The disposal and manufacturing of solar panels presents significant environmental problems. I also would hate to see satellites in space with large mirrors concentrating light toward earth (one idea I hope never gets off the ground). Windmills of the magnitude needed might be more of an eyesore than most imagine. Ted Kennedy didn't want any near his playground. Let's hope cheap fusion becomes a reality. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Poe Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:28 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Global Warming - The Main Issues Don, I'm okay with nuclear as long as we work toward full scale solar and wind in conjunction with conservation ASAP and use only nuke to buy us a decade or two at most. Again may I recommend LED bulbs: www.earthled.com The problem is (and yes I know enough about the science/history of petro geology to agree estimates are usually outstripped by new technology extraction techniques) we only 200 or so years of U left. I'm more of a dove than a hawk but nevertheless I'd rather save U for nukes (enemy earthlings or asteriods) then waste it on electricity. Especially when we have all this wind and solar at our disposal. If we switch to Th experts say there might be a 1000 years of nuke fuel. But let's face it wind will be good until Sol grows and boils away our oceans 2.5 billion years? And solar will be good even after Sol becomes a white dwarf -- 6 billion years or more? On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Tyler Allred <tylerallred@earthlink.net>wrote:
Erik said; "It is hard to understand why past warm periods disprove current warming causes."
Don said: "They don't. But they do show that other factors have caused the earth to warm substantially in recent history. The real question is how much warming is due to natural causes and how much to man-made causes."
Don, I think you have hit the nail on the head with this question, but I don't believe it will ever be possible to answer that it definitively. The atmospheric interactions are just too complex to know for certain.
Our knowledge of greenhouse gases, however, is pretty solid. We know the effect they have in the atmosphere and we know that the possible outcomes of even small changes in global temperatures could be catastrophic (like a change in sea level of even a meter or two). I think there is plenty of information to suggest that we should take action to limit our emissions. I see no down side to acting responsibly to lower our inputs to the atmosphere. Sure there are costs, but they pale in comparison to the costs of the possible sea level changes.
I think sometimes people get sidetracked with the blame game. I am not blaming anyone any more than I blame myself. I like to have fuel to put into my gas tank. But, sometimes it seems like those who question global warming are suggesting that we do nothing, which I believe is a huge mistake.
PS - I don't mean you Don. You have clearly stated options that would reduce emissions.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com