Electric Cars and the Goldilocks Planet
By Ed Ward
In the billions of years it took for life to develop on Earth, complete/incomplete meltdowns of Earth's ice sheets has happened several times, without a runaway greenhouse occurring. So far, the article has only dealt with the 'positive feedback' loops of global warming. There are many 'negative feedback' loops that exist in nature to cool the earth, but history has shown that the negative feedback loops will not be significant enough to stop the complete meltdown of all natural ice sheets on Earth under the circumstances that existed in the past or in the present.
Second verse, same as the first... but a little different. So far the article has not included is the destruction of rain forests by the shifting of weather patterns, the acidity of the oceans decreasing the removal of CO2 in our normal carbon cycle, and the 900 billion tons of CO2 (90 times the amount of yearly CO2 production - as well as tons of methane) awaiting dispersal from it's resting place in the ice that is melting.
There is nothing we can do to control the solar cycle, animal production of methane, and the physics of water vapor. But, there are existing easy methods of dealing with CO2 production and more difficult methods for dealing with methane production from refuse.
Complete melting of all natural ice on the planet will result in 200 to 300 feet of sea level rise based on previous occurrences. When this happens (some have evidence of its occurrence prior to 2040 and being beyond the point of no return - the most accurate assessment of our current situation, although it is slightly optimistic in this reporter's opinion), there will certainly be some 'negative feedback' loops placed on global warming. The surface area of more reflective water will be dramatically increased - although this will be counteracted by the loss of more reflective ice sheets. Millions of coastal area inhabitants will be displaced or killed like the residents of New Orleans that were murdered by covering up the rising sea levels of global warming. Fertile farmlands will be drastically reduced by rising tides. Starvation will assure that there are far fewer sapiens to worry about or to pollute the environment. Salt water will contaminate many of our water sources that are not already drained, polluted by radiation or toxic chemicals. We will not have to drive nearly as far to get to the beach. Hydro power sources will be much more available and there will be far fewer people requiring energy by the time they can be built.
There is no doubt that some on the global warming issue have finances influencing their actions. There is no doubt that most of the global warming 'debunkers' have financial reasons for their actions. However, there is a vast difference between supporting science facts for the continuance of all of mankind, and ignoring/hiding/distraction of science facts for the destruction of mankind for the sake of blood money. Just as there is a vast difference between creating a study to evaluate the facts and come to a conclusion, creating a conclusion for the cherry picking of any evidence to support that conclusion or deliberately censoring all information in scientific articles contrary to amassing huge profits.
Anyone in the past that has denied greenhouse effects, or the fact this planet is warming - the solar cycle still accounts for about the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 C since 1980 (It's the heat being retained that is causing the temperature rise), or has taken money to prove a conclusion with some facts rather than taking all the facts to form a conclusion, should at the very least be read with skepticism of their motives.
The Kyoto pact - A Slight Division of NWO Agendas for Cash and Power. While the Bush Administration denies and classifies (at least until very recently denying, but probably still classifying the real facts) global warming for expansion of corporate and personal greed in his NWO agenda of the ineffectual buying and selling of pollution credits. The UN uses global warming for its NWO agenda of 'savior' for gaining control of countries with its trivial reductions of CO2 decades from now. Both of these scenarios promote the continuance of the problem rather than a complete shift from the problem - an oil driven economy with corporate and government control.
Current hydrocarbon conversion to electricity wastes between 30 and 60% of the potential energy with the majority wasting as much as the process converts. Transfer of electricity over a great distance further degrades the conversion effectiveness. Even without further development of alternate energy sources there are currently more than adequate ways to completely change our delivery of needed energy without 'living in a cave' as the debunkers like promote. These current technologies are not cost effective because this government has supported the creation of massive profit corporations, instead of supplementing self sustaining individual energy creation and usage and alternate existing transportation.
Personnel solar, wind and water energy converters and vehicles get no subsidies, credits, or adoption by this government. Instead, the government prefers to subsidize the corporations and let alternate energy die on the vine. Tesla Motors already has an impressive electric performance roadster with plans to produce a vehicle more along the lines of a transportation car. GM and Toyota had electric cars and NiMh- Lithium batteries that were allowed to die on the vine. If any of these already existing technologies had been given a chance to compete with the destructive forms of hydrocarbon energy usage by subsidy, incentives, or taxing, they would have the volumes of production required to lower the manufacturing costs to where they would be directly competitive with our existing vehicles - similar to the reduced costs of computers and calculators. The technologies are already here. They just need to be granted the opportunity to compete instead of insuring the current corporation-government symbiosis - all without losing any of our energy requirements.
Billions of dollars have been spent on nuclear reactors which currently already have millions of tons of radioactive waste contaminating water, air and earth without any way of getting rid of them. Our current cancer rate may be as high as 10 times the pre-1950 rates. Billions of dollars have been spent on harvesting a hot fusion reaction - because it's a way to get funding for nuclear weapons' advancements without the pesky truth. Virtually nothing has been spent on zero point energy, Aquygen, or cold fusion, except to denounce it by this government, despite continued advancements and partial technology working models.
blog comments powered by Disqus