Global Warming Debate

[camaraderie]

Stu..
Don't let some civil engineer try and tell you something about ocean currents, or some economist tell you something about ice cores. The ONLY scientific data and analysis that matters is that which is in reviewed journals

Absolutely...my point was that one often finds good leads to REAL scientiifc/peer reviewed stuff THROUGH the oil industry/sierra club sites!
Furthermore...when the oil industry attacks the sierra clubs peer reviewed data with peer reviewed data of their own (and vice versa) it gives one a better idea about the totality of the scientific issues on an issue that is clearly unsettled.

Thanks for the info on costs. It would really be a strange union of conservatives and conservationists if we had a movement to switch to nukes!

Now on methane...I think you off on your "big picture sources:


methane.jpg

http://www.epa.gov/nonco2/econ-inv/d...calSummary.pdf
Source: Adapted from de la Chesnaye et al., in press; USEPA, 2006.

NOTE the above table is for man made greenhouse gasses and does not include natural sources which would dramatically alter the totals.

As you can see...Agriculuture (including cows!) and waste are the two biggies worldwide for CH4.
Here in the USA it is similar but with natural gas in second place.
Source 2003
Landfills 131.2
Natural Gas Systems 125.9
Enteric Fermentation 115.0
Coal Mining 53.8
Manure Management 39.1
Wastewater Treatment 36.8
+ other smaller sources
Total for U.S. 544.9
Source: http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
BTW...for those unfamiliar...Enteric Fermentaion is what the Beez would call Natural Gas!!

[poopdeckpappy]

Stu, I hope you don't take my comments as a attack on you, my comments/opinions are based on what I have read over the years.

I have watched this whole global warning issue grow from a political platform for PM Thatcher, to a oppertunity for the environmentalist, to a policy making platform for Al Gore to eco-political platform for Al Gore, the extreme left and the UN.

There are two dangers when dealing with imagined risk

1) Those that exploit it for their agenda.
2) The blind and irrational reaction to it

[sailaway21]

Stu,
I note no response to my point that while it is agreed the earth is warming somewhat it is unknown whether the warming is unnatural. The suspicion is that man is contributory, but the facts are hardly conclusive on the matter. I am less dismissive than you on the ice-age stories of the seventies. It is too facile to merely state that it was all a journalistic run-up. I will agree with you on the desirability of nuclear power plants while I would quibble with your $1 Billion per. Is that factoring in the waste disposal costs? Because I'm not sure Yucca Mountain is ever going to get out of the courts, much less operational, and we might want other sites as well. Of course, if we can convince Canada to build a thousand plants and sell us the energy at enormous cost we'll make all sides happy. (g) You're still confronted with tail-pipe emissions, which ain't chopped liver.

From where I am sitting I do not see enough evidence that we are in nothing that might not well be a normal climatic cycle. It would be nice to consider the issue outside of politics but that is not going to happen. In fact, it is the politics of environmental issues that we only derive that 20% of our electricity from Nukes now. If you'd stated that such would be the case in, say, 1968 there isn't a person that wouldn't have called you a Luddite. And they'd have bet the farm you were wrong. What has changed since that time? In my opinion, the most significant change has been that environmental issues have become mostly political. The political process is begun while the ink on the data is barely dry, much less peer reviewed. And, if you follow anything on science, you know that "peer shopping" is now a reality. Anotherwords, the scientists have gone over and joined the other side.

Now if you wish to build nuclear power plants, I'll back you 100%. And I'll do it for similar reasons to those expressed by Camaraderie. I harbor no illusions that those plants will be built in my lifetime, even at a cost of only a billion dollars each. Who's going to pay to build them? You're going to face an uphill battle the slope of the Matterhorn to talk energy companies into it. Unless you can grant them an operating permit prior to breaking ground. And we know the likelyhood of that happening. Shoreham Nuclear Power plant sits idle, complete, and has never sent a watt to a consumer. I doubt the LILCO wants to build another such theme park. A few greenies may have come around, but not enough to make up for the poisoned waters their predecessors have left behind. Ask any person under the age of thirty about 3 Mile Island and you'll get a response that brings Chernobyl to mind instead. We cannot drill for known oil because of oil spills that took place forty years ago. Advances in technology and safety mean nothing in the highly politicized world of environmentalism.

I remain a sceptic because I have a more than vague feeling that we all bought a used car from these guy's once before.

[merttan]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

. Add in the fact that the alarmists of the world have been wrong about every "crisis" they have warned us about, with the evidence of the much larger role of non-man made components to "global warming", I find not only their warnings, but their obvious rhetoric, to be flimsy at best, and completely disingenious at worst.

Back in early 70s the ozone layer was alarmed, late 70s everybody started to take action!!! You call this a wrong alarm?
If we are not affecting the planet so much, who f...ed up with the ozone layer? It was meant to be depleted? Then, I don't see any point trying to survive out there because it's not under my control! But, it's every little step counts towards our survival on this planet, why? Because, I have a younger sister, and I consider raising a child eventually! I don't want to try to explain whyt some greedy people decided to save a penny instead of saving their survival!

What's your contribution to the emissions? Is it so hard to lower them? What's so depended on fossil fuel? Your energy? For Christ sake, you are sailing out there!!! Not even motoring!
If I took a dump in your marina the whole hell would break lose! So quit dumping on my planet!
I refuse to deal with the self interest brainwash... This planet is all we've got, can't you see that?
%5.2 is just a start, it will help...
But at the same time, I've seen how fast you guys reacted to Hurricane Katrina, so I don't think that I can help you to understand...
Does it hurt to take caution now?

[merttan]

Originally Posted by poopdeckpappy

There are two dangers when dealing with imagined risk

1) Those that exploit it for their agenda.
2) The blind and irrational reaction to it

So why you are prepared with PFDs? That's an imagined risk that your boat would sink...

[Sailormann]

quiddlers

What's a "quiddler" ? Is it some kind of slang for Republican ???

[PBzeer]

merttan - don't confuse skepticism of the alarmists, with meaning total disregard for human contributions to the pollution of the planet. Nor should you willy-nilly assume any one else's actions. For instance, yes, it would be much harder to lower my emissions since my only contributions are a 13hp diesel and a Honda 2000w generator. I have no car. I heat no house, nor cool one. I dispose of all waste in a proper manner and can not even empty my holding tank except by pumpout.

If you choose to believe those that say the sky is falling, that's your privilege. That doesn't mean though, that you can assume any one who doesn't, wants to destroy the planet.

[StuMyers]

Cam,

Sure, I'll take those numbers to be accurate. 20% of methane from coal and natural gas is still nothing to sneeze at... not even mentioning their contribution to global carbon dioxide. I stand by my position that replacing coal and natural gas (and by extension much petroleum) with nuclear will slow the warming acceptably. Now, since you obviously accept those additional concentrations given by the epa, you should also accept that their known greenhouse properties (explained and quantified in any freshman textbook) will cause a global increase in temperature of a known magnitude. Simple physics at this point. More complicated is the behavior of local climate shifts (predicting a wetter northeast or more arid south).

I'd be very interested in seeing some of those peer reviewed papers "on the other side". I have a very strong suspicion that you may be referring to "journals" set up by organizations like AEI and ExxonMobil in an attempt to fool the public.

sail,

Nuclear waste disposal isn't nearly the issue that you might think it is (and yes, any cost of a nuclear plant by law includes disposal and decommissioning cost). Forget the fact that there is a larger volume of coal ash produced every three seconds than the entirety of nuclear waste. Nuclear "waste" itself is a valuable unexploited energy source.

Back in the 70's the Carter administration signed into law a prohibition on nuclear reprocessing, a process where we can re-burn spent nuclear fuel increasing the total energy output of a given chunk of raw uranium by a factor of 100. This was done because reprocessing produces weapons-grade plutonium along the way, and was seen as a proliferation risk. To date, only the US (as far as I know) bans reprocessing. The nuclear industries in Europe and Japan require reprocessing as part of their closed nuclear fuel cycle. At the end of the cycle, the only thing of any consequence you are left with is cesium 137, which has a half-life of 30 years.

The public perception of Chernobyl is unfortunate. Chernobyl was a graphite-moderated plant which is illegal to build in the west. Graphite is a terrible neutron moderator since it become more efficient as it gets hotter, causing an unstable positive feedback. Western plants are moderated by water, which become less efficient as a moderator as it gets hottter. If a western plant gets too hot, it simply shuts down (exactly like TMI did), due to physics. A graphite plant gets run-away hot until it explodes (exactly like Chernobyl).

Shoreham killed the US nuclear industry. Basically, the state told LILCO that they were going to set the electric rates such that LILCO would never make a dime. They then "bought" the plant for $1 and shut it down, passing the construction cost onto the residents of LI (like me... highest electric rates in continental US). However, the political climate is changing fast, thanks in large part to recognition of global warming. New reactors are now being built for the first time since the 70's. The first of these have a price tag of $5-7 billion. As with anything though, the more you build, the cheaper they become.

As for tail pipes... plug-in hybrids. The technology exists today, and would be competitive if electricity were cheap. For tomorrow, I'd say hydrogen, since one of the happy by-products of nuclear fission is hydrogen.

One quick note about the 70's and global dimming. It was actually a real concern, though not like the press at the time made it out to be. The deal was that particulate pollution was working to reflect sunlight, and in effect counteract global warming (both were well known at the time. Carl Sagan's show Cosmos even talked about it!) Environmental regulation cut pollution levels in the 80's and 90's, and heavy particulates have a relatively short lifetime in the sky (unlike carbon).

Nobody I see here is claiming that "the sky is falling". We're recognizing a problem and trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to deal with it. The climate scientists say there's a problem. The oil and coal industry say no. Hmmm. This one doesn't take too long.

Now if you'll excuse me, its nearly 70 degrees outside on Thanksgiving on Long Island. My boat's calling me.

[sailaway21]

Hey Mert!,
I carry PFD's and offshore I'd carry tinned biscuits and water; that doesn't mean I can control the ocean or the weather. Preparedness is one thing, stewardship, which I really think is your point is another.

And, to quote many others, you have not even proven the chicken/egg end of things. Does the CO2 rise follow the warming or does the warming follow the CO2 rise. And I've got a sneekin' suspicion that the amount of CO2 and other gases we were emitting was quite a bit higher 100 years ago when every hearth had either wood or coal in it. Where did that famous London fog (smog) go to? Personal action based upon your beliefs is commendable. I'm fine with your conservatory ideas until you seek to implement them at the end of a government sword.

[xort]

Stu posted "Nobody I see here is claiming that "the sky is falling". We're recognizing a problem and trying to figure out the most cost-effective way to deal with it. The climate scientists say there's a problem. The oil and coal industry say no. Hmmm. This one doesn't take too long."

The alarmists may not be literally saying the sky is falling but they are acting just like chickem little.
Recognizing the problem? Inventing a problem is what it smells like to me. Cost effective really only means cost-ly.
SOME climate scientists say there's a problem.
The oil & gas industry can say no because many respected scientists say no.
This one doesn't take too long if your mind is already made up and you refuse to listen to those who counter the conclusions.