Humanity’s Ignorance to Evolution

TLA ln 2 WTH is ROI?

ROI = return on investement = profit

OK, a little history lesson, then. My mother was born in 1913 in South Dakota (northern USA) and told me about this. During the early years (late 1920's) of the "Great Depression" a severe drought affected crop yeilds. That was followed by a significant improvement in crops just about the time the stock market tanked (Oct. 1929). Corn and wheat were in good supply, but money was not, so those grains could not be sold. Without cash available, farmers could ill afford to buy things they did not produce. The price of coal was higher than the price for corn, so instead of selling corn dirt cheap and paying for relatively expensive coal, my Grandparents burned corn (unshelled, on-the-cob maize) in their coal/wood stoves. Kept the family warm for several winters. What is really "economical" is sometimes tempered by sheer survival. Without that, nothing else much matters...

Yes, burning corn in a barrel is far different from the issues we face today. We force ourselves to live as if gas was expansible. As if there were no repercussions for burning ethanol when the supply line is cut. How long until ethanol and food is as scarce as fuel oil and gasoline?

It just blows my mind that besides all of the environmental issues we are facing we would rather turn our heads, debate about hot air issues and invest in technology that is becoming antiquated.

Mass production of solar cells is nearly impossible due to the limit of polysilicon. Nuclear fusion is a great idea, but it will take many years before it provides services to the masses, and I don't want to live in a cave or drive a moped for the rest of my life but there are known ways to produce electricity without the use of non-renewable resources.

Maybe its time for the government to step in and enforce the use of electric commuter cars and decommission all coal, gas turbine and other antiquated energy plants?

Can't be time yet, the top two offices are occupied by oil men. And one of 'em is from our biggest coal-producing state. Plus they both seem to pronounce it "noo-cue-ler"... Can't recommend you hold your breath, but carpet the cave, stock up on corn on the cob, and polish up the Mo-ped; may make it a trifle more tolerable.

"...with all of this global warming going on, why is it we had snow accumulation at 300 ft elevation above sea level in Port Angeles..."

Because it is not just "global warming" it is "climate change". Why has the Arctic ice cap all but disappeared? Why are both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets losing areal coverage and thinning? Why have some parts of the US had several years of drought while other parts year after year of record rainfall? It is not so simple as just "everything gets warmer", although that may be the end result. It is faqr more complex than that - to the point that it makes predicting the stock exchange look like child's play. Is it natural? Probably at least in part. Is there NO anthropogenic influence? Hardly likely. Will the weather get weird? Almost certainly.

And there are LOTS of coal-only power plants... (I'm working at four).

An article in the latest "Scientific American" reports that the ozone hole over Antarctica is closing rapidly and will cause rapid warming there. Why is it closing? Could it be the banning, at great cost and inconvenience, of CFCs that were "destroying" the ozone at the poles? Ozone which is created by sunlight. More sunlight, more ozone, more warming. Warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The GW crowd loves to cite CO2 levels at Mauna Loa in Hawaii, where there are volcanoes dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the air, as proof that Man is increasing CO2 levels. GW is the HHO of climate studies, a scam.

Anthropogenic influence? Infinitesimal at most. Climate change itself makes weather change too. Warm periods were also wetter in many places that have been drier for the past hundreds of years. Study the temperatures and climates of the Holocene, the last 10,500 years.

You know what? It really doesn't MATTER if there are any human created influences at work. It is a FACT, observed, recorded, and reported by many highly reputable scientists, that not only is sea ice melting at an unprecedented rate, so is ice on land in northern Canada, central Greenland, and Antarctica. Also mountain glaciers on every continental land mass that has them.

So please do not be so ignorant of reality that you dismiss global warming as not happening. It IS happening. You may not be personally observing it, but that does not make it a fiction. Don't let the anti-science crowd cloud your thinking - you have demonstrated in other threads that you can think quite well by yourself.

It is definitely a FACT that Climate Change occurs and that it not only can cool down it can also warm up, all quite naturally. The earth is warming, I simply do not think that Man is causing it.

I have looked at the temperature records for the Holocene, the approx. 10,500 years since the end of the last Great Ice Age and for about 7,500 years of that time it was warmer than now. So if you average that period, a "normal climate" is warmer than now. ["Normal climate" has been arbitrarily defined as a 10-20 yr period around 1960 by the GW crowd.] During the Holocene the climate has changed in temperature many times and in every warmer period there was more rain and less desert. Check the climate records of North Africa. At the time the Vikings had colonies in Greenland, it was green and they could grow wheat there. You can't grow wheat in Greenland now, too cold. When the Little Ice Age began about 1100-1200 Greenland got too cold for wheat and the Vikings went home.

The Little Ice Age killed many plants in northern Europe, Grapes wouldn't grow, so wine was replaced by beers and ales made from grains they could grow. In the 1500-1600's the Baltic Sea froze over solid in winter. Hotels were built on the ice and cargoes and passengers traveled by sled from Scandinavia to northern Europe. Then bit by bit the earth came out of the ice and began to warm and it has not stopped a warming trend yet. More than half the rise in temperature came before 1850 and it was all natural.

There is a lot of CO2 in the oceans, as they warmed they released it into the air, which caused more warming. Methane was also released. And most of all the warmer air evaporated more water into the atmosphere and water vapor is the strongest of all the greenhouse gases with methane right below it. CO2 is less than 4% of the atmosphere and over 90% of new CO2 comes from natural sources.

Another thing that bothers me about the GW crowd is their attitude toward those who disagree with them, who are labeled "Deniers". Deniers are automatically stupid people, bad scientists in the pay of Big Oil and other business conspiracies, they should be put in jail, should be forbidden to talk about their opinions, write about them and especially to teach them to students. They are not to be tolerated, not to be employed in a scientific position in any government agency, college or university, not to have their research funded by any reputable backer or the government. It reminds me of the way the Stalinists treated anyone who disagreed with them, short of actual prison or firing squads. They are the greatest of hypocrites, demanding to be treated as they refuse to treat others. There are some on the GW side who are willing to openly argue their case and consider contrary evidence, just as there are some on the Climate Change side who do the same. I have modified some of my own views with new evidence: both ways.

I concur on the near-Stalinist attitude of some of the folks I might otherwise agree with. It is only appropriate to debate the situation (as we have been here) until such time as the evidence is so complete one way or the other such that anyone not in agreement is obviously not paying attention. I have changed my opinion, too. I used to think it foolish to be concerned about ozone depletion, global warming, and loss of ice, because I believed it was much more likely that we would go into another ice age instead.

Now, I'm not so sure, and I lean pretty strongly (based on the evidence) the other way 'round. No, there are no sharp jumps up in temperature noted, but the trend over hundreds of years has been upward, even counting the "little ice age" and a couple of similar episodes lasting a few years only. This gradual global trend upwards is what I'm seeing as the best evidence, along with the more recent unprecedented (in our history) loss of polar and glacial ice.

At the time the Vikings had colonies in Greenland, it was green and they could grow wheat there. You can't grow wheat in Greenland now, too cold. When the Little Ice Age began about 1100-1200 Greenland got too cold for wheat and the Vikings went home.

Greenland is not and has not ever been "green". It was the forst attempt at advertising a land rush. Like ocean front property in Arizona.

http://www.everyculture.com/Ge-It/Greenland.html

I do believe there was less ice volume existing on earth through out several periods in our near recent history. Anthropogenic sources have seemingly sent us in an otherwise unaccounted for warming trend that is no more credible than the cooling during the Younger Dryas... If we look back at how unleaded gasoline fixed the pb spike of the 60's, its pretty evident that we need to take action now while we pause and attempt to understand how climates adjust and what negative feedbacks to global warming are most importnat in order for the world to maintain a healthy balance.

"...attempt to understand..."

Yessir, a little ignorance goes a LOOONNNG way! I voted you a GA, FWIW... ...mainly on the strength of your association of the Pb spike (quite obviously anthropogenic) lessening due to an anthropogenic fix. It is highly likely that there is some unnoticed activity (or maybe it's just all too obvious) linking us to the warming trend as well.

Are you aware of the "Missing Carbon Problem'? Scientist are unable to account for the staggering amount of carbon that is released into the atmosphere through anthropogenic sources.

Coal is less efficient than gasoline and produces more greenhouses gases than octane. Yes, our staggering production of anthropogenic carbon has risen CO2 concentrations to more than double what would be expected otherwise.

As for climate change and sporadic weather, that is the exact type of behavior we look for when suggesting a period of rapid climate change. Global climate is deflected a mere two degree Celsius while long term drastic weather patterns affect each geographical area. Some areas will see more precipitation and even colder temperatures while arctic breezes brush off our major ice sheets.

As far as snow and ice volume I would only be concerned about Antarctica and Greenland, which together could rise the oceans levels far enough to flood all major coastal cities in the world.

Lastly, the issue with allowing the private sector to decide which energy source is viable for the masses is that they care so little for the effects of ethanol as long as it increases the profit they receive from selling less petrochemicals. The revolution is a huge burden on the private sector and no one wants to invest in the infrastructure. We need to push the envelope and recognize the greater good.

Beyond climate issues, this energy revolution would do exactly what economist want to see. For the US to become energy independent. No more oil spills and inflated costs as supply is decreased. It will really mark our next wave of freedom.

Invest in the small companies bringing great products to the market like the electric vehicle the George Clooney drives, the Tango. Go nuclear and stop burying our waist in Yucca Mountain. Best live practices have been to recycle our waist and devise a universal power plant that will spawn across our country.

I agree. The governmental involvement should be removed. Has anyone ever seen a governmental program that is well thought out and actually works? Oh, Yes. The IRS. They are expert at removing money from your wallet.

Back when I was rather young, an artical in a popular electronics gave a formula for making solar cells on butchers paper. Can't find it, but these are modern substitutes. Cheap energy is quite possible, you just might need to dig a bit to find out how to do it for your self.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4253464.html

http://www.solideas.com/solrcell/english.html

http://scitoys.com/scitoys/scitoys/echem/echem2.html#solarcell

http://www.fuellesspower.com/solar_cell2.htm

http://www.mdpub.com/SolarPanel/index.html

I saw something, think it was on the discovery channel, about how the Brits burn their poo like we burn coal to generate electricity. If I remember correctly, it accounts for 30% of the electricity for the whole country. We need to explore options like that, using what we already have but waste.

<...burn...poo.....to generate electricity...>

It's not quite like that, though a well-run sewage treatment works is a net exporter of electric power. Most of the energy source is bio-gas (stewed fart) that is produced in digester tanks.

Thank you for the better explanation, I only saw a small portion of the show so I didn't get the full story. Ingenious solution to getting rid of waste.

The movie "Ground Hog Day" comes to mind:

I remember the gas crisis of the early 70's, where your NY license plate dictated your place in the long gas station queue. The solar technology developed by NASA for SkyLab (there was a massive billboard inside NYC's Grand Central Station at the time), along with fuel efficient cars from Japan and Germany, were the way forward. Meanwhile, the West Europeans were driving tiny Fiats and Opels, using small, on-demand water heaters in their homes, and conserving energy in a more substantial way.

The song "I was country before country was cool" comes to mind, since many of the folks I know personally (people from the NY Capital Region) have tried to incorporate aspects green living into their lives since the 80's. I personally did my first global-warming calculation in 1992 as part of homework for a Combustion Systems class at Rensselaer Polytechnic. I think many of these ideas are growing in acceptance now.

Seeing oil-man T-Boone Pickings this week in a TV commercial promoting wind power gives me hope. Maybe $4 gas here in the US has an up-side.

-april05

"...a TV commercial promoting wind power..."

Yeah, an up side. T. Boone has realized that the days of oil billions are approaching their end and is ready to invest in whatever can make him his next four billion dollars. Suppose it's just the skeptic in me, but so far it's more hot air than wind. I'll see it when I believe it...

Looking into my crystal ball (If power was returned to the state:)

Texas rebirth as the lone star state continues to pollute more than all third world countries. Acts as its own trade organization as fewer people can afford to drive their 12 cylinder engines out of the musty cities. They collect what other midwest states have to offer. Air pollution runs rampid and is labeled as the next waist land with air quality at an all time low.

California and New York revolutionize light rail public transportation. Private sectors subsidize wind power to fuel their businesses while the wealthy display costly solar panels on their homes. A strong state government counts its pennies and plans for the most viable infrastructure that could provide electricity to the masses.