New York Times articles and comments
- View SourceTwo interesting articles from the New York Times:
As Earth Warms, the Hottest Issue Is Energy, The New York Times,
"If global warming occurs as predicted, there will be no easy way to
turn the Earth's thermostat back down. The best that most scientists
would hope for would be to slow and then halt the warming, and that
would require a top-to-bottom revamping of the world's energy
systems, shifting from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to
alternatives that in large part do not yet exist.
"We have to face the fact this is an enormous challenge," said Dr.
Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University.
But interviews with scientists, environment advocates and industry
representatives show that there is no consensus in how to meet that
challenge. Some look to the traditional renewable energy sources:
solar and wind. Others believe use of fossil fuels will continue, but
that the carbon dioxide can be captured and then stored underground.
The nuclear power industry hopes concern over global warming may help
spur a revival.
In an article in the journal Science last November, Dr. Hoffert and
17 other experts looked at alternatives to fossil fuels and found all
to have "severe deficiencies in their ability to stabilize global
The scientists believe that technological fixes are possible. Dr.
Hoffert said the country needed to embark on an energy research
program on the scale of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic
bomb during World War II or the Apollo program that put men on the
"Maybe six or seven of them operating simultaneously," he said. "We
should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the
next 10 to 15 years."
But to even have a hope of finding a solution, the effort must begin
now, the scientists said. A new technology usually takes several
decades to develop the underlying science, build pilot projects and
then begin commercial deployment."
Deep in the Amazon Forest, Vast Questions About Global Climate
Change, The New York Times, 11/4/03
"Scientists at the National Institute for Amazon Research in Manaus
estimate that carbon emissions in Brazil may have risen by as much as
50 percent since 1990. By their calculations, what is euphemistically
called "land use changes" now produce annual emissions of 400 million
tons of greenhouse gases, dwarfing the 90 million tons generated
annually by fossil fuel use in Brazil and making this country one of
the 10 leading emitters of greenhouse gases in the world."
The failure to understand the electrical and biological nature of
living climate feedbacks results in the second article perpetuating
ignorance. More straw for flying.
The problem with the article is that the deforestation issue ASSUMES
INCORRECTLY that what matters is only what sequestration that the
would have occurred but for the sequestration, and ASSUMES
incorrectly that CO2 as a GHG is what couples to cloud behaviors.
But there has been no SCIENTIFIC link, direct causal link between
cloud behavior and CO2 levels. Meanwhile, and this is one I give to
Christy, even though he is a chaos idiot RWN of extreme views, is
that the cloud forcing is MUCH more powerful than the CO2
differential forcing--over 100 times more powerful. By failing to
consider CO2 as an ELECTRICAL issue that impacts clouds, but directly
as far as gas exchanges and conductivities, and by biological
activity, and containment of chemstries and increases, therefore, of
conductivities once that material washes to the marine biosphere,
that the false assumption is shown for what it is.