AndreS

you know and I do, that no matter how normal the weather may be, ANY fluctuation (warm, or cold) is proof of their argument somehow.

i watched the BBC video and some of the critiques of it attempting to discredit it. are there similar critiques of the politician's video?

do you want to know how whacked out it's getting?
some of the schools in my area took the politician's video and made it required viewing for the students, and parents. and...if the parent's didn't attend a viewing, their children's grades would be affected. using children's grades as a method of blackmailing parents into being indoctrinated in the religion.

want religion out of schools? start with environmentalism.

this religion wants to control every aspect of your life, take your time and freedom away. tell you where you can/cannot go(i.e. designated wilderness areas) and how you can go there, if you can.
(sound like fascism?)
it has set a goal of making everyone dependent on the state for everything and giving everything back to the state that you make with ever increasing taxes, fees, 'environmental impact fees'.
(sound like communism?)
it has a goal of eliminating human life wherever possible.
when will they find a way of putting us into concentration camps in order to save the world (i'm sure it'll be called a 'save the world resort' of some type....) then make us drink the kool-aid??? it won't be called genocide, it'll be 'saving the world from us (non-elite) humans.'

flyerNy

The middle latitudes will see larger, more dramatic hot cold weather changes due to increases in global temperature. Basically its like heating up a pot of water where the water moves faster and faster to try and disperse the heat. As you can imagine, this will also lead to the more violent weather scientists anticipate. Also, as the atmosphere becomes wilder in trying to disperse the heat and the way in which the atmosphere interacts due to Coriolis force, some regions may find temperatures or types of weather never before encountered. Global temperature changes (up and down) are fact as recorded in geologic historical evidence. Predicting the future is difficult howeer our abuse of Earth cannot go ignored forever, Global Warming or not. I am not saying for all of us to stop our modern life and become misinformed evirohippies. Rather, we should be working together to reduce our impacts on the environment yet also understanding that we need to live our modern lives. Think about our impacts on the globe, destruction of ecosystems, ground water contamination, air pollution etc...all of which effect our health and our Earths future in one way or another. Open your eyes.

Was That For Us?

In warmer climates like the tropics, notice how much life thrives with the increased temperatures?

Cold temperatures = not much lives there or grows.

I'll take a degree or two of global warming any day, it'll help grow more plants and other green things.

flyerNy

I hate the cold too.

Only prob with global warming is - we will be heading towards another ice age - doh!

ryane946

Well Jungle this figure always bothered me but I never really took the time to look into it until today.
And guess what... I found your math errors (there were two of them).

Lets use these assumptions.
Sunlight hits earth at 1 kilowatt per square meter.
50% efficient solar cell. We don't have that yet (they are about 15-20%, but a little investment and we will have 50% efficient solar cells when widespread solar power becomes a reality)
Sun shines 12 hours a day
Sunny 250 days a year
Those numbers are pretty typical for California.
According to a source I found, California used 238,710 million kw hours in the year 2003. That number is pretty much the same as California's usage today.

Your first mistake was you didn't make the distinction between kilowatts and kilowatt*hours. Energy = Power * Time. Energy is an amount in units of kilowatt*hours, while power is a rate, in units of watts, and time is in units of hours. The ENERGY absorbed by that one square meter solar cell is 1kw*12hours*250days = 3000kilowatt*hours per year. Assuming 50% efficiency, the amount of electricity generated by a one square meter solar cell is 1500kilowatt*hours per year.

The state of California used 238,710,000,000kw*hours of power in the year 2003. Therefore the state of California would need 159,140,000 square meters of solar cells to generate all this power.

Your second mistake was you improperly converted from square meters to square kilometers. Don't feel bad. This mistake is made ALL THE TIME, and I have made it on more than one occasion. Anyway, to convert from square meters to square kilometers:
2,250,000 square meters. Take the square root, and you find this is a chunk of land 1500m by 1500m. That is 1.5km by 1.5km, or 2.25 square kilometers, not 2,250 as quoted above. That is a factor of ONE THOUSAND.

Anyway, using the correct method, 159,140,000 square meters is 12615m by 12615m, or 12.6km by 12.6km. 12.6km is 7.89 miles. So 7.89^2 is 62.25 square miles.

To power the state of California, you would need 62.25 square miles of solar cells. Not bad. Consider that California has 1/10th the population of the entire United States, and you soon realize that solar power is certainly a viable source of energy to power our civilization.

Pilot41

These snow storms were caused by global warming? You're trying to say there had never been a December snow storm in the Denver area in the past 1000 yrs or so?

jungle

[QUOTE=ryane946;248416]Well Jungle this figure always bothered me but I never really took the time to look into it until today.
And guess what... I found your math errors (there were two of them).


Not my math errors, but the source quoted. Thanks for the correction anyway.

Here is an article about current arrays: http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=43336

The project is projected to generate 130,000 MWh of power per year over the course of its decades-long lifetime. All of its electricity production will be sold to Nevada Power and Sierra Pacific Power under long-term power purchase agreements to help them meet this requirement.


The real world gets us about 64MW or 130,000 MWh per year from 350 Acres. Cost is still not anywhere near competitive with coal or nuclear.

Run the numbers again using this state of the art example and you will find your estimates somewhat optimistic. Nevada is the best possible case, the rest of the US wouldn't fare as well.

When and if solar gets competitive in the market, we will see wider application. Until it does it remains an unproven and less efficient way to generate power for those not dwelling in deserts.


Rough numbers indicate that present state of the art(138,000MWh for 350 acres) would require about 945,000 square miles to satisfy the requirements of California. California has an area of about 163,707 square miles. This could present a problem.

FDXLAG

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/sc...nted=1&_r=2&hp

Can some one help me; are we supposed to use paper or plastic at the grocery store this week?

Winged Wheeler

Here are some of the things the progressive and enlightened "environmental" set have planned for you:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=290513

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6878

jungle

For a deeper understanding of the psychological factors in play here I recommend a review of that highly acclaimed South Park episode: "The Death Camp of Tolerance"