quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Remember when gas prices went up after 9/11 and how the greenies said it would go over $5.00 and stay there. Clearly that would make a number of them happy. We use more resources to heat, cool, and power our houses than we do to drive to work. It's just that they are fixated on the driving part of it. Nuclear would reduce our carbon footprint substantially if used to both power our houses and our transportation.

True. Though personally I drive alot, easily spending more in gasoline than home utilities by more than double per month.

I am saying they need to offer realistic choices, just having costs go up really only means people have to pay them. It won't make them able to make a choice they cannot afford, and driving prices up narrows the choices in itself. In order to keep their house warm, to get to work, to eat. Maybe thats just the point for some of these guys, get the money while we can?

Maybe my comment belongs in the "$5 gas, then shortages" thread.

I kinda like the idea that we aren't controlled by someone who sets the gas price at some artificial level so we are forced to change our ways. We are supposed to be a free country right? Even though some * greenies think they should have the right to bully us into doing what they want, this is still a free country.

* Note the word some - No not all feel this way. I am talking about the extreme fringe wackos.

I don't like the idea of wasting. I think we should be efficient. I don't know if we are changing the global climate but I see no reason to abuse it for no gain.

If we had electric cars that worked, and a way to produce electricity that had a lesser impact on the environment I'm all for it. That's why I support the nukes. I think the green movement really hurt this country when they got us to move away from nuclear and to fossil fuels. Clearly we impact the environment more with coal. Clearly coal is more dangerous than nuclear. Black and white thinking of the green movement got public opinion to not support nuclear. If increased CO2 is causing climate change, that black and white thinking damaged this planet.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: I don't like the idea of wasting. I think we should be efficient. I don't know if we are changing the global climate but I see no reason to abuse it for no gain. If we had electric cars that worked, and a way to produce electricity that had a lesser impact on the environment I'm all for it. .

Oh I don't mean anything that can be interpreted as wasting, that gasoline is driving to work.
If they want to go nuke I won't stop anyone. But I don't want the waste, or plant anywhere near me. Typical eh?

quote Originally posted by partfiero: No proof in that article, just speculation. They are harder targets than the terrorist want to deal with. Not a nice target as you claim. Has one ever been brought up as even being in the planning stages for any attack?

No proof that a Nuclear Power plant makes a great target for enemies? Ummm sure.

Maybe it would have been better if I told you I visited a country that had nuclear power plants and someone told me so.

Try oil refineries, train depots, military installations, and the list goes on. In fact there are many targets much more vulnerable than a nuclear facility. Elimating one target at the cost of our economy makes no sense at all.

Besides which, what would happen to Newfoundland's economy without oil?

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: I hope it's typical to question where one gets their information and the bias that may be behind it. The article doesn't seem too big on facts but I'm sure you can read this for yourself and see what you think. http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Sider/forside.aspx http://www.windpower.org/en...edge/statistics.html

So you expect bias against wind power from a guy who worked for an oil company, but you DON'T expect bias from the actual company selling the wind power? Really? You think they'd ADMIT things weren't going as well as what they sold, especially given they get subsidies from the Danish government?

(article is from one of your country mates in Canada)

Wind power is a complete disaster

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Try oil refineries, train depots, military installations, and the list goes on. In fact there are many targets much more vulnerable than a nuclear facility. Elimating one target at the cost of our economy makes no sense at all. Besides which, what would happen to Newfoundland's economy without oil? Arn

That's a great analysis there Arn, now when did I mention a nuclear plant was the only target or the most vunerable.

Newfoundlands economy? Not sure what it has to do with this particular discussion but I don't see any immediate reduction in the consumption of oil in the next 20 years or so, so my guess is we'll do just fine with it. Thanks for caring though

quote Originally posted by newf: I would expect a bias from any article but some are less biased than others, it's good to get a good cross section IMO. Yours usually account for the far right view from what I have seen.

Really? What is "far right" about posting the true numbers on Danish Wind Power? I wasn't aware there were different numbers on the left and right.

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

quote Originally posted by newf: Newfoundlands economy? Not sure what it has to do with this particular discussion but I don't see any immediate reduction in the consumption of oil in the next 20 years or so, so my guess is we'll do just fine with it. Thanks for caring though

Do I care? Yep. I've paid thousands of dollars in taxes to support unemployed Newfoundlanders over many years. Now that Newfoundland has oil (and hydro electric coming) I won't have to support them. Now if a terrorist blows up some off shore drilling rigs, or destroys the undersea cable, that is going to cost my pocket directly. Yes, I care about Newfoundland's lot.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Do I care? Yep. I've paid thousands of dollars in taxes to support unemployed Newfoundlanders over many years. Now that Newfoundland has oil (and hydro electric coming) I won't have to support them. Now if a terrorist blows up some off shore drilling rigs, or destroys the undersea cable, that is going to cost my pocket directly. Yes, I care about Newfoundland's lot. Arn

Never asked if you care or not but I guess you want to derail this thread and talk about (and apparently to try and denigrate) me or my home Province rather than discuss something relevant to the OP.

I'll assume your comment of supporting my fellow Newfoundlanders is some kind of attempt to make you feel better about yourself or maybe you think you personally paid thousands of dollars that went directly to unemployed people in NL and nowhere else. How a Province of approximately half a million people could be more of a burden to your tax dollars than the restof the thirty something million citizens is beyond me but I"M SURE YOU HAVE FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS. DO YOU???????

Either way if you want to discuss Newfoundland and your "support" in another thread, bring it on.

One of the major issues that I see with solar and wind is that they don't produce output 100% of the time. Therefore, in order for the grid to remain stable, there MUST be a 'non-green' power source capable of meeting 100% load for the periods of time when the solar and wind farms aren't outputting energy. It is thusly a basic requirement that there be a 'traditional' power plant anyway. While batteries can be used to buffer that demand, they reduce the efficiency even further, and greatly increase the costs AND NEGATIVE environmental impact.

As a further proof of the inadequacies of solar and window: They require subsidies to make them commercially viable. Without the subsidies, the large projects can't get funding, and never happen. 'Business 101' says that if something is profitable and viable, it will survive without subsidies. The solar industry would very likely collapse without subsidies. Wind power _might_ survive without subsidies, but that (IMHO) is because the technology is basically old, and _should_ be inexpensive to manufacture and produce.

Nuclear is the way to go. Small, increasingly efficient reactors (and therefore less waste), capable of powering 10's of thousands of homes and businesses 24x7x365. It really is a no-brainer.

quote Originally posted by newf: Never asked if you care or not but I guess you want to derail this thread and talk about (and apparently to try and denigrate) me or my home Province rather than discuss something relevant to the OP. I'll assume your comment of supporting my fellow Newfoundlanders is some kind of attempt to make you feel better about yourself or maybe you think you personally paid thousands of dollars that went directly to unemployed people in NL and nowhere else. How a Province of approximately half a million people could be more of a burden to your tax dollars than the restof the thirty something million citizens is beyond me but I"M SURE YOU HAVE FACTS TO BACK UP YOUR ASSERTIONS. DO YOU??????? Either way if you want to discuss Newfoundland and your "support" in another thread, bring it on.

Just so you know, there was a time when the fishing industry couldn't support the Province before the advent of oil drilling, and the Employment Insurance fund paid out 25% of all its payouts to Newfoundland which was only part of the transfers. I know, I worked for EI. Look up the story of 10-52 in the news archives.

Now it is on the other foot. Ontario is on the receiving end from Newfoundland due to the manufacturing sector being down. It goes both ways

There is interdependency in most countries and Canada is in the same boat. We are all interdependent to one measure or another for energy in North America. And we all pay when one goes bad.

Of course we both enjoy the financial benefit of the Alberta Oil Sands but nobody wants to talk about that.

The point you missed is that things such as wind turbines, solar panels, electrical plants and all are subject to damage from a variety of things. If a nuclear plant goes down is sends ripples through a large geographic area.

If an oil platform suffers an explosion, we have seen what it does on the Gulf. Look at what the people of Britain will pay to clean up the Gulf. The shareholders and governmental sources are all taking the fall. It isn't just a company. The same could happen in all oil producing countries.

If you look at potential damage due to terrorism, vandalism, storm damage, the safest facilities are the ones behind barbed wire with massive masonry. Those are the nuclear plants.

So, if we look at a windmill, the potential for damage from all sources, the potential for loss of function, and the inherent inefficiency is really problematic.

If we look at Solar, the same thing applies.

If we look at coal, we have about 200 years of known reserve and then what?

If we look at nuclear we have astonishing amounts of uranium in Canada.

And, the nuclear facilities can be better protected from things like vandalism, and terrorism, and catastrophic weather events.

That was more the point.

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: The point you missed is that things such as wind turbines, solar panels, electrical plants and all are subject to damage from a variety of things. If a nuclear plant goes down is sends ripples through a large geographic area. If you look at potential damage due to terrorism, vandalism, storm damage, the safest facilities are the ones behind barbed wire with massive masonry. Those are the nuclear plants. So, if we look at a windmill, the potential for damage from all sources, the potential for loss of function, and the inherent inefficiency is really problematic. If we look at Solar, the same thing applies. If we look at coal, we have about 200 years of known reserve and then what? If we look at nuclear we have astonishing amounts of uranium in Canada. And, the nuclear facilities can be better protected from things like vandalism, and terrorism, and catastrophic weather events. That was more the point. Arn

All I said was they make great targets, somehow it was misconstrued into meaning something else. I still contain that a Nuclear Power plant makes a great target for an enemy as the potential for not only energy disruption but radiation leaks and the like would make a huge impact even if it was just in a public fear aspect. I would submit probably more than almost any other source of energy.

Also I know a few things about Newfoundlands fishing history as well and not only the support from the federal government but also their role in its collapse and the problematic solutions. I understand what you are saying about a country having to support each other and its interdependency but be very careful about singling out one particular group, in fact you may want to also look at subsidies and tax payer monies spent on things like farming or look at how the Grand Banks have been used as a bargaining chip to help sell Canadian exports. I would however be interested in seeing the stats on the amounts paid if you have them.

I could go on but let's keep the post on the topic at hand.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Exactly, and the article you posted has limited facts with lots of opinion attached to them.

What more do you need? Wind power still requires conventional power to back it up, doesn't seem to reduce CO2 (which is one of their goals), and costs more because it requires large amounts of subsidies. What more information do you need?

quote Originally posted by fierobear: What more do you need? Wind power still requires conventional power to back it up, doesn't seem to reduce CO2 (which is one of their goals), and costs more because it requires large amounts of subsidies. What more information do you need?

Huh? Do you even read what's posted? Why are you asking what more information do I need? For what exactly? Or is this some other arguement that you will change at every convenience?
For that matter do you even read what you yourself post? You posted an opinion piece about wind energy in the U.S. Are you saying it doesn't work for Denmark? What exactly are you arguing now????


Here I'll copy what I wrote a couple of posts again if you missed it.

quote Just for the record, I don't believe wind power is the "cure all" solution in terms of renewable energy for the future but it is an option that should be looked at, studied and implemeted if it makes sense. Maybe the opinion of your article has merit but I certainly won't blindly believe one article written by a known opponent to anything but fossil fuel. I'd rather hear various points of view about the subject and then make up my mind. You know have a discussion, try to keep an open mind and learn, then form an opinion.

Oh and here ya go you can read opinion from the supporters of renewables as well. They even have facts, you can't dispute it then.... right?

quote The Pew Center on Global Climate Change released a brief in April discussing economic and job growth opportunities in clean energy markets. According to the report, global investment in renewable energy more than doubled from 2004-2009. From 2008-2009, China was the only country — out of the U.S, EU, Brazil, and India — whose investment increased. China attracted more investment in clean energy technologies ($34.6 billion) than the United States ($18.6 billion) for the first time in 2009. This first movers advantage could have large implications for future competitiveness:

http://www.offshorewind.biz/2010/12/30/about-chinas-investment-into-usa-wind-industry/

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Pew Center on Global Climate Change

Oh, now THERE'S a non-biased source. You're kidding, right?

As far as China, we've already covered that.

China holds most of the world's access to rare earth minerals used on solar panel production. They see a buck to be made so they are producing CHEAP solar panels which will drive American and Canadian solar panel producers out of business. It has nothing to do with the environment.

I've already posted the environmental government investment figures and little Canada invests twice as much as the Chinese.

Now I take it that the scientists involved in the Petition Project are not bona fida? and possilby stooges for the oil execs? I don't think so.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

And this information from Danish scientists is not valid either?

http://www.thenewamerican.c...wind-power-overblown

I think Fierobear's question was rightly asked.

And what about all those growing glaciers? They are growing on every continent. Now that is Global Warming for you. More warmth = more snow hmmm........

Arn

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: China holds most of the world's access to rare earth minerals used on solar panel production. They see a buck to be made so they are producing CHEAP solar panels which will drive American and Canadian solar panel producers out of business. It has nothing to do with the environment. I've already posted the environmental government investment figures and little Canada invests twice as much as the Chinese. Now I take it that the scientists involved in the Petition Project are not bona fida? and possilby stooges for the oil execs? I don't think so. http://www.petitionproject.org/ And this information from Danish scientists is not valid either? http://www.thenewamerican.c...wind-power-overblown I think Fierobear's question was rightly asked. And what about all those growing glaciers? They are growing on every continent. Now that is Global Warming for you. More warmth = more snow hmmm........ Arn

Oh my Arn you never fail to regurgitate stuff we've been over again and again. Look into the "Petition Project" and see what you find out about it. Growing glaciers? Let me guess just like the growing artic ice? Ignore the science and come up with your own conclusions all you like. Snow in winter discounts Climate Change? Funny stuff.... oh wait which arguement is it again the climate isn't changing or is? I can never remember with you two.

I must have missed your post on environmental investment figures. Can you link where you did or re-link. Are you claiming the assertions made in my post are wrong? From the Pew Institiute which I believe you referenced in another thread. Do you now not trust their numbers? (pssst.... Page 34 of AGW thread if you are having trouble remembering )

Told you before we can both link and believe whatever it is we like on such a huge topic. When you say you "know" I will challenge you, if you simply say it's your opinion and that it's no more right than most others on the subject then fine go ahead and believe what you like. I choose to trust the majority of scientists with expertise in the field but could they be wrong? Sure, it's a complex issue but I'll trust them before I do the lone wolves and internet mouthpieces or so called "experts". If you guys don't want to hear an opposing or different veiw point start a blog or submit your theories.

[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-01-2011).]

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh my Arn you never fail to regurgitate stuff we've been over again and again. Look into the "Petition Project" and see what you find out about it. Growing glaciers? Let me guess just like the growing artic ice? Ignore the science and come up with your own conclusions all you like.

Yep, one often has to repeat stuff to educate the uninformed. So while we are at it, why don't you discredit and dismiss the links I posted on glaciers already? I notice you ignored them before. I'm sure they are all opinion and innuendo, or at least I expect your conclusion will remain consistent.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: Just to be clear, one of the signs of Global Cooling is expanding ice fields. It is worth noticing that at one time Canada was covered by ice, and while I don't subscribe to the notion that an ice age is imminent, I do acknowledge the following ice fields and glaciers are expanding. NORWAY Ålfotbreen Glacier Briksdalsbreen Glacier Nigardsbreen Glacier Hardangerjøkulen Glacier Hansebreen Glacier Jostefonn Glacier Engabreen glacier http://www.nve.no/en/Water/Hydrology/Glaciers/ Arctic Ice is thickening http://stevengoddard.wordpr...hicker/#comment-1364 http://www.theregister.co.u..._ice_loss_estimates/ Antarctic ice is growing http://www.news.com.au/anta...tory-0-1225700043191 New Zealand glaciers are growing http://www.science20.com/ne...w_age_global_warming Argentina Glacier is growing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id...us_news-environment/ And don't forget the reported retreat of Himalayan ice was proved to be entirely false http://www.larouchepub.com/...a_warming_fraud.html http://www.usatoday.com/wea...layan-glaciers_N.htm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...inue-to-multiply.htm Don't forget the problematic Bolivian Glacier http://www.inesad.edu.bo/mmblog/mm_20090323.htm And the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska http://www.longrangeweather...GlacierAdvancing.htm I do not believe that with ice fields growing on virtually all continents that one can claim Global Warming is to blame. Indeed, it can be successfully argued that if Global Warming were a reality, these glaciers and icefields would indeed be shrinking right now. Of course they do go into periodic retreat, but, all evidence is that they are quite healthy and growing well. Arn

Speaking of...

quote Originally posted by newf: Oh my Arn you never fail to regurgitate stuff... ...I choose to trust the majority of scientists

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Speaking of...

Wow, you learned to edit a post to suit your own agenda, don't let anyone say you haven't learned anything from all the "stuff" you copy and paste.

quote Originally posted by newf: Wow, you learned to edit a post to suit your own agenda, don't let anyone say you haven't learned anything from all the "stuff" you copy and paste.

Once again, you missed the point.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Once again, you missed the point.

No, I don't think I did. It seems you tried to make a comparison regarding others bringing up specific points of discussion again and again to me stating my position (opinion ) on the subject as a whole. Not the same at all.

I am glad Newf, that you took the time to look up credible sources for the point you are making

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html

This is a fairly reputable group in Switzerland, and you have to remember that when you are looking at the overview we are still in a post iceage period geologically, so there should be some retreat.

However, you have to look at the standard deviation figure. When you take the whole sample rather than targeted ones you find the change reported is within that standard deviation range.

Also, there a numerous glaciers where the information is marked "n.a." and you can't account for them in the statistics.Some of those are actually growing, but either way they will show up within the standard deviation.

If you visit http://www.cicero.uio.no/fu...index_e.aspx?id=3561 you will see as you read down that while inland glaciers retreat in Norway, coastal ones grow.

Absolutely, the inland glaciers should be retreating continually, but, not all are. In fact many have been advancing the past 2 years. There is a lag time for glaciers to react and there was a warming period culminating in 2000 so it takes several years for the glaciers to react. They have been doing so and are now reacting to the cooling that is going on.

The point I see is that it is logical in a post iceage period, which we are in, to have the glaciers retreating, but that is not the case, and, in fact, the retreat is within standard deviation which does not count as a significant retreat. Similarly the advancing glaciers are within the standard deviation.

You can't really show Anthropological Global Warming using glaciers. You can, however, show that there are glaciers which are growing in the past 2 years.

But, you did post some solid information and thank you.

Arn

quote Originally posted by newf: Why would I be kidding? You are taking your articles as non-biased and then when I show a counter biased arguement you suddenly question the sources realiability? Pot and Kettle man, I linked to it to show how easy it is to link an article like you did with a few "facts" and lots of opinion.

No, my accusation of bias was in response to YOUR standards and ideas of bias and article sources. You started that.

quote But of course the facts are facts...right? You can't dispute them.

Me or you? So far, YOU'RE the one who likes to deny facts. You dismissed that one article as "opinion", and it was full of facts, figures and quotes from officials.

I think that the reason that AGW is not more readily apparent (in terms of current weather patterns) is that we are still in the early stages of AGW.

I think that you can take (as a baseline) pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 at 280 ppm.

We are currently at just about 400 ppm.

IPCC is projecting anywhere from 530 to 980 ppm by 2100.

"Wait till the warm up is underway ..." Bonus points if you can name the famous pop tune that has these lyrics!

I say, "Wait until the global warm up is FULLY underway ..."

I will not be alive in 2050, much less 2100, but I think that is when global weather will be much more in alignment with the AGW predictions of the computer-based climate models.

To be honest about this post--it really is just my "two cents" worth.

But that's what I think.


References:

http://www.epa.gov/climatec...cience/futureac.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-02-2011).]

To believe the 530 to 980 ppm figure, you have to accept the hockey stick graph. And we know that is a fraud.

Let's be honest about the world pre-WWII. Coal fired home furnaces, coal fired factories, wood fired kitchen stoves, coal fired locomotives, coal fired ships, and the carbon output was horrendous. It makes no sense to see an accellerated heat situation based on CO2 emissions and it makes no sense to assume more carbon emissions post WWII

Arn

quote Originally posted by rinselberg: I say, "Wait until the global warm up is FULLY underway ..." I will not be alive in 2050, much less 2100, but I think that is when global weather will be much more in alignment with the AGW predictions of the computer-based climate models.

Maybe not. Note the graph at the bottom, and how far off the IPCC's temperature projections have been so far.

Global warming temperature rise may be much less than IPCC predicts

Global warming during the twenty first century may be significantly less than that forecast by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), according to a new paper

Physicist and Arctic research expert Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center at the University of Alaska Fairbanks in the US predicts that the temperature in 2100 will be 0.5C ± 0.2C higher than today, rather than the 4.0C± 2.0C predicted by the IPCC.

Akasofu is an acknowledged climate change sceptic – although he prefers the term critic - and his prediction is based on an attempt to separate out the effects of naturally-driven warming from man-made greenhouse warming. Akasofu states that the warming trend recorded during the nineteenth and twentieth century may be a combination of a natural recovery from the so called Little Ice Age mixed in with greenhouse warming.

Akasofu's paper, “On the recovery from the Little Ice Age”, has been published in Natural Science. During the Little Ice Age global temperatures are believed to have been around 1C lower than today. The Little Ice Age is thought to have begun around 1200 and to have ended in the period between 1800 and 1850. Since then, global temperatures have been recovering at a linear rate of around 0.5C per century with the effects of multi-decadal oscillations superposed, according to Akasofu.

Crucially, Akasofu believes that the recovery from the Little Ice Age is still ongoing and is in part responsible for recent warming. He suggests that the effects of multi-decadal oscillations have halted the current warming and were also responsible for a flattening in warming seen between 1940 and 1975.

As much as 0.5C of the 0.6C rise recorded in the last century may be due to the natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, according to Akasofu. He bases this on the fact that there has been an underlying linear warming since the early nineteenth century where as carbon dioxide levels only started to increase significantly from around 1946.

Understanding the relative contribution of man-made changes to global warming is important as it enables climate scientists to accurately assess the sensitivity of the climate to increases in the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The accompanying diagram, from the paper, shows that the linear temperature trend between 1880 and 2000 is a continuation of the recovery from the Little Ice Age, together with the superposed multi-decadal oscillation. It also shows the predicted temperature rise by the IPCC after 2000. It has been suggested by the IPCC that the thick blue line portion was caused mostly by the greenhouse effect, so the future IPCC prediction is a sort of extension of the blue line, according to Akasofu. The diagram assumes that the recovery from the Little Ice Age continues to 2100, together with the superposed multi-decadal oscillation, which would suggest a further 0.5C warming. This view could explain the apparent halting of the warming after 2000 as a result of the impact of multi-decadal oscillations. The observed temperature in 2008 is shown by a red dot with a green arrow.

The implication is that over the next ten years or so there will be a significant and measurable divergence between the IPCC prediction and the the prediction generated by Akasoku's hypothesis of recovery from the Little Ice Age.

1) The Earth experienced the Little Ice Age (LIA) between 1200-1400 and 1800-1850. The temperature during the LIA is expected to be 1C lower than the pre-sent temperature. The solar irradiance was relatively low during the LIA.

2) The gradual recovery from 1800-1850 was ap-proximately linear, the recovery (warming) rate was about 0.5°C/100 years. The same linear change contin-ued from 1800-1850 to 2000. In this period, the solar irradiance began to recover from its low value during the LIA.

3) The recovery from the LIA is still continuing today.

4) The multi-decadal oscillation is superposed on the linear change. The multi-decadal oscillation peaked in about 1940 and also in 2000, causing the temporal halting of the recovery from the LIA.

5) The negative trend after the peak in 1940 and 2000 overwhelmed the linear trend of the recovery, causing the cooling or halting of warming.

6)The view presented in this paper predicts the temperature increase in 2100 to be 0.5C ± 0.2C, rather than 4C ± 2.0C predicted by the IPCC




Diverging predictions of temperature rise from the IPCC and from Akisofu's hypothesis of continuing natural recovery from the Little Ice Age with multi-decadal oscillations superposed. (Picture credit: Natural Science).

Anybody know what the CO2 levels were during the Industrial Revolution? I remember reading articles about all the soot in the air. Back then there were no emission controls or regulations, and most machinery was stream powered or water powered. The steam was generated from burning mostly coal. There must have been massive air pollution back then.
Here is a Wiki article on the Industrial Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
I found this article on the history of air pollution and it mentions how bad it was during the Industrial Revolution, but there is no mention of CO2 levels.
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/ea...y/Older/History.html
Here is another.
http://www.associatedconten...ollution.html?cat=37

quote The industries that were set up at the time used coal as the prime source of energy. Coal was burnt to heat the water which would, power the steam engines that would run the machines both in their industries and transport system specially the railways. Huge amounts of carbon particles were released into the atmosphere. The combination of smoke and fog produced smog, which was visible as a thick blanket over the cities. This caused deaths in thousands due to respiratory diseases. The Great Smog of London in 1952 killed more than 4000 people.1 Other noxious fumes were released as a byproduct of these industries, releasing dangerous gases that changed the chemistry of the air.

All of this was as recent as the early 1950s and most of it's effects are hardly visible anymore. I would guess CO2 levels were a lot worse back then compared to now.

in the Pacific Ocean is a heat source which can power the enitre planet 4x over - and - indefinitely if harnessed
and - it has been known about for over 30 years
yes, power delivery to shore is an obsticle

there is no $$$ benifit to these kinds of solutions

but, I do expect China to actually make the move to tap it, and claim it its own.

quote Originally posted by Arns85GT: ... it makes no sense to assume more carbon emissions post WWII

quote Originally posted by avengador1: All of this was as recent as the early 1950s ... I would guess CO2 levels were a lot worse back then compared to now.

... and carbon-based fuels aren't still the primary sources of energy in the world in 2011?

Consider that the U.S. population has doubled and the world population has increased 2.7x since 1950. See http://www.census.gov/ipc/w...db/worldpopgraph.php. That might have something to do with it.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-04-2011).]