If Natural GW Steve is reading this I posted a response to a question you asked in an earlier thread:

NGWS - The amount of energy needed to do what you ask is about 4x10^21 J (by my calc using the specific heat of dry air and not including temperature variation of the specific heat of air). The net change in total radiative forcing from all factors (both positive and negative) since 1850 is about 1.5 W/m^2 which yields an additional 3.8x10^24 J. Enough to warm both the mass in the lower troposphere as well as the land and ocean as has been observed. As for the how, it due to the reduction in outgoing IR due to increased GHG in the atmosphere and various feedbacks (primarily water vapor). But your question is rife with errors itself. For instance, the entire troposphere has not warmed by 1degC. Satellite data shows a clear gradient in the atmospheric temperature anomaly with elevation. You also imply that because CO2 has a low density in the atmosphere that it somehow has a small effect, but you do this without quantifying the effects yourself or providing references for such quantification. So do you know that it is a �small amount of IR� and how did you arrive at the conclusion? To what variations in natural forcings do you think GW can be attributed (as your name implies)? What is the net effect of those variations? Can you provide the quantifications that you ask of others?

How about using Patrick's "tunnels"? They seem to be able to cure pretty much everything. It's worth a shot, eh?

I visited the National Atomic Museum over the weekend in Albuquerque. They were pushing the global warming thing pretty hard, and it made me realize that the nuclear power industry is a key player behind the scenes.

If you are needing to put power plants in the oceans, it makes a lot more sense to use 100% non-toxic wave, wind or solar power. Or maybe even "Patrick's tunnels" ;^)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_desalination

The sun puts out a lot of nuclear energy and does so in a way which minimizes unwanted radiation on the earth. We should take advantage.

The idea of nuclear desalination is hardly new:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v36_1_03/article_09.shtml

But while "Big Science" advocate Alvin Weinberg favored nuclear desalination, no less a figure Neocon Paul Wolfowitz opposed it.

In his PhD. dissertation Wolfowitz wrote, "It is the contention of this writer that the benefits from nuclear desalting have been vastly exaggerated while its costs have been underestimated and the potential harm it can do largely ignored." He also stated: "Scarcity of water has not been the cause of the recent wars in the Middle East, and the introduction of large supplies of desalted water can make only a marginal contribution to reducing tension that many lead to future wars."

"Floating nuclear plants would represent a way to...." what???... Pollute the entire Indian Ocean when some ship rams it or some technician accidently presses the scuttle button mistaking it for a vending machine?
India and China both have an abysmal 50 year safety track record for any industrial or commercial project and NOW you think they are suddenly going to be careful?
LOL What a joke!
Everybody is jumping on the gravy train….

My "TUNNEL" idea prevents this stupidity by removing the fossils. We wouldn't need this because the "TUNNELS" produce enough electrical power for the UNITED STATES thus preventing desertification and over population would not be a problem with the TUNNELS because they could support a world population of over 20 billion people.

Wonder what the enviro's think of this? Nothing like trying a new concept and method involving their favorite heavy element capable of splitting. Especially since they prefer to use old, rusting, inefficient refinery technology in lieu of building a nice new one.

Charles:

Your point is? And sure maybe the concept was first put forth in 1963 but if it was so great, why didn't Gore bring it to the forefront during his time as second in command of the lone world superpower? Seems like an environmentally minded guy like him would at least be aware of the concept.

Hi Guys,

Well here in Orange County California the City of Huntington Beach is already building a desalination plant using the AES power station intake and exhaust water so they can use less energy. So it works but I be careful using a nuke plant. They may try it on San Onfre (SONGS).
http://www.surfcity-hb.org/Government/Departments/Planning/major/poseidon.cfm

What happens during a Cat 5 Typhoon/hurricane passing right over it?

Clean water and water shortages are already a big problem throughout much of the developing world. In fact, food shortages, which were the big problem twenty years ago, has been greatly alleviated, while access to clean water has taken center stage as a major problem.

With our without climate change, water shortages are going to be a huge problem in twenty years. Nuclear desalination is a good idea.

Taking it a step further, most of the world's increase in energy demand will be coming from the developing world. Rather than focusing on adding more nuclear power plants in our country, we should focus on exporting our knowledge of nuclear power and nuclear safety to countries like China and India. We should be encouraging them to use nuclear instead of coal. It would be a great business opportunity as well, since it's one of the few things we can export these days, it seems.

snowmachine-

It gets wet.

nuclear safety

That is an oxymoron

we should focus on exporting our knowledge of nuclear power

and other technologies of mass destruction?

http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/page05.shtml

Darren, My point is that the original plan to use nuclear power for desalination was blocked by ideological extremist like Paul Wolfowitz. It is still opposed by extremist like "Patrick Henry."

"and other technologies of mass destruction?"

In case you didn't know, India and China already have nuclear weapons.

There are still many issues with storing nuclear waste, but it's clearly the way to go, especially in the developing world. I don't share the Paranoid Right's obsession with the Cold War.

With or without climate change, water shortages are going to be a huge problem in twenty years. Nuclear desalination is a good idea.

We don't have to wait twenty years, talk to somebody from the south-eastern US today.

Patrick Henry's concern about nuclear safety, and his advocacy of solar energy, are touching.

The conflicts that drive desire for "technologies of mass destruction" are centered in the regions where potable water is in short supply, and has been for thousands of years. While the US addiction to petroleum has perhaps overshadowed these conflicts in recent decades, the water wars will continue long after the oil is gone.

As much as the right-wing would have us believe our current war is about "terror" or religion, it is about various cultures competing for vital resources -- and no resource is as vital as potable water.

In the short term, the immediate and widespread use of nuclear power for energy and, in turn, all the things that come from that energy -- potable water, hydrogen for vehicles, electricity for cities -- is the most effective short-term way to eliminate the shortages that drive conflict.

In the medium term, an effort to replace these nuclear sources with solar (and other) alternatives is an important and vital strategy.

Patrick Henry and the right-wing pursue a strategy of aggressively seizing fossil-fuel supplies by brute force and intimidation, while intentionally blocking access to the only technologies that offer short- or medium-term relief from the current and anticipated shortages.

This strategy can only result in cataclysmic violence and war. Which is not surprising, since the same right-wing is closely allied with the extremist right-wing Christians who believe that this impending cataclysm is not only unavoidable, but who actively seek it, in the Middle East, as a "sign" of their much-heralded and eagerly-anticipated "rapture".

If the world were to have cheap, reliable, and clean energy and potable water, a huge driver of human conflict would be moot.

This should be "good news" for all who seek peace and justice. The fact that it is not further illuminates the true motivation of those who oppose it.

BT,

Sensible people understand that oil is one of the most amazing gifts that mankind has been blessed with. The Chinese and Russians understand this.

One day without oil and western liberals might even figure it out too.

I would love to hear exactly what fossil fuel supplies were aggressively seized by brute force and intimidation by the US. Last I recall, we BUY this stuff.

No right wingers have blocked access to technology that offers relief. In fact, "right wingers" have been begging for the creation of new refineries and nuke power plants only to have them scuttled or tied up by people concerned solely about the environment. Ditto that on new domestic sources of oil reserves. My impression is that most of these enviro minded people despise right-wingers and are much more liberally minded. Nothing wrong with their concerns, there valid, but to blame the "right" is wrong.

BT:

You seem to have confused extreme Christians idealogues with the groups who brought this war on terror to the world. AS I recall, the previous administration dang near capitualated to these extreme non-christian groups yet THEY (extreme islamists alone) chose to dictate the path upon which the entire world is now on.

You are absolutely correct though, the creation of a utopian power and water supply would render most human conflict moot. But, I hate to tell you, the extreme islamists do not care at all about power, water or whether the climate is too hot, or too cold, all they care about is their version of their religion. So this "fake war", as you and others like to say this is, would have occurred no matter what.

"Sensible people understand that oil is one of the most amazing gifts that mankind has been blessed with."

Ahh yes, Patrick claims oil is a blessing to mankind, but in the link below, he claims otherwise:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/10/energy_ceo_offers_his_solution_1.html#comment-21208

Deniers can't even keep their own arguments straight. No wonder nobody takes them seriously.

I would love to hear exactly what fossil fuel supplies were aggressively seized by brute force and intimidation by the US. Last I recall, we BUY this stuff.

Who do we buy "this stuff" from? What local government/dictator ensures that we can continue to buy it, and how is that government propped up? I think you'll find that providing secure access to petroleum is a -- or even the -- major strategic consideration in an enormous number of our foreign policy decisions. Decisions such as who we sell arms to, who we provide military support for, who we provide economic support to, and so on and so forth.

How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqis? Zero. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were Afghans? Again, Zero.

How many of them were from Saudi Arabia? FIFTEEN! Two more were from the United Arab Emirates, another from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.

Have we attacked Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, or even Lebanon?

The truth is the wealthy people in the US ensure that we transfer other people's money to wealthy people in the ME in order to ensure that both groups keep their wealth. Why do YOU think Halliburton moved their HQ from the US to Dubai?

But, I hate to tell you, the extreme islamists do not care at all about power, water or whether the climate is too hot, or too cold, all they care about is their version of their religion. So this "fake war", as you and others like to say this is, would have occurred no matter what.

If the US led the rest of the world in providing "utopian power and water supply" to the world, I think that the "extreme islamists" (isn't "extreme Muslims" the term we're looking for?) would find it significantly harder to sign up their jihadists. There have always been, and there will always be, crazies at the extreme ends of any cultural spectrum. Don't forget that with the exception of the single pathological example of the 9/11 attack, the most dangerous US terrorists were American right-wingers -- terrorists like McVeigh and the anti-abortion bombers and murderers. One of the most catastrophic failures of this fake war is that it has strengthened, rather than weakened, the power and influence of these extremists.

One day without oil and western liberals might even figure it out too.

Some of us apparently can't even conceive of a world without oil. Sounds like an addiction to me.

America is the wealthiest, most powerful, and most educated culture in human history. We have a unique opportunity to use that wealth and power for the betterment of all humanity. I am convinced that using our resources in this way is a far more effective tool in eliminating terrorism than the fear-mongering, violence, and bullying that now passes for US policy.

Mark-

You should try looking carefully at the name before accusing them of saying something different. Patrick Henry and the Patrick you linked to are not the same person.

Hi Mark,

Perhaps you should give up oil usage to ease your conscience, and definitely cut your CO2 generation by 80%. Your favorite candidates promise to force that upon you anyway, so why not get a head start?

I'm really eager to hear from you or BT or Steve Bloom how that 80% thing works out!

Remember, oil is evil. Our lives would be so, so much better if the gas pumps went dry and the lights went off.

BT:

I find it amazing that you have such an in depth view and understanding of the intricacies (sp) of the science of AGW yet such a simplistic view of what is this war on terror. The two don't jive since I truly feel that you are quite intelligent and thoughtful.

On that note, I just deleted a dissertation responding to you on the comments made regarding US policy and extreme terriosts. I felt it was relevent but yet way off the global warming discussion so why bore everyone about a non-GW topic.

Suffice to say, the extremists we are currently battling, do not care about utopian power supplies. Their stated goals do not contemplate the idea that their plight is the result of inequities in the global allotment and distribution of energy and resources.

But, I do think that if we can develop technology to provide great amounts of power, with no outward issues, mankind will benefit immensely. Makes me think of a Star Trek episode where the Captain states that the technology that created vast amounts of energy finally wiped out most human suffering concerns. Note also that by that time they had developed a weather modification network to eliminate all catastrophic events. Yep, people, it's a Star Trek reference.

Guess Brett may be out of job though if that ever comes to pass. But, hey, no tornados, so I'm OK with that. LOL

On that note, I just deleted a dissertation responding to you on the comments made regarding US policy and extreme terriosts. I felt it was relevent but yet way off the global warming discussion so why bore everyone about a non-GW topic.

Suffice to say, the extremists we are currently battling, do not care about utopian power supplies. Their stated goals do not contemplate the idea that their plight is the result of inequities in the global allotment and distribution of energy and resources.

I argue that our best strategy for addressing AGW is also our best strategy for solving the set of conflicts that we call the "war on terror". That best strategy begins with curing our addiction to petroleum and other fossil fuels. In so doing, it substantially erodes the wealth and power of the relative handful of rich white men who control the world's access to those petroleum and fossil fuels. That relative handful of rich white men therefore vigorously fight to oppose this strategy.

In some cases, their fight takes an economic form. In some cases, their fight shows itself as a vast and highly-funded publicity effort to spread lies, distortions, and fear about about the effects of the strategy. In some cases, their fight takes the form of a vast and highly-funded "war on terror" -- also based on lies, distortions, and fear.

The truth is that existing nuclear technology is able to exceed the world's energy needs, at least for long enough to develop the solar and other alternative energy sources needed for a long-term solution.

The truth is that such a solution path is the best possible way of minimizing or reversing anthropogenic global warming.

The truth is that such a solution path is the best possible way of freeing up global resources to address the impacts of climate change that are already underway and in all likelihood cannot be reversed.

The truth is that such a solution path is the best possible way of solving the underlying problems that create a receptive audience for extremist religious crackpots of any persuasion, including Muslim.

I agree with you that the "extremists we are currently battling ... do not care about utopian power supplies." So what. The strategy that I advocate marginalizes those extremists so that what they do or do not care about doesn't matter. The first step towards solving the problem is to take away their power.

If those of us who are wealthy, powerful, and caring act from a stance of caring rather than fear, we can and will solve these problems.

This is why we must reject the stance of fear, panic, and insecurity that the right-wing so loudly proclaims.

Patrick, if we're around in 2050 then I'll let you know if I was able to re