Global Warming Again (Probably Political... go figure!)

[cantdog]

Great, trysail. Thanks for playing.

Here's the link for anyone who cares.

The climate is an extremely complex system. Our observations of it are by no means complete -- even with regard to what's going on today.

This is a shortcoming we need to work hard to correct, but it is also an opportunity for validating model predictions: Find a measurement we've never taken, see how the models say it should turn out, and then go take it and compare.

Still, there are global temperature predictions that have been validated. We can start with one of the pioneers in climate science. Over 100 years ago, in 1896, Svante Arrhenius predicted that human emissions of CO2 would warm the climate. Obviously he used a much simpler model than current Ocean Atmosphere Coupled Global Climate models, which run on super computers.

Arrhenius overestimated the climate's sensitivity to CO2 by a factor of 2. At the same time, he hugely underestimated the degree of warming, assuming CO2 would rise very slowly (who could have predicted the emissions the future held?). Still, it was a pretty impressive early success for models.

Running the clock forward: in 1988, James Hansen of NASA GISS fame predicted [PDF] that temperature would climb over the next 12 years, with a possible brief episode of cooling in the event of a large volcanic eruption. He made this prediction in a landmark paper and before a Senate hearing, which marked the official "coming out" to the general public of anthropogenic global warming. Twelve years later, he was proven remarkably correct, requiring adjustment only for the timing difference between the simulated future volcanic eruption and the actual eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

And let's face it, every year of increasing global mean temperature is one more year of success for the climate models. The acceleration of the rise is also playing out as predicted, though to be fair, decades will need to pass before such confirmation is inarguable.

Putting global surface temperatures aside, there are some other significant model predictions made and confirmed:

* models predict that surface warming should be accompanied by cooling of the stratosphere, and this has indeed been observed;
* models have long predicted warming of the lower, mid, and upper troposphere, even while satellite readings seemed to disagree -- but it turns out the satellite analysis was full of errors and on correction, this warming has been observed;
* models predict warming of ocean surface waters, as is now observed;
* models predict an energy imbalance between incoming sunlight and outgoing infrared radiation, which has been detected;
* models predict sharp and short-lived cooling of a few tenths of a degree in the event of large volcanic eruptions, and Mount Pinatubo confirmed this;
* models predict an amplification of warming trends in the Arctic region, and this is indeed happening;
* and finally, to get back to where we started, models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct.

It is only long-term predictions that need the passage of time to prove or disprove them, but we don't have that time at our disposal. Action is required in the very near term. We must take the many successes of climate models as strong validation that their long-term predictions, which forecast dire consequences, are accurate.

If we seek even more confidence, there is another way to test a model's predictive power over long time periods: hindcasting. By starting the model at some point in the past -- say, the turn of the 20th century -- and running it forward, feeding it confirmed observational data on GHG, aerosol, solar, volcanic, and albedo forcing, we can directly compare modeled behavior with the actual, observed course of events.

Of course, this has been done many times. Have a look at this page and judge for yourself how the models held up.

Would a prediction made in 1900 of temperature for year 2000 have been validated? Would politicians in 1900 have been wise to heed the warnings of science, had science had today's climate models then?

Clearly, yes.

 

[cantdog]

Not that I give a fuck.

 

[trysail]

... models predict continuing and accelerating warming of the surface, and so far they are correct...

...which forecast dire consequences, are accurate...

...judge for yourself how the models held up...

That is precisely what is in dispute. Do you see problems with the integrity of the data that forms the basis of all these models? Do you see signs of autocorrelation?

______________________________________________
In an intriguing Climate Change report in Science, Wentz et al. (2007) note that the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, as well as various climate modeling analyses, predict an increase in precipitation on the order of 1 to 3% per °C of surface global warming. Hence, they decided to see what has happened in the real world in this regard over the last 19 years (1987-2006) of supposedly unprecedented global warming, when data from the Global Historical Climatology Network and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere have indicated a global temperature rise on the order of 0.20°C per decade.
Using satellite observations obtained from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I), the four Remote Sensing Systems scientists derived precipitation trends for the world's oceans over this period; and using data obtained from the Global Precipitation Climatology Project that were acquired from both satellite and rain gauge measurements, they derived precipitation trends for the earth's continents. Appropriately combining the results of these two endeavors, they then derived a real-world increase in precipitation on the order of 7% per °C of surface global warming, which is somewhere between 2.3 and 7 times larger than what is predicted by state-of-the-art climate models.

How was this horrendous discrepancy to be resolved?

Based on theoretical considerations, Wentz et al. concluded that the only way to bring the two results into harmony with each other was for there to have been a 19-year decline in global wind speeds. But when looking at the past 19 years of SSM/I wind retrievals, they found just the opposite, i.e., an increase in global wind speeds. In quantitative terms, in fact, the two results were about as opposite as they could possibly be, as they report that "when averaged over the tropics from 30°S to 30°N, the winds increased by 0.04 m s-1 (0.6%) decade-1, and over all oceans the increase was 0.08 m s-1 (1.0%) decade-1," while global coupled ocean-atmosphere models or GCMs, in their words, "predict that the 1987-to-2006 warming should have been accompanied by a decrease in winds on the order of 0.8% decade-1."

In discussing these embarrassing results, Wentz et al. correctly state that "the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear." They also rightly state that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual world of climate modeling "has enormous impact," concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy "are far from being settled." We agree. And until these "enormous impact questions" are settled, we wonder how anyone could conceivably think of acting upon the global energy policy prescriptions of the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen, who speak and write as if there was little more to do in the realm of climate-change prediction than a bit of fine-tuning.

Sherwood, Keith and Craig Idso

Reference
Wentz, F.J., Ricciardulli, L., Hilburn, K. and Mears, C. 2007. How much more rain will global warming bring? Science 317: 233-235.

 

[Weird Harold]

The worst impacts come, it seems to me, in abandoning the burning of fossil fuels, but we shall soon enough be faced with that, anyway. That transition cannot, I believe, be made smoothly with no upheavals, but this problem makes it even less easy, because it seems to make it more exigent.

I disagree that weaning our economoy away from fossil fuels is going to require upheavals; doing so on the schedule dictated by Chicken Littles requires upheavals. (because they want instant solutions to problems that won't show any effects from correct action for decades or centuries.)

Economic forces will cause us to adopt more eco-friendly and renewable energy sources to replace burning fossil fuels and if allowed to happen rather than being forced to happen before the technology is proven and available in a cost-effective form, there won't be any major economic upheavals just a gradual change over as fossil fuels get more expensive and alternatives get less expensive.

Carbon Dioxide is the major greenhouse gas, but it is NOT the only player. It's pretty much the only player the US and Western Europe are concerned about because we've already taken steps to reduce the nitrogen and sulphur compounds that used to be major components of automobile and industrial exhausts. Developing Countries are being given a pass on their output of the greenhouse gasses that also cause more immediate environmental problems like Smog and Acid Rain.

Eventually, the Human race is going to have to wean itself away from chemical energy sources completely. Even the panacea of the moment, "only water vapor in the exhaust" from Hydrogen fuel cells and/or Hydrogen fueled internal combustion engines is a Greenhouse Gas and if used on the same scale as fossil fuels a "hydrogen economy" is going to simple replace one greenhouse gas with another and with one that has local climatic effects as well as global.

(and most current schemes for a Hydrogen fuel infrastructure still wind up with a huge carbon dioxide output as a "hidden environemental impact.")

We do need to do something about our pollution of the environment, but the fear driven solutions to "Global Warming" aren't well thought out and generally just replace one form of pollution with another or they simply move the pollution to developing countries without the resources to clean up their existing pollution problems.

IMHO, the only thing that can STOP anthropogenic Global Warming is the same thing that stopped the Dinosaurs -- extinction! Human population numbers and the simple heat pollution of humans and human technologies lumped into concentrated locations changes the environment with global effects.

Unless we're wiling to reduce the population and technology levels back to paleolithic levels, humans are NOT going to stop emiting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and every bit we reduce our CO2 emmissions, we replace them with something else that will ultimately turn out to be just as bad for the environment.

If politicians and scienists are truy conerned with Carbon Dioxide levels in the astmosphere, why aren't there any proposals for removing CO2 from the atmosphere? I've seen one dismissive reference to "giant seaweed farms to absorb CO2" and lots of whining about "replanting rainforests to reverse deforestation" but no concrete suggestions for reducing the existing levels of atmospheric CO2.

(Sequestration projects don't sequester existing CO2, they're sequestering new CO2 outputs.)

 

[cantdog]

To take the last first, leaving to one side the Whining comments, we are not attempting climate engineering. Removing current CO2 would be engineering, and we could overshoot, even. As you say, these processes are like steering a supertanker. The turn of the wheel has to take place well before the point at which a supertanker turns, and CO2 has a lag time before changes in the system become noticeable.

But you are confusing yourself about water vapor. In the troposphere, the amount of time that water vapor persists is days, not decades and centuries. It is important for weather, but even though water vapor effects are noticeable as surface cooling and heating, the excess vapor rains out immediately, and in case of air with less than optimum water content, it soon passes over ocean, there's plenty of that, and catches up again.

The variable is capacity for water vapor, and that is a function of temperature.

In the end, water vapor acts as a feedback loop, multiplying the effect of air temperature rise. It is like many other feedbacks in the system. Shiny ice sheets have high albedo, melting them off thus traps more heat because reflective surface is lost, and more heat melts more ice sheets, etc.-- feedback. Phytoplankton just below the ocean surface lose population as ocean surface temps rise, which means they uptake less CO2, which causes ocean temps to rise, etc.--feedback.

The existence of so many feedback mechanisms, all tending to multiply the effect of temperature rise, is what makes CO2 so significant. CO2 persists for decades and decades in the atmosphere, so it counts as a push on the system, but water vapor rains out immediately to the value dictated by the air temperature. Its effect is a feedback effect, not a causative push on the system.

 

[trysail]

The New York Times
January 1, 2008
Findings
In 2008, a 100 Percent Chance of Alarm
By JOHN TIERNEY

I’d like to wish you a happy New Year, but I’m afraid I have a different sort of prediction.

You’re in for very bad weather. In 2008, your television will bring you image after frightening image of natural havoc linked to global warming. You will be told that such bizarre weather must be a sign of dangerous climate change — and that these images are a mere preview of what’s in store unless we act quickly to cool the planet.

Unfortunately, I can’t be more specific. I don’t know if disaster will come by flood or drought, hurricane or blizzard, fire or ice. Nor do I have any idea how much the planet will warm this year or what that means for your local forecast. Long-term climate models cannot explain short-term weather.

But there’s bound to be some weird weather somewhere, and we will react like the sailors in the Book of Jonah. When a storm hit their ship, they didn’t ascribe it to a seasonal weather pattern. They quickly identified the cause (Jonah’s sinfulness) and agreed to an appropriate policy response (throw Jonah overboard).

Today’s interpreters of the weather are what social scientists call availability entrepreneurs: the activists, journalists and publicity-savvy scientists who selectively monitor the globe looking for newsworthy evidence of a new form of sinfulness, burning fossil fuels.

A year ago, British meteorologists made headlines predicting that the buildup of greenhouse gases would help make 2007 the hottest year on record. At year’s end, even though the British scientists reported the global temperature average was not a new record — it was actually lower than any year since 2001 — the BBC confidently proclaimed, “2007 Data Confirms Warming Trend.”

When the Arctic sea ice last year hit the lowest level ever recorded by satellites, it was big news and heralded as a sign that the whole planet was warming. When the Antarctic sea ice last year reached the highest level ever recorded by satellites, it was pretty much ignored. A large part of Antarctica has been cooling recently, but most coverage of that continent has focused on one small part that has warmed.

When Hurricane Katrina flooded New Orleans in 2005, it was supposed to be a harbinger of the stormier world predicted by some climate modelers. When the next two hurricane seasons were fairly calm — by some measures, last season in the Northern Hemisphere was the calmest in three decades — the availability entrepreneurs changed the subject. Droughts in California and Australia became the new harbingers of climate change (never mind that a warmer planet is projected to have more, not less, precipitation over all).

The most charitable excuse for this bias in weather divination is that the entrepreneurs are trying to offset another bias. The planet has indeed gotten warmer, and it is projected to keep warming because of greenhouse emissions, but this process is too slow to make much impact on the public.

When judging risks, we often go wrong by using what’s called the availability heuristic: we gauge a danger according to how many examples of it are readily available in our minds. Thus we overestimate the odds of dying in a terrorist attack or a plane crash because we’ve seen such dramatic deaths so often on television; we underestimate the risks of dying from a stroke because we don’t have so many vivid images readily available.

Slow warming doesn’t make for memorable images on television or in people’s minds, so activists, journalists and scientists have looked to hurricanes, wild fires and starving polar bears instead. They have used these images to start an “availability cascade,” a term coined by Timur Kuran, professor of economics and political science at Duke University, and Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago.

The availability cascade is a self-perpetuating process: the more attention a danger gets, the more worried people become, leading to more news coverage and more fear. Once the images of Sept. 11 made terrorism seem a major threat, the press and the police lavished attention on potential new attacks and supposed plots. After Three Mile Island and “The China Syndrome,” minor malfunctions at nuclear power plants suddenly became newsworthy.

“Many people concerned about climate change,” Dr. Sunstein says, “want to create an availability cascade by fixing an incident in people’s minds. Hurricane Katrina is just an early example; there will be others. I don’t doubt that climate change is real and that it presents a serious threat, but there’s a danger that any ‘consensus’ on particular events or specific findings is, in part, a cascade.”

Once a cascade is under way, it becomes tough to sort out risks because experts become reluctant to dispute the popular wisdom, and are ignored if they do. Now that the melting Arctic has become the symbol of global warming, there’s not much interest in hearing other explanations of why the ice is melting — or why the globe’s other pole isn’t melting, too.

Global warming has an impact on both polar regions, but they’re also strongly influenced by regional weather patterns and ocean currents. Two studies by NASA and university scientists last year concluded that much of the recent melting of Arctic sea ice was related to a cyclical change in ocean currents and winds, but those studies got relatively little attention — and were certainly no match for the images of struggling polar bears so popular with availability entrepreneurs.

Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, recently noted the very different reception received last year by two conflicting papers on the link between hurricanes and global warming. He counted 79 news articles about a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, and only 3 news articles about one in a far more prestigious journal, Nature.

Guess which paper jibed with the theory — and image of Katrina — presented by Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”?

It was, of course, the paper in the more obscure journal, which suggested that global warming is creating more hurricanes. The paper in Nature concluded that global warming has a minimal effect on hurricanes. It was published in December — by coincidence, the same week that Mr. Gore received his Nobel Peace Prize.

In his acceptance speech, Mr. Gore didn’t dwell on the complexities of the hurricane debate. Nor, in his roundup of the 2007 weather, did he mention how calm the hurricane season had been. Instead, he alluded somewhat mysteriously to “stronger storms in the Atlantic and Pacific,” and focused on other kinds of disasters, like “massive droughts” and “massive flooding.”

“In the last few months,” Mr. Gore said, “it has been harder and harder to misinterpret the signs that our world is spinning out of kilter.” But he was being too modest. Thanks to availability entrepreneurs like him, misinterpreting the weather is getting easier and easier.

 

[cantdog]

The AAAS has almost 150,000 members, the NAS includes a high proportion of laureates and members from the science academies and associations from around the world. We have clear and unequivocal calls to action from these bodies, and a dozen others, and peer-reviewed literature in the journals-- tens of thousands of scientists, but you two! You are the ones who didn't fall for the peer-reviewed work of thousands of men and women! You are the one with the clarity of insight to pierce that veil of delusion.

I am honored, trysail, to be in your presence and Zeb's. Such giant intellects! The only ones who see that these computer models cannot work! And right here on my little porn board talking in very loud green type.

 

[cantdog]

You are confusing the AAAS and the NAS with Al Gore or with Chicken Little, whichever.

And the evidence comes from many other places than models on supercomputers, and it is overwhelming enough to prompt Chicken Little statements from those bodies. Studies of permafrost (another feedback loop in that, too), direct measurements of temperatures and also proxy ones like tree rings, ice cores, pollen, satellite data, shifts in the ranges of plants and animals, radiosondes.

Give up bashing at the science.

Weird's question about the water vapor bears on policy questions-- viz., would a magic wand making hydrogen engines availablle substitute one greenhouse gas for another? That makes it a good question. You are trying to imagine that your carping about modeling proves something.

 

[trysail]

I am honored, trysail, to be in your presence... Such giant intellects! The only ones who see that these computer models cannot work! And right here on my little porn board...

Cogito, ergo sum.


You might enjoy these quotes from Charles McKay, author of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds:

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one!"

"Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder's welcome."

 

[cantdog]

Then again, mobs are not peer-reviewed science.

So I might not consider it any more relevant than your comments.

 

[Weird Harold]

To take the last first, leaving to one side the Whining comments, we are not attempting climate engineering. Removing current CO2 would be engineering, and we could overshoot, even. As you say, these processes are like steering a supertanker.

If the predictions and doomsaying are even close to accurate, what we need to do to survive is some climate engineering. Simply reducing the rate of increase does absolutley nothing to prevent all of the major population centers and seaports from becoming fish farms and snorkeling destinations.

But you are confusing yourself about water vapor. In the troposphere, the amount of time that water vapor persists is days, not decades and centuries. ...

The variable is capacity for water vapor, and that is a function of temperature.

Nope, I'm NOT confused about Water Vapor -- live in a place where antropogenic water vapor, aka relative humidity, has made detectable changes in the regional climate. And I do NOT mean "regional weather," I mean regional Climate.

Water Vapor does indeed precipitate out of the atsmoshere when it reaches high levels, but the difference between 5% Avg RH and 15% Avg RH isn't enough to cause precipitation, but it IS enough to affect average high and low temperatures -- which can start the feedback effect you describe. The problem isn't how long any single water molecule stays in a gaseous state, it's how many molecules are being continuously pumped into the atmoshere to replace it when (if) it preciptates into a liquid state.

I don't believe anyone has modeled the effect of continuous injections of water vapor into the atmosphere -- newly created water vapor outside of the "water cycle" -- would have on global climate, but extraplating from the minute effects ever-increasing water usage in the high desert and ever-increasing water importation into the Los Angeles Basin have had on the ecology there, I don't think it will really matter if the effects of Water Vapor Pollution are Global or Local, the'yre gong to be larger and more troublesome than anyone expects.

Everyone learned about the Water Cycle in grade school and [/i]Knows[/i] "water is never created or destroyed." The problem is that with a Hydrogen economy -- on a scale comparable to the petroleum economy we have now -- will generate billions of tons of NEW water in places where the normal water cycle wouldn't normally put it.

Even if the global affects are miniscule and short term, the regional effects will cause adverse effects on things like corrosion resistance, flash flooding, road maintenance costs, mold and mildue infestations, and other relative humidity sensitive processes -- and the regional effects will be concentrated around the highest population densities and thus have an impact on humanity out of proportion to the the global impact.

The effect will be much like running a misting system on your patio 24/7 --regardless of where the wind blows any momentary load of humidity it will be replaced up to the maximum capaciity of the misting system to humdify the air. When the RH is too high for the mist to evaporate, it will "precipitate" onto the patio, feeding mold, moss and algae.

 

[cantdog]

I believe you have a valid concern, Weird.

I was still on the temperature-rise problem. My bad.

As an aside, though, the capacity of all this will be greater if global warming continues to drive up average air temps, and thus average water vapor capacity. So you would still have a stake in lowering CO2.

Still, you don't want a coal-fired automobile, and oil will become too valuable as raw material for chemistry to go around just burning the stuff. That leaves one with electric vehicles or some biodiesel or ethanol thing, for choices. Hybrids and combinations, too. Where do you see the best choices to lie?

 

[Weird Harold]

I believe you have a valid concern, Weird.

I was still on the temperature-rise problem. My bad.

As an aside, though, the capacity of all this will be greater if global warming continues to drive up average air temps, and thus average water vapor capacity. So you would still have a stake in lowering CO2.

Actually, I think higher temperatures and thus lower relative humidity would be more desireable -- up to a point.

Still, you don't want a coal-fired automobile, and oil will become too valuable as raw material for chemistry to go around just burning the stuff. That leaves one with electric vehicles or some biodiesel or ethanol thing, for choices. Hybrids and combinations, too. Where do you see the best choices to lie?

ETA: Coal-fired Automobiles aren't all that impossible or even particularly polluting -- except for the carbon dioxide.

Virtually every internal combustion engine on the planet will run on gaseous hydrogen either as the sole fuel or as a "booster fuel" and the technology exists today to turn any place with water and sunshine into a gaseous hydrogen filling station. For most US and Japanese built cars with gasoline engines, conversion to Hydrogen could be as low as a thousand dollars right now and with volume conversions the price could be as low as two hundred fifty dollars.

Milage sucks and horsepower is nothing to write home about, but the exhaust is primarily water (with a few nitrogen compounds and miscellaneous polutants causes by burning dirty air under high pressures.)

The only thing preventing mass conversion to Hydrogen fueled transportation is the availability of hydrogen and the weight of the pressure bottles in aircraft applications.

That is an interim transportation solution that only trades water vapor for carbon dioxide, with the attendant change in enviromental problems. The long-term solution is "Mr Fusion (tm)" or some similar breakthorugh in fusion or other power generation technology.

A lot more reliance on multi-mode Rail transport for freight powered by track-side solar panels augmenting Grid-electric on a "third rail" to replace Diesel-Electric traction.

Aircraft power is the big sticking point -- gaseous hydrogen just doesn't have sufficient mass to effectively power a jet engine unless it's matched with appropriate amounts of pure oxygen and best if both are liquified;and that still leaves hydrogen power well short of replacing the thrust/weight ratio of kerosene (jet fuel) and any type of Electric power is way down the list of contenders in the thrust/weight ratio category.

Propeller aircraft would be fairly easy to convert to Hydrogen because they don't depend on the mass of the fuel for thrust, but that's a big step backward in speed and comfort.

Coal and Natural Gas fired Grid Electric plants can be converted to Hydrogen -- although that would be somewhat counter-prodictive because to avoid the pollution problems associated with any other method, Electrolysis would be the prefered method of generating Hydrogen for fuel. It might be preferable to convert them to algae-sludge bio-fuel produced by the "bio-reactor" exhaust scrubbers that reduce their CO2 emmissions to near zero. (google "Arizona Power Algae" for a ton of links to a test project that shows a LOT of promise for scalability and viability.)

Hydro-electric power needs to be expanded (and snail darters be damned.)

Nuclear Power plants need to be built and/or expanded (and fuel recycling instituted to reduce the radioactive waste.)

Wind Farms need to be expanded, but they don't necessarily have to be farms of HUGE mega-watt class towers -- classic farm windmills work just fine and can drive a kilowatt class alternator or two charging battery banks for private power requirements.

The mega-corporations and their stockholders won't like it, but electricity generation is actually cheaper and easier when it's scaled to a single "user." Every building in a city could be nearly self-sufficient for Electricity with wind, solar and batteries combining to provide a near continuous power supply. (and users aren't nearly as wasteful if they have to provide for themselves.)

The water vapor problem isn't really a problem IF it's anticipated and compensated for; It might even prove to be a resource in dry climates because variants on "solar stills" could concentrate and precipitate excess humidity for drinking water. The problem is that apparently, nobody's thinking that far ahead and modeling what distorting the water cycle is going to do to weather and/or climate.

 

[Oblimo]

The only thing preventing mass conversion to Hydrogen fueled transportation is the availability of hydrogen.

That's why GM's going to fit each hydrogen0cell car with a gasoline-powered electrolytic converter! IT'S GENIUS!

 

[Oblimo]

The problem is that apparently, nobody's thinking that far ahead and modeling what distorting the water cycle is going to do to weather and/or climate.

Nobody ever remembers the Palaeoproterozoic Oxygen Armageddon.

 

[xssve]

I prefer to think of it terms of energy. Economies require energy: you need it for produciton, you need it for transportation, you need it for consumption.

The anti-warming caucus favors continued reliance on fossil fuels, the pro-warming caucus favors promoting alternatives to fossil fuels.

In practical terms, condition favor the pro-warming caucus, whether or not global warming predictions are accurate or not, for a variety of reasons, which include the fact that fossil fuel deposits are both finite and randomly distributed - i.e., it typically requires some means of shipping or distribution to distribute potential energy in the form of fossil fuels whether it be through pipelines, tankers or wires, and thus, global distribution is heavily dependent onthe vagaries of supply and demand, which means regions who have longer or more accelerated histories of development will demand a disporortionate share, regions that lag in development will get less, adn it will be more expensive, slowing their development.

So far so good, this is the situation as it currently exists, and people are making money off of it, but as the rest of the world catches up it's goingto create problems.

What happens when a region develops is that new markets form and old ones expand: an undeveloped region is an undeveloped market, they make little and buy little - this was the theory behind the post WWII expansion of the energy and transportaion infrustructure inthe United States; interstate highways, hydro projects, TVA, etc, even regulations requiring airlines, energy and telecommunications industries to serve outlying areas - these things resulted in expanded markets, increases in demand, resulting in economic growth and increased prosperity.

Increased prosperity typically results in a decrease in the birth rate, and as population control efforts go it virtually the only effective, predictable means of controling population growth - the birth rate tendst o grow fastest in the most economically stressed populations for biological reasons: quantitative breeding strategies are the natural response to stress which is associated iwth higher infant mortality rates, etc. Qualitative strategies have more efficacy under conditions of relative and somewhat predictable prosperity, where there is les of an incentive you hedge your genetic bets.

Thus, if you want to increase economic prosperity and reduce population, you have to get away from fossil fuels, reliance on which has random effects on propsperity: regions rich in easily available fossil fuels will either thrive or become suppliers for already developed economies, developing economies will be at risk of economic supression, and have their market potential inhibited.

On the other side, developed economies are limited in terms of energy growth by their infrastructure: there is no shortage of generated electrical power in the United States, we in fact generate approxomately twice and much as we need - half of it dissipates in heat and line losses before it is ever used, or while in use.

The effectiveness of micropower lies to a large extent in that it's closer to the point of use, resulting in lower losses. Generating facilities serving California have had to be shut down resulting in Brown outs due to the simple fact that the grid has become dangerously close to capacity during peak demand periods. i.e., the call for new large scale generating facilites is pointless, as the grid cannot handle the increase in generating capacity.

There are only two solutions here, either build a new grid - and the expenses involved here are astronomical - or generate electricity closer to the source, reducing losses and reducing the load on the current grid.

At this point you can concentrate on refining the grid, monitoring supply and demand in order to refine distribution and manage supply better. This requires a relatively much smaller investement, and it doesn't have to be done all at once.

The efficacy of this will become more apparent if the cost of fossil fuels contiunes to rise and demand increases for electrical vehicles, placing additional demands on the infrastructure.

The second benefit is in terms of export technologies and production, demand for micropower will be global, in both developed, developing and undeveloped economies, and as they develop, their markets will expand, and result in increased demand and prosperity that the fossil fuel based energy infrastructure curently inhibits as much as it promotes.

There will probobly be no real decrease in demand for fossil fuels, they will continue to be an important part of the overall energy picture, but it's an aspect that has largely reached the logical limits of it's potential for expansion - it's just a matter of practical fact.

 

[trysail]

I swear to god, sometimes I'm nearly certain we're going to end up freezing in the dark before people wake up to the fact that the U.S. has a serious problem.

"We have met the enemy and he is us."
-Walt Kelly (Pogo)
_______________________________
Las Vegas Strippers May Influence Global Nuclear-Waste Policy
By Hans Nichols

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Tori, a 37-year-old Las Vegas stripper, is an unlikely person to set national energy policy.

As a voter in Nevada's Jan. 19 Democratic presidential caucuses, that's just what she'll help to do when she chooses which candidate to support. The most important issue for her is the U.S. Department of Energy's plan to store spent nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, an extinct volcano about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Senator Hillary Clinton of New York ``says she is against it,'' says Tori, who declines to give her last name, citing her day job working with burn victims at a dermatology clinic. ``But before she has my vote, I want to know if she means it.''

Yucca Mountain is a reminder that local issues in America's early caucus and primary states may play an outsized role in setting national -- and in Nevada's case, international -- policy. Iowa voters extracted presidential pledges on ethanol subsidies. Now most Nevada Democrats require candidates to oppose the Yucca Mountain plan -- as all three leading contenders have. Those Vegas vows may be hard to break, even as concerns about global warming have thawed some environmentalists' opposition to nuclear energy.

``There is this anti-nuclear movement here that has international impact far beyond Nevada,'' says David Damore, a University of Nevada-Las Vegas political science professor. ``Yucca is our ethanol. You have to come here and say you're against it, even if you were for it at one point.''

Splitting the Spoils
With Clinton, 60, and Illinois Senator Barack Obama, 46, splitting the spoils in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two are now fighting for Nevada's 33 delegates -- three more than New Hampshire -- and the media coverage that comes with being the front-runner. Party officials expect between 37,000 and 45,000 Democrats to caucus at 529 polling stations across the state, including nine on the Strip.

Democratic leaders gave Nevada a starring role in vetting the presidential contenders for a reason: Inserting it after Iowa and New Hampshire allows candidates to address Latino issues in a Western state that has a 20 percent Hispanic population -- and that Democrats lost in the 2004 election. Previously, Nevada's caucuses came later in the campaign schedule and were held at the county level, not in precincts.

Economic Plans
The contest also provides the candidates a timely opportunity to talk about their economic plans -- Nevada, one of the fastest-growing states in the U.S., is also among the hardest-hit by the housing recession -- and to discuss labor issues such as health-care benefits and wages.

Obama received the endorsement from the Culinary Workers Union, which represents some 60,000 employees in the hotels and casinos that drive Nevada's economy. That was a setback for former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, 54, who has focused on labor in his campaign.

The union says it wants to signal its strength to the hotels by defeating Clinton, who has the support of most of the state's Democratic establishment.

The showdown between Obama and Clinton ``really puts Nevada on the political map as it never has been before,'' says Jill Derby, the state's Democratic Party chairman. ``Whoever ends up in the White House is going to know something about the West, and that includes Yucca.''

Yucca Mountain, more of a ridge line than a peak, has been studied since 1978 as a place to house spent nuclear fuel from the nation's 104 operating reactors. The U.S. has invested $11 billion since 1983 on the site, which was supposed to start accepting waste in 1998.

Obstacles
Technical, legal and budget problems have delayed the opening until 2017 at the earliest, the Energy Department has said, though many obstacles remain, including stiff congressional opposition and getting required permits.

Nevada is ``sort of mixed'' on nuclear power, Derby says. ``Everyone thinks it's a cleaner source of energy, but the waste issue needs to be decided, and we don't want it here in our backyard.''

Concern about global warming has led some environmentalists like Patrick Moore, a founder of the international conservationist group Greenpeace, to reconsider nuclear power. Moore, now a paid spokesman for a nuclear industry-funded energy coalition, calls it ``clean, safe and affordable.''

`Psychological' Barrier
Finding a final resting place for the radioactive waste is ``necessary in the long run'' and more than just a ``psychological'' barrier for the nuclear industry, Moore says. ``It is basically an issue of liability.''

Obama, Clinton and Edwards all oppose using Yucca Mountain as a waste depository, though in 2000, Edwards voted the other way. Obama, whose state has the largest nuclear-energy network in the country and the eighth-largest in the world, has said nuclear power should remain an option for the U.S.

Clinton told an environmental magazine last August that she is ``agnostic'' about nuclear energy, while Edwards flatly opposes its expansion.

Back at the Las Vegas gentlemen's club where Tori works, her colleagues also aren't unanimous on the issue. Suzanne Nakata, a 27-year-old waitress who doesn't disrobe because she ``might run for office one day,'' says Nevadans need to reconsider their opposition to Yucca Mountain if they want to reduce America's greenhouse-gas emissions.

``Honestly, nuclear waste really does have to go somewhere,'' the registered Democrat says, ``but Nevadans haven't accepted that.''

 

[Weird Harold]

Las Vegas Strippers May Influence Global Nuclear-Waste Policy
By Hans Nichols

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Tori, a 37-year-old Las Vegas stripper, is an unlikely person to set national energy policy.

Hans Nichols is an ass -- "Tori's" night job has nothing to with her ability to think rationally -- no more than her day job working with burn victims at a dermatology clinic assures her clear thinking.

He interviewed strippers so he could put his visit to a "gentleman's club" on his expense account.

Yucca Mountain, more of a ridge line than a peak, has been studied since 1978 as a place to house spent nuclear fuel from the nation's 104 operating reactors. The U.S. has invested $11 billion since 1983 on the site, which was supposed to start accepting waste in 1998.

Obstacles
Technical, legal and budget problems have delayed the opening until 2017 at the earliest, the Energy Department has said, though many obstacles remain, including stiff congressional opposition and getting required permits.

Nevada is ``sort of mixed'' on nuclear power, Derby says. ``Everyone thinks it's a cleaner source of energy, but the waste issue needs to be decided, and we don't want it here in our backyard.''

Yucca mountain isn't exaactly in anyone's backyard, but anything taken there pretty much has to go through Las Vegas, Reno, or Salt Lake City. I can't speak about the latter two, but the Raailroad and Freeway run side-by side through Las Vegas and within a hundred yards of at least three elementary schools where they pass closest to where I live.

If the plans for Yucca mountain included any provisions for bypassing population centers or if they had seriously considered any other location(s) I wouldn't have any real problem with storing radioactive waste there.

But Yucca Mountain's availability for waste storage is a red herring because the solution to the US's radioactive waste problem isn't storage, it's the lack of recycling.

Concern about global warming has led some environmentalists like Patrick Moore, a founder of the international conservationist group Greenpeace, to reconsider nuclear power. Moore, now a paid spokesman for a nuclear industry-funded energy coalition, calls it ``clean, safe and affordable.''

`Psychological' Barrier
Finding a final resting place for the radioactive waste is ``necessary in the long run'' and more than just a ``psychological'' barrier for the nuclear industry, Moore says. ``It is basically an issue of liability.''

Mr. Moore must be bald -- from tearing his hair out over the silly and arbitrary obstacles to nuclear power plant construction that groups like Greenpeace got passed into law.

 

[SavannahMann]

I'm actually very sorry Selena

You see, I'm a fan of your writing. I have been since I read your first story. That's why disagreeing with you is going to be uncomfortable.

There are two ways to get people to do something. One, show them it's a better way. Two, hold a gun to their heads. The problem with the global warming argument is that they only ever use the second method to proscribe change, and that the argument is a lie.

Let's take a moment and look at the shipping industry as an example of change. In the dawning of the 19th century, the most common method of moving a vessel across the water was wind. It worked to an extent, you could get cargo and people to your destination, but it was inefficient. You were literally at the mercy of the weather, your ship could only go where the wind blew. Then steam power was developed, powered by coal fire. It was more efficient than wind, and more reliable. The Titanic was coal fired as an example. We fought the first world war with coal powered ships for the most part.

Oil powered steam was next, and it was a huge improvement. You got bigger engines, which meant more power available, and you didn't need a couple hundred people shoveling coal into the engines. You only needed a few people, by comparison, to oversee the engines. It was more efficient, and more reliable than coal, so it was preferred.

Today, the average ship is powered by diesel engines, or gas turbine engines. Not because someone passed a law banning coal fired steam generation, or banned oil fired steam engines. The ships switched to diesel because it was cheaper and more efficient. You can see those simple things used in every major change in the history of the world, it was cheaper and more efficient.

We don't have a change for society that is cheaper, and more efficient. With the obvious exception of nuclear, which is rejected by the same global warming crowd because it's potentially dangerous. True, and not true. The US Navy has been using Nuclear for fifty years with no incidents because they set the system up with one thing that is absolutely required. Safety literally comes first. A captain of a nuclear powered submarine has responsibilities. His first and most important responsibility is the safety of the reactor. Second comes the mission he is on. Then comes the ship, and finally the crew. It makes sense, if the reactor melts down, the mission is a failure, the ship will sink, and the crew will all die.

Solar, geo-thermal, and all the other means of creating the energy that drives not only our economy, but our society aren't quite ready for prime time yet. Don't you think the shipping companies would be lining up around the block for a chance to get a ship they never had to fuel? They would love to have a ship they only had to build and buy once. After that they never had to fuel it, all energy coming from the sun. You literally couldn't build them fast enough to satisfy the customers.

However, we can't do that yet, because our alternatives aren't ready to take the load that is being carried by the current systems. Same with automobiles. The answer of smaller lighter cars means tens of thousands more deaths on the highways in accidents. People have a choice now, and they choose the larger, less efficient, safer, autos.

So the answer by the Global Warming advocates is mandated change. No one mandated the death of coal powered ships. Nor did they mandate the end of oil burning ships. They died when another more efficient means was available.

 

[cantdog]

You see, I'm a fan of your writing. I have been since I read your first story. That's why disagreeing with you is going to be uncomfortable.

There are two ways to get people to do something. One, show them it's a better way. Two, hold a gun to their heads. The problem with the global warming argument is that they only ever use the second method to proscribe change, and that the argument is a lie.
<snip>
Solar, geo-thermal, and all the other means of creating the energy that drives not only our economy, but our society aren't quite ready for prime time yet. Don't you think the shipping companies would be lining up around the block for a chance to get a ship they never had to fuel? They would love to have a ship they only had to build and buy once. After that they never had to fuel it, all energy coming from the sun. You literally couldn't build them fast enough to satisfy the customers.

However, we can't do that yet, because our alternatives aren't ready to take the load that is being carried by the current systems. Same with automobiles. The answer of smaller lighter cars means tens of thousands more deaths on the highways in accidents. People have a choice now, and they choose the larger, less efficient, safer, autos.

So the answer by the Global Warming advocates is mandated change. No one mandated the death of coal powered ships. Nor did they mandate the end of oil burning ships. They died when another more efficient means was available.

You don't like being legislated at, I see that.

But you say "the argument is a lie." Which argument, exactly? If it's the one in the linked video, it isn't, you know.

 

[cantdog]

Aside from that, it is not exactly you at whom legislation, regulatory legislation, would be directed. It is corporations, specifically those involved in energy, extractive , manufactory, and chemical industry.

Those fellows have actually bought the argument, and issued a call, en masse, asking to have regulatory laws passed upon themselves. I refer you to USCAP, http://www.us-cap.org/, which is Alcan, Alcoa, AIG, Boston Scientific, BP, Caterpillar, Conoco-Phillips, Chrysler, Dow, DuPont, Ford, GM, General Electric, PG&E, scores and scores of companies.

They don't seem to believe that the argument is a lie.

 

[Weird Harold]

We don't have a change for society that is cheaper, and more efficient. With the obvious exception of nuclear, which is rejected by the same global warming crowd because it's potentially dangerous. True, and not true. The US Navy has been using Nuclear for fifty years with no incidents ...

Solar, geo-thermal, and all the other means of creating the energy that drives not only our economy, but our society aren't quite ready for prime time yet.

But we do have alternatives that over the long run are cheaper and more efficient. The problem is the intitial capital cost for an "unproven" system. The probem with that "unproven" quaiflier is that almost every alternative -- except (gaseous) Hydrogen as a motor fuel -- is in use somewhere an a commercial scale so the objections are simply spurious objections to change.

Don't you think the shipping companies would be lining up around the block for a chance to get a ship they never had to fuel? They would love to have a ship they only had to build and buy once. After that they never had to fuel it, all energy coming from the sun. You literally couldn't build them fast enough to satisfy the customers.

However, we can't do that yet, because our alternatives aren't ready to take the load that is being carried by the current systems.

Actually, the Shipping industry is moving to diesel electric "thrust pods" on new construction -- a system (theoretically) easily converted to either Hydrogen motor fuel or Solar/Wind/Wave generation systems as they become available and econoomic.

There are ship designs that are effectively "build it and let it run forever" systems but they are a) unproven and b) not capable of being retrofit to existing hulls.

It is really the latter argument that drives Shipping Companies -- if they have to scrap their existing fleet to get new technology, they can't afford the initial capital outlay and can't sell "obsolete" hulls to raise the capital. That's why there are still a few Liberty Ships plying the Seven Seas with power plants that were twenty years obsolete when they were first built.

As long as the ship floats and can make any profit at all, they'll keep sailing on whatever power-plant they happen to have. Oddly enough, an old Liberty Ship with it's ancient design reciprocating steam engine would be easier to convert to Hydrogen fuel or even just to Natural Gas than a giant diesel powered cruise ship or super-tanker because only the oil burners would have to be replaced with gas burners to make the conversion.

Same with automobiles. The answer of smaller lighter cars means tens of thousands more deaths on the highways in accidents. People have a choice now, and they choose the larger, less efficient, safer, autos.

You were doing good untl you you got to the "safer" allegation for big inefficeint gas-guzzlers. That unfortunate impression is widespread, but totally false -- in the USA, SUVs are subject to TRUCK safety (and emission) standards rather than the more stringent automobile standards, so they are cheaper per pound than cars, but they ARE NOT safer. People point to the relative visible damage when SUVs and small cars collide, but they don't look at the relative injuries -- more people are injured in relatively minor SUV accidents than they are in "small car" accidents AND they're more likely to get in an accident in an SUV than in a small car.

So the answer by the Global Warming advocates is mandated change. No one mandated the death of coal powered ships. Nor did they mandate the end of oil burning ships. They died when another more efficient means was available.

If several recent documentaries on big/cruise/container ships are any indication, Electric "Thrust Pods" are the wave of the future for ships of all types -- and they're retrofittable to older hulls. In part, the change is driven by rising deisel fuel costs because a gas-turbine driven generator can run on virtually an flammable liguid (or gas) -- i.e. unrefined bunker oil like the old oil-fired steamers used. Te major factor seems to be safety/maneuverability, though; the thrust pods are independently 360 degree steerable and immediately responsive to throttle commands.

They're not particularly cheap nor exceptionally efficient as compared to other propulsion systems, but they do allow you to turn a 1000 ft long ship 180 degrees in a 1500 ft wide channel (without tugboats) if you're very careful.

 

[cantdog]

Gawd, Weird. You've really given this some thought.

Thanks.

 

[SavannahMann]

Regarding the argument is a lie question

The argument that the cost of not doing it is higher than the cost of doing it is a flat out lie.

First, the answer from the left is not the development of new technologies, which as you keep pointing out are promising, but to legislate the changes and force them upon us. Remember playing hide and seek? Ready or not, here they come. The new more efficient light bulbs for example, if one breaks, you now have a toxic level of mercury in your home. In the summer of this last year, the Washington Times reported, sorry I don't have a link, apparently it's too old now. A woman broke a lightbulb, one of those stupid Compact Florescent bulbs that we now have had legislated to us to prevent global warming, in her home. The result, after she called the State EPA who came out and investigated, a toxic level of Mercury in her home, and a hazardous materials team was dispatched for the clean up, cost $2,000. Oh, let's not forget the mercury leaching into our groundwater and poisoning all of us from the landfills. The cost of doing it may be more than we can sustain in another generation or two.

It's like those people who tell you that you should believe in God because, if you don't, and are wrong, you'll go to hell. Why not believe? It's literally the same asinine argument and it's just as stupid. If you don't believe in Man Made Global warming, change anyway, give up your freedom of choice, and live the way we tell you. If we're wrong, and it's really the Sun that's warming Mars and the Earth, then you haven't lost anything really have you?

Freedom is supposed to be freedom. We as a society from the beginning of time have found it entirely too easy to demand that everyone conform to our idea of what is moral and right. We took the ten commandments and made them the ten million laws. If there isn't a law prohibiting it, then we'll take you to court on a lawsuit and make you pay when the Jury agrees that you shouldn't be allowed to do whatever it is we don't like you doing.

We tax cigarettes, because smoking may be bad for you. Of course, we've inflated the numbers of people who have died from it by including literally everyone who has died from a cardio-respriatory cause regardless if they have ever smoked in their lives. Seriously, that is the definition of a smoking related death, anyone who had died from a problem with their heart and or lungs. No, I'm not saying that Cigarettes have vitamin C or something like that, I'm saying we deal in hysteria instead of fact for everything we don't like. However if you protest the increase of taxes on a legal product, then you are labeled as a barbarian because the higher taxes are going to health care programs for kids. If you don't support this higher tax, then the kids health care will be underfunded, and we'll have to shut it down.

Fine Mr. Politician, do you smoke? How many cigarettes do you buy a week to support children's health care?

We don't like something, we decide to pass a law. We don't like commuters burning all that gasoline and driving in to work everyday for an hour from their mini ranch estate, we'll pass a law taxing gasoline to make them pay for their selfishness of not living in a crime infested city. Those Bastards.

Freedom means you have choices, and you make the choices for your life. It means that if you want to sit there and have trouble deciding between the BBQ ribs and the Megafat burger with gravy fries, it's your right. You can't blame anyone else for it. It's your life, your choice.

The first thing we need to do is stop letting people blame others for their own choices. If you are dumb enough to smoke, it's your business. If you are dumb enough to drive a car that weighs 1,000 lbs on the same road with 80,000 lbs of truck, three and four ton cars, then it's your choice.

The CAFE standards are going to increase highway fatalities. http://www.iihs.org/laws/comments/pdf/nhtsa_ds_akl_071304_16128.pdf

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety says so. Aren't they one of those groups of experts we're supposed to bow down and grab our ankles for?

If you found a group of one hundred experts who all declared that the sky was falling, how many people would believe it?

If a thousand people tell me an obvious lie, it is still a lie. Mars is warming too. Common sense would tell you that the common denominator isn't Halliburton, it's the sun. Big yellow thing in the sky?

More and more Scientists are now looking at Global Warming and saying that it's not happening like we thought, and we may have actually gotten it all wrong. More than 400 signed a letter warning the UN's group that the action they were proposing would in all likeliness not be warranted.

No one knows for absolute certain. Again we find ourselves down to the same argument that the lunatics use to try and get you to believe in God and go to church and live the way they tell you to. If you believe in God, and He doesn't actually exist, what have you lost? Just take all the weak religious arguments that have ever been spoken, replace the word God with Global Warming, and replace the word Bible with Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, and you have the debate locked down.

 

[Oblimo]

SavannahMann, please don't rant. It makes conversation difficult.

Call me crazy, but I fail to see how the weather of Mars has anything to do with the weather of Earth, other than its use in a cum hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.