blastboy

Is this about brute strength and survival of the fittest in a 10x10x10 box or survival on earh? I would say neither because the topic was how "man" is polluting/heating up the environment around him. But you did say all animals pollute and I would like to know which other animals do so on the scale that man does. Also, my bet would certainly be on man as far as the top of the food chain and dominant species is concerned however, I still don't see how that justifies pollution/destruction of the earth on a massive scale. Man is digging a hole for himself and will not last very long if all continues. We'll be the first species to kill ourselves off to extinction.

fdxlag- I think I see what you were saying but you have to take into account the additional billions of metric tons of gasses that is emitted annually by man. In a "normal" earth, greenhouse gases are there to simply sustain life. Adding to them like we have is going to create a problem.

other poster (forgot name) - I can't disagree with you than man is natural and all things come from the earth. BUT! Man has a bad habit of changing the atomic/molecular structure of elements. Look up how long it takes for plutonium, einstienium, plastic, polymers, petroleum, diapers and such to decompose. Some of them at millions of years. And you can't compost them in your garden. I don't think there's an argument here: the trash man creates is harmful to the environment that sustains ALL life. If man continues this way, and all life is destoryed, man will not survive. Period. If you think otherwise, sit in your garage with your car running and tell me that air is breathable. Have a table spoon of motoroil and see what happens. Swim in water right next to a factory. I know there are toxic gasses and emissions in nature but you cannot compare that to the emissions of man. (Especially a flatulent one. )

u2drvr

A. What is a "normal" earth? This planet undergoes contiuous changes on monumetal scales, usually in a repeating cycle. How do you define normal? Are the current conditions normal? What about the conditions of the "little ice age" that occured in Europe a few centuries ago? There is no such thing as normal.

B. Why do you have to take the "additional billions of metric tons" into account? I know that sounds like an incrdeible amount, but what is produced by human activity is somewhere in the neighborhood of .01% of what is produced naturally. And then there are things that are never considered like forrest fires...one major forrest fire can produce a huge amount of greenhouse gasses. Humans put out or prevent a lot of fires that are caused by nature. How does that fit into the equation? (I doubt it has been put in any models.) The point is, this is incredibly complex and you can't just assume everything people do is bad.

C. "Adding to them like we have is going to create a problem." Well, that is really the subject of the whole debate and you cannot just assume that is the case. I'm all for reducing pollution, but not by taking unreasonably drastic action and not without SOUND scientific research to back it up.

D. Just because some things take longer to decompose doesn't mean that they never will or that that are not ways of breaking them down quicker or recycling them. It is unreasonable to look at major environmental issues on a human time scale. In order to study the climate, you have to look at trens over thousands of years. This is what makes the global warming issue so difficult to study. There is only data for industrial activity for the last hundred years or so, and much of that data is unreliable. To compensate, we rely on computer based models. In my opinion, the modles that are used are inadequate and largely written to produce a desired result. There are too many things they do not consider for them to be accurate. I'm not saying they are absolutely wrong, just that they are largely meaningless.

E."Look up how long it takes for plutonium, einstienium, plastic, polymers, petroleum, diapers and such to decompose. Some of them at millions of years." While Pu and Es are both synthetically produced radioactive rare earth elements, they are very different. Pu has a half life of 80 million years and is produced primarily for use in nuclear weapons and is a byproduct of some nuclear power production facilities. Es has a half life of 472 days and has only been produced by nuclear explosions and in a few particle physics experiments...none exists today. Petroleum exists in massive quanties in nature and will break down when exposed to the atmosphere and by certain bacteria. Diapers will break down in about 500 years, manufacurers are working to reduce this time.

F. "I know there are toxic gasses and emissions in nature but you cannot compare that to the emissions of man." I have to agree with you here, they do not compare. Nature produces thousands of times what man produces.

Sorry for the long post

Cheers

jungle

Good points. Here is a post someone else wrote on the approximate size/cost of two supposedly valid alternate energy schemes. Any disagreement with these numbers?


Most alternative methods will work. I repeat, most alternative methods of energy will work. Just what would it take, and how much would it cost?

Sunlight hits the earth at about 1 kilowatt per square meter. You would need 750,000 square meters of solar cells to generate 750 megawatts if the sun shines 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. We all know that doesn’t happen, so considering nightfall, cloud cover, dust, snow cover, and considering when you put energy into a battery you never get that same amount back out. I will allow a very generous estimate of 8 hours per day of optimum solar collection. That means the area of solar cells must be multiplied by a factor of 3 to generate the target of 750 megawatts. I choose this number because that is the size of a coal plant operating south of my town.

We now need 2,250,000 square meters of solar cells. That’s 2250 square kilometers. That’s 869 square miles to equal a 750 mega-watt power plant!! That is just the collection half of a solar station. You still need a huge storage facility involving corrosive and toxic battery technology.
It’s going to take millions of tons of concrete, glass, steel, and aluminum to construct such a power plant. Imagine what it would take to build a coal plant. It would take roughly 1,000 times that to build a solar facility to equal the output. Consider all the extra CO2 from all that extra concrete. Then consider the army you would have to hire to maintain and clean 869 square miles of glass? Solar power on a large scale is many times more expensive then fossil fuel methods.

Wind power is another popular form of alternative energy. Wind experiment by Southern California Edison was scraped. The farm on the Colorado, Wyoming boarder has huge maintenance problems,and is not operating most of the time. Wind farms in North Carolina and Vermont were closed down by court suits. Goodnoe Hills in Washington state closed because of mechanical failure. A purposed wind farm off the coast of Massachusetts was squashed in court by the wealthy residence of that state. A study conducted by Lockheed indicates that 19 percent of the countries energy output could be done with windmills. 63,000 windmills, 300 feet tall, with 100 foot blades, steady wind supply, and no mechanical breakdowns. Where are we going to put them? How much will the land cost? Each one of these windmills costs roughly 30 million dollars. This would cost the taxpayers 1.89 trillion dollars.

When another form of energy comes along it will not be because of government mandate, referendum, amendment, or political pressure, or enough people scream about it. A new energy will come when it’s economically feasible, and not when the old energy source runs out. Wood was in abundance when coal came along. Coal was cheaper and better. Gasoline came along because it was better and cheaper to fuel various vehicles with it. Something cheaper and better will come along. It’s not here yet.

vagabond

Not exactly global warming hysteria.

From Financial Times.

America's top aviation official has warned the industry to expect a consumer-led backlash over its environmental impact, mirroring the heightening concerns about emissions in Europe.

Marion Blakey, head of the Federal Aviation Administration, called for carriers to deal with growing environmental concerns.

"The fact of the matter in Europe is more and more often environmentalists are calling aviation a 'rogue industry', lumped together alongside Big Tobacco," said Ms Blakey at a conference in Phoenix.

She noted that the change in consumer sentiment had happened almost overnight, despite continued growth in air travel driven by economic expansion and the rise of low-cost carriers.

"It's presumptious to assume it won't happen here [so fast]," said Ms Blakey, citing a recent survey in which just 5 per cent of US airline executives viewed the environment as a key challenge, compared with 34 per cent of their European counterparts. "I think it's fair to say that along with congested airspace, aircraft emissions may be the most serious barrier to aviation growth, at least in the long term."

The US remains the world's largest aviation market, with passenger traffic back above 9/11 levels and further demand emerging from business jets and a new breed of small "personal jets" which advocates believe could add thousands of aircraft to the fleet.

While the industry insists efforts are being made to limit its environmental impact – with cleaner and more fuel-efficient aircraft – executives admit there is a challenge to present its case. "We have to get out in front and educate the consumer," Doug Parker, chairman and chief executive of US Airways, told the FT.

The European Union's plans to extend carbon emissions trading to the airline sector at the end of the decade have caused alarm in the US and elsewhere, with critics maintaining it is an inefficient way to address the industry's problems.

The US argues that operational changes and the use of technology will have a more immediate impact on reducing emissions than a trading scheme. The FAA has pilot schemes allowing aircraft to fly closer together, reducing congestion and the extra fuel and noise created by aircraft waiting to take off and land, and there is a broad industry initiative to explore the use of renewable fuels.

The issue is expected to come to a head at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organisation in September, when the UN-backed body will seek a consensus on efforts to address climate change.

blastoff

Ryan946, Compare this Film to Al Gore's campaign ad (Inconvenient Junk Science)...Those of us who studied science in College have seen the holes in the Scientific Method being applied to Global Warming...nice that someone (The BBC) is standing up to Hollywood money and doing a provocative SCIENCE piece.

Man Made Global Warming debunked...or at least reduced back to theory status...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...62022478442170

When the founder of Greenpeace comes out and slams Global Warming, you know its not just us crazy conservatives.

kansas

You know what, you're right. California is what the world is all about. Those folks are just as good as it gets. As for the rest of us, it's too bad that we drag mighty CA down with our ignorance and hatred of all things good. We should all be like Californians.

Perhaps you should at least visit a place like the midwest...maybe you'd understand.

ryane946

WRONG.
http://www.nei.org/documents/States_CA.pdf
31.6% of our energy comes from renewable energy (wind, hydro, solar).
Another 18.4% of our energy comes from nuclear power.

Texas, 88.8% of their energy comes from coal, oil, and natural gas. Non-renewable!!

I have. I have spent a good amount of time in 42 of the 50 states. I travel a lot and I love spending time at other places to learn the culture/environment. In fact, after 18 years of living in California my entire life, I decided to go to college in the Midwest.

Do you know what all that traveling/living in the midwest has made me realize? I learned that you can't beat the California.

My comment was not geared towards saying California is better than the Midwest. In fact, I have never said that. I said I feel sorry for those of you who live out "in the middle of nowhere." If "the middle of nowhere" is pseunonymous with the Midwest, that is not my problem.


I have a lot invested in this planet. Not only my life and my children's lives. I live in California, and do you know what our largest industry is?? It's not computers. It's not biotech. It's agriculture. Agriculture is California's largest industry. We have the world's most fertile valley. This year we had a VERY cold snap. Usually, it does not get below 32 degrees F in the valley. NEVER BELOW THAT! If it does, that is a big problem for some of the crops we grow. This year, we had days where it went to 15 degrees. The price of orange juice this year is gonna be a lot higher than usual. A lot of farmers got screwed this year.

FDXLAG

Jungle's numbers are official CA numbers not from some shill for the evil nuclear industry. Remember they were evil before the tobacco people were.

But no doubt you are both right, the difference is the timeline and what qualifies as Small Hydroelectric. Are you lefties in favor of big dams now? Are you in favor of more Nucs? I am, but then I don't shift my position to meet the latest fad.

jungle

Link to California State Report:http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity...tem_power.html

Your original claim was renewable and also that it came into being by legislation. The large hydro was there before any of this started and was constructed due to economic practicality and not "green" legislation.
I'll stick with your State's own claim of 10.9% renewable. Please notice how they break it down in their own accounting. Their accounting differs from yours. Also kindly note that your source says 2.3% comes from coal, but your State says 15.7% comes from coal. Most peculiar.


Have you any comment on the 750 Megawatt Solar numbers from an engineering viewpoint?



California Gross System Power for 2006
In Gigawatt-Hours (GWh)



Fuel Type
In-State
NW Imports
SW Imports
GSP
GSP Percentage

Coal {2}
17,573
5,467
23,195
46,235
15.7%

Large Hydro
43,088
10,608
2,343
56,039
19.0%

Natural Gas
106,968
2,051
13,207
122,226
41.5%

Nuclear
31,959
556
5,635
38,150
12.9%

Renewables
30,514
1,122
579
32,215
10.9%

Biomass
5,735
430
120
6,285
2.1%

Geothermal
13,448
0
260
13,708
4.7%

Small Hydro
5,788
448
0
6,236
2.1%

Solar {1}
616


616
0.2%

Wind
4,927
244
199
5,370
1.8%

TOTAL
230,102
19,804
44,959
294,865
100.0%

Source:

2006 Net System Power Report, Energy Commission Publication # CEC-300-2007-007. (Acrobat PDF, 8 pages, 48 kilobytes, date on line April 12, 2007)

Notes:
This number only includes generator-reported electricity, not electricity produced by many small-scale photovoltaic installations throughout the state. Based on the the Energy Commission's Renewable Energy Program records, the state has financed approximately 135,517 kilowatts (kW) of solar photovoltaic capacity. Assuming that each installed kW of PV-generated 1,500 kWh in 2005, then the combined output of these PV systems would add another 203.3 gigawatt-hours to the gross system power totals.

The in-state coal-fired generation includes electricity generated from several out-of-state coal-fired power plants that are owned by and reported by California utilities. There are other out-of-state generation facilities that are owned by California utilities, which are reported as imports.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Generally, to convert from gigawatt hours into megawatts, divide the number of gigawatts by 8,760 then multiply by 1,000 to get megawatts. This is "average" megawatts, as capacity of power plants varies depending on resource/fuel type and plant efficiency.

kansas

Kinda funny how clean the air is wherever the "middle of nowhere" seems to be, and how dirty it is in places that heap on the useless regulations...CO and CA come to mind.

A lot of farmers did get screwed this year...I won't argue with that. Back home in Kansas we got hit with not only two horrible freezes, but 7 inches of snow in mid-April. The wheat is completely shot. How do all these COLD snaps point toward global WARMING, though?