excuses excuses :D
Printable View
excuses excuses :D
Well, most schools do... but there are a few states where Creationism is taught alongside evolution by law. So, as much as I would like to say yes, because it coincides with my own personal opinion from admitedly unconclusive evidence, the fact is some schools here do not teach it as fact, merely a theory - which is really all it is.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
Aside from level playing fields, your argument is based on the premise that simply tightening gas engine emissions will work. While we can make incremental strides, there simply is little gains left to be made in the traditional gasoline combustion engine to reduce emissions by those targets. So the US has, as have European countries, set their goal to using hydrogen as gasoline's replacement.Quote:
I think that the stance of 'it hasn't been proven yet' is a particularly easy one in this case, and sidesteps the reality that the US is acting on economic risk, and not environmental concerns.
You then need to design the technology to produce vehicles that use hydrogen effectively and safely. You then need an entire fueling infrastructure which mandates the use of new underground storage tanks, filling equipment, and transport carriers. That investment alone is over trillions of dollars.
Then everyone (personal vehicle owners, fleet operators) will need to buy new vehicles based on hydrogen - now we're talking an additional 5 trillion.
Now, that's just to cut automobile and fleet emissions. What about heating of living and working quarters? Much of the US uses natural gas or electric heat for this purpose, so there are really no gains to be made there.
Much of the US still utilizes coal power plants (we have a buttload of coal here so it makes sense - cheap and plentiful) and they have all been updated with scrubbers so not much to gain there.
Switching to nuclear power is not pollution free... because you have to dispose of the radioactive waste. You may be saving the atmosphere (until a reactor melts), but you're screwing the groundwater - which is probably far more immediately impacted.
As to why the US is biggest producer amongst other countries (not China which more than likely skews its official results - god love those communists) - there are approximately 290 million people with many modern ammenities and that means more cars in the US than any other country by far.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/tra_mot_veh .
Regardless, I'm not worried. Gas prices have skyrocketed around here and there is only ever increasing pressure to get alternative fuel technology implemented on a broad scale - and the market pressure for people to use or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles as opposed to goliath SUV's (which admitedly are severely useful for hauling boats, jet skis, atv's, and other weekend recreation equipment).
where do you get the hydrogen?Quote:
So the US has, as have European countries, set their goal to using hydrogen as gasoline's replacement.
Usually from electricity which means if you are producing it in the US you'll be burning dirty coal to produce all that clean hydrogen.
No. I don't believe that simply tightening carbon emissions is enough. This is a particularly complex field, I think, I was trying to keep it focused and simple.Quote:
Aside from level playing fields, your argument is based on the premise that simply tightening gas engine emissions will work. While we can make incremental strides, there simply is little gains left to be made in the traditional gasoline combustion engine to reduce emissions by those targets. So the US has, as have European countries, set their goal to using hydrogen as gasoline's replacement.
We're burning all that dirty coal anyway... but at power plants the combusted particles are heavily scrubbed...... its the vehicle emissions that are the stickler - and hydrogen will certainly clear that up.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Hydrogen fuel cell cars a long way off being mass-produced. Probably won't see them for at least 15 years
No we're not burning that coal anyway, that is the point. If we start producing electricity to fuel our cars them the amount of coal we would have to burn would jump dramatically.Quote:
We're burning all that dirty coal anyway... but at power plants the combusted particles are heavily scrubbed...... its the vehicle emissions that are the stickler - and hydrogen will certainly clear that up.
Also I think you are kidding yourself about how clean coal plants are. Check out this article from Oakridge National lab that talks about how much radioactive waste the coal plant spew into the air.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
Right now I think the only solution is develop some sort of fuel cell (hydrogen?) for cars and build more nuclear power plants.
That article sounds alarming but the official EPA stance concludes there is no alarming concern, because coal plants emissions (fly ash) contribute less than 1% of the total radiation an average citizen is exposed to in the natural environment. You have more danger from the concrete foundation in your own home.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Why in gods name does it matter wether or not global warming is proven or not? Is it any excuse not to try to bring pollution down and start introducing more energy efficient power production? Geez.
Pollution and energy effeciency can be separate issues.Quote:
Why in gods name does it matter wether or not global warming is proven or not? Is it any excuse not to try to bring pollution down and start introducing more energy efficient power production? Geez.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, but is a green house gas.
So what some people are saying is should we devote enormous resources trying to reduce CO2 when we're not even certain that it is a problem. Shouldn't we devote those resources to something a little more immediate like Aids cure/prevention?
We just have to decide where our limted resources are going to be spent, and in my opinion preventing climate change is not the place to put them.
Of course CO2 is a pollutant, a human being can die from too much carbon dioxide (such as in the shuttles which need CO2 filters), so anything that contaminates the air is considered a pollutant
Using that logic, I guess oxygen and water are pollutants too.
In large quantities, i suppose so because it would literally pollute your own body
I suppose in theory anything can be a pollutant, depending on the environment it is being introduced into
Most substances in extremes are pollutants.
Oxygen (in general) is why mammals (at least) age and die.
The process of respiration allows the formation of free-radicals. Free-radicals - in this case - are oxygen atoms that haven't fully been involved in the myocin ratchet reaction. So instead of having the 8 electrons oxygen normally has, the reaction 'steals' an electron or two and leaves an oxygen atom without it's full complement of electrons.
Being that the Oxygen atom needs 8 electrons it will mostly react with anything (probably the nearest chemical) because of the em force of the protons and the lack of electrons in it's outer shell
In this case the nearest thing can often be DNA. Needless to say stealing electrons from the DNA molecule is not a very healthy thing.
Which is why you read about antioxidants all the time when reading about cancer, ageing, and a whole host of other very serious things.
In response then, Oxygen is a toxin, and one day it will kill you.
Bore away.
"Any do you learn something new isn't a complete loss"....so at least today won't be a total loss :sick:
Oxygen actually really is toxic in high doses and normal doses become toxic at increased depths which is why the deeper divers go, the less oxygen mix is in their compressed gas to breath.
They should really just ban running or jogging altogether - that would reduce aspiration on a global scale, effectively cutting Co2 emissions in half!
On the flip side, we would drive around more, so CO emissions would increase.
See - you JUST can't win.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4693855.stm
Very interesting indeed.
I think the debate is going to widen somewhat. I like the bit about publishing the source (the BBC in their infinite wisdom call it 'computer codes':lol:)
I have to agree with the congressmen on this one. Science is about knowledge dissemintion. It's not about keeping models, source code, and raw data secret. If you want to do that then that's called business certainly not science. Especially not science with global concerns.
I hope the congessmen get their way.
Indeed. Research facts are useless without the raw data available. BUT, the problem with this is going to be the same old same old. Will they attack the message or the messenger? They want to know where all the funding came from which means that despite what the data may show, if they find Joe X funded the project who happens to be the brothers roomate of Bill Z, then they can use that to say the data is tainted.
Usual stuff in all aspects of research papers and reports. There is always claims of bias.
In a normal field of science, if a researcher does not send his data up for peer review, it doesn't get published or accepted.
The field of climate change is however, more politics than science.
Yes, I've just finished Crichton's State Of Fear which more or less says the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I read it too, not one of his better books, but a good argument.
I did feel he was being somewhat contratian for the sake of being contrarion, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Moeur, what kind of a scientist are you? You have stated that that is your career, but only talked about what you are not.
I'm a fish biologist, myself.
As for the debate, I think the important thing is not that we ratify Kyoto, but that we are having the debate. I can think of no instance in human history that the population made a major change without the majority feeling that it was a good idea.
Now people are talking, and as Xanith says, nobody is pro-pollution. We need to shift the public consciousness, which will shift public demand. It isn't quick, but it IS effective. We were in far worse shape in the 70's, but people became concerned about it, and we are at least moving in the right direction (though Reagan did his level best to end this).
Frankly, I think Hydrogen is not quite as nice as people think. Generating the electicity is a significant issue. However, I don't really feel that nuclear is the best answer for that. I feel that there is a better market-driven solution to that problem.
We have always had central power supplies in this country. During the late 70's, there was federal funding for alternative energy. Reagan killed it off, and I have read several sources in the early 90's where people said that the things they were doing then were basically what they were working on in the early 80's, but research stalled for a decade. However, one interesting line of research was in flexible amorphous silica solar cells. You can find some of these now, but the increases in efficiency that were being reported in the early 80's stopped for a long time.
Solar is not cost effective with fossil fuels right now, but it is close. A few percent improvent in efficiency might make all the difference (cost per watt is the measure I am talking about). If the cost dropped, it would be interesting to create a solar shingle. My roof is doing.....well, no work. What would be the generating capacity of shingling a housing division with solar shingles? In solar only houses that I have been in, the power was generated using only a small fraction of the total roof area. If generation was expanded to the entire roof area, a surplus of electricity could be generated. Few power companies allow upstream transmission of electricity and two-direction meters, but the number is increasing.
Would it be possible to decentralize power generation? Not at current prices, but that could be changed.
Experimental physicist, but I'm working in the biotech area now.Quote:
Moeur, what kind of a scientist are you?
Cool.Quote:
I'm a fish biologist, myself
Why not?Quote:
However, I don't really feel that nuclear is the best answer for that. I feel that there is a better market-driven solution to that problem.
Right now I think that is our best option. Cheap clean power. The waste is a lot less than you would imagine and we can contain it, unlike the waste from most of the current sources. Before I went to graduate school I was a Nuclear Reactor engineer on a Navy submarine. I know a lot about nuclear power generation.
Solar energy generation is just not even close to being viable, and may never be. Wind power, on the other hand, has come a long way despite the supposed killing of the alternative enrgey field. We have some pretty major wind farms in the bay area, but now people are complaining that they are killing too many birds and want to shut them down.
Yea, a personal nuclear generating in every back yard! :)Quote:
Would it be possible to decentralize power generation?
One thing that bugs me about all this news coverage is:
Here we are a basically uniformed public looking for information on global warming. So who do the news organizations go to for quotes on the new proposal? The WWF. Why do I care what they think? Why not get us some real input from some real researchers doing real investigations on the matter?
This is trashy journalism.
I agree.
One example is the hockey stick graph. First it was the real deal, then some geezer showed that the 17th century data was flawed, then someone said it wasn't.
So which is it? Why can't the methods and the data be published so we can make our own minds up?
I suspect because the journalists covering it are erm *cough* not up to the job of scientific reporting :eek:
If you look at the letters to the editor for the most recent Scientific American, this particular issue came up, and the writers added what appears to be a compelling argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
I didn't know those wrestlers (the WWF) had any opinions......oh wait, that changed, didn't it. Actually, I don't know much about the WWF, but some such organizations (like Audubon) have actual scientists doing some good work (I worked for them for 5 years, and actually did look at sea-level rise, which is a very real phenomenon, though it has also been a natural one in the past).
Nuclear does have its good sides, but I feel that we are going about it ass-backwards. Yes, you can deal with the waste, but you have to do more than TALK about it as we are doing now. There isn't anybody who wants that waste. Nevada is fighting Yucca mountain with every tool they have, and might well win. We here in ID, are fighting over INEEL, and WA is constantly dealing with Hanford. Meanwhile, a recent report showed that waste is currently being stored in cooling ponds at Nuke plant sites. The waste was supposed to be moved to final disposal, but there is no final disposal site at this time, so many ponds are well over capacity. In most cases, this is no big deal, because the ponds are set into the ground. However, in some cases the ponds are elevated. This presents a clear and present danger. A deliberate breach of the ponds could start a catastrophic fire.
If all steps were in existence, I think nuclear energy would be a good immediate source. All steps are not in existence, some are just talk. No final repository exists for nuclear waste, and none is likely to exist in the forseeable future if Yucca mountain is successfully blocked by NV.
I do like wind, and it is growing like crazy out here, too. However, I don't believe that solar is not viable. It isn't cost effective at this time, and I don't believe it could replace the entire existing electrical grid....ever. However, I do believe that it could be a significant factor in a larger plan to decentralize power production and reduce demand on conventional sources. Currently, initial cost is prohibitive for most homes, but that could be fixed if we wanted to. There are already existing subsidies in place for such things, but they don't amount to much.
Furthermore, there is precedent for this. The Rural Electrification.....uh, I forget the last part of that name, but it was a government sub-agency that subsidized the cost of getting electricity into communities that were too small to be otherwise cost effective, was a highly effective and efficient program. The result of it is that virtually all Americans now have electricity and phone service unless they don't want them. A similar thing could be done again with the objective being to reduce our reliance on centralized power generation. I suspect that something like that would have to be done to free up the generating capacity needed to produce the Hydrogen for a Hydrogen economy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4724877.stm
The plot thickens
Global warming . . .
I heard last night on the radio (whilst driving home) that Scotland has, for first time since 1880, retained a snow patch (around 80x20x4m) for the full year round on the Cairngorm mountains at an altitude of only 1100m.
Further to this the process of nevation has begun. For those who don't know this is the first part of glaciation.
Given the trends on the British uplands, Britain could well have their own glacier to play with within 40 years.
We are losing glaciers and snowpack at a faster rate. Now I know who's taking them. GIVE THEM BACK YOU WASCALLY WABBIT!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
The New Scientist (this month) has published an article saying that most of glacial reduction happened before the CO2 levels rose. Some sort of throw back from the ice age.
Global cooling:
The picture is of the expected anomaly of winter temperatures world wide. Doesn't look too hot to me!
Could it be something to do with the 10yr winter cycle, the 11yr sun-spot cycle. Who knows.
But this is going to hurt global warming activists.
The Sunday Times - Britain
CLIMATE change researchers have detected the first signs of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream — the mighty ocean current that keeps Britain and Europe from freezing.
They have found that one of the “engines” driving the Gulf Stream — the sinking of supercooled water in the Greenland Sea — has weakened to less than a quarter of its former strength.
The weakening, apparently caused by global warming, could herald big changes in the current over the next few years or decades. Paradoxically, it could lead to Britain and northwestern and Europe undergoing a sharp drop in temperatures.
Such a change has long been predicted by scientists but the new research is among the first to show clear experimental evidence of the phenomenon.
Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, hitched rides under the Arctic ice cap in Royal Navy submarines and used ships to take measurements across the Greenland Sea.
“Until recently we would find giant ‘chimneys’ in the sea where columns of cold, dense water were sinking from the surface to the seabed 3,000 metres below, but now they have almost disappeared,” he said.
“As the water sank it was replaced by warm water flowing in from the south, which kept the circulation going. If that mechanism is slowing, it will mean less heat reaching Europe.”
Such a change could have a severe impact on Britain, which lies on the same latitude as Siberia and ought to be much colder. The Gulf Stream transports 27,000 times more heat to British shores than all the nation’s power supplies could provide, warming Britain by 5-8C.
Wadhams and his colleagues believe, however, that just such changes could be well under way. They predict that the slowing of the Gulf Stream is likely to be accompanied by other effects, such as the complete summer melting of the Arctic ice cap by as early as 2020 and almost certainly by 2080. This would spell disaster for Arctic wildlife such as the polar bear, which could face extinction.
Wadhams’s submarine journeys took him under the North Polar ice cap, using sonar to survey the ice from underneath. He has measured how the ice has become 46% thinner over the past 20 years. The results from these surveys prompted him to focus on a feature called the Odden ice shelf, which should grow out into the Greenland Sea every winter and recede in summer.
The growth of this shelf should trigger the annual formation of the sinking water columns. As sea water freezes to form the shelf, the ice crystals expel their salt into the surrounding water, making it heavier than the water below.
However, the Odden ice shelf has stopped forming. It last appeared in full in 1997. “In the past we could see nine to 12 giant columns forming under the shelf each year. In our latest cruise, we found only two and they were so weak that the sinking water could not reach the seabed,” said Wadhams, who disclosed the findings at a meeting of the European Geosciences Union in Vienna.
The exact effect of such changes is hard to predict because currents and weather systems take years to respond and because there are two other areas around the north Atlantic where water sinks, helping to maintain circulation. Less is known about how climate change is affecting these.
However, Wadhams suggests the effect could be dramatic. “One of the frightening things in the film The Day After Tomorrow showed how the circulation in the Atlantic Ocean is upset because the sinking of cold water in the north Atlantic suddenly stops,” he said.
“The sinking is stopping, albeit much more slowly than in the film — over years rather than a few days. If it continues, the effect will be to cool the climate of northern Europe.”
One possibility is that Europe will freeze; another is that the slowing of the Gulf Stream may keep Europe cool as global warming heats the rest of the world — but with more extremes of weather.
Science News reports that images from the Mars Global Surveyor provide evidence that the south polar ice cap is shrinking by about 1.5 meters every Earth year. This indicates that Mars is undergoing a global warming of its own.
I guess that Martians also drive SUVs.
Yeah it's a good point. I wonder if they are capable of accelerating beyond the speed of light?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
An interesting perspective:
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/bren101205.shtml