Comments

CommonSense

The Environment

Giant Antarctic Ice Bridge Collapses

By Laurie J. Schmidt Posted on 4.15.2009 13 Comments
A 25-mile-long ice bridge that linked the Wilkins Ice Shelf to Charcot Island on the Antarctic Peninsula has collapsed. NASA satellite imagery shows that the bridge's disintegration occurred sometime between March 31 and April 6. Scientists had been keeping a close eye on the bridge since last March, anticipating its collapse following dramatic changes that have taken place on the Wilkins Shelf in recent years.

6.26.2009 at 01:22am - Comment by CommonSense

Wow a lot of silliness about a little chunk of ice! Didn't any of these brilliant "scientists" learn that ice is 11% larger than water? How is melting-shrinking ice going to raise ocean levels? Also how are these "scientists" predicting weather-temp-climate 50 years into the future when no one can tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW? I also haven't heard any of these "geniuses" explain how if it gets hotter and wetter for a period, how cloud cover wouldn't then occur? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
The Environment

Climate Change Never Looked So Good

By Posted on 5.15.2009 5 Comments
Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate scientist and one of the nonsense-dispelling bloggers at RealClimate, teamed up with photographer Joshua Wolfe to create the new book Climate Change: Picturing the Science. According to its creators, the book illustrates climate change science through "arresting images and lucid explanations of the science of global warming and the pursuit of global cooperation in adopting new, sustainable ways of living." Check out a selection of the book's most breathtaking images in PopSci.com's Gallery: Climate Change Never Looked So Good.

6.26.2009 at 12:50am - Comment by CommonSense

Another "scientist" trying to cash in on the "global warming" craze. I wonder if he was one of the "scientists" warning of the impending "ice age" that made such a clamor in the 70s and 80s. Maybe he can answer a simple question; How are you predicting temp-climate-weather 20-30-50 years into the future when you can't tell me with any accuracy what the weather or temp will be TOMORROW? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
The Environment

The First Secretary of Climate Change

By Posted on 6.29.2009 41 Comments
For years, Steven Chu argued that leadership on climate change should be wrested from the politicians and turned over to the scientists. But on Capitol Hill this April, on Earth Day, as Chu testified on the scientific merits of the most ambitious climate-change bill ever to come out of Washington, you might have wondered whether he regretted getting his wish.

6.26.2009 at 12:16am - Comment by CommonSense

Before we spend trillions of dollars and devastate whole industries like oil, coal, auto industries couldn't one of the "scientists" answer a simple question? How are you predicting weather-temp-climate 20 or 50 years into the future but can't tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW? After you answer that-then maybe get to the answer of how "global warming" is linked to a colorless/odorless naturally occuring gas (CO2) and yes where IS the proof that it is linked to humans? Since most of us missed the "debate", quit with the lie of saying "the debate is over". When did the debate occur? And why weren't the simple questions answered? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
The Environment

Climate Change Is Already Affecting the United States

By Stuart Fox Posted on 6.16.2009 18 Comments
For years, scientists have been talking about the future impact of global warming. Well, according to a new government report, the future is now. The report claims that heat waves have increased in the Northeast, droughts have increased in the Southwest, coastline has eroded, and adds that "global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."

6.25.2009 at 11:50pm - Comment by CommonSense

Before trillions of dollars are wasted/looted can one of these brilliant "scientists" answer a simple question? How are you predicting weather-temp-climate 20 or 50 years into the future yet can't tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
The Environment

Geoengineering: Are Weather Machines Really the Answer?

By Posted on 6.18.2009 21 Comments
Ever since prehistoric man first set fires to drive game towards hunters and cliffs, humans have altered their environment for their own gain. No more so than in the years since the Industrial Revolution, when carbon emissions began to drastically alter Earth's climate and atmosphere. And now that we know definitively that humans can alter Earth's climate, some scientists have begun investigating ways to deliberately change the weather to offset the negative impact of a century of inadvertent human generated climate change.

6.25.2009 at 11:38pm - Comment by CommonSense

Before trillions of dollars are spent chasing a naturally occuring gas (CO2) shouldn't the "scientists" coming up with this garbage answer the simple questions? Like- How are you predicting weather and temp paterns 20 or 50 years into the future but you can't tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
The Environment

Synthetic Tree Soaks Up Carbon 1000x Faster Than the Real Thing

By John Brandon Posted on 6.24.2009 17 Comments
Trees are great absorbers of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and inhibitors of climate change -- that's why treehuggers hug them so much. But leave it to humanity to engineer a better tree. A synthetic tree, currently being tested as a prototype, ensnares carbon about 1,000 times faster than a real tree.

6.25.2009 at 11:15pm - Comment by CommonSense

Before we spend trillions of dollars on fake trees and cap and trade garbage can one of the "scientists" answer a simple question? How are you predicting weather and temps 20 and 50 years in the future but no one can tell me with any accuracy how hot it will be TOMORROW? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
Cars

Stop Snickering: ExxonMobil Lends Tech to Launch Electric Car

By Posted on 6.25.2009 6 Comments
An oil company helping launch an electric car? The jokes write themselves. (Launch it where, into space?) But it's true: low-speed electric carmaker Electrovaya launched its Maya-300 car this week with help from ExxonMobil. The oil giant's "SuperPolymer" separator film is used in production of Electrovaya's lithium-ion battery. But wait, there's more.

6.25.2009 at 10:51pm - Comment by CommonSense

billdale, that battery technology is old anyhow. Relax. Corporations the size of Chevron have thousands of patents. If a company can make money on a product they will market it. The Evil Oil Company routine is a bit dated, let it go. If they held the "magic battery" they'd make billions marketing it to game, cell phone, laptop, PDA outlets to name a few. The Chevy Volt isn't going to scare oil companies so why would a battery? It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...
Science

Ten Times the Turbine

By Posted on 5.21.2008 19 Comments
Sky Serpent Cost to Develop: $250,000 Time: 9 years Prototype | | | | | Product Today’s largest wind farms are the size of small towns, made up of turbines 30 stories tall with blades the size of 747 wings. Those behemoths produce a great deal of power, but manufacturing, transporting, and installing them is both expensive and difficult, and back orders are common as the industry grows by more than 40 percent a year. The solution, says inventor Doug Selsam, is to think smaller: Capture more power with less material by putting 2, 10, someday dozens of smaller rotors on the same shaft linked to the same generator.

6.20.2009 at 11:00pm - Comment by CommonSense

Sorry to rain on anyone's parade but this design is a bit silly. How is filling up a balloon with helium (or Hydrogen or whatever lighter-than-air substitute) on a daily basis going to lower the cost of something and make it less complicated? For about $1,000 a 3kW wind turbine can be bought or built. So why have it so labor intensive? Also how is the high cost of a strong yet flexible drive tube/wire that this design requires supposed to make it cheaper and less complicated? Having multiple rotors isn't a bad idea it's just not a smart design configured as this one is shown. I've looked at the individual blade design as well and it looks like a lot of inefficient blades were substituted for one or even a couple of more efficient blades. Instead of using a modified automotive-style alternator/generator the R&D might be better focused in winding one that works better at the RPMs that are applicable to wind powered electrical generation. It's just common sense, even when it's uncommon...