Do humans have any impact on Global Warming?

NeilPearson · 03-02-2007, 11:39 AM

kind of interesting...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=47553

maniclion · 03-02-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Show me a link to the following and I will do that:

Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.

Actually my bill ranges anywhere from $200-450 depending on how hot it is outside... so I would probably have to replace all my windows as a starting point.

Even if I could get my house down to the level that a $15k system would provide for my energy needs, it wouldn't really matter. That is only going to lower my bill maybe $100 a month. I don't really want to wait 15 years for something like that to pay off... especially when I believe that same $15k system will cost $8k in 2-3 years.

I'm not saying do it now, what I'm saying is start making the preparations so that when it does become more cost effective you won't have too much cost...

maniclion · 03-02-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

kind of interesting...

http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=47553

That's the kind of stuff I mentioned earlier in the thread, this kind of stuff is going to revolutionize the solar energy market....I hope...but I really can see it happening all of my research shows that it should be achievable once they can find the right combination of materials.....

Like these guys who I've been checking in on from time to time to see how they are coming along:
http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/aldrich/...file_v5_n3.pdf

I mean organic PV using semi-conductor nanocrystals to connect PV organic polymers this is awesome science, the stuff I love...

Spud · 03-02-2007, 03:48 PM

Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient.

Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.

BoneCrusher · 03-02-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Show me a link to the following and I will do that:

Low energy pumps capable of moving 5000 gallons of water an hour.
Low energy lights that can simulate the Caribbean sun in both intensity and wavelength.

Actually my bill ranges anywhere from $200-450 depending on how hot it is outside... so I would probably have to replace all my windows as a starting point.

Even if I could get my house down to the level that a $15k system would provide for my energy needs, it wouldn't really matter. That is only going to lower my bill maybe $100 a month. I don't really want to wait 15 years for something like that to pay off... especially when I believe that same $15k system will cost $8k in 2-3 years.

You have to match that investment with the increased appraisal value of your home not just what you realize in energy savings. When you do the math it may come up a little different.

maniclion · 03-02-2007, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spud

Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient.

Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

BoneCrusher · 03-02-2007, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniclion

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

I'm thinking "The Stand" by Stephen King ...

NeilPearson · 03-02-2007, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniclion

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

Biotech is more dangerous than nuclear for sure. That has always been the flipside of technology. The more advanced and powerful it is, the more dangerous it is.

Just wait and see what kind of destruction self replicating nanobots will be capable of. (google gray goo - if you care) Nothing to loose sleep over yet though. It is highly theoretical right now.

Personally, I don't believe we are in any real danger though. Although these things are possible it is quite difficult for it to go wrong. Basically, the technology would have to land into the hands of terrorists. While terrorists are resourceful, they have never been on the cutting edge of technology. By the time biotech trickles down to them, we should have early warning defenses in place to combat any attack. Just look at the response we had to SARS. I think it took less than a week to sequence the SARS DNA. AIDS on the other hand took well over a decade. As we understand the technology more, dealing with problems will become that much easier.

Nanotech will be much more precise and faster. Eventually it will be possible for our nanobots to control all matter on a molecular level. At that point, biotech issues (as well as health issues) will be obsolete.

Vieope · 03-02-2007, 09:02 PM

Spud · 03-04-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maniclion

Now that scares me, more than nuclear technology. I mean you start mutating a bacterium and you have chances of all hell breaking loose, we're talking the manifestation of the infestation prophesied in Revelation....

Bacterial mutations have been going on for ages now. How do you think enzymes and proteins are created? They mutate a bacteria to produce a certain protein and then harvest it. I think that insulin produced nowadays comes from bacteria.

Spud · 03-04-2007, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilPearson

Just wait and see what kind of destruction self replicating nanobots will be capable of. (google gray goo - if you care) Nothing to loose sleep over yet though. It is highly theoretical right now.

That is science fiction hocus pocus.

NeilPearson · 03-04-2007, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spud

That is science fiction hocus pocus.

So were airplanes at one time.

NeilPearson · 03-20-2007, 04:41 PM

The exponential curve is starting in the power industry... bring on nanotech

Nanotech will let us wear batteries and get 150 mpg - USATODAY.com

Nanotechnology Spotlight: Carbon nanotubes can double the efficiency of solar cells

Alternative Energy Suppliers Look to Nano-Manufacturing - Semiconductor International

Re-inventing nature for cheaper solar power

NeilPearson · 03-20-2007, 04:56 PM

Energy - Small Times Magazine: Coverage of nanotechnology for Energy Sources

Witchblade · 04-15-2008, 05:30 PM

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.

What effect do humans have on global warming?

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earth’s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earth’s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
- the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
- aerosols (net cooling effect)
- greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
- clouds
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18°C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
- the average global temperature is rising
- the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
- greenhouse gases warm the planet
- global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
- therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m² (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCC’s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic Rörsch believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa.
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. It’s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely.
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.

goob · 04-15-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witchblade

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.

What effect do humans have on global warming?

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earthâ€™s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earthâ€™s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
- the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
- aerosols (net cooling effect)
- greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
- clouds
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18?C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
- the average global temperature is rising
- the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
- greenhouse gases warm the planet
- global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
- therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m? (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCCâ€™s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic R?h believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa.
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. Itâ€™s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely.
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.

Glad you rushed back with the reply. The whole thread could have hinged on that.....

DOMS · 04-15-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Witchblade

BUMP.

I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch.

What effect do humans have on global warming?

1: Climate
Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earthâ€™s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earthâ€™s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable.

2: Greenhouse effect
The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on:
- the amount of ice and snow (no net effect)
- aerosols (net cooling effect)
- greenhouse gases (net warming effect)
- clouds
Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18ï¿½C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3.

3: IPCC
The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state:
- the average global temperature is rising
- the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising
- greenhouse gases warm the planet
- global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising
- therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/mï¿½ (a few degrees) heating of earth

4: Critique
The IPCCâ€™s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this.
Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun.
The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one.
Skeptic Rï¿½rsch believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa.
Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature.

5: Conclusion
The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. Itâ€™s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely.
Our current understanding of the climate is very limited.
More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun.
Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.

Well said!

It's amazing what critical thinking will do for you.

DOMS · 04-15-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by goob

Glad you rushed back with the reply. The whole thread could have hinged on that.....

Hey, the man kept his word.

clemson357 · 04-15-2008, 07:56 PM

If Al Gore says it, it must be true.

Did you know it is "irresponsible" to dissent from Al Gore's opinion? Thats because Al Gore is always right.

DOMS · 04-15-2008, 09:33 PM

.
.
.
.
.
.

busyLivin · 04-16-2008, 06:58 AM

'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes. Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.

DOMS · 04-16-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busyLivin

'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes. Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.

No joke. When you point out to Followers of the Church of Global Warming that Al Gore's C02 graph shows the opposite of what he's saying (that the mean temperature controls C02 levels and not the reverse), their brains just shut off.

View Poll Results: ?
Yes	22	75.86%
No	7	24.14%
Voters: 29. You may not vote on this poll

03-02-2007, 03:48 PM	#154
Spud Registered User Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Hart House! Posts: 752	Personally, I think biotechnology will do more for fuel cells than nanotechnology. Efficiency in conversion has and will be the biggest concern. There is no way to produce hydrogen and use it in fuel cells without a net loss in energy. There must be a way to produce hydrogen that is cheap and efficient. Bacteria, already, are harvested to produce biogas such as methane. If research and genetic manipulation can produce a strain of bacteria such that it is able to take a waste product and expulse hydrogen as a waste product, the hydrogen could be harvested and used.
	No Milk, no. Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer. Please read and comment on my journal

03-02-2007, 09:02 PM	#159
Vieope Monochromatic Bunny Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: drinking coffee.. Posts: 14,863 Photos: 10
	FURtherness

04-15-2008, 05:30 PM	#165
Witchblade Succinct Elite Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Holland Posts: 4,443 Photos: 2	BUMP. I promised DOMS I'd post this. It's a very brief summary of a 56 page paper. We got a 9/10 for this, but the summary really doesn't do it any justice. Still, the paper is written in Dutch. What effect do humans have on global warming? 1: Climate Climate is a term meteorologists use to describe the average weather over an interval, usually 30 years. Our earth’s climate can be considered as a complex system in which ice, land, oceans, the atmosphere and the biosphere interact. Lots of interacting variables make our earth’s climate a naturally chaotic system. The sun is arguably the most dominant variable. 2: Greenhouse effect The temperature on earth is determined by the balance of incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation. This equilibrium depends on: - the amount of ice and snow (no net effect) - aerosols (net cooling effect) - greenhouse gases (net warming effect) - clouds Greenhouse gases absorb outgoing infrared radiation and are therefore comparable to a greenhouse that traps the heat inside. Without the greenhouse effect the average global temperature would be -18°C. The most important greenhouse gases are H2O, CO2, NH4 and O3. 3: IPCC The IPCC is the leading organization responsible for the claim humans are responsible for (a part of) the warming of our planet. They state: - the average global temperature is rising - the average global concentration of greenhouse gases is rising - greenhouse gases warm the planet - global yearly anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are rising - therefore, man is the cause of a 1.6W/m² (a few degrees) heating of earth 4: Critique The IPCC’s methods are principally inaccurate and their claims are based on inaccurate chances. The hockey stick curve is a prime example of this. Climate models are still unreliable, especially when calculating the effects of temperature, clouds and the sun. The IPCC is a political organization, not a scientific one. Skeptic Rörsch believes the anthropogenic effect on temperature is negligible. It is in fact temperature that leads the concentration of greenhouse gases, not vice versa. Skeptic Svensmark thinks the sun and cosmic radiation are dominant factors in affecting temperature. 5: Conclusion The hypothesis of the IPCC that global warming is man-made has not been proven. It’s a media hyped doom scenario. Alternative theories are equally or more likely. Our current understanding of the climate is very limited. More research should be done, especially in the fields of clouds and the sun. Politicians should still be concerned about our environment and the climate, even though global warming is not man-made. Limiting the emissions of greenhouse gases is beneficial for our environment. The best way to achieve this when taking the economy into consideration is the usage of nuclear energy.
	My Linkdump [LSFW] IM Official FAQ [WORK IN PROGRESS]

04-15-2008, 07:56 PM	#169
clemson357 __________ Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,553 Photos: 1	If Al Gore says it, it must be true. Did you know it is "irresponsible" to dissent from Al Gore's opinion? Thats because Al Gore is always right.
	________________________

03-02-2007, 11:39 AM	#151
NeilPearson Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 2,330	kind of interesting... http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com...story?id=47553

03-20-2007, 04:41 PM	#163
NeilPearson Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 2,330	The exponential curve is starting in the power industry... bring on nanotech Nanotech will let us wear batteries and get 150 mpg - USATODAY.com Nanotechnology Spotlight: Carbon nanotubes can double the efficiency of solar cells Alternative Energy Suppliers Look to Nano-Manufacturing - Semiconductor International Re-inventing nature for cheaper solar power

03-20-2007, 04:56 PM	#164
NeilPearson Registered User Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 2,330	Energy - Small Times Magazine: Coverage of nanotechnology for Energy Sources

04-16-2008, 06:58 AM	#171
busyLivin Senior Member Elite Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: USSA Posts: 3,710	'Global Warming' is the biggest scam of our lifetimes. Al Gore is an absolute joke who latched onto this farce while grasping for relevance.
	class Liberalism { public void main(){ while (1 != 2) { Bitch(); Moan(); BlameBush(); }} }

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode