Anybody want to argue global warming?

[Felch]

I don't think there's a serious question about whether anthropogenic global warming is happening or not. It's clear that there is a very small increase in temperatures, and that increase has been linked to the increase in CO2 concentrations.

The question is whether we should do anything about it. Global Warming is not a catastrophic event, like being hit by a giant meteor or world-wide nuclear war. Climate change would likely hurt some areas and benefit others. Some islands and low lying areas may get snuffed out, but they would be compensated by the opening up of arctic and subarctic regions that are currently inhospitable. Higher temperatures and increased CO2 concentrations would be generally good for plant life, especially since the bulk of the temperature increases are expected to occur in the polar regions. Rainfall is difficult to predict, but warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so I'd expect overall rainfall to increase.

The real policy question with AGW is whether it's worth it to do anything about it. Since it's likely to result in a mixed blessing, and given that we have limited resources, should we really commit trillions of dollars to preventing it?

[MikeH]

DFG should not read this, but it is interesting about related to the subject on hand (Energy related):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028063.300-wind-and-wave-energies-are-not-renewable-after-all.html

JM

Wow @ This

"It's hard to put a precise number on the fraction," he says, "but we certainly use more of the free energy than [is used by] all geological processes." In other words, we have a greater effect on Earth's energy balance than all the earthquakes, volcanoes and tectonic plate movements put together.

[Docfeelgood]

After reading most of those reports I think it is foolish of me to dispute what scientist are saying. All I have is my opinion and that is not worth anything. I am sorry, I picked a bad topic.

[MikeH]

I don't think there's a serious question about whether anthropogenic global warming is happening or not. It's clear that there is a very small increase in temperatures, and that increase has been linked to the increase in CO2 concentrations.

The question is whether we should do anything about it. Global Warming is not a catastrophic event, like being hit by a giant meteor or world-wide nuclear war. Climate change would likely hurt some areas and benefit others. Some islands and low lying areas may get snuffed out, but they would be compensated by the opening up of arctic and subarctic regions that are currently inhospitable. Higher temperatures and increased CO2 concentrations would be generally good for plant life, especially since the bulk of the temperature increases are expected to occur in the polar regions. Rainfall is difficult to predict, but warm air can hold more moisture than cold air, so I'd expect overall rainfall to increase.

The real policy question with AGW is whether it's worth it to do anything about it. Since it's likely to result in a mixed blessing, and given that we have limited resources, should we really commit trillions of dollars to preventing it?

The other point is that as global energy demand increases the value of increasing efficiency and researching new forms of energy generation will increase so the market will drive people into researching those areas.

[Docfeelgood]

What happened to the ice age that was coming?

[MikeH]

After reading most of those reports I think it is foolish of me to dispute what scientist are saying. All I have is my opinion and that is not worth anything. I am sorry, I picked a bad topic.

[MikeH]

What happened to the ice age that was coming?

"soon" in geological time is a long time compared to a lifetime.

We might have been due one within the next 1,000 years or maybe not for another 20,000 years.

We might have already altered the climate enough to break that cycle though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age..._interglacials

[Dauphin]

Wow @ This

I probably misunderstand what they are trying to say (the consequence, not the statement about free energy), but their point seems lost to me. Are they saying that the atmosphere will become a homogenised heat distribution system such that no wind will ever blow (the hyperbole result anyway)?

If you draw 47TW of energy out of the system (in the form of wind -> electricity) we inevitable dissipate 47TW back into the system (let's say as electricity -> heat). Now I may be simplifying, but won't this heat, in turn, generate or contribute to wind systems of it's own on the basis the dissipation of heat will not be uniform in geography?

[Felch]

The other point is that as global energy demand increases the value of increasing efficiency and researching new forms of energy generation will increase so the market will drive people into researching those areas.

Absolutely. There's no reason to assume that our current mix of energy sources will remain unchanged.

[MikeH]

Not all the energy we use is returned as heat.

We trap and store energy in lots of ways, in much the same way oil is energy trapped and stored by organisms which we then release later.

[Wezil]

consensus! thats it

I just had you look that word up a week ago and you've (notice the apostrophe?) forgotten already?

[BlackCat]

This interesting study on climate was released last friday :

Böögg Head Bang Time Drives Climate

[Dauphin]

Not all the energy we use is returned as heat.

We trap and store energy in lots of ways, in much the same way oil is energy trapped and stored by organisms which we then release later.

I doubt it is significant or long term. i.e. the increase in reserves of stored energy is not significant compared with the volume.

At the moment we are net releasers, is there a way to quantify that effect?

[MikeH]

I have no idea. Both questions are interesting. Storing some of the energy wasn't meant as an answer, just another part of the question.

[Docfeelgood]

I just had you look that word up a week ago and you've (notice the apostrophe?) forgotten already?

sorry