Global Warming

[bedub1]

Iceland runs almost their entire country off thermal energy from the hot water springs that naturally occupy their place.

[spurgistan]

Iceland runs almost their entire country off thermal energy from the hot water springs that naturally occupy their place.

Soo.. what? Should we build thermal hot springs? Should we move to Iceland? Not an entirely bad proposition, I've heard great things (oldest continuous legislative body! Whoo!) but other than that, what can we learn from the Icelandic example?

[Juan_Bottom]

Iceland runs almost their entire country off thermal energy from the hot water springs that naturally occupy their place.

Soo.. what? Should we build thermal hot springs? Should we move to Iceland? Not an entirely bad proposition, I've heard great things (oldest continuous legislative body! Whoo!) but other than that, what can we learn from the Icelandic example?

We have the technology, and the hot springs. Though the largest bodies are in Alaska. It wouldn't cost anything...

[bedub1]

It's just proof that there are other options.

[joecoolfrog]

Iceland runs almost their entire country off thermal energy from the hot water springs that naturally occupy their place.

Soo.. what? Should we build thermal hot springs? Should we move to Iceland? Not an entirely bad proposition, I've heard great things (oldest continuous legislative body! Whoo!) but other than that, what can we learn from the Icelandic example?

Terrible place, the landscape is awesome and the people wonderful but beer is £6 pint

[muy_thaiguy]

Oh. And since skeptics like to use anecdotes during the winter, isn't it hot outside? Global warming exists!

Actually it's been kind of cold here lately.

But... it's hot where I am.

You don't count.

[Nobunaga]

... George Will, always an interesting read.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... ikely.html

[PLAYER57832]

In the warmer parts of Europe, they use the heat of the sun to warm their water directly - a low-tech green idea which has been around since before "green" was anything but a colour. This doesn't work too well in the UK, but it would be ideal for quite a lot of the US - is it used much?

In the warmer parts of the country, maybe. But the area where I live, yes there are times were we can get a good amount of sun, but the only time that it would be even remotely practical is about 2-4 months out of the year. The rest of the time it is simply to cold to do anything like that.

BTW, I live in the Mountain West (Wyoming, Colorado, Dakotas, Montana, Idaho).

Actually, the temperature has little to do with it. I have seen some solar systems used quite well in Alaska, for example (though I cannot tell you how to build one, sorry). The main differance between colder areas is whether you use water or another substance (antifreeze, for example) and how long you can store the water.

What really matters is the number of clear, sunny (not necessarily warm) days. There are charts that tell you how much sun there is in your area. Ironically, Alaska and parts of Colorado, though colder can actually use solar better than here in western PA. Most who use alternate technology, though rely on a combination of sun, wind and hydro power. I am told that even 2 cfs (cubic feet per second .. cannot remember the Metric equivalent, but that is a very small stream) is enough to use hydropower for some electric.

[targetman377]

here is what i think. sorry for any one who does not want to hear my opion just stop reading NOW . ok since you are still reading you might be intrested to know that through out history of the plant there has not been Glaciers on it very often. through most of our planet history!!!! so why we so concerned if they melted it was bound to happan. DONT LIVE ON THE COAST!!!! OH DONT LIVE BELOW SEA LEAVlE EITHER!!!!! thats about all (sorry bad speller i know that but if that is why you think i am dumb that is a shame. i just have a very hard time with grammer and english other than that i can pretty much win any debate in speech)

[CrazyAnglican]

I must say that one the lighter side of Global warming I'm getting a kick out of watching the Canadian geese make up their minds. As they honk furiously at one another I can only imagine the conversations "Hey Bob! You sure we're supposed to be going South? Feels like April to me!". "I don't know Fred. I'm about to give up and evolve. Call me a Guatemalan goose from now on, I'm done with trying to figure out migration patterns!"

[targetman377]

I must say that one the lighter side of Global warming I'm getting a kick out of watching the Canadian geese make up their minds. As they honk furiously at one another I can only imagine the conversations "Hey Bob! You sure we're supposed to be going South? Feels like April to me!". "I don't know Fred. I'm about to give up and evolve. Call me a Guatemalan goose from now on, I'm done with trying to figure out migration patterns!"

[EvilPurpleMonkey]

Irregardless of whether or not Global Warming is real (Which it is), doesn't it make more sense economicaly and politicaly to switch to alternative energies? With solar, wind, hydro, and tidal power, we are less dependent on foreign oil (Meaning we are no longer OPEC's *****.) and since there is no actual cost involved in extracting the energy, just maintenance and initial construction, this could possibly result in a low cost while still maintaining high profits, No? This way, we are free of foreign interference, Big Oil, and both consumer and producer are happy.

[targetman377]

alright i might go that far i would agree with you stop useing oil. but i would say that wind power is the worst form ever

[PLAYER57832]

Irregardless of whether or not Global Warming is real (Which it is), doesn't it make more sense economicaly and politicaly to switch to alternative energies? With solar, wind, hydro, and tidal power, we are less dependent on foreign oil (Meaning we are no longer OPEC's *****.) and since there is no actual cost involved in extracting the energy, just maintenance and initial construction, this could possibly result in a low cost while still maintaining high profits, No? This way, we are free of foreign interference, Big Oil, and both consumer and producer are happy.

Though I firmly believe in alternate technology, I must point out that there are some pretty toxic metals and such used in the production. The end result is safe, but they are not entirely environmentally neutral. (yet).

Tidal power ... has its own problems (remember fish supply a large portion of the world's food supplies and the tidal zones are prime breeding grounds for some).

Also, that "initial cost" and maintenance can be pretty darned pricey. Where I used to live, for example, solar would only break even in cost if you lived over 2000 yards from an electric source. (pretty well excludes most suburbs and even a lot of rural areas). Here, solar does not pay at all, because we have too much average cloud cover.

[PLAYER57832]

alright i might go that far i would agree with you stop useing oil. but i would say that wind power is the worst form ever

Why?

[HapSmo19]

Though I firmly believe in alternate technology, I must point out that there are some pretty toxic metals and such used in the production. The end result is safe, but they are not entirely environmentally neutral. (yet).

Neither is your computer but, I noticed you're still using it.

[AAFitz]

Well if you are going to convict CO2 for all our worries, I would like to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt as in any proper court of law. Unfortunately, it's worse than a reasonable doubt, the prosecution has only bought circumstantial evidence to the court room.

CO2 is hardly the only culprit, but since it is clearly a massive one, it is a logical place to start. Especially since it is the one that is predicted to rise the most and is the one we have the most control over. Also, your analogy is faulty. The prosecution is not looking to convict and imprison C02, merely put a restraining order on it. For that circumstantial evidence is beyond adequate. Further, circumstantial evidence is in fact used to convict people beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when you call it circumstantial, and others see it as hard irrefutable evidence. Your labeling it, as many defense attorneys often do with evidence as circumstantial does not make it so, and the best juries typically see right through it.

More over, as I look through the various history books on subjects unrelated to global warming, I realize that we have been getting better all the time, not worse. While the population has been increasing, our use of combustion has been getting more and more efficient. Roll everything back to the 18th century and the colonists who were extracting iron ore from the Catskill Mountains were leveling whole sides of mountains to provide the wood fuel for the smelting and made the entire sky so black that you could not see the sun in the middle of the day. Roll back even further and you see the near deforrestation of Europe in the Middle Ages because of the great love for hot baths. (Bathing was only taboo in later centuries.)

Efficiency means nothing. If the total output is still too much, the fact that its a little lower will mean nothing. Further, basing our decisions based upon the fact that people made mistakes in the 18th Century is just pointless, not to mention silly. It should in fact inspire us to not make the same mistakes, not make us indifferent, because they made mistakes then.

Remember it was only a few decades ago that the great satan molecule was methane and how the so called "hard" science fiction program Seaquest DSV was predicting that all the cows would have to be slaughtered and cattle growing forever banned in order to prevent global warming. Now methane is hardly talked about, even though global warming technically has the potential to release tons of methane in frozen permasoil.

You say methane is hardly talked about, but anyone seriously discussing global warming understands the impact of methane fully. Certainly any model shows the multiple sources of methane such as the permafrost, the oceans, and lakes that have millions of metric tons suspended in them. Ill simply ignore the debunking of sequest DSV science, since its laughable. Ive seen Star Trek make a few predictions too, such as aliens coming to blow up the planet because we killed all the whales. Im all for preserving the whales, but its really more of an environmental issue and I never really took the fictional show, as anything more.

That said, there is "reasonable doubt" and that solar wind effects which could impact cosmic rays that are responsible for cloud formation could play a stronger influence on global temperatures than CO2. The data tracks far better.

The fact that there are other forces and factors, which of course there are, does not mean we get to ignore a source that is controllable. Further, solar wind is a natural process on which we currently have no control. We have direct control over our C02 production. People die of many diseases that are incurable, but that does not mean we dont try to cure the small ones too. In fact, those are the ones we sometimes spend the most time trying to cure.

By all means, let's reduce fossil fuel use. Let's have a solar panel on every house roof, (or perhaps some nice green grass) and windmills to capture the wind. Let's have smaller fuel efficient transportation systems. There are lots of reasons to do this that have nothing to do with global warming. Let us even be prapared for the possibility that global warming might be long term. (In the middle east they are wroking on the idea of whole floating islands; a unique solution for all locations that are prone to natural flooding or could have problems if ocean levels rise.)

Clearly very sound reasoning. There the cost of being wrong, (money) vs the cost of being right(millions of lives) is in calculable.

And this is the inverted pascall's wager. If we blindly assume that global warming is caused by CO2 and not only it isn't but the cause is really long term then we just spent billions of dollars and man hours for nothing. ("The goggles! They do nothing!") While we could have spent that money preparing for not only this potential disaster but other disasters that occur all the time that have nothing to do with global warming or cooling.

Again, you seem prepared to blindly wager the lives of perhaps the entire human race, becuase you arent sure the scientists, who you say are acting blindly....who some have actually dedicated their lives to studying the situation and possible solutions, and usually at a sacrifice and for the main goal of helping the human race...arent convinced they are 100% correct. That is a hefty wager you are suggesting we make. You may save us some bucks, but if youre wrong, the bill is going to be a tad bit larger, and Ill make my own wager, that you wont be able to pay up on this one.

CO2 causes global warming is merely a crack dictor's unproven "cure" for an ailment which may or may not be long term. Someone just wants to sell us snake oil and the majority are buying it hook, line and sinker.

Its also possible that CO2 is killing us, and these so called crack dictors (thousands of scientists around the world) are trying to develop antibiotics and vaccines, and like many naive people, you are refusing to take it, and will subsequently will die, from very curable diseases. Luckily in this case, they are working hard to protect you despite your naivety.

[PLAYER57832]

Though I firmly believe in alternate technology, I must point out that there are some pretty toxic metals and such used in the production. The end result is safe, but they are not entirely environmentally neutral. (yet).

Neither is your computer but, I noticed you're still using it.

As I said ... I firmly believe in alternate technology. I believe the problems are less than in fossil fuel use, for one. However, to ignore the real problems does no one any good. We do have to make trade-offs, but that only works if we acknowledge that they ARE tradeoffs. To often people put forward alternate technology as this permanent, ultimate solution instead of an evolving process that itself has problems.

[targetman377]

alright i might go that far i would agree with you stop useing oil. but i would say that wind power is the worst form ever

Why?

first off for how much it cost to maintain them and how much they do not give us enough energy at all. they are large and cumbersome. i think the best thing we could ever do is go all nuclear!!!

[AAFitz]

I would actually agree that ideally we would go nuclear, especially if we could go with fusion, and not fission. As far as wind power though, I believe it was meant to be supplemental, and not a complete replacement. Certainly as a source of power, it is more than viable, and sustainable, and while there may be a cost of maintenance, in the end that cost may be far less than repairing damage done by other methods.

Certainly the people in chernoble, and 3 mile island would probably feel more comfortable next to a wind mill, than a nuclear power plant.

[PLAYER57832]

alright i might go that far i would agree with you stop useing oil. but i would say that wind power is the worst form ever

Why?

first off for how much it cost to maintain them and how much they do not give us enough energy at all. they are large and cumbersome. i think the best thing we could ever do is go all nuclear!!!

Denmark uses windpower .. mostly a lot of smaller scale projects (single houses, etc).

Texas and CA, have and are building wind farms. They might be "large and cumbersome", but how does that compare with "the potential to make whole swaths of land completely unliveable .. not just if the core melts, but just from the accumulated waste. The US does not even have a designated storage site. Those that are proposed are hardly considered universally safe. I suspect we will be going the nuclear route, because the other methods won' be developed quickly enough or give enough power soon enough. However, I still don't think it is really "worth" the costs.

This is what I was getting at above. It is not that alternative energy sources are completely without added impacts, without harm. The question is which provides the greatest benefit for the LEAST harm. Since we have had 8 years of an administration that did all in its power (a great deal) to subvert and undermine much of science ... we face far more difficult choices than if we had tackled these things before Bush.

[Snorri1234]

The US does not even have a designated storage site.

True. How about New Jersey?

[jonesthecurl]

How about Snorri's bum?

[MeDeFe]

How about your mom?

[brooksieb]

Jack Sparrow's rum.