"Solar Impulse is the first airplane capable of flying day and night without using any fuel. The plane is powered entirely by solar panels and batteries, and generates roughly the same amount of power as a small scooter, ..." - http://www.livescience.com/37979-solar-impulse-nyc-flight.html This stuff is really great! Solar power is making leaps and bounds thanks to grants going to universities to pioneer these renewable energies. Solar output capacity is doubling nearly every two years. http://www.livescience.com/4824-solar-power-rule-20-years-futurists.html I already use it for my daily commute... http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...e-practical-fuel-source-5.html#post1062831629
If you think about it....everything we use as fuel is already a solar power system. Petroleum is simply a form of ancient sunlight, as is every fossil fuel everywhere. The only non-solar sources we use are based on radioactivity.
While I agree Mercury (amongst others) poses a true problem...I feel it pales in comparison of scale.
for CO2 to affect the climate, it needs to hit 5%. at 3%, it's toxic to humans...and currently it's at about .03%...that's a long way to go.
Most climate scientists do not agree with you, You state the pollutant qualities and lethality in concentrate, rather than the impact on climate.
it just has no impact. there's more CO2 in the air than in 1998, yet there's no change in average temps. CO2 has nothing to do with the variations in the jet stream or ocean warming. the water is being heated from underneath.
The last 10 years are the hottest decade on record. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...me-weather-climate-change-united-nations.html How is that "no impact"?
When we get an efficient or better alternative to our current mainstay of power, then I would be all to happy to use it. The problem is it must produce the same amount of power and be just as cheap.
The Wright Bros started with less... When it comes to renewable energy... like solar... practically free is cheap as it gets. It really is based on the proper implementation and practical use... no... it is not going to push a 3,000lb SUV around... yet, ...that's simply not the point... as gasoline engines started out as low HP as well, those first engines wouldn't be capable of pushing today's vehicles either.
Huh, funny you should mention them, I recently visited the wright brothers memorial. I never said I wouldn't use Solar power simply that is needs a lot of work if it is ever going to become a mainstay I would be happy to use. For now, its better supplying partial amounts of power in my opinion. If other want to pursue a higher goal for it I would also be fine with that. All I ask is that I not be forced to use it or have the other forms of energy I use regulated to make them more expensive then they should be. I am not against it, in fact in many ways I am for it, I simply still prefer other methods to get my mainstay of power.
Most people who say that haven't considered all of the costs of petro-based energy. How much would petroleum cost if Exxon (for example) had to buy its own 6th Fleet to protect it on the high seas? How much would it cost if the drillers weren't being paid for depleted wells and fields.
Many times I've considered to go back into the car, mainly for safety reasons, as I am almost hit practically everyday. I have every right to use the road on my little electric trike as anyone driving a car, yet... I can be paralyzed and feel victimized by cars who buzz me at a high rate of speed. (buzzing - passing within the three feet of my left hand space, then looking in the review mirror to see how close they got) Passing me with on coming traffic, endangering their lives, the approaching vehicles, and mine for simply a few seconds of time. Left hand turns are often very tricky as I have to use eye contact and extend my arm to insure the vehicle behind me lets me garner the lane to turn left. It is very hard trying to be fiscally responsible and using out of the box resources to accomplish the same goals as those who use massive metal machines around me, with the guilt free aspects of mandatory insurance... I feel this pressure everyday... to get into a big metal box...
This is a fallacy, because Co2 is not the only thing to affect climate. Other things affect it too, so even if the average temperature didn't change, maybe it would have changed were it not for Co2. So it would have cooled a bit, but didn't thanks to Co2.
I see....economic impact is more important than human impact. Makes sense in a way, rich folks make enough money to possibly survive....everyone else are simply left on the wayside. Sorry, but I amongst the "everyone else".....and not in any way happy about it!
unbiased reporting- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ith-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html - - - Updated - - - http://ezinearticles.com/?Global-Warming-Ended-in-1998---Were-Headed-Into-an-Ice-Age&id=1905727
Again, I'm not talking about whether or not we are having warming or not. I am talking about whether or not Co2 has an impact on the climate. You didn't read what I was saying at all. Co2 is a factor among MANY which determine what actual direction the temperature takes. Just because it ALONE doesn't ensure warming doesn't mean that it doesn't play a part. Since there are other factors too, it might not have enough sway to determine the actual direction the climate takes. Let me put it like this: If a corporation has a major scandal and a lot of people boycot them, they might STILL post a profit that year nonetheless. That's not to say the scandal didn't have an impact on their profits. Maybe their profits should have been much higher. You wouldn't say, well they didn't post losses instead, therefore their profits weren't affected AT ALL by the scandal. Understand?
Yes, a story from 2006, that omits the last 7 years of data, that doesn't smack of cherry picking. Of course the temperature goes up and down, but the trend is still up, a couple of down years doesn't redefine the trend.
