That's the big problem. Solar panels degrade over time, they don't last long enough for a long-term saving.
If you really want to use the sun, use it to heat a boiler and generate steam to drive a turbine. Proven concept, no advanced electronics needed, no toxic waste. There's enough desert to build a massive power plant.
The downside is that it needs world peace (one bomb in the right place would disrupt the energy supply to a full continent). Since people are too retarded for that, i don't see it happening. There is one test facility in Spain, but the best location would be somewhere on the equator (where most unstable countries seem to be situated...).
That's pretty harsh, and way too simple a statement to sum up the current complexities regarding GW.
Certainly it's been my understanding for a little while now that some individuals (some quite high profile) in the debate are over-claiming the extent of their knowledge or certainty on climate variability. This isn't helped of course by the extremely unbalanced media representation which will without fail favour the most dramatic attention grabbing headline over any of the more cautious and reasoned voices of science. The media has become so pro-AGW that I think it should become every persons responsibility to dig around a little deeper, what's not reported when it comes to any issue under GW/climate change can be quite telling. There's a definite media bias so you gotta be aware of that...
I think it's pretty acceptable though to say that humans are having some kind of effect on climate. What isn't clear is how much of an effect. It might be fairly negligable, or it might be more than that. It may even be broadly beneficial. Climate has changed before, sometimes abrubtly- before industrial times, and scientists are still uncertian as to why. However much some people want or imagine it to be, the debate isn't settled. The debate is settled when all factors playing into this most complex of systems is known, and that's just not the case.
When I was at primary school they taught me about these things called dinosaurs.
"
Dinosaurs roamed the Earth millions of years ago, before mummy and daddy where born.
A meteor hit the Earth and everything died, except Max Mosley because he can survive even a nuclear blast.
Then, much later, the garden of eden happened - and this was when the Earth was created.
"
It's no wonder I turned out so ****ed up really isnt it... My point being, the climate does change - and we blame it on meteors because the dino's didnt have factories to make KP peanuts.
what they are fairly certain about though is that just about any abrupt change in climate has caused mass extinctions and that the current one is pretty effing fast definitly a lot faster than any genome (of larger species) can adapt
The fact that the climate is changing is fairly undeniable, but the concentration on 'saving' the earth is at best, similar to birds pecking at the ground as a way of dealing with an alarming situation.
Ultimately, all human environmental problems are social, political, and economic problems. The real challenge is to dismantle our economic assumptions, and create societies that no longer rely on the somewhat simplistic illusion that everything can be solved by the ideal of infinite growth.
Let me clear up, Climate change is real, but global warming is a LIE.
They are not the same thing, global warming is a term usually used to describe our supposed warming effects on the Earth atmosphere, Climate change is something that happens natrually, and that will happen regardless of our influence.
Wether we pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere or not, the planet is warming up anyway, what I do agree should be dealt with is environmental damage, which is being dealt with right now anyway.
Plus, if warmth radiated from the sun is not able to get out of our atmosphere due to 'greenhouse' gasses in our atmosphere, then how does it get in in the first place?
No, the precise term is "man-made global warming". The first word is often omitted for brevity.
:google:
Look, how can you state with certainty that it's a LIE if you don't even know the answers to simple questions like these? If you lack knowledge of the most basic facts, then it's impossible to weigh all the arguments in the debate, and form a well-founded opinion. Might as well flip a coin.
The theory is that radiated warmth from the sun gets into our atmosphere, 'normally' some of it should reflect back into space off the Earth's surface, however the Global Warming camp say that this heat is prevented from reflecting back into space by greenhosue gases, and so our atmosphere is 'warmed'.
If Greenhouse gases supposedly dont allow reflected heat to get out, then how do they allow radiated heat from the sun to get in? If your so smart, why don't you tell me?
How can a layer of gasses in the atmosphere act as a one way 'valve', only letting radiation in but not out? Its just all too implausible.
The current situation only looks scary in the context of Mann's previous work on historic temp reconstruction over the last 2000 years (hockeystick graph), which shows the 20th C as anomolous due to a (strange?) non-presence of the LIA and the MWP. But one should treat Mann's work with skepticism as his published reconstructions have failed the test of close scrutiny in the past (even as he declared their robustness)... and a recent statement of his atleast admits that...
“Given the uncertainties, the SH and global reconstructions are compatible with the possibility of warmth similar to the most recent decade during brief intervals of the past 1,500 years”.
Coming from Mann, that's saying quite a lot
In the 21st C, we've cooled slightly so far, about .01 - .1 of a degree over this decade(?), which is counter to the IPCC model claims of .2 degree warmth for this decade. It annoys me when people state that we're overstepping the projections because as far as I can tell that's just not true.
The radiation reflected by the Earth occupies a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum than the incoming sunlight (more in the infrared and less UV, iirc). The greenhouse gases are less transparent at those wavelengths. They absorb more energy, hence less energy escapes from Earth.
Studies have shown that the earth actually goes throw 'cycles', where it actually heats up and then cools down anyway. I can't find the article(s) but I'm sure a few minutes googling would find them.
Are the people of this earth contributing to the earth warming up? Yes.
Are the people of the earth the major contributing factor? No.
and you have studied climatology for long enough to make such a definitve judgement then?
judging by your track record and the usual standard of this forum in recent physics discussions (where the hell are todd bbt and the rest?) id guess you know as little about the basic physics behind the process as haz does
Although I'm not a scientist I've watched enough documentaries on various points of view on various channels, read (although briefly) in my spare time and also studied Geography at GCSE, a key part of which is the climate, to come up with a somewhat thought out idea.
I'm not saying we don't contribute, but the earth has gone through many cycles in the past. Plus, all the new urbanised areas are surely kicking out more warmth, anyway.
Attached is a picture showing the tempture, and CO2/metane in Antartica. I've added a blue line from the first temperature to the last one, and you'll see that it's actually not changed that much, and you'll also see the cycles I'm talking about.
which isnt nearly enough to come to a final conclusion about something as complex as climate
so lets see from that graph we can conclude that
1) its unusually warm atm
2) theres a very high correlation between co2 concentration and temperature (although only an idiot whos somehow managed to not ever hear about venus would even try debate that)
3) at currently about 380 ppm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I ... na_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png co2 concentrations are currently a solid 50% higher than the average on that graph and if youd plot them on this scale the curve would practically be vertical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Well we can't compare Hawaii to Antartica because there are no big urbanizations there, so obviously it'll be lower. D;
The temperature has actually dropped, however only very slightly. The correlation between gas levels and temperature was well noted beforehand and can be attributed to all manners of chemical cycles within the atmosphere.
Nobody is questioning that there were Ice Ages in the last 400,000 years. The climate change debate concerns the last 200 years. That's 2 pixels on your diagram.
There were interglacials in which the temperature was higher than today. But back then there was no human civilization that could be wiped out.
-Reduce need for oil from third world countries
-Reduce the price of corn
-Reduce the population of the planet (idealy)
-Give a source of income for third world countries (selling their offspring)
Sounds good to me.
Ever heard of this thing called a greenhouse? I'll bet the greenhouse gasses work sorta like that.
