RE: global warming
Hi David,
Yes, that is the problem, isn't it? So many people have no idea about the planet because they've never been educated about the pitfalls that go with cutting down swathes of trees. Even the moguls aren't educated, so what chance have we got?
There may be something in what you say - we may live longer if we respected nature a bit more.
Love,
Patsy.
xxxxxx
RE: global warming
I see considerable scepticism here that global warming is exclusively due to human action. This is my own position (a minority view over at JREF).
Much as I would like to see cold fusion or vacuum energy take over from traditional energy sources, I must dismiss both as likely on any useful time scale. The CF theorists appear to be in disarray and zero point energy is probably centuries away, if possible at all.
Nb. Oil companies today are increasingly energy companies. BP for instance is a leader in both wave and wind generator design. If cold fusion worked, they would not suppress it. They would own it.
Windmills- I have mixed feelings about. They are a surreal, unearthly sight in an otherwise unspoiled landscape- both beautiful and ugly. I expect as they become commoner, both their allure and visibility will fade- like pylons.
Pylons too will increase in number. The power generated by wind farms must be distributed from their windy, often rural sites to the towns where it is needed.
I see wind turbines as a local solution to power distribution. Use two or three to supply an isolated community, removing the need for long lines from central stations. Massive windfarms will meet continued resistance, partly by NIMBYs, but partly because they are not a realistic solution in large numbers. Also, we should ask who , precisely, benefits financially from these big "farms"? cui bono?
I would like to see far more research into tidal and wave power. Even in Britain, the wind does not blow all the time. We need to keep coal /oil/gas power stations on standby to back up wind generators, so they really can never be a primary source. Tides and waves never stop. All those offshore rigs and platforms , waiting to be scrapped...
The truth though, palatable or not, is that we have two choices in the next hundred years- use less power or go nuclear to some extent, while developing alternative generation technology. Oil and gas prices will increase sharply as developing nations increase their consumption. The North Sea boom, which saved Europe from total dependence on the mid east in the sixties, is over. The new gas suppliers are in Asia. Even if could safely assume that global warming is a wholly natural phenomenon (which I think we all agree would be presumptious), political reality and engineering lead time dictates that we decide our energy policy now and get on with it. I suppose local action might start if we all switch off our pcs...
RE: global warming
Hello Sam,
Some great ideas that you've expressed here. We as a species must be more conscious of what we are doing to our planet. I don't wholly subscribe to the theory that global warming is entirely due to human actions, because we don't know enough about the phenomenon. I studied earth sciences, and there have been periods of global warming and cooling since the Earth was formed, but how much of today's warming is due to the actions of man and how much to nature? That is the question, I suppose.
Nuclear energy - Sam, I am in favour of this. If it wasn't for the dangers, I guess that we in the UK would be using more nuclear power stations than we are now. As far as I know, only 2 are being used - Sellafield (nee Windscale) and Sizewell B. I quite like the windmills - they add a 'ghostly' flavour to some landscapes, and some are positively enhanced by them! Wave power - yes, if we could create a way of generating more wave power and also solar power. Alternative forms of energy are also very expensive, which also puts people off installing it in their homes and workplaces. My belief is that if it were made cheaper, more people would avail themselves of it.
One day, our fossil-fuel energy will be exhausted. We are using it more quickly than it is being formed. Taking from the Earth without giving anything back in return. Even if global warming is not wholly the fault of man, by taking and taking the Earth's resources, we are doing so at our peril.
(I don't know why your views attracted so much opposition on the JREF boards. They seem perfectly reasonable to me.)
Love,
Patsy.
[:-]
RE: global warming
Not really "opposition". Simply minority. The view there is spread over a spectrum, just like here: Some folk think enough evidence is in to conclude human activity is accelerating a natural warming trend, some don't. Everyone accepts that climate cycles naturally and has done so for a very long time.
There's also the opinion- probably right- that even if we had all the data, it might still be impossible to say for sure.
In that situation, people tend to decide on the basis of other criteria- political position, environmental position etc. Like you, my background is in Earth science. I reckon one good eruption equals a thousand years of industry- but with exceptions- PCBs / freon and a number of other exotic chemicals are new to the ecosystem. As is the presence of 6+ billion omnivorous mammals all belonging to one species and globally distributed.
We don't know. It would be wise to proceed with caution. The problem is not scientific so much as political.
RE: global warming
Hello Sam...and fellow geologist!
Yes, i would wholeheartedly agree with you. A lot of this global warming question is political, no doubt about it. I would tend to say that we really don't know enough about it, and even if we did, would we still arrive at the same conclusions, as you point out? This really is a moot point.
However, my rational mind says that we humans cannot carry on taking the Earth's resources ad infinitum. There has to be a cut-off point where eventually new ideas and resources must be found. But.....since we are living on a 'living' planet, the only raw materials for new resources has to come from it and be disposed of on it.
I did hear a few years ago, that spent nuclear fuel containers were going to be disposed of at the bottom of the Marianas Trench. I didn't hear any more, so I guess that idea was abandoned. Have you heard something similar?
Love,
Patsy.
[&:]