Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Patricia Sheley on November 02, 2012, 12:50:08 pm
-
The 32-mL Man Original artwork by Bryan Christie, with organ rendering by Takram
PopSci.com, by Amber Williams – In June, NYU bioethics and philosophy professor S. Matthew Liao and colleagues proposed a new way to deal with climate change: reengineer humans to make us less of a burden on the planet. Their paper proposed that doctors could use in-vitro fertilization to select for embryos with genes for short stature, making future generations physically smaller and thus less carbon-intensive. Drugs could induce meat allergies, reducing consumption of carbon-intensive beef. These approaches, Liao and his co-authors say, could encourage people to make the eco-friendly choices many seem unable to make on their own.
The ideas are, as the authors admit, “preposterous”—they are provocative thought exercises rather than serious proposals. But they raise an interesting question: Can humans engineer themselves to adapt to a warming world? After all, the World Health Organization estimates that climate change has already caused more than 140,000 deaths per year since 2004 through malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and other causes. And a 2010 report by the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health warned that as the planet warms, heat-related deaths, respiratory problems from allergens and smog, and infectious diseases will become increasingly common.
-
... as the planet warms, heat-related deaths, respiratory problems from allergens and smog, and infectious diseases will become increasingly common.
Or, in other words, Mother Nature at work, self-correcting the problem.
-
Or, in other words, Mother Nature at work, self-correcting the problem.
Why, from the perspective of "Mother Nature", would a warmer planet be a problem? The planet has been warmer before - quite a lot warmer.
-
Why, from the perspective of "Mother Nature", would a warmer planet be a problem?...
Perhaps not for her, but warming and overpopulation is, for humans. In which case, Mother Nature is just a metaphor for self-correcting systems.
-
I know I'm making too big of a deal about a casual comment - but mostly because I'm trying to understand what you meant.
I don't really see that there's a correct for the biosphere to self-correct towards.
-
... I don't really see that there's a correct for the biosphere to self-correct towards.
Correct = sustainable
-
The ideas are, as the authors admit, “preposterous”—they are provocative thought exercises rather than serious proposals. But they raise an interesting question: Can humans engineer themselves to adapt to a warming world? After all, the World Health Organization estimates that climate change has already caused more than 140,000 deaths per year since 2004 through malnutrition, malaria, diarrhea, and other causes. And a 2010 report by the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Climate Change and Health warned that as the planet warms, heat-related deaths, respiratory problems from allergens and smog, and infectious diseases will become increasingly common.
It is preposterous indeed. A joke presumably. Humans have already adapted themselves to a very wide range of climates, from deserts, to the hot and humid tropics, to the ice-cold Arctic regions where the Eskimos live; and such adaption has taken place without the benefits of modern technology.
We don't need to change our biology to adapt to average global temperature rises of a fraction of a degree per decade.
Anthropogenic Climate Change is merely a modern religion, and like all religions it's main purpose is to change and control human behaviour. One can't expect people to do the right and sensible thing merely because it's right and sensible. One has to put the fear of God into them, to get them to comply, or, if such people are not religious in the traditional sense, the fear of a future climate that has changed for the worse due to our thoughtless, ever-increasing consumption of CO2-emitting energy.
One can argue incessantly about the true extent of the effects of human CO2 emissions on the climate, because such effects, whatever they may be, cannot be verified with standard scientific procedures of falsification. They rely upon computer models.
However, it's more difficult to argue against the lack of sustainability of our current life-style with its continual emphasis on economic growth, increasing prosperity for all, increasing employment, and increasing consumption of cheap but non-renewable energy.
Whilst I think the scientific case for Anthropogenic Climate Change is very dodgy, unproven and unconvincing, the likelihood that we will run out of coal, oil and gas before the populations of China, India and Africa reach the standard of living currently enjoyed in America, Europe and Japan, is very real, unless we develop alternative renewable energy strategies.
I think it's better to be prepared for such a future with advanced, efficient, renewable technology, than wait until the crunch comes with dramatically rising coal and oil prices which would send the entire global economy into a massive recession unlike anything in recorded history.
-
...average global temperature rises of a fraction of a degree per decade.
Of course, we don't experience average global temperature - we experience the more extreme range of temperatures that get mushed down into the average.
I think it's better to be prepared for such a future with advanced, efficient, renewable technology...
Has that technology been invented?
-
I think it's better to be prepared for such a future with advanced, efficient, renewable technology, than wait until the crunch comes with dramatically rising coal and oil prices which would send the entire global economy into a massive recession unlike anything in recorded history.
As usual, Ray, it'll be the dramatically rising coal and oil prices that will lead to advanced, efficient, renewable technology, not anything the government does. It's abundantly clear the answer doesn't lie in windmills or solar panels. The earth hasn't enough surface for that. The solution will be something different, brought on by the free market. I haven't a clue what it'll be, but I always come back to the story I once read about the distant future, written in the fifties, where a guy was flying around in his flying car and needed to make a phone call, so he landed next to a phone booth. If we were depending on the government for communications we'd still be using phone booths.
-
As usual, Ray, it'll be the dramatically rising coal and oil prices that will lead to advanced, efficient, renewable technology, not anything the government does. It's abundantly clear the answer doesn't lie in windmills or solar panels. The earth hasn't enough surface for that. The solution will be something different, brought on by the free market. I haven't a clue what it'll be, but I always come back to the story I once read about the distant future, written in the fifties, where a guy was flying around in his flying car and needed to make a phone call, so he landed next to a phone booth. If we were depending on the government for communications we'd still be using phone booths.
Hey! Don't give the government any more screwy ideas especially regarding cars. If the government can demand air bags on every auto surface it can demand sound-dampening curtains to screen out street noise from cell phone conversations while driving.
-
Regardless of whether or not we are able to survive global warming or the loss of traditional fuels, give mankind some time. We'll eventually find a way to erase ourselves from the planet. God am I a pessimist.......
-
As usual, Ray, it'll be the dramatically rising coal and oil prices that will lead to advanced, efficient, renewable technology, not anything the government does. It's abundantly clear the answer doesn't lie in windmills or solar panels. The earth hasn't enough surface for that. The solution will be something different, brought on by the free market. I haven't a clue what it'll be, but I always come back to the story I once read about the distant future, written in the fifties, where a guy was flying around in his flying car and needed to make a phone call, so he landed next to a phone booth. If we were depending on the government for communications we'd still be using phone booths.
The problem is, Russ, the average prosperity of everyone on the planet ultimately depends on the cost of energy. There's no incentive for anyone to invent alternative energy sources which are significantly more expensive than traditional oil and coal. Energy is not a sexy commodity like a designer shirt or a digital camera which people will buy for reasons of status.
The question as I see it, is this. Is it better to wait until the natural market processes of 'supply and demand' cause rising prices of oil, coal and gas to become so exhorbitantly expensive that existing sources of alternative energy, such as solar, become economically viable, or is it better to use our current industrial power, fueled by relatively cheap energy, to research and develop more efficient methods of producing alternative, renewable energy?
I tend to favour the latter, and I don't agree that the answer does not lie with solar panels of some description. The surface area already exists. Consider all the house roofs, shed roofs and factory roofs around the world, in addition to large areas of desert in many countries that are not currently being used for any purpose. However, the current generation of glass-enclosed, silicon-based solar voltaic panels, are heavy, cumbersome and expensive.
Third generation photovoltaic cell research is focussed more on paint-like applications that could more easily, and more affordably, cover an entire roof. Such photovoltaic cell material could even be applied to clothing to provide sufficient electricity to power your mobile phone. Check out the following Wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_generation_photovoltaic_cell
-
Ray, This is my fourth day on the road from Colorado to Florida, with a side-trip to North Carolina. Tonight we're in Asheville, NC. One thing I've noticed is that each evening the sun goes down. Also, on the first day out I drove through miles of Kansas windmills standing idle because the wind was calm.
You pretty much summed up the problem in your first sentence. There's no real incentive to invent the energy equivalent of the cell phone until prices get high enough to make the effort profitable. Let's face it, the reason we're now doing fracking, horizontal drilling, and extraction of usable oil from shale is that the price of oil got high enough to make that kind of experimentation and production worthwhile.
If you really believe government research -- government anything -- can be more effective than private efforts by people trying to make a buck then you need to go down to your local post office and look around.
Believe me, I look forward to the day I can walk around covered with paint so I can power my cell phone. People always think of the future in terms of the present. There's no other way you can do it. If we ever find a reasonable substitute for fossil fuels you can be sure it's going to be something nobody's thought of today.
-
... not anything the government does.... If we were depending on the government...
Russ, you sound so, how shall I put it, hmmm... let's just say: senatorial.
Roman Senate, to be more precise. Or, to be even more precise, like the Roman Senator known as Cato the Elder, a.k.a. Marcus Porcius Cato. He was known to insert, during his speeches in Senate, regardless of topic, his famous motto: "Carthage Must be Destroyed" (a city). No matter what he was talking about, he would find a way to insert those words.
Sounds you have the same issue with government, like Cato with Carthage. No matter what we talk about in these forums, global warming or global obesity, you somehow turn it anti-government ;)
-
One thing I've noticed is that each evening the sun goes down. Also, on the first day out I drove through miles of Kansas windmills standing idle because the wind was calm.
Russ,
Perhaps you haven't heard of HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current). http://www.siemens.com.au/files/PTF/energy/EnergyCasestudy_advancedTandD.pdf
Essentially, this is a very low-loss method of transmitting electricity over huge distances. The fact that the sun is not shining, nor the wind blowing in your part of the country, is not a problem, as long as the sun is shining or the wind blowing somewhere within a radius of a few thousand kilometres.
Of course, a network of HVDC transmission lines throughout a large country such as Australia, or America, would be an expensive project, but something to consider for the future.
Let's face it, the reason we're now doing fracking, horizontal drilling, and extraction of usable oil from shale is that the price of oil got high enough to make that kind of experimentation and production worthwhile.
If you really believe government research -- government anything -- can be more effective than private efforts by people trying to make a buck then you need to go down to your local post office and look around.
I understand your cynicism about the efficiency of Government-controlled projects and initiatives. We've had a few recent debacles in Australia when a Labour government started handing out surpluses accummulated by the previous Liberal/Conservative government, in order to avoid slipping into a recession during the GFC. It worked, to the extent that we narrowly missed any period of negative growth, but not without a great waste of resources.
One such project was to subsidise the insulation of peoples' roofs, which would reduce the energy consumption of air-conditioners during the hot or cold seasons. The concept was fine, especially considering that the Government had plans to introduce a carbon tax later on, which would increase electricity bills.
The problem was in the implementation. The fibre-batt, glass-wool insulation industry was not geared up to handle the sudden influx of orders for roof insulation. There was not only a shortage of material but a shortage of experienced workers who were able to do a good job. Corners were cut, incompetence prevailed, and a few houses burned down due to the poorly installed insulation material interfering with electrical circuits in the loft under the roof.
I'm not suggesting that the Government throw money at the problem of devising efficient, alternative, renewable energy sources. That would be wasteful. Rather, I'm suggesting that governments change their taxation regime in such a way that it encourages private industry to develop in certain desirable directions.
Energy is a very taxable commodity because it's the most essential commodity we have in our civilization. Without energy, nothing moves, nothing happens. Without energy, we all either die or go back to a lifestyle of the hunter-gatherer.
In our civilization, one can't even take a walk down the street without indirectly consuming a few milligrams, or even a few grams of oil, coal or gas which would have been used in the farming, delivery, storage and cooking of the food one ate for breakfast, which gave one the energy, in the form of calories, to walk down the street.
Now my own personal, Nobel prize-winning idea on how best to tackle the problem, is to shift the tax burden away from personal income tax and onto all energy produced from non-renewable sources, such as coal, oil and gas.
The reason why current emission trading schemes and the so-called 'carbon tax' we have in Australia, are unlikely to be effective is because they are so inefficient. They require new bureaucracies to administer and monitor the schemes which are open to abuse and profiteering, and they are also directed at the wrong culprit. Carbon has been demonised, in true religious fashion, when anyone who knows anything about biology understands that carbon is essential for all life. For most plants, the more CO2 the better, up to levels several time the current atmospheric levels.
In order to solve a problem, one first has to identify and understand the true nature of the problem. There's certainly a lot of pollution in the world; smog, sulphur dioxide and particulate carbon emissions from old-fashioned coal-fired power stations without adequate emission controls, many of which are in China; fumes from diesel-operated engines, toxic chemicals poured into rivers, and tonnes of plastic and other rubbish floating in our oceans. These issues should be addressed, but plain old CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a clean and odourless gas which is essential for all life.
In fact, the current world food production, which is truly massive and sufficient to feed a world population at least double the current number of 7 billion, if we didn't waste such a large portion of our food production, has not been achieved entirely through modern farming practices and modern technology. Increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 have undoubtedly helped.
The real problem, as Sobodan has suggested, is sustainability. The fact that gasoline is so cheap in America doesn't help. It makes it more difficult for the American automobile industry to develop an affordable and viable electric car.
What I propose is a tax on all energy from non-renewable sources, offset by a reduction in income tax and company tax, and VAT or GST. A government needs to raise money for the services it provides. Let that money be raised primarily from a non-renewable energy tax.
However, it's only reasonable that such taxes should not apply to energy that has been used to manufacture goods for export, otherwise the tax would present a competitive disadvantage. Also, the government benefits which are paid to low-income earners would need to be increased, as a result of increased fuel bills.
All enterprising companies which are able to produce energy from renewable sources, such as hydroelectricity, solar electricity, tidal power, wind, and all manufacturers of electric cars and batteries, would of course be given a tax break.
Problem solved. I shall donate all funds from my Nobel prize to renewable-energy research. ;D
-
Of course, we don't experience average global temperature - we experience the more extreme range of temperatures that get mushed down into the average.
Isaac,
I can only speak for myself, but whatever the temperature is, average, hotter or colder, I experience it, just as I experience strong winds when they occur, slight breezes and calm days.
However, I think what you are implying here is that such small increases in average global temperatures translate into more frequent and more severe storms, according to the computer models.
That may be the case, but the evidence is not clear and cannot be verified because we don't have sufficiently detailed and accurate records of extreme weather events in the distant past when CO2 levels were lower. But what is clear is the readiness of many people to accept any explanation for a disaster that fits their preconceived ideas, conditioned by the current popular culture.
A couple of thousand years ago, a storm of the severity of Sandy would have been attributed to the anger of the Gods. Now it's attributed, by many, to anthropogenic climate change, and people like Al Gore will claim that Sandy is just a taste of things to come.
What is not known is that in the year 1453, there was a much more severe storm than Sandy which hit a similar stretch of coast on the American continent. But there were no brick houses and automobiles to be tossed around.
Has that technology been invented?
As you must know, it's a work in progress.
-
However, I think what you are implying here is that such small increases in average global temperatures translate into more frequent and more severe storms, according to the computer models.
No, my comment was simply a reminder that the average is a statistical artifact -- it doesn't tell us about the range of temperatures we actually experience.
As you must know, it's a work in progress.
As far as I know, you might think that "advanced, efficient, renewable technology" already has been invented -- I asked for clarification.
-
For most plants, the more CO2 the better, up to levels several time the current atmospheric levels.
Plants need CO2 to live. So is more of it a good thing? (http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/plants_need_co2_to_live_so_isnt_more_of_it_a_good_thing)
...but plain old CO2 is not a pollutant. It's a clean and odourless gas which is essential for all life.
What is the greenhouse effect? (http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/what_is_the_greenhouse_effect)
-
Russ, you sound so, how shall I put it, hmmm... let's just say: senatorial.
Roman Senate, to be more precise. Or, to be even more precise, like the Roman Senator known as Cato the Elder, a.k.a. Marcus Porcius Cato. He was known to insert, during his speeches in Senate, regardless of topic, his famous motto: "Carthage Must be Destroyed" (a city). No matter what he was talking about, he would find a way to insert those words.
Sounds you have the same issue with government, like Cato with Carthage. No matter what we talk about in these forums, global warming or global obesity, you somehow turn it anti-government ;)
I'm certainly anti the kind of government we've brought upon ourselves, Slobodan. Unfortunately we need government. Some agency has to decide which side of the road we'll drive on. But I understand what our founding fathers understood: a minimal amount of government is necessary, but any amount of government is dangerous. If you read the Constitution carefully you can see that understanding, especially the second part, built into the whole thing. And looking at what's gone down the past 20 years I keep hearing Alexander Tytler whispering in my ear: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury." That's been made clear more than once. The remaining question is whether or not a republic like ours is enough different from a democracy that we can survive. At the moment the whole thing hangs in the balance. Tomorrow will tell us a lot about how much to bet on the future.
-
... If you really believe government research -- government anything -- can be more effective than private efforts by people trying to make a buck...
I always thought government put a man on the moon, no? Brought us the Internet, too, no?
-
I always thought government put a man on the moon, no? Brought us the Internet, too, no?
Yes, Slobodan, government put a man on the moon at taxpayer expense. Have any idea what didn't happen -- what new thing similar to, say, the cell phone didn't get invented because of the capital taken away from the private sector -- because the government forced taxpayers to put a man on the moon? Of course you haven't. Nobody will ever know.
And the idea that the government invented the internet is absurd. Alore did that. Didn't you hear him say so? I was around through the whole cycle of invention for the internet. I was at NORAD headquarters, working on a survivable means of status reporting in the event of a nuclear attack about the time ARAPANET was put in place. ARAPANET emphatically was NOT the internet. The internet used the framework initially set up by ARAPANET, but Licklider's ideas working through private enterprise at DEC and Xerox created the GUI and what we now know as the internet. The eggheads and their military bosses were dead set against letting the ARAPANET system be used by civilians.
-
Yes, Slobodan, government put a man on the moon at taxpayer expense. Have any idea what didn't happen -- what new thing similar to, say, the cell phone didn't get invented because of the capital taken away from the private sector -- because the government forced taxpayers to put a man on the moon? Of course you haven't. Nobody will ever know.
Nothing. Nothing wasn't invented because of the distributed tax burdon associated with the moon landing.
-
Have any idea what didn't happen... Nobody will ever know.
That's true, there are always opportunity costs -- and there would also have been opportunity costs "because the government [had not] forced taxpayers to put a man on the moon".
the idea the government invented the internet is absurd.
What would even count as "the government invented" or "the corporation invented" -- rather than individuals invented?
ARAPANET emphatically was NOT the internet.
Indeed, ARPANET was a network of computers (http://www.sri.com/newsroom/press-releases/computer-history-museum-sri-international-and-bbn-celebrate-40th-anniversary), not a network of computer networks.
-
... And the idea that the government invented the internet is absurd...
From Wikipedia:
"... The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks..."
No, I do not believe everything on Wikipedia, but the above sounds reasonable to me, as I never said it was only government.
What is indeed absurd, is your way of looking at things (and I am saying this with all due respect): even when government unquestionably accomplishes something, you say it is bad because somebody, somewhere might have used that money to accomplish something else. I can't argue with that type of speculative reasoning.
-
No, my comment was simply a reminder that the average is a statistical artifact -- it doesn't tell us about the range of temperatures we actually experience.
As far as I know, you might think that "advanced, efficient, renewable technology" already has been invented -- I asked for clarification.
Of course it doesn't. We should all know what an 'average' means. However, whatever that mathematically calculated average temperature may be, there will be many locations on the planet where, at certain times of the day, that average temperature is experienced.
What I find disturbing is the presentation as fact, that the idea or hypothesis that such slight increases in average temperatures, possibly due in part to the effects of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, will lead to more frequent and more severe storms, floods and droughts.
The evidence for this, once again, seems to exist largely in the domain of computer models. The meteorological evidence, as far back as records go, and other records that go back further, do not support it.
As you've probably divined, I'm an AGW skeptic, but not a denier. I think we are barking up the wrong tree if we think we can spend trillions of dollars trying to use CO2 levels as a control knob to make the climate benign. We should instead be spending that money on sensible urban planning that can withstand the sorts of storms and floods that we know from history occur, from time to time, in certain areas.
Unfortunately, we're not good at learning from History. It can take only 2 or 3 generations for people to forget that past events of extreme weather patterns ever occurred. Phrases such as, 'Worst flood in living memory' then have a greater emotional impact. It must be really bad if it's the worst in living memory. What is often not appreciated is that maybe it's not even nearly the worst flood which includes non-living memory. One's great grandfather, or great, great grandfather, probably experienced a worse storm or flood.
If you go back far enough in time you will find reports of floods that appeared to cover the entire known world at the time. I'm thinking of Noah and his ark. ;D
As far as I know, you might think that "advanced, efficient, renewable technology" already has been invented -- I asked for clarification.
In a sense it has, but it's still a work in progress. Hydro-electricity can be produced very cheaply, when the conditions are right. But the construction of large dams often creates environmental and socal problems.
Some facts on the cost of clean hydroelectricity:
"Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity. The best fossil fuel plants are only about 50% efficient. In the US , hydropower is produced for an average of 0.7 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh). This is about one-third the cost of using fossil fuel or nuclear and one-sixth the cost of using natural gas," as long as the costs for removing the dam and the silt it traps are not included.
-
From Wikipedia:
"... The origins of the Internet reach back to research of the 1960s, commissioned by the United States government in collaboration with private commercial interests to build robust, fault-tolerant, and distributed computer networks. The funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s, as well as private funding for other commercial backbones, led to worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies, and the merger of many networks..."
No, I do not believe everything on Wikipedia, but the above sounds reasonable to me, as I never said it was only government.
Yes, Slobodan, but what the government was working on wasn't the internet. When ARAPANET started, landline communications depended on 100 baud teletypes and telephones. The idea was to create what the Wikipedia article calls "fault tolerant" computer networks, meaning storing and switching capabilities that could bypass nodes that were knocked out by an attack. I know, because that's exactly what I was working on at NORAD Hq. I spent a lot of time on a card punch, a card to tape converter, and a tape to card converter, because that was the state of the art at the time. The stuff that led to the internet came along later.
What is indeed absurd, is your way of looking at things (and I am saying this with all due respect): even when government unquestionably accomplishes something, you say it is bad because somebody, somewhere might have used that money to accomplish something else. I can't argue with that type of speculative reasoning.
There's nothing speculative about that reasoning, Slobodan. All I can suggest is that you take some economics courses from somebody who's not a dedicated Keynesian. Considering the state of education at the moment it may be very hard to find such a course, but it would be worth your while. For starters you might try Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt, which makes very clear why the reasoning you're calling speculative is in no sense speculative.
-
... All I can suggest is that you take some economics courses from somebody who's not a dedicated Keynesian. Considering the state of education at the moment it may be very hard to find such a course, but it would be worth your while.
And I thought all this time I got my degree from a school known historically for rejecting Keynesianism (the University of Chicago's school of economics).
However, I'd like to believe the school is also known for being too smart to throw out the baby together with the bath water. ;)
For starters you might try Economics in One Lesson...
How could I possibly argue with such a deep insight? ;)
EDIT: Coincidentally, did you learn to fly in one lesson too? ;)
-
I think we are barking up the wrong tree if we think we can spend trillions of dollars trying to use CO2 levels as a control knob to make the climate benign. We should instead be spending that money on sensible urban planning that can withstand the sorts of storms and floods that we know from history occur, from time to time, in certain areas.
This urban planning is necessary (it's my day job btw), but it may concern essentially richer areas, where there is much more societal demand and financial means for security relative to natural events. Reducing CO2 levels would benefit more widely (but locally less efficiently - one would still need urban planning and other measures).
That sums for me one of the big problems of global warming : consequences are much more likely in poor, tropical or equatorial areas than in richer temperates ones, leading to a lack of incentive for change in in more powerful, richer countries.
Unfortunately, we're not good at learning from History. It can take only 2 or 3 generations for people to forget that past events of extreme weather patterns ever occurred. Phrases such as, 'Worst flood in living memory' then have a greater emotional impact. It must be really bad if it's the worst in living memory. What is often not appreciated is that maybe it's not even nearly the worst flood which includes non-living memory. One's great grandfather, or great, great grandfather, probably experienced a worse storm or flood.
Yes indeed - and even more, you don't take into account conflict of interests that kept family records under secret to keep constructibility rights (real estate interests more exactly) of that family intact, a very common phenomenon here.
The problem is, more basically, that our mind is not well wired to deal with such low-probability / high intensity risks, I'd say we lack the long term vision for that.
If you go back far enough in time you will find reports of floods that appeared to cover the entire known world at the time. I'm thinking of Noah and his ark. ;D
That's the problem with these kinds of old historic data : they lack context, precision and reliability. ;)
Here in the Alps, we very seldom can use data before XIXth century (and feel already lucky if we have some reliable data of that time).
Hydro-electricity can be produced very cheaply, when the conditions are right. But the construction of large dams often creates environmental and socal problems.
Yes indeed once more. It's hard to conceive dealing with global warming without at least evoking nuclear energy.
-
...but what the government was working on wasn't the internet. ... The idea was to create ... "fault tolerant" computer networks... The stuff that led to the internet came along later.
Yes, you're correct, the US government wasn't working on the commercial Internet, back in the '60s.
You explain the military motivation behind store and forward (packet switched) communication networks, but then don't acknowledge that the commercial Internet still operates across packet switched networks.
Yes, more stuff that led to the commercial Internet came along later at ARPA -- for example TCP/IP, the basic networking protocols used across the commercial Internet were developed in the '70s for ARPA.
"The Internet that many of us take for granted today arose from
a series of government-funded computer networking efforts, not
the least of which was NSFNET (http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/cyber/internet.jsp)."
-
"The Internet that many of us take for granted today arose from
a series of government-funded computer networking efforts, not
the least of which was NSFNET (http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/cyber/internet.jsp)."
http://www.amazon.com/Where-Wizards-Stay-Up-Late/dp/0684832674
Great book on the story.
-
Scroll down page and enjoy the photo titled "A solar power plant in Morocco uses mirrors to concentrate rays from the sun" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20357167)
-
As usual, Ray, it'll be the dramatically rising coal and oil prices that will lead to advanced, efficient, renewable technology, not anything the government does. It's abundantly clear the answer doesn't lie in windmills or solar panels. The earth hasn't enough surface for that. The solution will be something different, brought on by the free market. I haven't a clue what it'll be, but I always come back to the story I once read about the distant future, written in the fifties, where a guy was flying around in his flying car and needed to make a phone call, so he landed next to a phone booth. If we were depending on the government for communications we'd still be using phone booths.
I think both above statements are wrong.
the government can tax fossil fuels into oblivion if they so choose. The moment a majority subset of the population will be convinced fossil fuels are bad, they'll vote in that government.
Second statement is wrong and you can see that from first principles. All the energy we use here (bar nuclear and geothermal) is solar energy. There simply is no other source we have access to. I agree with you if you are going to say, hang on a second, fossil fuels are solar energy integrated over time, yes that is true. But the surface of the planet is enough to capture enough solar power to put all other sources out of business (yearly energy received from the sun is apparently 10E24 Joules, we use - at 2008 levels - 0.4*10E21 Joules per year). The real problem is most of that power would be produced in Australia, parts of Africa and South america, so you need rather long cables and some nifty distribution systems. Plus, you can't take it on board your car that easily. Yet.
All that aside, and pathologic paranoia notwithstanding, nuclear energy is the future and reserve levels are best (Wikipedia says about twice as much energy estimated to exist in reserves of radioactive material as everything fossil put together, including methane clathrates whenever they become a viable alternative to harvest). BAseload power no longer a problem then. And what about cars/mobile devices that need energy? Well, that has been done already. Think about it. If you proposed today to build a mechanical device that uses controlled explosion of a highly flammable liquid inside to produce work you'd be locked up in the nuthouse. Thankfully, the internal combustion engine was created in times of no PC, no nanny state, no OH&S paranoia. Once we find a way to circumvent this plague, we'll have cars powered by little nuclear reactors like the Curiosity rover. Imagine that. A car with basically service free engine for life (and a long life at that, about 50 years if the right isotope is used). Mechanics are going to hate it, car manufacturers are going to hate it (what? sell each person one car in 50 years?!!), I know, but you'll love it.
So you see, there are alternatives. But as long as people think like our friend quoted above, they'll vote governments that will preserve the status quo, will deny anthropic impact on environment so they don't have to tax the polluters (normally generous contributors to political campaigns and such) to levels that would put all energy sources on even footing in competing for our money. That is why fossil fuels are competitive. True, we also have about 200 years' worth of industrial infrastructure geared to make use of fossil fuels.
So you see, my friend, a lot of what happens is due to governments' intervention or lack thereof. Just briefly, one example is nuclear power plants working the 230Th cycle. This has been known a long time ago, they just didn't get anywhere because you don't get the weapons' grade spent radioactive material (they actually consume weapon grade material something which current designs based on Uranium can't do) out of them. Needless to say which government made the decision to pursue the U cycle and of course everybody else felt the need to have their own. Be careful when you vote and be more generous. By contrast with US governments, others have decided to do what is best for the global future rather than what is best right now for the minority that got them there. Perhaps some people need a paradigm shift.
-
Whenever talk comes round to economics it is always Smith and Keynes who are dragged into the arena as if they are the north and south, dark and light of economic theory with no space for any alternative, you are either one or the other. Funny thing is though that there was a fellow called Friedrich List who although German in origin did much of his work in America - Friedrich_List (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List). The German economy as well as those of many Asian countries owe more to his thinking than either of our two heroes mentioned above and it really doesn't seem to be doing them any harm. Perhaps we should expand our thinking.
-
Can I stop worring about Acid Rain and Cloroflorcarbons now?
-
Can I stop worring about Acid Rain and Cloroflorcarbons now?
No, I think you should carry on. Worrying about a problem is an awfully good way of solving it, as my wife occasionally reminds me.
Jeremy
-
Can I stop worrying about Acid Rain and Cloroflorcarbons now?
I wonder what prompted that question?
Acid Rain (http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/effects/index.html) - No.
Cloroflorcarbons (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/strathome.html) - Somewhat.
-
I think both above statements are wrong.
the government can tax fossil fuels into oblivion if they so choose. The moment a majority subset of the population will be convinced fossil fuels are bad, they'll vote in that government.
And at that moment all commerce will stop, people in the cities will starve, and people will be unable to watch their favorite TV programs. There's no way a politician would be dumb enough to do this, even though when you look at politicians you'd find that hard to believe.
Second statement is wrong and you can see that from first principles. All the energy we use here (bar nuclear and geothermal) is solar energy. There simply is no other source we have access to. I agree with you if you are going to say, hang on a second, fossil fuels are solar energy integrated over time, yes that is true. But the surface of the planet is enough to capture enough solar power to put all other sources out of business (yearly energy received from the sun is apparently 10E24 Joules, we use - at 2008 levels - 0.4*10E21 Joules per year). The real problem is most of that power would be produced in Australia, parts of Africa and South america, so you need rather long cables and some nifty distribution systems. Plus, you can't take it on board your car that easily. Yet.
All true, and all irrelevant. Data on yearly energy from the sun is interesting but meaningless unless you have an effective way to trap it. Neither windmills nor solar panels fill the bill, and putting a windmill on your car seems, at best, unlikely to be effective. Heat in the bowels of the earth probably could keep us all warm until the sun novas, but nobody's figured out how to tap that source either. Presumably, tapping it would require a much smaller surface footprint than would windmills or solar panels. All we need is a tap that doesn't dissolve instantly when installed.
All that aside, and pathologic paranoia notwithstanding, nuclear energy is the future and reserve levels are best (Wikipedia says about twice as much energy estimated to exist in reserves of radioactive material as everything fossil put together, including methane clathrates whenever they become a viable alternative to harvest). BAseload power no longer a problem then. And what about cars/mobile devices that need energy? Well, that has been done already. Think about it. If you proposed today to build a mechanical device that uses controlled explosion of a highly flammable liquid inside to produce work you'd be locked up in the nuthouse. Thankfully, the internal combustion engine was created in times of no PC, no nanny state, no OH&S paranoia. Once we find a way to circumvent this plague, we'll have cars powered by little nuclear reactors like the Curiosity rover. Imagine that. A car with basically service free engine for life (and a long life at that, about 50 years if the right isotope is used). Mechanics are going to hate it, car manufacturers are going to hate it (what? sell each person one car in 50 years?!!), I know, but you'll love it.
On this we agree completely.
So you see, there are alternatives. But as long as people think like our friend quoted above, they'll vote governments that will preserve the status quo, will deny anthropic impact on environment so they don't have to tax the polluters (normally generous contributors to political campaigns and such) to levels that would put all energy sources on even footing in competing for our money. That is why fossil fuels are competitive. True, we also have about 200 years' worth of industrial infrastructure geared to make use of fossil fuels.
So you see, my friend, a lot of what happens is due to governments' intervention or lack thereof. Just briefly, one example is nuclear power plants working the 230Th cycle. This has been known a long time ago, they just didn't get anywhere because you don't get the weapons' grade spent radioactive material (they actually consume weapon grade material something which current designs based on Uranium can't do) out of them. Needless to say which government made the decision to pursue the U cycle and of course everybody else felt the need to have their own. Be careful when you vote and be more generous. By contrast with US governments, others have decided to do what is best for the global future rather than what is best right now for the minority that got them there. Perhaps some people need a paradigm shift.
But on this we don't. Most of what DOESN'T happen is due to government intervention, my friend, and neither Europe nor California has a clue "what is best for the global future." Yes, some people need a paradigm shift, and considering where we are at the moment it's clear they'll soon get it, good and hard.
-
Heat in the bowels of the earth probably could keep us all warm until the sun novas, but nobody's figured out how to tap that source either.
Nesjavellir Geothermal Plant (http://www.or.is/English/Projects/NesjavellirGeothermalPlant/)
Icelandic Deep Drilling Project (http://www.or.is/English/Projects/IDDP/)
-
Right, Isaac, I know about these. But nobody's figured out how to make these techniques produce enough energy at a reasonable cost to do the job. But I'm sure, once the prices of our traditional fossil energy sources get high enough, that private enterprise will find an alternative, just as private enterprise has increased oil and gas production in the U.S. beyond all recent imagination, not only with no help from the government, but with extreme disincentives from the government.
-
But nobody's figured out how to make these techniques produce enough energy at a reasonable cost to do the job.
It's not at all clear to me whether you're commenting about the operation of that particular power plant in Iceland or whether you're commenting about the use of geothermal power to do some other "job" or ... or how unlikely it is that anyone would be allowed to tap the geothermal resources of Yellowstone NP.
"Calpine has more than 300 employees at The Geysers (http://www.geysers.com/renewable.htm), where it operates 15 geothermal plants generating about 725 megawatts."
-
And at that moment all commerce will stop, people in the cities will starve, and people will be unable to watch their favorite TV programs. There's no way a politician would be dumb enough to do this, even though when you look at politicians you'd find that hard to believe.
There's no need to tax fossil fuels in one go. You can "phase them out" over a reasonable period.
All true, and all irrelevant. Data on yearly energy from the sun is interesting but meaningless unless you have an effective way to trap it. Neither windmills nor solar panels fill the bill, and putting a windmill on your car seems, at best, unlikely to be effective. Heat in the bowels of the earth probably could keep us all warm until the sun novas, but nobody's figured out how to tap that source either. Presumably, tapping it would require a much smaller surface footprint than would windmills or solar panels. All we need is a tap that doesn't dissolve instantly when installed.
Nah, if you check those numbers, they are about 3 orders of magnitude apart. I think our solar panels are up to about 30% now so we can harvest enough solar energy to satisfy everybody. Like I said, a bit difficult to do it at night, but there's workarounds.
Geothermal is best harvested directly as radioactive fuel and used in nuclear powerplants in my opinion. Sure, there's sources of heat we'll never get access to (as in be able to mine the radioactive materials giving off the heat) but we won't really need to.
But on this we don't. Most of what DOESN'T happen is due to government intervention, my friend, and neither Europe nor California has a clue "what is best for the global future." Yes, some people need a paradigm shift, and considering where we are at the moment it's clear they'll soon get it, good and hard.
Probably. The point is most of the world keeps going on like nothing's happening. At least some are trying.
-
Icelandic Deep Drilling Project (http://www.or.is/English/Projects/IDDP/)
These guys cheat, really! ;) Their crust is much thinner than almost anywhere else, and therefore "deep" doesn't have the same meaning.
This project seeks 400-600°C at 4-5km, whereas temperatures get only to 150-200°C or so in a normal continental location - that changes much of the economical and energetical balance of such an energy source.
Here in Europe, there has been research to tap into nearer geothermal sources in the Rhein graben, among other locations near Basel and... it banged into side effects. Read http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/science/earth/11basel.html or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity_in_Basel eg.
That doesn't discount geothermal energy on the whole of course, and there are still other research projects more to the north (in Alsace eg) that didn't trigger so much seismicity. But Iceland is a quite special case, being seated on a rift, and not easily applicable to somewhere else.
There is no silver bullet and to the date, every energy source has side effects and costs (dam failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam) risk for hydraulic energy eg : following the Tohuku earthquake, a dam failure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujinuma_Dam) made more fatalities than the Fukushima nuclear disaster so far).
So this is the choice of a lesser evil, or more likely several lesser ones not to be hit too hard when one of them goes wrong.
-
And at that moment all commerce will stop, people in the cities will starve, and people will be unable to watch their favorite TV programs. There's no way a politician would be dumb enough to do this, even though when you look at politicians you'd find that hard to believe.
This is an interesting dilemma. To some extent I agree with you, Russ, that Government employees are not the most efficient, insightful and innovative class of workers. I suspect that many politicians get elected because they are very talented at persuading people that they know what they are talking about, but not because they actually do know what they are talking about, the difference being that a successful business is successful because it actually does know what it is doing.
Nevertheless, I feel that governments do have an essential role to play with regard to the shift from fossil fuels to renewables, which the private sector may not be able to handle in a smooth manner which can avoid economic catastrophe.
As we all should know, governments need taxes to provide the services that they can best provide, such as roads, essential infrastructure, armies, police and judiciary etc.
But just how they raise such taxes is a subject for debate. There's an overall principle that taxes should be fair and equitable, the burden shared equally. But taxation is also used as a means of changing human behaviour.
We put a high tax on products that we know are unhealthy, such as cigarettes and highly-alcoholic drinks, in order to discourage their consumption, but at some point the economic logic breaks down. Instead of placing an even higher tax on cocaine and heroin etc, to discourage their use, most governemtns hand the business over to gangsters, thus depriving themselves of a considerable amount of revenue, and at the same time incurring the great additional expense of combating the gangsters in a very inefficient manner to stop the trade of illicit drugs, as well as providing free board and lodging, with very expensive security arrangements, for all convicted drug addicts and traffickers.
The more successful a government may be in thwarting the illicit drug smugglers, the higher the price of the drug becomes, and the greater the incentive for the smugglers to outsmart the authorities.
So to some extent, Russ, I agree with you. Governments may simply not have the nous, the rationality and the intelligence to assist that necessary transition from fossil fuels to renewables.
Theoretically, the concept of shifting the tax burden from personal income tax and corporate tax to a fossil fuel tax has great merit. The increased energy bills for individuals and companies that would result could be offset by the reduced taxation in other areas, whilst simultaneously promoting the development of tax-free renewables.
Unfortunately, getting that balance right so that no group feels particularly disadvantaged by the change in the taxation policy, is a task which is probably beyond the capabilities of most governments, so I feel a bit pessimistic in this regard.
-
These guys cheat, really! ;) Their crust is much thinner than almost anywhere else, and therefore "deep" doesn't have the same meaning.
[...]
Not only that but they sit directly above a hot spot not too dissimilar to the Hawaiian one.
-
Global climate change is not a fact, but there is some very strong evidence supporting this theory. True scientific theories are backed with evidence and our generally not weak. Here in Yosemite we have seen dramatic changes since the early 1900's that are well documented. Now is this global climate change or just ??? I believe all ecosystems are in a constant state of change. Still we cannot ignore the fact that in just the last 100 years there has been a significant increase emissions. What is more troubling is the increase of emissions in Asia where more and more people are owning cars. Walk on the street of any city in China and you will see that maybe there is something to this crazy theory.
-
These guys cheat, really! ;) Their crust is much thinner than almost anywhere else, and therefore "deep" doesn't have the same meaning.
Pick the low hanging fruit first.
it banged into side effects
The response to "side effects" varies -- How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth (http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/06/how-fracking-disposal-wells-are-causing-earthquakes-in-dallas-fort-worth/)
But Iceland is a quite special case, being seated on a rift, and not easily applicable to somewhere else.
More low hanging fruit. (http://www.geysers.com/renewable.htm)
every energy source has side effects and costs
Indeed.
-
I suspect that many politicians get elected because they are very talented at persuading people that they know what they are talking about, but not because they actually do know what they are talking about, the difference being that a successful business is successful because it actually does know what it is doing.
Perhaps the slight equivocation makes this more confusing than need be -- once we change that to "a successful [business person] is successful because [they] actually do know what [they are] doing" I start to think that a business person can be successful by persuading people that they know what they are talking about and then cashing-out before failure becomes undeniable.
-
Perhaps the slight equivocation makes this more confusing than need be -- once we change that to "a successful [business person] is successful because [they] actually do know what [they are] doing" I start to think that a business person can be successful by persuading people that they know what they are talking about and then cashing-out before failure becomes undeniable.
Meh. Looking around I would say politicians are elected because people don't want the other bloke (or sheila, as the case may be).
-
The UN report regularly on the a country's green credentials and here is their latest table -
http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/tableofmainresults (http://epi.yale.edu/dataexplorer/tableofmainresults)
Some interesting trends with relatively affluent countries doing well as are those who have good natural energy resources or have yet to develop a large industrial base. Interesting to note that Switzerland, which is the clear leader and takes the environment very seriously, has risen only very slightly in the last decade, does this indicate a ceiling of just how green a country can be? Is there a limit to which behaviour can be modified to protect the environment without too great a change to the way we in which the west generally manages society?
The Green Party in the UK once proposed that a national ID card system be used to control and monitor peoples energy use, not much has been heard of them since.
-
The response to "side effects" varies -- How Fracking Disposal Wells Are Causing Earthquakes in Dallas-Fort Worth (http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/08/06/how-fracking-disposal-wells-are-causing-earthquakes-in-dallas-fort-worth/)
Another example with yet another cause : http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00879952 (directly above where I live :-\ ).
No free lunch, indeed.
-
Whether it's coal, oil, shale oil, gas, LPG, gas from fracking etc, the production and/or the consumption of the final product produces lots of CO2 and is ultimately a diminishing resource.
Current increases in the production of these products are only temporary solutions.
A couple of solutions currently in the stage of development, which would go a long way to solving our energy problems, is Solar Paint and Lithium-Air batteries.
The solar-voltaic paint has obvious advantages because it can be applied to any paintable surface that receives sunlight, not only roofs, but entire walls, including windows where it acts as a sort of tinting.
The lithium-air battery holds the promise of being much more durable than current Lithium-Ion batteries, and having a much greater energy density and storage capacity. Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the topic.
"In a nearer future, proponents of the technology expect lithium-air batteries to replace the lithium-ion batteries currently powering portable electronic devices. Lithium-air batteries have the potential to have 5-15 times the energy density of current lithium-ion batteries. Thus even the most conservative estimates indicate that a modern-day lithium-ion battery may someday be replaced by a lithium-air battery 1/5 the size or a lithium-air battery with a lifespan 5 times as long. Whether lithium-air batteries lead to reduced battery sizes or longer lasting batteries, the potential for a vast reduction in price or a vast increase in vehicle range is an attractive consequence of developing such battery technology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium%E2%80%93air_battery
And here's some Australian research on Solar-voltaic paint. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/achievers/our-staff/something-new-under-the-sun.html
The exciting prospect mentioned in this article is summarised as follows: "Our research indicates that a roll of this sheeting on a typical-sized roof of about 150 square metres will provide enough electricity for an average household," Dastoor says.
"However, the installation cost could be approximately one-tenth of installing a silicon solar system that produces the same amount of electricity."
Now it's possible that these two projects, if successful, may not be sufficient to replace all fossil fuels, but Nuclear Fusion (as opposed to fission) may also eventually be a contender. When we've mastered that technology, you'll all be able to sleep soundly. ;D
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/sep/16/nuclear-fusion-iter-jet-forshaw?CMP=twt_fd
-
How about if we just have the Movie and TV industries quit blowing up and burning so many cars, buildings and whatnot? Could probably cut global warming 40% in a week without every car in a fender bender exploding and burning.
-
Whether it's coal, oil, shale oil, gas, LPG, gas from fracking etc, the production and/or the consumption of the final product. . . is ultimately a diminishing resource.
Along with the sun and the earth.
-
Along with the sun and the earth.
But on a vastly different time scale, Russ. One could rationally presume that the Earth and the Sun are very gradually cooling down on a long-term basis, over millions of years. But such gradual changes are insignificant compared with the cyclical changes in the amount of radiation emitted from the sun, that have been occurring every few hundred and few thousand years, (cycles within cycles), and other changes due to the Earth tilting on its axis, or moving closer or further from the Sun.
For example, during the Holocene Climate Optimum, which was another warm period which occurred about 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, the amount of radiation received by the Earth from the Sun increased by as much as 25% as a result of an axial tilt of 24 degrees during Northern Hemisphere summers.
Refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
The speed with which we are depleting non-renewable energy resources, such as oil, gas and and coal, is also occuring on a vastly different time scale.
The success of Climate Change Alarmism in the public consciousness, in my view, is due entirely to the innate fear that most people harbour with regard to any change in their circumstances, unless such a change is an increase in their wealth or health, of course.
The reality is, change of any description, whether good or bad, is an unavoidable fact of life. The best we can do is deal with it and adapt. We cannot prevent it happening.
The Buddhists appear to understand this principle, which is why I have great respect for the Buddhist religion.