Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: "Designer Climate"

Expand Messages
  • stevell88
    Lasallia, the simple and straight forward answer to your question is that it is not economical to produce Solar Energy right now. Unless the governement
    Message 1 of 40 , Jul 1 7:44 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Lasallia, the simple and straight forward answer to your question
      is that it is not economical to produce Solar Energy right now.
      Unless the governement artifically (Think Farm Subsidies) makes
      solar attractive it can not compete with fossil fuel produced
      energy. Nuclear is not cheap but it is still less expensive and
      easier to produce in large quanties than solar.

      There has been a lot done over the past 20 years in alternative
      energy sources. Swimming pool solar heat has been growing. Hybrid
      cars are now on the road. This may not be as fast as some would
      like but to assume we are comfortable with status quo is just not
      correct.

      It is my belief that it is over simplistic to assume the the Fossil
      Fuel Industry (think Evil) is responsible to restricting our use of
      alternative fuel sources. Why would they? They are in a prime
      position to take advantage of new sources of energy. If the profit
      were there they would do it. If they made solar Energy, who would
      buy it? If you can't sell it why do it?

      Sincerely,

      Steve

      --- In globalwarming@y..., lasallia <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > Like all large scale ecological estimations this is complicated.
      The
      > simple process is that trees take in CO2, turn it into starch.
      Now,
      > some trees shed their leaves every year after sending the starch
      to
      > the wood and roots. The wood of the tree is what really takes the
      > carbon and keeps it. I'm not sure whether the tropical forests
      are
      > better than temperate forests in sequestration but at the present
      rate
      > of deforestation (including fire and spruce beetle damage) the
      forests
      > are not keeping up with the carbon release from fossil fuels.
      Which,
      > of course, are sequestered carbon from long ago.
      >
      > My big question is why can't we just improve energy supply and
      > efficiency? Would it do any harm to put as much into solar energy
      as
      > is spent on nuclear?
      >
      >
      > --- In globalwarming@y..., dionysios2100 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
      > > You write that vegetation is boosted by CO2 but some recent
      research
      > > I read suggests that soil nutrients like nitrogen may severe as
      > > limiting factors to effective CO2 sequestering. This could, in
      > > practice, severely limit the effectiveness of vegetation as a
      CO2
      > > sink. Also, if I understand what I've read correctly, the
      sinking
      > > effect of vegatation is transient and maybe only last a few
      decades.
      > > Vegetation sinks CO2 while living biomass is increasing (due to
      CO2
      > > fertilization) but once a new equilibrium point is reached,
      > > decompositional and metabolic release of CO2 by vegetation will
      > > balance absorption of CO2 and net sequestering will cease. I
      don't
      > > know what the environmental effects or the economic-energetic-
      > > resource costs of trying to nitrogen fertilize forests would be.
      But
      > > these "external" costs should certainly be taken into account.
      In
      > > addition, it should not be forgotten that, on balance, more
      forest
      > is
      > > lost than is gained each year. At present, therefore, even the
      > > potential capacity of the the planet's vegetation to sequester
      is
      > > being weakened. Raising the standard of living in the 3rd world
      will
      > > require more farmland which, on average, I believe, releases
      less
      > CO2
      > > per hectare than forest. CO2 sequestration may, in fact, turn
      out to
      > > be much less of a panacea than was originally supposed.
      > > >
      > > > Vegetation is really boosted by CO2. I've conducted some
      > > experiments
      > > > myself. What I found is that the increased leaf production
      > > requires
      > > > increased water and nutrients. Research tells us that plants
      with
      > > CO2
      > > > enhanced growth are more 'water efficient'. That may be so
      but
      > > they
      > > > still need more water to keep the increased leaf area turgid.
      > > > Limiting factors to plant growth also include temperature. If
      > > > temperatures are too high the plant's evapotranspiration
      system
      > > will
      > > > not be able to function and photosynthesis will cease.
    • lasallia
      I don t know what to say. Ross has figgered that Lufkin hasn t gotten any warmer so nowhere else has. Furthermore it seems that the earth IS going to warm
      Message 40 of 40 , Jul 9 1:20 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I don't know what to say. Ross has 'figgered' that Lufkin hasn't
        gotten any warmer so nowhere else has. Furthermore it seems that the
        earth IS going to warm evenly and consistently .... but wait... he
        suspects that the warming is a geographical phenomenon and that some
        places will be cooling while others get warmer. Well, I'll be darned.

        Respect has to earned, not demanded. When you earn my respect, Ross,
        you'll get it.




        --- In globalwarming@y..., tarh7777 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > Being away from my home computer and relying on the local public
        > library for access, I am at a disadvantage. And Lasillia won't
        > respond to my letters anyway. No respect.
        > Dion, Would like to point out a few things that I don't know if
        > they have been brought up or not. The best studies (the NAS study
        of
        > a year and a half ago being the best that I know of, but even the
        > IPCC study too) claim that the earth is warming at a rate of
        > hundredths and even thousands of a degree per year. And that is
        what
        > I found in my epic study of the temperature of Lufkin,TX only I
        found
        > that it was decreasing at a rate of a couple of ten-thousandths. I
        > claim that I am closer to the truth than the bilge that is being
        > trotted out in this forum. I can agree with the idea that the
        > temperature of the earth is increasing but if it is it is so slight
        > and variable that it is insignificant and completely masked by the
        > natural variation that occurs. I found that the average temperature
        > for Lufkin was 68 degrees with the standard variation being about
        one
        > degree. The NAS study said that GW was between .07 and 1.7 degrees
        > per century or about .0007 to .0017 per year. That is undectectable
        > in the way that we measure temperature which is always in whole
        > numbers in F. or .2 in C. To detect global warming annually, we
        > would have to measure temperature in at least hundredths of a degree
        > (my guess) and would have had to do it that closely for over at
        least
        > a century. That is not practical and probably not desirable either.

        > Can you tell the difference between 70.01 and 70.02 degrees? I sure
        > could not and I doubt that anything else outside a scientific
        > laboratory could either.
        > Also, I suspect that the noted increase in temperature is more of
        a
        > geographical phenomena rather than a Global one with some places
        > warming and some cooling. Our focus should probably be more on the
        > why of this variation rather than trying to make the whole world fit
        > the mold.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.