----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Harney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Global warming is a global catastrophe waiting to
> happen. The rising global temperature is causing the ice shelves in
> antarctica to melt and fracture.
You know I've argued that global warming is a serious problem and must be
addressed, but catastrophe is too strong of a word.
> Have you read Green Mars? The description of what would happen if the
permafrost >ice shelves in antarctica fell into the ocean was pretty
accurate.
Ah, I have no idea of what you are talking about. First, the ice that is
already on the water will not cause any waves if it breaks and melts (well
to first order at least). If the ice on the ocean does melt, then the flow
of ice from land can accelerate. However, even the global warming "hawks"
are talking about a rise of a fraction of a meter by 2100.
>First a huge tidal wave would sweep over the coastal regions, then the sea
level will >rise several feet.
I would like to see documentation of this from a non-fiction source, please.
It is inconsistent with everything that I read.
> Do you realize how much of the United States is at or very near sea
level?
>Not much, in reality. Remember, those of us who live in coastal regions
often see tides several feet above normal in high wind conditions. We've
been through that a number of times on the Gulf Coast. Its not that big a
deal.
>like Atlantis, it will not happen gradually, it will happen in a day.
I would really really like you to give some documentation of this, including
calculations, please.
>The flooded lands will stay flooded for decades (if not centuries), until
the ice
> shelves are redeposited via snowfall onto Antarctica.
In a word, no. The thick ice on Antarctica will not flow immediately. Think
about the time it takes glaciers to flow in regions where it can get into
the 80s right by the glacier. I've stood on a glacier in weather that was
in the 70s, and it didn't move noticeably. Remember, even in summer, the
temp in Antarctica is not anywhere close to 80.
> Funny thing, the Bible, Genesis says we were given dominion over all the
> land and all the creatures in it. How should we rule over the land? (Read
> "How would God want us to rule over the land?") As a loving ruler who
cares
> for the land and it's citizens and protects them, or as an evil dictator
> that destroys the land and kills its citizens for greed.
Your view that animals are citizens on a par with humans is held by only a
small fraction of people. While you have a right to your opinion, you have
no right to impose it on me. Further, I seem to get the impression that you
believe that other people's beliefs are inferior to yours. If this is a
false impression, then I welcome clarification and correction.
>
> For the record, I don't think the Earth is in trouble, after humans are
> finished distroying themselves, the Earth will bounce back quite nicely.
I
> just don't like the irreversable damage we are doing to certain species in
> the process of destroying ourselves.
>
I cannot see any factual basis for this statement. How are we destroying
ourselves? Humans are better off today than at any time in history.
> How about instead of spending billions on a missle shield that even you
say
> is inadequate, we spend that money on solar power installation (not
> research, actuall implementation). It only requires about 40 m^2 of solar
> pannels to provide enough electricity for the average American household.
> Switching to solar power would significantly reduce our dependance on
fossil
> fuels, which in turn
> would reduce our production of CO2 substancially. 1.2 billion dollars
could
> install (at regular retail and installation prices) enough solar pannels
to
> provide power for 40000 American households, and that will provide power
for
> those households indefinately, with only routine mainanance and occasional
> replacing of the solar pannels. Hell, if we ditched this 1.3 trillion
> dollar tax cut, we would have more than enough money to manufacture and
> install enough solar pannels to provide solar power for *every* household
in
> America, and it will still save the American people money, because they
> won't ever have to pay an electric bill again.
I've done some number crunching on this, and it just doesn't fly. At
http://www.siemenssolar.com/sp75_sp70.html
we get a rating for a commercial solar panel. It is named a 75W panel, but
is only guaranteed for 63 watts. Allowing 20% loss in the system, as is
suggested at
http://www.gensun.com/, one has a 50W system.
Its cost (just for the panel) for quantities of 1 is $409, for 16 units is
$375 per.
Throwing in regulators, installation and storage (which will probably be as
expensive as the units themselves...think about storing terajoules for
winter usage) and figuring on volume discounts, let us argue for about $500
per unit.
At the second site, the average sunlight in the US was given as 4.8 hours.
Using that, and 365 days/year, we obtain a total output of 87 kilowatt-hours
per year.
The electricity use of the US in 2000 was 3.8 trillion kilowatt-hours. If I
can do my math right, 44 billion of these panels would re required at a cost
of about 22 trillion dollars. If we were to do this in 10 years, it would
require more than the entire federal budget each year.
Not only that, but the footprint would be enormous. Each panel has a
footprint of about .63 meters squared. 44 billion would have a footprint of
about 30 billion square meters or 30,000 square km.
Further, the environmental impact of manufacturing these panels is not
small. I don't have direct data on that, but I may be able to find it.
Dan M.
