Global Warming SOLAR-made not MAN-made

[FBBone]

Originally posted by Hortlund
I really dont understand the though-process behind the desicion to print that article.

though-process?

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Well, now let me see, he was right about Lazs's thing and the Hurricane.
Guess Lazs was chuckling too early.

I stubbed my toe yesterday.
I guess I can look for a very severe toe stubbing season, huh?

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Angus
FYI, Biofuel relies on complete energy recycling rather than extracting old fossile fuels from hundreds of millions of years ago.
And as for the moose etc. hahaha. happy day.
It's not a moose concern, it's not a polar bear concern, it is the concern of our terra firma not turning into a Venus-toaster with record speed  


And he would like it, I  guess....(for the religious ones)...:

Angus, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  Hasn't Biofuel been pushed as one way to reduce CO2-induced global warming?  It is certainly uttered often enough by those calling for "going green".  And what about these other studies?  Are you so commited to the dogma of the Church of GW that no amount of contrary evidence will shake your faith?

Look, if global warming is not man-made, shouldn't we think about turning all that harnessed "save the planet" energy towards problems we face that we can truly impact?  Poverty, underdeveloped nations, malaria, HIV come to mind.

[Angus]

Originally posted by Sabre
Angus, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.  Hasn't Biofuel been pushed as one way to reduce CO2-induced global warming?  It is certainly uttered often enough by those calling for "going green".  And what about these other studies?  Are you so commited to the dogma of the Church of GW that no amount of contrary evidence will shake your faith?

Look, if global warming is not man-made, shouldn't we think about turning all that harnessed "save the planet" energy towards problems we face that we can truly impact?  Poverty, underdeveloped nations, malaria, HIV come to mind.

The point is that Biofuel is probably enoughto sustain about our population on earth, while keeping on trucking in the fosil business is either : A) going to send us down crasching into an energy crisis in some decades or :B) sending us to the toastmaster. Who the devil might he be anyway.
The whole concept of biofuel is the same of solar panels, and in some or many places the solar panel is more effective. It's energy that won't ADD emissions of CO2 for instance. Equilibritum.
And if we go "cookie", all malarian problems together with aids are no concern any more. Anyway, those are another categorie. Sad though, but true.

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Angus
The point is that Biofuel is probably enoughto sustain about our population on earth, while keeping on trucking in the fosil business is either : A) going to send us down crasching into an energy crisis in some decades or :B) sending us to the toastmaster. Who the devil might he be anyway.
The whole concept of biofuel is the same of solar panels, and in some or many places the solar panel is more effective. It's energy that won't ADD emissions of CO2 for instance. Equilibritum.
And if we go "cookie", all malarian problems together with aids are no concern any more. Anyway, those are another categorie. Sad though, but true.

Dude, did you even read the following from the article I posted above?

From the article:

Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.

The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use.

Emphasis mine

As for solar power, I'm an electrical engineer who deals with solar powered systems, and I can tell you with absolute confidence that there's no way solar can make a dent even as large as biofuel (which is not much of a dent) in replacing fosil fuel, and for too many reasons for me to list here.  Nuclear power is the only current technology that has the potential to do that.

And again I ask, what about these other studies?  They basically say that even if we completely eliminated man-made CO2, it would have no appreciable impact on global climate.

[indy007]

The only good solution is nuclear, even if people are irrationally scared of it.

Renewable energy isn't even green. It would take almost 800 square kilometers of solar panels to match a single nuclear reactor. Wind farms take 5x more resources to build to get the same output as a reactor built 40 years ago. Last I read, it was over 2,500 square km to produce enough biofuel to match a single reactor.

[Holden McGroin]

The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid.  It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil

If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.

As for cost, the resource if free...  no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...

Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.

[AKH]

Originally posted by lazs2
sooo... "worst hurricane season ever" now means one hurricane that is a big one?

comeon... a little honesty here guys.

Look at the math.. It just doesn't add up.  even the most rabid and dishonest are backing off of co2 now.

http://mysite.verizon.net/mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

You won't get real numbers from the environmentalists or the lefty sites... try it if you don't believe me...  just "we know" and maybe tons of co2 (meaningless) and all sorts of things that don't explain a thing co2 wise.

lazs

Let's talk numbers then - what are the radiative forcing values for water vapour, and how do they compare to the forcing values of other trace greenhouse gasses?

Furthermore, why is water vapour not included in the IPCC forcing charts?

 

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by AKH
Furthermore, why is water vapour not included in the IPCC forcing charts?

Water vapo(u)r is by far the biggest GW gas in the atmosphrere, but since 70% of the surface of the earth is a water vapor producer, there is no way man could ever hope to come close to the predominant water vapor producer.

The reason the IPCC left out water vapor is because they are intrested in man caused change.  So they produce a model that focuses on the result they expect.  The antithesis of good science.

[indy007]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid.  It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil

If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.

As for cost, the resource if free...  no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...

Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.

Well, convince the people of Conneticut to let New York go ahead and bulldoze their state. You'd need that much space to power NYC.

Again, right now, it would take 5-10x the resources to create a wind farm that could match a single nuclear plant made in the 1970s. It's a far more economical solution with far less environmental damage.

[lazs2]

exactly hoopy... you have been conned if you are looking at any greenhouse effect model that does not include water vapor.

If you have read any article I have linked you would see that water vapor is 95% of all the greenhouse effect.   This is by contribution.. it is slightly higher if you go by percent alone.

for instance... methane has a larger effect than it's sheer volume suggests.

Don't you wonder why they never give the math?  

lazs

[Sabre]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The prairie states of the USA has more than enough wind power resource to power the domestic grid.  It could replace all the electrical generation plants: Nuclear , Coal, Hydro, Gas, Oil

If only people lived where the wind is and used power when the wind blew.

As for cost, the resource if free...  no fuel cost, no miners coughing up lungs, no radiation, no carbon...

Cost of energy if the turbine lasts 20 yrs is as low as a nickle a kwhr at the base of the turbine.

Got a source for this, HM?  Any info on the cost or efficiency of wind power?  The fact is, wind power is an incredibly poor way to produce reliable commercial power, is incredibly damaging to the environment, takes up huge volumes of land, and only very specific locations are suitable to it.  Like solar power, it's potential has been wildly over stated.  Again, nuclear is the only technology that offers hope of significantly reducing our dependence on fossil resources.  If the USA pushed to convert even 80% of electrical power generation to nuclear, it would end our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

[lazs2]

saber... I do believe that solar will be a viable way to reduce to little or nothing the domestic electric bill in the very near future... we are very close with many homes in kalifornia doing so.. the cost keeps coming down too..  

lazs

[Angus]

Sabre, "DUDE", do you understand your own post? Or the concept at all?
Bio fuel, running the bio fuel industry on bio fuel alone, gives a product of foods and fuel. It even works as far up as Iceland, and is now in great use incountries that have some land to spare or basically the economical setup for it.

And the rest of you, - what do you think increased temp numbers have on the amount of water vapour?

[Angus]

And Sabre, to explain myself:
"Meanwhile, what is billed as the first comprehensive analysis of global biofuel impact has concluded that their use may release between two and nine times more carbon gases than fossil fuels.

The study published in the journal Science says the clearing of forest land to grow biofuel crops will produce immediate carbon gas releases and also destroy habitats, wildlife and jobs. It says that while biofuels look good from a Western perspective, they will be harmful on a global scale. The study contends it will take about 40 percent of American and European agricultural land to grow enough biofuel crops to replace only 10 percent of fossil fuel use."

Total crap. One study, and holds less water than a leaky cauldron.
Probably that,,,,,certain reportreferred to again.
And what's better anyway? To pump out the fossils until there's nothing left cheaper than biofuel ?