Separated and Unified: One Earth

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:07 AM GMT on February 07, 2013

Share this Blog
13
+

Separated and Unified: One Earth

Revision Posted: 20130224

In the previous blog I introduced the idea that the way we do scientific research has a significant impact on how we communicate science. In scientific research, we try to isolate problems that can be investigated to study cause and effect. In the traditional notion of science, we set up laboratory experiments where we can control all parameters, change one parameter, and measure how the others change. In the study of the Earth’s weather and climate, we are not able to make such controlled experiments, so we focus on specific features, for example hurricanes, or we focus on specific events, for example, ice-age transitions. In this approach, we reduce - we break the whole up into pieces. Then when we write and talk about our research, we talk about these reduced problems, the pieces. Given 100 scientists, we talk about 100 pieces of the Earth’s climate, not the climate as a whole.

There is another attribute of the scientific process that strongly influences communication – uncertainty. The scientific method provides us with a piece of knowledge, and a description about how certain we are about that particular piece. When we take the pieces all together, we end up talking about many pieces of the Earth’s climate and that each one of those pieces is uncertain. Sometimes we remember to say that all of those pieces fit together, but day-to-day we are not very good at putting the puzzle together. We just assure our audiences that they can be put together.

It is natural when we try to communicate that we seek metaphors and analogies. The whole conversation of the Earth warming due to carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere is called the “greenhouse” effect. This metaphor works to communicate with the idea that many people understand that it gets warm in a greenhouse. The metaphor extends to the glass or plastic in the greenhouse being like carbon dioxide; it lets solar energy in, and it traps the thermal energy that comes from heating the plants and the soil. Other metaphors include climate dice and the warming climate as weather on steroids.

These metaphors are intuitive and communicative, but they also add more pieces to the puzzle. When working with journalists, they search out such metaphors; they ask additional questions to break down the problem into communicative pieces. We are constantly in a process of identifying pieces and more pieces. We go through this process trying to make a complex system understandable. We forget that all of the pieces are defined by us to help us to investigate and to communicate. The pieces are not in any sense fundamental truths.

A motivation of this blog and the previous blog comes from the comments and the continual back and forth over one piece of data versus another, one study versus another. I am fully aware that focusing on isolated pieces of information and uncertainty is a tactic in argument and debate. Those using this tactic will dismiss what I write here. However, those who are scientists and those who are trying to communicate about the use of climate knowledge in policy development, preparedness planning, and adaptation planning need to rethink how we frame and communicate complexity. We need to communicate the essence of complexity in a better way than connecting together a myriad of pieces that have been built individually.

In my previous entry I wrote that we only have one climate. We have this one climate, and it is warming, and weather events exist in this one, warming climate. Weather events don’t exist in either an old, cooler climate or a new, warmer climate; they exist in our one, warming climate. To study weather events, however, scientists have to construct ways to isolate the event. Those constructions are to help us; they are defined by us; they are not in any sense fundamental truths. They queue up, however, how knowledge will be communicated in both the scientific and non-scientific realms. Communication is entangled in the constructs of scientific research.

I entitled the previous blog “One Climate.” Another idea that is discussed in the blog comments is whether or not, say, the impact of a storm is because of climate change or because we have too many people living in too many houses too close to the ocean. This focus allows those who want to dismiss the importance of climate change to do so. But again, climate and people are not really separated from each other. We have evolved with our climate, and we change our climate through how we scrape and pile the land and how we place our energy waste in the air, water, and soil. We are part of the biology, and the biology is part of the climate. People consume energy, and the waste from that energy consumption causes the planet to warm. Just because people choose to live in places and in ways that make them vulnerable does not make climate change any less real or any less consequential. It only tells us that we could make better choices. It also tells us that the warming climate will force us to make different choices. So our one climate is part of our one Earth.

As I think about climate change and our future, it makes more and more sense to frame the problem in terms of this inherent complexity. Reduction into disciplines and isolated problems is necessary to assist investigation, thinking, and communication. However, we need to be vigilant in recognizing that the pieces that come from the reduction are not in and of themselves representative of the whole. They are part of the whole. Communication and addressing climate change is a process of tying the pieces together in ways that find successful ways to represent the complexity, which can emerge into paths of behavior that allow a sustainable, one Earth.




Figure 1: Light folds (skilpaddene) are small, responsive light sculptures that seem to breathe in glowing and dimming light when left undisturbed. By Meghan Reynard

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: 112 - 62

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog Index

112. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
5:01 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
RickyRood has created a new entry.
111. Xulonn
4:24 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
Quoting 1911maker:
"closet" meteorologist
I wish WU would upgrade this miserable editor so that if you go back and modify a comment after you post it, it does not get scrambled with "cussing" in the post.
I also see it will not let me put a plus sign in my verbiage. Anyone know if that is a function of Firefox or the WU editor?
I was a network administrator, not a programmer, but I've figured out that there is an inconsistency in the way the WU editor works with extended characters - sometimes it uses HTML tags and sometimes ascii character codes, but re-edits of an original post can mess things up.

Perhaps someone among our regulars can explain it better.

I use the latest FireFox, and I sometimes use the ascii "alt code" for the temperature degree sign when posting at WU. However, the editor gets confused when I re-edit a post, and changes the extended characters to HTML tags without the embedding characters. Then I have to manually replace the HTML tags with the original ascii alt codes each time I edit.

I'm sure that fixing it would be a simple job for a good coder.

I like the editor except for that one flaw, although for some of my long posts, I use my word processor with autosave to avoid slips of a finger that can delete a long post accidentally.

Also, the next time you friend talks about taking the Bible literally, tell him that "If we DID have a Christian country governed by laws based on good, old-fashioned Christian values and Biblical law, then Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani would have long ago been stoned for adultry, Mitt Romney for preaching the wrong religion, Mike Huckabee for disagreeing with the "king" George Bush, and John McCain for campaigning on the Sabbath."
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
110. 1911maker
2:17 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
f %u201Ccloset%u201D meteorologist

I wish WU would upgrade this miserable editor so that if you go back and modify a comment after you post it, it does not get scrambled with "cussing" in the post.

I also see it will not let me put a plus sign in my verbiage. Anyone know if that is a function of Firefox or the WU editor?
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
109. 1911maker
2:10 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
107. Xulonn 12:21 AM GMT on February 12, 2013

I'm beginning to think that meteorology is more like engineering than science in that it has a fundamentally practical focus in application, and doesn't really require a depth of understanding of science. It appears that you don't need a good knowledge of basic science, the scientific method, and the peer-review process to be really good at analyzing, tracking and forecasting storms and weather events


Xulonn, Interesting that you should bring this up. My wife and I had evening meal last Friday night with friends. Mike is a Professor of Meteorology at the University of North Dakota here in Grand Forks. Our conversation around Meteorology/climate change was short due to glowering wives.

I am what you would call an applied scientist (engineer) versus a pure scientist. I had always assumed that Met was pure science. Mike pointed out that Met can be either applied or pure. Mike stated there is applied meteorology versus "pure" meteorology/science. I assume (he did not specify, glowering wives) that the pure science part probably deals more with climate (making 30 plus year guesses) and such, while the applied is your local met making a guess about what the weather will do in a few days.

The next time I see Mike I will ask him about the level of science understanding needed. I know that Mike has a good grasp of the peer review process, but he has to publish.

I also told him I had been reading a bit on Dr. Roy Spencer%u2019s site and that Dr. Roy stated that there were a lot of %u201Ccloset%u201D meteorologist out there, who did not get on with man made climate change. Mike found that to be highly comical, and commented that for the %u201Csupposed%u201D 100%u2019s of skeptics, there were 1000%u2019s of knowledgeable people who understood the science and were fully on board with CO2 being the root cause.

Mike, as well as two other mets I know, all %u201Cduck%u201D talking about climate change as much as they can. The common response if pushed on it (I want info) is that it is complex enough that for them to try to explain anything in detail is not really possible (most people do not have enough education/back ground to get into the details). This leads me to believe that on the main blog, all we see are the few who do not understand it very well, or for ideological reasons refuse to %u201Cagree%u201D even if they do understand it. The knowledgeable meteorologists either stay quiet, or are not there as the blog does not interest them.

A antidotal comment/story dealing with ideology and how it can mess with even a smart and educated person.

I have a friend who is about 32 years young, a Mech engineer, smart etc. He is also part of the 46%* in the US. One day while we were solving the problems of the world, I asked him how he could believe in a ~6000 year old earth in the face of all the physics, chemistry etc required to get his engineering degree. I pointed out that he has to understand radiocarbon dating. He agreed that he does understand how it works. He then went on to say that his existence revolves around the bible being literal; he was raised in a conservative religious way that left no room for %u201Cdoubt%u201D. He stated, for him to %u201Cbelieve%u201D in anything else, science or not, would shatter his world view and wreck his life.

He got a bit indignant when I pointed out that ideology from indoctrination was not a very good basis to form a world view on. At that point we moved on so as not to mess up a good friendship.

*46%
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationis t-View-Human-Origins.aspx Link
June 1, 2012
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism
by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question

Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
108. cyclonebuster
1:28 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Why don't you just explain the discrepancy between the factual aspects of adding power in the range of 8000 megawatts to the grid (1,000 megawatts has put them close to current limitations) Link, when you claim your tunnels produce "All totaled up the complete set of tunnels can produce 13 trillion joules of electrical power every 7 seconds." Link I'm honestly asking a fairly simple question. If I am mistaken about my understanding, please show me why I am wrong.


Can doesn't mean they will as the props pitch could be variable or the position of Tic-26 can regulate the amount of flow to the turbine....For example: The range could vary anywhere between 1 and 8000 MW's based on system load...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
107. Xulonn
12:21 AM GMT on February 12, 2013
I've just been reading - and plussing good comments - over at Dr. Masters' blog, which I often do when the topic is related to AGW/CC and things slow down here. I post there very infrequently.

I'm beginning to think that meteorology is more like engineering than science in that it has a fundamentally practical focus in application, and doesn't really require a depth of understanding of science. It appears that you don't need a good knowledge of basic science, the scientific method, and the peer-review process to be really good at analyzing, tracking and forecasting storms and weather events. Weather "experts," both amateur and professional, can make some really cringe-worthy comments and support some really out-of-synch with science positions - and often defend them vigorously when they are obviously completely wrong with respect to established climate science.

The study and discussion of climate and climate change, (AGW/CC) OTOH, is based heavily in more pure science. The science of climate seems to be alien to many (but not all) weather/meteorology buffs, and even many meteorology professionals. While it seems logical at first glance that meteorology experts would understand AGW/CC, many obviously do not. Many WU weather regulars that I respect and whose comments I follow, appear to be hopelessly out of synch and poorly informed with respect to climate science and the current AGW/CC event.

The other thing that I notice about Dr. Masters' blog is that it is really like a high school club with juvenile bantering and cliques. It often comes across as a young-persons twitter/facebook/myspace type universe peppered with some older and wiser members. These "elders," including some dedicated mentors who work hard to help the youngsters, provides a lively space where things move so fast during hurricane season that it is nearly impossible to follow. And of course, there are a number of adult weather buffs who manage to simply talk about the weather.

By way of contrast, Dr. Rood's AGW/CC blog normally moves much more slowly - like the subject on which it is based. The small core of regulars here range from scientists to technicians to lay people who often have a good background in science, and may - or may not - be weather buffs.

The most obvious common thread between the two blogs is that the AGW/CC denialists at both blogs usually display a dreadful lack of understanding, or even display a gross misunderstanding of science that often precludes having rational discussions about actual AGW/CC science. Unfortunately, while even the longest lived tropical storms and hurricanes can last for several weeks, it takes years - and often at least decades - for climate trends to be firmly identified. However, I think (and some scientists agree) that we are approaching some tipping points where profound changes that will affect human civilization are approaching.

But please, don't demand "proof" of this. Simply use Google to search for "climate change tipping points" and you will find many articles, scholarly papers and discussions on this subject. The likelihood of tipping points is quite high, but timing of their appearance is very uncertain - and these uncertainties of timing are among the factors that, unfortunately, make the denialists froth at the mouth and spew their silliness.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
106. Xulonn
9:59 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting iceagecoming:

And for those of you who want to know more about this floating “megarock,” dubbed “2012 DA14,” CNN’s Deb Feyerick has got you covered. Indeed, she was there on Saturday to ask the tough questions: Did global warming cause this asteroid?

Yup.
I guess you are saying that it felt good to find a celebrity who is as misinformed about global warming as you seem to be? Don't feel bad - you have lots of company, both celebrities and unknowns.
Member Since: June 11, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 1452
105. iceagecoming
6:31 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
“A 150-foot-wide asteroid will come remarkably close to Earth next week, even closer than high-flying communication and weather satellites,” The Associated Press reported earlier this week. “It will be the nearest known flyby for an object of this size.”

And for those of you who want to know more about this floating “megarock,” dubbed “2012 DA14,” CNN’s Deb Feyerick has got you covered. Indeed, she was there on Saturday to ask the tough questions: Did global warming cause this asteroid?

Yup.

Link

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1061
104. Xandra
6:10 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
A Study of Very Large Solar Desert Systems with the Requirements and Benefits to those Nations Having High Solar Irradiation Potenial


Using the solar radiation of just 4% of the world's desert is sufficient to meet all world electrical energy requirements today.

Summary and Conclusion from the study:

Transforming the sun’s energy into electricity has evolved from providing power to satellites in space, to remote off-grid village applications, and to plans for large scale systems in the world's deserts. Early schemes for large solar arrays showed the promise of abundant, clean energy. Yet, system costs and low conversion efficiencies kept solar power at the kilowatt scale for the past three decades.

The potential solar resource from desert regions is truly astounding. Several studies show that the entire global electricity demand could be provided from just 4% of the world's deserts. Many of the grand schemes place large arrays around the equatorial regions with high-voltage transmission lines delivering that energy to populated areas in the north and south.

Preventing such ideas were the costs of developing photovoltaic cells and the conversion devices. Now, annual industry growth rates of 20% per year and entry by major energy companies has driven costs down and efficiencies up.

Policymakers can assist the solar industry by cutting subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, providing tax incentives to solar purchasers, thus driving down the costs and creating a mass market for this clean fuel technology. For example, in the U.S., direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999 with a further $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar combined during the same period totaled only $5.5 billion.

With energy demand projected to double in 30 years, mostly from developing nations, the business-as-usual energy scenarios predict dire consequences for the planet. Growing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are driving climate change, and transitioning to carbon free energy sources is a prime solution. Large solar arrays in deserts (VLS PV and CSP) provide the largest potential renewable energy resource to meet growing energy demands in a sustainable manner.

High-voltage transmission grids can carry the electricity over thousands of kilometers from regions with abundant solar radiation to our cities and industry. This paper offers several examples for the Gobi, Sahara and Mojave Deserts -- and utilities in Southern California are now pursuing 300MW - 900MWVLS photovoltaic (PV) and concentrating solar power (CSP).

The benefits to millions of people through solar energy in desert regions is a sustainable way to solve both environmental and social problems. We see that large solar power systems could one day replace fossil fuels as the main energy source for society



Where Solar Is Found
Myths And Facts About Solar Energy




Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
103. goosegirl1
5:25 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting overwash12:
Oil companies,Pharmaceutical companies,insurance companies all have one thing in common,to rape and squeeze all they can from the public! What does this have to do with climate change,I don't know!


Since this is not a blog about insurance or pharmaceuticals, I will not address those directly. It's just another way to make money.

I'm sure you know burning fossil fuels increases the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. Climate is changing; this is known. Human activities by way of burning fossil fuels is known to be behind rising CO2 levels. This is not new science, I first heard about this during college in the late 80's. If you can't see it, no one here can help you.
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1230
102. overwash12
4:31 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
Oil companies,Pharmaceutical companies,insurance companies all have one thing in common,to rape and squeeze all they can from the public! What does this have to do with climate change,I don't know!
Member Since: June 24, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 1471
101. goosegirl1
2:54 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem. If your idea is simply to say Wind and Solar, please show how these technologies as they exist today will provide baseload power, not just some article or opinion but actual examples. Also how will you solve the vehicle issue just to start with. I believe you will find it is much easier to say lets just this or that than it is to actually do this or that.

I know many of you like to bitch about the drug dealer (fossil fuel companies) but yet still use the drugs. I on the other hand do not bitch about the dealer because I fully realize I am one of the users, I wish this were not the case but it is. I also see no easy way out for years, maybe decades. I hope this will change more rapidly too but I must be realistic.

On the other hand, we can just keep posting studies back and forth and accomplish nothing.


I say this so much, I must be getting boring. The problem is both complex and simple- and it's all about money.

Fossil fuel companies stand to lose more than any other industry on the planet, should we "wean" from fossil fuels. The economy in my own state is precarious at best, and it would be absolutely wrecked without "king coal." Profits must be protected at all costs, no matter what the human cost.

Therefore, it makes sense to cast uncertainty on the facts of climate change caused by burning fossil fuels, and keep both the general populace and the political leaders on the side of the fossil fuel companies. You get to keep your profits, AND no one believes those sciencey-types who keep talking about what will happen (but offer no solutions).

The debate on how to wean ourselves off fossil fuels will finally get serious when there are no more profitable deposits to mine. When there are no fossil fuels, there are no profits to protect. With no profits to protect, research grants will begin to flow towards whatever new technology will be the energy source for the future. Then, finally, a solution will be sought and hopefully found. I have serious doubt it will happen while there is still any oil in the ground.

So yes, us as the above mentioned "sciency-types" do a lot of talking without offering a lot of solutions. But we will also be the ones who will do the research on new energy sources, once the end of profitable oil finally comes. The job of building the infrastructure and vehicles to match this new energy will fall to future engineers.

So- follow the money at all costs, until it costs too much. It all sounds like the tobacco industry in the '60's, doesn't it?
Member Since: December 17, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1230
100. Naga5000
1:37 PM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Your funny!


Why don't you just explain the discrepancy between the factual aspects of adding power in the range of 8000 megawatts to the grid (1,000 megawatts has put them close to current limitations) Link, when you claim your tunnels produce "All totaled up the complete set of tunnels can produce 13 trillion joules of electrical power every 7 seconds." Link I'm honestly asking a fairly simple question. If I am mistaken about my understanding, please show me why I am wrong.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
99. greentortuloni
10:39 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting nymore:
You may want to check what they have to pay the solar producers per kilowatt to what they can sell it for on the open market. It is costing them 3 times as much as they can sell it to others for. You may also want to check and see how many German firms are relocating to the USA because of the energy costs.

It is good to know both sides of the story. The author seems to have his rose colored glasses on.


Aside from the rant on how much Exxon makes, I have a question: Do you think your power supplier would not use any resource available to them to reduce their production cost and maximize profit. The reason so many are moving from coal to nat. gas is not for the environment (although it does help and is helping the USA produce less CO2) it is because it is cheaper. For cars which is where oil companies do very well for themselves, there is simply no technology that can compete right now.

Solar can do well for itself in the southwest and wind can do ok for it self in the plains and offshore but we not have the style of grid to move it long distances. This is why Manitoba Hydro uses DC to move the power from their dams up north to the south, where it is converted to AC.


The cost is a valid point. But it is a complex issue. Examples:
-- compare the cost of importing oil versus subsidizing solar. Imported oil is money that leaves the country permanently for a consumable. Solar is money that either stays in the country, or if the part of the expense that is just panels is sent elsewhere (for foreign panels), the money at least provides a much greater power return for money spent.

--independence of power/renewable power. There is an interest rate cost for not being independent; i.e. how much risk is there in loaning money to someone who has to pay a foreign power bill each month?

--pride, local jobs, health, creating new industries, etc.

As far as alternatives for cars, there are plenty. Notably electric vehicles fro personal transportation and fuel cells for heavier transport. Sure, some of it would require a change in lifestyle, but to help reduce imports, become healthier as nation and help reduce the costs of global warming (which are probably going to be the biggest part of the budget over the next 10 years), isn't it worth it?

Do the research and try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who solves a problem instead of the whiny gOP (most of them at least, a few seem to be finding their integrity) - not to make this political but it seems that the GOP is the biggest problem in America today, to me at least.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
97. 1911maker
5:21 AM GMT on February 11, 2013


Paper that supports this graph.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL 048794/pdf
Link

A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3. Note that focusing on surface air temperatures misses more than 90% of the overall warming of the planet.

Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474
96. Daisyworld
4:53 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The million dollar question(s): how long must warming not occur before warmists realize that 1) the globe is not warming and 2) warming cannot be correlated with CO2 output?

Link


Welcome to another great episode of "Let's Start An Argument!"

*cue game show music*

Our first contestant of the evening: A long-time member of the Weather Underground climate denial community, he enjoys spending his off-hours disavowing decades of surface temperature records, centuries of paleoclimatic data, as well as misrepresenting basic chemistry and physics! Often seen crusading the non-sequitur and data-spinning website of the academically-unqualified and thoroughly-defrocked Anthony Watts, he brings the latest in a long series of malarkey in an effort to derail the discussion of climate change, doing his part to make sure the scientifically-accepted facts of anthropogenic global warming fail to be communicated to the public! You all know him, you all love him, let's give a great round of applause to NeopolitanFan! Welcome to the show!

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
95. cyclonebuster
4:12 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Frankly no, since the evidence seems to contradict what you are saying.


Your funny!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
94. Naga5000
4:09 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Uh!!! Being a control room operator for over 20 years at Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey point and Cutler Ridge fossil fuel steam plants,you don't think I know how to synchronize a hydrogen cooled industrial turbine/generator to the grid at 3,600 rpm and what conditions need to be met in order to do so???


Frankly no, since the evidence seems to contradict what you are saying.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
93. cyclonebuster
3:57 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Proof please. It is quite understood that adding new resources to the grid such as solar and wind at high levels would be problematic. Your claim of the power output provided by these tunnels would be well over the solar and wind levels determined to be problematic. I don't think you understand the complexity in just "tying into the existing grid". Link Link


Uh!!! Being a control room operator for over 20 years at Florida Power and Light Company's Turkey point and Cutler Ridge fossil fuel steam plants,you don't think I know how to synchronize a hydrogen cooled industrial turbine/generator to the grid at 3,600 rpm and what conditions need to be met in order to do so???
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
92. Naga5000
3:20 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
The million dollar question(s): how long must warming not occur before warmists realize that 1) the globe is not warming and 2) warming cannot be correlated with CO2 output?

Link


Wow, bad statistics all around. First off, not one sample used is n > 30, which when not using normal distributions is required. Which leads to the second problem, the confidence level. Not achieving significance at the .05 (95%) confidence level not using normal distributions with an n < 30 is not surprising. It's just bad math. Educate yourself, or you will just continue to be duped by people who use bad statistics to attempt to prove their hypothesis. If I tried to pass off something like this in research, I would be fired and laughed out of my field. Try again.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
91. NeapolitanFan
2:27 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
The million dollar question(s): how long must warming not occur before warmists realize that 1) the globe is not warming and 2) warming cannot be correlated with CO2 output?

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
90. Some1Has2BtheRookie
1:06 AM GMT on February 11, 2013
Quoting Daisyworld:


I guess that's the real question. It was Dr. Landing's interview in the AAAS blog that made me start wondering what amount would the thermal expansion of the oceans contribute to sea level rise over a longer span of time than just a century. What would the shorelines look like by the end of the millennium? After 10,000 years? The image they provided woke me up (without coffee even):



Well, that explains why Paul Allen built his yacht. ... I wonder if it can be converted to sails?



Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
89. Naga5000
11:24 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Nope all we have to do is tie into the existing grid.....


Proof please. It is quite understood that adding new resources to the grid such as solar and wind at high levels would be problematic. Your claim of the power output provided by these tunnels would be well over the solar and wind levels determined to be problematic. I don't think you understand the complexity in just "tying into the existing grid". Link Link
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
88. cyclonebuster
11:18 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


I've seen you post this repeatedly, I'm not quite sure you understand the complexity involved in what essentially is tampering with the natural environmental forces. Your attitude and willingness to provide solutions is admirable, but whenever you start messing with natural forces, there are bound to be unforeseen consequences. That being said, a more realistic approach is one I have outlined. Even if your tunnels do 100% what you claim they will, with no ill side effects, the same problems of power grid infrastructure arise.


Nope all we have to do is tie into the existing grid with them.....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
87. Naga5000
10:46 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Long term these are 24/7/365.....

Link


..


I've seen you post this repeatedly, I'm not quite sure you understand the complexity involved in what essentially is tampering with the natural environmental forces. Your attitude and willingness to provide solutions is admirable, but whenever you start messing with natural forces, there are bound to be unforeseen consequences. That being said, a more realistic approach is one I have outlined. Even if your tunnels do 100% what you claim they will, with no ill side effects, the same problems of power grid infrastructure arise.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
86. cyclonebuster
10:40 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


Rant on Exxon profits? Hardly. I was merely using their profits as a reason why they do not want to change the status quo. No, my power supplier will not spend any more money or make any changes when the current setup works well enough to maintain 9 billion dollar profits. Until that profit margin sees a hit, they will do little to nothing. The reason natural gas is cheaper is due to hydro-fracking which has increased the availability of natural gas. Fracking is now producing 1/3 of our total natural gas. But these things are besides the point. The grid is outdated, simple growth estimates show our current grid cannot handle the estimated power increases needed. So why not move ahead to update the grid to accommodate solar and wind? Why not begin the weening process? A note about your car example, if we had cheaper renewable electricity, electric car costs should go down in tandem and become a real threat to the gasoline engine.

Look we are stuck in a fossil fuel burning world, but we can and should start making changes to use less for power. Wouldn't that be a better idea than burning the finite supply of fuel? I think so. Our goal should be to start the process of weening now, there can be no overnight shift to green technologies, but America is falling behind in that field, and that is bad news. We should be the country pioneering green efforts, showing the world that with money, innovation, and hard work that you need not rely on a finite energy supply. I fail to see how this is a bad idea or impossible. All it takes is a small social shift to put pressure on our government and corporations. I don't hate oil or fossil fuels, but the future will happen without them at some point, why not solve that problem while protecting the environment at the same time? Isn't that logical?

Edited to say: One major problem facing any change is that as a society we have become increasingly short term focused. It's quite evident in the "kick the can" mechanics of spending and debt in the government, as well as the basis on our current iteration of the financial industry. We have stopped looking at the long term, it's time to start thinking 10, 20, 50 years ahead again. That long term thinking brought us great things like the national highway system, we need to start looking forward again to rebuild a infrastructure that can be used to obtain long term energy stability.


Long term these are 24/7/365.....

Link


..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
85. Naga5000
10:17 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
Aside from the rant on how much Exxon makes, I have a question: Do you think your power supplier would not use any resource available to them to reduce their production cost and maximize profit. The reason so many are moving from coal to nat. gas is not for the environment (although it does help and is helping the USA produce less CO2) it is because it is cheaper. For cars which is where oil companies do very well for themselves, there is simply no technology that can compete right now.

Solar can do well for itself in the southwest and wind can do ok for it self in the plains and offshore but we not have the style of grid to move it long distances. This is why Manitoba Hydro uses DC to move the power from their dams up north to the south, where it is converted to AC.


Rant on Exxon profits? Hardly. I was merely using their profits as a reason why they do not want to change the status quo. No, my power supplier will not spend any more money or make any changes when the current setup works well enough to maintain 9 billion dollar profits. Until that profit margin sees a hit, they will do little to nothing. The reason natural gas is cheaper is due to hydro-fracking which has increased the availability of natural gas. Fracking is now producing 1/3 of our total natural gas. But these things are besides the point. The grid is outdated, simple growth estimates show our current grid cannot handle the estimated power increases needed. So why not move ahead to update the grid to accommodate solar and wind? Why not begin the weening process? A note about your car example, if we had cheaper renewable electricity, electric car costs should go down in tandem and become a real threat to the gasoline engine.

Look we are stuck in a fossil fuel burning world, but we can and should start making changes to use less for power. Wouldn't that be a better idea than burning the finite supply of fuel? I think so. Our goal should be to start the process of weening now, there can be no overnight shift to green technologies, but America is falling behind in that field, and that is bad news. We should be the country pioneering green efforts, showing the world that with money, innovation, and hard work that you need not rely on a finite energy supply. I fail to see how this is a bad idea or impossible. All it takes is a small social shift to put pressure on our government and corporations. I don't hate oil or fossil fuels, but the future will happen without them at some point, why not solve that problem while protecting the environment at the same time? Isn't that logical?

Edited to say: One major problem facing any change is that as a society we have become increasingly short term focused. It's quite evident in the "kick the can" mechanics of spending and debt in the government, as well as the basis on our current iteration of the financial industry. We have stopped looking at the long term, it's time to start thinking 10, 20, 50 years ahead again. That long term thinking brought us great things like the national highway system, we need to start looking forward again to rebuild a infrastructure that can be used to obtain long term energy stability.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
84. Daisyworld
10:03 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Quoting indianrivguy:


I'm pretty sure that higher water temperatures will cause "outgassing." Now, I'm sure that they expand too, and would add some volume, but they will also try and escape. See the article and comments below.

Colder Water Holds More Gas

All gases follow the pattern that they are more soluble in colder water. For example, 1 kg of water can hold up to 0.03 g of nitrogen gas at 0 degrees Celsius (assuming one atmosphere of pressure). However, at 60 degrees Celsius the maximum amount of suspended nitrogen drops to 0.01 g. Other gases, like helium, however, may be less soluble. In a kilogram of water, only 0.0017 g of helium can be suspended in water at 0 degrees Celsius, and at 60 degrees Celsius this drops down to 0.0013 g.

Why Colder Water Holds More Gas

The reason why lower temperatures are necessary for gas solubility is that temperature is a measurement of entropy, or disorder caused by the kinetic energy of the liquid and gas molecules. With low entropy, gases can form weak molecular bonds with the water molecules. As the temperature increases, these bonds are too weak to overcome the motion of the molecules. As a result, when temperature increases the gas molecules raise to the surface and escape into the atmosphere.


Read more: How Does Temperature Affect the Solubility of Gases in Water? | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_10057902_temperature-affe ct-solubility-gases-water.html#ixzz2KR45KJ9h



I agree, but if water has to warm to 140 degrees Fahrenheit to out gas 2/3 of the nitrogen then the water will already be warm enough to not make any difference to us. Therein lies my question. How much expansion would be due to the dissolved gases before they start out gassing? ... Am I going to need a bigger, bigger boat?


I guess that's the real question. It was Dr. Landing's interview in the AAAS blog that made me start wondering what amount would the thermal expansion of the oceans contribute to sea level rise over a longer span of time than just a century. What would the shorelines look like by the end of the millennium? After 10,000 years? The image they provided woke me up (without coffee even):

Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 855
83. nymore
9:34 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Naga5000:


The solutions to these problems aren't black and white and require very complex solution. In order to begin solving our problems, a weening off of fossil fuels needs to occur. Unfortunately, while solar in particular is an huge, mainly untapped resource Link , the problem lies within the infrastructure and currently outdated power grid. We cannot simply just add solar plants to the existing grid, but its estimated by 2050 and with existing technologies we could be producing up to 80% of our energy through renewable resources Link .

So why aren't we? Once again, it's a super complex issue. First, we have a "not in my backyard attitude" in the U.S.. No one wants wind and solar farms in their area, even in rural areas where the land is abundant. Second, the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry. People who profit from fossil fuels do not want anything to dip into their potential profits and will do anything in their power to ensure their future profits survive. (On a funny note, we could be producing and refining oil more efficiently, but no new refineries have been built since 1976. Our refineries are running at full capacity, and while they have been expanded and upgraded, many still rely on outdated technologies.) This fact alone keeps prices artificially higher to ensure larger profits. A company like Exxon who made 9.95 Billion dollars in Q4 net income Link could easily finance new, more efficient refineries. But why would they if their profits continue to increase under the current system? Finally, misinformation and half truths have made the movement to renewable resources an horribly slow process. When people go on 24 hour news networks and make false claims about how solar power won't work in the U.S., how climate change is bogus, and throw labels around like alarmist they shape public opinion. Public opinion is important in forcing the government's and oil industry's hand to research and develop new, cleaner, more efficient technologies. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is much like this and Dr. Master's blog, full of people who don't understand or refuse to accept proven science.

So the answer is to begin a weening process post haste, and to increase infrastructure development, while upgrading and improving the renewable sources as technology becomes available.
Aside from the rant on how much Exxon makes, I have a question: Do you think your power supplier would not use any resource available to them to reduce their production cost and maximize profit. The reason so many are moving from coal to nat. gas is not for the environment (although it does help and is helping the USA produce less CO2) it is because it is cheaper. For cars which is where oil companies do very well for themselves, there is simply no technology that can compete right now.

Solar can do well for itself in the southwest and wind can do ok for it self in the plains and offshore but we not have the style of grid to move it long distances. This is why Manitoba Hydro uses DC to move the power from their dams up north to the south, where it is converted to AC.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
82. nymore
9:28 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Xandra:
From Clean Technica:

Germany Has More Solar Power Because Everyone Wins

by John Farrell

Suddenly everyone knows about Germany’s solar power dominance because Fox Newsheads made an ass of themselves, suggesting that the country is a sunny, tropical paradise. Most media folks have figured out that there are some monster differences in policy (e.g. a feed-in tariff), but then latch on to the “Germans pay a lot extra” meme. Germans do, and are perfectly happy with it, but that’s still not the story.

The real reason Germany dominates in solar (and wind) is their commitment to democratizing energy.

Half of their renewable power is owned by ordinary Germans, because that wonky-sounding feed-in tariff (often known as a CLEAN Contract Program in America) makes it ridiculously simple and safe for someone to park their money in solar panels on their roof instead of making pennies in interest at the bank.

It also makes their “energy change” movement politically bulletproof. Germans aren’t tree-hugging wackos giving up double mochas for wind turbines — they are investing by the tens of thousand in a clean energy future that is putting money back in their pockets and creating well over 300,000 new jobs (at last count). Their policy makes solar cost half as much to install as it does in America, where the free market’s red tape can’t compete with their “socialist” efficiency.

Fox News’ gaffe about sunshine helps others paper over the real tragedy of American energy policy. In a country founded on the concept of self-reliance (goodbye, tea imports!), we finance clean energy with tax credits that make wind and solar reliant on Wall Street instead of Main Street. We largely preclude participation by the ordinary citizen unless they give up ownership of their renewable energy system to a leasing company. We make clean energy a complicated alternative to business as usual, while the cloudy, windless Germans make the energy system of the future by making it stupid easy and financially rewarding.

I’m all for pounding the faithless fools of Fox, but let’s learn the real secret to German energy engineering and start making democratic energy in America.

You may want to check what they have to pay the solar producers per kilowatt to what they can sell it for on the open market. It is costing them 3 times as much as they can sell it to others for. You may also want to check and see how many German firms are relocating to the USA because of the energy costs.

It is good to know both sides of the story. The author seems to have his rose colored glasses on.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
81. Xandra
8:41 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
From Clean Technica:

Germany Has More Solar Power Because Everyone Wins

by John Farrell

Suddenly everyone knows about Germany’s solar power dominance because Fox Newsheads made an ass of themselves, suggesting that the country is a sunny, tropical paradise. Most media folks have figured out that there are some monster differences in policy (e.g. a feed-in tariff), but then latch on to the “Germans pay a lot extra” meme. Germans do, and are perfectly happy with it, but that’s still not the story.

The real reason Germany dominates in solar (and wind) is their commitment to democratizing energy.

Half of their renewable power is owned by ordinary Germans, because that wonky-sounding feed-in tariff (often known as a CLEAN Contract Program in America) makes it ridiculously simple and safe for someone to park their money in solar panels on their roof instead of making pennies in interest at the bank.

It also makes their “energy change” movement politically bulletproof. Germans aren’t tree-hugging wackos giving up double mochas for wind turbines — they are investing by the tens of thousand in a clean energy future that is putting money back in their pockets and creating well over 300,000 new jobs (at last count). Their policy makes solar cost half as much to install as it does in America, where the free market’s red tape can’t compete with their “socialist” efficiency.

Fox News’ gaffe about sunshine helps others paper over the real tragedy of American energy policy. In a country founded on the concept of self-reliance (goodbye, tea imports!), we finance clean energy with tax credits that make wind and solar reliant on Wall Street instead of Main Street. We largely preclude participation by the ordinary citizen unless they give up ownership of their renewable energy system to a leasing company. We make clean energy a complicated alternative to business as usual, while the cloudy, windless Germans make the energy system of the future by making it stupid easy and financially rewarding.

I’m all for pounding the faithless fools of Fox, but let’s learn the real secret to German energy engineering and start making democratic energy in America.

Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
80. Some1Has2BtheRookie
8:17 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I don't blame them it is their job to sell their product. It is my fault as much as anyone else, I do not blame them for giving me a product I demand. I would not wait for someone with vested interest to keep things the way they are, to be the first to change.

I mean how many people here do you believe have done something as simple as getting a home energy audit done to see how much energy they waste just simply heating and cooling their homes. I could go on but the point is, while the finish line is no where in sight does not mean we can not at least start the race.

I will be back later, I need to go get fuel for the Bobcat. It is starting to snow hard and already have 3 or 4 inches so far today. It is going to go over a foot they claim, So I will use the big snow blower and not the shovel


I did not say that I blame them for wanting to push their products onto us. I just wish they quit receiving so much support through tax breaks, tax subsidies, grants and their allowance to to claim land through imminent domain such as they are with pipelines and fracking drill sites. Certainly the fossil fuel industries make their negotiations for land use, but when push comes to shove, they will shove the land owners out to have their way.

Many of us are not waiting for anyone else to make their steps towards mitigation.

CFL bulbs are quickly labeled as a communist government mandate being forced down our throats, they are too expensive and that these bulbs contain mercury. The truth of the matter is that you can still buy incandescent light bulbs, that the CFL bulbs last considerably longer and their energy cost savings alone will by far offset their purchase price. The mercury is contained and easily recycled.

People that wish to keep the status quo will scoff at the idea that keeping your tires properly inflated and your vehicles properly tuned helps to reduce how much fuel they consume during their operation. How much of the scoffing is influenced by the fossil fuel industry is a mystery, but, as you said, the fossil fuel industry wants to consume all the their products as much as we can.

The list is nearly endless as to what individuals are doing to lower their carbon footprint.

Anytime an alternative, renewable energy source is introduced it is always met with the statements that these energy sources also have a carbon footprint involved with their use and that they are not pollution free or without some concerns in their use. While this is true, it is also true that their carbon footprint is considerably less than that of getting fossil fuels themselves to market, they pollute less and that fossil fuel usage has a whole host of problems associated with their use.

The truth of the matter is that the fossil fuel industries have a great deal of political clout in this country. The fossil fuel industries dictate what our energy policies are and will be. Other than the banking industries, I can think of no other industry that has so much ability to dictate national policy. Scientist, on the other hand, do not even introduce national policy, let alone have a say in what the policies will be. At best, scientist will tell us what needs to be done and not dictate as to how it will be done.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
79. Xandra
8:08 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:

I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem

Step 1 to solving climate change: STOP paying companies to pollute!

[…] according to Oil Change International analysis, governments around the world are spending perhaps more than $1 trillion USD combined per year subsidizing the fossil fuel industry.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
78. greentortuloni
6:25 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
77. cyclonebuster
6:05 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem. If your idea is simply to say Wind and Solar, please show how these technologies as they exist today will provide baseload power, not just some article or opinion but actual examples. Also how will you solve the vehicle issue just to start with. I believe you will find it is much easier to say lets just this or that than it is to actually do this or that.

I know many of you like to bitch about the drug dealer (fossil fuel companies) but yet still use the drugs. I on the other hand do not bitch about the dealer because I fully realize I am one of the users, I wish this were not the case but it is. I also see no easy way out for years, maybe decades. I hope this will change more rapidly too but I must be realistic.

On the other hand, we can just keep posting studies back and forth and accomplish nothing.


This is the best solution...

Link


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
76. cyclonebuster
6:03 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
So you're of the opinion that a letter to the editor written by a small group of largely-discredited, repeatedly-debunked, mostly non-practicing non-climatologists working for the fossil fuel industry and published in a Murdoch-owned financial newspaper contains "true scientific value"? Please do tell me how that works; I'm truly dying to know.

(So far as your rude command to silence me, well, let's just say I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request.)


Well said Neapolitan...... Must be another FOX NEWS follower...........
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
75. cyclonebuster
5:59 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting indianrivguy:


I do not think I agree with this.. the amount of water does not change, just its volume. The "column" of water might be taller, but would it weigh more? I do not think so.

I am skeptical that rising sea levels will have much impact on tectonic plates per se. I think the shift in location of the weight will have a greater impact. Heck, there are a lot of places that are still rebounding from the last ice age.


Sorry but more water weighs more......
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
74. cyclonebuster
5:57 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Typical alarmist response. Attack the messenger, not the data. "Dr." Heidi Cullen blamed the forecast blizzard on unusually high ocean temps, which is not the case. Tisdale demonstrated her data were false, and the "god" of ad-hominems stoops to calling Tisdale names. What class.


Yes she is correct... look how warm the Gulfstream is....


It should be 1.5 degrees cooler....



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
73. Naga5000
5:56 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem. If your idea is simply to say Wind and Solar, please show how these technologies as they exist today will provide baseload power, not just some article or opinion but actual examples. Also how will you solve the vehicle issue just to start with. I believe you will find it is much easier to say lets just this or that than it is to actually do this or that.

I know many of you like to bitch about the drug dealer (fossil fuel companies) but yet still use the drugs. I on the other hand do not bitch about the dealer because I fully realize I am one of the users, I wish this were not the case but it is. I also see no easy way out for years, maybe decades. I hope this will change more rapidly too but I must be realistic.

On the other hand, we can just keep posting studies back and forth and accomplish nothing.


The solutions to these problems aren't black and white and require very complex solution. In order to begin solving our problems, a weening off of fossil fuels needs to occur. Unfortunately, while solar in particular is an huge, mainly untapped resource Link , the problem lies within the infrastructure and currently outdated power grid. We cannot simply just add solar plants to the existing grid, but its estimated by 2050 and with existing technologies we could be producing up to 80% of our energy through renewable resources Link .

So why aren't we? Once again, it's a super complex issue. First, we have a "not in my backyard attitude" in the U.S.. No one wants wind and solar farms in their area, even in rural areas where the land is abundant. Second, the lobbying power of the fossil fuel industry. People who profit from fossil fuels do not want anything to dip into their potential profits and will do anything in their power to ensure their future profits survive. (On a funny note, we could be producing and refining oil more efficiently, but no new refineries have been built since 1976. Our refineries are running at full capacity, and while they have been expanded and upgraded, many still rely on outdated technologies.) This fact alone keeps prices artificially higher to ensure larger profits. A company like Exxon who made 9.95 Billion dollars in Q4 net income Link could easily finance new, more efficient refineries. But why would they if their profits continue to increase under the current system? Finally, misinformation and half truths have made the movement to renewable resources an horribly slow process. When people go on 24 hour news networks and make false claims about how solar power won't work in the U.S., how climate change is bogus, and throw labels around like alarmist they shape public opinion. Public opinion is important in forcing the government's and oil industry's hand to research and develop new, cleaner, more efficient technologies. Unfortunately, the court of public opinion is much like this and Dr. Master's blog, full of people who don't understand or refuse to accept proven science.

So the answer is to begin a weening process post haste, and to increase infrastructure development, while upgrading and improving the renewable sources as technology becomes available.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 3391
72. nymore
5:48 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Good day, nymore.

You highlight what is known about any efforts towards mitigation that we could employ. We all know that there is no magic bullet that could be used. I do not think that this knowledge has escaped anyone here.

The only way to solve the problem is to first slay the mentality of the drug lords that will strike out at anyone that opposes the status quo of the continued use and a wider distribution of their drugs. ... Perhaps a closer look at Rex Tllerson's statements that his industry of fossil fuels is the drug lords, that they will accelerate the use of their drugs and the we are left to our own means to get off the drugs. He, and the other fossil fuel industries' drug lords, will not offer any support for us to do so. Any alternative energy sources that are offered up are quickly told to us to be evil, unproductive, anti-capitalism, communist plots that would put us all back into the stone age ways of living our lives. All the while Rex Tllerson and his fellow drug dealers refuse to admit to us that their methods for moving us forward into the future will, with all certainty, move us towards what they say renewable energy sources will do to us. Fossil fuels are finite resources, will become prohibitively more costly to use and will certainly plunge mankind back into the dark ages, if we do not get off of fossil fuels before this becomes the inescapable reality for us all. Until these dragons are slain we are faced with the primary task of slaying the dragons that block our every attempts before any attempts could prove to be successful or even have a reasonable chance at success.
I don't blame them it is their job to sell their product. It is my fault as much as anyone else, I do not blame them for giving me a product I demand. I would not wait for someone with vested interest to keep things the way they are, to be the first to change.

I mean how many people here do you believe have done something as simple as getting a home energy audit done to see how much energy they waste just simply heating and cooling their homes. I could go on but the point is, while the finish line is no where in sight does not mean we can not at least start the race.

I will be back later, I need to go get fuel for the Bobcat. It is starting to snow hard and already have 3 or 4 inches so far today. It is going to go over a foot they claim, So I will use the big snow blower and not the shovel
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
71. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:38 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting nymore:
I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem. If your idea is simply to say Wind and Solar, please show how these technologies as they exist today will provide baseload power, not just some article or opinion but actual examples. Also how will you solve the vehicle issue just to start with. I believe you will find it is much easier to say lets just this or that than it is to actually do this or that.

I know many of you like to bitch about the drug dealer (fossil fuel companies) but yet still use the drugs. I on the other hand do not bitch about the dealer because I fully realize I am one of the users, I wish this were not the case but it is. I also see no easy way out for years, maybe decades. I hope this will change more rapidly too but I must be realistic.

On the other hand, we can just keep posting studies back and forth and accomplish nothing.


Good day, nymore.

You highlight what is known about any efforts towards mitigation that we could employ. We all know that there is no magic bullet that could be used. I do not think that this knowledge has escaped anyone here.

The only way to solve the problem is to first slay the mentality of the drug lords that will strike out at anyone that opposes the status quo of the continued use and a wider distribution of their drugs. ... Perhaps a closer look at Rex Tllerson's statements that his industry of fossil fuels is the drug lords, that they will accelerate the use of their drugs and the we are left to our own means to get off the drugs. He, and the other fossil fuel industries' drug lords, will not offer any support for us to do so. Any alternative energy sources that are offered up are quickly told to us to be evil, unproductive, anti-capitalism, communist plots that would put us all back into the stone age ways of living our lives. All the while Rex Tllerson and his fellow drug dealers refuse to admit to us that their methods for moving us forward into the future will, with all certainty, move us towards what they say renewable energy sources will do to us. Fossil fuels are finite resources, will become prohibitively more costly to use and will certainly plunge mankind back into the dark ages, if we do not get off of fossil fuels before this becomes the inescapable reality for us all. Until these dragons are slain we are faced with the primary task of slaying the dragons that block our every attempts before any attempts could prove to be successful or even have a reasonable chance at success.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
70. Some1Has2BtheRookie
5:01 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting GiorgioKing:
Iceagecoming, well said, it's about time someone on this blog started posting comments with true scientific value and not the garbage posted by fanatics like Neapolitan and all his good buddies !

Neapolitan, why don't you put a plug in in it ? Many of us on this blog are sick and tired of reading the drivel that you post just about every day.


I have a simple solution for you on this, GiorgioKing. Put Neapolitan, and any others you wish to ignore, on your ignore list.

Iceage did not say much about anything. Iceage posted psuedo-science comments by Ivar Giaever. Ivar made quite a few psuedo-science claims that are not supported by by the observations. I will give Ivar credit for stating that CO2 is an orderless and colorless gas. Perhaps this is Ivar's problem, along with many of the others that cannot recognize real science? Perhaps if CO2 was not colorless and had a distinct odor that many among the denial industry puppets would finally be able to recognize the problems that we, mankind, have caused with our own emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere? I know that it is a stretch of one's imagination that this could possibly be true, after all the puppets have their strings pulled by someone else, but there may be few puppets that have weakened strings and they could finally gain control of their own actions. Yes, I know it is difficult to imagine when one is left to consider that these strings are actually aircraft quality steel cables that have been paid for at a great expense to all by the puppet masters.

I am now interested to see what your third comment on WU will be. Will there be a newly found sense of intelligence on your part or will the puppet masters just tighten the strings that bond you? I suspect the latter since the puppet masters will also control the thoughts of their puppets.

An image of what really controls you ....



Now, if you could only figure what the puppets have in store for you next and what causes them to pull at your strings in the manner that they do? Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to discover what is in the minds of the puppet masters. Or, you could just choose to remain in "The Outer Limits".



"1963 TV series
The Outer Limits is an American television series that aired on ABC from 1963 to 1965. The series is often compared to The Twilight Zone, but with a greater emphasis on science fiction stories. Wikipedia"
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
69. nymore
4:06 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
I would like to know if any body here has any ideas of how we are going to solve this problem. If your idea is simply to say Wind and Solar, please show how these technologies as they exist today will provide baseload power, not just some article or opinion but actual examples. Also how will you solve the vehicle issue just to start with. I believe you will find it is much easier to say lets just this or that than it is to actually do this or that.

I know many of you like to bitch about the drug dealer (fossil fuel companies) but yet still use the drugs. I on the other hand do not bitch about the dealer because I fully realize I am one of the users, I wish this were not the case but it is. I also see no easy way out for years, maybe decades. I hope this will change more rapidly too but I must be realistic.

On the other hand, we can just keep posting studies back and forth and accomplish nothing.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2259
68. JohnLonergan
3:24 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting schwankmoe:
lol, a guy with 2 comments says he speaks for the blog. that's a laff.






This could be an all time record, ignoring a poster without ever reading a post,well I've never suffered fools gladly. I can tell by two quotes that he dorsn't speak for me or nearly all the regulars here.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3301
67. schwankmoe
2:10 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
lol, a guy with 2 comments says he speaks for the blog. that's a laff.


Quoting GiorgioKing:
Iceagecoming, well said, it's about time someone on this blog started posting comments with true scientific value and not the garbage posted by fanatics like Neapolitan and all his good buddies !

Neapolitan, why don't you put a plug in in it ? Many of us on this blog are sick and tired of reading the drivel that you post just about every day.
Member Since: October 18, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 678
66. OldLeatherneck
2:10 PM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting GiorgioKing:
Iceagecoming, well said, it's about time someone on this blog started posting comments with true scientific value and not the garbage posted by fanatics like Neapolitan and all his good buddies !

Neapolitan, why don't you put a plug in in it ? Many of us on this blog are sick and tired of reading the drivel that you post just about every day.


Normally, when someone posts on this blog for the first time, they are welcomed and encouraged to learn.
It seems that you have decided to jump into the middle of these discussions without having read some or all Dr. Rood's original posts. If you had read any of these posts you might be aware that there are several "Incontrovertible Truths", these being:

1. The earth is warming
2. Human activity is the cause of this warming
3. CO2 released by the burning of fossil fuels is the major contributor to this warning

If you can not concur with those three known, and proven facts you have no business being a part of these discussions. If you have a desire to learn, please stick around. If you continue to post inane falsehoods, you will be refuted with scientific facts and/or eventually placed on a number of ignore lists.

Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
65. Neapolitan
11:36 AM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting GiorgioKing:
Iceagecoming, well said, it's about time someone on this blog started posting comments with true scientific value and not the garbage posted by fanatics like Neapolitan and all his good buddies !

Neapolitan, why don't you put a plug in in it ? Many of us on this blog are sick and tired of reading the drivel that you post just about every day.
So you're of the opinion that a letter to the editor written by a small group of largely-discredited, repeatedly-debunked, mostly non-practicing non-climatologists working for the fossil fuel industry and published in a Murdoch-owned financial newspaper contains "true scientific value"? Please do tell me how that works; I'm truly dying to know.

(So far as your rude command to silence me, well, let's just say I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13538
64. greentortuloni
8:10 AM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting GiorgioKing:
Iceagecoming, well said, it's about time someone on this blog started posting comments with true scientific value and not the garbage posted by fanatics like Neapolitan and all his good buddies !

Neapolitan, why don't you put a plug in in it ? Many of us on this blog are sick and tired of reading the drivel that you post just about every day.


I think everyone would love that only significant relevant facts to the global warming discussion were posted.

Care to suggest a criteria and filter?

Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
62. 1911maker
2:23 AM GMT on February 10, 2013
Quoting JohnLonergan:


You won't get an answer from Tisdale, be basically just makes things up. At Open Mind, Tamino has destroyed quite few of bit of his"work". Link if you are interested.



Thanks for the link. I went and took a look.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 474

Viewing: 112 - 62

Page: 1 | 2 | 3Blog 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.