“Energy from the Sun, in the form of sunlight and heat, supports almost all life on Earth via photosynthesis, and drives the Earth’s climate and weather.”

Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen! Wikipedia THEMSELVES acknowledge the sun as the driver of climate! :D
And here we were thinking that Wikipedia is biased! Well that’s definately an interesting point to note :)

That is impossible as i clearly remember that an earlier census declared it to be around 45/46million and around 2004 when there was mass media portrayal of South Africa’s “ten years of democracy” and how many people were now in the nation. While numbers may vary slightly the pop is definately no less than 46million. While we do have high HIV/AIDS prevalence rates and migration, there has been a general increase in standard of living for people who were previously confined to rural areas pre-1994. Given that population pyramids show us that we are a “second world” developing country , it means that the population will increase but the increase will begin to slow down soon as costs of living will begin to rise due to our electricity and water crisises not meeting increasing demand…the AIDS infection rate has also dropped slightly. It is interesting to see such figures…it depends because there is largely negative growth among white minority population (migration) but there is a definite increase in the black majority. From a eye-level point of view the city I currently live in is expanding at a high rate, both high and low income government and private housing estates are booming with complexes dotting previously bushy areas. Generally as foreign investment is growing due to the 2010 world cup the population will increase as more shopping malls are being built. Come to think about it it is actually frighteneing how fast SA is growing considering our fuel and water crises.

True but policies aren’t usually designed on facts! Unfortunately science and politics cannot agree on certain things…the more i read about it the more complex it becomes although the general motives/ideas are clearly visible.

It’s ALL of us who get to decide these issues in the end, directly or indirectly via our voting power. Scientists are our expert witnesses, but they don’t get to decide policy–they only get one vote each just like the rest of us.

I’m not sure about crimes and tipping points, but the graph shows that the majority of points above the blue line occurred after 1998. I understand this to mean that average global temperatures post-1998 are not only higher, but more consistently higher, than average global temperatures pre-1998.

And yet many people insist that global warming stopped in 1998. How can this be?

So I’ll take your word on it. (But offhand would you know any reason for the large variations in the reported numbers?)

Yes, I know. My reply was by way of agreement, not disagreement. I am sorry if that was unclear.

BTW, my “liberal” ref was not a political party one. Nor an “American” one. Liberalism is a universal philosophical approach. And, of course, empiricism is a key to the scientific approach, particularly in the case of climate science, as dependent as it is on observation.

If, as you say, you are interested in the science and not the politics, that, in and of itself, defines you as a liberal empiricist (openminded and observant of data), quite regardless of nationality or politics.

For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50′s and 60′s but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it’s coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California’s electricity currently costs 2x Utah’s and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Comparison: Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power

Uranium LWR /// Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 /// 100
Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 /// 1
Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ 95%
Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 /// 1
Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs /// 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 /// <1
Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% /// ~50%
Cooling Requirements _______________ Water /// Water or Air
Plant Safety _______________________ Good /// Very Good
Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes /// No(very hard)
Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No /// Yes
Development Status _______ Commercial Now /// Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsUranium.ppt

charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah

“Welcome home. You now join the growing ranks of liberals who give a damn about empiricism.”

I am Not American. In fact I am South African and so I do not really care with regards to the arguments between “liberals” and “republicans”. In RSA we see Gore as a plain 1st World politician not as a Liberal politician. I am here to discuss the science not the politics. I am not American and therefore will not engage in debates about which party is destroying democracy, expanding empiricism etc etc. Given the fact that I am 17, I will only be able to vote in the South African election in 2009. The point is by being ‘converted’ it has been to a more open-to-real-science type person who readily questions theories and ‘ scientific consensus’ not a “liberal…epiricism”

“Ugh. First off, birthrates have plunged since 1990, even in the less developed countries. In the developed world, birthrates are well under the replacement rate.”

Nowhere in my statement did i say that the hockeystick population curve is an accurate portrayal of the current population status of Earth. Please do not assume so. I merely included it because this is what we as the schoolkids of today are shown these two graphs together to show a “possible correlation”.
I agree that the population curve is innacurate. Birthrates may have plunged since my year of birth but survival rates have not. I assume you are an American (correct me if i am wrong) and I assume (living in 1st world) that unless you have lived in a developing country you are able to make such statements? In fact in South Africa both survival and birthrates have increased shifting our pop from 45mil (2004) to 48mil(2008 ) despite mass migration of skilled labourers.