How to Fix Global Warming, an Introduction

Forget cold fusion, there are other means that may achieve commercial viability before the ITER program, such as the national ignition facility here in the U.S., that uses Inertial confinement. What we do need to do as a country is to get serious about energy. Biomass ain't going to do it.

The problem that I have with biomass is that it gets taken over by the corn lobby. As T Boone Pickens (who does not like cornfueleo) said, "with 42 senators from corn states, how do you think that it will go?". This was in response to an MSNBC questioner about biofuels.

I would rather see the money spent on subsidies spent on accelerated research on solar an fusion. I know of laboratory solar cells that are 63% efficient. That would change the name of the game in solar, if we could produce those cells inexpensively.

Yeah, I think I read that there is a very small energy efficiency conversion ratio for corn. Sugar cane conversion apparently has the best ratio. Another problem with corn conversion and other biofuels---those fields are no longer being used for food. Much of the corn grown in the US is actually used as feed for the pork industry. I could go on a tangent about how we need more vegetarians to combat global warming (and less cows/methane), but I doubt most non-vegetarians want to hear it.

Gassy vegetarians are killing the planet. I speak from experience. A former lady friend's dietary proclivity constantly forced me to turn up the TV when she powdered her nose.

I can only laugh, but you're wrong--I mean, theres a lot of evidence that the meat industries (read: animal farts) are part of the problem. Of course, there are a lot of "parts of the problem." As a vegetarian myself, I can say that I don't have any more gas than some of my omnivorous friends.

I'll believe you if you pledge here and now you've no fear of open flames.

Dietary adjustment study and practical application has been ongoing for some years to counter odors and emissions. Factory farms and massive feedlots account for much of the opposition, and I have to admit walking into a chicken house holding 80,000 layers is an unnerving experience, but we need to understand that meat production is not going away any time soon, particularly when you consider the depth of the export market and the protein demands from Asia.

It's simply not economic to operate small-scale operations anymore. Inputs overtake profit. A return to that pastoral era would be nice, and if it happened all opposition would disappear, but it's unrealistic. I favor mid-sized operations based on intensive management and rotational grazing, but buyers must be willing to pay the price and not pull something from the air and demand that.

Well, if people made a large-scale decision to not eat meat, for ecological, ethical, or whatever reasons, we could close down many factory farms, raise less cattle, have less ecological effect. Also, if the world's population stays at the current levels or continues growing at the rate it is growing, you may be partially right. Of course, if we don't come up with an alternate fuel source, all of our mechanized food production will grind to a halt eventually. Then again, nature has ways of reducing populations when it there is imbalance, if man and it's wars don't do it to us. I guess one could argue that man, being of nature, and war, being, up till now, part of human nature, then war is part of nature's population reduction plan. Except humans can have a conscience.

There is a 5 part "History of Oil" video on youtube that talks about some of the problems and some possible solutions.

Here is a link to part 1:

youtube (dot) com/watch?v=S9Ecd6361Ls

It is very informative.

I'm dial-up, so 'tube is out of the question at the moment. Besides, I'm watching "The War" on PBS right now.

We'd cut back on emissions if people cut back on eating so much in this country. Seriously, like I said, meat isn't going away. Just remember that meat-eaters don't tell vegetarians they can't be that way. The other side of the coin, though, is true.

Hey, I'm not telling anyone to become a vegetarian, and am not for forcing or coercion, but I would gladly debate the merits of vegetarianism with anyone who would listen.

Could using alot of Geothermal result in cooling the earth's core?? Enough to stop continental drift??

Actually, it would cause the temperature to drop, but not the core, thats way too far down. I don't think it would cool it enough to stop continental drift though because that would take a heck of a lot of cooling.

Probably over much longer spans before it becomes noticeable. The heat under the surface isn't just residual heat from the formation of the earth, but includes "new" heat, probably from such things as radioactive decay of elements in or near the core.

Once you use an area for so long, it will start o cool down, but you can use it for decades, and they will usually reheat after a while of not being used.

The effect of even large-scale geothermal (which has other environmental costs, by the way) is miniscule in its effect on inner-Earth temperatures compared to naturual phenomena, such as volcanoes and undersea vents. It's like the impact of gas-powered lawnmowers on atmospheric CO2 composition. Non-zero, but so many orders of magnitude less than cars as to be irrelevant.

In my opinion Geothermal power isn't being utilized as much as it should. I don't think it should a main source for energy, but it can help take the slack off of some other resources, and best of all it is somewhat renewable.

I agree and I think we need to blend all the alternative energy options. Some work better in certain circumstance than do others.

Could using alot of Geothermal result in cooling the earth's core?? Enough to stop continental drift??

I read a while ago that the Earth produces and loses annually an amount of energy equal to hundreds of thousands of times what the entire human race does in a year. So I would guess no.

SU

About 42 terawatts radiated per year.

Nuclear fission is a good interim technology and the waste can be neutralized by the output of the fusion reactors in neutrons.

I use the squiggly bulbs. :)

I have installed a small solar installation which I am planning on upgrading every few months. I recycle. I use CFL's. I encourage tree planting through EcologyFund.com And I seed as many articles as I can about global warming and alternative energy. It's not much but it's something.

www.assurecom.com

All good enough fer me. Now let's get 10 percent of the population to follow suit.

Don't think I'm knocking the suggestions - I'm all for improving the environment in the right way.... I just don't want this driven by the current batch of politicians

Multi-national corporations, and big business mainly I believe...... though some politicians have their own agendas

If we make clear that we are willing to get off our asses and fire them for misbehaving, then we might actually get some changes done

I would like to bellieve this. But I have serious doubts. I think at the national level, at least, and probably even more so at the international level, the well-moneyed interests have a crystallized political infrastructure that forces their agendar regardless of who is in power. see "spineless" Democrat congress. see also bureaucracy...

Whatever, we do, we must not adopt any approach that consistently denounces our form of government, or our leaders. We put them there -- that is, those who actually got off their duffs and lodged their vote.

I still think watching, learning from, and adopting initiatives now in place at the municipal and state level is the soundest approach to get all the stakeholders on board. Onerous measures, if necessary, are regarded as far less draconian if they've earned public acceptance.

We're not making it clear because of abject voter apathy. It encourages the status quo. Next year will be your first opportunity to vote. Vote. Listen to news coverage of the reasons why people say they didn't vote.

I'm not a dissenter. Never been one. Rather, I get involved if I care. Street protests alienate the moderates in both main parties. I see it as a divisive tactic; divisiveness has been shown to be a toxic aspect of the political discourse of late. Don't moon, roll up your sleeves and patiently volunteer to work with others to get things done.

I'm all for that. Reminds me of a campaign I participated in. We produced a radio spot with a well-known personality urging listeners to fax the statehouse. Man, did that make 'em mad. Couldn't keep enough paper in the fax machines.

The only real answer to a lack of trust with politicians with their own agenda, IMHO, is to instigate referendums on major / important issues - that way we would get a say, and we wouldn't have to wait til polling day to show our opinion

You're right about Gore.

That is my position as well. Anthropogenic Gobal Warming is a crock but we must get off of oil.

Simply put I'm in the camp that believes there is climate change but mankind has little to no effect on it. The moment you hear one thing, it changes to the other. Quite simply I don't think we a firm grasp of how the planet works to know one way or the other. I'm not even convinced that warming up the planet would be the end of the world some people go on about.

On the other hand I'm convinced that there is a political movement afoot to use global warming to push their own agenda to change our way of life (and I'm not just talking about to CFL light bulbs). Things like carbon credits sound like a shell game to me. When the Kyoto protocol wants to tie down the US but gives China and India a free pass - well I think there is more than just science involved.

At the end of the day I don't believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. That said I do believe their are many places where we can agree on that should be done for economic, security, health and societal reasons. If I'm wrong about AGW and helps with that - then all the better.

I'm not trying to start a case of AIDS here, but please explain your rationale. From all the evidence I've seen, the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real seems unavoidable.

Correlation is not causation. Just because CO2 is rising at the same time that temperature is rising does not mean that one caused the other. From the ice core data that shows a lag of several hundred years to the basic physics that does not support CO2 as a forcing factor, Anthropogenic Warming simply does not compute.

That being said, wether or not we agree on that subject, I think that we can all agree that we need to get off of oil as soon as humanly possible.

There is a difference between increases of several thousand ppm and a couple of hundred ppm.

The "other" explanation is solar forcing. The sun's output has increased by 0.1% just since 1900,which is almost exactly the forcing claimed by the CO2 advocates.

I disagree...the steady-state economy theory has not been disproved, it has not been proven Not to work, since it has not been tried.

It has been tried. It is called classical China and the Middle Ages in Europe.

You have not come up with anything that was not laid out by Meadows in "Limits to Growth" and "Beyond the Limits"

We do have a shortage of resources, looking at the long-term, comparing those resources with the materialistic western lifestyle desire that is being exported to the "2nd world" or "3rd world" countries.

Your thesis there would be correct if we lived on a lonely planet around a single star in the middle of an abyss of space. There are far more resources in our solar system that are accessable to us today, than mankind could ever use, should we have a hundred billion population. Just the smallest metallic asteroid that we know of (3554 Amun), has over $30 trillion dollars worth of metals. The largest, Cleopatra 216, has a billion trillion times more resources than 3554 Amun. The atmospheres of Neptune and Uranus have enough fusion reactor fuel to fuel a massive civilization for several billion years. No, we do not have a shortage of resources, period.

Well, if there is no shortage of resources, period, why are the fresh-water aquifers depleting at a rate faster than when they are are being refilled? I think that the likelihood of us developing controllable fusion before we annihilate ourselves is slim. The vast inequity of wealth is part of the same problem. Look at the people at the International Space University, trying to build a lunar ark for the moon. Are they crazy, or do they see the potential for us killing ourselves and our planet to the point we cannot survive here?

Look at the world geopolitical situation. Look at the increasing frequency of large storms. To use another analogy, mother nature is pissed and we are experiencing her 'blowback.' If technology can solve the problems of the world, including 'global warming,' then why is the temperature rising each year? Why are people starving if there are resources enough for everyone to eat? Again, it is all connected. Maybe there was a 'steady-state' in classical China or Middle Ages Europe, but tell that to the poor classes "living" under the aristocrats' thumbs. They also did not have computers, or communications satellites which we have. The things I am proposing may or may not have been proposed. If I'm stealing the ideas, my bad. I wasn't aware. I don't want credit. I want a sustainable future for future generations of humanity.

The perpetual growth economic model does not take into account pollution, does not take into account deforestation, comodifies drinking water as something to earn profit over, add random chemicals to our environment with little regard to long-term effect (what does this boom in cancer relate to?), does not take into account global warming, whether man-assisted or otherwise, except as an afterthought. Governments like the US disregard the calls from the other countries who are being most affected by the pollution. Governments like China sign treaties they don't show interest in adhering to. The almighty profit margin takes precedent over any ethical concerns. Greed rules the day. The global system is broken, or if not completely broken, flawed on fundamental levels.

"And so castles made of sand, fall into the sea, eventually." -Jimi Hendrix

The perpetual growth economic model does not take into account pollution, does not take into account deforestation, comodifies drinking water as something to earn profit over, add random chemicals to our environment with little regard to long-term effect (what does this boom in cancer relate to?), does not take into account global warming, whether man-assisted or otherwise, except as an afterthought. Governments like the US disregard the calls from the other countries who are being most affected by the pollution. Governments like China sign treaties they don't show interest in adhering to. The almighty profit margin takes precedent over any ethical concerns. Greed rules the day. The global system is broken, or if not completely broken, flawed on fundamental levels.

Of course it does. We are veering from things verifiable to discuss, over to politics. Energy is the key element in the equation. With plentiful energy from fusion, there is no problem with drinking water, we have oceans of it. Off planet resource acquisition eliminates terrestrial mining and its pollution. Pollution levels in the U.S. have been dropping for decades and tens of millions of acres have been reforested since 1945. Check out the U.S. department of agriculture's numbers on that.

Sorry but the current global system has increased the average life expectancy from 35 years to almost 80 years, that is not a flawed system by any means.

Yeah, quantity of life has increased for many cultures in the world, how about quality of life?

I wish I shared your faith in humanity's ability to create technological bandaid fixes for problems with much deeper roots. Again, I think technological advance is one tool for solving our problems, but doesn't address all of them, particularly the social and political problems, which as you say, cannot be understood with only physical science.

Hey, and maybe you're right. Maybe fusion will be the key to our resource issues. Desalination plants do require energy, which fusion could offer if we can figure out how to 'tame' it (before the scientists who are working on it die in some potential "global extinction event").

And like I said, the current system has gotten us this far...sure, there are lots of injustices, lots of poverty, vast inequity, lots of suffering, people starving, which cannot be scientifically quantified (oh, wait, we can look at the numbers of people dying and analyze those figures---let's just hope we aren't those numbers in a few years).

quote:
"Sorry but the current global system has increased the average life expectancy from 35 years to almost 80 years, that is not a flawed system by any means. "

Oh, and I want to reallocate the stuff that 'works' in the current system to a new system that is more equitable and sustainable.

Yeah, quantity of life has increased for many cultures in the world, how about quality of life?

Yer kiddin right? Have you ever looked at the skeletons of people that lived in the pre industrial era? The term "life was short, brutish, and hard, only begins to describe how things were. Poor diet, hard lives, and no health care was the norm for 99.99999% of all humanity.

I am not talking about bandaids here, I am talking about complete transitions from more primitive forms of energy to more advanced ones that will provide a high standard of living for everyone on the planet, not just those who can afford oil.

The reason that fusion has lagged was the religious belief of a former Vice President who's name rhymes with floor. He killed the fusion program of the 90's that would have had a prototype reactor operating in 2006. The U.S. completely pulled out of the fusion effort in 1998 and it was that evil oilman Bush that got us back into it in a big way. The reactor is under construction now in France and will be operating in 2016. We need to triple our efforts in this area as money is the limitation now, not technology.

There is far less poverty today than ever in history. People on welfare in the U.S. have access to more resources and convenience than the richest Roman or Chinese emperor of old.

Oh, and I want to reallocate the stuff that 'works' in the current system to a new system that is more equitable and sustainable.

Equitable for whom? Those who's wealth you would confiscate to equalize things? Who makes the decisions on these things? This is what made communism unworkable, the "elite" who made those decisions decide that they are just a little (a lot) more equal than the masses. Rich people die just like everyone else and a lot of times their children are a lot more stupid and lose the money, a self correcting problem.

Time for "floor" to step aside.

Space Guy wrote: "Equitable for whom? Those who's wealth you would confiscate to equalize things? Who makes the decisions on these things? This is what made communism unworkable, the "elite" who made those decisions decide that they are just a little (a lot) more equal than the masses. Rich people die just like everyone else and a lot of times their children are a lot more stupid and lose the money, a self correcting problem"

I'm no communist. I would describe myself as a libertarian socialist if anything. As for rich people with stupid kids, have you notices a certain few groups of families seem to have ammassed vast quantities of wealth through rigging the system to perpetuate the wage slavery of the lower classes the world over. Maybe social justice doesn't mean much to you, but it means a lot to me. I could give you all sorts of human suffering stories to tell you about how the current system has serious issues which the current system perpetuates and has no reason to change. I realize I'm asking people to evolve and recognize their potential consciences, which is perhaps the largest uphill battle of all.

I'm not saying Gore has the answers. He seems pretty hypocritical. Hey, I hope you're right that fusion is the glimmering power supply of the future. I'm not saying stop working on it or anything. I will say that I can foresee the globally imbalanced system failing in the next ~5+ years (due to war, environmental distasters, and general lack of human compassion from the "elites"). Call it a hunch.

A flat tax with no exemptions would cure the tax problem. The issue is that rich people know how to game the system, so you make the system simple enough to not be gamed. All of Roosevelt's bright ideas just led to rich people setting up foundations to perpetuate themselves.

What about the countries that aren't America or "1st world?"

That is their problem. That is why God made revolutions.

Hmm, this is that "lack of compassion" and social justice thing I was talking about. When a "1st world" military goes in and kills the "revolutionaries" that's a-ok? Or when a "1st world" spy agency topples a "3rd world" government, sets up a puppet regime which funnels the wealth to the "1st world" at the expense of the blood and sweat of the darker-skinned serfs?

Sorry, mate, I was starting to buy your fusion argument, but you lost me with your arguably self-centered, me/us-first, screw them attitude. Not that I'm rejecting the potential for fusion.

The argument is the opposite. What you seem to be advocating is an interventionist stance in order to push your version of what you feel is equitable. I am against all forms of intervention, that is why I support space, it is an end run around what otherwise will be a century of blood coming.

Yeah, well, I think that what I feel is equitable is probably more in line with what a lot of the lower classes and wage-serfs the world over feel is equitable. But anywho, thats neither here nor there, and I don't currently have the ability to ask some 8billion people very easily.

Once earth is 'used up' we can just ditch her like damaged goods, huh? If only it were that easy. I don't think she just wants a 'one-night stand.' If space provides a future for humanity, it is in the long-long-long term, and only if we figure out how to coexist here first. Of course this is just my opinion.

Yeah, well, I think that what I feel is equitable is probably more in line with what a lot of the lower classes and wage-serfs the world over feel is equitable. But anywho, thats neither here nor there, and I don't currently have the ability to ask some 8billion people very easily.

Once earth is 'used up' we can just ditch her like damaged goods, huh? If only it were that easy. I don't think she just wants a 'one-night stand.' If space provides a future for humanity, it is in the long-long-long term, and only if we figure out how to coexist here first. Of course this is just my opinion.

All you are looking to do is substitute one form of dictatorship with another. It is not our right to dictate to other countries how to live their lives. Elites only survive because the people allow them to do so. It is up to the people of those countries to figure out how to best serve their interest. "Helping" other countries become "modern" was the justification of all the colonial powers in centuries past. I do not want to see the USA be an empire even if in the short term it was better for the world.

No one is talking about ditching anything, indeed the point is to use the resource of the solar system to eventually completely displace the resource that we dig out of the ground on the Earth. Sorry but you are letting your preconceived notions and biases guide your interpretation of what I have been saying.

Erm, if I may butt in here;

Space guy, the solar cycle of temperature changes should have ended about several centuries ago. If the globe's temperatures were to be attributed to the sun, we should have begun to see some slight cooling.

The 11 year cycle, along with the 22, 88, 240, and many other cycles have been detected as far back as 2 billion years. The other cycles having to do with the processional, obliquity, and eccentricty cycles have had a direct influence for the last 3 million years, causing the 100,000 year ice age cycle.

Space guy said:
"All you are looking to do is substitute one form of dictatorship with another. It is not our right to dictate to other countries how to live their lives. "

I think you are confused.

Here is the wiki link describing "libertarian socialism" in case you are curious:

en.wikipedia (dot) org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Here is one link to the place where I discuss some of my ideas:

anarchistnews (dot) org/?q=node/1835

Sorry it is long-winded. If you're not interested, that is fine too. Anyhow, I am interested in freeing people from bondage. The first step is "world debt forgiveness day."

Debt forgiveness has happened multiple times, it has not helped the problem as these countries immediately go back into debt.

I have not been to your site, I can only go by what you say here, which is an interventionist stance that goes well beyond George Bush's efforts to do so in one little country.

People can only free themselves from bondage, to do otherwise is colonialism.

When has "world debt forgiveness day happened?" When have all prisoners been freed from all prisons in the world? Perhaps back in the Jubilee every 50 years long before the words Israel or America existed. When have all the world's peoples decided to stop believing in the fiat currencies? I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Show me some dates and some proof.

re 10.24

I know that. I also know that the most long term cycle, the one that for the most part determines periods of ice ages and inter glaciation, reached its apex recently (in geological terms; it could have been anywhere from 100-1000 years ago.) Thus, we should have seen temperatures since then start to cool. This has not been the case, of course, which leads us to question what, if any, other influences may be affecting the planet.

Ok, the one that you are talking about is the variation of the obliquity, which is a 40,000 year cycle that peaked about 7000 years ago. The Earth has been cooling since that time, which is called the Holocene Maximum. The peak of its cooling effect is not for another 13,000 years. Also, there are overlapping cycles, such as the eccentricity 100,000 year cycle which we are close to the minimum eccentricity, which tends to moderate the obliquity cycle.

What we are in right now is a short term variability cycle based upon the sun's variable output. That cycle may be breaking even as we speak with the sun's output looking to go into decline either this solar cycle or the next.

When has "world debt forgiveness day happened?" When have all prisoners been freed from all prisons in the world? Perhaps back in the Jubilee every 50 years long before the words Israel or America existed. When have all the world's peoples decided to stop believing in the fiat currencies? I'm sorry, I don't believe you. Show me some dates and some proof.

Earth to blanket, all currencies are fiat, including gold, silver, and anything else. That has always puzzled me about this whole fiat currency thing. 3000 years ago iron was currency due to its scarcity. Two thousand years ago salt was a currency. In 1865 a set of Aluminum dinnerware was made and placed in the English crown jewels. Currency of any type is fiat. You cannot eat gold and how quickly gold becomes worthless when life is at stake.

Look you are an anarchist, big deal, a big word that makes people feel powerful, and yet many of your more modern thoughts are those of the facists. Odd that is.

Well, I don't claim to have all the answers, but anyway, at least I am interested in finding solutions. Please come up with better solutions to the ones I am suggesting. And I don't think you understand the concept of fascism very well based on what you are saying. So yeah, gold or any other 'item of value' is valueless compared to food. I agree. I envision a system where food is distributed to all peoples, with no international borders.

I wouldn't impose my proposed system, I only offer it for people to decide if it has any merit. If they like it, they can take it or any part of it. If they don't, or if they prefer the system we got, that is their choice. Where is the fascism of my proposed plan again?

I wouldn't impose my proposed system, I only offer it for people to decide if it has any merit. If they like it, they can take it or any part of it. If they don't, or if they prefer the system we got, that is their choice. Where is the fascism of my proposed plan again?

The essence of facism is the state imposition of society "for their own good". You cannot impose your will to "liberate" these oppressed ones without creating your own form of oppression. The website that you posted has many interventionist plans, in a way it is the language of communism wrapped around a veneer of old time anarchist philosophy. Weird in a way.

I have already illustrated solutions that will work, the development of fusion for energy, and off planet resources for material well being, the rest we can work out amongst ourselves.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinions and I would not wish to impose mine onto you. Actually, the wiki article doesn't really reflect my opinions and suggestions as well as my article, which is dated, and I have been meaning to update it, but that article seems on that site is uneditable near as I can tell. Baha'ullah had many ideas which I would say are analogous to my dreams of a 'perfect world.'

And also, I hope you're not offended by my interpritations of some of what you said. I am a live and let live pacifist type person. If fusion is your dream, make it happen and make it good.

All the best.

And also, I hope you're not offended by my interpritations of some of what you said. I am a live and let live pacifist type person. If fusion is your dream, make it happen and make it good.

Not offended at all, we are all here to "get smarter".

I am certainly working to make it happen, every day.

Beats picking cotton as my grandmother (who did pick cotton as a young woman) would say.

:)

Oh it has been mentioned quite a lot, that is the fundamental premise behind the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth" and Al Gore's Earth in the Balance.

Both are flawed in that their central premise is that there are no technical solutions to our problems and that the only way that we can have a sustainable civilization is by a steady state economy. This has never in history worked and it will not work now.

We have no shortage of resources, what we have is a misdirection of capital investment that keeps the new energy and material technologies that we have available to us from coming to fruition.

I disagree...the steady-state economy theory has not been disproved, it has not been proven Not to work, since it has not been tried. The steady-state economy model can allow for new technological developments. I have come up with a model for a global social contract which would combine some of the finer points of the steady state economy with a shift in the ways businesses and scientists operate. It would take nothing less than an entirely new global system, where we allocate what we have now to the new system. All mass-market products would be developed in the theoretical phase and critiqued and voted on by the potential consumers before moving into the production phase. Competition would still exist, as the people who work hardest and/or have their design concepts included in the final build would be rewarded more. Emphasis would be on quality of design over speed or 'cost.' Extending the life-cycles of products and repairing and reusing would be pivotal. I could go on.

We do have a shortage of resources, looking at the long-term, comparing those resources with the materialistic western lifestyle desire that is being exported to the "2nd world" or "3rd world" countries. What happens if/when the Chinese or the Indians or Africans or any one of a number of other countries want the excesses the Americans have now? (or the 'lower' classes of said countries and continents)

Technology cannot solve every problem, but it can be part of a larger solution.

Has anyone considered using electrolysis in a water cell put under a vacuum ....................

Strange you should mention that - think about it all the time

...just joking, but you will have to explain to us non-scientific types where you are going with the above