Global Warming
Global Warming
(OP)
While watching an hour-long program on PBS lasr night, I thought frequently about Nuclear energy/power generation.
I had not paid much attention to global warming before.
Carbon dioxide is a major concern from fossil fuel use.
jimbo
I had not paid much attention to global warming before.
Carbon dioxide is a major concern from fossil fuel use.
jimbo
Buy a dictionary, keep it nearby and USE it. Webster's New World Dictionary of American English is recommended, and Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.





RE: Global Warming
A little more cheese to go with my whine?
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
Blacksmith
RE: Global Warming
rmw
RE: Global Warming
Global warming is an impeccably intangible concept created by self serving liberals to suppress the United States at about the time the original environmental movement and endangered species act was found to be overblown, and was originally based on the release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere, and who’s goal, still, is to suppress the United States by embracing some form of the Kioto treaty and significant additional restrictions based on future claimed calamities:)
RE: Global Warming
[quote rmw]Define global warming.
[quote]
It's the thing that causes hurricanes. You may have noticed them this year
Good Luck
johnwm
________________________________________________________
To get the best from these forums read FAQ731-376 before posting
Steam Engine enthusiasts: www.essexsteam.co.uk
RE: Global Warming
ht
To johnwm, the difficulty of a forum like this where the communication is written is that it is difficult to see the "tongue in ones cheek".
Surely yours was in your previous post?
rmw
RE: Global Warming
My definition of "global warming" is: A natural process where the Earth's surface temperatures increase over time. Opposite of an "Ice Age" where the Earth's surface temperatures decrease over time.
I don't believe that releasing chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere has anything to do with it. At the same time, I don't think it is a "liberal attempt to suppress the United States" as it appears to be a concern to a number of countries -- with the exception of the United States. Let's keep the politics out of this and concentrate on the science.
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: Global Warming
Is it just me? I think I am noticing that you are posting again, or have you been posting all along and I just didn't notice? (The wife would say that is typical of me.)
If I am right about this, then welcome back.
Sorry about the OT jimbo.
rmw
RE: Global Warming
My opinion is that the research and dialogue on the issue of whether man-made emissions accelerate global warming has been politicized. You can find technical experts and reports with drastically different opinions/conclusions on both sides.
I think it’s tough for the average person (or average engineer for that matter) to draw conclusions with reasonable confidence without extensive research that very few of us have time for (I know I don’t).
I believe there is no disagreement that manmade emissions contribute to global warming but the question is to what extent and how soon will we expect to see the effects.
On an issue with potentially severe consequences where there is significant uncertainty, I am surprised that the US position appears to be to assume the non-conservative position and place the burden of absolute proof on the shoulders of environmental advocates. The unfortunate result may be that we will never get absolute proof until after the damage is done. Our grandkids and their grandkids may be wondering what we were thinking and why we were so cavalier with their world.
In view of conflicting scientific opinions sometimes we rely on our gut feel. My gut feel is that we have already done too much damage and should be leaders in the world environmental effort rather than one of the few who refuse to accept international standards.
My gut feel does take into account the recent hurricane activities. Yes, there is a theory of a cycle with some evidence to back it up but very uncertain since records get sparser and sparser as you go back in time. Yes El Nino and other factors all play a role. But notice if you look at barometric pressure we had this year the strongest storm ever (I think it was Wilma) and 3 of the 6 strongest on record. (granted, we have more ability and opportunity to measure the eye pressure of hurriances out at sea than in the past).
Another statistic that I believe is uncontested and somewhat surprises me is that atmospheric CO2 has increased by 15% during the industrial era as a direct result of man’s activities. Apparently CO2 is not the biggest player in global warming but the shear magnitude of the change gets the attention of my gut.
I realize and expect others will have very differing opinions and I think discussion is good. Please correct me if I have misstated any facts.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
Sorry, just couldn't resist.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
rmw -- Thanks for the welcome back. I have not been posting in a while. But had a lull at work and decided to see how things were doing... and the next thing I know I'm posting again.
electricpete: There's nothing unusual about being five tropical storms over the norm, or any of them occurring after the official end of the hurricane season. That's why the National Weather Service has the contigency for using the Greek alphabet after all. And it seems the official end of the hurricane season only means that there haven't been any hurricanes that struck the US after 11/30 -- not that there haven't been hurricanes forming
Patricia Lougheed
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.
RE: Global Warming
And I THOUGHT this was a nuclear engineering forum.....Hmmm, Jimbo, What was the actual question?
Scott
PS: Guess I opened myself up to get flamed on this one!
In a hundred years, it isn't going to matter anyway.
RE: Global Warming
Just ask the Russians about air quality.
RE: Global Warming
Antarctica Cannot Replace Ice Loss
Study finds continent is shrinking faster than it can grow. Experts say changes to the global water cycle could hasten the pace of sea-level rise.
By Robert Lee Hotz, [Los Angeles] Times Staff Writer
March 3, 2006
"The ice sheets of Antarctica — the world's largest reservoir of fresh water — are shrinking faster than new snow can fall, scientists reported Thursday in the first comprehensive satellite survey of the entire continent.
Researchers at the University of Colorado determined that between 2002 and 2005 Antarctica lost ice at a rate of 36 cubic miles a year... published online Thursday [March 2] by the journal Science.
This month, an independent research team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in La Cañada Flintridge reported that the Arctic glaciers of Greenland were melting twice as fast as five years ago, adding an extra 38 cubic miles of fresh water to the Atlantic Ocean every year.
Taken together, the findings suggest that a century of steady increases in global temperatures is altering the seasonal balance of the world's water cycle, in which new snow and ice neatly offset thaw and rainfall runoff every year to maintain the current level of the seas.
If so, experts say, increasing global temperatures — the 10 warmest years on record all occurred after 1990 — may be hastening the demise of the polar icecaps and estimates of the pace of sea-level rise could be too low...
Portions of the Antarctic coast are 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than 60 years ago, research has shown.
Those same areas have lost an estimated 5,500 square miles of ice in the last 30 years, calving icebergs the size of Belgium and Rhode Island. In 2002, an entire ice shelf collapsed into the sea.
But the newest work signals a broader loss across the entire continent — an amount equal to more than 13% of the annual sea level rise measured in recent years, the researchers said. The shrinkage is concentrated in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which has enough fresh water to raise sea levels more than 20 feet...
In a separate measure of the effects of changing temperatures on a continental scale, researchers in South Africa reported Thursday in Science that even minor changes in rainfall caused by climate change could drastically affect lakes, rivers and streams across one quarter of Africa by the end of the century.
Climate-driven changes in water supplies 'potentially have devastating implications,' said researchers Maarten de Wit and Jacek Stankiewicz of the University of Cape Town..."
The complete Los Angeles Times article is available for 1 week at
h
And an addition to knji's mention of air pollution from coal-fired plants:
"Incinerators and coal-fired boilers emit more mercury to the atmosphere than all other point sources combined. Coal-fired utility boilers are the largest point source of unregulated mercury emissions in the United States...
According to Don Porcella, manager for ecological studies at EPRI, global anthropogenic emissions of mercury are estimated to range between 2000 and 6000 metric tons (t) per year. China alone is believed to emit about 1000 t of mercury annually (4). U.S. anthropogenic mercury emissions are estimated to be about 158 t per year (1)."
-- http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/98/apr/mer.html
While I'm not aware of mercury influencing global warming, breathing it may affect Eng-Tip responses.
RE: Global Warming
Global warming..... Any time a conversation like this comes up, I always feel like people are not taking into consideration that the Earth is a part of a dynamic system that is always changing. Might the ice caps be receding? Sure, why not? Might coastlines change? Sure.. Of course they will. The Himalayas are rising, volcanoes erupt, South America and Africa grow apart a couple of inches per year. The Earth changes its inclination on its axis of rotation. Some day, the Sun will be a red giant and consume the Earth in its heat. All the elements heavier than Iron were created by nebulus systems (and that means Uranium is limited), guess what, everything was, and everything is limited.
Does that mean someday the Earth will be uninhabitable for Homo Sapiens? Of course!!!!!
Ok, so what are we doing for the next generations of Humans. Part of it would be to keep the world in which we live a relatively nice place to be. It would be nice to eat fish without worrying about PCB and Mercury consumption. At some point many people believed that the Earth was incapable of being changed by humans. Well, we didn't always have PCB's in our fish.
OK, so back to global warming. All our inefficiencies produce waste heat (including those associated with Nuclear power... cooling towers anyone?). As our activities increase, it is possible to increase the heat output of the Earth. Hence, global warming is possible, end of discussion. What is important is the rate of change, and are we prepared to either control the climate of the Earth (which seems to be a daunting task, like the tail wagging the dog), or to adjust how we live to changes in climate. Either way, colder, warmer, or ultimately obliterated, we as engineers have to ask ourselves if what we are doing is contribuiting to the quality of life as humans or degrading from it.
Do Nuclear powerplants release less sulfur *oxides, and less mercury, and less airborne pollutants? Yes! Last I checked they didn't burn uranium ore in a smokestack! So, why are they so often viewed as horrible. Why in the U.S. do they make it so difficult to build, and tear down Nuclear powerplants vs. for example Canada?
I agree with the fact that altering water streams and landscapes to harness "renewable" resources do degrade from the asthetic apeal of those natural areas.
The bottom line is that we as a species will have to adapt or eventually we will cease to exist.
I am writing this posting on a computer (imagine that), that was made possible from electrical generation, and the countless insights of people that walked this Earth before I did. What advancements in technology can we leave future generations?
The climate of the Earth is dynamic. People should definitely research what variables are involved with its change. Ask yourself... what legacy do you want to leave for your great-great- grandchildren.
I for one am all for space travel.
~the juggernaut
RE: Global Warming
The temperature records that “prove” global warming are not straight data. The reason for this is that the vast majority of the records are from cities that have had very large population increases in the last 100 years. The actual records indicate a much larger rise in temperature than the official adjusted temperature. They have developed a formula to compensate for the localized heating that occurs in cities. After they adjust the data down according to this formula it still shows a steady temperature rise in almost all cases.
The problem is that there are some cities that have temperature records going back 100 years that have not had any significant growth where the data has not be adjusted. All of these cities show a slight decrease in temperature.
Volcanoes produce more ozone depleting gas in a day than the human race produces in a year. The sun is going to cause around a 15 degree temperature rise today. There will be another ice age and another warm age. Glaciers melt and grow and El Nino moves where it will causing years of drought and death. If you don’t like the weather go inside because you are not going to change it outside.
Even if we could control the average temperature of the earth we need to have a serious discussion of what temperature we wanted. There are a lot of people who are going to be affected and many of them would like a climate change. If we are going to some how overcome nature and hold the earth at a constant average temperature we better make sure it is one we want.
I for one vote for increasing the average temperature before we stop the natural temperature cycles and lock the earth in static state. The few people who like snow can buy the snow machines they use at ski resorts as far as I care.
Barry1961
RE: Global Warming
Mercury Hit All-Time Winter High in Canada
An environmental agency says the balmy temperatures may be a sign of global warming.
From the Associated Press
March, 14 2006
TORONTO — The winter of 2005-06 has been Canada's warmest on record and the federal agency Environment Canada said Monday that it was investigating whether it was a sign of global warming.
From December through February, which is considered meteorological winter, the country was 3.9 degrees above normal — the warmest winter season since temperatures were first recorded here in 1948.
...
The experience has been similar in the United States, where the National Climatic Data Center said the winter had been the fifth warmest on record..."
Drought Threat Seen in Europe
Agriculture, the electricity sector and energy-intensive industries could be among those hardest hit because of a lack of hydropower.
By Tom Braithwaite, Fiona Harvey and Mark Mulligan,
Financial Times
March 13, 2006
"The drought that looms over much of western and southern Europe this summer is already creating problems in France, Spain and Britain, and will grow more serious if meteorologists are right in their predictions.
Drought poses a threat to farmers and tourism, but also to electricity generation and industries such as food processing and semiconductors, which require water as an input or for cooling.
Winter rainfall has been disappointing across much of the continent. With some countries still recovering from the effects of a relatively dry winter last year and the heat wave of 2003, sustained heavy rain over the next two months would be needed to avoid the risk of drought this summer.
...
The water level is 20% to 70% below seasonal norms across a large part of the country, according to the government, after low rainfall during last autumn and this winter. Parts of the Rhine River are so low that they are impassable to some ships.
Electricity generation could become problematic if the drought persists, as nuclear power stations, which provide three-quarters of French electricity, need to be able to take large amounts of water from rivers. If water is scarce or too warm, the power plants can face shutdown.
In Spain, which officials say is suffering its most serious drought in more than a century, the government is to announce an emergency plan for the worst-affected areas in the south and center of the country..."
...
One important effect of the lack of hydropower in Spain will be felt by the power sectors and energy-intensive businesses across Europe: Prices for carbon emission allowances under the EU's emissions trading scheme will rise. That is because electricity generators will have to substitute coal or gas, which produce carbon dioxide, for water..."
--- So perhaps Mother Nature's wry sense of humor in punishing mankind for global warming: Reduced rainfall may shut down both nuclear & hydroelectric plants!
RE: Global Warming
The un-adjusted data points toward a short term cooling trend. But the sample time is only 100 years so to say it is trend would be pushing it. The experts before the hole in the ozone scare were saying we were on a cooling trend. Maybe they came up with a more accurate way to adjust the last 100 years of temperature readings.
It is really amazing that they are able to come up with a formula to offset the actual temperature reading due to the urban hot spots and get it with in 2 degrees. I would guess it goes by number of people, cars and kilowatts with in a certain radius of the thermometer.
At least the hole in the ozone is not on the front page any more since congress made all the auto makers switch to a refrigerant that is just as harmful to the ozone as the old was. Dupont made a killing off that which is good since they paid for a lot of the research to show the change was needed.
There has never been a time on earth when nature has been static.
Barry1961
RE: Global Warming
Why do you keep mentioning ozone depletion in a thread on global warming. The 2 phenomena are unrelated: ozone depletion is a fairly recent phenomena in which CFC's (e.g., refrigeration gases, solvents) attack the natural ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.
Global warming is an accumulation of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere, which reduce IR radiation from the Earth's surface into space. There is plenty of hard scientific evidence for both, but especially for the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels over several thousand years as humanity and the use of fire grew, accelerating in the last 200+ years with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. Core samples of Antarctic & Greenland ice have been analyzed for dissolved gas content, etc. See below.
Storm Intensity Tied to Warming of Sea Surfaces
A study fuels the climate change debate by linking the rise in severe hurricanes to ocean temperatures. Many experts are skeptical.
By Robert Lee Hotz, [Los Angeles] Times Staff Writer
March 17, 2006
Rising ocean temperatures have stoked the growing fury of hurricanes, according to a study made public Thursday that intensifies a debate over the link between global warming and the ferocity of storms.
Of all the factors that drive a major storm — such as humidity, wind shear or broad air circulation patterns — only the steady increase in sea surface temperatures over the last 35 years can account for the rising strength of tempests in six oceans around the world, including the North Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology reported.
"This firms up the link between sea surface temperatures and hurricane intensity," said climate variability expert Judith A. Curry, a senior author of the study who heads Georgia Tech's School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences. "It is an important piece of the global warming debate."
[Note: the exact relationship to storm intensity is still controversial, as other factors are involved.]
"Still, the evidence is continuing to build that the factors leading to warmer seas are growing worse.
This week, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere had grown in 2005 to 381 parts per million, about 100 ppm higher than pre-industrial levels.
Carbon dioxide is one of several greenhouse gases that can alter the planet's climate by trapping heat from the sun.
The rate of increase has doubled in recent years, NOAA's carbon dioxide analysts said.
Levels of other greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxide and methane, have also been rising steadily for decades."
From http://www
[Note: article is free for 7 days only]
RE: Global Warming
rmw
RE: Global Warming
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
It's almost as bad as the second hand smoke debacle!
RE: Global Warming
http:/
RE: Global Warming
Ice cores from antartica show the rates of increase CO2 in the atmosphere are currently 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
I don't think anyone can argue that is an insignificant change in the behavior of CO2. The only question left is how does CO2 relate to temperature.
Surely there will be some who argue with the above assessment on the basis that the cause/effect relationship between CO2 and temperature is not known. High CO2 increases greenhouse or high temperature causes release of CO2 from the ocean. No-one has any compelling argument either way. A toss-up. The way I see it a 50% chance the cause/effect relationship goes either way.
We sit upon a 50% chance that the significant CO2 changes we are known to be causing on our planet will have significant effect on global temperatures. (heads we win, tails we lose)
The best models in the world today predict tails. Skeptics raise criticism against the best models of the world. (After all it predicts we should have already seen more temperature rise than we have seen). The skeptics don't have any better models, but they are happy to criticize the state of the art models as if the imperfect nature of the models provides compelling evidence that the answer will be heads.
The majority of the civilized world thinks the coin toss is too risky and is willing to put bite the bullet to err on the conservative side. The US hides behind the uncertainly of the coin toss as an excuse to avoid joining the international effort. We are ever the optimists (except when it comes to wmd)
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
I am waiting for a genuine 'no axe to grind' technical review done by unbiased scientists, not politicians, journalists and environmentalists. But I repeat myself.
However, I think Jimbo got what he wanted.
Pete, I think the industry you are in, if you are still where I once knew you to be is an answer, but we have a case of one group of environmentalists et al who don't want nuclear power fighting those who don't want to burn fossil fuels. Go figure.
But even at that, splitting the atom still releases heat into the atmosphere, just not "greenhouse gasses' whatever those are.
rmw
RE: Global Warming
You mentioned that this subject has been politicized. Wouldn't you agree there is a tendency in political governments to go with popular choices which make people happier short term possibly at the expense of long-term good. Any politically-motivated leader faced with a choice between shorter term economic hardship longer-term environmental damage (probably won't be apparent until after they are dead) has an easy choice.
Do you think the countries who have agreed to pay the economic price to reduce emissions did so for political reasons? I have a hard time seeing how there is any widespread political favor in that.
Set the politics aside and put on your engineer hat. The rate of increase of CO2 on the atmosphere of our planet is now 200x higher than at any time we know of (600,000 year history). Doesn't that sound like we are creating significant changes in CO2?
Knowing that CO2 and temperature have historically been tightly correlated with cause/effect relationship not yet established, don't you agree this amounts to a very real possibility that the cause-effect relationship starts with CO2 and ends with temperature (as predicted by the best available models)?
These two facts seem strong enough in my mind to motivate action. But maybe I have misunderstood or missed some relevant facts? Let me know.
==============
A note about thermal pollution - associated with the secondary plant heat sink (cooling tower or reservoir)
Carnot efficiency is Th/(Th-Tc).
The lower the thermal efficiency, the more heat is rejected per energy output. Nuke plants unfortunately have steam temperature limited by temperature limitations on primary system, and so nukes have lower steam pressures, therefore lower thermal efficiency, therefore more MW sent to the heat sink per MW output (more thermal pollution).
This is a localized effect and may certainly threaten small portions of the ecosystem. As far as I know it does not in any way threaten dramatic impact on mankind of the type that we imagine for global warming.
==============
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
That is the efficiency > 1 machine. Good one. You know what I meant.
(Th-Tc)/Th
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
http://w
Extracts from a speech On Katrina, Global Warming given by Al Gore at the National Sierra Club Convention in San Francisco on September 9, 2005 addressing the challenges and moral imperatives posed by Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Published on Monday, September 12, 2005 by CommonDreams.org.
=======BEGINNING OF QUOTE =============
A hundred years ago, Upton Sinclair wrote, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon him not understanding." Here's what I think we here understand about Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Yes, it is true that no single hurricane can be blamed on global warming. Hurricanes have come for a long time, and will continue to come in the future. Yes, it is true that the science does not definitively tell us that global warming increases the frequency of hurricanes - because yes, it is true there is a multi-decadal cycle, twenty to forty years that profoundly affects the number of hurricanes that come in any single hurricane season. But it is also true that the science is extremely clear now, that warmer oceans make the average hurricane stronger, not only makes the winds stronger, but dramatically increases the moisture from the oceans evaporating into the storm - thus magnifying its destructive power - makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.
Last year we had a lot of hurricanes. Last year, Japan set an all-time record for typhoons: ten, the previous record was seven. Last year the science textbooks had to be re-written. They said, "It's impossible to have a hurricane in the south Atlantic." We had the first one last year, in Brazil. We had an all-time record last year for tornadoes in the United States, 1,717 - largely because hurricanes spawned tornadoes. Last year we had record temperatures in many cities. This year 200 cities in the Western United States broke all-time records. Reno, 39 days consecutively above 100 degrees.
The scientists are telling us that what the science tells them is that this - unless we act quickly and dramatically - that Tucson tied its all-time record for consecutive days above 100 degrees. this, in Churchill's phrase, is only the first sip of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year until there is a supreme recover of moral health. We have to rise with this occasion. We have to connect the dots. When the Superfund sites aren't cleaned up, we get a toxic gumbo in a flood. When there is not adequate public transportation for the poor, it is difficult to evacuate a city. When there is no ability to give medical care to poor people, its difficult to get hospital to take refugees in the middle of a crisis. When the wetlands are turned over to the developers then the storm surges from the ocean threaten the coastal cities more. When there is no effort to restrain the global warming pollution gasses then global warming gets worse, with all of the consequences that the scientific community has warned us about.
My friends, the truth is that our circumstances are not only new; they are completely different than they have ever been in all of human history. The relationship between humankind and the earth has been utterly transformed in the last hundred years. We have quadrupled the population of our planet. The population in many ways is a success story. The demographic transition has been occurring more quickly than was hoped for, but the reality of our new relationship with the planet brings with it a moral responsibility to accept our new circumstances and to deal with the consequences of the relationship we have with this planet. And it's not just population. By any means, the power of the technologies now at our disposal vastly magnifies the average impact that individuals can have on the natural world. Multiply that by six and a half billion people, and then stir into that toxic mixture a mindset and an attitude that says its okay to ignore scientific evidence - that we don't have to take responsibility for the future consequences of present actions - and you get a collision between our civilization and the earth. The refugees that we have seen - I don't like that word when applied to American citizens in our own country, but the refugees that we have seen could well be the first sip of that bitter cup because sea-level rise in countries around the world will mobilize millions of environmental refugees. The other problems are known to you, but here is what I want to close with:
This is a moral moment. This is not ultimately about any scientific debate or political dialogue. Ultimately it is about who we are as human beings. It is about our capacity to transcend our own limitations. To rise to this new occasion. To see with our hearts, as well as our heads, the unprecedented response that is now called for. To disenthrall ourselves, to shed the illusions that have been our accomplices in ignoring the warnings that were clearly given, and hearing the ones that are clearly given now.
Where there is no vision, the people perish. And Lincoln said at another moment of supreme challenge that the question facing the people of the United States of America ultimately was whether or not this government, conceived in liberty, dedicated to freedom, of the people, by the people, and for the people - or any government so conceived - would perish from this earth.
There is another side to this moral challenge. Where there is vision, the people prosper and flourish, and the natural world recovers, and our communities recover. The good news is we know what to do. The good news is, we have everything we need now to respond to the challenge of global warming. We have all the technologies we need, more are being developed, and as they become available and become more affordable when produced in scale, they will make it easier to respond. But we should not wait, we cannot wait, we must not wait. We have every thing we need - save perhaps political will. And in our democracy, political will is a renewable resource. [sustained applause]
=======END OF QUOTE =============
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
Frankly, I think Elmer is more credible.
rmw
RE: Global Warming
It's not about Al. It's about what he said.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
http://
http://
Know Nukes!
RE: Global Warming
On one extreme is big business including oil and utilities. They don't want tighter restrictiosn. Also business consumers of energy don't want their prices going up.
On the other extreme are the environmental lunatic fringe who would have you believe it is a crime to drive an SUV. And Al Gore who invented the interrnet, yes I agree he has some credibility problems (but he also is a pretty eloquent spokesman for his views).
So where is the reasonablness in the center? That would be the scientists. What do they say? Seems to depend where you look. I can show you one website claiming thousands of scientists have signed onto the idea that there is substantial evidence man is affecting the climate. I can show you another website claiming thousands of scientists have signed into the idea that there is no evidence whatsoever.
Which scientists are objective?
There is a substantial case that a lot of the folks coming out against the man-made global warming theory are heavily funded by business. Do you recognize any of this names from the articls you guys have been reading?
http://h
htt
There is also a theory that the scientists advancing the man-made global warming theory have an ulterior motive which is to perpetuate the importance of their research. I can't argue with that possibility either.
I will tell you I spent a week at a training session with a professor who was involved in global warming research and he was very much tuned into the doomsday scenario. From his perspective the question was not "will we have an effect", but "how much" and "when will we wake up and do something about it!". He seemed pretty sincere to me. His one voice I'm sure doesn't mean a hill of beams cominh second hand to you from an unknown source accross the internt, but I can tell you it made a big impression on me spending several hours talking to the guy. In the press it's all about who shouts the loudest but hard to get a feel where the mainstream scientist is at. I would urge you if you know someone in this field to reach out and touch them for their opinion.
TCSIC - in your link there is an urge for a "healthy skepticism". imho that cuts both ways.
I think the information on both sides is skewed. How do we know what is right? I think in general people form their opinions early, then judge the credibility of a new site/article based on how much it agrees with their preconception. That is why it's important to listen to both sides with an open mind.
Part of keeping an open mind is looking at the affiliation and motivations of each so-called expert.
With all the above uncertainty, I'm not sure how people have formed such strong opinions that this isn't a problem and I would like to understand that better.
=====================================
Eng-tips forums: The best place on the web for engineering discussions.
RE: Global Warming
Hurricane season is all but over for 2006 and I can't remember any of the few we had (notwithstanding all the dire predictions) hitting anywhere of note, and add to that 2 feet of snow in Buffalo early in October, and I think it has to be an indication of global warming run amok.
Just my opinion.
rmw
RE: Global Warming
My thoughts on global warming (or more general global climate change): It's a natural occurance... Humans are just getting quite good and manipulating this nautral process.
Thoughts on alternative power: I have some insight on this from a previous job with a large utility... Wind Power and Solar Power are, in my opinion, political platforms. The bring very little benefit to a power grid, and often times cause more problems than they are worth. The only situation I've seen where wind power can be considered good is for people who run their own small industries - most specifically farms. Setting up a wind turbine to sell power back to the grib can *sometimes* pay off for farmers... But beware! I've seen wind power developement companies try to sell this idea to farmers based on the turbine operating at 100%... this never happens... 10% would be considered good.
Also, on the topic of wind power, most wind turbines use a lot of VARS on start-up... this can have strange effects on a power grid. Another bad part of wind power is that most of the wind is blowing during the night... where as most power demand is during the day.
I have a feeling that soon enough, when governments finally realise that the only REAL solutions to clean power generataion or renewable power are Nuclear and Hydro... Geothermic is another big one, where it can be exploited. Wave power generation is also being developed, but its scale is only comparable to wind power.
Thoughts on solar power: Good for calculators, and satellites.... not much else...
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
I was napping thru part of the show, so please feel free to add and correct whatever I missed.
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
How dare you bring that up just before an election!
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming
It's undoubtedly true that there are natural contributions to global warming, too, but humans need to deal with the human contribution.
For the science of 'An Inconvenient Truth,' see http://www.climatecrisis.net/thescience/
It's a bit funny, though, that British PM Tony Blair hired Al Gore as an expert consultant!
The Stern Review, by Sir Nicholas Stern, a distinguished development economist and former chief economist at the World Bank, estimates the cost of doing nothing about global warming as a permanent reduction in consumption per capita of 20%. Thus, some economic incentive for action.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096594.stm
RE: Global Warming
RE: Global Warming