• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Politicized Science

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Richard Lindzen of MIT writing in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons identifies characteristics of politicized science:

1) powerful advocacy groups claiming morality and superior wisdom; 2) simplistic depictions of the science; 3) events claimed to promote a sense of urgency; 4) scientists flattered by the public attention and 5) scientists eager to meet the public demand.
In politicized science the science becomes a source of authority whereas non-political science is a source of inquiry. The utility of science in furthering knowledge comes from the latter and not the former.

With regard to the IPCC's claims, Lindzen produced two graphs showing temperature change during a 50 year period, one taken from a period before there was a significant increase in CO2, and the other more recently when the increase in CO2 was marked and accelerating. Can you tell which is which?

Temperature vs Time A.JPG
Temperature vs Time B.JPG

According to the IPCC the first plot, representing the period 1957 to 2008, shows a significant increase in temperature due to CO2, which increased by about 80 ppm during that time, but it is not significantly different from the second plot, which is the period 1895 to 1946 during which atmospheric CO2 increased by about 10 ppm. Lindzen concludes that the data provides no basis for the IPCC claims of Catastrophic Anthropogenic (human caused) Global warming (CAGW).
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,579
Reaction score
18,341
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A joke of an organization.
a joke of a 'scientific' journal.
A joke of an article.

We've shown this several times already, leading me to conclude you are also a joker.
 

keith

Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2013
Messages
231
Reaction score
114
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Let's face it higher CO2 levels, all other things being equal, contributes to global warming but no one knows how much and it would take trade restrictions that send the world into a depression to do anything about it. All ya can do is build dikes. Cap and trade will just send jobs to the developing world where emission standards are lower. Cap and trade should be called the Ship Jobs to China and India Act.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
15,087
Reaction score
6,225
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
A joke of an organization.
a joke of a 'scientific' journal.
A joke of an article.

We've shown this several times already, leading me to conclude you are also a joker.
At least the thread title is correct - Lindzen and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are most definitely providing "politicized science"
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is no doubt that this issue is politicized. But I think people approach the problem in the wrong fashion. To me it isn't important if humanity is the cause or is not the cause of climate change.

We know that there is an extremely strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. As CO2 increases so does temperature. Through ice cores we know that there were periods that experienced higher temperatures. One period of time, labeled the bronze age, was substantially hotter than our current temperatures today. Of course, people that are for the use of fossil fuels jump on that statement and say it is natural for the planet to warm and cool. This statement is true, but you also have to look at the complete picture. There is no doubt that current modern society is burning hydrocarbons at a pretty high rate. This releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Whether or not this caused the shift in temperature is not important, what is important is that we are contributing to further warming of the planet. There is absolutely no debate there.

This is really dangerous. The planet is known to have numerous feedback processes that we understand and that we don't understand. This is a fancy word for snowball processes. This basically means the added warming and CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is going to enact processes that enable conditions to further perpetuate those processes.

What is also given, is that the world will cool after a period of warmth. And, there have been multiple ice ages after periods of warmth. Sure we will not experience it in our lifetime, but we could very well determine the fate of the future human race by continually burning fossil fuels, when there is absolutely no reason to be burning them. Water, wind, and solar energy (does not include geothermal or space based solar energy) could provide the entire nation power at half the cost per watt/hour. The power would be cheaper. The power would be near limitless in supply. Our grid would be clean, and we could use access energy to store away the excess CO2 diminishing the effects of climate change. Extra power could be used to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen could be used to fuel transportation systems, with the byproduct being water. And that is not all.

We could also individually power every home with renewables now.
We could also build a space based solar powered grid. This could provide power to the entire globe three times over. The extra power we would have would be absolutely crazy, and we could harness it in so many ways. The cost of power would be half of what we pay for it now.

We have the technology to do this. It is efficient enough. There is an economical reason to do this -- we would save money. There are environmental reasons to do this -- it would curb the effects of CO2 concentrations, help ensure the survival of humanity, and is just plain healthier for the planet. With regards to resource allocation, this frees up other resources to be used for other means. The only reason why this is not being moved forward is social and political.

Big interests and lobbying are keeping the transition to a renewable grid from moving forward.
There is a false perceivement by the public that with current technology we could not satisfy power demand and that it is too expensive. Any transition is going to cost money. There is always going to be an upfront cost. But the amount of money saved in the long haul is unparamount with renewable energies. It would cost about 1-2 cents/kWh. We would save money. And, excluding geothermal and space based systems, everyone's power demands would be met.

The purpose of the debate on whether or not humanity is responsible for this is to halt people from really examining the entire situation. It does not matter if we are responsible or not. What does matter is that we are contributing to the warming of the planet and will make the warming more intense, which would therefore intensify the cooling of the planet. We could transition to other means for energy. It makes the most logical sense. But really rich people wouldn't make as much money. They view every single resource of the planet as exploitable regardless of the consequences from that exploitation, and will find a way to keep humanity from transitioning to renewables. This is the purpose of the debate. It isn't about the planet. It isn't about CO2 emissions. It isn't about what is best for everyone. It is about the financial interest of the energy companies that are trying to maximize their profits by consuming the entire world's resources.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
28,168
Reaction score
9,779
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We could also individually power every home with renewables now.
We could also build a space based solar powered grid. This could provide power to the entire globe three times over. The extra power we would have would be absolutely crazy, and we could harness it in so many ways. The cost of power would be half of what we pay for it now.

We have the technology to do this. It is efficient enough. There is an economical reason to do this -- we would save money. There are environmental reasons to do this -- it would curb the effects of CO2 concentrations, help ensure the survival of humanity, and is just plain healthier for the planet. With regards to resource allocation, this frees up other resources to be used for other means. The only reason why this is not being moved forward is social and political.
I have been playing around with an idea, and now might be a good time to work out the framework.
The Navy now has a process to make hydrocarbon based fuels.
Fueling the Fleet, Navy Looks to the Seas - U.S. Naval Research Laboratory
NRL has developed a two-step process in the laboratory to convert the CO2 and H2 gathered from the seawater to liquid hydrocarbons. In the first step, an iron-based catalyst has been developed that can achieve CO2 conversion levels up to 60 percent and decrease unwanted methane production from 97 percent to 25 percent in favor of longer-chain unsaturated hydrocarbons (olefins).
So at 60 % efficiency, How much gasoline could a modern solar panel produce in a month?
Astronergy CHSM 6610P 255-watt solar panel
A 255 watt panel, based on the companies estimation from the off grid systems,
a single panel could produce about 33 kwh per month.
33 kwh X 3.6 MJ/kwh= 118.8 MJ
118.8MJ X 60%= 71.28MJ
1 US gallon of Gasoline has about 120 MJ of energy.
So 71.28MJ /120 MJ per gallon = .594 gallons of Gasoline.
The average US household uses about 60 gallons of gasoline per month,
So would need over 100 panels on their roof to make that much gasoline.
This is before any home power.
Average Home power usage is 920 kwh.
Average Electric Bills
So a Household would need an extra 30 panels for home electricity.

It is unlikely in the near term that panel efficiency will improve beyond it's 40 year pace.
So our usage will have to decline to meet the existing technology.
Newer homes are very efficient, and some of the new Diesel cars in Europe
are hitting a real 60 mpg US.
Ford Focus 1.6 TDCi Econetic first drive Review | Autocar

Minor steps like these could drop the number of panels needed from
130 to say 65, and that is getting in the possible range.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There is no doubt that this issue is politicized. But I think people approach the problem in the wrong fashion. To me it isn't important if humanity is the cause or is not the cause of climate change.

We know that there is an extremely strong correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperatures. As CO2 increases so does temperature. Through ice cores we know that there were periods that experienced higher temperatures. One period of time, labeled the bronze age, was substantially hotter than our current temperatures today. Of course, people that are for the use of fossil fuels jump on that statement and say it is natural for the planet to warm and cool. This statement is true, but you also have to look at the complete picture. There is no doubt that current modern society is burning hydrocarbons at a pretty high rate. This releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Whether or not this caused the shift in temperature is not important, what is important is that we are contributing to further warming of the planet. There is absolutely no debate there.
Sorry, but there is a debate here. The evidence from ice cores indicates that CO2 followed changes in temperature and not the other way around. Analysis shows the same thing is happening in modern times.

This is really dangerous. The planet is known to have numerous feedback processes that we understand and that we don't understand. This is a fancy word for snowball processes. This basically means the added warming and CO2 that is released into the atmosphere is going to enact processes that enable conditions to further perpetuate those processes.
Thanks for putting the alarm in climate alarmism. Bull****, I say. A system with a strong positive feedback is inherently unstable. It has been warmer than now and cooler than now and we've never seen that kind if instability in the climate. Ipso facto there is no strong positive feedback.

What is also given, is that the world will cool after a period of warmth. And, there have been multiple ice ages after periods of warmth. Sure we will not experience it in our lifetime, but we could very well determine the fate of the future human race by continually burning fossil fuels, when there is absolutely no reason to be burning them. Water, wind, and solar energy (does not include geothermal or space based solar energy) could provide the entire nation power at half the cost per watt/hour. The power would be cheaper. The power would be near limitless in supply. Our grid would be clean, and we could use access energy to store away the excess CO2 diminishing the effects of climate change. Extra power could be used to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen. Hydrogen could be used to fuel transportation systems, with the byproduct being water. And that is not all.

We could also individually power every home with renewables now.
We could also build a space based solar powered grid. This could provide power to the entire globe three times over. The extra power we would have would be absolutely crazy, and we could harness it in so many ways. The cost of power would be half of what we pay for it now.
This kind of pie in the sky talk about energy sources is tiresome. The innumeracy of environmental activists is really something else. Why don't you figure out how much wind, solar, etc., we need to replace carbon fuels and what it will all cost and get back to us. The last time I looked into this the cost would so drive down our standard of living that it would be untenable. It is impossible to sustain a modern civilization without a cheap, portable, high density source of energy to power things like farming equipment and long haul transportation. Most of the arable land on the planet would have to be turned to the production of ethanol to replace petroleum.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
A joke of an organization.
a joke of a 'scientific' journal.
A joke of an article.

We've shown this several times already, leading me to conclude you are also a joker.
At least the thread title is correct - Lindzen and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons are most definitely providing "politicized science"
The article is brilliant and neither of you appear to have anything substantive to say about it.
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,579
Reaction score
18,341
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The article is brilliant and neither of you appear to have anything substantive to say about it.
If its so brilliant, how come he's publsihing a climate article in a fourth rate journal of a conservative physician group?

Did he just decide that that was the best venue for publishing to get out to a handful of right wing physicians and surgeons? Or was it because no one else in an actual scientific journal would publish this kind of crap?

The only reason anyone even knows of its existence is the discredited WUWT blog.
 

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
15,087
Reaction score
6,225
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
If its so brilliant, how come he's publsihing a climate article in a fourth rate journal of a conservative physician group?

Did he just decide that that was the best venue for publishing to get out to a handful of right wing physicians and surgeons? Or was it because no one else in an actual scientific journal would publish this kind of crap?

The only reason anyone even knows of its existence is the discredited WUWT blog.
Don't you know? WUWT is the most widely read and most-cited climate website on the internetz! Therefore, it must be full of valid, scientifically-verifiable stories about our 'changing' climate. :roll:
 

Threegoofs

COVID survivor
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
51,579
Reaction score
18,341
Location
The birthplace of Italian Beef
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Don't you know? WUWT is the most widely read and most-cited climate website on the internetz! Therefore, it must be full of valid, scientifically-verifiable stories about our 'changing' climate. :roll:
Yes. Just like Fox News is the highest rated cable network. The people have spoken.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
If its so brilliant, how come he's publsihing a climate article in a fourth rate journal of a conservative physician group?

Did he just decide that that was the best venue for publishing to get out to a handful of right wing physicians and surgeons? Or was it because no one else in an actual scientific journal would publish this kind of crap?

The only reason anyone even knows of its existence is the discredited WUWT blog.
Still nothing worth saying?
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Sorry, but there is a debate here. The evidence from ice cores indicates that CO2 followed changes in temperature and not the other way around. Analysis shows the same thing is happening in modern times.



Thanks for putting the alarm in climate alarmism. Bull****, I say. A system with a strong positive feedback is inherently unstable. It has been warmer than now and cooler than now and we've never seen that kind if instability in the climate. Ipso facto there is no strong positive feedback.



This kind of pie in the sky talk about energy sources is tiresome. The innumeracy of environmental activists is really something else. Why don't you figure out how much wind, solar, etc., we need to replace carbon fuels and what it will all cost and get back to us. The last time I looked into this the cost would so drive down our standard of living that it would be untenable. It is impossible to sustain a modern civilization without a cheap, portable, high density source of energy to power things like farming equipment and long haul transportation. Most of the arable land on the planet would have to be turned to the production of ethanol to replace petroleum.
It took me a while to find the summary that I read. But I have found it.

Delucchi, Mark A., and Mark Z. Jacobson. "Meeting the World's Energy Needs Entirely with Wind, Water, and Solar Power." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013): 30-40. Academic ONEFile Elite. Database. 28 Aug 2013.

According to this source, which I value more than your word, we can provide everyone power using these three methods. Plus, the power would be half the cost /GWh than fossil fuels because the source is infinite. That inevitably over time would pay for the renewable grid itself and then some.

What is your reasoning with regards to a positive feed back process? Why would a system with a positive feedback process be unstable? Could there be a balance of both positive and negative processes? If you look at ANY line graph of temperatures, there are always dips. There is always going to be rise in temperatures as well as cooling. But what we are looking for is a general trend. And the undeniable trend is that the Earth is warming.

What is interesting is I have read sources that conflict with yours. Mine specifically came from Scientific American, however I can't find the exact article. According to this article, ice cores were showing that CO2 emissions were present before the temperature change. It seems to me over this debate, is you have to be very careful with the source. Especially considering the large financial interests involved with this issue, one has to consider the contamination of information as a viable possibility.

What consequences do you think will happen with all the CO2 emissions? Something has to happen right?
 

KLATTU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
11,092
Reaction score
3,644
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
HE probably couldn't get that published in many of the other journals. And that, of course, is the problem- a big circle jerk. This is why we get so much crap science. Not enough skepticism.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It took me a while to find the summary that I read. But I have found it.

Delucchi, Mark A., and Mark Z. Jacobson. "Meeting the World's Energy Needs Entirely with Wind, Water, and Solar Power." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013): 30-40. Academic ONEFile Elite. Database. 28 Aug 2013.

According to this source, which I value more than your word, we can provide everyone power using these three methods. Plus, the power would be half the cost /GWh than fossil fuels because the source is infinite. That inevitably over time would pay for the renewable grid itself and then some.

What is your reasoning with regards to a positive feed back process? Why would a system with a positive feedback process be unstable? Could there be a balance of both positive and negative processes? If you look at ANY line graph of temperatures, there are always dips. There is always going to be rise in temperatures as well as cooling. But what we are looking for is a general trend. And the undeniable trend is that the Earth is warming.

What is interesting is I have read sources that conflict with yours. Mine specifically came from Scientific American, however I can't find the exact article. According to this article, ice cores were showing that CO2 emissions were present before the temperature change. It seems to me over this debate, is you have to be very careful with the source. Especially considering the large financial interests involved with this issue, one has to consider the contamination of information as a viable possibility.

What consequences do you think will happen with all the CO2 emissions? Something has to happen right?
It beggers belief that energy sources costing 2 to 3 times as much as fossil fuels will be half the cost of fossil fuels because the "sources are infinite". What isn't infinite is the life span of a windmill or a solar generator, both of which require money to construct and maintain. The experience with both so far show that they are much more expensive and will continue to require government subsidies to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's an advocacy magazine and was founded as such. There's nothing wrong with that, but the article you cite is therefore and advocacy piece. I'd love to see how they came up with their estimates of cost and whether or not they are realistic. I doubt it, though. I don't have access to that article that I can find. That's not to say that I deny that at some point in the future fossil fuels will become a lot more expensive and make the others more competative, and so on, but I have little faith in the predictions along that line that environmentalists make.

Systems of whatever sort, mechanical, electrical, etc., that have a high positive feedback tend to be driven all the way to a maximum and stay there. Think about it: If we have a high positive feedback in the climate we would already have seen it in action. A warm day in the tropics would spread to adjacent areas and cause a flash of super hot weather going from the equator toward the poles. We don't see the weather acting like that. We don't even see the minimum consequences of a strong positive feedback in the climate, such as a big increase in mid-trophospheric warming. There isn't any significant hot spot in the trophosphere at all that can be found anywhere in the tropics.

One of the most obvious pieces of evidence that the IPCC isn't basing it's conclusions on the best science but rather on the science most convienent to a predetermined conclusion is what they say about the carbon cycle. They maintain that almost all of the CO2 generated by humans is still in the atmosphere because CO2 remains there for 100s of years. But we know empirically that it's not true. For example, a series of atomic bomb tests back in the '50s pumped a lot of carbon-14 containing CO2 into the atmophere, way higher than the background amount. It took only 10 years for this CO2 to be absorbed back into the various carbon sinks in the world that are normally at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. The fate of CO2 generated by mankind, therefore, is that it is absorbed by natural carbon sinks. What is causing the equilibrium to be disturbed such that atmosphereic CO2 is rising is still an open question. It could be that the additional CO2 produced overbalances the equilibrum (doubtful) or it could be something else.
 

sookster

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 12, 2011
Messages
1,838
Reaction score
452
Location
In my own world.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It beggers belief that energy sources costing 2 to 3 times as much as fossil fuels will be half the cost of fossil fuels because the "sources are infinite". What isn't infinite is the life span of a windmill or a solar generator, both of which require money to construct and maintain. The experience with both so far show that they are much more expensive and will continue to require government subsidies to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's an advocacy magazine and was founded as such. There's nothing wrong with that, but the article you cite is therefore and advocacy piece. I'd love to see how they came up with their estimates of cost and whether or not they are realistic. I doubt it, though. I don't have access to that article that I can find. That's not to say that I deny that at some point in the future fossil fuels will become a lot more expensive and make the others more competative, and so on, but I have little faith in the predictions along that line that environmentalists make.

Systems of whatever sort, mechanical, electrical, etc., that have a high positive feedback tend to be driven all the way to a maximum and stay there. Think about it: If we have a high positive feedback in the climate we would already have seen it in action. A warm day in the tropics would spread to adjacent areas and cause a flash of super hot weather going from the equator toward the poles. We don't see the weather acting like that. We don't even see the minimum consequences of a strong positive feedback in the climate, such as a big increase in mid-trophospheric warming. There isn't any significant hot spot in the trophosphere at all that can be found anywhere in the tropics.

One of the most obvious pieces of evidence that the IPCC isn't basing it's conclusions on the best science but rather on the science most convienent to a predetermined conclusion is what they say about the carbon cycle. They maintain that almost all of the CO2 generated by humans is still in the atmosphere because CO2 remains there for 100s of years. But we know empirically that it's not true. For example, a series of atomic bomb tests back in the '50s pumped a lot of carbon-14 containing CO2 into the atmophere, way higher than the background amount. It took only 10 years for this CO2 to be absorbed back into the various carbon sinks in the world that are normally at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. The fate of CO2 generated by mankind, therefore, is that it is absorbed by natural carbon sinks. What is causing the equilibrium to be disturbed such that atmosphereic CO2 is rising is still an open question. It could be that the additional CO2 produced overbalances the equilibrum (doubtful) or it could be something else.
Well I do not think repairing the renewable grid would necessarily be more expensive than repairing our current grid. I am assuming that the renewable grid has been put into place. Plus keep in mind as new technology is developed the cost of older technology drops. I do not think the cost of repairing a solar panel is comparable to the cost of maintaining a coal plant.

That is fine that you are skeptical about that article. With the vast amount of conflicting sources it is a great stance to have.

I believe there is a maximum. After all, there was the bronze age where temperature was even higher than ours currently. However, there was a dip in temperature following that with the same intensity. I also must add, that CO2 concentrations mimic the temperature graphs using ice core samples. There is no doubt that CO2 has something to due with temperatures. We may not know exactly all of why and how, but that relationship can't be denied. Therefore, the continual release of CO2 is going to have an effect. Of course there is a carbon cycle, but if we add and add which we are going to do regardless if we aren't now because of expanding countries, we are going to exasperate warming. These negative feedback processes that you are talking about might be systems of the planet that are absorbing the energy or heat due to the CO2 concentrations. After all, the Earth is a plethora of endothermic reactions because we are all orderly. (Reactions tend to release energy and go to a state of more disorder. If energy is pumped into a system, that system can become more orderly.) The cooling is the result of those systems absorbing energy. This may result in a brief reduction of heat but could exasperate a feedback process of CO2 by the process releasing more CO2. I have read studies that show that an increase amount of bacteria releases more CO2 which results in more bacteria being present.

In other words, I think the mechanism that is contributing to the cooling of the planet is by absorption of energy which results in an increase in temperature eventually. This hits a peak, which results in global cooling and has the same intensity from the baseline as the heating. The temperatures always fluctuate like a sine wave.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It took me a while to find the summary that I read. But I have found it.

Delucchi, Mark A., and Mark Z. Jacobson. "Meeting the World's Energy Needs Entirely with Wind, Water, and Solar Power." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013): 30-40. Academic ONEFile Elite. Database. 28 Aug 2013.

According to this source, which I value more than your word, we can provide everyone power using these three methods. Plus, the power would be half the cost /GWh than fossil fuels because the source is infinite. That inevitably over time would pay for the renewable grid itself and then some.

What is your reasoning with regards to a positive feed back process? Why would a system with a positive feedback process be unstable? Could there be a balance of both positive and negative processes? If you look at ANY line graph of temperatures, there are always dips. There is always going to be rise in temperatures as well as cooling. But what we are looking for is a general trend. And the undeniable trend is that the Earth is warming.

What is interesting is I have read sources that conflict with yours. Mine specifically came from Scientific American, however I can't find the exact article. According to this article, ice cores were showing that CO2 emissions were present before the temperature change. It seems to me over this debate, is you have to be very careful with the source. Especially considering the large financial interests involved with this issue, one has to consider the contamination of information as a viable possibility.

What consequences do you think will happen with all the CO2 emissions? Something has to happen right?
It beggers belief that energy sources costing 2 to 3 times as much as fossil fuels will be half the cost of fossil fuels because the "sources are infinite". What isn't infinite is the life span of a windmill or a solar generator, both of which require money to construct and maintain. The experience with both so far show that they are much more expensive and will continue to require government subsidies to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists isn't a peer reviewed scientific journal. It's an advocacy magazine and was founded as such. There's nothing wrong with that, but the article you cite is therefore and advocacy piece. I'd love to see how they came up with their estimates of cost and whether or not they are realistic. I doubt it, though. I don't have access to that article that I can find. That's not to say that I deny that at some point in the future fossil fuels will become a lot more expensive and make the others more competative, and so on, but I have little faith in the predictions along that line that environmentalists make.

Systems of whatever sort, mechanical, electrical, etc., that have a high positive feedback tend to be driven all the way to a maximum and stay there. Think about it: If we have a high positive feedback in the climate we would already have seen it in action. A warm day in the tropics would spread to adjacent areas and cause a flash of super hot weather going from the equator toward the poles. We don't see the weather acting like that. We don't even see the minimum consequences of a strong positive feedback in the climate, such as a big increase in mid-trophospheric warming. There isn't any significant hot spot in the trophosphere at all that can be found anywhere in the tropics.

One of the most obvious pieces of evidence that the IPCC isn't basing it's conclusions on the best science but rather on the science most convienent to a predetermined conclusion is what they say about the carbon cycle. They maintain that almost all of the CO2 generated by humans is still in the atmosphere because CO2 remains there for 100s of years. But we know empirically that it's not true. For example, a series of atomic bomb tests back in the '50s pumped a lot of carbon-14 containing CO2 into the atmophere, way higher than the background amount. It took only 10 years for this CO2 to be absorbed back into the various carbon sinks in the world that are normally at equilibrium with atmospheric CO2. The fate of CO2 generated by mankind, therefore, is that it is absorbed by natural carbon sinks. What is causing the equilibrium to be disturbed such that atmosphereic CO2 is rising is still an open question. It could be that the additional CO2 produced overbalances the equilibrum (doubtful) or it could be something else.
 
Top Bottom