CUT GLOBAL WHINING 80% BY 2050!!!

It does have a nice ring to it.

.

“climate change is both more rapid and more serious in terms of its adverse effects than was previously thought.”

At least part of that statement is true. The Earth has been rapidly cooling for the past, roughly, eight years - even as GHG has been increasing. Global Warming must now be renamed Climate Change in an attempt to quickly scrounge up some semblance of sanity.

The models predicting Global Warming doom don't work on historical records. AGW has been proven to be false.

Let the mocking and name calling defense of AGW begin!

.

"The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with accuracy sufficient to define future climate change."

James E. Hanson, The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1998

You guys are hilarious. Whine all you want, its not going to make any difference.

Time to stop the misinformation. 1998 was the hottest year on record and hopefully we won't reach that peak again for awhile. Climate trends are measured over decades not eight years. Denialists conveniently avoid looking at the fifty year trend where warming closely coincides with GHG emissions.

Assuming that fossil fuel burning has no adverse effect on climate change, can anybody outline what effect oil price had on the current world economic chaos?

Are free market built in rapacity + speculation + increasing individual cupidity, ideal ingredients for repetitive financial turmoils for generations to come?

The price of our hydro produced electricity, being set by an Energy Board, changes more or less with the general cost of living (without the spikes) and is not subjected to speculations, individual greeds etc as oil is.

Switching from ICE to extended range PHEVs and BEVs would reduce and stabilise our vehicles operation cost, let alone reducing GHG.

We could ship more of our dirty fossil fuel to master speculators south of the border but we would have to find ways to block the south winds.

It must be considered that these people have forgotton the lesson of their remote relative king Canute who showed that the king did not have power over the tides of the sea. They ought to require that every european country generate most of their power with nuclear reactors, or they ought to just give up their positions and go home. They do not understand the importance of energy to an advanced economy and that wind power, without the known subsidies and without the hidden subsidy of a robust electrical grid and fossil fueled generators, cannot generate power cost effectively.

"Everybody should do their bit?????"

France with its Nuclear power plants is the only country that can even hope for a substantial reduction in CO2 releases. The rest of the countries, especially the UK, are so drunk with the use of North Sea and Russian gas that fossil fuel power plants have outpaced every other source of energy for the generation of electric power. The privitization of electric generation has removed the ability to build new nuclear zero CO2 power plants economically. Imagine what would happen if the motorways were privatized; tollgates and rough roads in every county to maximize profits.

There will be an island where nuclear fission is used to make fuel. It may be ammonia. It may be built on a seamount so that irrational cult like fears and actions of a populace will not get in the way of clean air and cheap energy.

Chernobyl showed that a population can survive a totally uncontained explosion and fire of a nuclear reactor during a test with emergency shut down disabled while trying to bring the reactor back to power because it was shut off to quickly for a test to see if money could be saved on rapid starting emergency power for emergency cooling water pumping. A large battery bank of cheap lead batteries would have obviated the test. or even just a two ton steel flywheel. There may be excess deaths due to the radiation, but these will be far fewer than those caused by the consumption of vodka and cigarettes. More people have been killed in a single train accident. Bhopal had 4000 immediate chemical deaths and perhaps five times that many subsequent ones. Seveso that resulted in the deaths of many hundreds of animals is familiar to few. But they are not mentioned by either the educated or uneducated antinuclear power cultists.

Europe may have the largest concentration of wind and solar power, but it does not generate a substantial part of the electricity being used and more tellingly does not comprise an overwhelming part of the investment in power plants or the increase of generating capacity. It is also not a noticable part of the total energy requirement. An immediate conversion to total wind and solar energy would destroy European economy forever more; the energy is so costly. Either directly or indirectly. ..HG..

Critta:

You and AGW believers that insist on using "denialist" to frame global warming skeptics, show gross disrespect for the holocaust and the 6 million Jews murdered by it. The anti-Semitic inference by the use of "denial" in the pejorative only furthers the image of global warmists as rabid attack dogs disrespectful of one of the greatest tragedies in human history. Which further paints warmists as deeply disturbed fanatics incapable of human compassion.

HG:

There is a very recent Euopean study to determine the economics and feasibility of a new underground European HVDC power grid.

The HVDC grid would maximize the use of interruptible power sources such as Sun and Wind for base loads by using northern Europe Hydro power as back up + peak loads.

I find that possibility very interesting because hydro power is a rare commodity. It can be turned up or down at will without lost of potential power. All unused water can be stored in huge water reservoirs (huge natural batteries) and used wheneven the interuptible power sources slow down, at night or during low wind or sun periods.

A similar approach, i.e a new HVDC power grid on USA/Canada east coast, (form northern tip of Ungava to southern tip of Florida) could effectively integrate 100 000++ mega-watt of Wind power with 60 000 to 120 000 mega-watt of existing and new Hydro Power.

Over 200 000 mega-watt of clean, reliable, sustainable, continous 24/7 electric power could replace most if not all the liquid fossil fuels currently used in that area, after the transition from ICE vehicles to PHEVs and BEVs.

Sun power could be added (where possible) as cost goes down and connected to the HVDC loop. It is much easier to tap in and out of a DC grid. An underground DC grid is another plus for national security and visible pollution. Existing Oil and NG pipelines right of way could be used.

However, we can bet that it will be done in Europe and possibly in China long before USA and Canada. Our Oil + Coal + NG Kings and privatized electrical power interests will not allow it.

USA and Canada will have to find ways to go around or nullify the ever increasing restrictions imposed by our free markets.

It is amazing how many people can excuses for not changing the way energy is produced and consumed.

Two years ago I built an electric motorcycle and that same year built a solar charge station.

This year I built an electric car and expanded the solar charge station. The car is simple and effective.

No greenhouse gas produced
No oil consumed
No Nuclear waste produced

KJD

http://www.evalbum.com/2058
http://www.zevutah.com

Sulleny that is absurd.

Harvey, reduced oil prices have tremendous positive effect on World economy in current severe recession (well, not for Canada).

Oil business is classic example of “cyclical business”. In time of high demand oil companies book record profits and channel record amount of money to exploration and development of new oil sources. Unfortunately, commodity speculators, oil companies shareholders, and contractors doing new exploration take away probably 50% of money consumers are spending on increased gasoline and diesel prices. Then comes the crush, and for protracted period of time oil companies do not spend a dime on new projects, barely hovering over zero profits. This promotes supply destruction, which in turn lead to scarcity of oil when economy is going upswing, then oil price skyrocketing, new cycle of investment in exploration and development leads. Then the cycle repeats.

Most experts agree than oil of 60-70 $ per barrel is the median price to assure proper development of new resources to satisfy growing demand for 15-25 years to come.

I see same old same old..

Bush had it right on one thing. Ignore the lesser thoughts on what might be happening and go stright to the one thing we all agree on. Oil will run low some day.

Now as that is a fact and dealing with JUST THAT also deals with co2 and everything else.. We can leave the rest for others to argue till doomsday and just deal with what we know.

Thus the work on batteries an bio and h2 and all that junk.

No matter if global warming pans out or not h2 is used now and will always be used so work on it always ALWAYS returns energy savings cost savings and improvements to standard of living.

No matter if global warming is real or not an electric car is a damn good think to work toward. No matter how its gets its energy that car will be a boon to mankind FAR FAR BLOODY FAR outweighing all the costs involved in bringing it to the world.

No matter if global warming comes or goes biofuels will be VERY useful not just here but in alot of places and for alot of uses.

No matter if global warming and co2 matter at all in the end burning up the stocks of uranium and such that we have is a bloody good idea and should be done before the tech advances so far that even a lobotimized sand flea can make a freaking nuke!

As for windmills they just look darn pritty and annoy snobby whiny buggers.. so win win as far as im concerned.

So stop asking where we are going and why and just get off your asses and GO. Its about bloody time we got somewhere.

Time to stop the misinformation. The 1930's had the six hottest years over the past century. This is evident based on NASA's corrected, previously faulty (used to show recent years as the hottest), temperature records. It's not that hard to Google. Get informed, people.

NASA = Never A Straight Answer

@anon:
That is completely wrong. Do you know why? Well, follow your own advice and get informed.

In case your mental derangement doesn't allow you to, let me summarize:
- they switched sources (2007), but the sources didn't match
- they made an adjustment
- the adjustment had an effect on earlier years
- after the adjustment 1934 beat 1998 by 0.02°C (before 1998 beat 1934 by 0.01°C)
- the long(er) term mean temperatures still showed that 1998-2002 is warmer than 1930-1934

And now onto the cool part:
- a paper back in 2001 by the NASA already mentioned this (1934 being slightly warmer than 1998)
- the paper noted that there's an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C in this comparison

And in case someone wonders: this only applies to US temperatures.

Wintermane,

Bush had it right on one thing Oil will run low some day.
Right but I've met conspiracy theorists who believe even that to be fraudulent.

The other points you make are the technology, lifestyle comfort end of a second layer of this energy development and environment question. I believe that economics also are able to agree comfortably with the positive outcomes from reducing and eliminating fossil fuel consumption and other pro environment actions.

We can answer the real question in the affirmative in this regard with the benefit of hindsight (oil shocks, urban pollution, wasteful energy usage in traffic jams, exponential lifestyle energy demands.)

The other side of the second layer concerns pollution of the environment and the effects on living things (incl people) and more broadly the land sea and air systems.
Again we have hindsight to illuminate the effects of human interference and land use on ecosystems.
This has long time line on land based systems more recent air quality issues and a rather more sudden awareness and understanding of effects on aquatic systems as the rapid increase in knowledge of and our ability to adversely influence these areas is mostly (but not soley) a more recent accomplishment.

The AGW deniers seem to have the realists bluffed on the issue of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Their argument is that CO2 has no warming or forcing effect on climate or if it does that it is beneficial.
As proof they quote various climate phenomena.

We need only answer that CO2 is a warming gas as described and understood to be.
That millenia of sequestered carbon storage has been released by humanity in the last 50 years and these effect are yet to be realised.