Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 6:11 PM GMT on January 14, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)

Back in November I wrote an entry on whether or not we could use the prediction that we would have La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 to anticipate, for example, whether or not there would be a another historic flood in the Upper Missouri River. A little personal micro history: During August of 2011, I was at a meeting of a panel which is writing a report on climate modeling. That meeting included climate-savvy water managers talking about the information from climate models they might find usable. During the meeting on the news, there was the story that seasonal forecasts predicted there would La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 ( Climate Prediction Center Monthly Outlook). I asked people at the meeting how they would use this information in their planning for 2012. To be fair, this question was out of the blue, but I had this idea that this seasonal prediction was definitive information when compared with the information that comes from century-long projections from climate models. The century long climate predictions might provide information that some characteristics of El Nino and La Nina will change. With adequate analysis of this information, interpretation of the information, and then guidance or translation of this information, then informed decisions about, for example, reservoir design might be made. But I was curious, given a forecast for a particular season, what would you do?

I have introduced a lot of terms in that paragraph. I will define some of them.

First for those who need information on El Nino and La Nina, these are names given to two parts of an oscillation observed in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In the El Nino phase, the eastern Pacific, off of Peru for instance, is warm. La Nina is the opposite, the eastern tropical Pacific is cold. This is our best known example of behavior where the atmosphere and ocean behave in concert together – and we have proven that we can predict it. (NOAA LaNina Page, El Nino @ Wikipedia) We have known for some time that these changes in the Pacific cause or influence preferential weather patterns in other parts of the world. This excites people about being able to do seasonal prediction. In this case there is some oceanic forcing of the weather – or perhaps, when the ocean is considered part of the weather prediction problem, there is information about what the weather might be like for a particular season in a particular place. Concretely, for example, when there is an El Nino, people who worry about floods in California go on high alert (for example).

Translation and guidance - There is a lot of information that comes out of a weather and climate model. All practitioners of modeling know that you can’t simply read off the temperature in Des Moines 9 months from now, much less 90 years in advance. But there is the real possibility that there is usable information in the models if 1) we understand the mechanisms that are responsible for, say, stream flow in the Iowa River, and 2) we have an understanding of the ability or inability of the model to represent those mechanisms. That is, if we can find the right knowledge, often a matter of finding the right people, then we can put together this knowledge in a way that is usable. This is what I mean by translation. It is the translation of knowledge from one discipline expert to another in a way that makes that knowledge usable. That is, to provide guidance. (Lemos and Rood on Useful and Usable)

OK – going down that path I introduced another term that I think demands more explanation. Mechanisms – when we look at a specific event like the 2011 Missouri River flood, we look for what factors come together to cause the flood. In the article that was referenced in the November blog, it was pointed out that there was an extraordinary snow cover on the Great Plains, and then a lot of rain on that snow, that caused melting, and collectively the accumulation of a lot of water that had to go downstream. So in this case, by mechanisms I mean what caused the event to happen. Perhaps the most important mechanisms that a climate model must represent to be usable for regional problems are those mechanisms that provide water to that region.

I am never quite sure if my style of writing is clarifying or just more confusing, but I get enough positive feedback that I think I clarify points for some – so I hope that the way I laid out this basic information makes sense. One more term - What I want to do is to translate information from observational studies and model predictions and make that information usable by someone. From my teaching the last 7 years, I have concluded that it is this translation of information that is the most essential missing ingredient in the usability of climate knowledge. There is a LOT of information and knowledge, but it is not easy to use.

So in this entry, I want to start the process of information translation. I warn in advance that this is a hazardous path. I am going to look at a few papers, in sub-disciplines of weather and climate, in which I am not expert. Hence, I am likely to make some mistakes, and I am hoping that doing this in public, motivates corrections of those mistakes. I take off down this path, because another thing I have discovered in the past seven years is that people who are not consummate experts in a subject are analyzing information and solving problems all over the world. And, I presume to imagine that I am more expert than most, and I presume to believe people when they tell me that I am reasonably good at translating information across discipline interfaces.

So I all start the analysis– and this is not irrelevant. I flew over a swath of the Great Plains last week, and I was struck by the lack of snow. I read Jeff Master’s blog on the extreme state of the Arctic Oscillation. At the beginning of every problem I collect information. This information inventory process is essential. With a little luck, you will find information that when all brought together can be synthesized into a solution strategy or at least contribute to informed decision making. In fact, I have tried to structure a template to problem solving for a project I am involved in, and it is here at glisaclimate.org. (What’s a GLISA?) I collected together a bunch of references that I thought might inform my translation. What, I am going to do now is extract the information from some of these references.

The first paper I am going to look at is by Bunkers et al. from the Journal of Climate in 1996. I chose this paper for a couple of reasons. First, a lot has been written that 2011 Missouri River flood had a La Nina influence. And, thinking about floods, one usually thinks about did it rain a lot? This paper is something of a sanity check, do we see changes in the rain in the Missouri River basin due to La Nina?

Bunkers et al. paper focuses on the “Northern Plains,” which is approximately North and South Dakota. The Missouri River and the Red River of the North are important drainages for these states, and they were in historic flood in 2011. The authors look at data as far back as the late 1800s. That is about as long as any record that we have in the United States. The short story of their findings is that they find that during El Nino, there is significantly enhanced precipitation in the months April through October that follow the onset of the El Nino. For the La Nina phase they find significantly less precipitation for the months May through August following the onset of La Nina. However, we cannot stop with the conclusion, El Nino = wet, La Nina = dry. El Nino and La Nina are often viewed as 2 year long events, and in the second year following the onset of El Nino it is usually a bit wetter than in years with neither an El Nino or a La Nina, but during April and May of that second year it is drier than average. The second year following the onset of the La Nina, it is in general dry. There is also temperature information in the paper, but I am going to keep my focus on precipitation for now.

Let’s recall the problem we are trying to address; namely, 2011 was a La Nina year with a huge flood on the Missouri River, and another La Nina is predicted for 2012, will we have a similar flood? One of the first things it makes sense to look at is the precipitation in the Missouri River basin. This paper looks at part of the Missouri River basin, and area where there were floods, and at least as far as La Nina is concerned we would expect less, not more, spring time precipitation. This seems contradictory to our 2011 experience.

Returning to the Bunker’s et al. paper, there are years when the relation described above did not hold. Bunker’s et al. extract seemingly robust signals, but there are exceptions to the rule. The exception to the rule requires us to consider the mechanisms that might be in play for a given year. We arrive therefore, at a problem of tailoring the information for a particular application. The relation that Bunkers et al. derived between El Nino / La Nina and precipitation in North and South Dakota is quite strong. So if you look at a climate model and it tells you that there will be more or less intense El Nino and La Nina cycles a century from now, the long-term water planner for Fargo might be able to anticipate the water system needed for her grand children. The statistical information might be enough – might, it requires more thought. For a particular season, however, we can’t use this information in isolation. It is just part of the portfolio.

So we have a sanity check that tells us that, indeed, there is documented variability of precipitation in the Missouri River basin, correlated with La Nina. But, at first blush, the La Nina variability in this region is towards drier conditions. We also, know, that what determines a flood is far more complex than “it rains a lot.” So while looking at the paper above gives us some good information, it motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. And it motivates me to seek whether or not such events are happenstance, or whether we can use our knowledge to anticipate, better, such extreme events. This series of blogs will go on for a while.



Figure 1. Characteristic position of wintertime jet streams during La Nina. From ClimateWatch Magazine: “The jet streams are high-altitude, racing rivers of air that can influence the path of storms as they track over North America from the Pacific Ocean. The jet streams meander and shift from day to day, but during La Niña events, they tend to follow paths that bring cold air and storms into the Upper Missouri River Basin. Map based on original graphics from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. Adapted by Richard Rivera & Hunter Allen.”


Pilot Project on La Nina and the Missouri River Basin.

Link to webinars.



Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 289 - 239

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting greentortuloni:


Nope it is people like you. IINstead of sitting on your but complaining about how pizzas delivered using renewable energy are always cold, go do something: Vote for renewable energy politicians explaining why. Write to your local politician to ask for bike lines (as in Holland, not crappy little painted lines). Go out to a street near you and paint those crappy little lines on the street (civil disobediance, gasp, it must be communist! Or is civil disobediance American.) Buy an electric bike. Ask your library to put in a charging station. Etc Etc.

It is exactly people like you who stop these projects. People like you, me, Nea and Pat etc.
Build baby build whatever it is. It is not me with the problem I am all for it.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting greentortuloni:
Hey NyMore and IceAge, for example, here is a link to a hydrogen power. I skimmed it only so I am not standing by how great it is (or isn't).

But read the journal or search for vehicles in it. Amazing how most new vehicles are electric.

Sure you can criticize the vehicles but the point is that there is a whole world out there to explore and people are doing it. it is actually fun to invent and create new things. To quote another drug using band: "If you go carrying pictures of oil now, you ain't gonna get any chicks anyhow..."
Most new cars are electric really what golf cars.

BTW I don't want chicks that's what boys want. Men want women. You know what women like stability, nice things, cash and humor. Give me a picture of oil to show them and they won't care after they see the checkbook. When you become a man get back to us.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting greentortuloni:


Huh? Do you have any idea how many people take drugs? Alcohol is a drug for Teapot's steam!
Caffeine is a drug what is your point. I speak from great experience in my past when it comes to illegal drugs, many would have called me a professional.

IOW stay on the porch son
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting greentortuloni:


Nope it is people like you. IINstead of sitting on your but complaining about how pizzas delivered using renewable energy are always cold, go do something: Vote for renewable energy politicians explaining why. Write to your local politician to ask for bike lines (as in Holland, not crappy little painted lines). Go out to a street near you and paint those crappy little lines on the street (civil disobediance, gasp, it must be communist! Or is civil disobediance American.) Buy an electric bike. Ask your library to put in a charging station. Etc Etc.

It is exactly people like you who stop these projects. People like you, me, Nea and Pat etc.
I don't care how you get me my pizza just get my pizza here on time and warm. I think your Euro-trash behind should come here and paint bike lanes on the road. I suggest you start with the I75-I85 connector in Atlanta. I will wait to see how this pans out for you. When you are done we can take you and your bikes to North Dakota in winter and see how that pans out. I wish you good luck as you are gonna need it. Check and see what the line is at William-Hill on your success. I sometimes like to place a wager.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Big Oil puts $1 into Congress and gets $59 out.


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting overwash12:
We need a study to find out why the sea level is not rising!
While you're at it, set up another study to find why the sun isn't raising anymore. :-\

The sea levels are rising. I'm not sure where this particular bit of misinformation arose, though denialist doofus Christoper "Good Lord" Monckton helped to spread it around. The scientific fact: global sea levels are rising, and in most cases faster than predicted. There is ample evidence of this to be found, and ample data to support that evidence.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I suppose all of these scientists are "discredited" too:

Link
Pretty much, yes. I saw this over on WSJ. Nothing new; just the same collection of cranks we're used to. Allegre thinks the asbestos issue is a leftist scheme; Armstrong is a marketing professor; Breslow is a medical physiologist; Kininmonth lacks basic physics knowledge; Schmitt is a known conspiracy theorist; and both Tennekes and Zichichi saw their science careers take a tumble after inserting religious dogma into, and letting it override, science.

Too, the mean average age of the people I just listed is 75. There's nothing wrong with being old, of course; age often brings wisdom. But I bring that point up as not a single one of those people has practiced or published in his or her scientific discipline for at least 20 years, and usually longer. IOW, they are extremely out of touch with current science, and to a person appear content to make their money on the Exxon-funded Heartland Institute speaking circuit.

Ponderous, it is. Absolutely ponderous.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


No. That is what we can expect in the middle of winter in Barrow, Alaska. Will you show us the same webcam shots next August/September?
Certainly,I plan on looking in at least once a month.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
Eastern Europe having a tough go of it! Link


Where is the snow? Where is the cold? - Link Isn't this suppose to be the middle of winter?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting overwash12:
Is this what we can expect in a Rapidly Warming Earth? Link


No. That is what we can expect in the middle of winter in Barrow, Alaska. Will you show us the same webcam shots next August/September?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Eastern Europe having a tough go of it! Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I suppose all of these scientists are "discredited" too:

Link


Boy! Talk about puckering up! You would kiss any **s that would whisper sweet nothings in your ear, would you not?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Is this what we can expect in a Rapidly Warming Earth? Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
I suppose all of these scientists are "discredited" too:

Link
We need a study to find out why the sea level is not rising!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I suppose all of these scientists are "discredited" too:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


You, sir, are the #1 reason that I know what I know concerning climate change. Your efforts are why I know the science involved with it and what needs to happen to help alleviate the stresses our future generations will face from climate change. I have absolutely no qualms with the scientific aspect of your posts and I have a great deal of respect for you and the knowledge you so willingly bring us. I merely suggest that continuously going over the talking points results in a futile effort of argumentative "debates". No one works on the problems while we are still trying to "convince" each other.

I, for one, firmly realize what is the #1 reason behind our current climate change. The science is crystal clear on this even if the models do not tell us that Dallas, Texas will have 120 consecutive days of 100 degree weather starting on May 12, 2013. I do not think that I misread nymore when he states that we need to make changes. He does not take an unrealistic view as to what can be done now to help with what needs to be done later. I, as you, wish we could be off fossil fuels tomorrow and to never have to rely on such a destructive form of energy again. You and I know that this will not happen and not just for the reasons of a lack of political will, lying corporations, people that want to keep the status quo so that they may have theirs and to Hell with our future generations, religious beliefs that all is by God's design and that He will save the "righteous" among us. We cannot loose sight of what the ultimate goal is that needs to be obtained. Protect our future generations, to the degree that we are able to do so, from any adverse effects of climate change. The best approach towards doing this is by reducing the impact we are having on the climate now. We cannot move towards this goal too slowly without serious risks towards obtaining this goal. Trying to do it all one way or the other is not a realistic alternative either.

I stand firmly behind you in your attempts to educate those that lack the knowledge to understand the realities we will face. I will not waver in my support for you when we have to deal with those like theshepherd, JBastardi, NeapolitanFan and Ossqss that only wish to distort and discredit. There is not a coming to a comprise with those that are so much the "denialist". We can make inroads towards a better future with those that realize the problems we face and know that something needs to be done. Any reasoned approach needs to be taken into consideration. I may be alone with the thought that nymore wants to be a part of the solution but, I do not consider him to be unreasonable with what needs to happen first. Time will tell.

I also know that before any inroads can be achieved we must shake the rugs to loose the dirt of politicians that will always block any attempts for any inroads to be made. A "clean sweep" of Congress is a ridiculous statement to make. Not all in Congress are the enemy of the state. We, as voters, must make informed decisions concerning the candidates before we cast our ballots. We already know, by their own words, that any of the Republican presidential hopefuls are not going to make any attempts to ease the situations concerning climate change. Obama has made limited efforts himself to avert climate change. We, as voters, must call to task any politician that gains or retains office and let them know we want action concerning climate and this is not something else that can be just kicked down the road. This road is quickly turning into an obstacle course that can no longer be navigated.


Why don't you tell him to bend over while you pucker?
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting Neapolitan:
There are some people who claim they wish to discuss solutions to the problem of climate change while somehow simultaneously claiming that no problem exists in the first place. Those people can be difficult to work with. Like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Like corralling cats. Like pushing water uphill... ;-)

Now, I'm often accused by some here of not offering solutions to climate change, but that's a false claim, of course; working to counter the numerous longstanding lies told by Big Oil and some politicians and TV "news" networks is part of the solution. See, combating climate change is a multi-disciplined war being waged on many different fronts; just because a particular person isn't busy engineering next-generation solar cells or bird-safe wind turbines or efficient carbon-sequestering devices doesn't mean he or she is not a valid and valuable participant in that war. They may go unappreciated in this particular forum, but I'm proud of and satisfied with what I've done, what I'm doing, and what I plan to do to help keep the world from reaching a boiling point.*

* - Not literal.


You, sir, are the #1 reason that I know what I know concerning climate change. Your efforts are why I know the science involved with it and what needs to happen to help alleviate the stresses our future generations will face from climate change. I have absolutely no qualms with the scientific aspect of your posts and I have a great deal of respect for you and the knowledge you so willingly bring us. I merely suggest that continuously going over the talking points results in a futile effort of argumentative "debates". No one works on the problems while we are still trying to "convince" each other.

I, for one, firmly realize what is the #1 reason behind our current climate change. The science is crystal clear on this even if the models do not tell us that Dallas, Texas will have 120 consecutive days of 100 degree weather starting on May 12, 2013. I do not think that I misread nymore when he states that we need to make changes. He does not take an unrealistic view as to what can be done now to help with what needs to be done later. I, as you, wish we could be off fossil fuels tomorrow and to never have to rely on such a destructive form of energy again. You and I know that this will not happen and not just for the reasons of a lack of political will, lying corporations, people that want to keep the status quo so that they may have theirs and to Hell with our future generations, religious beliefs that all is by God's design and that He will save the "righteous" among us. We cannot loose sight of what the ultimate goal is that needs to be obtained. Protect our future generations, to the degree that we are able to do so, from any adverse effects of climate change. The best approach towards doing this is by reducing the impact we are having on the climate now. We cannot move towards this goal too slowly without serious risks towards obtaining this goal. Trying to do it all one way or the other is not a realistic alternative either.

I stand firmly behind you in your attempts to educate those that lack the knowledge to understand the realities we will face. I will not waver in my support for you when we have to deal with those like theshepherd, JBastardi, NeapolitanFan and Ossqss that only wish to distort and discredit. There is not a coming to a comprise with those that are so much the "denialist". We can make inroads towards a better future with those that realize the problems we face and know that something needs to be done. Any reasoned approach needs to be taken into consideration. I may be alone with the thought that nymore wants to be a part of the solution but, I do not consider him to be unreasonable with what needs to happen first. Time will tell.

I also know that before any inroads can be achieved we must shake the rugs to loose the dirt of politicians that will always block any attempts for any inroads to be made. A "clean sweep" of Congress is a ridiculous statement to make. Not all in Congress are the enemy of the state. We, as voters, must make informed decisions concerning the candidates before we cast our ballots. We already know, by their own words, that any of the Republican presidential hopefuls are not going to make any attempts to ease the situations concerning climate change. Obama has made limited efforts himself to avert climate change. We, as voters, must call to task any politician that gains or retains office and let them know we want action concerning climate and this is not something else that can be just kicked down the road. This road is quickly turning into an obstacle course that can no longer be navigated.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
"Canadian oil could reach Texas by this summer"

Austin Statesman
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
While we've been flapping our gums about it, those pesky plants have been moving north to accommodate, yep, you guessed it "climate change" or, even worse, "global warming".

From Bloomberg:

USDA ‘Plant Hardiness’ Map Shifts Temperature Zones North
Q
By Alan Bjerga - Jan 25, 2012 12:50 PM ET

Many parts of the U.S. may be getting warmer, according to a new, interactive Department of Agriculture map that shows the best places in the country to grow different plants.

The “Plant Hardiness Zone Map,” an update of a 1990 static version, shifts temperatures up one 5-degree increment across much of the country, reflecting newer and more complete data, the USDA said today.

The map is based on weather-station data from 1976 to 2005, compared with the previous version that used statistics from 1974 to 1986, the USDA said. The guide may help about 80 million U.S. gardeners, businesses including the Home Depot Inc. (HD) that stock seeds and implements, as well as crop insurers including Wells Fargo & Co. and Ace Ltd. (ACE), which have some government-set standards determined by the map.

Link

IMHO, this kind of information trumps just about everything else because it is showing biological system adjustment to changing environmental conditions and, most importantly, it directly affects what is going to make it into my mouth.

Some may not like it but we are all part of the big game called "Nature". While we argue, something is gaining on us. Sorta looks like "The Grim Reaper".
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
You and Nea do a lot of talking at each other and each trying to make their own points known. This is less constructive than having an actual conversation with each other. Nea has knowledge of quite a bit of the science and he brings some street sense with him. You have a great deal of street sense and have more knowledge of the science than you are probably comfortable with. I suggest that much more could be done to help assure our future if you two actually engaged in conversation with each other. The reality of the situation is that there are not enough people that actually understands the science for a science only approach to work. Yet, at the same time, there are enough that do understand the science that they are not going to be willing to dismiss what the science shows them. With people like you and Nea working together, we are much closer to finding an answer. Just my thoughts.
There are some people who claim they wish to discuss solutions to the problem of climate change while somehow simultaneously claiming that no problem exists in the first place. Those people can be difficult to work with. Like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Like corralling cats. Like pushing water uphill... ;-)

Now, I'm often accused by some here of not offering solutions to climate change, but that's a false claim, of course; working to counter the numerous longstanding lies told by Big Oil and some politicians and TV "news" networks is part of the solution. See, combating climate change is a multi-disciplined war being waged on many different fronts; just because a particular person isn't busy engineering next-generation solar cells or bird-safe wind turbines or efficient carbon-sequestering devices doesn't mean he or she is not a valid and valuable participant in that war. They may go unappreciated in this particular forum, but I'm proud of and satisfied with what I've done, what I'm doing, and what I plan to do to help keep the world from reaching a boiling point.*

* - Not literal.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Hey NyMore and IceAge, for example, here is a link to a hydrogen power. I skimmed it only so I am not standing by how great it is (or isn't).

But read the journal or search for vehicles in it. Amazing how most new vehicles are electric.

Sure you can criticize the vehicles but the point is that there is a whole world out there to explore and people are doing it. it is actually fun to invent and create new things. To quote another drug using band: "If you go carrying pictures of oil now, you ain't gonna get any chicks anyhow..."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I do not work in the energy field. Do I think lobbying should be illegal on all sides, yes.

It is not so much oil or fossil fuel companies that stop these grand ideas you have it is Environmentalists. I welcome hydro power but we can't build dams, huge wind farms oh we can't have those either they kill raptors and birds, huge solar farms oh can't build those some little desert animal will be harmed, We could build nukes no can't do that either. If they get approval then we have to fight like hell to get a transmission line built to the grid because of more environmental damage.

If you really want to be honest which I doubt you can do to your own bias, it is not people like me who stop these projects it is people like you.


Nope it is people like you. IINstead of sitting on your but complaining about how pizzas delivered using renewable energy are always cold, go do something: Vote for renewable energy politicians explaining why. Write to your local politician to ask for bike lines (as in Holland, not crappy little painted lines). Go out to a street near you and paint those crappy little lines on the street (civil disobediance, gasp, it must be communist! Or is civil disobediance American.) Buy an electric bike. Ask your library to put in a charging station. Etc Etc.

It is exactly people like you who stop these projects. People like you, me, Nea and Pat etc.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
sitting here bored (not at work) a little under the weather today but I will be fine, I hope your day is better than mine.

I agree with you if there is a better way I am all for it. Even the great James Hanson says it is not feasible right now. It is these people who say just get rid of oil are fools. They must not know how much oil makes their modern life possible. Products such as life saving drugs, modern fertilizers, modern plastics, modern machines and on and on. If we just take away oil these will be the same hypocrites claiming how unjust it is that 100's of millions are now dieing early, crop production way down, no modern products and on and on.

They remind me of those who would complain about losing their freedom while at the same time complaining about how that freedom is provided or possible.

Real leaders lead by example not complaining that is how it works.

This is for all the hypocrites out there if you hate oil companies and their products so much do not use them or anything derived from them. There problem solved if I see you can do it maybe I will to.


We can remind you of a lot but that is a serious flaw in your reasoning capacity not a fault of ours.

I have a car. I also have a bike and an electric bike. I use the car for heavy loads or days when I really feel like not biking.

The point is not that I couldn't use an electric car, one of the guys I work with uses his electric car for all local transportation (up to about 15 km).

Why doesn't he use it more? Lack of infrastructure.

So ask youself, if you took away the oil infrastructure, how much would be possible with oil? Likewise, if you added the infrastructure for electric vehicles, how much would be possible?

I am trying to move into a world of non oil. So are most of the people I admire. We are hindered by economic inertia - which doesn't bother me, I enjoy a challenge. I also enjoy the oportunity that the new infrastructure has to create opportunities for me and other entropreneurs.

What I don't enjoy is fighting the brainwashing that oil companies and on-the-oil-company-payroll politicians try to sell to fluffy headed panickers: 'we will never get rid of oil', 'the only way to get rid of oil is to live in the stone age.'

Try watching the movie 'Idiocracy'. That paints a big oil future assuming the climate doesn't get us first.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
One of the biggest Illegal (hardcore) drug advocates on the planet. Lets go take some DMT and 'shrooms. What a good example for the kids on this site.


Huh? Do you have any idea how many people take drugs? Alcohol is a drug for Teapot's steam!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting overwash12:
Who on here is willing to go live like the early settlers? Making almost everything from scratch and living off what they grew in the summer and hunting wild game. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it! Well,that would be the only way to stop big oil from making profits!


Not really.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nymore:
I would like to hire you to work endless hours for 50 cents day with no benefits in a very polluted plant. When someone asks why you make so little and the working conditions are terrible I will tell them you are a local problem. When can I expect you to start? Screw everybody else as long as it is not me and I get my iPad. Is this your thinking? Sounds exactly like what you accuse Exxon of doing. Like I have mentioned before look up hypocrite. Do you have any proof to make the claims against Exxon of using slave or child labor or paying substandard wages?


So your line are reasoning is that because kids are working for 50 cents an hour for one company etc it is ok to destroy the planet with CO2 by another company?

There are plenty of terrible things that go on in this world that I hate, from rape and torture to the current crop of 'conservative' politicians in America. I don't justify these things. Full Stop.

However, if you follow the thread from the original post, the point was that my hatred for Exxon et al is above and beyond the others because Exxon is committing crimes above and beyond the others.

As far as corporate problems in general, the fact is that the system of goods creation we have is only one of a variety of systems. However like all systems there are requirements: information flow, control mechanisms. There are also abuses in any system. My point was that I am not some anarchist who is anti-corporation because I hate the oil industry. My point was that there is a very specific reason to hate the oil industry that is seperate from anything else.

As far as Exxon in particular oges, here is the first result from a google search. If you want to hear more about the oil industry in general, just read the newspapers: from pollution in Nigeria to murder in Brazil. In fact, here is a photo set from CNN in today's online edition (Shell not Exxon but an example of how Big Oil feels about the 'little people' in the world all the same). Seriously, if you want to raise the issue of Apple having a problem in one factory but ignore the probably endless list of problems with the oil industry, like you mentioned before, you should look up hypocrite.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


"I understand both these approaches are bridges but from where we are now to where we want to get to requires a bridge as the gap with today's technology is to large to cross." - Indeed. Very well said. This is exactly what I am talking about. Find the bridges, through reasoned conversation, and we will span the gaps. ... Let us build bridges. First, and foremost, we need to have the political will to do so. The only way to do this is to trash can professional lobbyist. The only special interests our politicians should be listening to is we, the people. Not someone paid to speak on behalf of a niche group seeking special favors.

Until we meet again, good night to you as well, sir.
I agree sir

If you vote you must vote every office holder out no exceptions. Also don't vote for a party, vote for the person. Democrats and Republicans are both garbage and that is the nicest thing I can say about them. They will never vote for term limits so that is up to you.

Till next time sir
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting nymore:
Hello sir

I agree with your statements.

All I have ever said is there is no magic bullet. If we are to keep our standard of living it is never gonna be clean. We will always pollute one way or other at least with the technology we have now. I believe we should be building modern nuclear reactors. Natural gas vehicles is another even though the upfront costs are tremendous the pay off in the end is there at least in the USA and Canada. I understand both these approaches are bridges but from where we are now to where we want to get to requires a bridge as the gap with today's technology is to large to cross.

As far as me a Nea it is hard to deal with someone that as far as they are concerned has probably never been wrong. When I am wrong I have no problem admitting it and learning from it, but if he ever wants to discuss solutions instead of fixating on the problem I am willing. I am fairly good at solving problems since my job requires it.

Will check back before I go to bed if I don't have a good night sir


"I understand both these approaches are bridges but from where we are now to where we want to get to requires a bridge as the gap with today's technology is to large to cross." - Indeed. Very well said. This is exactly what I am talking about. Find the bridges, through reasoned conversation, and we will span the gaps. ... Let us build bridges. First, and foremost, we need to have the political will to do so. The only way to do this is to trash can professional lobbyist. The only special interests our politicians should be listening to is we, the people. Not someone paid to speak on behalf of a niche group seeking special favors.

Until we meet again, good night to you as well, sir.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
x
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good evening, nymore.

You have brought me to an awakening. There is no such thing as a clean or green energy source. You are quite correct that solar and wind power require rare earth materials that are not so good for us when they are scattered throughout our environment. Dams and hydroelectric plants also bring their down sides into play. Nuclear energy has some very serious problems associated with it. Even if we were able to safely operate nuclear plants, and there never was a reactor related disaster to be dealt with, we will still be faced with storing spent fuel rods for centuries. This one problem will have even more consequences for us to endure as this inventory of spent fuel rods grows over the years.

Here is what we have. Burning fossil fuels releases large quantities of CO2 into our atmosphere. Once the CO2 enters the atmosphere we have no chance of pulling it back out. Nature, given a great deal of time, will eventually to bring everything back into a balance. The problem is, what will that new balance be? While climate change can have some positive effects that benefit a few locations there are many more negative effects that will affect much larger areas. This is what the science tells and the observations we are seeing now shows us that the science is not wrong.

What about the mining of rare earths for other technologies? They present their own problems as well but, we can contain at the source. We can also recycle these materials. This is an advantage that burning fossil fuels does not give us. They are only a problem if we allow the same irresponsible practices to come into place that we allowed with the fossil fuel industries in our quest for an energy source. We will have to assure that each process is done properly, safely and as less a detriment to the environment as possible. We have the ability to do this. With our next main energy sources more care must be taken that these sources do not also lead to many hardships for all of us to have to endure.

Now, I am really going to go out on a limb. You and Nea do a lot of talking at each other and each trying to make their own points known. This is less constructive than having an actual conversation with each other. Nea has knowledge of quite a bit of the science and he brings some street sense with him. You have a great deal of street sense and have more knowledge of the science than you are probably comfortable with. I suggest that much more could be done to help assure our future if you two actually engaged in conversation with each other. The reality of the situation is that there are not enough people that actually understands the science for a science only approach to work. Yet, at the same time, there are enough that do understand the science that they are not going to be willing to dismiss what the science shows them. With people like you and Nea working together, we are much closer to finding an answer. Just my thoughts. ... Now, if you do not mind, I am going to back of this limb before I get shaken out the tree.
Hello sir

I agree with your statements.

All I have ever said is there is no magic bullet. If we are to keep our standard of living it is never gonna be clean. We will always pollute one way or other at least with the technology we have now. I believe we should be building modern nuclear reactors. Natural gas vehicles is another even though the upfront costs are tremendous the pay off in the end is there at least in the USA and Canada. I understand both these approaches are bridges but from where we are now to where we want to get to requires a bridge as the gap with today's technology is to large to cross.

As far as me a Nea it is hard to deal with someone that as far as they are concerned has probably never been wrong. When I am wrong I have no problem admitting it and learning from it, but if he ever wants to discuss solutions instead of fixating on the problem I am willing. I am fairly good at solving problems since my job requires it daily.

Will check back before I go to bed if I don't have a good night sir
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting nymore:
You don't like Exxon's opinion so therefore they should not have one or be allowed to have one.

I guess it could be you want us to quit using the polluting oil companies and use the mining and refining companies that extract and produce Rare Earth and Heavy Metals. I believe these processes are extremely polluting are they not?

IOW You hate CO2 but love Cadmium and such. Interesting point of view you have, delusional yes but interesting


Good evening, nymore.

You have brought me to an awakening. There is no such thing as a clean or green energy source. You are quite correct that solar and wind power require rare earth materials that are not so good for us when they are scattered throughout our environment. Dams and hydroelectric plants also bring their down sides into play. Nuclear energy has some very serious problems associated with it. Even if we were able to safely operate nuclear plants, and there never was a reactor related disaster to be dealt with, we will still be faced with storing spent fuel rods for centuries. This one problem will have even more consequences for us to endure as this inventory of spent fuel rods grows over the years.

Here is what we have. Burning fossil fuels releases large quantities of CO2 into our atmosphere. Once the CO2 enters the atmosphere we have no chance of pulling it back out. Nature, given a great deal of time, will eventually to bring everything back into a balance. The problem is, what will that new balance be? While climate change can have some positive effects that benefit a few locations there are many more negative effects that will affect much larger areas. This is what the science tells and the observations we are seeing now shows us that the science is not wrong.

What about the mining of rare earths for other technologies? They present their own problems as well but, we can contain at the source. We can also recycle these materials. This is an advantage that burning fossil fuels does not give us. They are only a problem if we allow the same irresponsible practices to come into place that we allowed with the fossil fuel industries in our quest for an energy source. We will have to assure that each process is done properly, safely and as less a detriment to the environment as possible. We have the ability to do this. With our next main energy sources more care must be taken that these sources do not also lead to many hardships for all of us to have to endure.

Now, I am really going to go out on a limb. You and Nea do a lot of talking at each other and each trying to make their own points known. This is less constructive than having an actual conversation with each other. Nea has knowledge of quite a bit of the science and he brings some street sense with him. You have a great deal of street sense and have more knowledge of the science than you are probably comfortable with. I suggest that much more could be done to help assure our future if you two actually engaged in conversation with each other. The reality of the situation is that there are not enough people that actually understands the science for a science only approach to work. Yet, at the same time, there are enough that do understand the science that they are not going to be willing to dismiss what the science shows them. With people like you and Nea working together, we are much closer to finding an answer. Just my thoughts. ... Now, if you do not mind, I am going to back of this limb before I get shaken out the tree.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
This

Link

prevents this.



Globally

This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.92 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees F. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 1.15 degrees F above average.
Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 1.49 degrees F above the 20th century average of 47.3 degrees F and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.72 degrees F above the 20th century average of 60.9 degrees F and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.
Including 2011, all eleven years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.
La Nia, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Nia opened the year, dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasted through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Nia years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed.
The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Nia contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia%u2019s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.
Arctic sea ice extent was below average for all of 2011, and has been since June 2000, a span of 127 consecutive months. Both the maximum ice extent (5.65 million square miles on March 7th) and the minimum extent (1.67 million square miles on September 9th) were the second smallest of the satellite era.
For the second year running, NCDC asked a panel of climate scientists to determine and rank the year%u2019s ten most significant climate events, for both the United States and for the planet, to include record drought in East Africa and record flooding in Thailand and Australia. The results are at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-monitoring.

Scientists, researchers and leaders in government and industry use NOAA%u2019s monthly and annual reports to help track trends and other changes in the world's climate. This climate service has a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what and when to plant, to guiding resource managers%u2019 critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20393
Quoting nymore:
I do not work in the energy field. Do I think lobbying should be illegal on all sides, yes.

It is not so much oil or fossil fuel companies that stop these grand ideas you have it is Environmentalists. I welcome hydro power but we can't build dams, huge wind farms oh we can't have those either they kill raptors and birds, huge solar farms oh can't build those some little desert animal will be harmed, We could build nukes no can't do that either. If they get approval then we have to fight like hell to get a transmission line built to the grid because of more environmental damage.

If you really want to be honest which I doubt you can do to your own bias, it is not people like me who stop these projects it is people like you.


Eco extremist would prefer the earth in it's natural state, pre- humanoid, as of course we are the root of all evil. I wonder if that would include this:


Geological "Ground Truth" of Sea-level Highstand Events During Warm Interglaciations (MIS 11 and 5e): Taking the Punch out of Proxy Precision

* Hearty, P J (paulh@uow.edu.au) , School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW 2522 Australia

High-resolution sea-level records for marine isotope stages (MIS) 11 and 5e from coastal outcrops in Bahamas, Bermuda, Hawaii, and Western Australia provide physical confirmation of extreme ice-melting events during Pleistocene interglacials. Field evidence indicates MIS 11 sea level rose in a series of oscillations to c. +20 m, while that of MIS 5e reached its maximum of +6-10 m. Because these were brief events (100s yrs), their true magnitude is generally muted or obscured in deep-sea oxygen isotope records; generally averaged over thousands of years by the combined effects of sampling, bioturbation, and sedimentation rates. Further unresolvable variables such as temperature and salinity further cloud the isotope proxy record. Thus, the tangible rock record is of greatest importance in understanding the nature of these extreme events. Geomorphology, sedimentary structures, taphonomy of and dating of organisms, and petrology provide ground truth at field sites. Sea-level highstands preserve terraces and benches by erosion and subsequent deposition of sub- and intertidal sediments. Fenestral porosity is a measure of intertidal wetting and drying of sand, while decimetre-scale, high-angle cross beds of poorly-sorted sand and gravel indicate shallow subtidal conditions. In situ coral heads describe similar subtidal conditions. Delicate, sometimes partially articulated skeletons of birds and reptiles in sea caves reveal a protected shoreline. An early generation of isopachous, fibrous cement verifies the presence of marine phreatic water over a sustained period of time. These features, often misinterpreted (McMurtry, 2004, AGU Fall Meeting, OS21E-06), categorically exclude emplacement by tsunami waves. Oceanic isotope records cannot produce an equivalent level of resolution of short, extreme events via (in terms of age, duration, rates of sea-level and ice-volume changes), thus shifting the 'burden of proof' to proxy methods to identify such events.


Eemian interglacial
(Redirected from Ipswichian interglacial)

The Eemian interglacial era (is analogous Sangamon era in North America, Ipswichian interglacial in UK, Riss-Würm interglacial in the Alps) is the second-to-latest interglacial era of the Ice age. It began about 131,000 years ago, consisted of an early warm period of about 3,000 to 4,000 years duration, a rapid cooling and then a much slower cooling leading to the next glacial era. However, recent ice core analyses have shown that during the course of the Eemian, there were several short periods in which glacial conditions prevailed. The onset and close of these periods were very abrupt. The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago, when forests reached as far north as North Cape (now tundra) in northern Norway. Hardwood trees like Hazel and Oak grew as far north as Oulu, Finland. Sea levels at that time were higher than they were now, possibly indicating greater deglaciation than today (one presumes the ice sheets of Greenland and possibly Antarctica). Scandinavia was an island due to the inundation of vast areas of northern Europe and the West Siberian Plain.

At the peak of the Eemian, the world was generally warmer and wetter than it now is. Trees grew as far north as Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq , and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains lay further west -- near Lubbock, Texas instead of near Dallas, Texas where it now exists. The era quickly cooled to conditions cooler and drier than the present, and by 114,000 years ago, a glacial era had returned.


Link


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
You don't like Exxon's opinion so therefore they should not have one or be allowed to have one.

I guess it could be you want us to quit using the polluting oil companies and use the mining and refining companies that extract and produce Rare Earth and Heavy Metals. I believe these processes are extremely polluting are they not?

IOW You hate CO2 but love Cadmium and such. Interesting point of view you have, delusional yes but interesting
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
What is your question I will be happy to answer
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting Neapolitan:
Such are the ways of corporate greed. But before Apple fell into the Foxx(conn) hole, it was a company built on the vision of basically one man.
Apple did not fall into foxconn they looked for them then pushed them for more. Almost all corporations are built on the vision of one man
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting nymore:
While I have experimented plenty in the past with many drugs, I would not recommend anyone else do so.

The great Steve Jobs while he had many wonderful ideas his use of suppliers that use child and basically slave labor and are highly polluting is very much less than honorable. You may want to read the two articles in the last week from the old gray lady (The New York Time) and get back to me about this fantastic guy.
Such are the ways of corporate greed. But before Apple fell into the Foxx(conn) hole, it was a company built on the vision of basically one man.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting nymore:
I do not work in the energy field. Do I think lobbying should be illegal on all sides, yes.

It is not so much oil or fossil fuel companies that stop these grand ideas you have it is Environmentalists. I welcome hydro power but we can't build dams, huge wind farms oh we can't have those either they kill raptors and birds, huge solar farms oh can't build those some little desert animal will be harmed. If they get approval then we have to fight like hell to get a transmission line built to the grid because of more environmental damage.

If you really want to be honest which I doubt you can do to your own bias, it is not people like me who stop these projects it is people like you.
We weren't talking about lobbying; we weren't talking about transmission lines, or hydroelectric dams, or solar farms, or any such thing. I was responding to your statement that those who hate Exxon should stop using oil. You ignored my comment, and you ignored my questions. That leaves me with no choice but to assume you're inability to see that is willful. Thank you.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting Neapolitan:

The co-founder and CEO of America's most valuable company (as of today) was a long-time partaker in "illegal (hardcore) drugs"--namely LSD--yet I'd say Steve Jobs set an excellent example for kids to follow. (In fact, Jobs himself stated on many occasions that his success wasn't despite his drug use, but partly because of it.)

I'm certainly not advocating the use of illegal pharmaceuticals here--there are many obvious downsides to using them--but perhaps some mind-expanding substances might be just the thing to sweep the cobwebs of ignorance, provincialism, and denialism from the heads of some. Maybe?
While I have experimented plenty in the past with many drugs, I would not recommend anyone else do so.

The great Steve Jobs while he had many wonderful ideas his use of suppliers that use child and basically slave labor and are highly polluting is very much less than honorable. You may want to read the two articles in the last week from the old gray lady (The New York Times) and get back to me about this fantastic guy and company.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
The TM video was a reference to the TimeWave Zero Theory,,how one arrives to their inspiration,or Epiphany is not my care, nor business.


There is a document under seal somewhere that guarantee's dat I do believe.



If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.



Jiddu Krishnamurti:

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127570
Quoting Neapolitan:
You still don't get it, do you? You're clearly blind to the truth; is it willful? Or can you simply not see it because of your own involvement in the energy industry?

Few sane people believe we can simply slam the door on using fossil fuels. It's not going to happen. But it's one thing to admit that we're stuck with fossil fuels for the time being while we rapidly work developing alternatives because we realize those fossil fuels are neither sustainable nor economically/environmentally viable. But it's quite another to fund a huge campaign against science and scientists in the hopes that by doing so we can delay any move toward those alternatives for as long as possible, thereby maintaining the astronomically profitable--but environmentally and ethically insane--status quo.

What part about that comparison escapes you?
I do not work in the energy field. Do I think lobbying should be illegal on all sides, yes.

It is not so much oil or fossil fuel companies that stop these grand ideas you have it is Environmentalists. I welcome hydro power but we can't build dams, huge wind farms oh we can't have those either they kill raptors and birds, huge solar farms oh can't build those some little desert animal will be harmed, We could build nukes no can't do that either. If they get approval then we have to fight like hell to get a transmission line built to the grid because of more environmental damage.

If you really want to be honest which I doubt you can do to your own bias, it is not people like me who stop these projects it is people like you.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quantum Computing Breakthrough: QIP=PSPACE


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127570
Quoting nymore:
One of the biggest Illegal (hardcore) drug advocates on the planet. Lets go take some DMT and 'shrooms. What a good example for the kids on this site.

The co-founder and CEO of America's most valuable company (as of today) was a long-time partaker in "illegal (hardcore) drugs"--namely LSD--yet I'd say Steve Jobs set an excellent example for kids to follow. (In fact, Jobs himself stated on many occasions that his success wasn't despite his drug use, but partly because of it.)

I'm certainly not advocating the use of illegal pharmaceuticals here--there are many obvious downsides to using them--but perhaps some mind-expanding substances might be just the thing to sweep the cobwebs of ignorance, provincialism, and denialism from the heads of some. Maybe?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting nymore:
sitting here bored (not at work) a little under the weather today but I will be fine, I hope your day is better than mine.

I agree with you if there is a better way I am all for it. Even the great James Hanson says it is not feasible right now. It is these people who say just get rid of oil are fools. They must not know how much oil makes their modern life possible. Products such as life saving drugs, modern fertilizers, modern plastics, modern machines and on and on. If we just take away oil these will be the same hypocrites claiming how unjust it is that 100's of millions are now dieing early, crop production way down, no modern products and on and on.

They remind me of those who would complain about losing their freedom while at the same time complaining about how that freedom is provided or possible.

Real leaders lead by example not complaining that is how it works.

This is for all the hypocrites out there if you hate oil companies and their products so much do not use them or anything derived from them. There problem solved if I see you can do it maybe I will to.
You still don't get it, do you? You're clearly blind to the truth; is it willful? Or can you simply not see it because of your own involvement in the energy industry?

Few sane people believe we can simply slam the door on using fossil fuels. It's not going to happen. But it's one thing to admit that we're stuck with fossil fuels for the time being while we rapidly work developing alternatives because we realize those fossil fuels are neither sustainable nor economically/environmentally viable. But it's quite another to fund a huge campaign against science and scientists in the hopes that by doing so we can delay any move toward those alternatives for as long as possible, thereby maintaining the astronomically profitable--but environmentally and ethically insane--status quo.

What part about that comparison escapes you?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13459
Quoting nymore:
sitting here bored (not at work) a little under the weather today but I will be fine, I hope your day is better than mine.

I agree with you if there is a better way I am all for it. Even the great James Hanson says it is not feasible right now. It is these people who say just get rid of oil are fools. They must not know how much oil makes their modern life possible. Products such as life saving drugs, modern fertilizers, modern plastics, modern machines and on and on. If we just take away oil these will be the same hypocrites claiming how unjust it is that 100's of millions are now dieing early, crop production way down, no modern products and on and on.

They remind me of those who would complain about losing their freedom while at the same time complaining about how that freedom is provided or possible.

Real leaders lead by example not complaining that is how it works.

This is for all the hypocrites out there if you hate oil companies and their products so much do not use them or anything derived from them. There problem solved if I see you can do it maybe I will to.


I am sorry to hear that you are bit under the weather sorry, could not resist ;-). I hope that you are doing better soon.

You are correct and oil does not just give us fuel for our cars. Oil is but one the fossil based fuels and is not as "dirty" as coal. The tar sand oils will cloud this point. We still need to make a stronger commitment to get off of oil as soon as possible. As of yet, there are no serious moves to do so. I am certain that the first country to do so has helped assure its own future cost controls and international security. I would prefer that the country to do this first would be the U.S.A.. We are probably the most at risk country by not doing so. At risk, in the sense of our quality of life and national/international stability.

I find it hard to call those that still find a present need for their personal oil consumption use as being a hypocrite. As I stated, should I make the move to all electric then I am still consuming oil when I buy a product that is manufactured with or shipped using oil. The efforts of the individual are small. The greatest effort the individual can do is to consume less, conserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. Another thing that runs contrary to the individual approach is the planned obsolescence of most manufactured products today. When you couple that with having to buy assembled modules as compared to buying the individual components that comprise the modular constructed piece. An example will be that I once was able to buy the bearings and races for my car axle. Now, I must by the assembled hub that has the bearings and races already installed. What a waste of time, energy and money! The only ones that benefit from this approach is the manufacturers. Until there is a real and strong effort to do these things in a different and better way, then it is rather pointless to call anyone a hypocrite, concerning their use of oil. So far, try as you might, you cannot restack the deck to give yourself your favored outcome.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
GreenPeace, Obama must shelve Arctic drilling plans, call for offshore moratorium.


In light of the ongoing offshore oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico Greenpeace is demanding that President Barack Obama cancels Arctic drilling plans and calls for an offshore moratorium.

The Deepwater Horizon accident has resulted in eleven lives lost, countless of animal lives affected and an oil spill that is growing in size every day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that around 5000 barrels of oil is leaking every day from the destroyed oil rig managed by BP. According to reports the oil spill has tripled in size during these past days.

While touring the area at risk from the oil spill Obama blamed the “unprecedented environmental disaster” on BP while saying they “will be paying the bill”:

“Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill,” said Obama as he visited the area and pledged a “fully coordinated, relentless relief effort” in the region where the coastlines of four Gulf states are being menaced. [...]“We a dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” Obama said.

And why shouldn’t they? After all BP is the third largest global energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Reuters also reports that:

“The spill has also forced Obama to suspend politically sensitive plans to expand offshore oil drilling, unveiled last month partly to woo Republican support for climate legislation, one of the U.S. leader’s priorities.”

And following this suspension on offshore oil drilling Greenpeace Executive Director, Philip Radford said that while Obama’s announcement was “a welcome first step” it isn’t enough:

Link



http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQiymJU5D gLLJ5bMYsc4ts_L2ayo5D-iqd6pvEUZ8Ge9ikjVhaZXYXnW9Rp



Obama Administration Announces New Gulf Oil Exploration Deal
U.S. to lease out 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling

By Jason Koebler
January 26, 2012 RSS Feed Print

The Obama administration announced plans Thursday morning to lease out 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling and exploration in hopes to increase domestic oil production.

According to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the areas to be leased out could hold 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They'll begin taking bids on June 20, according to a Department of the Interior announcement.

[Should offshore drilling be expanded?]

"Expanding offshore oil and gas production is a key component of our comprehensive energy strategy to grow America's energy economy, and will help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs here at home," Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said in a statement.

The announcement makes good on Obama's State of the Union remarks. "Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources," he said Tuesday. Obama is set to speak in Nevada to discuss the deal.

“The President’s announcement today, while a welcome first step, does not go nearly far enough. The only way to prevent human, economic and environmental tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster is to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling and to replace dirty dangerous fuels with clean energy.”

“If we cannot handle a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, imagine the impact even a small spill could have in the remote, pristine waters of the Arctic”, Radford said in a statement.

Greenpeace also notes that on April 2nd, just days before the BP Deepwater Spill began, President Obama said:

“It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”
Link


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Quoting nymore:
Hello sir

Until technology can come up with a better way to store power you will always use fossil fuels to generate power as there is no way now to provide base power load with green energy. We could build nukes to solve these problems


Bingo, electric cars will outmode all others once the they go faster and farther on a quickly renewable power
storage system, for flying cars we'll need to wait for anti-grav (dark energy)I'm afraid.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Japan's 'Nuclear Alley' Conflicted Over Reactors

By MARI YAMAGUCHI Associated Press
OHI, Japan January 26, 2012 (AP)

International inspectors are visiting a rugged Japanese bay region so thick with reactors it is dubbed "Nuclear Alley," where residents remain deeply conflicted as Japan moves to restart plants idled after the Fukushima disaster.

The local economy depends heavily on the industry, and the national government hopes that "stress tests" at idled plants — the first of which is being reviewed this week by the International Atomic Energy Agency — will show they are safe enough to switch back on.

But last year's tsunami crisis in northeastern Japan with meltdowns at three of the Fukushima reactors has fanned opposition to the plants here in western Fukui prefecture, a mountainous region surrounding Wakasa Bay that also relies on fishing and tourism and where the governor has come out strongly against nuclear power.

"We don't need another Fukushima, and we don't want to repeat the same mistake here," said Eiichi Inoue, a 63-year-old retiree in the coastal town of Obama. "I know they added stress tests, but what exactly are they doing?"

"I oppose restarting them," he said.

Other residents said that economic realities made the plants indispensable, including Chikako Shimamoto, a 38-year-old fitness instructor in Takahama, a town that hosts one of the region's nuclear plants.

"We all know that we better not restart them," Shimamoto said. "But we need jobs and we need business in this town.

"Our lives in this town depends on the nuclear power plant and we have no choice," she said.

On Thursday, an IAEA team visited a plant in the town of Ohi to check whether officials at operator Kansai Electric Power Co. had correctly done the tests at two reactors. The tests are designed to assess whether plants can withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, loss of power or other emergencies, and suggest changes to improve safety.

Their visit, at Japan's invitation, appeared aimed at reassuring a skeptical public that authorities are taking the necessary precautions before bringing nuclear plants back on line. After the visit, IAEA team leader James Lyons said its assessment would be released at the end of the month but deciding whether to restart the reactors was up to the Japanese goverment.

Some experts are critical of the stress tests, saying they are meaningless because they have no clear criteria, and view the IAEA as biased toward the nuclear industry.

"I don't view their evaluation as something that is trustworthy or carries any weight," said Hiromitsu Ino, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and member of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency's stress test panel.

The government idled most plants for mandatory tests and maintenance after the Fukushima disaster. Currently, only four of Japan's 54 reactors are operating. If no idled plants get approval to restart, the country will be without an operating reactor by the end of April.

Before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima crisis, nuclear plants generated about 30 percent of the country's electricity. To make up for the shortfall, utilities are temporarily turning to conventional oil and coal-fired plants, and the government has required companies to reduce their electricity consumption.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has promised to reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power over time, but it still needs some nuclear power until next-generation sources are developed.
In Fukui, 13 reactors at four complexes are clustered along a 55-kilometer (35-mile) stretch of coast with snow capped mountains facing the Sea of Japan. It's known as "Gempatsu Ginza," a phrase that roughly translates to "Nuclear Alley."

Only one of the 13 reactors is still running. The rest have been shut down for regular inspections required every 13 months. To start running again, they must pass the stress test.

Another hurdle will be gaining local support for the plants to restart. While local consent is not legally required for that to happen, authorities generally want to win local backing and make efforts to do so.

Fukui Gov. Issei Nishikawa, however, says he will not allow a startup of any of the prefecture's commercial reactors.

And the city assembly in Obama — a town that briefly enjoyed international fame when it endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential race— has submitted an appeal to the central Tokyo government to make Japan nuclear-free.

But officials in Mihama, another town that hosts a nuclear plant, have expressed support for the town's three reactors also operated by Kansai Electric, also called Kepco.
Fukui is a largely rural area, traditionally focused on fishing and farming, but it has a significant textile and machinery industry, and boasts of being a major producer of eyeglasses. Its nuclear power plants supply approximately half of all the electricity used in the greater Kansai region, which includes Osaka and Kyoto.

Several towns' fortunes are tied closely to the nuclear industry.

Community centers and roads are paid by the government subsidies for hosting the plants. Closing the plants not only means losing jobs for thousands of workers, but hardship for stores, restaurants and other service industries.

Many of those interviewed had family members, relatives or friends with jobs at the plants, and some refused to give their names due to fear of repercussions.

Noda has said the final decision on restarting nuclear plants would be political, suggesting that the government would override any local opposition if Japan's energy needs become dire.

Naozane Sakashita, a taxi and bus driver, said his salary had decreased "substantially" after the Ohi and other plants went offline.

"I think these idle plants should resume as soon as their safety is confirmed," he said. "Our jobs and daily life are more important than a disaster that occurs only once in a million years."

Still, he said he is concerned about the safety of the plants because his son works as a control room operator at the Takahama plant.

"If our economy prospers without compromising our safety, of course it would be best to live without nuclear energy," he said.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127570
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good afternoon, sir. I trust that all is well?

I will readily agree with you that our need for fossil fuels will not end within the next 20 years. I believe that this has more to do with a lack of political will than it has to do with the technology available. Certainly, our technology can be and will be improved upon but, we have sufficient technology available to us now. What we seem to lack is the political will to begin implementing it. I think our national security will depend on us moving off of fossil fuels. Sooner, rather than later.

I am still hoping that we can make great insteps towards using nuclear fusion. Nearly all of answers, in one little package. ... Well, we would still have a need to explain Justin Beiber. I am not certain that science has an answer for that one. ;-)
sitting here bored (not at work) a little under the weather today but I will be fine, I hope your day is better than mine.

I agree with you if there is a better way I am all for it. Even the great James Hanson says it is not feasible right now. It is these people who say just get rid of oil are fools. They must not know how much oil makes their modern life possible. Products such as life saving drugs, modern fertilizers, modern plastics, modern machines and on and on. If we just take away oil these will be the same hypocrites claiming how unjust it is that 100's of millions are now dieing early, crop production way down, no modern products and on and on.

They remind me of those who would complain about losing their freedom while at the same time complaining about how that freedom is provided or possible.

Real leaders lead by example not complaining that is how it works.

This is for all the hypocrites out there if you hate oil companies and their products so much do not use them or anything derived from them. There problem solved if I see you can do it maybe I will to.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2255
Quoting nymore:
Hello sir

Until technology can come up with a better way to store power you will always use fossil fuels to generate power as there is no way now to provide base power load with green energy. We could build nukes to solve these problems


Good afternoon, sir. I trust that all is well?

I will readily agree with you that our need for fossil fuels will not end within the next 20 years. I believe that this has more to do with a lack of political will than it has to do with the technology available. Certainly, our technology can be and will be improved upon but, we have sufficient technology available to us now. What we seem to lack is the political will to begin implementing it. I think our national security will depend on us moving off of fossil fuels. Sooner, rather than later.

I am still hoping that we can make great insteps towards using nuclear fusion. Nearly all of answers, in one little package. ... Well, we would still have a need to explain Justin Beiber. I am not certain that science has an answer for that one. ;-)
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Snow, Water, Ice, Permafrost in the Arctic (SWIPA)!

SWIPA
SWIPA Executive Summary Report



December 2011 AIRS CH4



compare it with December 2010



AIRS, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder on NASA's Aqua Satellite

Daily Earth Maps from AIRS

Aqua and the Afternoon Constellation - The A-Train


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281

Viewing: 289 - 239

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.