Who still believes in Global Warming?

[subs]

as long as we allow the government to subvert it's role and make laws and regulations to enforce the will of the corporations, the world will suffer and we will become bigger captives of the corporatocracy.

best thing i heard all year except touchdown Seahawks !

any ideas how we do this?



good luck buddy

[DwightShrute]

[curious]

if u want to prove me wrong u do it - like i got 2 days to waste on u

You never said anything that made any sense, so there is no way to prove you wrong. I am saying that you can calculate what effect PV arrays will have if the entire earth's surface is covered with them. It won't be nearly enough.

You quoted some crackheads who don't have any real facts on this issue and the real facts are easy to calculate.

If you won't do the calculation then you show that all you care about is spouting nonsense.

[EasyHustlin]

Funny how the people who argue against burning coal and other fossil fiels are often the same ones arguing against it's greatest alternative, nuclear power.

[jackspo]

i believe in global warming, i read a news here on this forum only

[subs]

You never said anything that made any sense, so there is no way to prove you wrong. I am saying that you can calculate what effect PV arrays will have if the entire earth's surface is covered with them. It won't be nearly enough.

You quoted some crackheads who don't have any real facts on this issue and the real facts are easy to calculate.

If you won't do the calculation then you show that all you care about is spouting nonsense.

ok curious, in the hope that we can have a nice civil discussion i will play this little game. although it should be obvious that spouting nonsense is not all i care about . you have helped me in my practice of not really getting annoyed or taking things personally i find it is beneficial to my overall happiness.


OK here is my honest, back of the envelope calculations. i hope that i have not made too many mistakes. please if i have made mistakes do not call me a liar - just honest mistakes, ok?

according to wiki:
"474 exajoules (474×10^18 J) per year used
average power consumption is 15 terawatts (1.504×10^13 W)

For the whole Earth, with a cross section of 127,400,000 km2, the total energy rate is 174 petawatts (1.740×10^17 W), plus or minus 3.5%. This value is the total rate of solar energy received by the planet; about half, 89 PW, reaches the Earth's surface."


let us assume a low 10% solar energy capturing from our cells (should be about 13-14% and up to 22%. the theoretical max is 29% (apparently although i do not know this nor have i recheck all my data - i am relying mostly on wiki).

((energy received) * 10%) - (energy used) = excess available
((89*10^15) * 0.1) - 1.504*10^13 = 8.88496 × 10^15

energy yield ratio = E(output in lifetime)/E(input)

for the most modern PV systems, it is estimated that it takes between 0.8 and 1.2 years to payback the energy used to make the panels but they should last 20-25 years.

so for these modern PV systems worst energy yield ratio is 20/1.2 = 16.66667
best is 25/0.8 = 31.25

i have also found longest estimates of payback to be 3 years from dated articles (4 for very outdated panels) and longest lasting panels 30 years. but this appears to be for older systems.

so very worst case scenario (except natural/man made disasters) energy yield ratio is 20/4 = 5 a massive difference but this is the very worst case that i can estimate. i would suggest somewhere around 16?

so (8.88496 × 10^15) - (8.88496 × 10^15)/16 = 8.32965 × 10^15

guess we have to agree to disagree again curious

lets suppose 1% of earth used for PV then this is still a massive:

((89*10^15) * 0.1*0.01) - 1.504*10^13 = 7.39600*10^13 W more than we need. or just under 5 times as much

clearly u r right though it is not really practical to cover 0.2% of the earth in PV however i never did suggest that all power should come from PV


wondering what u know about other renewables, maybe u can share so i don't have to do this all again.


here it is worked out another way in more detail.

also some more ref

here


SOLAR ENERGY POTENTIALS

We have around 4 billion hectares of land in the world, which is not used for anything. Suppose that we could use up to 10% of this land to accommodate solar cells. How much energy would we expect to harvest?

To answer this question, we have to consider the minimum and the maximum annual clear sky irradiance (the intensity of solar radiation) measured in the number of watts per square metre. We also have to correct the calculations for the minimum and maximum of the annual average sky clearance. Using tabulated data (IPCC 2001), I have calculated the minimum and maximum solar energy potentials, P, i.e. the minimum and maximum energy delivered by the Sun to various regions of the world per year and globally. Results are presented in Table 1. Using the last two values in this table we can calculate that on average 10% of the so far unused global land area receives from the sun 32,227 exajoules of energy per year [EJ/y]. The minimum value is 15,393 EJ/y. Compare it with 463 EJ/y, which was the global consumption of energy in 2005 or with 645 EJ/y, the projected global consumption of energy in 2020 (see The Little Green Handbook).

Table 1. Solar energy potentials assuming that 10% of unused land area can be covered by solar cells

http://subs.mysbrforum.com/photos/l/asBycS2m.jpg

A — Total surface area of the currently unused land in billion hectares (Gha).
R — Annual clear sky solar irradiance (the intensity of solar radiation in watts per square metre (W/m2)).
f — Annual fraction of time when the sky is clear.
P — Solar energy potential (the energy delivered by the Sun to the 10% of the currently unused land) expressed either in in trillion watt-hours per year (TWh/y) or in exajoules per year (EJ/y).

Example:Assuming that we can use 10% of the currently unused land area of 0.5940 Gha in North America for solar cells, the minimum solar energy available in this fraction of the total area would be 1813 exajoules per year [EJ/y] and the maximum 7418 EJ/y depending on the annual irradiance (R) and the fraction of the time the sky is clear (f). As a point of reference, our global annual consumption of energy in 2005 was 463 EJ/y.

Another way to calculate the average annual solar potential is to use the average solar radiation intensity of 342 W/m2 and consider that on average only 58% of it reaches the Earth's surface (see Solar Radiation). If we use these figure we shall find that 10% of the so far unused land area receives on average 24,605 exajoules of energy per year [EJ/y], which is close to the previously calculated average potential. The corresponding figure expressed in units that can be compared with our global consumption of electricity is 6,834.808 TWh/y.

The amount of energy we can harvest and use depends on the efficiency of solar cells. Solar cells' efficiency is improving but let us assume the lowest value of only 10%.

Our global consumption of electricity in 2005 was 15,182 TWh/y (see The Little Green Handbook). However, 9,541 TWh/y of electricity was produced by fossil fuels and 2,555 TWh/y by nuclear power, or the total 12,096 TWh/y. Assuming the lowest solar potential and the lowest efficiency of solar cells we can calculate that we could produce 35 times more electricity than produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power. The additional advantage is that solar power is clean and last practically forever.

Even if we used only 1% of unused land area we could produce nearly 4 times more electricity than we produce using fossil fuels and nuclear power. I should remind that this is the lowest limit. With better efficiency of solar cells and a higher average irradiance we could produce more electricity. The surplus of solar energy could be used to replace fossil fuels in transportation and reduce further our emissions of carbon dioxide.

Copyright

You may use the information contained in this article as long as you refer to it as Nielsen, R. 2005, 'How Much Solar Energy Can We Harvest?', http://home.iprimus.com.au/nielsens/.

For additional information and a discussion of all critical global trends shaping our future see The Little Green Handbook.

Reference

IPCC 2001, Summary for Policy Makers: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.

[Hotdiggity11]

Funny how the people who argue against burning coal and other fossil fiels are often the same ones arguing against it's greatest alternative, nuclear power.

I recently switched to being a supporter for nuclear power as long as it is regulated to avoid potential problems.

[Hotdiggity11]

So the fact it is snowing in December/January discounts the fact that climate has been unnaturally climbing? Strange scientific logic you have there but going by the fact you are attacking Al Gore, I'd imagine the reason you are against it is largely political difference anyways.

[Hotdiggity11]

Anyone who believes the climate isn't changing because of human activity is plain ignorant of proven scientific fact.

Climate always changes, regardless of human activity. As we see in this case, humans are not the cause but a contributing factor.

[Hotdiggity11]

Note to self: When is cold in the winter it means global warming doesn't happen.

Especially considering the climate statistics of just the last decade, much less the last 100+ years.

[Nathan Bug Tyler]

i believe that man destroyed earth for their own greed, is it a coincidence we are having a record number of natural disasters?

[Hotdiggity11]

i believe that man destroyed earth for their own greed, is it a coincidence we are having a record number of natural disasters?

Pretty hard to destroy Earth, it has been through much worse than anything we've done so far. It will continue on like it always has, regardless of asteroids, humanity, animals, etc etc.


Now, the things living on Earth on the other hand...

[statnerds]

A question or two libs will avoid, deflect and never answer.

How, if global warming is man made, did the Norse breed livestock and farm Greenland from about 985 - 1300 A.D.?

So given that we are currently living in a period cooler now than the time frame mentioned above, (meaning this is not the warmest the Earth has ever been), and there were no SUVs, coal burning power plants or airplanes, how do you account for the extreme 'warming' of that period?

[horseexpert]

Yes. I can't wait til the coasts are under water.

[Hotdiggity11]

A question or two libs will avoid, deflect and never answer.

How, if global warming is man made, did the Norse breed livestock and farm Greenland from about 985 - 1300 A.D.?

So given that we are currently living in a period cooler now than the time frame mentioned above, (meaning this is not the warmest the Earth has ever been), and there were no SUVs, coal burning power plants or airplanes, how do you account for the extreme 'warming' of that period?

Really now? Find one person who says "global warming is man made" rather than that humans are contributing to global warming. It would seem your problem is not even understanding the consensus among the scientific community. On top of that, scientists acknowledge that there are both manmade and natural ways that the Earth warms but at no other time in the history of the world has there been such a rapid rise in temperature over a 120-130 year period as there has been in the past 120-130 years.



And, ah yes, the Medieval Warm Period is one of my favorite fallacies used by the deniers. Let's see here:


1. We are talking about GLOBAL warming, the Medieval Warm Period deals with only the North Atlantic region.


2. The rapidity of climate change during the Medieval Warm Period using just the Northern Hemisphere [Which is what your entire limited argument revolves around] is nothing compared to present day conditions.





-NOAA

[subs]

^^^ lolz the nerd just got pawned

[wquine]

note to all 10 out of 10 girls out there: there will be a jacuzzi in my bunker come Dec 2012, PM me for address.

[Hotdiggity11]

note to all 10 out of 10 girls out there: there will be a jacuzzi in my bunker come Dec 2012, PM me for address.

We have a thread saying the world will end in May of this year. Might want to start earlier just in case.

[wquine]

Did you hear that ladies??? May is now the end of the world, book your place now!!! The first 10 "10s" get a ticket, don't delay!

[rkelly110]

Looking at your avatar....don't expect too many 10's.

[DwightShrute]

my place is several miles from the nearest beach. With any luck the sea level will increase fast enough that my place will be a beach front property.

[DwightShrute]

Strange scientific logic you have there but going by the fact you are attacking Al Gore, I'd imagine the reason you are against it is largely political difference anyways.

Nothing to do with politics. I have a problem with hypocrites. If Gore was flying around talking about the negative affects of cocaine while doing rails then he would be a hypocrite. If he practiced what he preached, then I would never criticize him even though I will disagree.

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh - more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh - guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

"As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use," said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/gov...ore_energy.htm

[Hotdiggity11]

I'm already aware Al Gore, while a decent VP in the 90s, is a hypocrite on the issue.

[DwightShrute]

[curious]

I'm already aware Al Gore, while a decent VP in the 90s, is a hypocrite on the issue.

If Gore really wanted to make a statement on this issue he could easily convert his home (compound?) to be energy efficient. There are multiple companies, architects, energy experts in Nashville who know how to do this.

I am sure that the companies who make the technologies that would need to be used would cooperate with Gore and give some sort of big discount because of the publicity that they would get.

I don't accept the human caused global warming mania, but I do firmly believe in real energy efficiency. Gore could be a big mover in this just by actually using off the shelf technologies and building methods.

I saw Gore on television once and someone brought up the issue of his home being such an energy hog and how this was hypocritical given Gore's publicity efforts in his film. Gore went completely ballistic, his face turned very red, he got EXTREMELY angry, started screaming, I thought he was going to assault the man.

Then Gore claims that because he uses the fraudulent energy swapping scheme that he is trying to make big money on, that it doesn't matter how much energy his compound uses, or the fact that his own compound uses no energy efficiency measures.

The guy is a lying crackhead.

[Stocks]

Our winters seem to start later and later every year and our summers are getting cooler and shittyer thats what they said would happen around here from global warming when I was a kid and you can see it happening and I'm not even very old. When I was a kid durning christmas vacation we would being sliding and building snow forts everyday and now most years we dont have any snow durning christmas with this year has been by far the crazyest all kinds of records set. Friday was basicly the first snowfall of the year, first time I had to break out the snow shovel in the middle of january thats unheard of.

[curious]

Looking at your avatar....don't expect too many 10's.

I will get all the 10s because of my good looks being highlighted by my avatar.

[rkelly110]

Yes, you are a handsome devil.

[statnerds]

Really now? Find one person who says "global warming is man made" rather than that humans are contributing to global warming.

It would seem your problem is not even understanding the consensus among the scientific community.

It would seem your problem is understanding what a consensus is:


"Over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. signed a petition in May of 2008 affirming that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Over 9,000 of these scientists have Ph.D.s in a field that gave them expertise to properly evaluate the data. Amazingly, the 31,000 scientists is almost double the number that signed the same petition in 2001."

Perhaps you should find additional outlets for your information...consensus...

And I stopped reading response when you chose to refer to 'climate change' as 'global warming'...a little behind the curve are ya? I wonder why they would change the name....

...the earth has not warmed statistically since 1998 and, in truth, began cooling in 2001. It cooled dramatically in 2007 and early 2008, but warmed slightly early in 2009 and then cooled again during the summer. This variability illustrates the difficult nature of climate forecasting. If the warming continues, then the cooling since 2001 is merely a perturbation in the relentless increase in earth’s temperature resulting from unsustainable human use of fossil fuel. That is what the global warming alarmists would have us believe. Their rhetoric has become increasingly shrill this past year as prediction after prediction has proven false. That the temperature has begun to warm in early 2009, they claim, merely proves their point. However, as the earth began to cool again during the summer of 2009, these alarmists were once again mute.

Perhaps you should investigate data further, especially when that data is cherry picked.

I quit.



You win.

Just give me a few more predictions I should jot down, like

1. Hurricane Katrina was just the start and we are going to witness larger, more powerful and more numerous hurricanes.

2. The Polar Ice cap would be gone by the Summer of '08 (which was only one of many predictions of an ice-free North Pole)

3. Polar bears would be extinct, when in reality their populations have grown 400%.

4. RFK Jr telling us snow was a thing of the past in Washington.

5. In 1990 you told us America's heartland would be devastated by droughts from global warming leading to food shortages and riots.

6. Or in 2000 when you guys said English children will never see snow again or know what it is.

7. 2005 - There will be 50 million refugees worldwide by 2010 (which is now fukk-head) by 2010 because of rising sea levels.

8. Every model predicting global warming has been proven wrong BY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

So, I quit. It makes no sense to argue with someone backing a position that has been proven wrong consistently for decades now, but keeps hope alive, keeps believing the lie, keeps listening to guys like this:



So global warming is now climate change.

What bumper sticker phrase is next?

Fukkin consensus in the scientific community....

[curious]

Here is the thing that really upsets me about these self proclaimed "climate change" or "global warming" or "environmentalist" experts.

This is the wrong arguments to be having.

Whenever someone who calls their self an "environmentalist" talks to me, I say "okay, I'll give you the global climate point, now what specific steps are we going to take right now to deal with it". And, in 100% of these cases the "environmentalist" offers solutions which are so preposterous that you can't even laugh at them, you can only shake your head at someone for being so mentally disturbed.

I have an answer to "now what" which is not that expensive, gives an immediate return on investment, and drastically lowers the amount of electricity and vehicle fuel needed. And this happens almost immediately, well the time that it takes to perform simple construction tasks. A few years at most.

I have posted some of these steps in here several times, usually no one responds.

The conclusion that I have reached, from talking to these self proclaimed "environmentalists" and getting no response from them for simple, immediate, and extremely effective technical solutions using off the shelf technology is that they are not really interested in resolving the problem, they want power and my recommendations do not give them power. So, they are not interested.

[subs]

curious, maybe not 100%. some r very practical people.

white roofs, good insulation, offer optional green electric at a premium, bike/small cc scooters lanes and subsidies in cities, car pool lanes, label local produce... tax thirsty or heavy cars more...

there r so many good and cheap ideas.

centralized/efficient air conditioning plants.

the problem with offering up ideas here is that people love to shoot them down rather than offer constructive criticism and fresh ideas.

[jewbob]

Global warming is real. So is global cooling. It just depends on where we are in the cycle. Saying man is responsible for it is like saying man is responsible for sunspots.

[Hotdiggity11]

It would seem your problem is understanding what a consensus is:


"Over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. signed a petition in May of 2008 affirming that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Over 9,000 of these scientists have Ph.D.s in a field that gave them expertise to properly evaluate the data. Amazingly, the 31,000 scientists is almost double the number that signed the same petition in 2001."

Perhaps you should find additional outlets for your information...consensus...

And I stopped reading response when you chose to refer to 'climate change' as 'global warming'...a little behind the curve are ya? I wonder why they would change the name....

...the earth has not warmed statistically since 1998 and, in truth, began cooling in 2001. It cooled dramatically in 2007 and early 2008, but warmed slightly early in 2009 and then cooled again during the summer. This variability illustrates the difficult nature of climate forecasting. If the warming continues, then the cooling since 2001 is merely a perturbation in the relentless increase in earth’s temperature resulting from unsustainable human use of fossil fuel. That is what the global warming alarmists would have us believe. Their rhetoric has become increasingly shrill this past year as prediction after prediction has proven false. That the temperature has begun to warm in early 2009, they claim, merely proves their point. However, as the earth began to cool again during the summer of 2009, these alarmists were once again mute.

Perhaps you should investigate data further, especially when that data is cherry picked.

I quit.



You win.

Just give me a few more predictions I should jot down, like

1. Hurricane Katrina was just the start and we are going to witness larger, more powerful and more numerous hurricanes.

2. The Polar Ice cap would be gone by the Summer of '08 (which was only one of many predictions of an ice-free North Pole)

3. Polar bears would be extinct, when in reality their populations have grown 400%.

4. RFK Jr telling us snow was a thing of the past in Washington.

5. In 1990 you told us America's heartland would be devastated by droughts from global warming leading to food shortages and riots.

6. Or in 2000 when you guys said English children will never see snow again or know what it is.

7. 2005 - There will be 50 million refugees worldwide by 2010 (which is now fukk-head) by 2010 because of rising sea levels.

8. Every model predicting global warming has been proven wrong BY WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

So, I quit. It makes no sense to argue with someone backing a position that has been proven wrong consistently for decades now, but keeps hope alive, keeps believing the lie, keeps listening to guys like this:



So global warming is now climate change.

What bumper sticker phrase is next?

Fukkin consensus in the scientific community....

1. The Earth hasn't warmed since 1998? Then why was 2010 the hottest year to date including March, April, May, and June setting climate records? ? On top of that, why was the past decade recorded as the hottest date on record?



2. Why has global climate steadily increased since many countries around the world started using fossil fuels?


3. Ah yes, my favorite fallacy, the good old "Duhhhhh, they changed it from global warming to climate change. DERP DERP DERP"


Let's see here, Global Warming and Climate Change have been used interchangeably for decades. You act as if Climate Change is some new term invented out of no where, maybe you can tell us why the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been around since 1988? Or why scientists still regularly use the term "global warming?"


Maybe you should learn what "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" actually mean and why both terms are acceptable when talking about Anthropogenic activities that cause climate increases. Since it seems you are quite behind the curve when it comes to this issue and thus are using weak talking points I have encountered hundreds of times instead of anything that involves scientific credibility.

4. Wow, you are using TED TURNER as a source for your cause?


5. Yes, you should quit, your analysis on this issue is pretty weak.

[Duff85]

lol at people who deny global warming, guess you deny the holocaust as well.

[DwightShrute]

lol at people who deny global warming, guess you deny the holocaust as well.

Really? You want to stick with that analogy?