technological fix for climate change?

we have to address both. but we have to acknowledge what scientists have been saying for years.

basically, the methane issue is a sign of runaway greenhouse emissions. we have gone so far down this track that the process of warming has begun to accelerate.

scientists were talking about the risks decades ago - ansd we twiddled our thumbs and let the discussion be hijacked by denialists, rather than setting things in place back then.

 

We don't have viable alternatives now, far less decades ago.

Wanting to do something, is much different than being able to. Just ask the dinosaurs.

 

do you have evidence that the dinosaurs wanted to do something?

are you suggesting that humans have two pea brains - one in their heads and one in their tails?

It was always my belief that we were more developed than that.

its always been my belief that where there is a will there is a way - and as problems become more complex we have to work together to find solutions.

denialists and those who routinely detract from the scientific debate are either stupid - or worse.

 

Would it have mattered? If we were in the same position, what would we do?

Is this intended to be a set up for a one liner?

I ask again, what denialist have done to hamper the development of alternative energies? They resist volunetarily going back to the stone age (which you will deny, but show me your alternative).

Coversely, what damage have government done by stupid investments, and stupid policies?

Neither of the only two viable alternatives, windmills and solar panels, were developed to resolve MMGW, but because there was another compelling need.

There are a lot of people working on havesting energy from non-fossil fuel source. Very few are doing it to solve MMGW. Where, has raising energy costs, resulted in new technologies?

No matter how much you want to fix MMGW, you are no better off than the dinosaurs. "The" solution doesn't exist today. Doesn't matter how badly you want it.

Alternative energies, deployed where energy costs are high, have done nothing but slowed the increase in fossil fuel use.

Rant all you want. For the forseeable future, the only way to stop an increase in CO2 is to stop using all fossil fuels. Denialist aren't the only ones that would prevent that. Even the most left leaning government have avoided that solution.

Will there be low cost, CO2 neutral, source of energies - of course. When the technical breakthroughs have occurred. Few of those breakthroughs will be developed for MMGW. For example, graphene has lots of potential uses in energy harvesting, energy storage, and energy saving.

The methods you propose in your single minded pursuit of MMGW, kill the same technical advances that will resolve your problem.

Will you stop recycling paper to sequestor some carbon?

 

this is the problem.

for years on this forum, and others like it I have discussed how various places have begin to use alternatives.

change doesn't happen overnight, and sometime sthese things may not start out as efficiently as they would like, but there have been massive improvements in a number of areas.

that you use this terminology shows your true colours.

you are what I would call a "denialist lite"

you have no evidence of your claims - you are coming from th eposition of those who are unwilling to look to the future.

 

Massive improvements, in percent increase, not in percent of energy provided. Much of that because China started manufacturing reduced costs to less than half.

I'm a denialist? What about your, and the rest of the MMGW crowd's, denial of reality.

I have repeatedly asked for viable alternatives. The links I get are a lot of PR from start-ups looking for government funding. Wishful thinking, not viable products.

Show me energy for transportation (50% of the CO2), show me energy storage for PV and windmills.

I am every bit as interested in alternative energy. But, I am looking to push mankind into the next level of prosperity, eliminating poverty, with low cost, readily available, to all.

 

If the alternate energy sector could even receive parity funding to the subsidies coal and oil get you would already have those things. The problem is and always has been research

However you should also be looking at the changes we HAVE made at the moment - I am typing on a MAC air - few years ago we would never have dreamt of the battery life this thing has. I own a 80W solar panel just for camping - it was not that long ago that my Father built his own solar panel out of second hand panels from NASA (I have no idea how he sourced them here) and got comments everywhere they stopped about what a new and revolutionary idea it was to charge the batteries. None of this was ever about replacing coal and oil just reducing the use

 

really amused, I am amazed at your attitude.

we don't achieve things by saying it can't be done.

if, for the last several millenia, the human species had thought as you do,we wouldn't even have been able to learn to cook our food.

if you do a bit of research you will find that there aree people looking at alternatives, developing new technologies.

sometimes its a dead end - but thats the history of human ingenuity. It doesn't mean you give up, or we all lay down and die.

instead of saying show me, use your own initiatve and look for yourself.


This story is can be applied to any human endeavour:

King Robert the Bruce I was born at Lochmaben Castle in 1274. He was Knight and Overlord of Annandale. In 1306 he was crowned King of Scotland and henceforth tried to free Scotland from the English enemy.

After being defeated at a battle, Bruce escaped and found a hideout in a cave. Hiding in a cave for three months, Bruce was at the lowest point of his life. He thought about leaving the country and never coming back.

While waiting, he watched a spider building a web in the cave's entrance. The spider fell down time after time, but finally he succeeded with his web. So Bruce decided also to retry his fight and told his men: "If at first you don't succeed, try try and try again".

 

Two issues:

The major breakthrough today will be in genitic engineering to modify algae to produce oil. The problem is many DNA sequences are patented, and each of the hundreds of patent owners believe their part is woth 50% of the royalties. That research is stopped in it tracks.

Research based on prior research, based on prior research. As great as Newton and Einstein were, they stood on the shoulder of giants.

How many generations of laptop were required before your MacBook Air was even possible?

How many generation of solar panel, of wind mill, before they were economically viable. Even then, much of that affordability still requires government subsidy. Even in Europe where energy prices have been high for half a century.

Why is it you have those things? Because the prosperity we have has created enough demand to develop them.

There are technological solutions for increased efficiency. Ten years ago, I suggested companies create satellite offices in large metropolitan areas like LA and San Jose. Video conferencing, VoIP, and collaboration software reduces apparent distance. Miles per employee slashed, and reduced traffic improves gas mileage over parking on the freeway.

But, if CO2 is your concern, it doesn't eliminate it, it only slows it's increase.

 

ROTFL

I am an engineer, and I do what others say can't be done.

That is why I know what is necessary, and that we will get there, just not on your time frame.

I have looked at the research, and seen all the flowery promises, and seen how few actually work as promised.

No one is laying down and dying, for every failed approach, there are two more being tried.

But, lab breakthroughs take a decade or more to reach commercial viability. I have yet to see those breakthroughs.

I have, and have posted my results with no counter arguement - yet you seem to think throwing my money at the problem will fix it.

You seem to see some technology I missed. If so, show me what it is.

The MMGW crowd keeps saying "believe the science" - I am saying the same thing.

 

we have them in canada too... seagulls love them, find the remains of their blue bodies along the riverbanks....

 

that surprises me. ever since you have been coming to this forum, the one of your posts has been ... "its all too hard".

such an attitude would not exactly enhance your career as an engineer.

what was my time frame? I don't recall mentioning one ...

I don't think you have looked very hard then. or perhaps you are only looking in the US, where there are some really fantastic and innovative ideas, but very little political will. ... hardly surprising IMHO after seeing the tripe that people on here believe over there.

glad to hear it - although I think its more than two.

true, which is why a lack of funding for research over the last couple of decades, and putting researchers into a position where their energy is diverted to respond to denialist morons is a problem

OK - I admit that tax dollars could help with research - but I am not sure why you think it is such a bad thing. especially considering your field.

I have previously posted examples. its easy enough to find.

I would like to see evidence of that.

 

You lose a career far faster wasting the companies money on the truely impossible.

My career has thrived on the ability to see reality. I will take on tasks other engineers turn down (saying "no" is safer), but only when I see a path with reasonable obsticles to overcome.

I didn't say too hard, I said the necessary breakthroughs to provide that path, haven't happened. I have looked at teh science.

We had this discussion 6 months ago or so. Initially it was 2020, the maybe 2050.

And, I have been asking you to share those breakthroughs with me. Why do you avoid it?

If the government had funded computer research in 1950, would the result have been the MacBook Air by 1970?

It isn't just a matter of money, the base science has to exist first. The MacBook Air wasn't just a linear path from Univac. There was a lot of other work that started in what appeared to be unrelated fields.

The same applies here.

It isn't just a matter of money.

So I get to search your thousands of posts for the few examples you think are viable - how typical.

What science have you provided?

 

have you seen, 'cool it'?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPUcfQS-slo[/ame]

it's a documentary film based on :

'Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming' is a book by the Danish statistician and political scientist Bjørn Lomborg. The book is a sequel to The Skeptical Environmentalist (first published in 1998 in Danish), which in English translation brought the author to world attention. Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars without the same return on investment, often are based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may have very little impact on the world's temperature for centuries. Lomborg concludes that a limited carbon tax is needed in the First World as well as subsidies from the First World to the Third World to help fight ongoing humanitarian crises.


“In his short new book, “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming,” Mr. Lomborg reprises his earlier argument with a tighter focus. He tries to puncture more of what he says are environmental myths, like the imminent demise of polar bears.” — The New York Times


“He therefore took on the Augean stables undertaking of checking every one of the hundreds of citations in Cool It. Friel's conclusion, as per his book's title, is that Lomborg is "a performance artist disguised as an academic."

I don't want to be as trusting as the reviewers who praised Lomborg's scholarship without (it seems) bothering to check his references, so rather than taking Friel at his word just as they took Lomborg at his, I've done my best to do that checking. Although Friel engages in some bothersome overkill, overall his analysis is compelling.” — Sharon Begley, Newsweek


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_It:_The_Skeptical_Environmentalist%27s_Guide_to_Global_Warming

 

Slowing is GOOD because it buys more TIME

Time for us to compete newer and better ways of doing things

Time for us to find better solutions

Time for us to work out just exactly what we are facing with the changes in climate (we may have to abandon areas of Texas as it becomes desert)

Time for us and nature to adapt