Global Climate Change (Natural or Man Made)

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Bonedigger, Jan 31, 2007.

?

Climate Change - Natural or Caused by man

  1. Natural

    17 vote(s)
    50.0%
  2. Caused by Man

    10 vote(s)
    29.4%
  3. Other

    7 vote(s)
    20.6%
  1. Check_M_All

    Check_M_All New Member

    Very impressive, Tom and you are right. I remember now reading several months ago the guarantee on production loss for a 25 year period. It did slip my mind.

    If you don't mind my asking, how much has it cost you to build your array... tax incentives and credits subtracted. How many people across the country have the funds and or space to install such systems? There's a lot of people living in condos and townhouses, apartment complexes, small footprint dwellings, people who live paycheck to paycheck... people who have no real ability to implement such a system... not just a lot, the vast majority are in one of these categories or the other or both. I do however applaud and envy your system.
     
  2. Drusus

    Drusus New Member

    I believe this is true in it entirity. The are not doing it for 'the good og mankind'...they are doing it to save their asses and in the process, they may help all mankind, just like oil and their constant refinement and innovation brought us to where we are now. By where we are now I mean all the great things that we enjoy everyday like the computer we use, the cars, planes, the means of production, etc...not the brink of destruction...and this same drive IS pumping the lions share of money into research, development, and refinement. One major player I can quote off hand is Shell Oil and the break throughs on the refinement of the solar cells. I read a long article the other day about it. A solar cell is STILL in no way a replacement for gas on a vehicle but as it stands now, it is a great alternative energy source for a house and it is getting cheaper and more affordable. The article talked about their goal of making the solar cell so small and efficient you can fit hundreds of them on a roof tile...eventually making them so small you can paint on thousands of them...imagine painting your house with paint that acts as solar cells!!

    Its very easy to blame the oil companies but in truth they are meeting a demand not creating it. Are they blameless and perfect? not by a long shot...Are they the enemy...no...they are a business so all the problems such a thing exists but it is a 2 sided coin...they also do a lot of good in advancing the technology while providing us with oil which sustais us for now while employing millions....if the oil companies stoped funding alternative energy research...it would slow the research down to a snails pace without doubt...when they release the next big thing...it will keep those millions of people in jobs...thus in my opinion...the private sector (maybe with the helps of governments) should be the ones to facilitate the change over.

    There is no blanket solution right now but if you can afford it, solar cells are a great way to save on energy and money in the long run (if you are living where you plan to life the rest of you life) and encouraging people and companies to utilize it more is a plus...maybe with tax breaks...the problem with this is that there are advancement every day...put up cells today and by tomorrow there is something new and better out...Hybrid cars are you best bet, or simply driving low fuel cars...of which there are many...

    I tend to think the best bet for cars is the Hydrogen fuel cell...at the moment it is supremely expensive but it the right move are made...we may be driving our cars with hydrogen as fuel and water as emissions!!

    They work like this (please read, its not long and if you are looking for alternatives and solution, this is the more likely solution to the #1 problem which is transportation):


    In laymans terms...There is a proton exchange membrane. A PEM fuel cell uses hydrogen stored onboard the vehicle and oxygen from the surrounding air as fuel, and generates only electricity, water, and heat—no emissions.

    Hydrogen enters one side of the fuel cell through a layer of electron-conducting material containing small channels that allow hydrogen molecules into the fuel cell. A gas diffusion layer of porous carbon disperses the hydrogen molecules as evenly as possible, and a catalyst, usually platinum, splits the molecules into positively charged hydrogen ions and negatively charged electrons.

    The core of the fuel cell houses the PEM, which has the unique ability to allow hydrogen ions (but not electrons) to pass through it. The electrons are forced to travel around the PEM, creating an electric circuit that transfers power to the motor, propelling the vehicle.

    Oxygen travels through the fuel cell in a similar fashion as hydrogen, with the catalyst splitting the oxygen molecules into two separate atoms. When these atoms come into contact with the hydrogen ions that have passed through the PEM and the electrons traveling around it, water molecules (H2O) are formed. The water is then directed out of the fuel cell.

    Under peak operating conditions, approximately 40 to 60 percent of the energy contained in the hydrogen gas is converted into electrical energy. The remaining energy is expended as heat, which must be dissipated by a water- or air-cooling system, similar to the radiator in a conventional automobile. Studies suggest this process could be more than twice as fuel-efficient as the traditional internal combustion system used by the vast majority of cars today.


    Because of the basic components...one of them being platinum (we collectors know the price of this) it is a very expensive process NEW. But it is being used by NASA and others and there are cars out there using this process right now and in my opinion...this will be the future of cars.
     
  3. acanthite

    acanthite New Member

    And that's why I posted it without the reference. The point being that we don't even need 2006 data to see something happening.

    Also I would like to point out that the CO2 and temperature are very well correlated throughout the cycles....until now, where they appear to have decoupled. This is almost certainly going to result in something unpredictable.
     
  4. acanthite

    acanthite New Member

    I have not spoken about Big Oil here, but would like to add that I do not see Big Oil as the biggest problem. ExxonMobil, BP, and some others have large departments of people employed for the sole purpose of developing alternate fuels and keeping the company 'environmentally aware'. One possible conclusion is that they are placating the concerned element of the US public and that their efforts are a facade. Another possible conclusion is that they realize they must adapt to assure corporate survival, though greater fuel diversity and attention to clean environment, thus quelling panic (and boycotting) if these graphs keep going up and up. Whatever this mega-corporate brain may think about the reality of climate change, the issue is modifying its procedures and budgeting.
     
  5. Tom Maringer

    Tom Maringer New Member

    Agreed! Hydrogen fuel cells are almost certainly going to take over from internal combustion as the primary means of moving vehicles. It is indeed zero emissions... once you have the hydrogen. The problem with hydrogen is that it is NOT an energy source... it is an energy storage medium. There are two main ways of making pure hydrogen these days, either you break down water into oxygen and hydrogen, or you strip it off of natural gas. The electrolysis of water is energy costly... but if you had sufficient solar/wind capacity you could use it as a storage medium. This is the real goal of the future for renewable energy... a total zero-emission scheme. Stripping hydrogen off of natural gas (or other hydrocarbons) is easier and cheaper at present, but does not address the CO2 emission problem... since what's left after you take the hydrogen off of the hydrocarbon is carbon.

    So yeah, hydrogen as the storage medium instead of batteries... but the energy still has to come from somewhere. I've seen it calculated that if one quarter of the built roof area of the United States was covered in photovoltaics (or one half the south facing sides) it would provide enough energy to power everything we need. With a bit more we'd be able to make enough hydrogen to run our cars too.

    Giant wind farms in the Oklahoma/Kansas/Nebraska/South Dakota plains could power the local grid and any excess power could be converted to hydrogen and piped to cities to run just about everything from stoves to cars.

    The small country of Iceland has made the political commitment to convert entirely to a hydrogen economy by 2020. They are making hydrogen using hydro-electric and geothermal electric power, and starting with public transportation, then private vehicles, and finally the fishing fleet. They hope to reduce their oil use to lubricants only. If Iceland can do it, surely a much more technological country can do it also. At least we can monitor their progress and take steps to emulate the parts that work best.

    I put my system online in 1998, and have made some incremental improvements since then. As a round number I'd probably put the total cash investment at about $12,000, of which about $8,000 is the panels themselves with their mounting racks, $2000 for the inverter and associated downstream wiring and monitoring hardware, $1000 for the batteries, and $1000 for the charge controllers and upstream wiring and connecting boxes etc. I've got about 1,500 peak watts of panels, which puts out something like 5 to 6 kwh/day. Since the system is modular, I can add panels, upgrade batteries, and increase the capacity of the system as I identify need and as I have funds available. The investment in time has been large also... but it has been very enjoyable to me. I just love watching my watt meter spin showing the power coming out of those panels. Quite aside from the fact that I am using less grid power there is also a feeling of security to know that even if the grid goes down I still have power. Here in tornado alley this can be critical... if a big storm is approaching and then suddenly your power fails so you can't watch the weather. I feel the investment was well spent and I plan to invest more to upgrade further. My dream is to put up a 25kw array on the workshop and institute a sub-grid which would run the shop and at least two... maybe three houses. At that point I could call the power company to come get that pole out of my yard.

    I understand about apartments and townhouses and renting... that is a problem... especially where the renter pays the utility but the landlord owns the equipment. There is no incentive for the landlord to invest in renewable energy equipment... EXCEPT that there DOES exist a "green market"... that is... there are many people who would pay extra to live in a place with solar power just so they could feel good about it. So there IS a market value to this. There are also some entrepreneurs that are offering to mount panels on your roof for you if you will pay for the power they make... at the same rate you already pay your utility. They own the panels, and you just buy the power. I think they require home ownership... but it would make sense for the landlord to do given the green market mentiones already.

    I think there are ways of tinkering with the market to make these things happen!
     
  6. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    You apparently don't travel in academic circles...that also explains a lot. :high5:
     
  7. Bonedigger

    Bonedigger Another Wandering Celt

    Whatever Moen, whatever, you obviously know it all... :goof: :goofer: :goof: :goofer: :goof: :goofer: :goof:
     
  8. Check_M_All

    Check_M_All New Member

    Personally, I do my very best not travel in any circles... I find that if I do, I never get anywhere. I just end up back where I started.
     
  9. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    During a question and answer session on CSPAN with one of the people involved with the UN study, someone asked a question related to the effect whereby increased CO2 in the atmosphere increases the amount of water vapor/cloud cover, which actually may cause a cooling effect. Instead of dismissing it, the representative responded that this was one of the most controversial challenges they faced in the study because THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE EFFECT EITHER WAY. So after a lot of discussion, it was agreed that they would ASSUME that the effect would be to cause more of a warming effect than a cooling effect. He also admitted that there have been many periods in the past when the earth was warmer than it is now, but that this time its different.

    Does this qualify as science???
     
  10. AdamL

    AdamL New Member

    I just now joined the PRWE forum, and haven't taken the time to read all the posts in this thread. But I am absolutely shocked that the majority thinks humans have nothing to do with global warming. EDIT: Had to remove some kinda rude comments
     
  11. RichieB16

    RichieB16 New Member

    I haven't read this whole thread...but I thought I would throw my 2 cents in (no pun intended fellow coin collectors).

    Anyway, I have had a chance to look into this a bit as I am a member of the scientific community and have done some of my research work in the field of environmental effects on animals. Anyway, I personally believe that mankind is partially responsible...but not soley for climate change. As I have seen pointed out in this thread-the Earth has a long history of a dynamic climate and that is correct. However, it is also a known fact that we are putting a large amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere (not just carbon dioxide as many believe) and those do remain in the atmosphere for a long time. It is also known that these gases trap heat by not allowing radiation to vent into space.

    So, my personal views on this is...humans have accelerated the natural warming of the Earth. Now, the question at hand is "Is this bad for the Earth?"

    The answer to that question is a definate "NO". I say that (because that is the question that everyone asks). Fact is, this is bad for US and every other organism that lives on the Earth (the plant would do just fine without us). By accelerating the climate change...it is possible that we have in fact shortened the time that humans will be able to reign on Earth. Is that a guarantee, no, but if things continue to heat up as they are many organisms will begin to die and there will be a food shortage...eventually. How long? "Who knows."

    Of course, this is not the only thing that is against us in the word. It sort of seems that we are doing many things that are going to hurt us in the long run. Did you guys know that the international world population is growing at a greater than exponental rate? Its true. So, I suppose the big question is...what is going to cause a dramatic drop in human population first. Eventually, the human population will drop dramatically...thats just a Biological fact-no organism remains forever. What I wonder is, what will be the cause because form where I'm sitting...there are several possibilities. :whistle:
     
  12. acanthite

    acanthite New Member

    I recall a number of years back hearing a television interview with some 'expert' (sorry I can't remember who) who said that temperature increases in the US could only help us because the midwest would experience longer growth seasons for crops (I guess more CO2 would help too!). Never mind that increasing temperature may NOT yield similar benefits to a hundred other parts of the world were people don't have the finances, like we do, to run out and buy imported foodstuffs. Or that changes of any sort in the cycle may affect rainfall (much less? much more?) to the Midwest, the effects of which may well cancel any benefit received by 'a longer growth season'.

    As RichieB16 states above, and has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread, population growth plays a big, well, dominant role in what our future will be like. Discussion of that deserves a separate thread but it cannot help but work itself into arguments involving climate change. In the US at least the public is generally insulated from the impact of large population increases and occasional mass dislocations. Therefore it is an easier matter to conclude that climate changes are natural, since the prospect of being incorrect does not lead one into immediate panic about where millions of Bangladeshis are going to go if the sea level of the Brahmaputra delta rises half a meter.

    The poll takers of this forum have in the majority concluded that climate changes are natural. I understand that no one wants to be chicken little. My point is that it is an assumption, like the assumption that climate change IS caused by agricultural and industrial activities. The question is who loses, by deciding to conclude one side or the other? What is the risk/benefit scenario?
     
  13. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    You'll find that many coin collectors are also conservatives for some reason...Ultimate love of money or something I guess. Kiss
     
  14. AdamL

    AdamL New Member

    Moen, you must have read my post before I edited it. LOL.
     
  15. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    You mean this one. I think you should have left it the way it was. :smile I don't know how anybody could be offended by it.

     
  16. Tom Maringer

    Tom Maringer New Member

    Welcome to the thread AdamL and RichieB16! Good to hear a couple rational voices chiming in here. I especially enjoyed this bit:
    Good point! The earth doesn't much care one way or the other... (even if you envision a sentient Gaia) but we're assuredly making life difficult for ourselves and other creatures who share our vertebrate metabolism. And of course the geographic distribution of the effects will be uneven. I've seen projections suggesting that some countries (Canada and Russia for instance) may actually gain net productive crop area out of the deal. If that is so, and considering that Russia is a permanent member of the UN security council, it is likely that they would veto any UN effort to combat global warming. And Richie mentioned the "elephant in the room" by noting that world population is still increasing rather dramatically. Anyone who'd studied a bit of ecology will recognize in the population curve the first segment of a classic boom and bust cycle. We've seen it with predators and prey, with grazing animals, and even with people in restricted environments. Now we're seeing it on a planetary scale. Population MUST decrease, there is no question about that. The question is about how it's going to happen. The earth has its "four horsemen" that are well equipped to handle the situation if we humans do not come to some kind of understanding. I must admit that for emotional reasons I would prefer that we not invoke those horsemen. I think we're smarter than that... but I could be wrong.
     
  17. Moen1305

    Moen1305 Not Republican!

    I was talking with a university professor friend of mine about local weather the other day and he said that our part of Illinois has actually changed from a 5 to a 6 with the higher number representing more types of crops that can be grown in the region. We have actually increased the temperature enough to grow more crops than was possible before the warming in this part of the country. You could easily look at that as a good thing or as an omen of the effect we've already had on our environment.
     
  18. AdamL

    AdamL New Member

    Hehe. thats the one. And your probably right.
     
  19. AdamL

    AdamL New Member

    Thanks for the welcome Tom.
    What you guys said about actually being able to grow more crops is an interesting new idea to me. But I do definately see it as a bad omen anyway. Some new crops are becoming possible, as the climate warms. But as it continues to warm other crops will be eliminated from those areas. This steady changing of the natural balance of things is terrifying to me. Nothing good can come of it in the end.
     
  20. Cloudsweeper99

    Cloudsweeper99 New Member

    Everything in the universe is in a constant state of change. A thousand years ago, people farmed in Greenland. Two hundred fifty years ago, the Hudson River would freeze solid enough most winters to take a horse and wagon from New Jersey to Manhattan over the ice. One hundred years from now, Canada might be the bread-basket of the world and the Artic will finally become the Northwest Passage that people have search for and hoped for for centuries. People adapt. Don't let the "experts" frighten you. Virtually everything believed by the scientific community 100 years ago is now known to be wrong or incomplete. One hundred years from now the experts of today will appear equally misinformed. We're living at the best time in history. Life is good and don't let anyone convince you otherwise.
     

Share This Page