectualism.pdf

http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/02/04/reorganization_plan_calls_for_higher_student_teacher_ratios/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Maine+news

[prometheuspan]

assuming even if true, that global warming is a non issue, the economic reasons alone should compel us to quit fossil fuels.

 

You have allowed exxon oil to dupe you into paying through the nose. If we went electric and geothermal in the 70s, you'd be paying a dollar a year for your electric bill- and that would include all of the fuel for your car.

 

--------------------

 

[[Energy and Environment Research 2]]

 

==1. There are many different ways to derive energy. ==

 

 

2. Each of these methods has different relationships with the environment

 

3. Each of these methods has different costs and different benefits

 

4. Each of the these methods has different pros and cons.

 

5. A partial list of methods; [[oil]], [[coal]], [[shale]], [[wood]], [[gasoline]], [[biofuels]] (a. food crop, b. hemp crop c. algae) [[solar]], [[Thermal Solar]], [[Wind]], [[Tidal]], [[Geothermal]], [[Hydrogen]], [[Hydroelectric]], [[Zero Point]], [[Nuclear]].

 

6. Oils relationships with the environment are

 

a. Oil is ancient organic material that has undergone geological processes.

 

b. Oil is removed from the ground via oil wells. Ie oil is mined from the Earth.

 

c. Oil is burned in order to get heat and chemical reaction to create the energy.

 

d. Burning it creates smoke. The smoke is toxic. It is multiply toxic to the ecosystem in multiple ways.

 

e. Its causing [[Global Warming]].

 

f. It causes cancer.

 

g. It causes acid rain

 

h. Thus it hurts humans personally and the whole ecosystem as whole in these different ways.

 

7. oil costs a certain amount of money to obtain from the earth, depending on how deep it is and at what pressure it is under.

 

8. oil costs a certain amount of money to refine and process, as well as to transport.

 

 

== 9. The pros of oil are that ; ==

 

 

a. It is accessible with very primitive levels of technology

 

b. Our current energy infrastructure is based on oil

 

c. Oil costs less than biofuels or, at least, it used to.

 

d. Oils over all cost benefit analysis remains do-able from the perspective of economics alone.

 

 

== 10. The cons against oil are ==

 

 

a. Oil is actually very expensive as technology compared to other forms of energy in which initial

 

costs render yields not limited by physical quantities.

 

Solar power stations, Wind, and Geothermal all provide energy options which

 

are simply cheaper over the long term.

 

b. Oil pollutes the ecology as mentioned in its environmental analysis above.

 

c. That pollution will cause the extinction of life on earth as we know it should it continue.

 

d. We have already reached a tipping point where we have raised the global temperature so high that the new larger contributor to

greenhouse gasses is the ice that is being melted.

 

e. Thus we need solutions to reverse global warming, or, our civilization is doomed.

 

 

== 11. Coal. ==

The specifics change, but Coal, like oil, is an ancient organic substance exposed to geological processes, must be burned, and thus

contributes to pollution and global warming.

 

== 12. Oil Shale and Coal Shale. ==

Similar to oil and coal or extensions of them, shale is harder to mine and harder to extract oil from.

Thus it costs more to process.

 

== 13. Biofuels. ==

The difference between biofuels and oil or coal is that biofuels have not been exposed to geological processes, but rather, similarly effecting technological processes.

 

a.Biofuels still have toxic smoke which pollutes and which contributes to [[Global Warming]].

 

b. Biofuels trade energy shortage and economic stress for food shortage and economic stress, thus creating c +d

 

c. Biofuels create food shortages, hunger, and contribute to global poverty.

 

d. Biofuels make food more expensive.

 

 

 

== 14. Solar Power ==

 

 

a. Solar power is derived from the suns light and chemical processes.

 

b. Solar panels are a permanent fixture which will continue to derive energy whenever the sun shines.

 

c. Solar panels have real but comparatively very tiny environmental costs.

 

d. Solar panel technology is up to date and evolved, no more research is actually required.

 

e. Assorted pundits and candidates and politicians and so forth like to tell us that they favor more research for solar power.

 

Thats a secret unsecret way of saying that they don't support employing it as a real world solution, because solar power has worked

and has been feasible and economically viable for over 20 years.

 

f. Solar power is derived at a specific rate depending on the size of the panel, the efficiency of the absorption of the sunlight, and the amount of

sunlight available.

 

g. Solar power does better at high altitudes because theres less atmospheric interference.

h. Solar Power has very low yields per physical system cost. In order to run a car on Solar energy, you have to panel the entire car,

and in order to run your house on solar energy, you would have to panel your entire rooftop and buy energy saving appliances.

 

i. Solar power is most attractive and useful in a whole energy strategy because it is uniquely mobile. Geothermal wells or Wind

power or tidal power (for obvious reasons) won't run a car directly.

 

j. Solar power could in theory be used to solve the energy crisis almost by itself, by paneling over a very large surface area. This surface area

has been calculated variously, with low estimates ranging in 10 by 10 miles, and high estimates ranging upto 200 by 200 miles.

 

h. The problem with this is that the cost/ benefit analysis shows us that this would be very expensive when compared to a holistic energy strategy.

 

i. Solar power has very low yields when compared to geothermal power.

 

15. Thermal Solar. Thermal Solar is a variation of Solar power with a much cheaper cost, a much lower per square foot yield, and operating at a much simpler technology level.

 

a. About 100 miles by 100 miles (median estimate) of Thermal solar paneling could in theory meet our energy needs.

 

b. Thermal Solar can be done in such a way that it has lower materials costs and lower materials environmental impact.

 

c. Thermal solar involves using light to heat a liquid which creates energy by pushing a turbine when the fluid expands.

 

== 16. Wind Energy. ==

 

 

a. Wind energy is derived from creating large turbines called wind mills.

 

b. Wind mills are generally very large affairs.

 

c. The larger a windmill is, the more energy it creates relative to its overall material cost.

 

d. This means that the cost/ benefit analysis shows that larger windmills are cheaper.

 

e. Windmills create medium yields of energy when they are operating.

 

f. One good large windmill can probably meet the energy needs for perhaps a dozen homes.

 

g. The USA could in theory meet all of its energy needs via wind power, if we invested heavily also in enormous

 

distribution network infrastructure.

 

h. The USA is rich in wind energy compared to most places on the earth.

 

i. The problem with windmills is downtime when theres no wind.

 

j. This is significantly less a problem than with solar downtime due to no sun.

 

k. Wind and Solar together as a team can capitalize on the two extremes of climate, and should thus be employed

 

alternately depending on the location one wishes to provide energy for.

 

l. For instance, Solar power is better in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Texas, And sunny places.

 

J. And yet Wind power is better in places like New Jersey, Oregon,...places alongside the Canada Border.

 

k. The other problem with wind power is that it can create quite an eye sore to look at.

 

l. Wind power also can be very devastating to local bird populations.

 

m. Wind and Solar might be good tandem partners for cities like Denver, where theres lots of wind and lots of sun,

 

but not usually at the same time except for when it is.

 

This allows such a system to generate power in the sunny months with solar and in the winter months with wind.

 

 

 

== 17. Tidal Power ==

 

 

a. Tidal power is derived much like wind power is, from the movement of water instead of air.

 

b. Tidal power is slightly higher in potential yields because water is denser.

 

c. Tidal power would have to be done more or less on remote beaches , probably in large fenced

 

areas to protect the systems from animals and animals and humans from the systems.

 

d. Tidal power is obviously only viable on the coastlines of oceans or very large bodies of water such as lakes.

 

e. Tidal power could in theory meet all of our energy needs.

 

f. The cost/ benefit analysis for tidal power is a bit murky because its a mostly unexplored technology.

 

g. However, proof of concept units do exist and the technology is very simple.

 

h. Tidal power has problems due to the corrosive nature of salt water and erosion.

 

i. Tidal power is unpopular because it ruins one beach per facility.

 

j. Most accessible tidal power exists in the energy of waves.

 

k. Cost/ benefit analysis shows that tidal power can be done out at sea, but it becomes increasingly more expensive the further out

you go to get the power back to land.

 

l. Tidal power is probably a good solution for arctic regions which don't get much sun, and whose wind conditions might on some occasions be too intense,

pulling windmills down.

 

m. Along with Solar power and Wind power, tidal power provides a third leg of medium level yield energy for low materials cost in situations where

geothermal power would be too expensive.

 

 

== 18. Geothermal Power ==

 

 

a. Geothermal power is energy derived from the heat of the earth.

 

b. that heat is on average several miles beneath the surface.

 

c. However, there is a lot of variance in how deep that heat is, and every state has regions where that heat is within a few hundred meters of the surface.

 

d. Geothermal power like wind power becomes cheaper per materials cost the larger the plant is.

 

e. Geothermal power has very high potential yields, and is in fact competitive with nuclear power in terms of sheer yield.

 

f. Geothermal power plants could in theory be built with higher energy yields than nuclear power plants. However, this is not advised or advisable, due to potential tectonic stresses such high energy plants could create.

 

g. In the range around 100th or even 1 tenth the yield energy of a nuclear power station, geothermal power stations could be built which would have virtually no impact on tectonic stresses.

 

h. Tectonic stress is an important variable. Frequently geothermal power is most accessible along fault lines. However, these should be ignored for caldera like situations where the system is not contributing or in danger due to tectonic stresses.

 

i. There are many different ways of configuring a geothermal power station, and only one which this author supports. This is called double circuit closed system geothermal power.

 

j. Double circuit simply means that the water drops on one circuit and the steam comes up on the other.

 

k. Closed circuit means that no water is ever lost in the system, because even the heating element chamber is a well engineered container

 

L. Geothermal power can in theory meet all of our energy needs

 

M. Of the resources available to us, it does this with the cheapest over all cost, the smallest possible ecological footprint, and the highest level of permanency.

 

N. Geothermal power is not a good solution in situations where a small amount of power is needed for small communities or remote estates. It has a high material cost and start up cost to drill the well.

 

O. Geothermal power is theoretically available almost everywhere on the surface of the earth.

 

P. Current oil wells now go as deep as 7, 8, 9 miles deep.

 

Q. Enough Geothermal power is accessible within 200 meters depth to meet all of our energy needs.

 

R. Where larger power sources are wanted in places where that heat is deeper, it is still true that geothermal heat in most places is not deeper than 4 miles.

 

S. In some rare situations where the crust is thick, geothermal power might be as deep as 20 miles.

 

Don't drill there, import the energy from 150 miles away somewhere.

 

== 19. Hydrogen power; ==

 

 

a. Hydrogen power is an up and coming technology which we can expect to see having good strong applications 20 or 30 years from now.

 

b. Hydrogen power is very promising, but currently, its still mostly a way to store energy, not create it.

 

c. The two main exceptions to this are using corrosive rare earth metals to get reactions, and using phased electrical energy to short out the binding force.

 

d. The problem with the former is that the rare earth metal is itself a form of fuel, and that creating it, and "burning" it with water both create toxic

substances as side effects.

 

e. The problem with the latter is containment of the field and what happens when organic matter is exposed to high energy bursts of electricity.

 

f. To the knowledge of this author, water based solutions which continue to use a combustion engine are frauds.

 

g. When Hydrogen becomes a used technology, it will probably be for very large equipment and uses, such as trains, planes, and large boats

 

 

== 20. Hydrolic or Hydro Electric power. ==

 

 

a. This energy is created by damming a river and using falling water to drive a turbine.

 

b. This is incredibly damaging to the ecology.

 

c. Yields are fairly high per materials cost, but, still, hydro electric materials costs are comparable to geothermal power, which doesn't destroy an entire

ecosystem per power plant.

 

d. Hydro electric power does not exist in anywhere near sufficient quantities to meet all of our energy needs.

 

e. This author finds hydro-electric power to be a bad idea all the way around, not even as useful as nuclear power.

 

 

== 21. Nuclear power ==

 

a. Nuclear power (currently) is derived from using rare earth metals in reactions which turn some fraction of those fuels directly into energy.

 

b. The radioactive fuels must be mined, and this results currently in the deaths (and serious health problems) of many Miners.

 

c. Nuclear power currently creates hyper toxic and radio active wastes, which cost money to tend and babysit, and which in an accident

of ignorance 10 thousand years from now could wipe out an entire continents worth of our descendants.

 

d. Nuclear power is in many senses still a futuristic technology with much promise and much potential.

 

e. Thus nuclear power should be studied and refined in the laboratory.

 

f. The focus of such studies should be in finding ways to use non radioactive fuels,

 

finding ways to create dissipating forms of radiation only, and finding ways to eliminate the problem of wastes.

g. Nuclear power is very high yield, but it has exorbitant costs, especially over the long term.

 

h. Compared to Geothermal power, nuclear power is extremely expensive, gets more expensive instead of less expensive over time, is extremely

dangerous, and perhaps most importantly, sooner or later we will run out of nuclear fuels, and still be forced to move on to geothermal power.

 

i. Nuclear power will be most useful for purposes of exploring our solar system and our galaxy.

 

j. There is no good reason to use nuclear power for domestic use considering the other much better alternatives.

 

 

== 22. Zero point energy ==

 

 

a. Zero point energy is derived from quantum phase state fluctuations where energy is created in contradiction to the "laws" of conservation of mass and

energy.

 

b. Zero point energy is a futuristic technology which may become realistic within the next 100 years.

c. Final stage proof of concept zero point energy research should be conducted at least as distant from the earth as the oort cloud, due to the unforseeable nature of potential dangers.

 

d. In theory, zero point energy could create a self sustaining quantum phase reaction which could create nearly unlimited energy in spaces literally too small to be seen by the naked eye.

 

e. Early stage research into zero point energy is the entire field of quantum mechanics, specifically Singularities, branes, and quantum holographics.

 

 

== 23. Summary of findings. ==

 

a. Geothermal, Solar, Wind, Tidal, and Hydrogen Technologies together provide a clear and easy path towards green and sustainable energy.

 

b. Geothermal energy specifically is the solution which a realistic green energy infrastructure should be rooted in.

 

c. It is reasonable to project a total holistic solution in which 80 percent of our energy comes from geothermal, 10 percent from Solar, 5 percent from Wind, and 5 percent from Tidal.

 

d. It is also worth mentioning that electric cars are a current and viable technology.

 

e. This is all of it simply a sumary of known and provable science fact. The only reason why most people don't know all of this is that oil companies

and rich evil jerks have spent billions of dollars to flood the public with propaganda and misinformation.

 

f. The other strategy of the evil empire jerks is to promote energy resources such as biofuels or nuclear power which create a situation of extreme expense so that they can continue to exploit our need for energy in order to make money. A Geothermally based energy infrastructure would provide

extremely cheap energy (especially over the long term) and this would be the death of the energy industry.

 

== References ==

 

 

Geothermal power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

List of renewable energy topics by country - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Portal:Sustainable development - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Geothermal Education Office - Power From the Earth's Heat

 

Geothermal Energy Association

 

Enhanced Geothermal Resources

 

GEOCEN --IYTE GEOTHERMAL ENERGY  RESEARCH AND APPLICATION CENTER--

 

Deep geothermal power possibly the miracle remedy to the energy crisis and to global warming! But urgent action is needed!

 

News Unfiltered: Expanding Geothermal Power Could Create 100,000 New Jobs, Says Geothermal Energy Association

 

US urged to boost its geothermal power capacity - 23 January 2007 - New Scientist

 

Geothermal Power Plant Triggers Earthquake in Switzerland : TreeHugger

 

All geothermal power options are not equal. Dry rock for instance is a lot more hazardous.

The ideal would simply create a closed circuit with a pooling area at the bottom, and this would not cause

problems like this place did because the water would not be going out into the surrounding rock.

 

Geothermal Energy and Its Advantages

 

CR4 - Thread: Geothermal Power Generation - The sleeping giant?

 

CVO Menu - The Plus Side of Volcanoes

 

Nuclear Power Pro/Con - Geothermal Energy

 

The Great Forgotten Clean-Energy Source: Geothermal | Alternative Energy | DISCOVER Magazine

 

Geothermal Critique

this is just to be fair. It should be noted that this is all about one plant thats operating too close to the magma

and not using double closed circuit.

 

Geothermal power station Stock Photos and Images. 31 geothermal power station pictures and royalty free photography available to search from over 100 stock photo brands.

 

Geothermal Power Plants: An Expensive Way To Generate Clean Electricity - Ecofriend

 

The Energy Blog: Geothermal Power not Just for the Western US

 

GordonMoyes.com » Better than Nuclear?

 

Geothermal power: Definition from Answers.com

 

AltaRock Breaks New Ground With Geothermal Power : Greentech Media

 

Technology Review

 

Geothermal. Cheap. Abundant. Cheap. | SolveClimate.com

 

Geothermal: The Other Base Load Power | Alternative Energy Stocks

 

Peak Energy: Engineered Geothermal Power

 

Geothermal Energy Sources 101 -- Seeking Alpha

 

Geothermal Map of North America, 2004

 

Geothermal Technologies Program: U.S. Geothermal Resource Map

 

http://geoheat.oit.edu/images/usmap1.gif

 

http://pesn.com/2007/01/22/9500449_MIT_Geothermal_Report/Geothermal_Map_USA_2004_hj70.jpg

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/Geothermal_heat_map_US.png/800px-Geothermal_heat_map_US.png

 

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/2008/01/18/geothermal_power_resouces_map.gif

 

http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/renewableenergy/texas_geothermal_1.jpg

 

Redirect Notice

 

New Tectonic Source of Geothermal Energy?

 

volcan42.jpg Geochemists from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Arizona State University have discovered a new tool for identifying potential geothermal energy resources. The discovery came from comparing helium isotopes in samples gathered from wells, springs, and vents across the northern Basin and Range of western North America. High helium ratios are common in volcanic regions. When the investigators found high ratios in places far from volcanism, they knew that hot fluids must be permeating Earth's inner layers by other means. The samples collected on the surface gave the researchers a window into the structure of the rocks far below, with no need to drill.

 

"A good geothermal energy source has three basic requirements: a high thermal gradient—which means accessible hot rock—plus a rechargeable reservoir fluid, usually water, and finally, deep permeable pathways for the fluid to circulate through the hot rock," says Mack Kennedy. "We believe we have found a way to map and quantify zones of permeability deep in the lower crust that result not from volcanic activity but from tectonic activity, the movement of pieces of the Earth's crust."

 

Geothermal is considered by many to be the best renewable energy source besides solar. Accessible geothermal energy in the United States, excluding Alaska and Hawaii, is estimated at 90 quadrillion kilowatt-hours, 3,000 times more than the country's total annual energy consumption. Determining helium ratios from surface measurements is a practical way to locate promising sources.

 

Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent. You can read from her new book, The Fragile Edge, and other writings, here.

 

Energy And Environment Research - Issues

[C1ay]

natural warming happens slowly enough for life to adapt. This isn't.

 

Didn't look at the graph did you? The current rate of warming is much slower than it has occurred in previous eras.

 

BTW, since you've got so much posting energy perhaps you could fill us in on the cause of Mars' global warming...

[prometheuspan]

Didn't look at the graph did you? The current rate of warming is much slower than it has occurred in previous eras.

 

thats not true, i don't need to look at what is well understood to be outright lies to know what they are.

 

You didn't look at my links. Where did your graph come from and who made it for what reasons?

 

 

BTW, since you've got so much posting energy perhaps you could fill us in on the cause of Mars' global warming..

 

1. The alleged warming has been grossly exaggerated by the denialist movement.

 

2. Solar increase is a real phenomenon which is responsible for about one millionth of the warming we are seeing on earth.

 

3. As usual, you have identified a contributing factor which is a natural cause but only responsible for a tiny percent of a tiny percent of the warming we are seeing.

 

4.the rate of warming is almost a hole degree in 30 years, which is millions of times faster

than any natural cycle.

 

5. Oceanic feedback systems are entering toxicity due to co2 and this is global warmings twin problem which makes this entire argument look triply ridiculous.

 

6. As stated above, you are arguing from ignorance, telling us lies, feeding us obvious propaganda nonsense, doing so at the behest of exxon oil, defeating your own best economic interests, and fighting for the destruction of all life on earth as we know it.

 

Why would you chose to be a pawn and a dupe for exxon oil?

 

Why would you fail to read my links, or, why are you choosing to intentionally lie in this matter?

 

And which is it?

 

Before you continue , you should know that I have expert knowlege in formal conversational logic, meteorology, and climatology. If you know you are scamming,

this is the end of your game here and there are other places on the net which will be

far more favorable conditions for you to grow your parasites in.

 

If you don't know that you are duped or double thinking, then please do the world a favor

and carefully read what i posted.

 

Thanks for this amusing interaction and your time and energy,

sincerely;

pan