Science Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans

[T.Neo]

So your message is that polluting the oceans is useful?

From a fuel-producing perspective yes, from a biodiversity perspective, definitely not. Algae blooms already cause plenty of trouble, and a worldwide messed up ocean like that would probably rule out fishing.

I was thinking more of growing the algae seperate from the ocean, in a more controlled and optimal environment.

 

[Enjo]

I don't know how many of you have watched this series of videos:
YouTube- Earth 2100 part 1
(...)
And some others say that it's just propaganda designed to promote population control & a global carbon tax.

As far as I can see, the series were created before November 2009, hence before [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy"]Climategate[/ame]. Optimistically thinking, the authors and talkers there may simply be victims of misinformation, which was spread by scientists. The misinformation was based on a supposedly false basis, that the climate change is caused by human actions (CO2 and water vapor emissions). It appears that you can no longer trust them as a whole.

The question is, why does the carbon tax still exist despite the Climategate, since the tax is based on CO2 emissions? However I still find the carbon tax a good thing, but not because the CO2 emissions, but because of the problem of resources depletion.

And since we talk about movies, I strongly recommend Collapse movie / book, starring Michael C. Ruppert. It's fun for the whole family!

 

[River Crab]

AND some of the algae out there thrive off our pollutants! sooooo... by polluting the ocean we are merely "fertilizing" it for future algae harvesting for renewable fuels! :tiphat::thumbup:

This must be the "corruption" that Al Gore was talking about. :lol:

Also, a certain Raven would like to tell you something about nuclear power...

I am THIS close to a nuclear rant.

 

[T.Neo]

However I still find the carbon tax a good thing, but not because the CO2 emissions, but because of the problem of resources depletion.

Then the tax should be based upon fuel usage, not CO2 production... or the price of fuel could just be raised.

Or people could invest money into viable alternatives.

 

[River Crab]

Yeah, these days you gotta be careful of companies advertising something "green" just because it's good for business...

Watch Penn & Teller's BS, there are lulz to be had.

 

[AirSimming]

As far as I can see, the series were created before November 2009, hence before Climategate. Optimistically thinking, the authors and talkers there may simply be victims of misinformation, which was spread by scientists. The misinformation was based on a supposedly false basis, that the climate change is caused by human actions (CO2 and water vapor emissions). It appears that you can no longer trust them as a whole.

Not as a whole anyway.

For example, the German Nutrition Society dissuades from vegan diet, especially for children because of deficiency signs (which actually can happen by any form of nutrition, no matter being an omnivore, vegetarian or vegan). In contrary, the American Dietetic Association (the worlds biggest by the way -> nearly 70.000 members) concludes that a well balanced vegan diet is healthy and possible permanently for each age group. Whom to give credit? Well, first and foremost, if possible: myself, i.e. my individual experiences (which mostly are more important than what scientist X or Y tells/writes/believes to have found out). And since the Canadian, British and Irish dietetic associations represent similiar conclusions like the American Dietetic Association (and in contrary the German and Swiss dietetic associations do not), I tend to trust the Anglo-Saxon associations in this case. But you'll always find doctors and nutritionists who claim the opposite of some of their colleagues.

Almost the same for climate science. But in this case it is basically a clash of interests while it is about money on both, the political side and the scientific side. The media also jumps in and twists the whole topic even more (money again). Companies also have jumped on the bandwagon. I've read lots of parts of the fourth IPCC report (it's nearly 3.000 pages available via pdf files). But it's basically nothing more than blah-blah. A lot of paper, at least in electronic format only. But nothing more.

There is science that has nothing to do with to believe. But there is also science that has some belief and interests in it. A lot of people think that science on the whole always is conclusive. But it's not. Science is hugely defined and practised by humans. Humans are not all-knowing and not overly powerful (and most importantly, everybody has got the same hole for bowel movement, if you know what I mean). Humans make mistakes and they do have different interests and goals, even including scientists. Climategate was not a surprise to me at all.

 

[Enjo]

Then the tax should be based upon fuel usage, not CO2 production... or the price of fuel could just be raised.

Well, obviously, but we're not living in a perfect world.

Or people could invest money into viable alternatives.

Check out what pessimists / realists think about alternatives ...

 

[T.Neo]

Check out what pessimists / realists think about alternatives ...

Sometimes we have to push beyond optimism or pessimism, and start conducting real studies on these concepts...

 

[Enjo]

Real studies talk about EROEI which is < 1 for hydrogen because of laws of thermodynamics, where to convert one energy to another form of energy, you loose some energy. In case of hydrogen, you loose 1/4.

The only reasonable solution is to use solar power (renewable) to produce hydrogen "fuel", but there we go back to 15% of Desertec. Have you heard about anything better maybe?

 

[T.Neo]

Real studies talk about EROEI which is < 1 for hydrogen because of laws of thermodynamics, where to convert one energy to another form of energy, you loose some energy. In case of hydrogen, you loose 1/4.

The only reasonable solution is to use solar power (renewable) to produce hydrogen "fuel", but there we go back to 15% of Desertec. Have you heard about anything better maybe?

I was thinking more along the lines of biofuels produced by algaculture than hydrogen.

Algaculture can theoretically yield 10-100 times more unit energy per area than conventional crops, can also be grown in poorer, saltier soils than other crops, and has a harvesting cycle of 1-10 days (compared to crops with a yearly harvest). The DoE estimated that if algaculture biofuels were to replace petroleum in the US, 40,000 km^2 would be required.

I have no clue as to what the EROEI is, but expendature (both in terms of money and energy) would likely be in maintaining a proper environment for algae growth, and processing the algae into usable hydrocarbons. Sunlight is free.

And there is always the option of increasing the productivity by using genetically engineered strains...