The Most Extra New Super Global Warming Thread

[Gambit7]

Originally Posted by sordavie

Um, yeah, but you missed the point. That's clearly not what anyone means when they talk about "renewable" vs "nonrenewable" energy sources in this context. Those are just two labels we use to distinguish certain sources of energy from other sources of energy that we humans can currently, or in the near future, utilize.

My point was: People dont have enough understanding to even know what they mean. They label something as renewable or nonrenewable and have false notions of what the technology actually entails. Then they wrongly link the two. People basically think "renewable energy" and assume inefficiency or less energy, that's my point. They also think non-renewable means we use it and it's gone forever.

Beyond that, they dont realize that all energy is inherently renewable - just some quicker and/or more efficient than others.

[AMosely]

Originally Posted by Gambit7

They also think non-renewable means we use it and it's gone forever.

Beyond that, they dont realize that all energy is inherently renewable - just some quicker and/or more efficient than others.

I'm not following this. Are you talking about entropy? I guess in theory one could use the term renewable there, but in terms of sources of energy, it's a pretty clear line.

Wood is an example of a renwable source because you can grow a new tree (maybe even a better, faster-growing one) to replace the one you burned and converted to energy (heat or otherwise). Coal is an example of a non-renwable resource because once you extract it from the ground, it doesn't grow back, at least not for a very, very long time and not in the same place. Wind and water are typically labled 'renewable' because they are seemingly endless. Oil is not endless at all, and can't be regenerated, so it's labled 'non-renewable.'

[ScratchMonkey]

Here's an interesting variation on biomass fuel production that uses vertical transparent sheets of algae in running water:

http://www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html

[ScratchMonkey]

I think we've found the solution:

http://failblog.org/2008/08/29/global-warming-fail/

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

once again last week al gore proved that he is the biggest idiot in the world...............he had all those years to try and help the environment when he was in white house and yet he accomplished nothing........and politicians both democratic and repbublican have had all those years since the oil embargo to try and come up with a different way to run fuel efficient cars/use alternative energy and they have done nothing really.

And Politicians in this election are using the environment to garner votes........how am i not surprised........what is it that politicians won't do?

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

once again last week al gore proved that he is the biggest idiot in the world...............

What does Al Gore have to do with global warming? Maybe you should make a thread about Al Gore if you want to discuss him?

Wiki:

...After clashing with the Bush Administration over global warming, Gore decided to accept Clinton's request and became his running mate on July 10, 1992.[22] ... Clinton stated that he chose Gore due to his foreign policy experience, work with the environment, and commitment to his family.[62][63]...

Gore was also involved in a number of initiatives related to the environment. He launched the GLOBE program on Earth Day '94, an education and science activity that, according to Forbes magazine, "made extensive use of the Internet to increase student awareness of their environment".[77] During the late 1990s, Gore strongly pushed for the passage of the Kyoto Protocol, which called for reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.[78][79] Gore was opposed by the Senate, which passed unanimously (95-0) the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98).[80][81] In 1998, Gore began promoting a NASA satellite that would provide a constant view of the earth, marking the first time such an image would have been made since The Blue Marble photo from the 1972 Apollo 17 mission.[82] During this time, he also became associated with Digital Earth.[83]

Vice President Gore:
http://web.archive.org/web/200012070...to_120897.html

Vice President Gore:
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OVP/...vironment.html

[Delta*RandyShugart*]

does Inconvenient truth ring a bell, or as bruce willis calls it (his letterman interview is quite humorous) "an unassuming hunch".

the fact that gore spoke at the DNC, really didn't make any sense to me......yes he's done the above (i love how politicians add "commitment to his/her family". But i really don't feel he's done anything to help the environment.....and he keeps pushing this topic, but in reality it should have been taking care of by carter after the oil-embargo, every type of politician keeps putting this into the laps of their predecessors, or not even really caring about it (democrats included), can anyone guess what the car of choice was for politicians at the DNC? It wasn't a hybrid..or at least it wasn't in the pictures i saw.

[AMosely]

Frontline finally aired 'Heat' this week. In case you missed it:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

Where is everyone on this issue lately? We have two presidential candidates that have been outspoken about it as one of the greatest global crises of this century. Who out there still denies that the warming of the Earth's climate is a problem?

For those who are still doubtful that climate change is not caused by humans - I know this is where we last left the debate - one of the interviewees in this documentary had a pretty good answer to this. Even if the Earth has experienced this kind of change before, it's never experienced it with over six billion people on the planet. I think we all need to start thinking about it in these terms instead of trying to assess blame. The entire planet needs to start becoming much more conservative when it comes to resource consumption and pollution - there is an ocean of reasons to do this and a desert of reasons to not.

[War.mongeR1]

As much as I've avoided the hype about global warming, I've always believed we have much to improve on when it comes to taking care of our planet. I think America, Canada, and Europe have made huge strides in cleaning up our act already, even though there's still much room for improvement. I don't think we're the biggest problem, though. The big question to me, is how do we entice developing countries like India and China to improve. There is not one city in America that I have ever seen that is as stinkin' nasty as many cities I've seen overseas. I've seen some pretty sick stuff in Asia and Africa. Those folks don't give a damn about the environment. They don't even have a conscious about it. I know people say they need to develop first to get to where we are, BUT in the meanwhile, they're absolutely destroying things. That's not cool.

[Kerostasis]

There are two facts of relevance here.

-1- Fighting global warming costs money. Lots, and lots, and LOTS of money.

-2- The global economy is facing a substantial recession right now.

Until one of those facts changes, you will see no significant progress on global warming. It's not even going to be brought up as a political issue for awhile. Remember the talking-snowman video on global warming used at one of the Democratic primary debates? Yeah, that kind of stuff all disappeared real fast as soon as the stock market started tanking.


Also, about halfway down page 34 is where BKelly linked several different global temperature monitoring services. I like checking back there every few months to see how much the earth has warmed or cooled recently.

[El_Gringo_Grande]

Could also be a perfect time for some Keynesian spending to keep the recession from going deeper. Why not spend it on alternative energies and the infrastructure required.

[AMosely]

To questions about who is to take the lead on this, how much it will cost, and the economy is poor - you need to realize that this problem is not going away, and that it will eventually (or at an absolute minimum has the strong potential to) transcend every problem that humanity can possibly face short of an all out global nuclear war or a meteor smashing into the planet.

Give yourself an hour to watch this latest Frontline documentary. It's extremely well done, and instead of focusing on hype focuses on the inevitable realities that this issue presents. It has the attention of almost every government on Earth. There is a reason for this. It has the potential to destabilize the human race itself.

It matters less what specifically is causing it (the causes are numerous), how much or how little. What matters is how we can best prepare. I think that immediate changes are needed in energy consumption and production - especially with regard to the burning of coal. This happens to dovetail quite nicely into our current fossil fuel crisis (unless you happen to represent the coal or oil industry). Use that dovetail and seek out other sources of energy immediately, putting every possible resource to work. The stakes couldn't be higher.

Meanwhile, most governments are doing nothing. The U.S. government is doing less than nothing. Oil companies like Exxon are spending less than .01% of their record profits (some $40 billion US in 2007) on renewable energy. Why? When asked about such decisions, the companies often reply that it is not in their best interest. This problem is bigger than their interest. The market is not reflecting the best interest of the human race. These things must change, now. We do not have time to wait for these companies to decide the time of their choosing - it is a classic case of confict of interest in the free market. We cannot afford to have this turn in to the next housing/mortgage bubble - the warning signs are in front of us. How long are we going to wait?

[Kerostasis]

The federal budget in 2008 is nearly twice the size of the budget in 2007, and its still growing. If you think it will be a successful issue to ask the American people to pony up billions of extra dollars for your renewable energy plans, by all means, tell your Congressman to run on that plan. It'll make it that much easier for us to replace him.

Questions about what caused the problem may not seem relevant, but in fact they significantly impact what sorts of solutions to the problem will be useful vs being a waste of money. For example, scrapping coal plants. Coal is one of the biggest natural resources available to America, and dropping it as a power source would cost Trillions. Making that sort of step without absolute assurance that it will actually improve our situation would be foolhardy.

[Switchcraft]

Originally Posted by AMosely

Meanwhile, most governments are doing nothing. The U.S. government is doing less than nothing. Oil companies like Exxon are spending less than .01% of their record profits (some $40 billion US in 2007) on renewable energy. Why?

Exxon also paid 30 billion in taxes last year. But why should a company invest in products that will compete with its current line? I sell lingerie and sex toys. Nobody has ever asked me why I also don't sell "really comfy boots" alongside the stiletto heels. That's not my product...if you think the market for that product is there, you're welcome to enter into it yourself. You don't even have any reason to believe Exxon would be a GOOD marketer of renewable energy. They sell fuels and lubricants. Are they supposed to use their vast infrastructure to put wind in barrels and ship air across state lines?

[sordavie]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

The federal budget in 2008 is nearly twice the size of the budget in 2007, and its still growing. If you think it will be a successful issue to ask the American people to pony up billions of extra dollars for your renewable energy plans, by all means, tell your Congressman to run on that plan. It'll make it that much easier for us to replace him.

Questions about what caused the problem may not seem relevant, but in fact they significantly impact what sorts of solutions to the problem will be useful vs being a waste of money. For example, scrapping coal plants. Coal is one of the biggest natural resources available to America, and dropping it as a power source would cost Trillions. Making that sort of step without absolute assurance that it will actually improve our situation would be foolhardy.

I wonder how much infrastructure we could get if we spent as much on that as we do on Iraq...