Oklahoma Charges through the Nose: Solar Success Attracts Fees

[JCP]

Interesting idea using a garden hose and water to reflect sunlight.

While you may feel that the "creative destruction" is a good process to initiate improvements you may feel different if you were one of the individuals that lost a job from that destruction.

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

I don't disagree that creative destruction is a messy process, but that's also how our system has worked for ever. I'm pretty sure that the guy who made horse shoes was pretty pissed when cars came out and bankrupted him. Still, we're all better off for it.

As for the rising seas, it seems to be fairly well documented. Seems to me that the inspiration and enlightenment is on the side of folks who are looking at the future and trying to carve a different path. I don't see how much inspiration and enlightenment in climate change deniers like Russ (truth, I don't see any). Change is not a bad thing unless you're hell bent on doing things the same way for ever...

[JCP]

BS - Your only promoting the Holy Church of Climate Change. If anyone doesn't agree with your religious meaasge then they are wrong and you have the holy book (so called scientific data) to back you up.

You're so full of yourself. I'm not promoting anything. I just looked for facts (you would be well served to do the same, but maybe it's an age thing, I don't know). Non renewable sources of energy will only be around for a century or two at best (two centuries is pushing it, but that does not change anything). You just don't have an answer to that basic issue other than some vague comments about it'll magically get better.

In order to take you seriously, you need to come up with factual answers to the basic issue. The rest is just political dogma.

[billvon]

I wish I had an idea. It would be nice to know (instead of guessing) what is truely causing the temperature to rise and then try to mitigate it.

We do know. It is the increased retention of heat that would otherwise be radiated due to gases we are releasing - and secondarily due to other changes we are making. It breaks down like this: (in watts per square meter)

CO2 1.6 (range 1.5 to 1.8)
CH4 .5
NOx .1
Halocarbons .3
Ozone .3
Aerosols -.5
Aerosol cloud seeding -.7

Note that all the above are _forcings_ - they are the change above and beyond the hundreds of watts that our normal mix of greenhouse gases provides us. Note that overall greenhouse gases are a good thing; they make life on Earth possible at all.

Also note that not all greenhouse gases are the same. For example, water is by far our strongest greenhouse gas, but our emissions of it are so tiny compared to ocean evaporation that we don't make a dent in that. CO2 is a moderate greenhouse gas and the atmosphere is already so full of it that adding 50% more means we only increase absorption by a few percent. Halocarbons, however, are an incredibly strong greenhouse gas, and thus even our tiny emission of them is noticeable as a forcing.

As a final note, note that some of those forcings are actually negative. High altitude aerosols, for example, reflect light from the planet and thus reduce the energy absorbed.

The Earth receives about 1370 watts per square meter of energy from the sun (which means about 1000 watts per square meter once it makes it through the atmosphere.) Some of that is reflected; the remainder is absorbed. Normally our planet radiates exactly as much heat as it absorbs via blackbody radiation. Through AGW forcing we are now radiating slightly less than we absorb. Since it's only a few watts per square meter, the resulting temperature rise is slow. This will continue until temperature increases enough that the blackbody radiation we emit rises to meet the new level of absorption - and we will be back in balance.

This heating will have other effects on us, some good, some bad. Predicting what those effects will be is important so we understand what will happen in the coming years.

I would rather the solution create a new industry and jobs to go with it than distroy an industry and lose jobs.

Agreed. And expansion in the solar, utility scale storage and wind industries would be a way to accomplish that.

[russ]

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

That is the direction the entire thing was pushed from the first - Oh my God - the earth is coming to an end! Makes better headlines and in today's news it gets more hits.

We have had similar situations for as long as I can remember in no particular order - 1) First the Russians were coming, 2) The atomic bomb will end all life, 3) Nuclear winter, 4) A new ice age is on the way, 5) Peak oil, 6 End of oil, 7) natural gas is running out, and on and on.

Like food and what is harmful - most anything declared bad 20 years ago is OK today.

Take better care of the planet? Sure! Jump off the cliff because Al Bore says you should? Be my guest - I am not interested.

[SunEagle]

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/02/f...se-to-the-sky/


That's how capitalism works: creative destruction. The car replaced the horse. The internet killed the post office. Etc. And yet, our economy has kept growing and generating jobs throughout. While the individual impact might be harsh at times, that's how the system works.

Interesting idea using a garden hose and water to reflect sunlight.

While you may feel that the "creative destruction" is a good process to initiate improvements you may feel different if you were one of the individuals that lost a job from that destruction.

It is sad that it takes fear and intimidation (the seas are rising ) to motivate a large group of people instead of the process of inspiration and enlightenment to discover new technologies.

[russ]

Certainly not. The fact is that with a few minutes of googling around I won the argument on this topic, by a mile. But you're too dogmatic to admit it, so you'd rather attack the messenger than discuss the facts.

I won this argument. Case closed.

BS - Your only promoting the Holy Church of Climate Change. If anyone doesn't agree with your religious meaasge then they are wrong and you have the holy book (so called scientific data) to back you up.

[JCP]

I wish I had an idea. It would be nice to know (instead of guessing) what is truely causing the temperature to rise and then try to mitigate it.

Maybe looking at a way to reflect the sun's energy similar to what volcanic ash does without the harmful affects of those air born particles.

Unfortunately blocking the sunlight would put a big dent in the renewable solar business so not a good idea.

I would rather the solution create a new industry and jobs to go with it than distroy an industry and lose jobs.

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/02/finally-a-garden-hose-to-the-sky/

That's how capitalism works: creative destruction. The car replaced the horse. The internet killed the post office. Etc. And yet, our economy has kept growing and generating jobs throughout. While the individual impact might be harsh at times, that's how the system works.

[Sunking]

We have centuries worth of fissile fuel. We have enough uranium to last us 40-50 years and enough thorium to last us centuries if we want to use that. (Requires a different reactor but will work just fine.)

As for fossil fuels, we are running out of them, primarily oil. But with the availability of shale oil, and the leveling off of our oil demand, we have enough for decades - enough to make the transition less painful.

That should have been fossil fuel. Damn auto correct.

[SunEagle]

Cooling an entire planet would be pretty expensive. It would make the Apollo and Manhattan projects look like a bad tip at a greasy spoon diner. But if we want to spend the money it might be an option. Do you have a proposal?

To me this whole issue is like a fat man looking at lose-weight-quick pills, Internet tummy toner creams, surgery etc instead of just eating less and exercising. He always has a million excuses why diet and exercise just won't work.

I wish I had an idea. It would be nice to know (instead of guessing) what is truely causing the temperature to rise and then try to mitigate it.

Maybe looking at a way to reflect the sun's energy similar to what volcanic ash does without the harmful affects of those air born particles.

Unfortunately blocking the sunlight would put a big dent in the renewable solar business so not a good idea.

I would rather the solution create a new industry and jobs to go with it than distroy an industry and lose jobs.

[billvon]

Hey all of you believe we are running out of fissile fuel so what is the problem? It will fix itself.

We have centuries worth of fissile fuel. We have enough uranium to last us 40-50 years and enough thorium to last us centuries if we want to use that. (Requires a different reactor but will work just fine.)

As for fossil fuels, we are running out of them, primarily oil. But with the availability of shale oil, and the leveling off of our oil demand, we have enough for decades - enough to make the transition less painful.

[Sunking]

Hey all of you believe we are running out of fissile fuel so what is the problem? It will fix itself.

[billvon]

Maybe our time, money and effort should be put towards finding a concrete way of lowering the temperature instead of putting the coal industry out to pasture.

Cooling an entire planet would be pretty expensive. It would make the Apollo and Manhattan projects look like a bad tip at a greasy spoon diner. But if we want to spend the money it might be an option. Do you have a proposal?

To me this whole issue is like a fat man looking at lose-weight-quick pills, Internet tummy toner creams, surgery etc instead of just eating less and exercising. He always has a million excuses why diet and exercise just won't work.

[SunEagle]

Ok. Big questions. How much CO2 needs to be eliminated "world wide" to reverse climate change and lower the surface and ocean temperature?

And how much of that will be covered by the 30% reduction of 2005 levels targeted by the EPA for the US?

Or is this whole thing just a big wild a** guess and they hope things turn out ok when it is all said and done. And if not then oh sorry so many people lost their jobs with our experiment.

Maybe our time, money and effort should be put towards finding a concrete way of lowering the temperature instead of putting the coal industry out to pasture.

[JCP]

The loony left chips in.

Certainly not. The fact is that with a few minutes of googling around I won the argument on this topic, by a mile. But you're too dogmatic to admit it, so you'd rather attack the messenger than discuss the facts.

I won this argument. Case closed.

[russ]

Wow. Basically, you don't like the facts, so you decide that people who believe them are a bunch of dogmatic lefties. "Positive know nothing"
Frankly, after reading your arguments, it's clear that you have zero credibility. You don't like the facts or the science, so you choose to ignore them. It would be funny if you were just one of those fringe lunatics, but sadly, you're not the only one.

The loony left chips in.