Jump to content
_Keith

Climate Change - The Other Direction

Recommended Posts

palmsnbananas

Lol the daily caller... that's like posting FOX news's opinions on global warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Lol the daily caller... that's like posting FOX news's opinions on global warming

Well, I clicked right thru to Nature.com and read the article preview. I am kind of old fashion that way. I like to go to the source. Would have read the whole article, but it was a bit pricey for casual reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed in Houston

Well, we'll just have to wait to see where this goes.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/28/study-predicts-decades-of-global-cooling-ahead/

Decreased sunspots correlates with less solar radiation and cooler temperatures. I say "correlates" instead of "causes" because solar physics is not understood well enough to have models in which one can have absolute confidence.

Sunspot activity was much decreased in the era of the little ice age.

sunspot_num_graph_big.jpg

Many astrophysicists are predicting decreased solar activity in the near future. We peaked out recently about 1950.

SunspotsRoperFit.jpg

Climate optimums occur now and then from circumstances not well understood, the Holocene optimum and the medieval warm period were warmer than average for the current interglacial period. The Vikings managed to establish farming communities during the medieval warm period in SW Greenland but got frozen out with the onset of the little ice age.

HoloceneOptimumTemperature.jpg

We are currently in the interglacial period of the current ice age that is bimodal with 100k years of severe icing and 10k-15k years of warmth during the interglacials that have only partial icing. This bimodal cycle has been going on for 20 cycles, or about 2 million years. During the last interglacial period 100K + years ago half the ice in Greenland melted and there were forest in the lower half of Greenland. This bimodal cycle is not well understood and has not been modeled accurately. What is well understood is how solar radiation varies wrt to the orbital parameters of the Earth. Solar isolation at polar latitudes varies in a very predictable way because it is as simple as Newtonian mechanics and is due to the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit and the procession of the equinoxes. We are currently in a down cycle with less warmth going towards the pole due to the Milankovitch Cycles. One recent hypothesis for solar output variability is the bicentennial cycle. Many have probably heard before of variable stars. All stars are variable to one extent or another and sol is no different. If the bicentennial cycle proves to be correct it is likely reflected in climate variability represented by little ices ages and climate optimums.

Milankovitch_Cycles.jpg

SummerSolstice65N-future.png

Well, we'll just have to wait to see where this goes.

Ed in Houston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS Man about Palms

^ That

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

The only thing that is certain is that it will change.

In about 250 million years the Earth will probably look like the map below. That is as the continents crash back together through tectonic drift and a new Pangaea is born. I am sure the climate will be different then as well.

PangeaUltima_med.jpg

I recently watched a few shows on Earth´s geologic history, mas extinctions, etc. The Earth certainly has been a nasty place a few times since life first appeared on the planet. As Pangaea tore apart all hell broke loose more than once. Except for a few reminders of the movement of the Earth´s crust by earthquakes we sort of go on our daily business without thinking about the steady movement of the ground we stand on. Not to mention the changes in the star we orbit around.

Not that is is related to the story Keith posted. But, it does put some perspective as to how dynamic our planet is. Here is a progressive development of the land we live on by the USGS - http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html

We get impact from below our planet and above whether humans are around or not. Not that we do not impact our climate. I just find it hard to imagine that we currently will impact the coming of the next ice age.

Now if Michio Kaku is right maybe we will be able to control our climate in the next 100 years in spite of the moving universe around us.

https://youtu.be/6GooNhOIMY0

We just have to make it to a Type One civilization in the universal scheme of things.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The7thLegend

What gets me is when the media or the Global Warming cult dramatize any severe weather event as man made. The floods in Texas/Oklahoma, AR tornadoes, Hurricane Katrina, etc is not man's fault, it's just the natural process of the Earth terraforming... which it has done and science proven over thousands of years. Land/water masses are reshaping and we can only do so much to stop or minimize it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

If Michio Kaku is right humans will be able to manage the planet. That is if we make it that far. We just need to make it to a type one civilization.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

I watched this piece this morning on the ice ages. https://youtu.be/RTI3GlYYHUs It is a bit long, but it does present a lot of information as to the sun´s role in global climate. The sun is both our salvation, through the large scale use of solar energy, and our doom with the coming of the next ice age. It may be the time in real estate in Africa and South America. I doubt that we can pump out enough CO2 to stop and ice age any time soon. The only thing we do know is that we are in an inter glacial age and the ice has been the norm for the past couple of million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

I just finished watching this show - https://youtu.be/LObn2Sk7tVg . It is History channel program a few years old on the Little Ice Age and gives a lot to ponder. The one conclusion they came to that I think still holds today is that no one knows what will happen to climate. But, if we have an abrupt climate change to the cold it will be real bad. I would say that the stakes are much larger than they were at the start of the Little Ice Age. We are not in Medieval Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth

Lol the daily caller... that's like posting FOX news's opinions on global warming

Well, I clicked right thru to Nature.com and read the article preview. I am kind of old fashion that way. I like to go to the source. Would have read the whole article, but it was a bit pricey for casual reading.

Here you go. I have a subscription to Nature through my university so I downloaded the article.

nature14491.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

I watched this piece this morning on the ice ages. https://youtu.be/RTI3GlYYHUs It is a bit long, but it does present a lot of information as to the sun´s role in global climate. The sun is both our salvation, through the large scale use of solar energy, and our doom with the coming of the next ice age. It may be the time in real estate in Africa and South America. I doubt that we can pump out enough CO2 to stop and ice age any time soon. The only thing we do know is that we are in an inter glacial age and the ice has been the norm for the past couple of million years.

What if things started swinging into a new ice age scenario? And our government switched gears and acknowledged that fact.

Would they start passing laws mandating more fossil fuel consumption, wood burning fireplaces, deforestation, and the manufacturing of more efficient greenhouse gases? Since they seem convinced they have all the answers for everything, if just given the power, I am guessing they would.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Who knows. At least it would be good to live in the tropics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Dean, this NOAA timeline is interesting, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html . Ten thoiusand years ago as we left the last ice age there were around 5 million humans on the planet. We have moved from hunting with spears to space travel since then. When we enter the next ice age massive disruptions to the world will happen. Large areas of the world now used for producing food will be under ice. And, other areas will be dryer than present. That is the way the world was 20,000 years ago. Which is yesterday in geologic time.

Geoengineering would be one solution, maybe - http://www.explainthatstuff.com/geoengineering.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Don,

I was just contemplating what I govenment that has trouble keeping an economy from becoming too hot and too cold would do if allowed to control the climate.

And I also pondered how the choice between "A" and "B" would be made if choice "A" was favorable for those countries at the equator, and unfavorable for those in the northern latitudes - and vice versa - who would decide? I would think any favorable change in one part of the globe would most likely result in an ubnfavorable one somewhere else.

Brazil may wish the Earth a little cooler, but England wants it warmer - who decides?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed in Houston

Dean, this NOAA timeline is interesting, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/100k.html . Ten thoiusand years ago as we left the last ice age there were around 5 million humans on the planet. We have moved from hunting with spears to space travel since then. When we enter the next ice age massive disruptions to the world will happen. Large areas of the world now used for producing food will be under ice. And, other areas will be dryer than present. That is the way the world was 20,000 years ago. Which is yesterday in geologic time.

Geoengineering would be one solution, maybe - http://www.explainthatstuff.com/geoengineering.html

Some Russian astrophysicists are predicting an imminent entry into another little ices age. They predict that solar activity is waning and the sun is cooling as is thought to have happened in the previously little ice age. Even though a little ice age is nothing like the what had in full glaciation, it would still be devastating to agriculture.

figure-4-next-minimum.png?w=640&h=455

If most of my land was in Siberia, I would be very paranoid.

It seems that geoengineering for a cooler Earth would be so much easier than geoengineering for a warmer Earth.

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2012/11/10/russians-scientist-the-next-grand-minimum/

Ed in Houston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed in Houston

Brazil may wish the Earth a little cooler, but England wants it warmer - who decides?

That would be the decider in chief, whoever was the current set of psychopaths that ruled the world, Euphemistically called the worlds policemen.

Ed in Houston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

What everybody is conveniently ignoring is that the cumulative effect of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere every year far outweighs any near-term effect of the sun, volcanoes, and/or milankovitch cycles.

We are not going into another ice age any time soon.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

What everybody is conveniently ignoring is that the cumulative effect of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere every year far outweighs any near-term effect of the sun, volcanoes, and/or milankovitch cycles.

We are not going into another ice age any time soon.

Just an observation, I stay off this forum for maybe 6 months or more. And, when I come back in one form or the other the same subject pops up. I Really do not have any answers about this question. But, I don´t think it can be stated as a fact that man produced CO2 will necessarily outweigh any foreseeable event such as a volcano or a rapid change in solar radiation. What if the Yellowstone super volcano blows again tomorrow. I hope that does not happen as my mother and part of my family live in Bozeman, Montana. And, that would be a big impact on them. Personally I think it is hard for humans to predict yet that whatever is going on with carbon will stop the next ice age. There is no way we can know that another Mt. Toba event will not happen. That one almost wiped homo sapiens off the planet. The same could happen today. A thousand year winter followed the eruption. This is part of an article on this - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stanley_ambrose.php

Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans.

by Professor Stanley H. Ambrose,

Department of Anthropology, University Of Illinois, Urbana, USA

Extract from "Journal of Human Evolution" [1998] 34, 623-651

The last glacial period was preceded by 1000 years of the coldest temperatures of theLate Pleistocene, apparently caused by the eruption of the Mount Toba volcano. The six year long volcanic winter and 1000-year-long instant Ice Age that followed Mount Toba's eruption may have decimated Modern Man's entire population. Genetic evidence suggests that Human population size fell to about 10,000 adults between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. The survivors from this global catastrophy would have found refuge in isolated tropical pockets, mainly in Equatorial Africa. Populations living in Europe and northern China would have been completely eliminated by the reduction of the summer temperatures by as much as 12 degrees centigrade.

Personally I do not promote the continued use of Hydrocarbon based fuels. In fact I am working on a project to develop off grid solar systems for people in the interior of Amazonas State. The main focus is developing solar power for public schools in remote locations. What ever the impact of hydrocarbon pollution is the world would be a better place without it.

But, at our current level of technological development we do not have the tools to stop what happens in either direction, colder or warmer.

I really do not know how anyone can know that we are not going into an abrupt climate change that will provoke an ice age. One of the other theories, mentioned in the video link I posted was the heat shutting down the Gulf Stream flow. That seems to have happened in the past. And, melting ice is what is believed to be the mechanism that causes this. Life on Earth is a precarious thing and from the record of our planet this is clear.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Case

Last time I read the stats (a few years ago) more people died during cold weather than during heat waves (are there cold waves: does that make sense?) Based on that I am a global warming supporter...plus I get too cold in the winter.....its all about me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

What everybody is conveniently ignoring is that the cumulative effect of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere every year far outweighs any near-term effect of the sun, volcanoes, and/or milankovitch cycles.

We are not going into another ice age any time soon.

Just an observation, I stay off this forum for maybe 6 months or more. And, when I come back in one form or the other the same subject pops up. I Really do not have any answers about this question. But, I don´t think it can be stated as a fact that man produced CO2 will necessarily outweigh any foreseeable event such as a volcano or a rapid change in solar radiation. What if the Yellowstone super volcano blows again tomorrow. I hope that does not happen as my mother and part of my family live in Bozeman, Montana. And, that would be a big impact on them. Personally I think it is hard for humans to predict yet that whatever is going on with carbon will stop the next ice age. There is no way we can know that another Mt. Toba event will not happen. That one almost wiped homo sapiens off the planet. The same could happen today. A thousand year winter followed the eruption. This is part of an article on this - http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/stanley_ambrose.php

Late Pleistocene human population bottlenecks, volcanic winter, and differentiation of modern humans.

by Professor Stanley H. Ambrose,

Department of Anthropology, University Of Illinois, Urbana, USA

Extract from "Journal of Human Evolution" [1998] 34, 623-651

The last glacial period was preceded by 1000 years of the coldest temperatures of theLate Pleistocene, apparently caused by the eruption of the Mount Toba volcano. The six year long volcanic winter and 1000-year-long instant Ice Age that followed Mount Toba's eruption may have decimated Modern Man's entire population. Genetic evidence suggests that Human population size fell to about 10,000 adults between 50 and 100 thousand years ago. The survivors from this global catastrophy would have found refuge in isolated tropical pockets, mainly in Equatorial Africa. Populations living in Europe and northern China would have been completely eliminated by the reduction of the summer temperatures by as much as 12 degrees centigrade.

Personally I do not promote the continued use of Hydrocarbon based fuels. In fact I am working on a project to develop off grid solar systems for people in the interior of Amazonas State. The main focus is developing solar power for public schools in remote locations. What ever the impact of hydrocarbon pollution is the world would be a better place without it.

But, at our current level of technological development we do not have the tools to stop what happens in either direction, colder or warmer.

I really do not know how anyone can know that we are not going into an abrupt climate change that will provoke an ice age. One of the other theories, mentioned in the video link I posted was the heat shutting down the Gulf Stream flow. That seems to have happened in the past. And, melting ice is what is believed to be the mechanism that causes this. Life on Earth is a precarious thing and from the record of our planet this is clear.

dk

I won't deny that our species teetered on the brink for a bit after Toba popped, or that a similar event happening today would be devastating on a world wide scale.

However, the eruption of a super-volcano lays pretty firmly in unforeseen territory. (at least until our technology gets better) Normal volcanoes are erupting every day and their average input to the global climate equation is foreseeable and more or less predictable over time.

On a slightly different note, I am perplexed by the psychology that allows us as a species think we're so powerful that we can go to the moon and do any other amazing thing we put our will towards, but we suddenly become the meek, the small, and the powerless when it comes to our effect on our own planet's climate. Seven billion people pumping CO2 into an atmosphere and not expecting anything to change because it's so big or that we're so insignificant is just weird.

We can not both stride like giants over the world and then pretend we can baby-step around the things we don't want to take responsibility for.

Blah blah blah soapbox soapbox :beat_deadhorse::beat_deadhorse::beat_deadhorse:

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

If the civilization types summarized by Michio Kaku where we currently area a type zero are true. And, who knows. And, we do make it to a Type one civilization by the end of the century we should be able to even control ice ages. Now what kind of climate would people want I am not sure. I know that the people who live in Bozeman, Montana would prefer with what they have. And, I would prefer to stay with what I have. I can always go to Bozeman and do some skiing or trout fishing.

The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to utilize. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III. A Type I civilization uses all available resources on its home planet, Type II harnesses all the energy of its star, and Type III of its galaxy. The scale is only hypothetical, but it puts energy consumption in a cosmic perspective. It was first proposed in 1964 by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Kardashev (Kardashyov).

I personally like my palm trees on the equator. But, it was nice to see them on a Bozeman street on a cold christmas eve this year. The snow came down well that night. I think there a couple of feet on xmas morning.

post-188-0-80580400-1433192215_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

A graph with projection of CO2 and temperatures over the lifespan of our planet. We certainly are not on the high end of CO2 content. That does not say we should not take steps to stop man made pollution.

co2_temperature_historical.png

Oxygen content

oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

I see your CO2 graph without a scale and raise you a cartoon that has actual numbers on it:

4_5_degrees.png

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funkthulhu

The government is doing it. https://youtu.be/OsYG5emdZp8

Somebody who thinks this website is real science calls my office at least once a year. If I try to educate them that chemtrails aren't real I'm part of the conspiracy and if I say I don't believe in it then I'm one of the sheep and I need to open my eyes! Calls usually lasts between 20-45 minutes and as a state employee I'm required to remain calm and genial the entire call without hanging up. The person is either a total nutter or a poor deluded soul who believes things more the more crazy they are, at least it gives me something to talk about later around the water cooler.

Edited by Funkthulhu
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John Case

A graph with projection of CO2 and temperatures over the lifespan of our planet. We certainly are not on the high end of CO2 content. That does not say we should not take steps to stop man made pollution.

co2_temperature_historical.png

Oxygen content

oxygen_earths_atmosphere_historical.png

Don, The word pollution in the context of CO2 is misleading, especially to those who jump on bandwagons with regard to AGW. Even the EPA has declared CO2 a pollutant, which it clearly is not. If these people were truly interested in AGW, they would be more focused on methane, water vapor and other much more effective greenhouse gasses. Just my 2 cents.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Lol the daily caller... that's like posting FOX news's opinions on global warming

Well, I clicked right thru to Nature.com and read the article preview. I am kind of old fashion that way. I like to go to the source. Would have read the whole article, but it was a bit pricey for casual reading.

Here you go. I have a subscription to Nature through my university so I downloaded the article.

attachicon.gifnature14491.pdf

Thanks Keith,

Keith

I enjoy the reading and the conversation on this subject. I guess I could say the intelligent, non-politically aligned reading and conversation, that is. I don't compelled at all to take a position on it. The whole fun of a debate is contemplating both sides. In today's polarized society, that is becoming far to rare of a thing. As soon as anything is labeled as one party or the others ideas, ideals etc, 48% of the minds turn off and all meaningful conversation ends. This seemed to be an interesting bit of new, at least new to me, research worthy of sharing and so I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

The government is doing it. https://youtu.be/OsYG5emdZp8

Somebody who thinks this website is real science calls my office at least once a year. If I try to educate them that chemtrails aren't real I'm part of the conspiracy and if I say I don't believe in it then I'm one of the sheep and I need to open my eyes! Calls usually lasts between 20-45 minutes and as a state employee I'm required to remain calm and genial the entire call without hanging up. The person is either a total nutter or a poor deluded soul who believes things more the more crazy they are, at least it gives me something to talk about later around the water cooler.

I figured that much. But, it was something I had not heard before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Thanks Keith,

It is good to think about things sometimes. I was just wondering about CO2 and the Amazon forest where I live. Apparently there are some studies indicating that the forest is not able to keep up with the CO2 production. It does appear that the forest is growing faster and the trees are dying younger. I do not know if that means a 1000 year old tree dying at 900 years old is relevant or not. Back in the time when I was working in forest product exports and involved with forest management projects, lumber mills, etc. I was involved with projects certified under FSC. One of the tenants of FSC sustainable forest management is that selectively harvesting the big old trees is actually good for the forest renewal. Once a tree reaches maturity it still lives a long time, it just does not do much.Younger trees absorb more CO2 as they are very active. They also cite that more trees are dying. This would mean that the forest is being renewed faster. The forest gets renewed when a tree falls over and open a clearing. And, those trees that have been waiting in the shade rush to take their place in the sun. Some of these trees are already quite old as they have been stunted by lack of sunshine. At the end of the day this story and others I read point to one thing. They think that this may be happening, but really do not know the reason.

.http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/18/us-environment-amazon-idUSKBN0ME2EW20150318

A mature Tabebuia serratifolia. I guess there a bit of carbon there. That tree was probably 400 or 500 years old I guess. I also doubt that more CO2 would make it grow fast all of a sudden. Or even how effective it would be to be able to measure that growth in the time of the study. One thing for sure is that during the last ice age they were growing here. The rivers were lower, the forest was drier, the climate was cooler. But, it still did not freeze.

Ipe.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_Keith

Just a note about science. History is littered with these types of discoveries. And although this one is not about climate, the next one very well may be. I am a believer in the quote, "Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know." - Daniel J. Boorstin. I am not condemning all knowledge, but at the same time I always doubt those that are always too sure.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VW5N9K9H7w4.facebook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Thanks Keith that was interesting.

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ed in Houston

Just a note about science. History is littered with these types of discoveries. And although this one is not about climate, the next one very well may be. I am a believer in the quote, "Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know." - Daniel J. Boorstin. I am not condemning all knowledge, but at the same time I always doubt those that are always too sure.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VW5N9K9H7w4.facebook

Sir Issac Newton is recognized as one of the great minds in Human history. He invented calculus and the celestial mechanics that we still use today to navigate around the solar system and understood what Daniel Boorstin had to say.

NewtonIsaac-SeashoreQuote500px.jpg

Humans have the need to feel secure. To this end, their knowledge and education are augmented by beliefs that complete the story of reality that they tell themselves. Having this need they are subject to the misinformation of the snake oil peddler who is always present and eager to make a buck from this Human condition. It makes the world go round.......rather wobbly.

Ed in Houston

Ed in Houston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
amazondk

Thanks ED, that is very true. A little while ago I watched the full series of the new Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I may not see the world exactly as he does, but I do listen to what he says with attention. The history of the universe as we know it is a fascinating subject. Since Isaac Newton the understanding of our universe and how it works has evolved greatly. But, there is so much yet to understand. Whether or not hydrocarbon pollution will stop or retard the next ice age is not justification to keep polluting the planet. Just like I do not think that here in Amazonia we need to keep cutting down trees to open up more farmland and pasture. There is plenty in Brazil already that if used properly would be more than enough for a large growth in food production, without cutting down another tree. From what I can see conversion to solar power is the only answer. The sun shines every day everywhere. f Some get more others get less. But, everyone has sunshine. The more solar is used the cheaper it will be and the better the technology. If one considers that the entire world could be converted to solar power using an area about the size of Spain it really puts things into perspective. And, as Elon Musk showed when he launched the Tesla battery pack the entire USA could be powered by solar with an area the size of a small piece of Texas, it shows how doable it would be. And, that is using today´s technology.

This map shows the areas needed to power the world with solar. The squares.

AreaRequired1000.jpg

A break down of this can be found here http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

Personally I am starting to work on a project to develop solar power in our region with the state government of Amazonas. The initial focus is to convert small off grid schools and the surrounding small communities to solar power. This ties into the Brazilian federal program of Luz para Todos (light of everyone). I think the best course is not to repress hydrocarbon based fuels, it is to make their use the less interesting source. Solar has the ability to do this. Here in Brazil solar is hardly used. And, this is one of the countries with the largest potential. The worst place for solar in Brazil is superior to the best place in Germany. And, the nature of solar allows it to be distributed, It has the potential of taking the power generation monopoly away from the large utility companies and governments. As Musk stated in his battery pack launch, as storage increases in efficiency and drops in cost more and more people will be able to unplug from the power grid. And, become energy self sufficient.

This is the best direction to stop man made green house gas, not taxes and government control. It is through technology. And, technology that already exists.

Here is Kaku´s view. https://youtu.be/FvsFWUo2iIw

dk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammer

Just a note about science. History is littered with these types of discoveries. And although this one is not about climate, the next one very well may be. I am a believer in the quote, "Education is learning what you didn't even know you didn't know." - Daniel J. Boorstin. I am not condemning all knowledge, but at the same time I always doubt those that are always too sure.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-06/uovh-mlf052915.php#.VW5N9K9H7w4.facebook

Agreed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

but at the same time I always doubt those that are always too sure.

Especially when they are equally sure they can save the world - if only given the power and money to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Thanks ED, that is very true. A little while ago I watched the full series of the new Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson. I may not see the world exactly as he does, but I do listen to what he says with attention. The history of the universe as we know it is a fascinating subject. Since Isaac Newton the understanding of our universe and how it works has evolved greatly. But, there is so much yet to understand. Whether or not hydrocarbon pollution will stop or retard the next ice age is not justification to keep polluting the planet. Just like I do not think that here in Amazonia we need to keep cutting down trees to open up more farmland and pasture. There is plenty in Brazil already that if used properly would be more than enough for a large growth in food production, without cutting down another tree. From what I can see conversion to solar power is the only answer. The sun shines every day everywhere. f Some get more others get less. But, everyone has sunshine. The more solar is used the cheaper it will be and the better the technology. If one considers that the entire world could be converted to solar power using an area about the size of Spain it really puts things into perspective. And, as Elon Musk showed when he launched the Tesla battery pack the entire USA could be powered by solar with an area the size of a small piece of Texas, it shows how doable it would be. And, that is using today´s technology.

This map shows the areas needed to power the world with solar. The squares.

AreaRequired1000.jpg

A break down of this can be found here http://landartgenerator.org/blagi/archives/127

Personally I am starting to work on a project to develop solar power in our region with the state government of Amazonas. The initial focus is to convert small off grid schools and the surrounding small communities to solar power. This ties into the Brazilian federal program of Luz para Todos (light of everyone). I think the best course is not to repress hydrocarbon based fuels, it is to make their use the less interesting source. Solar has the ability to do this. Here in Brazil solar is hardly used. And, this is one of the countries with the largest potential. The worst place for solar in Brazil is superior to the best place in Germany. And, the nature of solar allows it to be distributed, It has the potential of taking the power generation monopoly away from the large utility companies and governments. As Musk stated in his battery pack launch, as storage increases in efficiency and drops in cost more and more people will be able to unplug from the power grid. And, become energy self sufficient.

This is the best direction to stop man made green house gas, not taxes and government control. It is through technology. And, technology that already exists.

Here is Kaku´s view. https://youtu.be/FvsFWUo2iIw

dk

Don,

I happen to agree with much, if not all, of what you say. But I also happen to be stubbornly practical.

I see no way solar, or other alternatives, will ever become the answer as long as there are other cheaper sources of energy.

If solar were magically made the cheapest form of energy (without all the smoke and mirrors), it would become the preferred source of energy for the entire world overnight - with no need for government interference, inefficiencies, and corrruption. It would just happen.

Until then, it will continue be a game for the major players (politicians and corportations) to manipulate for their own agendas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

And Don - sorry, but again being practical - perhaps you could shed some light on a question I have.

If the entire world were converted to solar, why would not the "side effects"of energy production change from excess carbon, or nuclear waste, to pollution from millions and billions of used up solar cells and used batteries loaded with exotic, and often times, toxic metals?

It seems to me the actual "cost" of energy production never factors in the entire equation from beginning to end. For fossil fuels, this includes the drilling and environmental costs, including whatever the effects of carbon turn out to be. For uranium it is the mining, construction, and decommisioning of the plants and spent fuel. And for solar it would be the manufacture, maintenance, and installation of the solar cells - along with the massive recycling effort that would have to be put in place.

If it did come to pass, why wouldn't (instead of plastic bottles, cans, etc. littering the oceans and makeshift dumpsights), it become old solar cells - not worth the intrinsic value of the materials to warrant recycling - that would litter the landscape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alicehunter2000

Good point Dean.

Also, I never understood why people push the Climate Change agenda to reduce dependence on hydrocarbons (especially middle east hydrocarbons).....I always thought that the better argument was not to be dependent on such a volatile region of the world for energy. I am a supporter of getting away from fossil fuels....but not for the same reason as the Global Warming folks.....do I have to have their reasoning for wanting the same end result?

I like palm trees because they remind me of the tropics......you like palm trees because they are challenging to grow..................guess what? We both like palms....just for different reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...