Is hurricane sandy a bellwether?

[Andy Cross]

What about the sun

There are some effects that it is too late to reverse, but what we do over the next several decades is extremely important to what kind of world we leave to our children and grandchildren. The mean temperature of the Earth has already risen by about 1 F, and even if we were to stop emitting carbon as soon as possible, it will continue to rise to 2.5 F above normal by the end of the century. But if world emissions continue to grow at current rates, the rise will be 10 F. Sea level rose by about 7 inches in the 20th century, and will rise another 7 to 22 inches, depending on what we do. These are big differences.

These model predictions are so well accepted among the scientific community that NASA summarizes them on their website: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ Although, the sea level rise estimates keep getting revised upwards as mechanisms for self-accelerating effects are incorporated into the models.

Worrying about issues that might affect us, our children, grand children or great great grand children due to climate changes, global warming or what ever is only short term. The real issue revolves around what happens when the sun runs out of fuel and becomes a red giant. That's too far down the track for any one to worry about. Tell that to those who might still be here then. The moral of this story is at some point we will be returned to the periodic table from whence we came and all the bickering over subjects like this will become irrelevant.
Andy

 

[JerrySharrett]

Jerry,
The global average temperature has increased and is predicted to keep increasing, so the initial name was "global warming." Later, it was recognized that not all regions would have temperatures affected by the same amount. Keith

Keith, so you don't think the name change is made so it will fit regardless which way the climate goes? This is just an opening to keep their money grabbing machine going. Algore & Fellow Travelers Inc. have made billions on this ploy already!!!!!

Remember, in the '70's we were cooling and in the '70's we were generating much more CO-One and CO-Two than we are now. It amazes me of how many "one born every minute' there are.

"(One born every minute" is used without permission of PT Barnum)

 

[mks]

C'mon Keith, you're brighter than this!

Maybe not

Just where does "vested interest" enter into this?

It's pretty simple, really. If we stop buying oil/gas/coal, those executives lose their mansions and Lear jets. If you wouldn't feel the pressure to keep the status quo, you are a better man than me.

Wind? Solar?

That wind is an alternative isn't even in question any more. If you have traveled across the plains recently, it is hard not to notice the wind farms growing like weeds.

I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if we covered a quarter of Arizona with solar PV, it would generate the entire US energy demand. Or calculated another way, we need 2000 square feet of PV per person to replace all US energy. At the time, the estimated cost would be $6 trillion - about the cost of 2-3 middle east wars. Not that much, considering the benefits. PV costs have come down since then, and solar thermal may be even better in the long run.

 

[mks]

Keith, so you don't think the name change is made so it will fit regardless which way the climate goes?

You mean just in case the globe cools instead of warms? I honestly don't think so. There is not much chance of that.

Remember, in the '70's we were cooling and in the '70's we were generating much more CO-One and CO-Two than we are now.

Here is a graph of historical CO2 emissions: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/glo.html
It shows that PER CAPITA emissions leveled off in the 70's, but have not decreased over the long term. So total emissions have been rising along with world population. It takes a long time for the carbon to get into the upper atmosphere and for the Earth temperature to respond, so we are feeling the effects of 70's emissions now, and emissions now will impact future temperatures.

 

[Charles E]

All this talk. Reminds me of the "expert witness" problem. Happens on TV courtroom dramas all the time, but we in Durham, NC, had a real-world example in the case of blood splatter analysis in the Michael Peterson trial. A lot of money spend on expert witnesses. Since each side had one, the net effect was which expert witness the non-technical jury believed. The jury did not have the competency to make that decision, it was probably done on the basis handsomeness, hair color, deodorant used, something like that.

A more useful perspective: Look, we're wasting petrochemicals by burning them. They're too useful to simply burn as fuel.

The only sane fuel is Hydrogen; the only sane thing to do is to chip away at the problems of using it. Probably, after Hydrogen, the next one in the evolution of power is nuclear fusion, but let's solve hydrogen as a fuel first.

What stands in the way of this? Well, certain technical matters, but they're solvable. The other thing are the giant industries who's short-term profits would take a hit if there is any change.

One other Friday morning pithy thought. Unless you make a religion out of it, money is like a battery. I mean that literally. Money is a way to store work, store energy. Them that's got a lot have so much stored energy they can combat most any efforts by a poor opponent.

But the possibility of parity in the world always seems to rear it's head. The other thing modern times have shown us is that "terror" tactics succeed because a small group can take relatively inexpensive actions that cause another group to spend exponentially more.

Example: how much have we spent responding to the 9/11 attacks? Further, whatever has been spent in an effort to stop crashing airplanes into things is a strategic waste. Had to be done, yes, but there are many other things an opponent can do cheaply that will require another expensive response. & on & on.

So to my way of thinking, aside from terror tactics, addressing global warming means to make resolving it so profitable to the oil/auto/electrical/etc. industries, IN THE SHORT TERM, they support the effort. Tremendous expense. And since there will still be losers -- including a rather powerful Russia -- it becomes an even more difficult problem.

Much easier to throw nukes. If I were to bet, that's what I'd bet on as finally happening.

 

[JerrySharrett]

All this talk........ The only sane fuel is Hydrogen; the only sane thing to do is to chip away at the problems of using it. Probably, after Hydrogen, the next one in the evolution of power is nuclear fusion, but let's solve hydrogen as a fuel first.

Example: how much have we spent responding to the 9/11 attacks?

Charles, H-one has been on my front burner for decades as the miracle energy source. Burn it and it goes to H-two-O...and BINGO, it is recycled.

PS-as to 9/11, that "event" was never about terrorism, radical Muslims,,,etc. My first doubts about this :event' came up when I read that of the some 10,000-20,000 who worked in WT1 and WT2, on that day only several thousand didn't show up for work!!

 

[katokoch]

About 35% of their entire economy and capitol markets are driven by Petrobras

Care to cite where you got that figure?

Brazil got lucky with their natural resources- like the offshore oil reserves they recently discovered, but sames goes for the sugarcane that enables their ethanol. They've successfully integrated a sustainable alternative fuel into their marketplace in addition to having a ton of oil- and they're still trying to double their ethanol output. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels (especially the foreign type in our case) isn't gonna solve everything but it's a start. I was originally responding to splfd lumping them in with China and India, which I disagree with. It seems Brazil already cares about their sustainability, that's all.

 

[alinwa]

just... wow....

And THIS folks is America at work, "driving the world." (Well, useta' be )

We VOTED for this, fair and square, and we're doing it again.

BTW mks, PLEASE run the numbers on a wind generator and show how there's a positive return for our planet. And how on God's Earth can you make a statement like "look! they're everywhere!" to prove the point? That's a sad way to make decisions.... "look there are MORE people on foodstamps, it must be working!" I live with tens of thousands of windmills around me, they're not off on the plains somewhere, I get to look at them. Each and every windmill in existence has taken more from our children than all the "mansions and lear jets" ever have or will. And I guess I'd better just STOP there because the second "greed" becomes "bad," when "mansions and lear jets" are used to illustrate a point negatively I know that AMERICA is changing for the worst. We're going from a country that celebrates success, a group of people who REWARD excellence to a group of whining (insert favorite loser epithet here) entitlement-driven children, picking on the nerds who want to better themselves.

Dude, I AM a nerd, I WAS beat up physically behind the school.

From this comes my views, I HAVE risen above my roots. Honestly.

I'm coming to the conclusion that second/third generation heirs of successful businesses WILL throw it all away, as will the heirs of a successful nation.

America HAS BEEN a light to the world.

I've been proud of her all my life.

Now, it's like watching my mother choose whoring over working at the bank because banks are "bad." Money, "bad!" Gotta' TRADE labor so all r equal....

rant off


al

 

[tim]

Sure, go to any investment site that tracks global etf's and look at gdp #'s and market cap, start with ewz

 

[alinwa]

mks, I just went back and reread your post...can't let it go yet....

Pressure to keep the status quo

Where the @#$%!! does this stuff come from???

OK, YES, I like my hot shower... I LIKE to drive my own car to town, YES I LIKE the lifestyle this land has given me, I LIKE to be able to go out and shoot my new Sharps rifle RIGHT NOW if I want.

"pressure to keep the status quo?"

Dude, I've lived on the farm, I've lived in the woods, I've actually been self-sufficient and could be again. I CHOOSE not to live that way now.....In fact when the power goes out now I don't even get cold anymore. And when my teeth need work I buy the service of a dentist instead of letting them rot out of my head (I've got 7 left, my children have all theirs) BECAUSE I CAN!!

When did this become "pressure to keep the status quo?"

 

[Charles E]

Now, it's like watching my mother choose whoring over working at the bank because banks are "bad." Money, "bad!" Gotta' TRADE labor so all r equal....

rant off


al

Al, of course money can be good. As I said, it's a way to store energy, which is good, because there will be days when you need it. It's when it becomes a religion that it is bad, like any other commodity given deity status.

Suppose you build a private army. Could be to protect yourself. Or, over time, you could use it to force your will on your neighbors. From where I sit, one's good, one's bad, but it's the same thing, just used differently.

Now when you can build that army, er, security service, and use it to enforce your will, and while it is technically against the law, you're so powerful the law won't come after you, that's a social problem.

I don't know if that's what Keith is suggesting, but I am. Money, power, whatever aren't anything particular in themselves.

I agree with you that we've let stupidity push us to the point where we're losing the country, I just disagree on looking to any politician, or political ideology, to fix things. Monarchies, charted either through the Bible or English history, seem to average one good, one bad. Have we done as well?

Fixing goes back to the parents, the community, the towns, the cities. I am not hopeful.

 

[vicvanb]

Wow! I asked a simple question ("How many more years...before we address the root cause (of climate change?"). Now were're into the decline of the USA, how many wind mills there are, hydrogen as fuel, how great the banks are (or not), and whether or not someone's mother should be whoring.

Aren't Internet forums great?

 

[mks]

Al,
Wind turbines are proliferating because they are economical, so they are certainly a viable alternative to fossil fuels. If you don't believe that CO2 emissions are bad, then I can't convince you that electricity from wind is beneficial compared to burning stuff. Not sure how this got you off on living in the woods and whoring.

More solar energy falls on the earth in an hour than total world consumption in year. While we may have more work to do to make it cost competitive, the size of the resource is enormous. Include the damage that it does not do to the environment compared to burning stuff, and it would be the obvious choice. Interestingly, Thomas Edison thought it barbaric to burn coal to produce electricity.

Through history, we have gone through several transitions in energy sources. Wood was the dominant source until the late 1800's, then coal was king throughout the early 1900's, then oil took over. http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/electricity generation/HistoricalPerspectives.htm There were naysayers at every step who said it wasn't practical, was too dangerous, etc.

We are in the early stages of the next transition. Oil is becoming more and more expensive as it gets more difficult and costly to recover, so other sources will become more attractive by comparison. Solar energy will be the next dominant technology. It's the only one source that has the capacity to allow us to continue growing. Unless fusion can be harnessed.

Keith

 

[mks]

When did this become "pressure to keep the status quo?"

When the oil companies hire PR firms to convince people that global warming is not happening (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf), do think they are being altruistic? Wouldn't it make more sense that they just want to keep making money?

Here is another question for you: To what extent is your opinion your own? Don't answer immediately. First think of how oil money has pervaded the political debate and effected even the scientific community. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to mention climate change any more. When your favorite politician, who accepts contributions from oil companies, mentions a climate change denier, do you think, "Yes, I believe that too!"??

 

[Roy Allain]

It's all America's fault, anyway.
"We" wanted clean air, clean water, clean everything.

And please let us proclaim this as anti-flattulation day.

Anti-flatulation day? Francis, pleeease. I live in New Orleans. That's all we do down here, either verbally or annaly(sp).
We got no where else to go.

Roy

 

[alinwa]

Al,
Wind turbines are proliferating because they are economical, so they are certainly a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Absolutely false, wind turbines ARE NOT "economical" nor are they economically viable in any way. Not only that, they USE UP FOSSIL FUEL faster than if they didn't exist! EACH and every unit takes more from the planet than it ever gives back in power....They have to be manufactured/transported/assembled/maintained and the grid can't store the windy days. Out here we've thousands of them and they dump most of the produced power because it can't be stored, but even if we DID come up with batteries....... just run the numbers, you ARE an engineer aren't you? Or spend the money to TRY IT, I have.... It's CHEAPER and better for our planet to simply slurp up some oil and use it directly than to channel it through the wind tunnel that is modern day "wind technology." Sorry....




If you don't believe that CO2 emissions are bad, then I can't convince you that electricity from wind is beneficial compared to burning stuff. Not sure how this got you off on living in the woods and whoring. OK, let's agree that CO2 emissions are bad, it's in HOW we'll go about lowering emissions that you and I part ways.......... f'rinstance, 99.9% of the populace has been convinced that while "new technology" is constantly changing the automotive industry this tech is also being "held back" by (insert bogeyman here-"oil companies"- "goverment"-aliens") when in fact NOTHING has changed in 40yrs other than computer-controlled engines and they're not "more efficient" mechanically, they just are able to respond better to changing environmental conditions. Again, I've spent the money. I WANT efficiency in my daily life but today's cars really aren't that big an improvement over an '84 VW loaf far as milage goes. Think about this simple question, is it better to run a stripped engine, one that cranks out CO2's by the gallon but gets 60mpg (completely achievable) or use a modern engine that's loaded down with weighty, expensive gimmicks to "lessen" carbon dioxide emissions??? (read afterburners) Two things to discuss here, #1 emission per MILE nor per gallon, and #2 is environmental impact of manufacturing the gimmicks initially.....you'll find that the one that harms the environment the most is the "green" alternative. As per usual, the "green" alternative ALWAYS is harder on the planet. This is universally true across the spectrum of "Green Tech."



More solar energy falls on the earth in an hour than total world consumption in year. While we may have more work to do to make it cost competitive, the size of the resource is enormous. Include the damage that it does not do to the environment compared to burning stuff, and it would be the obvious choice. Interestingly, Thomas Edison thought it barbaric to burn coal to produce electricity. This is just ridiculous... again, RUN THE STEENKING NUMBERS! collecting solar energy is as efficient as building stuff to collect rainwater. PLUS, everything under the solar collector DIES.... and (please) run the numbers on something as simple as roofing your own home with solar panels.. PuhLEEEZE! I'll stop here, if you "believe" in solar energy as a viable resource, if you can't see that oil from the ground IS "solar energy".......the earth IS a solar collector...... then you've obviously never spent the money to try it. I have.

Through history, we have gone through several transitions in energy sources. Wood was the dominant source until the late 1800's, then coal was king throughout the early 1900's, then oil took over. http://www.wou.edu/las/physci/GS361/electricity generation/HistoricalPerspectives.htm There were naysayers at every step who said it wasn't practical, was too dangerous, etc. Again, simply not true.... this is the same line of rhetoric as "baffles the scientists" and "that airplane's not supposed to fly" and "Columbus (or Magellan) proved the world was round"..... pap to appease the ignorant. I'll agree that the ignorant populace has always been filled with whining naysayers but believe me, the engineers that built that airplane certainly knew it would fly! My comfortable living conditions are the result of smart people, not the naysayers who argue with every change out of fear. 'Course that's always been true, but not really harmful until NOW when we've unscrupulous AlGore's happy to rape the planet in the name of making jobs for themselves and their cronies. It IS brilliant of them though to build their case on the premise that technology is "bad" for our planet! Predicated of course on a voting populace that's gullible enough to buy into it! This last is what concerns me..... people VOTE for this stuff! The man on the street truly believes that collecting solar energy and converting it to electricity using 200yr-old technology is not only feasible, it's "The Answer!" Good Grief Charlie Brown.....We need a Monty Python more now than ever....

We are in the early stages of the next transition. Oil is becoming more and more expensive as it gets more difficult and costly to recover, so other sources will become more attractive by comparison. Solar energy will be the next dominant technology. It's the only one source that has the capacity to allow us to continue growing. Unless fusion can be harnessed. Again, partly true but your conclusions are hopelessly flawed, yes collectible oil is a finite resource BUT.... "Solar" will certainly not be the next dominant technology, in fact it will be the absolute last resort of a dying race....Fusion?? Neat idea, still a long way off, but in the meantime fission is economically viable AND clean even in it's presently inefficient (think steam turbine tech!) state...

Keith

my replies in bold above

 

[alinwa]

Wow! I asked a simple question ("How many more years...before we address the root cause (of climate change?"). Now were're into the decline of the USA, how many wind mills there are, hydrogen as fuel, how great the banks are (or not), and whether or not someone's mother should be whoring.

Aren't Internet forums great?

#1, There are no "simple questions" and
#2, Yes, Thank You Wilbur...

 

[alinwa]

When the oil companies hire PR firms to convince people that global warming is not happening (http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf), do think they are being altruistic? Wouldn't it make more sense that they just want to keep making money?

Here is another question for you: To what extent is your opinion your own? Don't answer immediately. First think of how oil money has pervaded the political debate and effected even the scientific community. Neither Republicans nor Democrats want to mention climate change any more. When your favorite politician, who accepts contributions from oil companies, mentions a climate change denier, do you think, "Yes, I believe that too!"??

wow....

A'gain, just wow....

The oil companies hire PR firms for the same reason anyone else does who's high-profile enough to be subject to ignorant voters.

My opinion is ALL my own...

"pervaded"???? This isn't really worthy of answer, but I'm a glutton for punishment. Toilet paper has "pervaded" society too, ummm, because IT'S A BETTER WIPE!!! TRY the alternatives, I have...

 

[Louis.J]

Not my kind of conversation so just sitting back and admiring Al's comments and all I can say is damn your good Al. Keep up the good work, the truth couldn't be spoken more open and honestly.

J.Louis

 

[Charles E]

To the original poster:

...How many more years of similarly severe weather events with their huge associated costs will it take before we agree to address the root cause?

As you can see from this little microcosm, everyone has already made up their mind. If you expect a different answer on a larger stage, I fear you'll be disappointed.

Q.E.D.

Never.