Slashdot Mirror

The volume of water displaced by floating ice is exactly the volume of water the ice will fill when melted.

Yes, for fresh water ice in fresh water and for salt water ice in salt water. If it's fresh water ice in salt water, the difference in density makes a tiny difference in displacement. So, icebergs that calved from glaciers would be slightly different from sea ice.

Ahh, the best kind of correct; technically correct.

The volume of water displaced by floating ice is exactly the volume of water the ice will fill when melted.

Yes, for fresh water ice in fresh water and for salt water ice in salt water. If it's fresh water ice in salt water, the difference in density makes a tiny difference in displacement. So, icebergs that calved from glaciers would be slightly different from sea ice.

This is something that really bothers me -- especially when people point out that there were periods in earth's history when CO2 levels were much higher, and temperature levels didn't rise according to the increases in CO2. What they don't seem to understand is that the planet and its climate were completely different systems back then -- today, the forests that used to balance the system just don't exist anymore, and yet, we burn vast amounts of fossil fuels -- the very carbon the system buried in millions of years is released within a few hundred years (in the blink of an eye in geological terms), and we keep removing earth's lungs and mess with dynamic systems that are far from undestood. But some keep saying: nah, can't be us, how could puny humans mess with earth's climate?!

Build your own solution there are more than enough options with known and reasonable impacts on global GDP and quality of life. The real problem has been purely political for at least a decade.

A site with a list of wedges

We can all agree that all the Anthropogenic Climate Change data is just a bunch of hooey! "Sticky Numbers," indeed!

Further, the physical sciences basis for global warming remains unchanged and completely unchallenged.

... and THAT is why some people still have doubts. Why is this the only topic about which science allegedly says "Yep! No question here, we are 100% dead certain!" That's NOT how science works. Besides, what we're talking about basically amounts to the stuff of the Farmer's Almanac. Since when are we capable of predicting things like temperature or rainfall with such incredible accuracy... not for next year, but for DECADES into the future?

Frankly, if there was a little more debate, I'd be LESS skeptical.

Do you know how long the IPCC report is? It's effing huge. If the worst things the denialists can find after going through it with a fine toothed comb are what amounts to a typo, a misstatement, and a bad calculation, that is amazing.

Further, the physical sciences basis for global warming remains unchanged and completely unchallenged. The only thing we are quibbling about (indeed, what you're so concerned about in your post) are what the actual effects of global warming will be, not whether or not it is happening.

It's like that old apocryphal story about Winston Churchill - we've already agreed that global warming is happening, now we're just haggling over how painful it will be. For some reason, people seem to think that if they haggle the pain down a little, the "already agreed" part will go away.

"green energy" Green energy is for the most part only economical because of government subsidy.

and nuclear energy isn't subsidised ? and oil isn't subsidised?(if you're only watching FOX, I'll have to tell all those wars (in Iran, Iraq(*3), Kuwait, Afghanistan ... in the last 5 decades) are/were for oil, do you have any idea how much those wars cost?)
and see here :
http://lightbucket.wordpress.com/2008/04/30/energy-payback-ratios-for-electricity-generation/
for a hint about the real economic factors of the different energy-systems.
furthermore:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8792

base load ?

see here :
http://www.greenlivingtips.com/articles/348/1/Baseload-power-bull.html
and here :
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/myth-of-baseload.html
and here :
http://www.sustainabilitycentre.com.au/WindPowersStrength.pdf
and here :
from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources : for very large penetrations of the most intermittent source, wind energy, such sources when taken together become highly reliable

Spain

the economic crisis of Spain has nothing to do with windpower, but because of troubles in the tourism-sector(NW-europe goes on vacation in maroc, turkey in stead of Spain now), linked with over-investment in building new touristic facilities. (and a resulting crash of housing-prices.)

A question for you: individual people produce CO2 by simply living. Should they be forced to participate in cap and trade? What about other living beings? Do we pay trees for cleaning up the CO2? Where does it end?
Remember, we are talking about limiting the process which life itself depends upon. This is exactly what makes people rich or poor, and you want to use government guns to make them poorer. Remember, this will impact the poor more than the rich, as they have a higher carbon impact proportional to their income. What do you have against poor people?

sigh. cap-and-trade is a bad idea to start with, and that idea has been put forward by the industry, not by the 'greens'. a much better idea would be to invest in high-efficiency systems, superior insulation(triple pane, at least 1 foot insulation in roofs,passive housing), electric transportation/Zero-emission-Vehicles , replant the deserts, replant the forests, ... there are a LOT of good ideas out there, enough to give us a comfortable life with zero impact on the environment and future generations !

"How much is man influencing THIS warming trend and how much is part of the same natural cycle that has occured many times before?"

Almost all of it. The "warming trend" is the current Milenkovich cycle, but it's a very sloooooow trend (1 degree changes require _tens_ _of_ _thousands_ years). It can't attributed to anything but human actions. If we look at proxies for CO2 emissions, then we'll see this: http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/Ocean_pH.jpg - ocean currently serves as a buffer, absorbing some of emitted CO2. But that won't go on forever.

Oh, and we know that almost all emitted CO2 is anthropogenic - that can be directly determined by measuring carbon isotopes abundance.

Antarctic ice melting ALREADY causes rising sea levels - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise

Besides, why do you think positive feedback loops are impossible? We _know_ that the Earth was much hotter before, even though the Sun was less active. The Earth is not your thermostat, it just happens that the current climate conditions create a stable equilibrium.

There might be some possibly there, but you'd need an enormous capital investment just to get started.

Biodiesel is growing, though maybe not as fast as some would like it. The highwayman Willie Nelson (pun intended) started Bio Willie. Biodiesel production is sharply increasing. An unfortunate side effect is that forests are being cleared for monoculture crops like palm tree plantations for the oil. What I'd like to see is an analysis to see if the cure is worse than the problem.

Falcon

I will just dump a mess of links from an old E-mail I did on this some time ago. It's all good stuff, Solar two in Mojave was also molten salt based. I knew someone who bought it after it failed and got to explore it before it was partly dismantled.

---------

Solar two was a flat mirror array.

Search google image search with
            "solar two" Mojave

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=yermo,+ca&ie=UTF8&ll=34.871919,-116.83416&spn=0.005915,0.010042&t=h&z=17&om=1

Take the link above and zoom out, just below and to the right is a Parabolic glass mirrors plant

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

http://www.powerfromthesun.net/Chapter10/Chapter10new.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Two_2003.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Two_Heliostat.jpg

http://theothersolar.com/?m=200702

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1101-10.htm

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/solar-central-power-towers.html

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/U4735/projections/pitman/solar.elec.jpg

http://fixedreference.org/2006-Wikipedia-CD-Selection/wp/s/Solar_power.htm
(search for "Solar two")

http://www.reia-nm.org/HTML_Docs/Solar_Thermal_Electrical.html

http://greatgreengadgets.com/gadgets/category/solar/

http://www.answers.com/topic/solar-thermal-energy

http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2006/week44/index.html

Excellent page on many technologies - Sorry it's in Spanish.
      http://g3nergy.blogspot.com/2006_11_01_archive.html
      Search for "Australia to Build 154 MW Solar Energy Plant"
      This one is identical in design to the one in the Mojave Dessert here.

http://ludb.clui.org/ex/i/CA4965/ Abandoned Solar Power Plant