I agree with the deforestation stuff. Real tragedy. Just because nature doesn’t grow trees by itself well, doesn’t mean that a little assistance from man in some areas would not turn the tables. I have yet to see a discussion of the tradeoffs involved.
“Collapse” by Jared Diamond is an interesting read on this topic. He looks at several ancient and modern societies that have lost their sustainability and collapsed. A good deal of the book is devoted to the issue of deforestation specifically, because that is a recurring local element. Nowadays local is bigger than it used to be.
He’s further left than you, but has drawn the ire of the noisy political left for his consulting relationships with big oil and the mining industry.
I would be glad to pass my copy along to you if you don’t want to pay him royalties.
“*Hey maybe I should put mirrors on my roof, to reflect more of the suns light back into space, What if all roofs went to some form of high reflective material, I bet that would help a lot? Why is no one promoting that idea?”
I have floated the idea of floating mirrors in the ocean in this forum with the same objective. No one is interested in doing that, because the real interest is not in solving the problem. The interest is in creating public awareness of a problem that can be manipulated for desired political ends.
The oceans already reflect a lot of sunlight - but because of the ionosphere, reflected heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The way to break this cycle is to reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth (mirrors or shells in space?) or to reduce the amount of additional heat we produce here.
I don’t know what they teach you in school in the US, but they have been talking about this in NZ schools for ages - I remember studying this stuff when I was in secondary school (13-16) back in the 80’s.
Well done. This is indeed the kind of article I asked to see. Have you perused the compelling rebuttal to this paper which points out a variety of the original’s flaws: **http://tinyurl.com/ygqcpk, **and admonishes the journal for letting it pass the review process. By the way, the rebuttal was published in the same journal as the original.
The oceans already reflect a lot of sunlight - but because of the ionosphere, reflected heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The way to break this cycle is to reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth (mirrors or shells in space?) or to reduce the amount of additional heat we produce here.
I don’t know what they teach you in school in the US, but they have been talking about this in NZ schools for ages - I remember studying this stuff when I was in secondary school (13-16) back in the 80’s.
Well you must not have seen Al’s movie. He goes to great length to explain on of the worst things that is happening is the melting of the glaciers and the ice at the poles. Particularly the floating ice at the poles, because the ice is natures mirror and reflects most of the sunlight back up into space, the exposed water absorbs most of the sunlight and warms up.
Well you remember it wrong or probably more accurately they did not fully understand it back then. the ionosphere is the layer (I believe) where the GHG reside. They are called Green House Gases because they act like a greenhouse. They trap and reflect back to the earth the solar radiation that is cast off by the earth.
"NO tell me any solution. I have a city lot, less than 1/4 acre I have 15 trees on the lot at least that I have planted and at least that many that God did. I do what I can to conserve energy in heating and cooling of my house. "
Sorry, I took your’s and Art’s discussion of a giant mirror in the same way that I take an obese person who has been presented with information about exercise and diet whining about there being no options for them to lose weight.
I don’t know where you live, but just about every state has opportunities to purchase green power, which would lower your carbon footprint (I’m sure I’ve mentioned that several times). If your utility doesn’t offer it, and even if they do, you can buy Green Tags, which uses the funds to generate electricity in the best locations where it makes most sense. While the electrons you get may not be made by renewable resources, you’re paying for an equal amount to be produced elsewhere, so someone else uses those electrons, rather than coal or gas generated electrons.
“AL laid out a fairly convincing argument that we are already over the edge, (Ice caps melting ect…) and something bigger needs to be done now.”
I haven’t seen the movie. Do you believe the argument that Al laid out for you?
I am one of those skeptics. Al Gore’s real solution which he does not say is to elect him in 2008. If I am not mistaken are we still coming out of the previous ice age? How many ice ages have their been? or to say it differently, how many global warming trends have taken place in the history of the earth? Lets get real, global warming is junk science. Al Gores movie is based on junk science.
The solution to co2 emissions is simple. Build nuclear power plants, many of them. Wind power may sound nice, but to put down some numbers. A typical wind turbine can produce 1500kW (IF the wind is blowing). The state of NY requires on the order of 30,000MW or 30,000,000kW for power. So for NY State alone to be supplied by green would require 20,0000 wind turbines and the wind to go with it. Where do we want to put them? Oh and what if the wind is not blowing.
The same argument can be applied to solar energy which gets even worse.
As for buying green power, as soon as someone allows me to buy Green Power (Which I define as Nuclear- The only true Green Power that is sustainable, and sufficient) I will buy it. Why is no one talking about the fact most of our nuke plants will reach their safety lifespan in the next 20yrs, and we have no new nuke construction going on. WHERE is the power supply going to come from as the nukes go off line?
Al’s movie, confirmed what I already had been informed of here on ST thanks to Dan. GLOBAL WARMING is real. The Cause is debatable.
But the CO and greenhouse gases started it (man made or natural is irrelevant) now the Ice is melting which will only accelerate it.
I don’t think if man stopped its contribution to GHG completely it would be enough to reverse the trend of what Al and others have shown, so what else can we do to Scrub the Sky and reflect the sunlight away?
Well you remember it wrong or probably more accurately they did not fully understand it back then. the ionosphere is the layer (I believe) where the GHG reside. They are called Green House Gases because they act like a greenhouse. They trap and reflect back to the earth the solar radiation that is cast off by the earth.
Um, that’s what I was saying. So I think we are in agreement here.
…
The oceans already reflect a lot of sunlight - but because of the ionosphere, reflected heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The way to break this cycle is to reduce the amount of heat reaching the earth (mirrors or shells in space?) or to reduce the amount of additional heat we produce here.
No you seem to be saying the oceans reflect a lot of sunlight, when in fact the actually absorb it. The ICE reflects a lot but thats disappearing. We don’t produce any additional amount of heat, the only new energy in this system is added by they stars (primarily our sun but the others add a small amount).
I wont bother going on that you mention the Ionosphere trapping heat, when in fact it traps solar radiation… close enough.
Sorry, I’m a bit surely tonight, Art has me pissed off.
“Why is no one talking about the fact most of our nuke plants will reach their safety lifespan in the next 20yrs”
Why do you believe no one is talking about that. It’s about all I ever read about from electric utilities, utility commissions and others.
“and we have no new nuke construction going on.”
BIG REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT to the rescue on that one. Duke Energy estimates that the nuke plant they are planning will receive $2.2 billion in taxpayer subsidy. Same for the first 6 that get built. There’s a race going on to be first, with at least 20 in the planning stages. Plus, you and I get to provide - through our taxes - the insurance for the plants. Anybody ever heard of a free market? Anyone?
Now I am confused, would you rather we have power plants the spew GHG, or a clean effiecent form of energy, that will keep the cost of electricity low making E.V. even more desirable.
Hey if they had a Nuke energy option for buying electricity I would check that box.
“Now I am confused, would you rather we have power plants the spew GHG, or a clean effiecent form of energy, that will keep the cost of electricity low making E.V. even more desirable.”
You don’t have to worry about checking a box to choose nuke. Your tax dollars are already being spent on it.
On the above quote, I don’t think this is an either/or proposition, and I have no idea where you get the idea that nuclear will keep the cost of electricity low. All of our utilities are already planning rate cases to raise rates now to pay for potential nuclear plants later. Nuclear is more expensive than many options, but it is a valuable part of the electricity portfolio. Investing in appropriate energy efficiency and demand side management programs is significantly more cost effective than any new generation, including nuclear.