You obviously haven't heard of concentrated solar thermal/electric power. All it takes is some concrete and steel, glass (SiO2), maybe aluminum for mirrors, and optionally molten salt for storage.
I have heard of it, and have posted links to concentrated solar thermal power myself. One of the most frequent links I've posted is for SciAm article "A Solar Grand Plan". However solar is not the baseload, the salt is.
You can take a regular Ubuntu LiveCD and while it's loaded you can access the internet and get everything needed, then hit install and go from there.
Yea, I'm thinking of using the LiveCD to install Ubuntu then download and install what I'll need for a server. One thing I've run into though is that GUIs are discouraged from being used on a server, Ubuntu Server doesn't even come with a GUI. One reason is because of security. But I don't know the command line. I've used the CLI some but haven't really used it in more than 10 years. Another thing is that I want to setup both Leopard and Ubuntu to use the same home folder, directory, as well as the same folders for email and the web. In my research I've found pointers in how to do this but I want to create a compleat plan with everything lain out on how to do everything before I install Ubuntu. I don't want to wade into the water blind.
Why not believe in God just to be sure you're going to heaven even though there is no data either way?
The problem with Pascal's Wager is in deciding which "God" to believe in. Do you believe in Reform Judaism's God, Shia Islam's God (and switch one?), or Wicca's Goddess? Pick the wrong one and you can be just a screwed as not believing in any of them.
Reducing one's carbon consumption economically is by contrast almost impossible
By replacing all my incandescent lights bulbs to CFLs I was able to cut my CO2 emissions, and saved money doing it. I also emit less and save money by growing some of my own food, ie garden. And though I own a car in the 9+ years I've owned it I put about 45,000 miles on it, that's less than 5000 miles a year. I bet most people who owns cars, or SUVs, or trucks easily drive twice that a year. Now if I could I'd rather have a diesel powered car that's fueled by biodiesel. It might be possible to get used vegetable oil from restaurants, who have to pay others to get rid of it, to use as fuel.
Aggressively switching away from current fuel sources is extremely expensive, and potentially crippling to the economy.
Alternative energy isn't really that much more expensive than conventional energy. "The coal, oil and gas industries" get subsidies as does nuclear power. And please note that those links aren't from an environmentalist or alternative energy organization but from the Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace CATO Institute. The second link is an article first published in the business and investment magazine "Forbes".
You've narrowed the field to the US. I think your first citation covered ALL climatologists
No, 97% of active climatologists, who may be US scientists. However as a previous poster said scientists from other nations, such as Norway, may have an even bigger reason to say Global Warming is real and something needs to be done. Afterall the Scandinavians are at or below sea level.
unlike his predecessor, Bush II did not aggressively seek to replace all of the partisan government employees throughout the executive branch.
It's quite obvious when you look at some of the conflicting policy statements coming from CIA, State, and NASA during his administration.
Where were all those conflicting opinions about Iraq having WMDs before the invasion of Iraq? I'm still waiting to see all those WMDs. Then there's the case against Microsoft, the Clinton admin had MS on the ropes but when Bush came into office MS was let off with barely a slap on the wrist. What I find ironic about that is that Texas, the state Bush was governor of before becoming president, was one of the first states to sue MS.
My point being that global warming "deniers" don't get as much funding as global warming "believers" because if there is no global warming
I don't see it that way at all. The oil companies have deep pockets, well not so deep since the price of oil tanked, and would of been happy to pay scientists who disagreed with Global Warming. The same with the coal industry.
Similarly, twenty years ago large scale wind power was impossible. I remember reviewing some articles on the issues (essentially, the worst case arm loading/normal arm loading ratio was too large to make windmills of reasonable mass). Now the US has massive windmill projects.
None of this required any laws to get passed. No one had to be forced into anything. The future just arrived slowly and unpredictably, like it always does.
Actually laws were required, utilities had to be forced to buy power from small systems owners, you know all those net metering laws.
Personally, I don't care that much who causes global warming - because the benefits of reversing global warming do not currently outweigh the costs.
So you're willing to pay the people of Tuvalu and Bangladesh if their land is flooded then right? You're also willing to pay for another New Orleans and higher insurance too?
I think we should carry on studying global warming (so that we can start to predict what will really happen), and keep on our normal path of technological progress. By the end of the 100 year time frame used by the reports
I agree more research needs to be done, but I also think something needs to be done before those who did not create a problem have to pay for it. Also what research I've seen says that if atmospheric CO2 levels are not stabilized by 2050 it will be too late. That's 40 years away.
Take the automobile; since 1975, there have been 1.5 million deaths in the US from car accidents.
I was almost one of them, however while I survived I am now disabled. People also die from falling in bathtubs.
And, if there's been one constant trend with technologies of all kinds over the last 30 years, it's the rapidly decreasing time from a technology's introduction to the time when it's adopted by a significant percentage of the population.
I whole heartedly agree. Not only does technology advance but it also gets cheaper. For instance cell phones are leapfrogging landline phones in much of the world. Though landlines don't cover Africa many Africans have cell phones.
ets say you go to Canada and try to turn some "tar sands" into oil. That's like trying to suck the oil out of asphalt.
Another problem with the tar sands is that it's water intensive.
You might get 2-3 times more energy out than you put in.
That's true with corn ethanol as well. According to Corn Ethanol: The Great Boondoggle the only reason corn ethanol returns more energy than what is used to produce the ethanol is because the plant material left can be used as animal feed. The New Economy says the Energy Returned on Energy Invested, EROEI, for sugarcane is from 8 to 10. Exploring the Ethanol Debate also says sugarcane returns 8 units per unit used. Unfortunately I didn't find the EROEI on Switchgrass. Is Ethanol the Answer to the Energy Dilemma? goes this.
any climate scientist who isn't in agreement suddenly finds he has no govt funding
For the 8 years that ended a couple or weeks ago who ran government, in the US that is?
If your final results don't support the underlying theory that the sponsor wants proved, then that sponsor doesn't use you the next time. Same deal for "independent" pharmaceutical research.
This is especially true of hemp, medical marijuana, research. What's worse, is that for this research you have to have government approval.
I'm beginning to wonder just what IS in those deadzones.....
Little to no oxygen. Which I think is a more immediate problem than acidification.
If we have documentation about alkaline runoff - there ought to be more documentation about acid runoff.
It's not so much there would be acid runoff, not because of CO2 at least. CO2 is an acidic oxide, which water will absorb. On land though plants will use it to grow.
Oh, something I just recalled. You know how some people say "let's plant more trees"? While CO2 boosts the growth of some trees, it slows the growth of other trees. And guess what plant loves CO2? Poison ivy. It grows faster with higher CO2 levels.
Even if we were to go back to pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 emissions tomorrow, it wouldn't stop the warming that would occur because of previous activities.
So we let those who did not create the problem pay for it?
The fact that Mars also seems to be getting warmer and that solar output has been MEASURED to be increasing is not mentioned at all by the IPCCC at all
Why should the IPCC say anything about Mars, Mars is not warming.
Scientists who study the climate agree that the climate is changing. What is not yet agreed upon is if the specific 'why' this time is due solely, or even partly, to human-introduced CO2
As someone who lives on and studies the world's largest freshwater lake (Lake Michigan-Huron)
Lake Michigan-Huron, two lakes really, is not the largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Baikal in Russia's Siberia is. However Lake Baikal was used as a dump by the Soviets and is polluted too.
Acidification may or may not be affected by carbon. It likely is, to some small extent. But, the major causes of acidification is pollution, in the form of human waste and sewerage, and agricultural runoff. Turning the oceans into a cesspool was never a good idea.
Sewage waste and agriculture runoff also creates Deadzones, such as the one spreading from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. So, are all deadzones acidifying?
Slashdot Mirror
You obviously haven't heard of concentrated solar thermal/electric power. All it takes is some concrete and steel, glass (SiO2), maybe aluminum for mirrors, and optionally molten salt for storage.
I have heard of it, and have posted links to concentrated solar thermal power myself. One of the most frequent links I've posted is for SciAm article "A Solar Grand Plan". However solar is not the baseload, the salt is.
Falcon
You can take a regular Ubuntu LiveCD and while it's loaded you can access the internet and get everything needed, then hit install and go from there.
Yea, I'm thinking of using the LiveCD to install Ubuntu then download and install what I'll need for a server. One thing I've run into though is that GUIs are discouraged from being used on a server, Ubuntu Server doesn't even come with a GUI. One reason is because of security. But I don't know the command line. I've used the CLI some but haven't really used it in more than 10 years. Another thing is that I want to setup both Leopard and Ubuntu to use the same home folder, directory, as well as the same folders for email and the web. In my research I've found pointers in how to do this but I want to create a compleat plan with everything lain out on how to do everything before I install Ubuntu. I don't want to wade into the water blind.
Falcon
Why not believe in God just to be sure you're going to heaven even though there is no data either way?
The problem with Pascal's Wager is in deciding which "God" to believe in. Do you believe in Reform Judaism's God, Shia Islam's God (and switch one?), or Wicca's Goddess? Pick the wrong one and you can be just a screwed as not believing in any of them.
Falcon
The Jackass that thought of turning FOOD into FUEL ought to be shot.
And shot again for giving farmers taxpayer money to grow fuel instead of food.
Falcon
Reducing one's carbon consumption economically is by contrast almost impossible
By replacing all my incandescent lights bulbs to CFLs I was able to cut my CO2 emissions, and saved money doing it. I also emit less and save money by growing some of my own food, ie garden. And though I own a car in the 9+ years I've owned it I put about 45,000 miles on it, that's less than 5000 miles a year. I bet most people who owns cars, or SUVs, or trucks easily drive twice that a year. Now if I could I'd rather have a diesel powered car that's fueled by biodiesel. It might be possible to get used vegetable oil from restaurants, who have to pay others to get rid of it, to use as fuel.
Falcon
Aggressively switching away from current fuel sources is extremely expensive, and potentially crippling to the economy.
Alternative energy isn't really that much more expensive than conventional energy. "The coal, oil and gas industries" get subsidies as does nuclear power. And please note that those links aren't from an environmentalist or alternative energy organization but from the Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and Peace CATO Institute. The second link is an article first published in the business and investment magazine "Forbes".
Falcon
You've narrowed the field to the US. I think your first citation covered ALL climatologists
No, 97% of active climatologists, who may be US scientists. However as a previous poster said scientists from other nations, such as Norway, may have an even bigger reason to say Global Warming is real and something needs to be done. Afterall the Scandinavians are at or below sea level.
unlike his predecessor, Bush II did not aggressively seek to replace all of the partisan government employees throughout the executive branch.
Bush did wage a War on Science.
It's quite obvious when you look at some of the conflicting policy statements coming from CIA, State, and NASA during his administration.
Where were all those conflicting opinions about Iraq having WMDs before the invasion of Iraq? I'm still waiting to see all those WMDs. Then there's the case against Microsoft, the Clinton admin had MS on the ropes but when Bush came into office MS was let off with barely a slap on the wrist. What I find ironic about that is that Texas, the state Bush was governor of before becoming president, was one of the first states to sue MS.
My point being that global warming "deniers" don't get as much funding as global warming "believers" because if there is no global warming
I don't see it that way at all. The oil companies have deep pockets, well not so deep since the price of oil tanked, and would of been happy to pay scientists who disagreed with Global Warming. The same with the coal industry.
Falcon
it is an USA problem (and probably China), that requires their industries to make a change.
That was true before but "China overtakes U.S. in greenhouse gas emissions". At the same tyme "wind power in China is developing rapidly and receives particularly strong government support."
Falcon
Similarly, twenty years ago large scale wind power was impossible. I remember reviewing some articles on the issues (essentially, the worst case arm loading/normal arm loading ratio was too large to make windmills of reasonable mass). Now the US has massive windmill projects.
None of this required any laws to get passed. No one had to be forced into anything. The future just arrived slowly and unpredictably, like it always does.
Actually laws were required, utilities had to be forced to buy power from small systems owners, you know all those net metering laws.
Falcon
Personally, I don't care that much who causes global warming - because the benefits of reversing global warming do not currently outweigh the costs.
So you're willing to pay the people of Tuvalu and Bangladesh if their land is flooded then right? You're also willing to pay for another New Orleans and higher insurance too?
I think we should carry on studying global warming (so that we can start to predict what will really happen), and keep on our normal path of technological progress. By the end of the 100 year time frame used by the reports
I agree more research needs to be done, but I also think something needs to be done before those who did not create a problem have to pay for it. Also what research I've seen says that if atmospheric CO2 levels are not stabilized by 2050 it will be too late. That's 40 years away.
Falcon
The stimulus package could have been easily passed, even with every Republican in Washington opposing it.
Thing is is Obama campaigned on bipartisanship. So it makes sense he'd try to get Republicans to approve the stimulus package.
Now, I'm not saying I support it, I actually oppose it.
Falcon
straw men of nuclear waste
Nuclear waste is a straw man?
Take the automobile; since 1975, there have been 1.5 million deaths in the US from car accidents.
I was almost one of them, however while I survived I am now disabled. People also die from falling in bathtubs.
And, if there's been one constant trend with technologies of all kinds over the last 30 years, it's the rapidly decreasing time from a technology's introduction to the time when it's adopted by a significant percentage of the population.
I whole heartedly agree. Not only does technology advance but it also gets cheaper. For instance cell phones are leapfrogging landline phones in much of the world. Though landlines don't cover Africa many Africans have cell phones.
Falcon
frankly i'm horrified people are taking the stance that any action is better than no action just because we don't understand the situation.
And what I find horrifying are those who advocate doing nothing.
Falcon
Climatologists depend upon largely upon government funding.
And who ran government, in the US, the past 8 years? Here's a hint, someone who first denied Global Warming then didn't want to do anything about it.
Falcon
ets say you go to Canada and try to turn some "tar sands" into oil. That's like trying to suck the oil out of asphalt.
Another problem with the tar sands is that it's water intensive.
You might get 2-3 times more energy out than you put in.
That's true with corn ethanol as well. According to Corn Ethanol: The Great Boondoggle the only reason corn ethanol returns more energy than what is used to produce the ethanol is because the plant material left can be used as animal feed. The New Economy says the Energy Returned on Energy Invested, EROEI, for sugarcane is from 8 to 10. Exploring the Ethanol Debate also says sugarcane returns 8 units per unit used. Unfortunately I didn't find the EROEI on Switchgrass. Is Ethanol the Answer to the Energy Dilemma? goes this.
Falcon
any climate scientist who isn't in agreement suddenly finds he has no govt funding
For the 8 years that ended a couple or weeks ago who ran government, in the US that is?
If your final results don't support the underlying theory that the sponsor wants proved, then that sponsor doesn't use you the next time. Same deal for "independent" pharmaceutical research.
This is especially true of hemp, medical marijuana, research. What's worse, is that for this research you have to have government approval.
Falcon
between 1940 and 1980 the world actually did have a cooling trend, even though we were pumping out CO2 the whole time.
Citation please.
Falcon
I'm beginning to wonder just what IS in those deadzones.....
Little to no oxygen. Which I think is a more immediate problem than acidification.
If we have documentation about alkaline runoff - there ought to be more documentation about acid runoff.
It's not so much there would be acid runoff, not because of CO2 at least. CO2 is an acidic oxide, which water will absorb. On land though plants will use it to grow.
Oh, something I just recalled. You know how some people say "let's plant more trees"? While CO2 boosts the growth of some trees, it slows the growth of other trees. And guess what plant loves CO2? Poison ivy. It grows faster with higher CO2 levels.
Falcon
Ahh, there are more hits on Google. Try this link: http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:HqbT07mccnMJ:www.libraryvideo.com/guides/V6910.pdf+gulf+of+mexico+dead+zone+%22alkalinity%22&hl
That's alkalinity and as I said in replying to your first post, it neutralizes acidity.
Falcon
are all deadzones acidifying?
Increase in the export of alkalinity from North America's largest river
That report suggest that there's an increase in the export of alkalinity and alkalinity neutralizes acids, it doesn't cause an increase in acidity.
Falcon
Even if we were to go back to pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2 emissions tomorrow, it wouldn't stop the warming that would occur because of previous activities.
So we let those who did not create the problem pay for it?
Falcon
The fact that Mars also seems to be getting warmer and that solar output has been MEASURED to be increasing is not mentioned at all by the IPCCC at all
Why should the IPCC say anything about Mars, Mars is not warming.
Falcon
Scientists who study the climate agree that the climate is changing. What is not yet agreed upon is if the specific 'why' this time is due solely, or even partly, to human-introduced CO2
Except "97% of active climatologists agree that human activity is causing global warming".
Falcon
As someone who lives on and studies the world's largest freshwater lake (Lake Michigan-Huron)
Lake Michigan-Huron, two lakes really, is not the largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Baikal in Russia's Siberia is. However Lake Baikal was used as a dump by the Soviets and is polluted too.
Falcon
Acidification may or may not be affected by carbon. It likely is, to some small extent. But, the major causes of acidification is pollution, in the form of human waste and sewerage, and agricultural runoff. Turning the oceans into a cesspool was never a good idea.
Sewage waste and agriculture runoff also creates Deadzones, such as the one spreading from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico. So, are all deadzones acidifying?
Falcon