Nicks Challenge -1 of 3- Global Warming - ends March 20th

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

We need to start somewhere, I guess.

I think we don't really know for sure if mankind is truly affecting the environment any more than the natural temp changes that have occured over the past thousands of years. An if we are, I'm not sold it is drastic and if don't act right now, the earth will end soon. Just my opinion.

[Spang]

Did we really need another Global Warming thread?

Global Warming is happening, deal with it!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I'm sorry. It was part of Nicks Challenge.

[Zaelath]

I'd rather have an argument with a man standing in a swimming pool that insists I can't actually prove he's wet. At least that would be funny.

[Animale]

This is really a two parter.

Part 1) What is the impact of human release of CO2 (and its measured increase in the atmosphere) going to be?

Part 2) What should we do about it in the short, mid, and long term?

Splitting it up makes it easier I think, as some of the "solutions" for part 2 are meaningful even if one doesn't think that part 1 is affirmative. Separating them out actually removes some of the "anti-environmentalist, anti-Al Gore, pro-status quo" rhetoric from the problem... and can allow for common ground where everybody leaves with something.
Talking about point 1 is, unfortunately, just going to end up with the same old discussion we've had before - where I point out that people smarter and more knowledgeable than us have thought about these same questions and actually wrote a report that addresses them. Now I think that maybe we should consider their expert opinion on climate models higher than that of an economist, but I digress.
If there are specific things that people don't want to bother looking up in the index of the above mentioned report (look at working group 1 for pretty much all of your answers) - post them and we can talk about point 1. Until then, let's talk about point 2 and save some of the agony of people talking past one another.

I'll start briefly on something I think is important about point 2
Posit: Crop-based ethanol is a tremendous farce in that it does not actually solve the problem in the long term (or the short term for that matter).
Q1) Is it a decent short-term "fix" or merely a way to plow money back into powerful political forces within the U.S.?
Q2) Either way, is the required buildup of infrastructure and technology to handle fuel alcohols mean that it's actually worth doing, even though money is being "thrown away" on crop subsidies?
Q3) Ultimately, a solar or fusion based liquid fuel is the answer to the "energy" problem in general. Why isn't the U.S. government and U.S. industry putting more of an emphasis on R&D in this important area? (see Q1?)

Anyway, look forward to talking about policy. It is meaningful to discuss even if you don't agree with the dour assessments that I agree with in point 1, as it is something that will need to happen sooner or later anyway as we eventually will have to move away from a fossil energy economy. Why not now?

Animale

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This is really a two parter.

Part 1) What is the impact of human release of CO2 (and its measured increase in the atmosphere) going to be?

Part 2) What should we do about it in the short, mid, and long term?

Splitting it up makes it easier I think, as some of the "solutions" for part 2 are meaningful even if one doesn't think that part 1 is affirmative. Separating them out actually removes some of the "anti-environmentalist, anti-Al Gore, pro-status quo" rhetoric from the problem... and can allow for common ground where everybody leaves with something.
Talking about point 1 is, unfortunately, just going to end up with the same old discussion we've had before - where I point out that people smarter and more knowledgeable than us have thought about these same questions and actually wrote a report that addresses them. Now I think that maybe we should consider their expert opinion on climate models higher than that of an economist, but I digress.
If there are specific things that people don't want to bother looking up in the index of the above mentioned report (look at working group 1 for pretty much all of your answers) - post them and we can talk about point 1. Until then, let's talk about point 2 and save some of the agony of people talking past one another.

I'll start briefly on something I think is important about point 2
Posit: Crop-based ethanol is a tremendous farce in that it does not actually solve the problem in the long term (or the short term for that matter).
Q1) Is it a decent short-term "fix" or merely a way to plow money back into powerful political forces within the U.S.?
Q2) Either way, is the required buildup of infrastructure and technology to handle fuel alcohols mean that it's actually worth doing, even though money is being "thrown away" on crop subsidies?
Q3) Ultimately, a solar or fusion based liquid fuel is the answer to the "energy" problem in general. Why isn't the U.S. government and U.S. industry putting more of an emphasis on R&D in this important area? (see Q1?)

Anyway, look forward to talking about policy. It is meaningful to discuss even if you don't agree with the dour assessments that I agree with in point 1, as it is something that will need to happen sooner or later anyway as we eventually will have to move away from a fossil energy economy. Why not now?

Animale

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

[Animale]

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

[Boogahz]

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

I think the point of all of this crap was that Nick and Funk could prove they could do more than snipe at each other.

In reference to the Crop-based Ethanol, I think that it will hurt more than it will help. We are already seeing signs that the chemicals used to support the soil in growing more corn than it could normally support is killing off oceanic wildlife as it gets washed away. Farmers plant more corn due to the support from the government, and also because they are practically guaranteed a "payday" from corn rather than possibly losing out with other crops. I see this as one of the worst bandaids we could pursue. One that hurts more while it is on than when you tear it off.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

It wasn't a snarky one liner. This is your big thing. I don't believe the same things you do. We have hashed it out now many times. I'm not sure what it is you want me to say besides to completly convert to your line of thinking.

[Zaelath]

You could compose a rational argument that doesn't consist entirely of preconceived notions and "facts" you picked up from talking to other "big picture" visionaries.

Or you could keep your head in the bucket where it's safe and warm. You don't *have* to be an impediment to everyone else every day of your life.

Or you can continue to be a worthless troll.

There you go, three choices. But we all know which one you'll go for.

[Truant]

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

Midnyte's only contribution to these challenges will be to try and troll/flame/bait Nick at every possible opportunity. As witnessed by his starting three threads and telling Nick to get started while not starting Funk's threads.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

So you going to contribute or just continue to add snarky one-liners? Thought the point of this exercise was to avoid the use of one-line statements that add nothing to the conversation. Talk about what I said in a constructive manner or get out of the thread.

Midnyte's only contribution to these challenges will be to try and troll/flame/bait Nick at every possible opportunity. As witnessed by his starting three threads and telling Nick to get started while not starting Funk's threads.

You couldn't be more wrong. I wasn't aware Funk has made thread ideas. I'll go look and post those then.

[Funkmasterr]

I'll start briefly on something I think is important about point 2
Posit: Crop-based ethanol is a tremendous farce in that it does not actually solve the problem in the long term (or the short term for that matter).
Q1) Is it a decent short-term "fix" or merely a way to plow money back into powerful political forces within the U.S.?
Q2) Either way, is the required buildup of infrastructure and technology to handle fuel alcohols mean that it's actually worth doing, even though money is being "thrown away" ton crop subsidies?
Q3) Ultimately, a solar or fusion based liquid fuel is the answer to the "energy" problem in general. Why isn't the U.S. government and U.S. industry putting more of an emphasis on R&D in this important area? (see Q1?)

Q1 - I think both. I think one thing that will never change no matter what energy source we are using is that the U.S. government is going to make damn sure they can make a pretty penny off of it.

Q2 - I'm undecided.

Q3 - For a couple of reasons, imo. One would directly relate to what I said about Q1, the government isn't going to put much time or money into it until they have a solid plan on how they are going to make their maximum possible profit from it.

I am not sure I know exactly how much research and development is going towards these alternate energy sources, I know it is most likely more than the average person assumes (I'm not implying you fall into that category), but that's about all. What I do know is I would much rather the process of refining the technology take as long as it needs to be executed without a hitch, as opposed to being rushed out for the purposes you are implying and possibly cause other issues.

Also, it's not just the government funding the R&D of new technology that will hold it up, it's private companies deciding how quickly they are going to start developing/researching vehicles that would use this technology, then it would be a while before the cars would be affordable enough for the average person to buy. Now I am fully aware you understand this but I think the process is bigger than people usually think when pondering these issues.

It isn't as simple as the government tossing some money at it and in two years we will all be driving helium powered hovercrafts to work, a lot of time and money has to be put into it, and it will be generations before it has completely replaced what we have now.

Because of my standpoint on Part 1 of your post (which I will not rehash) I would prefer to see us take our time and do this right. How long would that be? I'm not sure, but I would guess not in my lifetime.

[Animale]

It isn't as simple as the government tossing some money at it and in two years we will all be driving helium powered hovercrafts to work, a lot of time and money has to be put into it, and it will be generations before it has completely replaced what we have now.

This is the main point I'm trying to make, and it is an important one. This is NOT an engineering problem where the timeline to product can be sped up by throwing money/people at it. It is a basic scientific understanding problem, where "discoveries" need to be made in many areas including chemistry (catalysis - water to oxygen and hydrogen or carbon dioxide to methanol), materials (better solar materials, and/or scaffolds for surface modification with chromophores and catalysts), physics (understanding of charge separation), biology (control of placement of photo-active sites in membranes), etc.
These are all "holy grail" type discoveries which do not happen on timetables, but instead occur when the right person is in the right place. The problem with the limited government funding for this area of basic research is that it limits the possibilities of right places and right people. We need to start now on it, so that the discoveries are made so it is actually possible to throw money and people at the problem and in "2 years" have a feasible solution. As of now, there is no possible timeline for these discoveries. Hopefully in the near future timelines will become reasonable, but right now its in the same realm of the mystical "10-15 years out" that fusion research has been in since the 1950's.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

It isn't as simple as the government tossing some money at it and in two years we will all be driving helium powered hovercrafts to work, a lot of time and money has to be put into it, and it will be generations before it has completely replaced what we have now.

This is the main point I'm trying to make, and it is an important one. This is NOT an engineering problem where the timeline to product can be sped up by throwing money/people at it. It is a basic scientific understanding problem, where "discoveries" need to be made in many areas including chemistry (catalysis - water to oxygen and hydrogen or carbon dioxide to methanol), materials (better solar materials, and/or scaffolds for surface modification with chromophores and catalysts), physics (understanding of charge separation), biology (control of placement of photo-active sites in membranes), etc.
These are all "holy grail" type discoveries which do not happen on timetables, but instead occur when the right person is in the right place. The problem with the limited government funding for this area of basic research is that it limits the possibilities of right places and right people. We need to start now on it, so that the discoveries are made so it is actually possible to throw money and people at the problem and in "2 years" have a feasible solution. As of now, there is no possible timeline for these discoveries. Hopefully in the near future timelines will become reasonable, but right now its in the same realm of the mystical "10-15 years out" that fusion research has been in since the 1950's.

Animale

I agree for the most part, but can you quantify how much your "holy grail" discovery possibility would go up for each, lets say 1 million thrown at it? How much are we even putting towards these things right now? I have no clue and I am guessing you might have a better idea than me, but not by much. See where I'm going with this?

[Spang]

Bring back the old Funk. Civil discussions are boring to read!

[Animale]

I agree for the most part, but can you quantify how much your "holy grail" discovery possibility would go up for each, lets say 1 million thrown at it? How much are we even putting towards these things right now? I have no clue and I am guessing you might have a better idea than me, but not by much. See where I'm going with this?

Unfortunately the problem is that nobody can put a cost/benefit analysis on truely new scientific discovery. In this case, the benefits would be monumental, but the cost to reach said benefit is definitely unknown. Somebody tomorrow could do the right sets of reactions and have the beginning of an answer, or it could take place in 20 years after we've built up a body of understanding.

I know that's being wishy-washy and that's why it has such a hard time getting funding from industry and philanthropic sources. That's why government has to intervene in a more meaningful way, as the payoff may not be in the near future.

To get an idea of how much a million dollars is, I'll do a back of the envelope for how many people it can support. The typical grant to a single professor from NSF is on the order of 2 million dollars over 5 years. Such a grant typically supports between 2 and 4 graduate students/postdocs working in the area, depending on the cost of the research materials and instrumentation for the project. Each graduate student typically makes ~20-25K a year stipend, and the professor pays their tuition of 10-30K depending on the institution. Postdocs typically take home ~35-45K a year + benefits which run ~10K depending on the institution. The institution also takes off a certain percent of the grant (30-60% depending on institution) to pay for "overhead" which is power/water/roof/trash/etc.

So, for your 1 million dollars you get one professor and 2 graduate students/postdocs working on your problem for 5 years. Now, that definitely improves the right place/right person thing, but only by 3 people. Now, that's not to say that the million dollars goes to waste, as it does go intro training more scientists at the very least, and also expands the knowledge base in the area of interest whether or not they are "successful" in solving the problem.

To contrast the costs in industry are quite a bit higher... the "prof" makes ~250K a year, the "postdoc" makes ~100-150K a year, and the "graduate student" makes ~65-75K a year. So for 1 million dollars in industry to buy 1 prof and 1 student for 3 years salary alone (not including materials/rent/etc.), so let's say 1 prof and 1 student for 2 years. No wonder industry demands results in the short to mid term, and they should as it is the role industry is best suited for (although the companies that do invest in long term R&D can be quite successful based on their innovation - Proctor and Gamble and General Electric being two good examples of this).

Here at Berkeley the "Helios" project just got $5 million a year for 10 years... and that's supporting about ~50-60 researchers directly + some major instrumentation and lab space that will be used by the entire lab/university for a long time. If it had been what was initially budgeted ($10 million) it would have been ~100 people and more instrumentation. This was the ONLY new center in the area funded by DoEnergy out of I think 5 that were going to be funded. The budget in this area was slashed from ~$50 m a year to $5 m. $50m a year is still what I consider small potatoes in an area of such vital long-term importance to the security and future of the U.S., yet it was cut much to the dismay of DoEnergy.

Animale

[Funkmasterr]

That is exactly the point I was trying to make, it's very wishy-washy. And unfortunately, the government thinks and acts a lot like a private corporation when it comes to making donations for things like this. The want to know what they can see in the short term, and if there isn't anything, they are very limited to how much they want to invest, after all they do not have unlimited funds either.

I'm not claiming to know everything either, I don't have a good solution to your posed problem, but that's why I'm just doing software quality assurance and not a big time scientist or politician.

[Animale]

The thing is that during the 50's-80's the government DID have a much more significant portion of their budget set aside for long term, high risk high reward. Then Reagan took over, with more industry/business types started holding the purse strings and began running government like a business. Because of this, the very important role that government should play in funding such research has been heavily diluted. Government is NOT business, especially in the scientific realm.

What the "make government more like business" folks don't seem to grasp is that, at least in the scientific realm, the government is spending money on research like this so business doesn't have to. It is, in essence, a government subsidy that will ultimately pay out with an improved overall economy. States are beginning to understand this and more of them are trying to pick up the slack of the federal government - but the states can only do so much on their own.

[Funkmasterr]

I understand what you are saying and basically agree with you, unfortunately I don't know that we'll ever see much of a change back there. Kind of like the government continuing to tax our income heavily even though it income taxes were originally implemented to fund the world wars and should have gone away afterward.

They (politicians in general) like things the way they are now, but I agree with you and hope that maybe someday that will be back in check.

[Animale]

They (politicians in general) like things the way they are now, but I agree with you and hope that maybe someday that will be back in check.

I don't really want to leave it at that though. If we don't try to change things for the better, then why even bother voting. This is on all issues actually and one that the religious right has got correct, if you care about issues make it a point to vote and lobby your representative to change how things are done. Otherwise one can't really complain. I'm hoping that from my side on this at least people will begin pushing both for more for control/clarity in government while placing government functionality in the scientific realm back to where it belongs and can do the most good to further our scientific progress.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

They (politicians in general) like things the way they are now, but I agree with you and hope that maybe someday that will be back in check.

I don't really want to leave it at that though. If we don't try to change things for the better, then why even bother voting. This is on all issues actually and one that the religious right has got correct, if you care about issues make it a point to vote and lobby your representative to change how things are done. Otherwise one can't really complain. I'm hoping that from my side on this at least people will begin pushing both for more for control/clarity in government while placing government functionality in the scientific realm back to where it belongs and can do the most good to further our scientific progress.

I suppose when people are as truly convinced as you are, it will happen. Until then it will take the elite minority pushing it on the masses via media and governmental regulations.

I liken it to seperation of church and state. I don't believe in God or Global Warming, so I don't really like the government telling me I have to.

I understand your passion and insight on this issue, Animale. I just don't share it.

[Funkmasterr]

They (politicians in general) like things the way they are now, but I agree with you and hope that maybe someday that will be back in check.

I don't really want to leave it at that though. If we don't try to change things for the better, then why even bother voting. This is on all issues actually and one that the religious right has got correct, if you care about issues make it a point to vote and lobby your representative to change how things are done. Otherwise one can't really complain. I'm hoping that from my side on this at least people will begin pushing both for more for control/clarity in government while placing government functionality in the scientific realm back to where it belongs and can do the most good to further our scientific progress.

I suppose when people are as truly convinced as you are, it will happen. Until then it will take the elite minority pushing it on the masses via media and governmental regulations.

I liken it to seperation of church and state. I don't believe in God or Global Warming, so I don't really like the government telling me I have to.

I understand your passion and insight on this issue, Animale. I just don't share it.

I share, or at least understand and support his passion for the government doing more to fun science in general, but I wouldn't want them shoving global warming down our throats either until it is no longer a debatable topic. However, I don't think he was referring to it specifically for global warming related research only.

[Nick]

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

Presumably you didn't understand the rules of the challenge. Please sit out for the rest of the challenges, this clearly counts as a sarcastic flame. Playing "dumb" to it is not valid.

My net is randomly being weird, and has been for the last day and a half. I'll reply as and when it will be sorted (hopefully tonight :O) - As of this point, Midnyte has invalidated his own contributions for the next month in any of these threads.

Mid, you had an opportunity here, you blew it.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Sounds like you got it all figured out.

Presumably you didn't understand the rules of the challenge. Please sit out for the rest of the challenges, this clearly counts as a sarcastic flame. Playing "dumb" to it is not valid.

My net is randomly being weird, and has been for the last day and a half. I'll reply as and when it will be sorted (hopefully tonight :O) - As of this point, Midnyte has invalidated his own contributions for the next month in any of these threads.

Mid, you had an opportunity here, you blew it.

Maybe you missed my clarification on that.

It wasn't a snarky one liner. This is your big thing. I don't believe the same things you do. We have hashed it out now many times. I'm not sure what it is you want me to say besides to completly convert to your line of thinking.

[Nick]

That's a fairly silly response and will be treated as such. Your contributions are invalid in this challenge, but thanks for starting the threads and discounting yourself before they have begun. To make it abundantly clear, playing "dumb" to your flame is not legitimate, by anyones imagination.

I'm well aware your intention is to goad me into a flamefest, so from this point on you are considered "null and void".

Still, maybe the rest of us can contribute in a FF manner, should be interesting (my net is still limping along like a loser, so I'll be posting asap once it comes up)

[Spang]

Aren't you supposed to be staying on topic?

Midnyte is not the topic of discussion, Global Warming is!

[Nick]

my net is still limping along like a loser, so I'll be posting asap once it comes up

Spang, since its taking 10 minutes to refresh a page, I'd prefer to start posting on topic once it becomes possible to start to properly start browsing, I made that clear the first time, but for clarification, I thought i'd say it again.

Goading on your part won't help my internet work better either by the way.

[Spang]

A loophole? Very clever!

[Noysyrump]

I have an idea.... about the global warming issue that is.

in 1800 man was sailing the oceans.

in 1900 man was learning to fly.

before 2000 man was in space.

so in 2100 isnt it likely, man will be living in space, if we so chose. You know, like star trek and shit. So instead of worrying about "omgosh we meltz da planet" lets just figure out how to get the hell off this dumb rock.

[Fash]

Yep, I've been saying that for a long time... that's supposed to be the real goal. Humanity has all its eggs in one basket. We need to expand beyond earth.

Increasing spending on Science and R&D would help. That should be where most of the money goes... I fully support increasing all government funding to science and r&d to the highest levels possible.

[MooZilla]

Global warming is far left wing's attempt to fight industrialization with hysteria!!!!

[Funkmasterr]

Why do I feel like I'm the only one (that is competing) that is taking this serious. Winner by default?

[Fash]

Isn't it a little early to declare victory? I don't think there is a consensus on this

[Funkmasterr]

I'll give it another week, if the situation is still the same I am sooooo deeming myself the winner.

[Nick]

As had been noted, my net has been fucking abysmal the last few days. I have no idea why. Anyway, here's my contribution to begin with (apologies for the lateness).

First of all, it's worth mentioning that I'm not an expert on climate change, therefore my opinions are going to be mainly based on the findings of those who actually study the effects of global warming for a living.

Our resident Scientist Animale's opinions already hold substantially more weight than more anyone elses here, so for the sake of acknowledging that I'll go through his post first.

Part 1) What is the impact of human release of CO2 (and its measured increase in the atmosphere) going to be?

Part 2) What should we do about it in the short, mid, and long term?

Splitting it up makes it easier I think, as some of the "solutions" for part 2 are meaningful even if one doesn't think that part 1 is affirmative. Separating them out actually removes some of the "anti-environmentalist, anti-Al Gore, pro-status quo" rhetoric from the problem... and can allow for common ground where everybody leaves with something.
Talking about point 1 is, unfortunately, just going to end up with the same old discussion we've had before - where I point out that people smarter and more knowledgeable than us have thought about these same questions and actually wrote a report that addresses them. Now I think that maybe we should consider their expert opinion on climate models higher than that of an economist, but I digress.
If there are specific things that people don't want to bother looking up in the index of the above mentioned report (look at working group 1 for pretty much all of your answers) - post them and we can talk about point 1. Until then, let's talk about point 2 and save some of the agony of people talking past one another.

The issue is of course that those who don't feel that part 1 is applicable don't feel the need to embrace with any degree of seriousness the intentions of part 2. That's not surprising, but unfortunate.

To follow the back to front state of discussion, there are obvious benefits to reducing the number of harmful pollutants humans emit into the atmosphere. Simple logic dictates that we get cleaner air that is healthier for all animals, and that of course ties in well with preserving the species on the planet that are dying as a result of our actions. This action alone is worth doing. If that involves changing your lightbulbs to energy preserving lightbulbs, turning your lights off, not owning pointlessly massive SUV's (which, let's face it, are little more than compensation for small penis syndrome) - is that really a "sacrifice"?

If everyone did this, the effect from internationally accumulated efforts would be noticeable, and at the least, morally legitimate if nothing else.

I'll start briefly on something I think is important about point 2
Posit: Crop-based ethanol is a tremendous farce in that it does not actually solve the problem in the long term (or the short term for that matter).

Completely agree, what little I've read about it, it appears to be horrendously damaging and should not be considered a legitimate alternative to oil. The reasons for which lie in things like production, which end up being expensive, polluting and not worth the hassle tbh.

Q1) Is it a decent short-term "fix" or merely a way to plow money back into powerful political forces within the U.S.?

Let's face it, the reason developed countries don't want to embrace the necessary changes is because other countries like China and India don't and won't bother to. The argument of "why should I change my lifestyle if they won't?" is perfectly legitimate and a sticky topic to start discussing. An International consensus is vital, the assumption being that the developed countries lead the way.

This raises a number of interesting questions - For those who worry about the money in their pockets more than the planet that everyone lives on, isn't conserving energy actually going to save you money?

Also, is taking a lead on climate change, instead of holding the progress up (As the USA is renowned for doing, for some legitimate reasons and for a lot of illigitimate ones) - is taking a leadership role seriously going to affect you personally any more than the hundreds of billions that have been pissed down a drain in Iraq?

Q3) Ultimately, a solar or fusion based liquid fuel is the answer to the "energy" problem in general. Why isn't the U.S. government and U.S. industry putting more of an emphasis on R&D in this important area? (see Q1?)

That's easy, the US government is corrupt beyond repair, and members of its administration prefer to line their own pockets with Saudi money and other oil related nonsense over actively trying to improve the planet.

Also, it's not just the government funding the R&D of new technology that will hold it up, it's private companies deciding how quickly they are going to start developing/researching vehicles that would use this technology, then it would be a while before the cars would be affordable enough for the average person to buy. Now I am fully aware you understand this but I think the process is bigger than people usually think when pondering these issues.

Yep, you're completely right on this point. I don't think anyone is naive enough here to think the US government will be able to save anything (except possibly their own sorry hides down the line). Private business needs to make the step, the government can actively help this though with better incentives than it employs at present.

It could also stop embracing an anti-science stance, which has trickled down to the less intelligent members of society who prefer to look at things the way Rupert Murdoch wants them to.

Also, what Animale said:

This is the main point I'm trying to make, and it is an important one. This is NOT an engineering problem where the timeline to product can be sped up by throwing money/people at it. It is a basic scientific understanding problem, where "discoveries" need to be made in many areas including chemistry (catalysis - water to oxygen and hydrogen or carbon dioxide to methanol), materials (better solar materials, and/or scaffolds for surface modification with chromophores and catalysts), physics (understanding of charge separation), biology (control of placement of photo-active sites in membranes), etc.
These are all "holy grail" type discoveries which do not happen on timetables, but instead occur when the right person is in the right place. The problem with the limited government funding for this area of basic research is that it limits the possibilities of right places and right people. We need to start now on it, so that the discoveries are made so it is actually possible to throw money and people at the problem and in "2 years" have a feasible solution. As of now, there is no possible timeline for these discoveries. Hopefully in the near future timelines will become reasonable, but right now its in the same realm of the mystical "10-15 years out" that fusion research has been in since the 1950's.

I don't understand Funk's "not in my lifetime" pessimism. Where is that coming from? And is it a reason to simply discount the necessity to actually do it anyway?

Anyway, on to something more to do with this whole "challenge" thing. Midnyte, using the "religion" thing is getting very boring. You have yet to contribute anything of value to this thread beyond starting it (which no one asked you to, if you intend to be part of the challenge, start acting in a more intelligent manner instead of the same old cliches).

Where is your evidence? And what is with the religion thing? At what point did your understanding of science become arse about face?

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Anyway, on to something more to do with this whole "challenge" thing. Midnyte, using the "religion" thing is getting very boring. You have yet to contribute anything of value to this thread beyond starting it (which no one asked you to, if you intend to be part of the challenge, start acting in a more intelligent manner instead of the same old cliches).

Where is your evidence? And what is with the religion thing? At what point did your understanding of science become arse about face?

This could easily be considered trolling, baiting and flaming. I never said I'd be part of your challenge. I only said it was interesting.

Where is my evidence? The burden isn't on me. The burden of proof lies solely on the shoulders on those trying to convince me an imminent disaster is coming and it was caused by humans and can be fixed by humans.

Religion thing? I didn't think this was a difficult analogy, but it is used because the believers(in global warming) want the non-believers to convert based on faith in their numbers. Similar to religion wanting to convert using the words(bibles) they have as data(proof). What you have is not indisputable proof, you have plenty of scientists who do not buy into those numbers. You ask me to choose your side and discount the non-believers. Sounds like religion to me.

At what point did your understanding of science become arse about face? I have no idea what you are trying to ask here.

[Nick]

This could easily be considered trolling, baiting and flaming. I never said I'd be part of your challenge. I only said it was interesting.

Well are you or aren't you? Because if you aren't, I'm free to flame you as much as I feel like....it's really up to you.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

This could easily be considered trolling, baiting and flaming. I never said I'd be part of your challenge. I only said it was interesting.

Well are you or aren't you? Because if you aren't, I'm free to flame you as much as I feel like....it's really up to you.

I'd love to see you be able to speak to me like an adult whether or not we are in some challenge. I'd like that a lot.

[Nick]

You have the power to make that happen, it's a fairly simple choice.

[Funkmasterr]

I didn't quote you nick, cause your post was very long - but in regard to your comment about my "not in my lifetime pessimism", I'm not sure where you got that misconception about me. I am frustrated with people using that same kind of pessimism in regard to the space program.

Maybe you can point out what I said that made you think that's where I'm coming from, I'd like a chance to clarify.

[Fash]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=88520025

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."

In recent years, heat has actually been flowing out of the ocean and into the air. This is a feature of the weather phenomenon known as El Nino. So it is indeed possible the air has warmed but the ocean has not. But it's also possible that something more mysterious is going on.

That becomes clear when you consider what's happening to global sea level. Sea level rises when the oceans get warm because warmer water expands. This accounts for about half of global sea level rise. So with the oceans not warming, you would expect to see less sea level rise. Instead, sea level has risen about half an inch in the past four years. That's a lot.

Willis says some of this water is apparently coming from a recent increase in the melting rate of glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.

"But in fact there's a little bit of a mystery. We can't account for all of the sea level increase we've seen over the last three or four years," he says.

One possibility is that the sea has, in fact, warmed and expanded — and scientists are somehow misinterpreting the data from the diving buoys.

But if the aquatic robots are actually telling the right story, that raises a new question: Where is the extra heat all going?

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.

It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.

"I suspect that we'll able to put this together with a little bit more perspective and further analysis," Trenberth says. "But what this does is highlight some of the issues and send people back to the drawing board."

Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.

Another reason it is so important to keep an open mind on this topic. At this time, mankind is simply incapable of coming to a solid answer on this topic, and we should be wary of any proposed solutions and the motives and confidence behind them.