I brieflly mentiioned several. Re-read it. Or google it.
IPCC Climate Change Report........
by cantleave 153 Replies latest social current
-
-
BizzyBee
like what?
-
-
metatron
How many of you have actually installed solar panels? Investigated a hilltop area for wind turbine possibilities? Spent hours pouring over the latest battery research? Bought deep cycle batteries and priced nickel iron cells from China? Installed synchronous inverters?
I have. Doesn't make me an expert on climate but I despair at the state of renewable energy and I have first hand experience.
Battery technology sucks a$$. Electric cars are still pathetic. Solar and wind turbines are intermittent and usually require full fossil fuel backup to kick in when they fail/stop.
Currently, I'm gonna investigate why some Russian scientists contradict the IPCC ideas. So far, it's scary because they seem to claim that the 19/17/16/15 yr. warming pause is caused by a long term cycle of decline in the Sun's output. And the IPCC agrees that solar output has done down but thinks it's just short term.
metatron
-
Glander
OK. So we see pollution illustrated by a poor bird. We see the prices at the pump that most of the world would envy. We see a gratuitous Bush pic. (Why not the pic of Obama bowing to the same guy?)
But then we see a pic of the filthy rich potentates of the middle east. A real clue.
So why is developing our own abundant resources in North America such a problem because of government obstacles?
The EPA has recently had to back off a totally false claim that fraking caused a huge release of methane. They only exaggerated by 3000%. Politics/Money is the reason. The global climate conspiracy issue is the control mechanism. The US use of carbon fuels is so much cleaner it is like mothers milk compared to the deathly pollution of China and other countries that are trying to catch up. Kyoto Protocol is a scam that has been exposed.
This is a subject of endless argument. The pictures are provocative but basically mean zero to the discussion.
-
DJS
Metatron,
Yes to all you say, but that hasn't anything to do with the goals and objectives of moving away from a petroleum and oil/coal based economy. It isn't going to be perfect, and there likely won't be one perfect technology (unless they accomplish cold (or hot) fusion). There are sooo many things that we can do, from super efficient homes (google the findings from Germany) to wind/solar/tidal/etc. to super conductors (on the horizon perhaps) to getting rid of incandescent bulbs (please don't start atacking this). No one right now has the perfect answer; that doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking for alternatives.
-
Berengaria
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's what those folks in Arkansas were thinking when their neighborhood turned into an oil slick, "just like mother's milk".
So why is developing our own abundant resources in North America such a problem because of government obstacles?
It isn't, we export more than we import.
-
Berengaria
The EPA has recently had to back off a totally false claim that fraking caused a huge release of methane. They only exaggerated by 3000%.
Link?
-
Glander
It isn't, we export more than we import.
If this is true, why?
Isn't transport one of the most common ways that spillage and pollution occurs? The use of the fuel at the ultimate destination is no where nearly environmentally regulated as much as it is here.
If a gallon of US gasoline COULD cost $1.39, what is the incentive for the oil companies to market it here?
It is like eskimos buying ice cubes from the Sahara. Something smells.
-
Glander
UPDATE (4/28/2013; 6:56 pm ET): The Associated Press reports that the EPA has “dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production,” based on data in the agency’s latest GHG Inventory. The AP further notes:
The scope of the EPA’s revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That’s about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.
The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40 percent since 1990. The industry has boomed in recent years, thanks to a stunning expansion of drilling in previously untapped areas because of the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which injects sand, water and chemicals to break apart rock and free the gas inside.
