The Glade 4.0

Thanks for the link. I pulled the 3 cited articles from the NASA link to read when I'm on the university network tomorrow.

From the abstracts they seem to have interesting methods of evaluation that I want to check on in more detail.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Again, Aizle, that number is highly suspect and speaks to the political nature of the peer-review process for climate science. No hard science has 97% topical agreement over 12 years. That is to say, it's a bullshit number and if you read peer-reviewed information on a regular basis, you would cry foul, too. Also, stop misrepresenting what your link says, as 97% of papers is not 97% of scientists.

_________________

It is very hard to get anything published when it goes against current scientific thinking. Therefore, the agreement found in 97% of papers published is more reflective of social interaction and internal politics than fact.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

The statement on NASA's collective page from the American Chemical Society is hilarious.

Granted, it's from our PR branch, but it's so very carefully crafted, and not in line with what you see at the national meetings.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Pretty much have everything Midgen mentions in my area too. I make a habit of using the applicable ones.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Same here.

_________________
"Said I never had much use for one, never said I didn't know how to use one!"~ Matthew Quigley

"nothing like a little meow in bed at night" ~ Bruskey

"I gotta float my stick same as you" Hondo Lane

"Fill your hand you son of a *****!"

Place less than a mile away takes tv's monitors, pc's and the like for free. The local Home Depot recycles batteries and light bulbs.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

My entire career is focused on environmental restoration, particularly clean surface water. So yes, I do these things, but on this topic I'm not the average guy. It's a problem, like you suggest.

From the NASA link:



I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Aizle:

That's assuming the various organization spokespersons polled represent 100% of their organizations' respective constituent members. In other words, the dissenters are squashed by organizational positions and politics. You really should READ your links thoroughly and question their presentation, even NASA's.

Hard sciences don't have that much concurrence, ever. And it speaks to exactly the problems Curry points out ...

You agree or you don't get published, even if your research deals with smaller issues. You agree or you don't get funding, even if your work has a beneficial impact on the environment and public policy when translated into action. Politics has corrupted the science. Where I come from, we call that misrepresenting the facts and misinterpreting what's actually written. Climate Science has become a political issue; the real scientists in the trenches are not represented by those bodies in the way NASA or you are claiming.

Oh, and that reminds me ...

The Twin Cities are highly regarded as some of the greenest cities in the United States, because they have no landfill waste. Too bad its all incinerated, right?

_________________

Anyone else hate the term "green"?

With a passion ...

"Green" energy is generally at least as damaging to the environment as coal or other fossil fuel energy right now, despite claims otherwise. Hydro-electric power is my least favorite source of energy, and its ecological impacts are suppressed by and large in a lot of cases.

_________________

On the contrary, I've been hoping for years that it would catch on.

This is total bollocks, except maybe in the case of large-scale hydro. And the environmental effects of that are far from "suppressed". Hell, I've done a few hydro financings myself, and every single one has had to fend off law suits from environmental groups. Hydro is widely perceived as passe on the green energy front.

Oh, it's hardly suppressed? Are they talking about the invasive species problems and destruction of natural ecosystems in those lawsuits, beyond what gets flooded by damming up the river? That would be news to me, since there's still a big push to introduce hydro-electric power in the developing world. Is it a, "As long as its not in our backyard?" kind of thing? I see all this push for hydro and solar and not-fossil fuel energy, but the nuclear energy debate has been over for decades in the U.S. Our government hates it, so we hate it, too.

_________________

Nuclear power is the simple, clean solution that no one wants to embrace.

If your worried about the toxic by products, it's not nearly as bad as solar, and people are scared enough to actually store them properly.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I love all the heavy-metal batteries in hybrids, too, to be honest.

_________________

Really? Solar and wind power are as bad as oil drilling/fracking and coal burning?

Can we please just get a **** move on with the thorium reactors? Jesus christ.

Solar panel production is a highly toxic process with lots of really nasty biproducts; solar arrays produce brutal thermal heat islands that mess up atmospheric wind patterns with varying arguments about the impacts and effect. Wind turbines are pretty in general, but they are finding they suffer from ecosystem impacts and negatively affect indigenous non-human animals and insect varieties in complicated ways; but they are not quite so harmful as hydro-electric solutions. Most coal burning factories can capture large amounts of the biproducts for use in other processes.

To Coro's point, inevitably, these are solvable problems, and we can work toward positive solutions by making these engineering/science problems instead of political problems.

_________________

One of the most powerful hydroelectric power generating complexes in the world (the Niagara Plant group in Ontario and New York state at a combined 4,803 MW) has almost no negative environmental impact. Of course, that's very dependent on location. Locations that can generate hydroelectric power without damming the river are fairly "green."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

This is true, but those locations are generally rare.

_________________

Lawsuits from environmental groups are not a sign of an actual threat to the environment.

What Khross is pointing ou is eminently correct. The dangers to the environment from green energy tend to be second/third order effects like the toxic process of manufacturing solar panels. They aren't involved in the actual process of power generation itself, and the average environmentalist is not an engineer nor in some other field that requires that sort of thinking about effects beyond the immediate and obvious, and therefore they aren't aware of them. When they become aware of them, they automatically assume they're less severe or unimportant because the visual image of coal smoke pouring from smokestacks is so much more viscerally and intuitively "bad" than solar panels sitting there soaking up the rays.

This is like so many other issues - people get a smattering of information, and then mistake their personal intuition for reason, and assume anyone claiming the contrary must be bullshitting them because it just seems wrong.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

As an analogy: Does the AMA represent all doctors?

If no, then this methodology falls to complete ****.

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

Kulidwen/Rafael pointed out a few years ago that solar panels trap energy that would otherwise have been reflected off the Earth. If you want to get down to a physical nuts-and-bolts perspective of global warming, here you have energy that is ordinarily reflected into space getting trapped on Earth to do work, and decaying into heat. Solar energy is quite literally adding new thermal energy to the planet.

That's a form of human-induced global warming that there actually is a definite scientific consensus on. It's the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But you're not going to hear a lot about that, because it's physics and physics is hard.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Um, even if we replaced all our energy needs today with solar panels, the total area of solar panels would be a fraction of a percent of the total surface area of Earth. The effect would be immeasurable.

And there's just as much of a "definite scientific consensus" for the greenhouse effect. It's basic quantum mechanics that any college student learns in their first year of physics.