|
Grex > Agora56 > #149: KLUDGE REPORT IV (?) GRAB YOUR COATS, EVERYBODY -- Here Comes Global Cooling | |
|
| Author |
Message |
klg
|
|
KLUDGE REPORT IV (?) GRAB YOUR COATS, EVERYBODY -- Here Comes Global Cooling
| 
Mar 3 17:16 UTC 2006 |
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060206/43371626.html
Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist
ST. PETERSBURG, February 6 (RIA Novosti) - Low solar activity could
trigger a global freeze in the middle of the 21st century, a Russian
astronomer said Monday.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory said
temperatures would begin falling six or seven years from now, when
global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century
reached its peak, and that the coldest period would occur 15-20 years
after a major solar output decline in 2035-2045.
Abdusamatov said dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures
were an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, and resulted from
variations in the Sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.
The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period of 1645-1705,
known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in Holland frozen solid and
forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the
scientist said.
|
| 34 responses total. |
tod
|
|
response 1 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:29 UTC 2006 |
Hide in a Wendy's like in that movie.
|
richard
|
|
response 2 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:37 UTC 2006 |
This is a major problem, because pollution is destroying the ozone layer.
What we are doing to the environment in the modern age with modern technology
is unprecedented. There is no basis in the past for the damage we are doing
today.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 3 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:41 UTC 2006 |
What is the solution, Richard?
|
klg
|
|
response 4 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:48 UTC 2006 |
Actually, RW, hasn't it been demonstrated that countries/cities with
modern technology are much less polluted than countries without modern
technology? (China vs. the U.S. and London of 100/200 yrs ago vs.
modern day London.) (Note: You don't cite a source, so neither do I.)
|
richard
|
|
response 5 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:51 UTC 2006 |
re #3 I am not sure there is a solution. We may be doomed.
re #4 200 years ago you didn't have a zillion cars spewing out noxious
emissions.
|
richard
|
|
response 6 of 34:
|
Mar 3 17:53 UTC 2006 |
already the glaciers in antarctica are melting off at an alarming rate.
|
klg
|
|
response 7 of 34:
|
Mar 3 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Well, get ready to see them grow back.
|
tod
|
|
response 8 of 34:
|
Mar 3 18:20 UTC 2006 |
re #5
100 years ago we had places completely missing forests and tons of industrial
pollution clogging the air in urban areas.
What do you recommend short of outlawing personally owned vehicles and forcing
all factories to bleach out their smokestacks?
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 34:
|
Mar 3 18:36 UTC 2006 |
I recommend moving away from cars and other similar that use fuel altogether.
We need to be putting a LOT more money into developing alternative energy
sources.
|
tod
|
|
response 10 of 34:
|
Mar 3 18:52 UTC 2006 |
Do you think the development of the technology will be enough to change the
course of an energy consumer's mentality? Did everyone change from shoelaces
to velcro since that technology has been available? How about Hybrid vehicles?
Solar panels on homes?
I truly believe that things need to be outlawed before an impact will
trasnpire. THink of the "Drive 55" or mandatory seatbelt laws.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 11 of 34:
|
Mar 3 19:01 UTC 2006 |
I think mandating something isn't very likely to change the mentality -- the
"Drive 55," while before my time, isn't in effect any more, and mandatory seat
belt laws cause the majority of people to wear the things but most of the
people I know (especially those my age) wear them because it's the law, not
because it's a good idea.
|
klg
|
|
response 12 of 34:
|
Mar 3 20:11 UTC 2006 |
(What sense does it make to spend a lot of money on energy alternatives
that would be more expensive than our current fuels? Do you buy things
that make you worse off?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 34:
|
Mar 3 20:13 UTC 2006 |
Because current fuels may make you worse off than will the alternatives?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 14 of 34:
|
Mar 3 21:18 UTC 2006 |
The energy alternatives are more expensive now because they are in
their infancy. As they are developed they will become cheaper. Richard
wants to dedicate more of our economy to such development.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 15 of 34:
|
Mar 3 23:45 UTC 2006 |
This is true but it is unlikely that the energy alternatives will ever be
cheaper than what we use now. Energy is just going to become more expensive
as it becomes harder to obtain.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 34:
|
Mar 4 00:23 UTC 2006 |
I spend a lil more on energy saving light bulbs. I'm not trying to save the
world but I'm also not going to lower myself to just ignoring alternatives.
|
keesan
|
|
response 17 of 34:
|
Mar 4 01:50 UTC 2006 |
Solar energy collection is getting cheaper all the time and is cost-effective
in areas far from power lines. It is even more effective in the tropics,
which might some day be selling solar-derived power. In the meantime there
are many solar cooker projects there, which saves fuel and pollution.
Some people are very short-sighted and don't care much about what their
current actions will accomplish in the future.
|
slynne
|
|
response 18 of 34:
|
Mar 4 03:56 UTC 2006 |
I buy the energy saving bulbs because they last longer and I think it is
a pain in the neck to change lightbulbs.
As energy costs from fossil fuels rise, we'll see an increase in the use
of alternative energy. People might not get off the grid entirely but if
power gets expensive enough folks will probably start buying solar
panels.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 19 of 34:
|
Mar 4 04:29 UTC 2006 |
Solar panels are not as effective in Michigan as they are in the
southwest. I'm really hoping that we look toward nuclear power more.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 20 of 34:
|
Mar 4 07:36 UTC 2006 |
What about the radioactive wastes?
|
nharmon
|
|
response 21 of 34:
|
Mar 4 12:40 UTC 2006 |
Sure, there is waste from Nuclear power generation, but it is
consolidated and contained. We can store it instead of spilling it out
into the air. Once pollution is in the air, there isn't much we can do
about getting rid of it. And by using fast breeder reactors, we can
recycle spent nuclear fuel. And the waste from a fast breeder reactor is
radioactive for only 50 years, not for tens of thousands of years like
with a pressurized water reactor.
|
slynne
|
|
response 22 of 34:
|
Mar 4 14:07 UTC 2006 |
resp:19 But that doesnt mean that solar isnt an option for people in
northern areas. Check out this site for a house in Maine:
http://www.solarhouse.com/
That doesnt mean that I am against nuclear energy though. I think that
it certainly is an option that should be pursued.
|
klg
|
|
response 23 of 34:
|
Mar 4 18:05 UTC 2006 |
Major considerations many of you seem to be ignoring:
1. What is the cost of being worse off through using cheaper fuels
(i.e. oil)?
2. If alternative fuels became cheaper, don't you think that those who
control oil supplies (and whose cost for producing a barrel of oil is
probably around $10 or less) wouldn't reduce their price in order to
drive the alternative fuel producers out of business? If so, then who
would be willing to finance alternative fuel production (assuming only
people who don't want to lose money will do so)??
|
bru
|
|
response 24 of 34:
|
Mar 4 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I am really interested in the idea of teh solar chimney ir solar tower energy
projects.
I learned about the project last night.
|