Kyoto is on

  • Thread starter Andre
  • Start date
  • #1
4,465
72
:yuck:

Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind. Kyoto is on. Based on the multiple refuted evidence of the hockeysticks we bravely start fighting windmils with windmils.

Thoughts anybody?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
wolram
Gold Member
4,267
557
I saw on the news that a Russian paper mill is already profiting
from this mystical global warming, the factory has an on going
modification scheme and receives grants for producing less
pollutants.
a single government can be stupid, but a multitude together should
have the resources to find the truth, and i guess they have but are
ignoring the facts and using the fear factor for their mutual benefit.
 
  • #3
93
0
Of course it surelly helps but I think Kyoto doesnt help so much to the Earth . It use 'carbon sink' policy , that mean it focus carbon dioxide this greenhouse gas only . Excluding Co2, methane , CFCS , Nitrogen dioxide are also greenhouse gases.methane has the greater effect of enchancing global T than that of co2.
 
  • #4
4,465
72
Kyoto won't help a bit - that's bad

Doesn't matter because anthropogenic greenhouse effect change is minimum - that's good

Legal fees and production cuts will hamper the economy - that's bad

The requirement for emission cuts will lead to acceptance of nuclear alternatives - that's good

There will also be a lot of powerless windmills - that's bad

Eventually it will show that the global warming is not happening and that the sciencific basis is flawed - that's good

People will loose confidence in science in general after the debunking of global warming - that's bad.

If science advices policy makers to go nuclear now or face massive economic collapse due to oil depletion the policy makers will say:

"Yeah...right, says who, and who told me that global warming was true?"
 
  • #5
356
0
Whithout carbondioxid in the atmosphere, the earth will become cold. I think it couldn't hurt to put a little extra in there, how can you be totally sure global warming will ever become a problem. If we didn't burn oil, then in a billion years all carbondioxid will be gone. Should it really be called global warming, shouldn't it be called global cooling?
 
  • #7
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
To say something, I think that a decreasing of a 5% in the emissions of CO2 won't change the things so much, but surely advanced countries will obtain several economic profits selling the rights of emissions to poorer countries.

As an example, Spain is allowed to increase the CO2 emission to a +15% to what we had in the moment of establishing the protocol. And we go beyond the +30% right now. Kioto doesn't seem a serious threat to force countries to decrease the CO2 emission, and now it only provides to engineers a puzzling problem.

Anyway, it is better than nothing.
 
  • #8
356
0
Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise, and that fast. Correct me if I'm wrong but if it doubles won't the sun become 4 times as hot, E=mc2, right? In that case, wont we be fried?

if it doubles in 1000.000.000 years, lightspeed will increase, 0,8 mm per day
 
  • #9
4,465
72
Sid,

Your report of the study follows the usual line:
There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.

(well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.

Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues

Yes and?

increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature

This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.

If we dont cut emissions we will fry

That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?

Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.
 
  • #10
502
1
Andre said:
Sid,

Your report of the study follows the usual line:
There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming.

(well, yes but there is still no forest back in Greenland and the UK wine is not world market leading yet as in the Medieval Warming Period). But agreed, it is warming.

Mankinds greenhouse gas emission continues

Yes and?

increasing CO2 causes increasing temperature

This step is usually omitted because it'so obvious as we have been brainwashed by the hockeystick. But it is not. The hockeystick is exposed and we can go back to the correct physical properties of greenhouse gas meaning that due to saturation the effect of increasing CO2 is very small.

If we dont cut emissions we will fry

That's the scaremongering part. It's plain simply false and outrageous. Not only are the physics wrong, but remember also that only some dozen millon years ago the CO2 concentration was 3-5 times as high as nowadays but the Antarctic ice sheet already existed. So why would it melt now?

Why it is warming is not determined exactly there are some ideas but greenhouse gas forcing is certainly at the bottom of that list.
Thank you for the reply. I had my doubts about the "study".

BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?

Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?
 
  • #11
1,834
205
Sariaht said:
Yeah yeah so what, i read that the speed of light is changing and it looks like it will rise
No it's not.
 
  • #12
1,834
205
Andre said:
Today we face something that may be the biggest gamble of mankind.
Actually, last I heard the number of allowed emissions was preset and based on the US joining in. Given that we haven't, the tradeable emissions are quite numerous, and it may end up having less of an effect than inteded. In that way, at least, it may not be much of a gamble in any direciton.
 
  • #13
4,465
72
BTW, isn't global warming largely a result of water vapors although greenhouse gases contribute too?
It has been established that 75% of the greenhouse effect of 33K is attributable to water. The remaining part is shared by greenhouse gasses. Some 60% of that (15% of the total) being CO2.

Do you think that global warming will endanger our survival in the future?
I doubt if we ever get to much more increase of global temp than one degree compared to the 1900 level. There are many more factors that may be a lot worse to Earth
 
  • #14
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
So essentially the educated thing to do is to quit the chatter about warming and start doing something reasonable in ecological terms ?
 
  • #15
4,465
72
That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?
 
  • #16
356
0
So solar plants are not worth the effort? I protest. Especialy since we more or less are flowers that walk and talk, what can be more natural for earthlings to do then to produce solar plants? Ofcourse there will be times when humans have to manage without the sun, but we should develope better solarplants while we still have the sun, don't you think?
 
  • #17
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
Andre said:
That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.
I find it hard to question any of these ... all sound reasonable and agree with the direction completely. Rather than focusing on obscure solutions which may or may not work, may or may not be based on reality, these do address the problems we're facing globally, and do it pragmatically.

Andre said:
Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?
Emission cutbacks ought to have their basis in reality, which doesn't really seem to be the case ... now their are just abstract cuts as you suggest. With respect to renewables I can't say I've adequate information whether the cost/benefit ratio is such that within a reasonable timespan they are able to contribute, or would the rational approach be to ditch them, invest in nuclear + natural gas and use the development money to advance fusion ... what is the latest in this area ?
 
  • #18
4,465
72
About renewables.

The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.

And then there is no wind.

So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.

But there are more forms of renewables of course.
 
  • #19
PerennialII
Science Advisor
Gold Member
898
0
Andre said:
About renewables.

The question is: are they worth the effort? Living in a flat rainy place with only some occasional rumors that the sun may exist indeed, the first thought is not about solar energy. Problem with that, according to my magazine is the low yield with high production costs. But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?

About windmills, with performance in the order of magnitude of a megawatt, you need several thousands to replace one power plant of severak gigawatt. But the production costs (and hence required energy) may also be orders of magnitude higher than powerplants. The effectiviness is highly dependent on clean rotor blades, the catch of insects of a few days is enough to decimate effectiviness. Consequently the maintance problem is very high. Moreover you keep replacing the ageing ones.

And then there is no wind.

So you need the total capacity in other forms as well. If that happens to be nuclear power only, then the contribution of the windmills to a better environment is exactly zero.

But there are more forms of renewables of course.
Yeah, considering the power output solar and wind are pretty much that, somehow I don't have high hopes for geothermal and don't see how the amount water produced energy can be increased (or don't think that should at least). The idea of biomass in my mind suffers from the same ideas as water, what about something more exotic ... like is there any hope for fuel cell power plants etc. ?
 
  • #20
502
1
Andre said:
That's my idea.

My priority list, not necesary in that order:

Explore oceanic clathrate field, especially those in tectonic active areas. (CH4 is the cleanest fuel - bonus for who believes in it, the fossil fuel producing the least amount of carbon dioxide)

Reforestation and oceanic fish management

Exhaust filter devices for all polluting power plants to reduce air pollution, especially soot.

Invest in nuclear fission power plants.

Invest in nuclear fusion research.

Those measures ultimately lead to CO2 emission reduction but this is not the purpose. The purpose is to convert to a sustainable Earth.

Things not to do:

investing in renewable energy sources
emission cutback for the sole purpose of emission cutback

Discussion?

I would like to add, a good reduction in tax on corporations. This will allow them to invest more in alternative sources of energy and they are generally much more efficient than the government.
 
  • #21
1,834
205
Andre said:
But that may be different living in the Sahara, but then again, who wants that energy over there?
For someone of your education, this is an incredibly shallow remark. There may not be many people in the sahara who need it, but there are people north, south, east and west of it who might be able to benefit. The sun shines equally bright just a little outside of a desert.

You don't quote any numbers when talking about solar and wind power, and I feel it is safe to say you may not be aware of the most recent ones. It's already been shown here in the US, for example, that when you take into account the amount of money society spends on coal miners healthcare, the difference in cost between coal and wind power is negligible.

Regardless of your views on global warming, the sharp rise in oil and natural gas prices may make alternative sources of energy economic more sooner than later; should we invest in them now? If we are reasonably forward thinking, we will certainly invest in their research.

The new nuclear power plants China has opened could certainly be considered "alternative," and may very well be superior to all other current types of power generation.
 
  • #22
4,465
72
Sorry about the shallow remark :blushing: Sometimes one must make stupid statements to get a bit of discussion. Again I'm not used to the hot bright desert type weather. The article that I read gave a tenfold higher cost for solar power against oil. But that's at higher lattitudes of course. Those kind of remarks easily cause bias

The coal thing is interesting. A switch to methane (clathrate) or more nuclear power could be very rewarding in terms of pollution.

The problem with most forms of renewables is the size to effectiveness ratio. Windmills are probably at the bottom of the ratio. But in all cases I think that the culprit of renewables is the lack of reliability. Regardless of the number of solar cells, the airconditionings just continue in the night time. The limited storage posibilities require that some other plant takes over. Then why not invest in completely nuclear coverage of the need instead of dividing the assets and be a lot less effective.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
1,834
205
If I repsonded strongly to your statement it is partly because I was suprised you said it. It is not strange for me to run into thinking here in the US along those lines - except, unlike in your case, most people are dead serious when they say it. I have a hypothesis for why Africa always comes up in discussions about this with people in the US, but I won't go into it because I would think it wouldn't apply to you.

Anyhow, I see no reason why investing completely in nuclear coverage is more effective than dividing assets between several power types. I believe there are a couple of things you are not taking into account.

1) Is it safe to say you are from a country whose population is reasonbaly dense? Nuclear power is a fantastic solution to city energy supply. Nuclear power is a poor solution to rural areas energy supply. It is expensive to transport power.

Here in the US we have vast tracts of open land, and huge farm areas. In both of these, the size to effectiveness ratio is virtually meaningless; windmills placed on farmland can reduce the crop yield by tiny amounts, and increase the economic value of the farm considerably. It still isn't economic to do this on large scales, but we are getting close to reaching a time when it will be.

2) I believe you are only considering a single use for these alternative energy sources - that of electricity. Solar power especially has direct uses that do not require electricity, but save electricity and other recources. Wind qualifies too, but less so and in different ways. Take solar water heaters for instance; it has been shown they pay for themselves in warm areas, and are begining to be sold regularly in the US. Why shouldn't we invest in them?

If you have a hard time imagining what the 250,000 nomadic people of Western Sahara would do with a lightbulb (which you shouldn't), maybe you can think of some use for a solar water purifier that can purify any water in a short time (even urine and many types of polluted water).

If renewable sources are so poor choices, then answer this: why has Japan seen a huge increase in solar power sales even as government funding has been phased to a fraction of what it once was? Why have solar cells seen huge increases in sales worldwide over the past decade? Why will thin film solar cells, which require a fraction of the materials, not end up highly efficient methods of extracting some energy?

You'll have to pardon me, I don't remember where you are from - Northern Europe? Currently, the facts seem to lean your way; solar power is just not as efficient a form of energy as other sources. However, being in Birmingham Alabama, things appear differently to me, and while the current facts lean your way, it would seem time may be on my side.

I believe that picking a fight with renewable energy sources only muddles your message.
 
  • #24
4,465
72
Okay,

Let's say that my priority list indeed is my advise to the government of a small rainy country, which name is visible below the bear of little brain.

I appreciate the energy transport problem. There are more problems BTW. How are we going to continue to sustain Jumbo-jets and Air-busses with fuel. Synthetic fuels? Perhaps but any idea how much jet - air fuel A1 is consumed every second?

I see some 300-500 Airlines continuesly airborne over Europe. That may amout to 1500 - 2000 worldwide perhaps? Average fuel consumption some 9000 liters per hour, say 3 liters per airliner per second. How are we going to produce 6000 liters (1600 gallons) of synthetic fuel per second?

Would massive solar stills work in the desert to produce distilled water? which is nice to keep irrigation systems clean of calciferous deposit.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
1,834
205
Andre said:
which name is visible below the bear of little brain.
:blushing:

How are we going to continue to sustain Jumbo-jets and Air-busses with fuel. Synthetic fuels? Perhaps but any idea how much jet - air fuel A1 is consumed every second?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the relevance. You said not to invest in renewables. My argument is that it is quickly becoming economically (and socially) profitible to do so. Did you take what I said to mean I think we ought not put oil based fuels in planes? Maybe you are talking to someone else, and that's why I don't understand?
 

Related Threads on Kyoto is on

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Top