IMO, one mistake we may be making is putting all our eggs in one basket.  The basket of avoiding change.  There would be no Northern European civilization without previous global warming.  We must continue to adopt as well as attempting to slow down global warming.  The question I often ask is that is it fair to keep much of the world’s population in relative poverty so that we in rich societies can continue our life style?

There are some bureaucratic problems too. Here in Michigan, it is apparently illegal to hook up a solar or wind generator that is independent from the electric grid. This means that there always has to be a voltage conversion. Which reduces the efficiency of the generators. Not to mention which makes them cost mor

I wonder, if perhaps the Michigan law makes it illegal to hook up an independent generator only if the home is also on the commercial grid.  It’s critical to have a unit that could feed back to the grid running in phase with the grid.  I believe a generator/inverter set up that is out of phase and feeding back into the grid actually uses power and, in the event of a power outage, an alternative system could still be electrifying the grid, endangering the repair personnel.  That would be a logical reason for the law, who knows what the politicians are up to.

sine dues - 24 October 2012 12:25 PM

The biggest deterrent to the development of alternative renewable sources of energy, I think, is and will be that fossil fuels will continue to cost less.

I disagree TimB. The biggest deterrent is the fact that so far the renewables don’t work as advertised and fossil fuels work better than anything else. To simplify….the biggest deterrent to eating crappy food is all this tasty healthy food around….if we tax the hell out of good food more people will choose crap food…and all of humanity will be better for the sacrifice….

One thing we could do if it were not politically unfeasible is to stop the subsidies for corn, and stop the silly use of corn to produce ethanol.  Corn to make ethanol is simply a waste.  Perhaps we could genetically modify sugar cane to grow in Iowa instead.  Also, all the cornsugar in our processed foods is probably a good portion of that “crap food” you are talking about.

Jeciron - 24 October 2012 02:26 PM

There are some bureaucratic problems too. Here in Michigan, it is apparently illegal to hook up a solar or wind generator that is independent from the electric grid. This means that there always has to be a voltage conversion. Which reduces the efficiency of the generators. Not to mention which makes them cost mor

I wonder, if perhaps the Michigan law makes it illegal to hook up an independent generator only if the home is also on the commercial grid.  It’s critical to have a unit that could feed back to the grid running in phase with the grid.  I believe a generator/inverter set up that is out of phase and feeding back into the grid actually uses power and, in the event of a power outage, an alternative system could still be electrifying the grid, endangering the repair personnel.  That would be a logical reason for the law, who knows what the politicians are up to.

I’m sure that this is the idea behind it in a sense, but it’s apparently also illegal to hook up (for example) a power generator to a barn that is completely off the power grid, unless that power generator gets connected to the grid. My father looked into this briefly, in fact, to see if it would be worthwhile to add this kind of power to his barn.

I find it very cynical that the now the Arctic ice is melting due to climate change countries and companies can’t wait to exploit the oil that might be found there.

And btw, I think batteries are no solution for intermittent energy sources. Better pump water up, and use it again to make electricity. Maybe there are other mechanical possibilities too. E.g. raise a heavy rock with superfluous energy, and release it when its energy is needed. I propose to call this a Sisyphus Power Plant…

Gdb, Ice in the Arctic has been forming and melting for many years before humans began burning fossil fuels on a grand scale. Check out pictures from Norways north ( maybe Spitzbergen I cant recall) practically no ice for the winters around early 1900s. You cannot state the ice is melting due to AGW when it has been happening longer than humans have been walking…...Climate change is obvious…..due to humans ? I am not convinced…..

sine dues - 25 October 2012 06:30 AM

Gdb, Ice in the Arctic has been forming and melting for many years before humans began burning fossil fuels on a grand scale. Check out pictures from Norways north ( maybe Spitzbergen I cant recall) practically no ice for the winters around early 1900s. You cannot state the ice is melting due to AGW when it has been happening longer than humans have been walking…...Climate change is obvious…..due to humans ? I am not convinced…..

I see no reason to argue with somebody who denies established science. There is a big consensus about this under climate experts.

sine dues - 25 October 2012 06:30 AM

Climate change is obvious…..due to humans ? I am not convinced…..

It doesn’t matter if you’re convinced. What matters is that virtually all the scientists who study this phenomenon are convinced. All your not being convinced shows is that you are ignorant about the data.

See, e.g., HERE:

The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth’s climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.

Only 90% certain?  Pfeh.  I’ll believe it when it’s at 100%.

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. My mind is still open. I may not be a climate scientist but I can read and reason. How many more years of no temperature increase do we need to determine if we are still warming? The science is not settled. Science is never settled. Science that is static are facts. The facts have been tortured and twisted by both sides.

sine dues - 25 October 2012 08:02 AM

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. My mind is still open. I may not be a climate scientist but I can read and reason. How many more years of no temperature increase do we need to determine if we are still warming? The science is not settled. Science is never settled. Science that is static are facts. The facts have been tortured and twisted by both sides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

However, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the burning of fossil fuels has contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from 280 ppm to 397 ppm, despite the uptake of a large portion of the emissions through various natural “sinks” involved in the carbon cycle.

I don’t feel much need for the data on climate change.

Why Believe that pumping this stuff into the atmosphere on the scale we do would have no effect? If someone said we could deliberately warm up the planet this way I’d believe it.

I think not believing we are influencing the climate with these gases is like not believing smoking can damage your health.

Stephen

I’m sure that this is the idea behind it in a sense, but it’s apparently also illegal to hook up (for example) a power generator to a barn that is completely off the power grid, unless that power generator gets connected to the grid. My father looked into this briefly, in fact, to see if it would be worthwhile to add this kind of power to his barn.

Well, it’s awful easy to overestimate politicians.  That’s either really stupid…..or suspicious.

Wind and solar power ( let me put my big boy pants on…) will never be able to supply industrial processes. It is possible to run a household but it would be very iffy in the northern climates. When ever people talk about wind and solar it always seems to be about the potential…and on the horizon and just around the corner….and not very often is the disappointing reality ever extolled. Stop with the hatred…we are blessed with oil, gas and coal…without these forms of energy our lives would be bleak and stern and tedious.

“If man was supposed to fly God would have given him wings.”  “Antiseptic procedures are dangerous to patients.”  “The sun goes around the earth.”

I’d be cautious with the word “never”.  In fact, solar energy actually does supply most industrial processes.  We’re functioning on ancient reservoirs of solar energy laid down eons ago.  That’s what oil, gas and coal are.

Regardless of their current convenience, oil, gas and coal are finite resources and problematic ones.  Even if climate scientists are totally wrong for some extremely unlikely reason, there are a host of other pollution and environmental issues with extracting and burning fossil fuels, and they will run out.  Maybe not in my lifetime, or yours, but for the sake of future generations and the planet they will inherit it seems wise to invest in developing alternative, cleaner energy forms.  Almost no technology is immediately profitable or efficient, and any emergent technology will run down dead end paths, so I’m willing to cut the alternative energy developers a little slack.  In my opinion, it’s a far more justifiable way to create jobs and run up the national debt, ensure energy and a decent planet, than enlarging the military industrial complex so that we can maintain control of a dwindling resource by force of arms.

As far as life being bleak, stern and tedious:  We’ve developed our technology and society around only a century of cheap, cheap energy.  In our solutions we often look to power, rather than finesse and elegant design.  (I’m thinking specifically of the SUV, the rotary lawn mower, suburbia, and agriculture in general).  With the rapid advance of technology, particularly computing power, materials, and genetics I believe we have the potential, if we choose, to create a fascinating, comfortable, secure, and efficient world.  One in which we will probably be able to control the climate to some degree. The only reason I really wish I was younger is that it would be likely that I could be more of a participant than the observer I am now.

sine dues - 25 October 2012 08:02 AM

It may not matter to you but it matters to me. My mind is still open. I may not be a climate scientist but I can read and reason. How many more years of no temperature increase do we need to determine if we are still warming? The science is not settled. Science is never settled. Science that is static are facts. The facts have been tortured and twisted by both sides.

I’ve come to not really like this metaphor, “open mind”. There are two reasons why a mind might be said to be open: good self-criticism, or gullibility. I can never tell to which kind of open-mindedness a person refers to without other context.

Even amongst people who are global warming-deniers, which kind of open mind they refer to is up for debate, although it definitely is slanted toward gullibility. The best self-critical view is something like ‘I am not convinced by the evidence’ but this also means that a good self-critical view would say ‘because I do not see enough evidence, I am not convinced either way’, and they are forced to take a position of ‘I don’t know’ on global warming.

IMHO, that’s fine.

But the crowd that goes straight to ‘global warming is a hoax’ or something similar really shout gullibility. At best, it means that they are doing a poor job of selecting trustworthy sources for their information. At worst, it means that they are taking their position based on nothing remotely close to sound reasoning. I’ve seen people come out and say that they deny global warming because they don’t like carbon caps; that’s the worst kind of self-fulfilling, logically backwards crap. Global warming would exist (or not) completely independently of whether or not political concept like carbon caps is a bad idea. The people who claim that a world conspiracy for domination uses a global warming hoax are no better.

Sloppy thinking is the worst kind of immaturity.

Okay - sorry, sine dues - I’ll get off my soap box now. You’ve been pretty tame with your comments, and I appreciate that. It’s just that you haven’t said enough for me to figure out which kind of ‘open mind’ you are. As you might imagine, talking with the ‘gullible’ version can be extremely frustrating, and many of us on here have had bad experiences.

GdB - 24 October 2012 10:31 PM

I find it very cynical that the now the Arctic ice is melting due to climate change countries and companies can’t wait to exploit the oil that might be found there.

And btw, I think batteries are no solution for intermittent energy sources. Better pump water up, and use it again to make electricity. Maybe there are other mechanical possibilities too. E.g. raise a heavy rock with superfluous energy, and release it when its energy is needed. I propose to call this a Sisyphus Power Plant…

Part of the time I was in Scotland several years ago, I stayed with some friends a few days on a loch that was drained during the day into a lower loch to produce electricity.  At night, when electricity was less needed, the water was pumped back up into the higher loch.  It was a beautiful place.

But I still think that cheap highly efficient batteries might play a revolutionary role.