It's Not Too Late

Comments

• it´s too late Guest (Mac) on 07/13/2006 at 12:00 AM

  Posts: 1

  -To sequester carbon dioxide you need something to put it into, namely an oil well. I don´t see the posibility of finding an oil well to pump the carbon dioxide into near every coal or IGCC plant. -Ethanol? Still a net energy looser. -Nuclear energy? an Atomic power station using high-grade uranium ores would have to run from seven to 10 years before they create enough power to cancel out the energy required to establish them (mining, uranium enrichment, etc..), all CO2 emiting energy consumption. -finally, acording to the las reports, if we cut RIGHT NOW our CO2 emissions to CERO, the planet would take at least 50 years to get to where it was in 1990 climate wise. It´s starting to sound like your source of information is the Bush Administration. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• TR supposes man causes global warming Guest (Ben Barrowes) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM

  Posts: 1

  Your article assumes man is the cause of global warming and presents absolutely no dissenting opinions or evidence. This is unfortunate and disappointing coming from a magazine of TR's stature, especially under the auspices of MIT. Many scientists, including Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 do not agree with the "man is the cause of an impending global warming catastrophe" theory. Here are a couple of other articles presenting an alternative viewpoint on "global warming" "Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe" http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm "The Real 'Inconvenient Truth'" http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ TR's not even presenting the possibility of dissent on such a important issue represents substandard scientific journalism. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • The earth is flat too Guest (gnomic) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM

    Posts: 1

    Excuse me while I discount a couple of scientists some of who might genuinely believe this assertion and a bunch of others paid by the coal and oil industries. Like most people I chose to believe the many national academies of science and leading scientists. Why? Because if they are wrong, we still have more efficient sources of energy and a more competitive energy market. If you are wrong, most of the species on the planet suffer. Scientific journalism does not mean presenting every crackpot point of view. Good job TR! Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	it doesn't matter if man is responsible Guest (Al Brown) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	we still need to get carbon dioxide under control.  Oh wait, I guess we can just wait and see what happens.  Then we can trace each carbon molecle back to its source and then just sue those people for all the damages. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	TR supposes man causes global warming Guest (Jerry P) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	I agree with your analysis Ben.  I believe you got a solid point and I hope TR pays heed!  This would be in their, as well as everyone’s, best interest. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • How long Guest (Nimish) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM

    Posts: 1

    So, assuming those minority may yeild information/trend/data that proves otherwice..Do it.. So many tech. advance has cuased harmful  effect to humans e.g. Asbestose, DDT etc.. and we have acted to ellimiate via better product/process.. Why would not go for improvement ? Is there a clear reason you have NOT going that direction.. irrespective of  TR has put opposite view point or not ? Lets have a dialoge where we can contribute to filtering the information and provide a better solution rather then just dismissing the idea. HTH Nimish Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	8/13/06 Guest (Erik) on 08/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts: 1	The DDT scandal was never confirmed... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,202447,00.html Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Global climate change Guest (K. John Morrow Jr.) on 08/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	There isn't any dissent on global warming, except for Fox News. If these climate scientists have data arguing to the contrary then they should publish in SCIENCE and NATURE, the way Hansen and all the top of the line people do. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	Re: TR supposes man causes global warming uinclan on 08/24/2006 at 12:59 PM
    Posts: 1	Please see the IPCC reports (http://www.ipcc.ch/), you'll find real scientific analysis. This is an organized effort done by hundreds of scientists by many years Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: TR supposes man causes global warming michel on 08/28/2006 at 6:41 PM

    Posts: 3

    I think that if the data obtained for CO2, temperature and sealevel over the last 350,000 years, you cannot but be alarmed by the consistancy with with CO2 and temperature follow each other coupled with the understanding that CO2 levels are 32% higher today than they have ever been over the last 350,000 years though several ice ages have come and gone. There is only one variable that exists today that didn't exist for the previous 350,000 years and that is the industrial production of CO2. I think this relation is staring each and every one of us in the face. Why have CO2 levels never before reach this level of concentration? Rate this comment: (Reply)

• it's not too late Guest (Jerry P) on 07/25/2006 at 12:00 AM

  Posts: 1

  In this article it is stated that “..global warming and climate change, which are caused largely by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases generated by human activity..”  It is established, clearly, that global warming and climate change have occurred before.  Not once but several times.  And these changes have been sudden and severe.  What was responsible for their occurrences? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	It's not too late Guest (mike) on 07/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	My guess - all the critters that were turned into oil or coal, and we're next in line! Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	The ancient oil industry? Guest (gnomic) on 07/29/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	Many of these events corespond to events such as major vulcano eruptions, the most common culprit. In most cases, the change can be isolated to a specific cause. Luckily we've been monitoring a lot of this type of activity for most of the last half century and can account for its impact. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • 	How do we know, for sure ...? Guest (Jerry P) on 07/31/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts: 1	How do we know for sure that climate changes just don’t occur naturally?  And, perhaps, out understanding of the time lines of these climate changes (and their causes) are incorrect, or miscalculated? Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • For sure Guest (Nimish) on 08/01/2006 at 12:00 AM

        Posts: 1

        Jerry, Surity is in data trending.. Several fronts a) Glacial data b) birds migration.. The nature has its timers/factor/process, however we afffect the nature by producing carbon and other polution.. Simply put - if running car engine in garage can harm you.. Imagine bilions of carbon-entities emitting the carbons and its outcome..Imagine how simple ATOM if  diffused properly can trun into ATOMIC bomb. Aggrate of small partical generate the effect which may  not be as clear as simply on-off logic.. Further reading - Natinal Geographic had major artical on "Global WARNING" HTH Nimish Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	Re: For sure Guest (Jerry P) on 08/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	See the following article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/hot_summer_nights Look at the numbers.  Ask yourself how many cars where on the road 96, 81, 20+ or 15 years ago? For me the math doesn’t work for a causal relationship.  Please, point me in the right direction! Rate this comment: (Reply)

• 	We need active CO2 reduction Guest (Kha) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
  Posts: 1	What we really need is to actively recondition our atmosphere with industrial CO2 filter units, while also reducing our total output. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• Questions Guest (Andre S) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM

  Posts: 1

  There are several good books outlining why humans are contributing to global warming, "The Weather Makers" is one. One question I have though for the scientists. How much of global warming is due to the information age? Are we just using _much_ more energy for all our computers, gadgets etc? Are cars getting more than their fair share of the blame? Just a question for debate. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • more questions... Guest (Margherite) on 08/10/2006 at 12:00 AM

    Posts: 1

    I would like to know whether the "shock and awe" bombing of Iraq has increased acceleration of global warming, if indeed there is any way to analyze it. It makes sense to me that it has, given the concentrated quantities of combustion gases released into a relatively small area in a short period of time. I would also like to know whether the testing of military undersea acoustic projectors, intended to fry submarine radio communications and immobilize the occupants, contribute to the violence and frequency of tsunamis. There is much more disturbance going on in recent years than the addition of emissions from a couple million SUVs. Rate this comment: (Reply)

• "Renewables"...you mean, like fusion? Guest (Mark Bahner) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM

  Posts: 1

  "There is no escaping the reality that in the end, we will need an energy economy based on solar, wind, and other renewables..." You mean, like fusion? I predict that, 50 years from now, fusion will provide more energy than any "renewable" source (e.g. solar, wind).  And by the end of the century, the world will be powered by fusion.  (But probably not tokamak fusion.) http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2006/04/alternatives_to.html Why, in an entire series of articles devoted to future energy sources, was fusion mentioned in a single throw-away line (as an example of wasted money)? Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • 	China's Artificial Sun Guest (Andre S) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts: 1	Mark, What is your take on China's fusion attempt (via what their call the 'Artificial Sun')? Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • China's "artificial sun" Guest (Mark Bahner) on 08/12/2006 at 12:00 AM

      Posts: 1

      Hi Andre, I hadn't heard about it.  I see it's a superconducting tokamak. http://www.china.org.cn/english/scitech/175922.htm Nuclear physics/engineering isn't my specialty, but from the little I know, it seems to me that tokamaks are a dead end.  Sort of like airplanes with movable wings. On the other hand, everything I've read about plasma focus fusion has really impressed me: http://www.focusfusion.org/ It's aneutronic.  The plasmoids provide their own magnetic field.  It generates electricity directly (without generating steam and running a turbine).  It seems very...elegant. I find it absolutely mind-boggling that probably the most advanced tests in the world in plasma focus technology are going to be conducted in *Chile.* Mark Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: No. Fusion is not rewnewable. DogFight on 08/18/2006 at 3:49 PM

    Posts: 2

    I think we need to focus on true rewnewables, like wind(many modern geothermal plants aren't even rewnewable because they take energy from the ground faster than it is replaced). Fusion energy has awesome potential, but is still a non-rewnewable. History has shown that when humanity comes across a cheap, finite energy source, we increase our rate of energy consumption exponentially until it's used up. Our supply of deuterium won't last long, and when we run out of it, there will be no alternative to switch to, since we'll be consuming energy at a rate orders of magnitude higher than all the rewnewable potential in the world. This could happen within only a few hundred years, whereas true rewnewable energy will last for billions of years. Putting a limit on how much deuterium we use each year won't work, because every country would have to follow the rules basically forever, which is politically unrealistic. A fusion economy is destined for dramatic collapse. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: No. Fusion is not rewnewable. pilotjim99 on 08/28/2006 at 1:09 AM

      Posts: 5

      This deuterium argument is a non sequitur.  An initial point, there are already good fission reactor designs, we needn't wait for the fusion reactor and its materials challenges to be overcome. Concerning Deuterium.  Deuterium is used in "heavy water reactors" as a moderator, to slow down the neutrons in the fission reaction.  Deuterium exists naturally in about 1 part per 5000 of normal water.  It's not like there are hidden pockets of Deuterium to be found ala oil exploration.  There are also "light water reactors" that use normal water as a moderator.  Thus, no deuterium issue, even if one imagines a pending deuterium shortage.  The main difference between light and heavy water reactors is that the light water reactors require Uranium that has been enriched, while the heavy water reactors can use the Uranium essentially as mined.  Lastly, graphite is also used as a moderator in some designs. I'm certainly not against other forms of energy, e.g., solar, wind, hydro.  But lets not discard nuclear on unfounded critiques. Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: No. Fusion is not rewnewable. DogFight on 08/28/2006 at 2:11 PM

        Posts: 2

        The problem is runaway exponential growth in the consumption of finite resources. If it weren't for that, we wouldn't have an energy crisis to begin with. Domestically produced nuclear power from thorium could last us billions of years, from what I've heard, so long as the industry is regulated to the point where there is a restriction on how much the country uses. Aside from the nuclear waste disposal issues, it's a wonderful solution. No finite resource will last us very long, if we continue increasing our consumption. Between 1994 and 2004, world energy consumption increased at an average anual rate of  2.2 percent. At that rate, our annual rate of energy consumption would be thousand times what it is now in about 317.5 years. It would be a million times what is now in 635 years. It would be a billion times what is now in 952.5 years. It would be a billion times that in another 952.5 years. This is not sustainable. What I like about renewable energy is that there is a natural limit to how fast we can use the energy. We can't use solar energy any faster than it hits the earth, for example. We are tapping into a natural energy-producing system, and so we can't use it faster and faster, and it won't just run out on us because of our own greed. Using deuterium from seawater for deuterium-deuterium reactions bothers me, because all nations have access to seawater, and everyone would be competing for the same limited resource- even if country X didn't use it up, country Y might. On the other hand, "rock deuterim" from hydrogen-rich rocks might be a good solution, although if you're going to "burn" rocks, you might as well use traditional fission technology. Rate this comment: (Reply)

        • Re: No. Fusion is not rewnewable. pilotjim99 on 08/29/2006 at 3:49 PM

          Posts: 5

          World population growth is expected to level off in the next generation.  I suspect energy consumption will continue to increase, but not necessarily at 2.2% per anum indefinitely.  Just running out the math in an infinite series ignores economics. We have no real idea what needs will be in 350 years anyway.  It's not a useful measure, especially if one's analysis consists of drawing a straight line from some historical point. Renewables are great, but nuclear is going to be done also.  Other countries are already doing it.  We'll come around. Rate this comment: (Reply)

  • Re: Renewables or Fusion or Both michel on 08/28/2006 at 7:42 PM

    Posts: 3

    Has anyone done the calculation of the total solar energy incident on the earth per day. Something like 800 Watts/metered squared. That is enough even at 15% efficiency in converting photon energy to electric energy or chemical energy to supply most households with their daly needs, but it doesn't begin to address our transportation needs. When you calculate the average 50,000 Joules/brl of oil times the number of millions of barrels consumed each and every day, the problems begins to become evident. What we need is an energy source and transportation system that has the smallest possible footprint, while producing zero greenhouse emmissions. The problem with fusion in any form is that water needs to be decomposed. But I believe that there are solar systems resources that can accomodate requirements. The most important criteria in any solution is to produce a long term stable earth whether through regenerative or consumptative means. The automobile and oil produce two extremely ubndesireable effects. The paving of vast surface areas in roads and parking lots and the emmission of billions of tons of CO2. We need to quickly move in another direction. Rate this comment: (Reply)

    • Re: Renewables or Fusion or Both asdar on 08/29/2006 at 10:07 AM

      Posts: 60 Avg Rating:

      I think the only path to success lies down all the roads to effectively sustainable energy. I'd like to see nuclear reactors being built, PV Solar, Thermal Solar, Solar concentrators, bio-fuel, various wind power and anything else that comes along that can be tested and proven to be cost effective in the long term. Anything that has a sure long term positive in my opinion and like the Hoover dam I think should be funded by the government. Nuclear isn't sustainable because of the waste and materials required, but for all practical purposes it's sustainable for generations. If nothing else I think Nuclear is a relatively long term stop gap until we can set up a renewable power supply. Rate this comment: (Reply)

      • Re: Renewables or Fusion or Both pilotjim99 on 08/29/2006 at 3:39 PM

        Posts: 5

        The deuterium (D2O) argument is a red herring.  In part because it's present in normal water, even salt water.  Also because there are alternatives to D2O, like using good ol' H2O.  Heavy water reactors use D2O and non-enriched uranium; light water reactors use H2O and enriched uranium.  Heavy water reactors are used in Canada, light water in the U.S. Given current fission technology, including reprocessing, nuclear is "sustainable" for a 1,000+ years, even considering increases in consumption.  That buys a little time to work the challenges in less mature technologies, like fusion. I'm all for solar, wind, and hydro, but in the near term, nuclear is a more viable large scale replacement for the world's energy consumption needs. Rate this comment: (Reply)