Lasallia, Yes,I was saying that the IPCC does not present
information that is accurate and considered current in their
projections of Population Growth and other specifics If that means
that I do not think they know what they are talking about, then so
be it. If the IPCC is suppose to represent the "concensus" of the
scientific community they should at least be consistant with what
the Scientific community considers current data.
Overpopulation has been the mantra for special interests groups for
a long time. It does not set well with these groups to have
scientist point out that population growth is considered "under
control" and will not double in the foreseeable future. This also
puts some pressure on the projection formulas (GCM's) that link
population growth directly with growth in fossil fuel emissions.
In order for the dire IPCC projections of global warming...resulting
in all the computer generated horrible side effects.....to occur
they must project a doubling of CO2 concentrations in the
atmosphere. This is a manufactured number. The projections of the
dire consequences is not an observed entity but a projection of
computer models that depend on population growth projections.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not going to double in 50 or 100
years. Observations over the past 20 years indicate a very small
growth even with the huge consumption of fossil fuels. Continued
use of fossil fuels will have the same effect they have had in the
past 20 years. Not much of a change unless you consider 1+ ppmv a
large growth per year. Not very large when you consider that man is
responsible for only 1/30th of the CO2 released into the atmosphere.
I agree that we should divert energy production to alternate sources
as the economic opportunities present themselves. I also have no
problem with subsidies for alternative energy methods to enable them
to come on line and challenge the economies of carbon based fuels.
It is the right thing to do but not because we are distroying the
planet. It is the right thing to do politically and logically. You
don't need to scare people to get them to do something that is
--- In globalwarming@y..., lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> I'm sorry, I missed the undertones of respect and regard in your
> It seemed like you were saying they didn't know what they were
> talking about. I didn't disagree with their projections, just
> that we could do better given the political will.
> Let me make my position clear on this. We are hauling fossil
> out of the ground at an unsustainable rate, although I know that
> price increase will make it profitable to dig ever deeper in the
> future. The business of oil and coal is messy and polluting and
> are wasting a great deal of the energy. We have alternative
> and should be utilising them, conserving oil and coal for
> which require a great deal of heat, such as steel production. CO2
> well known as a greenhouse gas, without which we wouldn't be able
> survive. Carbon which has been locked in the earth is being
> at a rate that the cycle can't deal with. It seems sensible to
> renewable energy where we can. My big problem is that the fuel
> companies are fighting this for no better reason than greed. If
> could reduce our need for fossil fuels there would be less
> fewer oil spills and less risk to miners. Whether or not you
> that our atmosphere is being changed there are plenty of reasons
> switch painlessly and profitably to renewable energy sources for
> of our requirements. The Kyoto Protocol is really to ensure there
> cooperation among nations; I don't think there is any penalty for
> reaching the set limits, and the limits are not written in stone
> --- In globalwarming@y..., "stevell88" <stevell88@y...> wrote:
> > Lasallia, You stated in your last post, " I'm going to ignore
> > spurious attempt to discredit the IPCC and cancentrate on this
> > section: "
> > spu·ri·ous adj. Lacking authenticity or validity in essence or
> > origin; not genuine; false.
> > Please explain to me what was SPURIOUS about my pointing out
> > IPCC may be using overestimates of population growth? Does that
> > that you are SPURIOUS for doing the same thing regarding their
> > projections of energy conversions?
> > I have a high regard for many of the Scientists that work within
> > IPCC framework. I do not have the same regard for the
> > that use the Scientists to promote their own agenda.
> > Sincerely,
> > Steve L.
> > --- In globalwarming@y..., lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
> > > I'm going to ignore the spurious attempt to discredit the IPCC
> > > concentrate on this section:
> > >
> > > - total energy produced each year from non-fossil sources
> > > wind, solar, biomass, hydroelectric, and nuclear are
> > to
> > > increase to more than ten times its current amount,
> > more
> > > than 40% of the world's energy, rather than the current
> > >
> > > I'm sure we can do better than this. I realise that, like the
> > > population estimates, this is a 'scenario' used for just one
> > > models, but there was no mention of fuel cells, which should
> > > major transport energy source in the near future. There has
> > much
> > > progress with both technology and usage of solar power.
> > >
> > > From solarcentury.co.uk:
> > >
> > > 20 January 2002 The grid-connected market for PV - which
> > dominates
> > > global PV shipments - grew explosively in 2001 (PV News,
> > > Final figures for this sector are expected to show a 50%
> > in
> > > sales compared to 2000. The year saw 20,000 Japanese consumers
> > > purchase PV systems, totalling some 110 MW of capacity. In
> > > new capacity for the year could top 75 MW. The total market in
> > is
> > > set to exceed 400 MW.
> > >
> > > 07 January 2002 Intersolar is to receive half a million
> > of
> > > government assistance to build Europe's largest solar cell
> > > manufacturing plant. Following a two year reserch period
> > > aim to volume manufacture thin film PV cells at only 70p ($1)
> > Wp.
> > > (Source: The Times.)
> > >
> > > In the UK:
> > >
> > > "Solar grants are now available to home owners, housing
> > > associations, public authorities and commercial organisations.
> > >
> > > Home owners can apply for grants of up to 50% of total
> > > installation costs.
> > >
> > > Housing associations and public authorities can apply for
> > > up to 65% of total installation costs.
> > >
> > > Commercial organisations can apply for grants of up to 40% of
> > > total installation costs."
> > >
> > > The roofs are connected to the grid by a reversible meter.
> > take
> > > out, you pay; you put in, you earn. This has the additional
> > benefit
> > > that power is produced much closer to the user so less energy
> > lost
> > > along the line. I know this is not news to many of the
> > > this club but some readers may be unaware of the possibilities.