december:I guess what I meant was that the world will never massively reduce ff use through googoo approaches like Kyoto.
Depends what we mean by “massively” of course, but I do think that international treaties mandating specific levels of emissions reduction can, and will, have a significant effect. Naturally, the provisions in the Kyoto protocol itself (I’m not sure I understand what “googoo” means) are pretty modest in that regard; the protocol was intended to be an incentive for developing new energy strategies that will eventually wean us off of ff’s, not as a direct and immediate cure for global warming.
Maybe in a few years we will choose the risk of nuclear, if an urgent need to reduce ff’s becomes more definite.
Maybe. France seems to have done a pretty good job on the capacity and safety issues thus far, but there are still some serious concerns that are probably never going to go away—I mean, plutonium is plutonium is plutonium, after all.
I do agree with you that it’s conceivable that technology will create a new energy source (fusion?) that makes ff’s obsolete. I don’t know what the likelihood is. Windmills and solar can help a bit, but can’t be the full sources.
Yeah, wind and (especially) solar seem to be most cost-effective as a distributed generating system with comparatively modest requirements, where you haven’t already borne the costs of installing a distribution grid. They might be usefully exploited in some parts of developing countries for that reason, though.
Unfortunately controlled fusion as a major power source seems distressing remote.
Oh, but jshore’s a physicist and he says that fusion power is only about 30 years away!
First lets get the thread straight: we are talking about Global Warming. I am only saying that to define the subject. You will see why.
The article in question states that reducing “the long term buildup of Greenhouse Gasses, reductions in burning of fossil fuels, can also yeild powerful, imediate benefits to public health…”
Now if you notice the title and read the study it uses statistics, not rigorous scientific study, to causally link people with certain pre-existing health conditions, like asthma and heart desease, to premature deaths with fine particles from coal burning plants. Now, avoiding the problems with statistical causality, this is pretty interesting.
With regards to our debate, none of these studies says the infamous Greenhouse Gasses is linked to these premature deaths. It is the soot which is linked. So, it isn’t the reduction of Greenhouse Gasses that is at issue; it is the production of soot and its release into the environment.
I have no problem with not releasing the soot. I have a problem with linking GHG with soot to try and convince people GHG are bad for the environment.
Then there is the thoery that soot actually helps offset the warming of the GHG. So, I could state that jab1 actually made an argument for me in this GW debate. But, I won’t because that isn’t scientifically proven either.
Oh please. Have you ever looked at the “signatures” on this petition? It’s an online petition that requires no verification of a signer’s alleged scientific background. There’s absolutely no way of knowing that the people on it claiming to have PhDs actually have them. Further, many of the people with advanced degrees on the list have degrees in non-scientific fields. Among the signatories are the characters of MASH (the characters, not even the actors. It’s very interesting to know that Dr. Hawkeye Pierce doesn’t believe in anthropogenic global warming). The list also has hundreds of repeated names, and while I’m willing to believe that some people share names, the frequency with which it occurs is a little too high to be realistic. It also solicited signers by sending out misleading scientific information (it was outdated and printed to look like an NAS report when in truth it wasn’t even peer-reviewed."
Well, I figure I’ll just butt into the conversation to mention this: it is immaterial to the reality of global warming whether a majority of scientists believe in it or disagree. That’s an argument from popularity- a logical fallacy.
My opinion (which is, of course, worth what you paid for it), is that it’s a possible problem blown way out of proportion and used as a bludgeon in political circles. The only good thing that might come out of it is increase in nuclear power generation… which is only good if the US government (and power industry) updates the technology and regulations. Other than that, it’s pretty well an endless circle of useless argument to make politicians look like they’re accomplishing something. Somebody or other (Bjork?) just released a book that mentioned that the Kyoto Protocol, if it works, would delay global warming by 6 years under the models being used. Irregardless of the reality of GW, that treaty should be discarded.
It is amusing to see every problem on the face of the earth (including shark attacks!) related to a hypothetical phenomena…
Last time I checked, ozone and carbon dioxide were both greenhouse gases.
How do you reduce the release of soot without also reducing the release of ozone and CO[sup]2[/sup]? Don’t they all come from the burning of fossil fuels? Would filters really do an adequate job? Or do we also need to reduce our use of FF?
Oh, so we would see a rise in the incidents of emphysema, asthma and other lung disorders, but at least the Antarctic ice cap won’t melt! How fortunate! :rolleyes:
Wow! You mean CNN reported THAT! It must be true then.
Again, I refer you to the orginal scientific papers that CAUSALLY link [something you obviously don’t understand]deaths to air pollution. The papers are on particulates not GHG!
There are many ways to remove the particilates from the air and filters can remove up to 99.99% of those particulates. I agree that this should be done. I will pay for this through higher power costs and taxes. So there, your deaths are now taken care of, but still your supposed GHG are still in the air. Therefore, you’re argument is now moot.
Thank you, come again.
Your last bit is really funny. I was being sarcastic by pointing out that your argument in our debate of GLOBAL WARMING really didn’t help your case much. It really goes to your use of logic. Let me point out the problem.
We are debating GW.
You bring up an article that states soot is bad for your health.
Soot can be produced by FF which also emit GHG.
Therefore, FF should be reduced/eliminated because GHG cause GW and health problems.
I brought up an article that says ozone and CO[sup]2[/sup] in addition to particulate matter is bad for our health. Yeah, you can get rid of most of the soot with filters. But what about ozone and CO[sup]2[/sup]?
I went to the EPA. They have listed Ozone as a toxic substance. I found no links to actual studies that conclude this, but it is there. However, CO2 is not listed as one of the toxic substances recognized by the EPA.
Oh for the love of Pete. Look it up yourself on the MSDS for Ozone http://www.hankinozone.com/msds.html and CO2 (I’ll leave that one for you to discover) If that’s not good enough for you, head on over to the library and find the papers that lead to the consensus of opinion that resulted in the MSDS.
If that’s not good enough for you then apply for a grant, or fund your own research to see whether Ozone is toxic or not. If you are too lazy to do any of the above, at least have the grace to accept things which have been common knowledge for decades. Playing the part of a skeptical slack jawed yokel who needs to be spoon-fed even the simplest bits of knowledge, does not sit well with your self-vaunted intellectual and analytical skills.
Oops, sorry if I got a bit insulting there.
First of all I didn’t claim Ozone wasn’t toxic. Do you even read the posts. I claimed I wanted some articles saying that besides some quote. I then went out in the 1/2 hour I had and found some info on the subject. I seemed to find two sides, some that say it is horrible and some that say it seems to be not so horrible.
That seems like a pretty good way to learn something to me, the slack-jawed yokel. But, thanks for the constructive criticism squink. It was really helpfull and intelligent considering your insights and obvious reading comprehensive abilities.
