Global warming - let's settle this once and for all!

[Rodion Romanovich]

A debate about global warming. Is it a fraud or not? Did humans cause it, and can we prevent/stop/reverse it? What are the scientifical proofs for and against it?

PART I - The undeniable facts
Why CO2, methane etc. in the atmosphere is bad

FACT No.1 - Different gases in the atmosphere have different abilities to reflect and absord different wavelenghts. Three centuries old scientifical experiments easily show that if you send light or any other electromagnetical wave into different gases, the intensity that passes THROUGH the gas differs for different gases. Only certain wavelengths can pass through. If we draw up the different wavelengths that go through and end up on the other side, we get a so-called absorption spectrum.

Why is this simple fact so important? Well, it tells us that the composition of gases in the atmosphere affects which wavelengths ENTER the atmosphere, and which wavelengths EXIT the atmosphere.

FACT No.2 - The light has another wavelength when it's on it's way out from earth, than when it's on it's way to earth. This has been proved by many experiments. It can also be proved theoretically. Incoming light is absorbed by various mechanisms, for instance plants extract energy from incoming light, and "binds" that energy so it isn't directly reflected and exits our atmosphere. This excess energy, which is now chemical energy is released again when the plant is burnt or rots. There are various other examples. If we for instance look at a field of grass, it looks green. Something that looks green reflects green light, which means it absorbs all other light, which means it absorbs much of the energy from the incoming light. Black asfalt, according to basic physics, absorbs all wavelengths of light and therefore absorbs more energy than the field of grass. Most of this energy is transformed into heat. As we have all experienced, asfalt in sunshine is a lot hotter than a grassy field in sunshine. The heat of asfalt and grassy fields becomes electromagnetic waves of a different wavelength - thermal radiation. So there's no scientific argument against this simple statement - the light which enters the atmosphere has a different wavelength than the electromagnetic radiation which tries to exit the atmosphere.

FACT No.1 and FACT No.2 immediately implies that:
FACT No.3 - it is POSSIBLE to change the atmosphere composition of gases and particles in a way so that there's different ability for energy to enter, and to exit, the atmosphere.
What happens when the atmosphere composition changes? Well, as more energy accumulates inside the atmosphere, there will be more "pressure" for energy to exit the atmosphere, so it'll push through the atmosphere faster, but not unless there is a huge accumulation of excess energy inside the atmosphere, so that there's enough waves trying again and again to exit the atmosphere. It's a simple random process - the more waves that are trying to pass the atmosphere, the more will get through it. But when some get through it, the "pressure" inside will decrease, and not increase again until more light enters the atmosphere and creates this excess of energy inside. What happens is therefore the following:

FACT No.4 - If we change the atmosphere composition in a way such that will create an excess of energy inside, we'll end up with a counter-effect, which increase the radiation out from the atmosphere, but the new steady state involves having MORE energy inside the atmosphere, which means more heat.
No scientific arguments can deny this either.

PART II - The subjects for debate

What remains to be debated, then, are the following points:
QUESTION No.1 - Is the atmospheric composition we have created through pollution etc. a composition that will create a new steady state with higher temperature?
QUESTION No.2 - Which will the biological consequences of global warming be?
QUESTION No.3 - Are the theories about positive feedback, i.e. global warming causing harm that will speed up future global warming, i.e. that the global warming is a process that reinforces itself, valid?
QUESTION No.4 - Will there be any negative feedback other than the one mentioned in fact 4 - a counter-effect that would not only create a new steady state with higher energy, but a counter-effect that would create a new steady state with the same energy?

So now we enter slightly less scientific ground, but the theories I'll mention below, IMO, those theories which have scientific substance.

PART III - My own contribution to this debate - an analysis of the theories I think have substance in them

THEORY No.1 - The extraction of materials from below the earth. When earth was created, these materials were moving freely in the atmosphere, and the temperature was several 100 degrees Celcius. These materials were of the same type as the materials we're now extracting and polluting into the atmosphere. World was a sulphur hell. However, thanks to the binding of these elements into the earth, another type of atmosphere was created, which had a different composition, and resulted in a steady state with lower temperature. Moving these elements back up to the surface again will create an almost exactly similar situation as the sulphur hell. How long it will take, and how much humans will have to pollute before that happens, is impossible to determine.

THEORY No.2 - All scientific calculations show that the types of gases we call "greenhouse gases" are the types of particles that are best at stopping the wavelengths of radiation LEAVING earth, while being lousy at stopping incoming wavelengths from the sun. The exact values of how malignant the different gases are can be debated, but we know for certain that some gases are extremely much worse than others.

THEORY No.3 - Fossile fuels are some of the worst causes of the greenhouse effect. For the same reason as in theory no.2, it's extremely difficult to determine exactly how dangerous the different types of pollution are. But we know that fossile fuels are extremely dangerous. The reason why it's so difficult to determine the relative malignancy of the different elements is, for instance, that every element can react with a number of other elements, and create new elements. A certain type of pollution results in a different composition of molecules depending on heat, location and similar properties of the chimney or similar polluting the elements. Secondly, the different particles have a different greenhouse effect on different heights in the atmosphere. This is because when light collides with particles in the atmosphere, it can excite the electrons. The electrons then fall back into their original positions and emit electromagnetic radiation. This radiation can be a mix of different wavelengths than the incoming sunlight, so the gases just below it in the atmosphere gets to deal with a slightly different mix of incoming light than the gases above. For instance, we've found that ozone is very effective at stopping ultraviolet light from entering the atmosphere high up in the atmosphere, but an effective greenhouse gas when ending up too low in the atmosphere. It's a naive, unscientific myth of many laymen that pollution of ozone and similar greenhouse gases at ground level would repair the ozone layer, for instance. However, sending up stratospherical balloons and polluting ozone has shown to be a fairly effective way of repairing the ozone layer. This can't be pointed out enough: different gases absorb different wavelengths! That's why all laymen theories about for example ozone layer destruction would be compensated by polluting CO2 is BS.

THEORY No. 4 - the answer to question 4 seems to be no. Nobody has afaik yet shown any proof of the opposite.

PART IV - How to solve the problems - what we have done so far

Scientists in the field of environmental problems divide the possible methods of solving environmental problems in three parts:
1. stopping overpopulation by usage of birth control
2. changing culture and living standards
3. improving technology to decrease requirements for materials, and replace dangerous materials with less dangerous ones and enforcing recyclement

No.1. is needed for a variety of other reasons.
No.2 is controversial, but may become necessary if global warming and increase of population continues for too long
No.3 is the easiest from a political point of view, but most everyday technology is getting so advanced now, that we've past the point of where we could make huge improvements in environment-friendliness of machines and electronics.

It seems like we soon have to face no.1 and no.2, even if it's politically difficult. However, most politicians today haven't gone to school and learnt about these discoveries. Many voters are also ignorant. Environmentalistic parties are often using too radical politics in other fields than the environmental field.

The big problem isn't to find ways of solving the global warming problem, it's simple. There are thousands of ways of using any of the 3 main methods of environmental problem solution presented above. The big problem is ignorance and denial.

Supposing I am wrong, let this debate prove me wrong. Supposing I am right, let's pursue this debate until nobody who entered it has any doubts, any questions, and any trace of denial left. If the problem is as serious as all science suggests, then let us together solve the ONE part of this problem, which prevents the people of the world from solving it entirely and live in safety - the ignorance and denial.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I agree with most of what your saying, Its funny it is the same as what im being taught in enviromental sciences at the moment

[Franconicus]

1. stopping overpopulation by usage of birth control
2. changing culture and living standards
3. improving technology to decrease requirements for materials, and replace dangerous materials with less dangerous ones and enforcing recyclement

You are right (excellent summary) and I think that it is common sense for all scientists.

Just one comment:
1. This will be difficult due to political reasons and human rights
2. This will be easy. Global warming will do that for the politicians.
3. We are already working on it. But to accelerate it you need higher costs on energy. And that, again, is a political problem.

[Viking]

It all sounds nice, but unfortunately, the biggest sinner don`t want to play with you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"let's settle this once and for all!"

~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:

[Oaty]

Well what about the global warming of Mars, the polar caps there have been receding every year. Instead of water melting away at the polar caps it is frozen co2 that is melting away.

What about the increased solar winds that have been increasing every year. The increased solar winds are due to the fact that the sun is in a current state of expansion.

What about the Sahara wich use to be woodland ~6-10,000 bc It was even viable farmland at zero BC

I'm not saying man is not contributing to the problem, but a lot of journaist/scientists like to point thier fingers at man is 100 percent of the problem.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Well what about the global warming of Mars, the polar caps there have been receding every year. Instead of water melting away at the polar caps it is frozen co2 that is melting away.

Mars doesn't have much of an atmosphere pollution problems, so the effects on Mars are smaller than those on earth, because they're only caused by solar winds etc.



What about the Sahara wich use to be woodland ~6-10,000 bc It was even viable farmland at zero BC


Man has been largely responsible for the creation of Sahara. The primitive early methods for making iron, for instance, involved chopping down extreme amounts of trees. The Sahara region, and the rainforests, are extremely sensitive types of ground. Only a few acres of removed forest there has a huge impacts on deserts spreading, because wind speeds, erosion and many other processes are strengthened by it, and these effects result in nature responding with even more forest spreading, so called positive feedback (a process which reinforces itself until it reaches some new point of steady state). The pattern is the following: little action results in huge impact - and man has done much action, and thereby caused an extremely huge impact. So man is very responsible for the spreading of Sahara.



I'm not saying man is not contributing to the problem, but a lot of journaist/scientists like to point thier fingers at man is 100 percent of the problem.

What most scientists want to say is that now that we're in a period of solar winds and other outer effects, it's more critical than ever that we don't speed up the process. Also, scientists IMO are right in saying humans are responsible for positive feedback phenomenons from nature, because they initially changed the balance and launched the positive feedback cycle.

And one important point to make is that all these theories are in no way arguments against the fact that global warming is increased by pollution of greenhouse gases, they're just explanations of possible ways in which outer factors could cause global warming. The only sensible way to interpret such data is to want to be even more careful with human-caused global warming, as there already enough outer problem factors to deal with as it is. Do you in war, becase you can suffer huge casualties to disease, say that your enemy is harmless? Or do you arm youself better?

[Samurai Waki]

But wouldn't that be false? I don't think man had the capabilities at 6-10,000 BC to cut down that large of a forested area that quickly. Not to mention, the use of metallurgy, especially Iron, which couldn't have even been a factor considering the fact that it wasn't discovered and put into use by man until well after the Sahara had long been a desert. The Great Civilizations didn't even discover Bronze, until around 4,000BC, and at that time, The Sahara was as sandy and barren then, as it is today. So either somehow, nomadic hunter gatherers managed to strip away thousands and thousands of miles of rain forest with stone hand axes in a meager two thousand years, for no apparent reason, other than they were obsessed with cutting things down, and had a penchant for starving themselves, or Alien sandworms from a far off desert planet decided they wanted to go to a place on earth for a vacation. I really don't think that the opinion that humans were responsiblefor the destruction of an entire rainforest without the means to even do so, is viable, much less proveable.

I do however, agree that we probably are responsible, in some form, of accelerating the speed of global warming. However, let it be known, that at one time or another, earth was unbearably hot, muggy, and without much snow or ice, and it was called the Triassic, Jurassic, and Mesozoic eras, which all lasted millions of years.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Wazikashi: fire, the red flower ~:), can devastate forests quite fast. I think the wood used wasn't really wood but coal, so I should have clarified that I meant that these trees weren't necessarily chopped down, but sometimes also burnt down. Still, there's the same important phenomenon we get back to - sometimes a small action from humans alters a balance so that nature itself causes things to spiral away into much more than we had intended, or were responsible for.

The triassic jurassic and mesozoic eras were indeed hotter, there was very little ice etc. Since then, much of the coal and what later became fossile fuels was bound into the earth, allowing a lower temperature. The problem is that we are trying to take up more coal and fossile fuels from below ground than the amounts that were in the air during these periods.

[doc_bean]

I have my own theory about global warming, namely that it's caused by...warmth !

Surprising no ? Think about it, we all heat our homes, we all use refrigerators, we all burn fuel, we all use nuclear power (60% electricity, 40% pure warmth), etc.

Could it be possible, just maybe, that releasing all this energy in the form of warmth could somehow, mysteriously, affect the global average temperature and climate ?

:hide:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have my own theory about global warming, namely that it's caused by...warmth

Well you almost have it right. The fact is that global warming is caused by the sun. It doesnt burn at a constant rate. When we can attach a thermostat to it we can control global warming, Untill then its a lost cause. There will be another Ice Age and theres nothing man can do about it. In fact we should be greatful for this long period of warm weather. This is like sending in a medical student to do a heart transplant. We dont know what the hell were doing. We could mess things up worse by trying to fix it. In fact many claim we already have. This has been going on long before the first man ever appeared on earth and will still be going on long after the last man has died.

[Oaty]

Easy Wazikashi, The Sahara took thousands of years to form. At about 10,000 BC it was all forest. At ~6000 BC their was a small desert growing in North Africa and trees were becoming less populous. This is when it started expanding at a rapid rate and conditions became worse. Most of the Sahara still had fertile farmland by the Roman era. The Sahara is still expanding to this day.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Gawain: If too low temperature would be a problem in the future, we could just release many of the greenhouse chemicals bound below earth to counter it when we need it. However, we can't quickly cool the earth down in the same way. The sun has a small part in temperature changes, yes. But please show me some proof that the sun causes all of it, because nobody has proved that, and nobody will be able to because it's false. The scientists that presented the theories of solar winds causing climate changes were clear to point out that it meant the pollution wasn't the only cause to global warming, not that solar winds caused all of it. Their studies were good for calming down the overly hysteric, who claimed we had perhaps 10 years to fix the problem, or we're already doomed. Estimates today think that we have a chance if we deal with it in 50-80 years. The scientists supporting the solar wind theories have never said pollution was completely harmless.

[Viking]

Estimates today think that we have a chance if we deal with it in 50-80 years.

By that time, we`ll already have quite a few enviroment refugees.

[m52nickerson]

While CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases they may have a limited affect on warming. The biggest greenhouse gas is Water Vapor. The more H2O in the air the more warm the overall temp, the higher the overall temp the more H2O there can be in the air. Sounds like a natural cycle to me.

Then you have the ocean currents that carry warm water towards the poles. As the polar ice melts it starts to disrupt these current, the water is not cooled as fast and does not sink. This disruption when great enough stops the transfer of heat from the equator to the poles. That starts an ice age. Which in turn starts the whole process over again.

It seems to me that global warming is more a natural cycle then man made. I'm not saying that we should start polluting like mad, but I don't think we are "killing" the planet with global warming.

[The_Emperor]

The main problem with global warming debate is that we do not know how much of it is caused by man and how much of it is part of natural climate change.

Unfortunatley there is no way to measure it and different scientists have different opinions on it depending on who you seak to.

[Viking]

While CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases they may have a limited affect on warming. The biggest greenhouse gas is Water Vapor. The more H2O in the air the more warm the overall temp, the higher the overall temp the more H2O there can be in the air. Sounds like a natural cycle to me.

Then you have the ocean currents that carry warm water towards the poles. As the polar ice melts it starts to disrupt these current, the water is not cooled as fast and does not sink. This disruption when great enough stops the transfer of heat from the equator to the poles. That starts an ice age. Which in turn starts the whole process over again.

It seems to me that global warming is more a natural cycle then man made. I'm not saying that we should start polluting like mad, but I don't think we are "killing" the planet with global warming.

It sound convincing, but please take a look at Venus. With enough CO2 and methane in the atmosphere, an ice age would melt away.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This is when it started expanding at a rapid rate and conditions became worse. Most of the Sahara still had fertile farmland by the Roman era. The Sahara is still expanding to this day.


Actually thanks to global warming its shrinking.

Africa's deserts are in "spectacular" retreat (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811)

[Kaiser of Arabia]

kinda chilly out today...

[Samurai Waki]

kinda chilly out today...

:san_laugh: My Brother's in Montana were saying that last week the temperature got so cold it beat the previous cold weather record by 5 degrees fehrenheit (which was set in 1909). I think he said it got down to 26 degrees below zero. Certainly it hasn't been warming up all over the place.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Dont you guys realize that this cold in other palces is another result of global warming?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Dont you guys realize that this cold in other palces is another result of global warming?
It was a joke :san_laugh:

Get it, Global Warming?

Kinda like eating out in China, but watch out for the Crabs :san_laugh:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It was a joke

Get it, Global Warming?

Kinda like eating out in China, but watch out for the Crabs


ERMMMMMMMM you do realise I was being facicious dont you? Get it global warming is making it cold?

[Kaiser of Arabia]

ERMMMMMMMM you do realise I was being facicious dont you? Get it global warming is making it cold?
No, in fact, I didn't. :san_laugh:

[Tachikaze]

I view the people who refuse to acknowledge the human-induced unnatural rate at which the Earth is heating up is akin to people who persistantly believed that the Earth was the center of the universe or even that the Earth was flat (and there are some who still do).

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA, there is little debate about global warming and its causes. It's only those who don't want to believe it that refuse to acknowledge it. They are bound by a world of comfortable fantasy.

It is so frustrating to see a nation with superb educational institutions and some extremely educated and creative people be dominated by ignorance.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA

You guys keep claiming this yet you have nothing to back it up. I can provide as many scientists who say its all BS as agree with you. The facts are we cant even predicted or control the weather for tommorow nevermind such a complicated system as our atmosphere. Imagine the polution if we still all used horses.

[Crazed Rabbit]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA, there is little debate about global warming and its causes.


Hyu-uck! Why, you done gone and done nailed that ther nail wit dat ther hammer! We jus be a bunch o stopid rednecks!

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Crazed Rabbit

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.


Dont you realise its all americas fault?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes. The Atmosphere can change composition. But temperature fluctuations have happened constantly throughout the earth's history.

Yes, but only once in earth's history have we had the atmosphere composition we're about to create now - and that was when earth was a sulphur hell, too hot for any living being except certain types of bacteria. My question is, do you deniers say that pollution should be totally unrestricted, or are you saying that "we don't believe the restrictions need to be that hard"? For instance, scientists have shoen that the biggest problem about fossile fuels isn't that there's too little of them, but that there's too much of them. If we use all coal and oil we can extract with today's technology, we'll push climate changes too far to be able to survive.

One more important point, is that while for instance the regeneration of some desert ground in southern Africa for instance might be good, there's a fundamental problem in raising the average temperature on earth. The hottest parts of earth are barely inhabitable. However, that part of earth has the greatest populations at the moment. Just a slight temperature increase would make this region uninhabitable, and mean huge streams of refugees that would have to move to Europe, China and the USA, for example. If you're afraid global warming restrictions will create economical chaos, then imagine what some billion refugees would create.

At the same time, global warming seems to cool down the coolest areas, so we don't get an overall warming effect. This means, in total, that we decrease the inhabitable areas enormously by global warming.

Your points and counter-examples are good, but scientifically one thing must be made clear: wrong atmospheric composition results in increase average temperature on earth. What exactly will happen, and how this increase in thermal energy will be distributed over earth, is impossible to tell. Any model for describing that would need millions of factors, and it's beyond the human intelligence. We could, in theory, as result of 1 degrees increase for instance get improved conditions in many parts of the world, perhaps more areas improved than we'd get hurt. However, if we get a too great increase in temperature, we pass a point where it's impossible to get improved conditions (by the mathematical Dirichlet principle). And the important thing is that global warming is a slow process, we don't see the effects of today's pollution until a hundred years later. We've already polluted enough for 6 degrees or so increase in average temperature, but today we only see one degree or so of increase.

[thrashaholic]

People who preach global warming and that it's all our fault and that it'll kill us all is just a modern version of the flaggellant doomsayer of days past who preached precisely the same thing except that they threw god in the equation.

"The end is nigh! You have all sinned! Mend your ways before it's troo late!"

The mantra is exactly the same, and their argument in both cases has precisely the same validity, non-whatsoever. Both are founded in intangible forces and both use whatever happens now (even if it contradicts what they were saying yesterday) as 'solid proof' for their message of self-inflicted doom. An example:

A couple of years ago, here in Britain, while we were having some of the hottest summers we'd had in a while, we were being bombarded by information on the news how global warming was going to make Britain like a mediterranean country in only a couple of decades. The telly programmes got lots of scientists to come on and go: "hmmmmm, yes", and environMENTALists to come on and go: "capitalism and our excessive life-styles are to blame, everyone must grow a beard and wear sandals, live in a mud hut or up a tree and whip themselves until mother-earth is happy again!" (well not exactly that, but near enough), and they interviewed lots of stupid people who believed all this, and everyone was convinced and terrified because this scientist had said so in the paper....

Recently though, now that we've been haviong some colder weather, global warming is to blame. The telly gets the same people on, who say exactly the same thing, and everyone had forgot that we were going to become a mediterranean country. Now we were going to become like Russia or something. *gasp* And everyone was terrified.

Not only is it monumentally stupid, it's also mid-numbingly boring.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a nice clean atmosphere, but I really don't buy into this "our planet will be like Venus in 5 minutes if we don't abolish McDonalds now!" stuff, because that's what it is essentially leftoids trying to find another angle from which they can attack global capitalism. It's got precious little to do with the weather: if they can say that capitalism's destroying the planet, then the unwashed masses will believe them.

In summary, what a load of bollocks.

[Rodion Romanovich]

You guys keep claiming this yet you have nothing to back it up. I can provide as many scientists who say its all BS as agree with you. The facts are we cant even predicted or control the weather for tommorow nevermind such a complicated system as our atmosphere. Imagine the polution if we still all used horses.

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed. The point is, if the temperature increases too much we'll need an absurdly uneven distribution of the heat in order to make as much of earth inhabitable for humans as is the case today. Similarly, a too great decrease in thermal energy on earth is dangerous for the very same reasons. We humans can control the average thermal energy, and past experience has shown us approximately how unevenly distributed the thermal energy in the atmosphere usually is, so we know which average earth temperatures to stay within.

The average temperature is controllable, but there are other factors which can increase or decrease temperature by up to 5-10 degrees. We therefore need to keep the average temperature well controlled, in order to have marginals for these events.

[Rodion Romanovich]

People who preach global warming and that it's all our fault and that it'll kill us all is just a modern version of the flaggellant doomsayer of days past who preached precisely the same thing except that they threw god in the equation.

"The end is nigh! You have all sinned! Mend your ways before it's troo late!"

The mantra is exactly the same, and their argument in both cases has precisely the same validity, non-whatsoever.

Well, the black death was very much caused by human lifestyle. Free trade and crowded city life caused it to spread quickly. Bad sewage conditions made it lovely for the rats, who indirectly carried the plague. The flagellants didn't know the cause, but they were actually right in that humans had caused it. Later improvements of conditions that created the plague successfully destroyed it: better sewage, Poland for instance cut off all trade connections and that way avoided getting the plague, and better hygiene overall in cities led to less spreading despite fairly heavily crowded cities.

Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees. That will certainly create an economical chaos much worse than that caused by a few, minor restrictions of the free trade.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.


And you wont find me or any oter conservative here claiming that either.


We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up.


What scientists disagree about isn't whether wrong atmosphere composition results in an increase of thermal energy inside the atmosphere, but how that energy will be distributed.

What scientists disagree about is whats causing it.


The average temperature is controllable,

Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.


Finally, global warming is a bigger threat to capitalism than actions against it are. Imagine climate refugees from the equatorial regions. A majority of all humans live around the equator. When that region becomes uninhabitable, you'll be swarmed by refugees.

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

[Ja'chyra]

Its gonna happen over and over and theres not a damned thing that you can do about it. Man is not god and its time some of you learned that.

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.


Nah lets rape it while we can. You think anyone who doesnt agree with you is an idiot apparantly.

[Ja'chyra]

Nah lets rape it while we can. You think anyone who doesnt agree with you is an idiot apparantly.

Where did I say that?

You making stuff up again? :san_rolleyes:

[Husar]

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.
Very funny, and probably the reason you all drive around with 20litre pickups.:san_rolleyes: :san_laugh:

[Ironside]

Hyu-uck! Why, you done gone and done nailed that ther nail wit dat ther hammer! We jus be a bunch o stopid rednecks!

Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Huh. For all their 'enlightened' thought, they aren't much good at getting results.

Crazed Rabbit

So your economy have shrunken in recent time? ~;p

And any link to that study? If it's recent it would be interesting to compare that to the prices on gasoline for the US.

[doc_bean]

For the enlightened, which seems to be pretty universal outside the USA,

Please, there are many people outside of the US who don't subscribe to the popular theory of global warming caused by CO2 emmissions.



Which is why, I suppose, America is reducing emissions, whereas Europe is not.

Now, i've already explaiend this somewhere else, we started reducing emmissions earlier and have hit a plateau.


Those who say it's BS that pollution results in increased temperatures are not saying pollution is harmless, unless they're bribed, fanatical dogmatics. I doubt you can mention that many scientists that completely disagree that the uncontrolled pollution is harmful.

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

[Rodion Romanovich]

We humans can control the average thermal energy

Now thats total BS. We cant even make it rain. When the next Ice Age approaches I want to know how your going to turn the heat back up. [...] Oh please my stomachs hurting. Stop with the jokes.

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria

it's called science

[Rodion Romanovich]

That's a completely different issue. CO2 isn't even traditionally thought of as pollution afaik.

That's why I said pollution as a general concept, and not CO2 only. We have CH4, CO, CO2, N2O, NO2, SO2, SF6 (really dangerous thing), for instance.

N2O is probably the most interesting thing. It's also known as laughing gas, which is why some people just lean back and laugh while the other polluted chemicals are destroying earth.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

there is a simple mathmatical principle that can be applied to this whole situation to decide what the best course of action is simply balance out the resulst of taking either action.

there are two main possibilitys about global warming, either we are right or we are wrong, if we lower emmisions and put funding into renewable energy sources then there are two possible results

1. we are wrong the world is compleatly unaffected by the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and is in fact being heated by the sun rather then man, if this is the case then we would have spent a lot of money lowering emmisions and developing renewable resourses but will be less reliant on fast depleating fossil fuel resourses and will have cleaner air due to less polution, this would slightly balance out the cost aspect and so would be quite good.:san_undecided:

2. we are right and manage to slow down and eventually stop global warming and possible disaster is averted, as a bonus we are also less relient on fossil fuels.:san_cheesy:

If we do nothing:

1. we are right global warming is not happening and the earth is actually being heated up by the sun. money is saved by companys and the economy is more healthy, untill oil and other fossil fuel reserves run out which will probably cause just as big a problem if not more so then emmision restrictions:san_cry:

2. we are wrong, the earth heats up, there are thousands of refuges that flood the cooler parts of the world at the same time as they are struggleing to adapt to the lact of fossil fuels.:san_shocked:

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

[doc_bean]

In conclusion in my opinion we should try and lower emmisions and should develop renewable energy resources as this is the option that brings the best results.

No one is really argueing this, the problem is, to what level should we lower emissions, at what cost ? How much do we invest in renewable energy ?

It's an economics problem really.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Byzantine Mercenary: Well said!

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc. While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.

I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was. But now it's turned political, I'll respond to the political parts too (building on from some of what Byzantine Mercenary said but focusing on another part):

If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

[doc_bean]

@doc_bean: "No one is really arguing this"
Ok, that's nice to hear. I was a little worried this thread would turn too political, and include heavy for and against American-bashing arguments etc.


This IS the backroom, someone is bound to take a stance like that, if only to see if they can defend it. But few if any people actually involved in the real life pollution/emission/green house debate will claim that reducing pollution/emission is not better than not doing that (if the costs were the same).



While it's true the USA refuses to take part in most deals for limiting pollution, it's also true that the pollution rights the Kyoto protocol suggested for the USA was a little tougher than for other countries, which was unfair. It's a two-edged sword.


A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.



I was mainly intending a discussion about the scientific parts of it, a discussion about how dangerous the problem was.

Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.



If we don't lower emissions until the last minute, we get a shock, which will shake the market and create economical chaos worse than the 1930ies depression.

The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.




If we don't lower emissions until it's too late, we're doomed.

That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.



If we lower emissions gradually, by passing laws on which pollution levels certain products may have, and give the market a hint some years in advance as to how these levels will develop, we create a safe, stabile market which will slowly adapt itself to the conditions reality imposes.

Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.



It's claimed that if we'd put as much money into solar power as we're every year giving to the coal mines for them to carry on their work, we'd have developed a solar energy able to replace most of the fossile fuels in 10 years, for instance. So the cost of developing solar energy isn't really a problem. The one problem is that economists and politicans underestimate how dangerous the problem is.

Claimed...:san_rolleyes:

Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...

Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages. The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

[Rodion Romanovich]

A lot of countries want a per capita regulation, is it surprising then that the Us refuses to take part ? It's one of the thinnest populated countries in the world.

True, it's hard to tell which system should be used



Hard to say, cuurent theory seems to involve a 'turning' point at which the climate of earth will inreversibily change about 100 years in the future. What will happen after the turning point seems to be pretty unclear, although it probably isn't good.

Any link?



The last point is at least 50years into the future, even by optimistic estimates our oil supplies won't let us rely on fossil fuels that long in the same way we do now.


Yes. The key is whether we'll keep using the coal or not. The oil will probably run out much faster than the coal. There's not too much oil, but there's too much coal. If we use it all up things will look really bad.



That's assuming it ever gets to be 'too late'.


Of course



Funny thin is, it isn't Kyoto that is driving the market away from 'polluting' tech. It's the volatility of the oil price, the high energy prices and, for countries, the need to have some control over the energy market themselves.


Exactly, Kyoto isn't the solution, merely a first attempt at something. I have higher hopes for any treaties that may come in the future.



Claimed...:san_rolleyes:


Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists. The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland. That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead, or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.



Currently, for households in belgium, the payback term for photovoltaic cells if they weren't subsidized would be 60 years (assuming stable energy prices). Photovoltaic cells last about 30years...


This is why more science is needed. According to most scientists, it isn't impossible to improve the solar cell qualiy and cost efficiency enough.



Alternative energy isn't magic, it has its own specific costs and disadvantages.

Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.


The oil industry, rich and powerful as it may be, isn't the only thing keeping us using oil. Oil and gas have simply been the most practical and cost-efficient source of energy in the last 50years (along with nuclear power).

That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Well, here are some more jokes:
- we can control the flow in rivers by using ponds!
- we can make dry desert areas wet so we can grow things there, by water pipe irrigation
- we can create vaccines that prevent people from catching diseases
- we can create pennicilline that cures most disease caused by bacteria


Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand. I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

[Viking]

What people seem to ignore is that greenhouse gases are called greenhouse gases beacuse...oh wait, because they make things greener, right?
Without the greenhouse gases the average temperature on Earth would have droped far below zero while it`s now almost 20 C. If we contribute with more greenhouse gases, it gets watmer; now matter what the amount is.
A recent study of ice cores from the north pole showed us that it hasn`t been as much CO2 in the atmosphere as it is today, before you go more than several hundred thousand years ago. Cope with that.

It`s getting warmer, and man is contributing to it. That is fact. Hence we can brake the warming now observed, almost totally or by a percentage.


We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it.

We don`t know how it works? Ever seen a weather forecast?

[Rodion Romanovich]

Pretty easy stuff compared to controlling the atmosphere, We dont even really know how it works and were going to control it. Again men are not gods. We have limited power and intellect. There are millions of things we will never know or understand.


That's the very point - we have limited power and intellect. What I'm saying is that if we do something that seems to lead us to death and destruction, we're not exactly compensating for our lack of knowledge and divinity by keeping up that movement and even accelerating it.



I think Doc pretty much sums it up. No one questions we should try to limit emmissions. Its a matter of how much is really needed. All this doom and gloom is just a scare tactic as far as I can see.

I'm not trying to use scare tactics. I'm intending a scientific discussion, and it looks like one thing has at least been settled - uncontrolled pollution is bad. I wish it would be false, but it isn't. Therefore, this topic has IMO served the purpose I intended for it, as we've settled the most important fact - that the greenhouse effect exists, and is human caused to some part. The political discussion is also interesting, but it was my idea to keep it out of the debate until the scientific parts were settled, so that people didn't refuse to admit scientific facts because they thought these facts could be used against their political ideology. Now, then, that there is at least some science to base the politics on, I too think debating the politics is of interest.

So, as the part we're not agreeing about is how much restriction of emission is needed, the next sensible question is how should we find out where the limits are, who should carry out the necessary scientific work for that, who should finance it, and who should have the power to decide about where law would put the emission limits? It's of course in the interest of everyone to make better and more exact estimates in this field of science.

[cunobelinus]

Global warming makes the earth unpredictable people are scared because of this and the day after tomroz is just one way it could go .Global warming will kill us by 2099 if we dont stop soon.But we wont stop until it is 2 late as humans all ways do .We never stop until we can see a huge problem with what we are doing.

[m52nickerson]

Global warming is not going to kill us. It may bring about the next ice age a few hundred years sooner, but it is not going to couse the planet to heat up to a life ending tempature.

Should we be concerned about pollution, yes. Should we look at the slightest bit of odd weather and say "Its because of global warming", no.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

It's also time man stopped raping this planet, maybe we'll finally figure that out when we're dead.
That would require having sex with the plannet, and since the plannet cannot say no, we can't rape it. :san_rolleyes:

[Ja'chyra]

That would require having sex with the plannet, and since the plannet cannot say no, we can't rape it. :san_rolleyes:

Lol. :san_tongue:

[doc_bean]

Actually, quite a few scientists argued that that would be the case, including several economists.
The strange thing is that the EU gives support to coal industry in Germany and Poland.

The EU also supports tabacco farmers yet supports emasures to reduce smoking. It's all quite absurd, but they are supporting different things. The support to the coal industry is economical support, which they are probably entitled to according to EU rules (amount of unemployed, reconversion area, etc.)

Politics :san_rolleyes:





That support money should have been invested in solar energy instead,


They seem to prefer 'sexier' solutions like fusion. Which, incidentally, also means France can get a lot of money (back) from the EU.

More seriously though, solar energy has its disadvantages, certainly in Europe. It isn't very sunny here, and when it is it's usually too hot (solar cells don't function well if it's too hot, ironically). Fall and spring would probably be the best seasons for solar power, but then it tends to be cloudy all day.

Which brings us to the big problem of alternative energy; it's (relatively) unpredictable. A nucealr power station supplies a constant amount of power, fuel stations can be used to supply additional power and can be started up really fast, when they are needed. Solar cells work when the weather is good, which you can't really say far in advance. Which is a problem, since in the energy market as it is today, a company can 'order' energy and the supplier needs to supply it, they need backup if they were to rely mainly on alternative energy.

Windmills are a whole different league of trouble altogether though, yet they seem to be very popular in Europe now. Politics...:san_rolleyes:



or another promising energy type: fossile fuels with greenhouse gas capture. These mechanisms involve capturing the emissions below earth's surface. There's a risk of leakage which may become dangerous, but it's quite good as it simulates the coal being bound in the earth again. Lack of binding in the earth is one of the main causes of the greenhouse effect.


I've only vaguely heard about this so I can't really comment, it sound like a good idea, but pretty expensive.



Indeed. Wind power and water power is for instance quite ridiculous, and actually harms nature more than some fossile fuels, while providing less energy.

Norway and a few other countries can get away with water power, it certainly damages a big area, but it's pretty clean for the rest of the world. Wind energy is a fad :san_smiley:



That's correct. The oil isn't the main problem, but the coal is. When oil runs out, people will most likely switch to coal unless there's non-natural, i.e. law-based, restrictions added. It's quite sad that oil is used for energy btw, when it's useful for asphalt, lubricants, creation of plastic etc.

I don't see us going back to coal unless we absolutely have to. It requires transport of large quantities of coal (a few full trains a day per nuclear reactor), mining it is dangerous (see China) and unpopular work (we used immigrants back in the day) and it's quite pollutive (that may be solvable).

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.


PS: sorry for any spelling mistakes, spell check is acting up again

[Rodion Romanovich]

What is really needed is a good and efficient way to STORE power, that would solve a ton of problems with alternative energy. Currently superconductors can be used for quite efficient storage, but too bad they require Helium, which is a 'tactical resource' according to the US, which keeps the average company from using it.

The hydrogen fuel cells sound promising. But people are scared of hydrogen being explosive, for instance if used in cars. Ironically, they fail to realize that the fuel they put in their cars now is quite explosive too, especially if ignited, as is the case several hundred times per minute in a combustion engine :san_grin:

[Prodigal]

I'm a tad sensitive about this whole subject so I haven't read any of the posts on this thread. I think the real crux of the issue that everyone should consider is that whether global warming is true or not, it seems that something's not quite right, and that if there is someway of helping remedy the situation then its got to be worth a try.

You see the very simple totally unavoidable fact of the matter, (whether people like it or not), is that there isn't any other planet to go and live on if this one gets too ****** up, & the planet won't stop turning just because it no longer provides the things that humans require to live, it won't care anymore than a house would if you set it on fire.

So global warming fact or fancy? One way or another we're going to find out, and I really hope that global warming's a bunch of BS, course if it isn't...Then what?

[Kommodus]

I'm not an environmental scientist and haven't put much serious effort into studying how much of the global warming trend is the result of man's activities, so I won't comment on these points.

I will say this, however - and this is just my opinion - it seems unlikely that imposing caps on greenhouse gas emissions will have a very big effect on climate. If any truly significant payoffs are to be had, they will only come when alternative energy sources are sufficiently developed and adopted widespread. For example, automobiles are among the big contributors of greenhouse gasses and other pollution, and we could eliminate most of this problem by using something other than fossil fuels to power them. Therefore, we should be focusing on research and development of better energy technologies, rather than treaties like Kyoto.

Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels would go a long way towards solving quite a few of the world's problems, not just global warming. To me, the big debate over whether or not the US should join Kyoto is pointless - it's just a lot of hot air (no pun intended). For the time being, we can try to be responsible in our fossil fuel consumption, but not at the cost of excessive economic harm when the possible benefits are so dubious. As I said, the real payoffs are down the road, when better energy sources become available.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

For example, automobiles are among the big contributors of greenhouse gasses and other pollution, and we could eliminate most of this problem by using something other than fossil fuels to power them. Therefore, we should be focusing on research and development of better energy technologies, rather than treaties like Kyoto.

Indeed, you can run diesel cars on vegetable oil, (with a few adjustments) although this in itself has a few problems as we would need to increase vegetable oil production quite a lot.

[m52nickerson]

Bio diesel looks very good. Stepping up oil production would not be that much of a problem, that and you can produce the fuel from recycled cooking oil as well.

The problem is that it still produces C02 gas.

[Marcellus]

Bio diesel looks very good. Stepping up oil production would not be that much of a problem, that and you can produce the fuel from recycled cooking oil as well.

The problem is that it still produces C02 gas.

Yes, but it's production (via plants etc.) removes CO2 from the atmosphere (in photosynthesis). So the amount of CO2 it releases is negated by the CO2 removed as the plant was growing. This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where the carbon was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, not in the present day.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Yes, but it's production (via plants etc.) removes CO2 from the atmosphere (in photosynthesis). So the amount of CO2 it releases is negated by the CO2 removed as the plant was growing. This is in contrast to fossil fuels, where the carbon was removed from the atmosphere millions of years ago, not in the present day.
yes, in fact because not all the plant material is used in makeing vegetable oil there is still some carbon dioxide that is not replaced imediately and perhaps permanently if such material was stored somewhere?

[doc_bean]

Bio diesel can not replace fossil oil based fuel in cars completely at the current rate of consumption though. In Europe we now have a guideline that says there should be a minimum amount of bio fuel in the oil we tank (Belgium doesn't enforce this and in fact forbids it, but we're going to change that).

It's as much (if not more) about saving/helping the agricultural sector as it is about saving the environment. Politics, sometimes they can catch two birds with one stone :san_smiley:

[m52nickerson]

It may not be able to replace normal gas right now, but if we increase the farming of soybeans (better to use them as fuel because they suck at replacing meat) then we may be able to come close.

[doc_bean]

It may not be able to replace normal gas right now, but if we increase the farming of soybeans (better to use them as fuel because they suck at replacing meat) then we may be able to come close.

Last I heard we'd need more more agricultural surface than the earth can possibly provide to do that. But I might be wrong...

[Byzantine Mercenary]

depends how much our energy demand is and how much land is available as well as the quality of land used and the technology used

[Rodion Romanovich]

Actually from what I've seen biofuel is pretty bad, because it requires increased farming, and the biggest environmental problem besides the greenhouse effect is the eutrophication of lakes, which is a result of too heavy farming with synthetic fertilizers. Often the increased need for areas to grow the biofuel also results in deforestation... The probably most promising thing in the short term is fossile fuels such as coal but with CO2 capture in depots below earth, which could be used for charging hydrogen fuel cells. But that also has the disadvatange of being risky, i.e. the captured CO2 can easily leak to the surface when it's not chemically bound like nature does it.

[doc_bean]

I don't think we will see more farming, maybe more intensive, but not more. Farming is hard and ungrateful work, and pretty much all usuable land is in use (except in Africa I think).

Of course, intense farming can be pretty bad for the environment too.

"The law of constant misery", one of my professors calls it. You can improve one aspect only at the cost of another.

[Kommodus]

Seriously, I think that (theoretically) the best possible sources of energy in the future are hydrogen and solar power. Hydrogen is only the most plentiful substance in the universe, and the sun ain't gonna run out of energy any time soon. The waste component involved in using both sources of energy is, as I understand it, relatively small and harmless.

Now obviously, the objection is often raised that the technology is not yet at a point where we can make widespread use of these. In fact, it may yet be decades away. But surely this is not much of a problem, if in fact we have 50-80 years to deal with global warming? If we were to focus research and development on the most promising long-term solutions, we might be able to accelerate the process. It sounds a lot better to me than wasting time and resources on short-lived, relatively insignificant, temporary patches to a larger problem.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

when dealing with energy supply there is one thing that you have to face, every form has its disadvantages, your right, biofuels would require large amounts of land, however managed forests could be used to provide some wood for electricity generation and many current bi products of agriculture includeing manure can be burnt and then the ash can be used as a more biologically sound fertiliser in farming which should also reduce eutrification.
tidal power could provide 1/5 of britains energy requirements if all the main sites where it is possible are developed but at the cost of damage to wildlife and marine habitat.
Wind power simply can't provide the energy requirements of the country and solar is very dependant on the sun, the best solution is to lower demand

[doc_bean]

Seriously, I think that (theoretically) the best possible sources of energy in the future are hydrogen and solar power. Hydrogen is only the most plentiful substance in the universe, and the sun ain't gonna run out of energy any time soon. The waste component involved in using both sources of energy is, as I understand it, relatively small and harmless.

Unless you're talking about fusion (anyone's guess if we can actually make it work, and if so, when) hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source. :san_smiley:

[Kommodus]

Unless you're talking about fusion (anyone's guess if we can actually make it work, and if so, when) hydrogen is just an energy carrier, not a source. :san_smiley:

I am, of course, talking about hydrogen fuel cells, not nuclear fusion. I have not heard anything promising by way of nuclear fusion for some time, but hydrogen fuel cells look much more promising.

I see no reason to make a distinction between an energy "carrier" and a "source." Gasoline is, after all, only an energy carrier, with the energy stored in chemical bonds that must be broken to release it.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Yes, the rumours about cold fusion turned out to be an overhyped mass media stunt. It seems like fusion won't be available in the nearest century, if at all, judging from what is said at the moment. Though I must again say that I think the hydrogen fuel cells sound really, really promising, if charged with fossile fuel+capture energy extraction techniques. It'll maybe turn out to be one of the most important discoveries of this century!

Has anyone heard any news on the so-called "breed reactions", which are also one of the more promising short term replacement energy sources. They're however not liked by some because they make it easier for nations using it to produce nuclear weapons from the rest products than is the case for normal fission reactors ~:) Anyway, last news I heard was that the experimental versions still kept exploding...

[Xiahou]

It may not be able to replace normal gas right now, but if we increase the farming of soybeans (better to use them as fuel because they suck at replacing meat) then we may be able to come close.
The other benefit of bio-diesel is that diesel engines are inherently more effecient than gasoline powered ones. So even if they use a majority of traditional diesel in their fuel mixes- it's still better off than current gasoline engines. I think diesel/bio-diesel would be a good transitional fuel source, but from what I've seen it looks like the markets are leaning more towards hybrids. :shrug:

[m52nickerson]

Last I heard we'd need more more agricultural surface than the earth can possibly provide to do that. But I might be wrong...

I have never heard that, but if it were true then it would put a damper on things.


Why couldn't you have a hybrid that ran on bio-diesel? It would be fuel effecent and the need for increased farming would be less.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Solar will never be fully viable unless coupled with weather control. Yes, it represents billions of years of "renewable" energy -- actually it will expand and cinderize this planet and then collapse, but tha't being picky -- but we live at the bottom of an atmosphere that is all too effective at screening the energy of that millions-of-miles-away fusion furnace. Not complaining, mind you, its still the source of virtually all of the energy on/in/of this planet and the atmosphere keeps me from frying like an egg on a skillet. :san_cheesy:

Fossil fuels are renewable as well, though the time-frame involved might mean we're using it far faster than it can be replaced.:san_cheesy:

Short term answer is nukes. Vast amount of energy available for relatively little fuel. Means everyone will have nukes if we go this route, of course, but that is a likely future scenario anyway (not happy with that, but there it is).

Do need to develop other energy systems. Fuel cells near term, fusion long term, keep building efficiency factor across the board.


As was said, though, its an economic problem. These things will happen when the monies say they can/must. TANSTAAFL.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I have never heard that, but if it were true then it would put a damper on things.


I have. Not ony that it more expensive to produce than gasoline and less efficient. If every car in the US ran on eythanol we would have to have corn fields or the like from ocean to ocean.


Efficiency and economic arguments
According to a study written by Drs. Van Dyne and Raymer for the Tennessee Valley Authority, the average US farm consumes fuel at the rate of 82 litres per hectare (8.75 US gallons per acre) of land to produce one crop. However, average crops of rapeseed produce oil at an average rate of 1,029 L/ha (110 US gal/acre), and high-yield rapeseed fields produce about 1,356 L/ha (145 US gal/acre). The ratio of input to output in these cases is roughly 1:12.5 and 1:16.5. Photosynthesis is known to have an efficiency rate of about 16% and if the entire mass of a crop is utilized for energy production, the overall efficiency of this chain is known to be about 1%. This does not compare favorably to solar cells combined with an electric drive train. Biodiesel outcompetes solar cells in cost and ease of deployment. However, these statistics by themselves are not enough to show whether such a change makes economic sense.

Additional factors must be taken into account, such as: the fuel equivalent of the energy required for processing, the yield of fuel from raw oil, the return on cultivating food, and the relative cost of biodiesel versus petrodiesel. A 1998 joint study by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) traced many of the various costs involved in the production of biodiesel and found that overall, it yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil fuel energy consumed. [5] That measure is referred to as the energy yield. A comparison to petroleum diesel, petroleum gasoline and bioethanol using the USDA numbers can be found at the Minnesota Department of Agriculture website[6] In the comparison petroleum diesel fuel is found to have a 0.843 energy yield, along with 0.805 for petroleum gasoline, and 1.34 for bioethanol. The 1998 study used soybean oil primarily as the base oil to calculate the energy yields. It is conceivable that higher oil yielding crops could increase the energy yield of biodiesel. The debate over the energy balance of biodiesel is ongoing, however.

Some nations and regions that have pondered transitioning fully to biofuels have found that doing so would require immense tracts of land if traditional crops are used. Considering only traditional plants and analyzing the amount of biodiesel that can be produced per unit area of cultivated land, some have concluded that it is likely that the United States, with one of the highest per capita energy demands of any country, does not have enough arable land to fuel all of the nation's vehicles. Other developed and developing nations may be in better situations, although many regions cannot afford to divert land away from food production. For third world countries, biodiesel sources that use marginal land could make more sense, e.g. honge nuts [7] grown along roads.

More recent studies using a species of algae that has oil contents of as high as 50% have concluded that as little as 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Further encouragement comes from the fact that the land that could be most effective in growing the algae is desert land with high solar irradiation, but lower economic value for other uses and that the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae. [8]

The direct source of the energy content of biodiesel is solar energy captured by plants during photosynthesis. The website biodiesel.co.uk[9]discusses the positive energy balance of biodiesel:

When straw was left in the field, biodiesel production was strongly energy positive, yielding 1 GJ biodiesel for every 0.561 GJ of energy input (a yield/cost ratio of 1.78).
When straw was burned as fuel and oilseed rapemeal was used as a fertilizer, the yield/cost ratio for biodiesel production was even better (3.71). In other words, for every unit of energy input to produce biodiesel, the output was 3.71 units (the difference of 2.71 units would be from solar energy).
Biodiesel is becoming of interest to companies interested in commercial scale production as well as the more usual home brew biodiesel user and the user of straight vegetable oil or waste vegetable oil in diesel engines. Homemade biodiesel processors are many and varied.

[Xiahou]

More recent studies using a species of algae that has oil contents of as high as 50% have concluded that as little as 28,000 km² or 0.3% of the land area of the US could be utilized to produce enough biodiesel to replace all transportation fuel the country currently utilizes. Further encouragement comes from the fact that the land that could be most effective in growing the algae is desert land with high solar irradiation, but lower economic value for other uses and that the algae could utilize farm waste and excess CO2 from factories to help speed the growth of the algae. [8]
Well, that's interesting.... sounds like it could almost be feasible with more development. They also seem to be saying that biodiesel can provide a very positive return on the energy used to produce it.

[Kommodus]

Solar will never be fully viable unless coupled with weather control.

I would take a slightly more optimistic posture towards solar power. Granted, we will probably never have autos that run on only solar energy, for the reason you cite: we can't always count on enough sunlight getting through the atmosphere, especially in certain climates. However, consider this: the energy needed to create H2 fuel cells has to come from somewhere. If you take it from fossil fuels, you haven't really solved the original problem completely. Solar power, on the other hand, might be just the right choice for this application, as long as you build your power plant in a relatively sunny location. Then you wouldn't need constant sunlight - you could just use what you get.

This is speculative, of course, but it seems logical to me.

[Viking]

It seems like fusion won't be available in the nearest century, if at all, judging from what is said at the moment.

We have fusion technology. However, todays fusion reactors does only produce as much energy as they use.
It`s expected that we will produce more than we use[with a fusion reactor] with the multinational ITER reactor that`s expected finished in 2013(true at the time when I read about it).

[Kommodus]

We have fusion technology. However, todays fusion reactors does only produce as much energy as they use.
It`s expected that we will produce more than we use[with a fusion reactor] with the multinational ITER reactor that`s expected finished in 2013(true at the time when I read about it).

Can you post a source for this? That sounds like a perpetual motion machine, a theoretical impossibility. That is to say, no machine can have an efficiency greater than 100%.

[Rodion Romanovich]

@Kommodus: I think he means that you need to insert energy to start the reaction, which lets loose the chemical energy of the molecules/atoms exposed to fusion. The end result is the same amount of energy as the starting result, the difference is that we'll hopefully get more energy out of it than we inserted to start the reaction/process. That's what makes it an energy source. It's like when we use some energy to heat oil, so we can burn it and use a turbine or similar to transform the bound energy to electricity. Efficiency in the case of an energy source measures how effectively the turbine or similar transforms the energy in the fuel to electricity. In the case of oil, normally efficiency is around 30%-40% in the very best turbine systems we have.

@Viking: But I'm also curious to see what source you have. All sources I've seen claim that fusion will mostly be sci-fi/fantasy for the coming decades.

[Viking]

LegioXXXUlpiaVictrixI think he means that you need to insert energy to start the reaction, which lets loose the chemical energy of the molecules/atoms exposed to fusion. The end result is the same amount of energy as the starting result, the difference is that we'll hopefully get more energy out of it than we inserted to start the reaction/process. That's what makes it an energy source. It's like when we use some energy to heat oil, so we can burn it and use a turbine or similar to transform the bound energy to electricity. Efficiency in the case of an energy source measures how effectively the turbine or similar transforms the energy in the fuel to electricity. In the case of oil, normally efficiency is around 30%-40% in the very best turbine systems we have.

That should be correct.



Can you post a source for this? That sounds like a perpetual motion machine, a theoretical impossibility. That is to say, no machine can have an efficiency greater than 100%.


But I'm also curious to see what source you have. All sources I've seen claim that fusion will mostly be sci-fi/fantasy for the coming decades.

Hmm, well, my source was a Scandinavian popular science magazine(Illustrert Vitenskap), but I think posting a link to wikipedia should be better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

[doc_bean]

I see no reason to make a distinction between an energy "carrier" and a "source." Gasoline is, after all, only an energy carrier, with the energy stored in chemical bonds that must be broken to release it.

Gasoline allready has energy in it when we pump it up, we need to produce energy to store it into hydrogen fuel cells, I'd say the distinction is obvious. If you want to use hydrogen you need another means by which you generate the energy to put into the hydrogen cells, if you want to use gasoline, you burn it et voila :san_cool:



Can you post a source for this? That sounds like a perpetual motion machine, a theoretical impossibility. That is to say, no machine can have an efficiency greater than 100%.

Molecules have a mass that is less than the protons and neutrons would weigh if they existed separately. According to Einstein E=mc² so the mass you lose in a fusion reaction is turned into energy.

[Meneldil]

Hmm, well, my source was a Scandinavian popular science magazine(Illustrert Vitenskap), but I think posting a link to wikipedia should be better:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

It's not the first time people tried to build a fusion reactor. The last one did not work.
And if ITER works (quite unlikely afaik), it will probably waste more energy than it will create. Fusion, if it ever turns out to be an effective way to produce energy, won't be productive before decades at best.

[Ironside]

It's not the first time people tried to build a fusion reactor. The last one did not work.
And if ITER works (quite unlikely afaik), it will probably waste more energy than it will create. Fusion, if it ever turns out to be an effective way to produce energy, won't be productive before decades at best.

Actually they have reached the state when they get get out as much energy as they put in, although I'm not sure if they counted that as effective or total energy output.
Same source as Viking (although Swedish version of course :san_wink: ).

But you're correct that ITER won't ever produce a surplus used outside the plant, as it's an experimental reactor. So still decades away with fusion power.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

shouldn't they divert some of the money being spent on developing fusion reactors which may be impossible and put it into renewable schemes that already work, such as biofuels solar power, wind power etc?