Climate change?

[xochi]

:nana:

Add in the fact that the three of the five largest snowstorms on record in NYC occurred in the last 10 years. Yes, I'd say something is unusual by the looks of it.

Saw some things in the past 6 mos that talk about the increase in fresh water from the melting of arctic ice that decreases the salinity in the atlantic. The idea is that the salinity in the atlantic is crucial for something called the 'atlantic conveyer' to function. The 'atlantic conveyer' moves a b***load of energy from the tropics up along the east coast. This allows the northeast to enjoy warmer climates than typical of those latitudes.

The addition of freshwater can interfere with the atlantic conveyer by preventing denser cold salt water from sinking and providing a passage for the flow of warmer currents from the tropics. IIRC stoping or slowing the flow of this energy could result in an average drop of 10 degrees and could have dramatic effects on the climate in the northeast U.S. Storms like these they are currently experienceing would become much more common and ultimately have a big effect on the economy.

The atlantic conveyor is a measurable phenomenon and it's effect of warming the northeast is clear. If it stops or slows, those effects (at least shorter term , more immediate effects) are apparent. The cause of the melting isn't so important as the fact that the reality for the residents of the the northeast will change , mainly for the worse.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

As I said, the issue for you now should be: How are you going to convince the masses that these assertions are not just junk science?

Why is that the issue? Switching to renewable energy is inevitable (even nuclear will run out). The only issue is how soon. Why does stoping the $300 billion bleeding wound from our economy have anything to do with convincing the masses about global climate change. Heck, you get global climate change insurance "at no extra charge".

Because you made it the issue in your OP. How bis is your dats set? How har back does it go? You said nothing about "renewable energy" in your OP. Go back and read it. I said nothing that would indicate that I am against "renewable energy" in any of my posts. That is spin. Go back and read them.

 

[jtr1962]

And the US? Our level of pollution decreased in the same time peroid.

Then how come the air in the summers especially smells so much worse than it did in the 1980s and early 1990s before the SUV craze started? Maybe industrial pollution has greatly decreased but auto pollution in and around cities is as bad as it's ever been. You're free to not believe anything about climate change but the other effects of pollution alone are enough for us to change the way we get energy. In fact, I really wish the environmentalists would get off the global warming kick and just focus on the myriad of other reasons to change our energy policy.

As far as nuclear, it's not very realistic to compare the US to the countries you listed, 1 nuclear plant contributes a LOT more to the total energy needs of those tiny countries than it would in the US.

I think you missed the point. It doesn't matter what percentage of our energy needs each nuclear plant contributes but rather that we're not taking full advantage of the best way currently known to generate electricity. I'm frankly tired of all the nuclear power NIMBYs in the US who have stalled construction of new plants while not offering a viable alternative which costs the same or less per kW-hr, doesn't pollute, and doesn't require us to import from countries which support terrorism. There is enough uranium in the US to meet our power needs for centuries in the event fusion research doesn't pan out. We should take advantage of this natural resource while at the same time converting our entire infrastructure to one based on electricity rather than liquid fuels.

Fossil fuels? That is a misnomer. Scientists still have no clue how petroleum is formed, with the "fossil" origin being only one of the theories, still unproven.

Regardless of where they come from, doesn't burning stuff for energy in the 21st century strike you as more than a little primitive? At this stage of our civilization we should be using atomic energy where the "fuels" have many orders of magnitude higher energy density than chemical-based liquid fuels. For a vivid illustration of the difference here think of an atomic bomb with the core weighing a few tens of pounds which has the energy content of a supertanker full of TNT.

 

[jtr1962]

Switching to renewable energy is inevitable (even nuclear will run out).

Long term you're probably correct but I want to point out that enough uranium exists to last the planet a number of millenia IIRC. This will buy us more than enough time to develop other, longer lasting sources such as fusion (the oceans contain enough heavy hydrogen to last the planet thousands of centuries). After fusion we'll probably be able to tap still more exotic sources such as antimatter or quantum singularities.

In the interim we may well develop a near 100% efficient solar cell which could meet our energy needs permanently.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

...Regardless of where they come from, doesn't burning stuff for energy in the 21st century strike you as more than a little primitive?

It depends on what you burn. If you grow poplars they suck 'greenhous gases' out of our air and put them into the tree. If you then burn the tree those same greenhouse gasses that were here already are released -- with no gain in 'greenhouse gasses'. Not at all like coal or oil which have held those same substances outside of our atmosphere for eons...

 

[ikendu]

Because you made it the issue in your OP. You said nothing about "renewable energy" in your OP. Go back and read it. I said nothing that would indicate that I am against "renewable energy" in any of my posts. That is spin. Go back and read them.

Oh.... when I said "It does seem a little co-incidental."

You figured that meant I wanted to convince everyone that global climate change is real.

What did I post that made you think I believe you are against renewable energy?

 

[MScottz]

In the interim we may well develop a near 100% efficient solar cell which could meet our energy needs permanently.

Even solar cells have an effect on the planet's climate in large amounts - they reflect back solar energy that would have otherwise been absorbed.

 

[sniper]

It does seem a little co-incidental.

Of WHAT? a normal cyclic feature of the weather pattern (s)?

If it is not, What to do about it? Just wait for the scenario in "Soylent Green" to be played out?

Agreed, that third-world countries need to clean up their act, and much is being done in many industrialized areas of the world, but are China, Russia, and the former Eastern-bloc nations and other high polluters in a mood to listen to the concerned voices of Eco people?

Not very likely. Those who wish to do something, on the mistaken belief that Chicken Little was right, are far less than a majority in the world.

 

[357]

Predicting short term weather patterns (over hundreds of years) is nearly impossible.

Something as simple as moderate to severe volcanic eruptions can cool the weather down.

 

[Sub_Umbra]

...What did I post that made you think I believe you are against renewable energy?

Because you made your statement in the paragraph you wrote which followed my quote, which you chose to include in your post. Perhaps if you weren't trying to assert that, you should have left my quote out of it alltogether, or broken up your statement directly following your use of my words by making more than one paragraph there. Anyone may go back an read it and decide for themselves what you meant. I can live with that.

So, since you never stated where the data in your OP came from, would you mind doing it now? How far do the records go back that you referred to in your OP? I have tried to keep returning to the Original Post throughout my posts on this thread.

 

[ikendu]

Hmmm... I see that posting these weather incidents was not really very productive.

Sorry, at this point, I'm quite happy to have the thread locked or simply die a normal death of not being read at all. Seem to have touched a nerve here.

 

[Empath]

Sorry, at this point, I'm quite happy to have the thread locked or simply die a normal death of not being read at all. Seem to have touched a nerve here.

I understand. It's unfortunate that the topic can't be discussed here. It's been tried before, with the same results. It is of major importance, but unfortunately the different camps in the world even outside our forum have decided it's a polarized topic, and that opposing sides are a dishonorable element in need of exposure. Meanwhile, the earth burns.

Thread closed.