Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 5:03 PM GMT on April 03, 2013

Share this Blog
19
+

Smoking, Marriage and Climate: What Can I Do? (2)

This week I have a guest blogger, Doug Glancy, who was one of the student advocates responsible for starting my class on climate change problem solving. Doug’s piece continues the series in response to the question, “What can I do about climate change?” It is a call for social organization.

What Smoking and Marriage Equality Can Teach Activists About Efforts to Catalyze Climate Action

In February, Duke University released a poll that found that more than 84% of Americans believe climate change is occurring. Climate activists were elated, and many began to say that we’ve turned the corner on efforts to catalyze action. However, beneath the encouraging headline was a far more important number: only one third of Americans support federal efforts to address the issue. I am not discounting the fact that the vast majority of Americans now believe climate change is occurring. However, overselling this statistic is fraught with peril, as it is the second number that defines our direction when the rubber hits the road.

For affirmation of this belief, one need only look at the decades-long struggle to reduce smoking. As early as the 1950’s, the majority of doctors believed smoking posed significant health risks. By the 1970’s, the majority of Americans believed that smoking had deleterious effects. Nevertheless, it wasn’t until the late 80’s that overall smoking rates began to plummet. The transition did not occur because a doctor or scientist said smoking was bad for one’s health, it occurred because smoking became socially unacceptable.

Unfortunately, in the battle to address climate change we do not have the luxury of time for opinion to sway. Fortunately, the strategic marriage of behavioral economics and technology provides the tools to speed up the pendulum. What is needed now is messaging which leverages cutting edge research into why we make the choices we do including core drivers such as moral conviction, a desire for equality and good old-fashioned peer pressure. (For a quick introduction read Contagious by Jonah Berger).

One need only look to the events of last week to see how opinions can change in a timeframe exponentially quicker than in the past. As recently as the late 90’s, the vast majority of American opposed extending marriage rights to the LBGT community. Just over a decade later, over half the nation supports marriage rights.

There is little doubt that some of the explanation for this remarkable achievement lies with Americans expanding their view of morality and furthering equality. However, it would be shortsighted to discount the tremendous impact of peer pressure. Last week, despite little coordinated effort, nearly 3 million Americans changed their Facebook profile to support marriage equality. These 3 million individual decisions provided a social cue to tens of millions more.

What does this all mean for the efforts to address climate change? It means that we must move beyond statistics about the beliefs of 99% scientists. It means we must move beyond over-reliance on frames, such as the plight of the polar bear, which only speak to certain segments of society. It means we must make addressing climate the moral imperative of the day and use technology-assisted peer pressure to spread the message. We have the knowledge and technology to be good ancestors, its time to leverage it.

Doug Glancy
Principal Resileris

Doug has over a decade working on climate, energy and sustainability issues across the public, private and nonprofit sectors. He holds a BS in Political Science from Trinity College and MBA/MS from the University of Michigan, where he focused on climate change and corporate sustainability. In addition to speaking engagements, Doug has contributed to a groundbreaking report on Corporate Climate Change Strategies for the Pew Center on Climate Change, and led two delegations to the United Nations Climate Change Conference. He is an Executive Board member of the Michigan League of Conservation Voters.

The piece also fits well with my earlier pieces

The Optimist’s Time,

The Role of Short Timers

A Bridge of Time.


Links to the Series

Setting Up the Discussion Deciding to do something, definition of mitigation and adaptation, and a cost-benefit anchored framework for thinking about mitigation

Smoking, Marriage and Climate Behavioral changes and peer pressure

Organizing and Growing Individual Efforts A little detail on efficiency and thinking about how individuals can have more impact than just that of a single person

The Complete List Eight categories of things we can do to reduce greenhouse gases

We Are What We Eat Food and agriculture and greenhouse gas emissions

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: 406 - 356

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog Index

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/04/08/176565 424/the-big-squeeze-can-cities-save-the-earthLink

This is fun. Long, so make it to the bottom if you can. Growing up and living in the wide open spaces of the Hinterlands; the first pictures in the article are pretty much a night mare of the worst kind for me.

................People in the Enormous City still need food, furniture, clothing, water, electricity, building materials, still need a place to store their waste. They still need water systems, farms, ranches, electricity grids, dumps, lakes, even if they never leave their city.

One Pair Of Shoes And A Bike ...

How much extra space? Well, again, said Tim, that depends. If you are happy to live with a modest diet, one pair of shoes and a bike, you won't be drawing on as much of Earth as, say an American would. If all 7 billion of us want to live like Americans, with refrigerators and air conditioners and cars and running water and TVs and strawberries in winter — then we will have a space problem............

..............But as soon as we get richer — even as rich as the average Chinese — the world can't carry all 7 billion of us. We need more planet. If we all want to live American-style, we'd need four more planets ...)............

..........Or ... let's not get all doomsday about this. We could solve this problem by making fewer babies, building more efficient buildings, machines, using new, lighter materials, creating technologies that make everything less costly or wasteful, learn to live on Mars, or, in a pinch, we can be saved by a Miracle.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
394. greentortuloni 3:26 PM GMT on April 08, 2013
In other words, the 50 range is false. If everyone used an electric bike, society would work just fine, just differently.

Here it is in a nut shell. The problem can not be addressed with out a complete restructuring of society. The Status quo has to be completely "up ended". The current "type" of personnel transportation in this country is a main driver in how the country functions.

RTS and his clowns (I like that term by the way) are a perfect example. How much carbon foot print is there from just high school sports activities? Then pitch in College level athletics. Not just athletics, but all aspects of how this society "works". The lists will be long, and the howling will be loud at every effort to say "your little bit of what ever you do for fun etc, its bad, you make bad CO2", you need to stop that. The committee has made a resolution.

Transportation only address fuel, it does not address all the other junk our society gets from fossil hydrocarbon substances.

I think the US should stop exporting food. It would cut down on the amount of fuel, fertilizer, pesticides etc used. Just think how much bunker fuel for shipping alone would get saved. Every one knows that the US is the main evil in CO2 production in the world, so that would be a good first step for the US to make a reduction in CO2 foot print.

The next step would be to prohibit importing "stuff". (think china here).

Neither of these things take any kind of "new tech" to make a reduction in CO2 foot print. Both are easy to do. There is no down side to either of them. Right?

The only way you get "fast" change in the status quo in a given Geo Political area generality is from revolution (the bloody kind).

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting barbamz:
Giving Plants the Right Amount of Light

Apr. 8, 2013 — Enormous amounts of energy are wasted in greenhouses where our food is grown as a result of the plants receiving too much and the wrong kind of light. This can also stress and damage the plants. Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology are working on a globally unique method to measure how much and what type of light plants want. ...

Statement at the end of the article:

"The technology has enormous potential for energy savings," says Torsten Wik. "We are counting on being able to save about 30 per cent by switching from sodium lamps to LED. Furthermore, it is possible to save 20 per cent by regulating the light's intensity and spectrum using our method. This means that greenhouses in Europe alone would be able to save as much electricity as half of Sweden's electricity consumption."

Amazing.


Thank you for this link. I just spend $160 for the junk to build up a high output LED light (one off for test and measurement/evaluation). Two goals, put all LED lighting in a building I am putting up(I want it to run off solar), and also to convert all the plant lights away from Florescent (never did the HID, it gave me a rash for the energy in versus light out).

My wife the gardener is having a hissy fit that LED will not work, the spectrum is incorrect. Her physics is a bit shaky so she is quoting a 40 year old book. Sound familiar for another argument(s) common on this sight? :)

This article could not have come a better time for me.

On a side note, while doing an internet search to see what was "out there" for commercial LED grow lights I discovered they are doing a booming business for the Pot growers. LED does not have the "heat" signature like HID and Florescent so the grower can put their "gardens" in aluminum foil tents (for sale with the LED grow lights) so that the snooping DEA can not see them with IR cameras. So funny.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting biff4ugo:
...and then the work crew comes back to your home everyday as long as you live there, in their big trucks?

If you work in manufacturing, do you need to rebuild the plant every day? Do moving vans have to bring all the furniture to every house, every day?

Most of us leave our work tools at work! You know, commuters? Farmers don't drive tractors to the grocery store (usually)! Are you saying everyone needs mud tires 5 feet tall because farmers have them? I don't need to know the sewing, fertilization, watering, insecticide spraying, watering and harvesting, threshing, and milling cycle to know we need to change to more economic transportation.

Vehicles in the construction industry are atypical. Just because you need a truck to get to work doesn't mean I do. Some people actually ride the bus. Many construction workers carpool. You have sung that song long enough as an excuse not to improve efficiency for American transportation.

Lets talk about drought. How would the public react if we started assigning areas of extreme weather in the US to climate change? For example, if the US is 20% more extreme than climatology, tell Georgia the area of drought around Atlanta (for example) is due to climate change on Monday (the rest of the country is natural). Then Tuesday the heatwave over Oklahoma is due to climate change (but the continuing drought over Atlanta is back to being part of the natural cycle). That way everyone could start to understand what having a fraction of the events caused by climate change, feels like instead of some nebulous percentage rate than nobody can feel or notice.

Find a way to stop making us "the frog in a slowly boiling pot of water" that nobody is jumping out of.


Tools get stolen, silly.

The two biggest types of theft I can think of related to construction is the theft of copper wiring and copper pipes, and the theft of tools.

That's why you don't leave a tool trailer at a job site, and that's why you have a tool chest in your truck.


And you don't get the fact that different crews can't afford to sit around at a job site for days while they aren't needed at that location. As a contractor, you get paid by the foot in most cases, so maximizing your number of contracts is the only way to increase income.

Sleeping in a hotel would be a hell of a lot more expensive than driving back home. People in these lines of works would literally never see their families.

Maybe htat's what you want thought, turn some people een more into the freaking Eloi, while others are more and more Morlocks. Promote the caste system even more.

I don't even know why I'm responding to that comment anyway, it's ridiculous.


Wow.

You expect 4 to 6 guys in a crew to carpool on an electric scooter which can magically haul a few tons of gear around, and when they get there, unlike normal human beings, they are expected to sleep at work, because sleeping at a hotel would cost too much, and when they get the next contract repeat the process.

Lol. Are they supposed to sleep in tents maybe?

Are they supposed to eat fast food and convenience store food even more than they already do, because they're never home to see their families and such?

Really.


What will happen, is one of two things:

1, These people will get screwed somehow by everyone else, as they often already are.

or

2, They will make up for it by charging much more for their services, and clueless people like those on this thread will pay much more for your home or apartment or small business needs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:


That's explainable as nothing more than a matter of time.

High School grads who marry early have 4 to 8 years extra of less strenuous schedules, so they have more time to have children.

College students ranging from Bachelors to post-graduate, are spending 4 to 8 or more of their early reproductive years juggling some combination of part time jobs or entry level jobs, their school work, and research. They simply don't have time for children, and then when they finish their education they're already starting to get too old to be chasing around a whole "quiver full" of kids.

By the time you figure the actual course work hours, and the "off schedule" hours, typically alleged to be 3 hours per 1 hour of schedule time, a college student is spending 21% of the hours of each year either in class or working on the material outside of class or laboratory, and that doesn't count travel time to and from class or labs or whatever. If you count that as a fraction of their "waking hours" it comes to 32% of their life.

So the "education" or "intelligence" is not necessarily even a factor, except that they are smart enough to realize they don't have time for children, but their education is the reason they don't have time for children.


You are missing the larger picture, but I like where your head is at here. Time does play a factor, however in this case, time is dependent on education level, as you noted. In other terms, decisions on when to have children and how children are based on rational economic decision making, which is dependent on education. The ability to think critically comes with education. It all comes back to education being the true independent variable. That might not make much sense to you, but when controlling for other variables, education comes out on top every time. Education level influences a ton of variables you might not necessarily equate to it.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2665
...and then the work crew comes back to your home everyday as long as you live there, in their big trucks?

If you work in manufacturing, do you need to rebuild the plant every day? Do moving vans have to bring all the furniture to every house, every day?

Most of us leave our work tools at work! You know, commuters? Farmers don't drive tractors to the grocery store (usually)! Are you saying everyone needs mud tires 5 feet tall because farmers have them? I don't need to know the sewing, fertilization, watering, insecticide spraying, watering and harvesting, threshing, and milling cycle to know we need to change to more economic transportation.

Vehicles in the construction industry are atypical. Just because you need a truck to get to work doesn't mean I do. Some people actually ride the bus. Many construction workers carpool. You have sung that song long enough as an excuse not to improve efficiency for American transportation.

Lets talk about drought. How would the public react if we started assigning areas of extreme weather in the US to climate change? For example, if the US is 20% more extreme than climatology, tell Georgia the area of drought around Atlanta (for example) is due to climate change on Monday (the rest of the country is natural). Then Tuesday the heatwave over Oklahoma is due to climate change (but the continuing drought over Atlanta is back to being part of the natural cycle). That way everyone could start to understand what having a fraction of the events caused by climate change, feels like instead of some nebulous percentage rate than nobody can feel or notice.

Find a way to stop making us "the frog in a slowly boiling pot of water" that nobody is jumping out of.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:If everyone used an electric bike, society would work just fine, just differently.


Right, because an electric bike can haul around a couple thousand pounds worth of hand tools, power tools, ladders, scaffolding materials, air hoses, extension cords and other equipment a framing contractor needs, and everyone builds their home, apartments, or small business office within walking distance of an experienced professional and all of his crew members.


Here's how real construction for residential and small commercial goes.

You have a plot of land.
You have to survey to get elevations.

You probably need to add dirt and level it to get the desired elevation, either because of flood plains, or because of what looks good for the area.

The framing crew lays out the wooden form for the foundation.

The concrete crew digs the ditches for the chain-wall foundations.

The plumbers and electric crews come in and lay out any parts which will be in or below the foundation.

the concrete crew comes back and lays the metal rebars and the wiring in the foundation. then they poor.

The framers come back an do their work (which is most of the work of making a house, and depending on how big the house is and how complicated it is, this can take anywhere from a few days to over a month, literally. Vaulted ceilings, cathedral ceilings, variable ceiling heights, ridiculously high roof pitches, etc, all add tremendously to the time it requires to make a house.

Then you have blacking in the roof and adding shingles (or metal).

Installing windows and doors, done by framing crew.

Then you have more electric, plumbing, heat/air work to do.

Siding or brick crew comes in.

Then you have dry wall.

Painting.

More electric work to finish installing the outlets, switches, and light fixtures (would be in the way for painting).

Flooring/carpeting

Cabinetry and trim work. May be done by the framing crew, but rarely. Is usually a carpenter specializing in cabinetry and trim work, because it uses different tools, and off-site shop with various routers and milling tools. And of course, this guy needs a trailer to haul around the finished cabinets between his shop and the customer. You can't haul a couple tons of cabinetry and material around with an electric scooter either, and no, 99.9% of the time he isn't the customers next door neighbor.

Next appliances.

Where do you think bath tubs, toilets, kitchen appliances come from? I bet you don't live in walking distance of a home improvement store, and even if you did you wouldn't get two of your buddies and try to carry a bathtub or stove or refrigerator all the way from Lowes or Home Depot to your house with your bare hands, or on a Radio Flyer wagon behind your electric scooter.


One other thing I forgot to mention. Firing bricks will be taxed absurdly, but brick is hte best facade material for storm protection because of it's density and thickness making it the most resistant to medium and high velocity projectiles. So to prevent storm damage, you'd prefer brick over vinyl or hardy plank siding (that's what they call the synthetic concrete and fiber siding, I forget the other name for it anyway,) but Brick will be punished as bad or worse than other materials.

All these things are done in sequence, and an electrician can't sleep in a tent at the build site for a week or a month while he's waiting for his next part of the process to happen, because he has to keep work, and drive to other job sites for the process to continue for multiple customers and multiple crews.


Anyway, these are all realistic views of what you guys aren't thinking about.

When you think about how much fuel it costs all the different contractors to drive to and from work, and you think of all the fuel costs of transporting materials, it will probably add a couple thousand dollars to the cost of constructing a new home. That's first order cost increases. Second order is too complicated to calculate.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And even more jaw-dropping stuff on Science Daily. I'm really impressed by all those new inventions.

Microalgae Produce More Oil Faster for Energy, Food or Products

Apr. 7, 2013 — Scientists have described technology that accelerates microalgae's ability to produce many different types of renewable oils for fuels, chemicals, foods and personal-care products within days using standard industrial fermentation.

Whole article


Engineering Algae to Make the 'Wonder Material' Nanocellulose for Biofuels and More

Apr. 7, 2013 — Genes from the family of bacteria that produce vinegar, Kombucha tea and nata de coco have become stars in a project -- which scientists today said has reached an advanced stage -- that would turn algae into solar-powered factories for producing the "wonder material" nanocellulose. Their report on advances in getting those genes to produce fully functional nanocellulose was part of the 245th National Meeting & Exposition of the American Chemical Society (ACS), the world's largest scientific society, being held here this week.

"If we can complete the final steps, we will have accomplished one of the most important potential agricultural transformations ever," said R. Malcolm Brown, Jr., Ph.D. "We will have plants that produce nanocellulose abundantly and inexpensively. It can become the raw material for sustainable production of biofuels and many other products. While producing nanocellulose, the algae will absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas linked to global warming."

Whole article
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5009
Giving Plants the Right Amount of Light

Apr. 8, 2013 — Enormous amounts of energy are wasted in greenhouses where our food is grown as a result of the plants receiving too much and the wrong kind of light. This can also stress and damage the plants. Researchers at Chalmers University of Technology are working on a globally unique method to measure how much and what type of light plants want. ...

Statement at the end of the article:

"The technology has enormous potential for energy savings," says Torsten Wik. "We are counting on being able to save about 30 per cent by switching from sodium lamps to LED. Furthermore, it is possible to save 20 per cent by regulating the light's intensity and spectrum using our method. This means that greenhouses in Europe alone would be able to save as much electricity as half of Sweden's electricity consumption."

Amazing.
Member Since: October 25, 2008 Posts: 43 Comments: 5009
Atmospheric CO2 now above 398 ppm.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7993
Quoting RTSplayer:



No.

All I was saying is the observation that much of the excess heat is being transported to the deep ocean is not surprising.
Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1884
Quoting RTSplayer:


Yeah, they'd have weight limits and size limits.

This would encourage R&D to make better batteries, better electric motors, and better solar PV materials.


Way ahead of ya...

and here
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RTSplayer:


Lol.

Framers, plumbers, electricians, concrete workers, etc, drive where the work happens to be.

The worker or contractor doesn't get to choose where a customer wants to build their new home or business.

A small contractor may have his office in Gonzales, but may get random business from customers in a 50 mile radius, with random once in a whiles even farther away; anywhere from Tangipahoa parish to west baton rouge, Sorento, Clinton, or anywhere between.

The sub-contractors he has hired live in any random location, and so the driving distance of workers could be any random location in that 50-plus mile radius to any other random location in that 50-plus mile radius.

You build a house where the customer wants it built. You don't get to build it adjacent to your office (or your workers' own homes,) just because that would cost less gasoline. Lol.


So for you the strawman is adjacent versus 50 miles?

Why doesn't today's contractor find jobs 100 or 200 miles away? [answer: some do, they carpool and spend the night in cheap hotels and campgrounds. I know, unfortunately.]

Why didn't the contractors before cars search for jobs 50 miles away? [Because it wasn't profitable to send people that far, money or timewise.]

In other words, the 50 range is false. If everyone used an electric bike, society would work just fine, just differently.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Climate change will lead to bumpier flights.

From the University of Reading:

Fasten your seatbelts: climate change doubles turbulence risk to aircraft

Release Date : 08 April 2013

The aviation industry has long been accused of contributing to climate change. Now, in a new study, scientists have found that climate change will affect aviation - by increasing air turbulence and causing flights to get bumpier.

In the first study to examine the future of aviation turbulence, Dr Paul Williams from the University of Reading, together with Dr Manoj Joshi from the University of East Anglia, analysed supercomputer simulations of the atmospheric jet stream over the North Atlantic Ocean.

The study found that, by the middle of this century, the chances of encountering significant turbulence will increase by between 40% and 170%, with the most likely outcome being a doubling of the airspace containing significant turbulence at any time. The average strength of turbulence will also increase, by between 10% and 40%.

Watch a video about the research >>

Dr Williams said: "Most air passengers will have experienced the uncomfortable feeling of mid-flight air turbulence. Our research suggests that we'll be seeing the 'fasten seatbelts' sign turned on more often in the decades ahead.

"Air turbulence does more than just interrupt the service of in-flight drinks. It injures hundreds of passengers and aircrew every year - sometimes fatally. It also causes delays and damages planes. The total cost to society is about £100 million (US$150 million) each year.

"Any increase in turbulence would make flying more uncomfortable and increase the risk to passengers and crew. Re-routing flights to avoid stronger patches of turbulence could increase fuel consumption and emissions of atmospheric pollutants, make delays at airports more common, and ultimately push up ticket prices."

Dr Joshi said: "Our research focused on clear-air turbulence in winter. This is especially problematic to airliners, because clear-air turbulence is invisible to pilots and satellites, and winter is when it peaks."

Dr Williams added: "Aviation is partly responsible for changing the climate in the first place. It is ironic that the climate looks set to exact its revenge by creating a more turbulent atmosphere for flying."

The study, 'Intensification of winter transatlantic aviation turbulence in response to climate change', is published 8 April (3pm GMT+1) in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1221
Quoting Naga5000:
In places like the U.S. and Europe, people with a high school degree and less have a fertility rate between 2.5 and 3.2 depending on race, while those with college level education and above range from about 1.5 to 2.2.


That's explainable as nothing more than a matter of time.

High School grads who marry early have 4 to 8 years extra of less strenuous schedules, so they have more time to have children.

College students ranging from Bachelors to post-graduate, are spending 4 to 8 or more of their early reproductive years juggling some combination of part time jobs or entry level jobs, their school work, and research. They simply don't have time for children, and then when they finish their education they're already starting to get too old to be chasing around a whole "quiver full" of kids.

By the time you figure the actual course work hours, and the "off schedule" hours, typically alleged to be 3 hours per 1 hour of schedule time, a college student is spending 21% of the hours of each year either in class or working on the material outside of class or laboratory, and that doesn't count travel time to and from class or labs or whatever. If you count that as a fraction of their "waking hours" it comes to 32% of their life.

So the "education" or "intelligence" is not necessarily even a factor, except that they are smart enough to realize they don't have time for children, but their education is the reason they don't have time for children.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Why not have them switch to solar powered cars?


Yeah, they'd have weight limits and size limits.

This would encourage R&D to make better batteries, better electric motors, and better solar PV materials.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting FLwolverine:
#357 - RTSplayer - are you disagreeing with the Science Daily article? If so, what is your argument? Are you saying that the heat absorbed in the oceans will not go back into the atmosphere? I'm not arguing with you; I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. Thanks.



No.

All I was saying is the observation that much of the excess heat is being transported to the deep ocean is not surprising.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


First, and in general, I can't believe I am responding to this. Not for the content of the post but because my schedule is filling up and I don't have time.

So, quickly, I hope:

I am living on a planet that is dying because of CO2. You are worried about how difficult it is to get to work. Fine, I accept it will be difficult but it isn't impossible. When the dying kicks into second gear, everything you mentioned will be moot anyway so better start now.

But, it isn't impossible. Most people can get to the company and then can move with the company van. I know because I've run crews out of, for example, Baltimore where some of the crew caught rides to work from their dealer - seriously, a WTF moment for me. Point is that maybe the isolated worker has to find their own transportation but you can't just state that it is impossible, it is possible, if inconvenient. And the cost is about using economics to drive people into electric vehicles.

Or, maybe, a framing crew shouldn't have to drive across the state. COnsider that while they lost long distance jobs, they would have less local competition. Your sister's husband could drive an electric car, motorcycle or even an electric bike.


As for global warming not killing more people, if all global warming meant was a few more storms, tornados and less winter, I wouldn't be here writing. Multiply the drought by 100, multiply the storm damage by 10, add in famine, economic recession, etc.

You want to talk about suffering? Wait until you can't get milk, can't get gas, until law and order becomes whatever the local militia thinks is proper. Wait until no one wants a construction crew to build anything, etc. I don't think you get what us worriers are worried about. It isn't a liberal agenda or the local spotted snail. It is about mankind hitting the reset button, planet of the apes type stuff. You may disagree with that assessment but that is where we are coming from.


Lol.

Framers, plumbers, electricians, concrete workers, etc, drive where the work happens to be.

The worker or contractor doesn't get to choose where a customer wants to build their new home or business.

A small contractor may have his office in Gonzales, but may get random business from customers in a 50 mile radius, with random once in a whiles even farther away; anywhere from Tangipahoa parish to west baton rouge, Sorento, Clinton, or anywhere between.

The sub-contractors he has hired live in any random location, and so the driving distance of workers could be any random location in that 50-plus mile radius to any other random location in that 50-plus mile radius.

You build a house where the customer wants it built. You don't get to build it adjacent to your office (or your workers' own homes,) just because that would cost less gasoline. Lol.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"The current situation is that we now have over two decades of hundreds of experiments worldwide indicating heat and transmutations with minimal radiation and low energy input. By any rational measure, this evidence indicates something real is occurring. So, is LENR "Real?" Evidently, from the now long standing and diverse experimental evidence. And, yes - with effects occurring from using diverse materials, methods of energy addition etc. This is far from a "Narrow Band" set of physical phenomena."

NASA LENR Discussion
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
There are no worries of that ever happening; Rossi is just another in a long line of frauds and hucksters promising something that simply will not work so long as the current laws of physics hold sway...


Rossi's E-Cat apparatus:


Note Rossi's clever use of tin foil hats.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting greentortuloni:


Not to mention that in every single culture that achieves a certain level of economic sucess, the birth rates drop off.

I honestly think that that has a lot to do with entertainment (as well as birth control). I know when I go camping or traveling in places where life pretty much stops after dark... well what do you do?


One of the things that always comes up in sociology is the argument that economic success, or socioeconomic status, is the main variable in correlations like this. What's surprising is 9 times out of ten, it's actually education level. Higher levels of education lead to higher levels of economic success and socioeconomic status. But yeah, you're right and on the right track. :)

Edited to say: On a cursory look at some papers on the topic, in third world countries it has been found that literacy rate is negatively correlated with fertility rate. A 10% increase in national literacy leads to a .5 decrease in fertility rates. Literacy is directly correlated to education level of course. In places like the U.S. and Europe, people with a high school degree and less have a fertility rate between 2.5 and 3.2 depending on race, while those with college level education and above range from about 1.5 to 2.2.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2665
Quoting Xandra:
Albertslund: living in a climate laboratory

Home to 30,000 inhabitants, Albertslund is a cutting-edge Danish eco-city, 17km away from Copenhagen. Since April 2012, Albertslund is connected to Copenhagen with the "C99 cycle super highway", a fast biking alternative for commuters to get to the capital's city centre. Albertslund was recently awarded the "Nordic Energy Municipality 2011" for the "Albertslund Concept", a cost-effective model of prefabricated solutions for home renovation applicable to different types of buildings. The city is now working on a new LED street lamp, which will replace the existing outdoor lighting system. These new lamps will be intelligent points in the smart grid. Albertslund is a Covenant of Mayors case study for energy-efficient solutions in European cities.

Bicycle highways, a new transport experiment, are spreading fast across the European Union, notably in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK.


Home to 30,000 inhabitants, Albertslund is a cutting-edge Danish eco-city, 17km away from Copenhagen. Since April 2012, Albertslund is connected to Copenhagen with the "C99 cycle super highway", a fast biking alternative for commuters to get to the capital's city centre. Albertslund was recently awarded the "Nordic Energy Municipality 2011" for the "Albertslund Concept", a cost-effective model of prefabricated solutions for home renovation applicable to different types of buildings. The city is now working on a new LED street lamp, which will replace the existing outdoor lighting system. These new lamps will be intelligent points in the smart grid. Albertslund is a Covenant of Mayors case study for energy-efficient solutions in European cities.

Bicycle highways, a new transport experiment, are spreading fast across the European Union, notably in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK.




There are a lot of great European innovative systems. Unfortunatly, there are a lot of jackass laws, procedures and politics to play. Here, for example, is a link to a comment section on one of the main consumer groups in Europe for biking.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Albertslund: living in a climate laboratory

Home to 30,000 inhabitants, Albertslund is a cutting-edge Danish eco-city, 17km away from Copenhagen. Since April 2012, Albertslund is connected to Copenhagen with the "C99 cycle super highway", a fast biking alternative for commuters to get to the capital's city centre. Albertslund was recently awarded the "Nordic Energy Municipality 2011" for the "Albertslund Concept", a cost-effective model of prefabricated solutions for home renovation applicable to different types of buildings. The city is now working on a new LED street lamp, which will replace the existing outdoor lighting system. These new lamps will be intelligent points in the smart grid. Albertslund is a Covenant of Mayors case study for energy-efficient solutions in European cities.

Bicycle highways, a new transport experiment, are spreading fast across the European Union, notably in Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the UK.


Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1221
Quoting Naga5000:


You cannot judge third or second world culture by first world standards. When people do not have access to the education or resources to control birth, you cannot blame them for not making an informed decision on number of children. Also an important thing to remember is the child mortality rate (represents children under 5 that die) is over 10% in 30 African countries. It's simple nature to have an abundance of children to ensure survival when in some cases, like Chad, 1 of every 5 children die before the age of five.
As for the diamond mining and what not. You are dead on. I actually find it absurd that we humans are so fascinated by shiny rocks.


Not to mention that in every single culture that achieves a certain level of economic sucess, the birth rates drop off.

I honestly think that that has a lot to do with entertainment (as well as birth control). I know when I go camping or traveling in places where life pretty much stops after dark... well what do you do?
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RTSplayer:


Lol.

Residential trade workers in this country barely make a living, and you're talking about busses and vans? Who is going to pay for that and where? These types of jobs don't work like that because you never have the same destination and you never have the same route.

Contractors don't pay people enough as it is, do you think they're going to pay for buses or vans?

What planet do you live on? I'm just curious...

A framing crew can't walk to work when they have to haul a tool trailer and go across the state to get to a job site, and they don't make enough money as it is, and they already carpool as much as possible as is...

As for other people, my sister drives about 8 miles each way to work, while her husband has a desk job, and he drives about 50 miles each way to work. There is no solution to that, because of the nature of their work. It's not something you can change location for, and it's not something you can change professions. So what you're saying is people like that will be given a choice of either keep their good job and pay an obscene carbon tax just to get to work, OR quit their good job and take a local job which will (certainly) pay less? And your goal is of course that he quits his job and takes a pay cut, for the sake of carbon emissions, because if he does not quit his job, then his carbon emissions will not decrease, and the paper dollars of the tax won't be preventing pollution, and won't be helping anybody anyway.

Real jobs markets don't work like Sim City or some other idealized theory crafting. Normal people, especially married people, can't always just pick up and move on a dime because some other job is better, nor quit driving to work because they want to cut pollution. What a joke.


Global Warming and its knock on consequences will kill more poor Americans than anything else in the next 15 years.


Not really.

Droughts in the 80's weren't AGW related, and they're still by far the most deadly weather related events in my lifetime in the U.S. In fact, just one year of 1980's droughts was worse than 2 decades worth of hurricane and tornado related deaths combined. Further, since the first 11 named storms every year would have happened anyway, it's by no means fair to blame AGW for all the hurricane deaths, and since the worst tornado outbreaks happened a long time ago too, one bad recent year, being two years ago, isn't such a big deal.



You want to talk suffering?

Just wait till that $10 per gallon (2013 U.S.) milk arrives due to the carbon tax.


First, and in general, I can't believe I am responding to this. Not for the content of the post but because my schedule is filling up and I don't have time.

So, quickly, I hope:

I am living on a planet that is dying because of CO2. You are worried about how difficult it is to get to work. Fine, I accept it will be difficult but it isn't impossible. When the dying kicks into second gear, everything you mentioned will be moot anyway so better start now.

But, it isn't impossible. Most people can get to the company and then can move with the company van. I know because I've run crews out of, for example, Baltimore where some of the crew caught rides to work from their dealer - seriously, a WTF moment for me. Point is that maybe the isolated worker has to find their own transportation but you can't just state that it is impossible, it is possible, if inconvenient. And the cost is about using economics to drive people into electric vehicles.

Or, maybe, a framing crew shouldn't have to drive across the state. COnsider that while they lost long distance jobs, they would have less local competition. Your sister's husband could drive an electric car, motorcycle or even an electric bike.


As for global warming not killing more people, if all global warming meant was a few more storms, tornados and less winter, I wouldn't be here writing. Multiply the drought by 100, multiply the storm damage by 10, add in famine, economic recession, etc.

You want to talk about suffering? Wait until you can't get milk, can't get gas, until law and order becomes whatever the local militia thinks is proper. Wait until no one wants a construction crew to build anything, etc. I don't think you get what us worriers are worried about. It isn't a liberal agenda or the local spotted snail. It is about mankind hitting the reset button, planet of the apes type stuff. You may disagree with that assessment but that is where we are coming from.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
Quoting RevElvis:
Climate change may be irreversible, but we control the future trajectory


ARStechnica.com


Irreversible does not mean unavoidable when it comes to climate change. Although we're committed to the damage from past carbon dioxide increases, steps to cut carbon emissions today would start to affect the rate of future global warming immediately.

In a %u201CPerspectives%u201D article in the journal Science, two scientists (Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon) say that the inevitability of future warming if carbon dioxide emissions remain fixed at current levels has been misinterpreted. It does not mean that the rate of increase in Earth%u2019s global temperature is inevitable; it may change based on how much or how quickly emissions decrease.

Earth%u2019s climate warms in response to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which result from burning fossil fuels, clearing land, and certain industrial and manufacturing processes. The carbon dioxide allows visible light to reach the Earth, but absorbs infrared light that would otherwise escape to space. The atmosphere's warming can be slowed by heat storage in the ocean, but that slow transport of heat generally means there's a lag%u2014longer time periods are required for changes to be seen in the atmosphere.

If emissions were to cease abruptly, average global temperatures would eventually stabilize, and remain stable for centuries. Less radical changes, if they're made now, would impact warming at the end of this century; both the warming and how quickly it happens would depend on the emission levels between now and then. Decreasing them now means temperatures would increase less than they otherwise would by then, and that means avoiding some of the global warming that would then persist for centuries.


Incorrect my idea can reverse it fast not slow..
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting RTSplayer:


silly willies, still don't get it.

The entire hydrosphere and entire atmosphere are going to warm, one way or another.

Potential for greater extremes some years vs others? Sure.

Here's how this really works. Keep in mind I didn't even believe in this stuff 4 years ago, but now it seems I understand some of it better than the experts.

Reason A:

1, CO2 traps heat.

2, Heat melts snow, glaciers, and sea ice,etc.

3, Let's focus on sea ice. Positive albedo feedback heats the ocean under newly melted sea ice.

4, Light penetrates to about 700m, heating the NEWLY exposed arctic water column.

5, The region is still colder than the temperate region, and so this "cold" arctic water sinks, but because it is exposed to sunlight now, it absorbed much more heat than it should have, producing net warming.

6, Therefore much of the heating from second order feedback does not occur at the surface in the arctic, but rather gets transported into the deep ocean, where the currents later carry it back to the temperate zones and tropics.

7, This effect will never decrease except by increasing convection.

8, This effect will always increase as ice cover decreases, as long as there is remaining ice-covered days (to be removed) when sunlight is hitting the concerned area*. Put another way, it increases to it's maximum potential and there's no way to stop it without REDUCING CO2 concentration...

* read carefully.

I could draw a diagram if I had a decent paint program. I have no Idea what happened to mine from my last computer, or was it the one before last? Oh well. The built in one sucks.


Correct...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting Skyepony:
Legislators consider using underground reservoirs to counteract water shortages



OOPS!!! More sink holes coming...
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting RTSplayer:
If we're going to tax carbon, we can start with a tax on motor racing; NASCAR, monster trucks, speed boats, etc.

Wow. That would be like a carbon tax and a circus clown tax in one. That's perfect!

Banning those irrational wastes of fuel would be even better.


Why not have them switch to solar powered cars?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting RTSplayer:
Pass the millionaire's tax and the circus clown tax, and spend that on incentives and R&D. This is fair because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Once those measures have been accomplished, we can re-evaluate the carbon tax.
In the current political "climate" , by the time we could get those taxes passed, it would be too late for the incentives and R&D to do any good.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1884
Ran across a couple of sites with information about EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested) for Oil & Gas in the U.S.

Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for U.S. Oil and Gas Discovery and Production / 8020Vision.com

Note that in the early days of oil exploration, the stuff was practically bubbling out of the ground, so it was much easier to figure out where to drill – hence the EROI over 1,200 in 1920. As the US industrial age found its legs, oil consumption accelerated. Demand for more and more oil quickly consumed the easy stuff, and the EROI fell rapidly. As we hit peak oil production in 1970, the EROI fell below 10:1. I inset a blowup of the chart, from 1950 to 2010, so that we can see how EROI has since remained firmly in the single digits.

Shale Natural-Gas Depletion / roperld.com

Politicians and citizens need information such as these curves, net energy and carbon dioxide emitted, both by the extraction process and the burning of the gas, to make informed decisions about whether to allow environmentally-destructive processes such as extraction of natural gas from shale deposits.

I hope that the shale-gas bonanza will be used largely to create infrastructure for renewable energies instead of for frivolous purposes
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Pass the millionaire's tax and the circus clown tax, and spend that on incentives and R&D. This is fair because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Once those measures have been accomplished, we can re-evaluate the carbon tax.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A stupid environmental policy.
Member Since: August 9, 2011 Posts: 25 Comments: 7993
Under the U.S. proposal, EVs will be carbon taxed because of any carbon based energy used during their manufacture.

"Chemicals" would be taxed. Scary stuff. So for example, acid used for electroplating would be taxed.

Metal works in general will be taxed, which pretty much means the price of everything increases: all construction, autos, buses, metal pipes used in solar thermal power, metal poles used in wind turbines, hand tools, power tools, heavy machinery, which literally means the price of dirt, gravel, concrete, etc, all increase and also means mining the metals increases which means the final price of metal works has multiple feedback lanes, further driving up prices even more. This is insane.

Oh yeah, I lol at the guy who said something like the factory owners should move to a new location. you know, because abandoning a $100 million dollar or even billion dollar facility is just SO reasonable and efficient. That's so "Green" of you. lol. You really haven't thought about that comment at all, have you?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
Europe’s cap-and-trade program is meant to make it expensive for industry to pollute. Industries that emit more carbon dioxide than permitted must buy pollution permits from facilities that release less CO2 than allowed. The market price is determined by the availability of those permits.

In practice, the economic recession has led to an industrial slowdown, less emissions and an overabundance of permits for sale. Thus, the price of carbon has collapsed to less than €5 per ton.

That means buying carbon credits to burn coal is cheaper than fueling power stations with expensive gas. Analysts say a price of €20 is needed to incentivize power plants to switch to low-carbon energy.

“Coal has become a new and economically interesting input for power production in the E.U.,” says the paper. “The lifetime of power plants that were expected to close is now being extended, and as such the risk related to carbon lock-in for new fossil fuel developments increases.”

In Britain alone, the use of gas in power stations dropped 31 percent and the use of coal rose by the same amount from 2011 to 2012, driving a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions, according to figures released last week by the U.K. Department of Climate and Energy.

Link


A correct fossilized carbon tax collects at the mine entrance, well head, or port of entry. It removes 5% of the money for administration and returns 95% of the money equally to the populace as a carbon dividend. That way everyone has a way to make the system work for them; use less carbon than the other guy. It turns the page on our out-dated present system.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RTSplayer:
if Rossi's E-cat ever works...
There are no worries of that ever happening; Rossi is just another in a long line of frauds and hucksters promising something that simply will not work so long as the current laws of physics hold sway...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13256
Quoting spathy:
Europe’s cap-and-trade program is meant to make it expensive for industry to pollute. Industries that emit more carbon dioxide than permitted must buy pollution permits from facilities that release less CO2 than allowed. The market price is determined by the availability of those permits.

In practice, the economic recession has led to an industrial slowdown, less emissions and an overabundance of permits for sale. Thus, the price of carbon has collapsed to less than €5 per ton.

That means buying carbon credits to burn coal is cheaper than fueling power stations with expensive gas. Analysts say a price of €20 is needed to incentivize power plants to switch to low-carbon energy.

“Coal has become a new and economically interesting input for power production in the E.U.,” says the paper. “The lifetime of power plants that were expected to close is now being extended, and as such the risk related to carbon lock-in for new fossil fuel developments increases.”

In Britain alone, the use of gas in power stations dropped 31 percent and the use of coal rose by the same amount from 2011 to 2012, driving a 4.5 percent increase in carbon emissions, according to figures released last week by the U.K. Department of Climate and Energy.

Link


Some solar thermal power plants use gas as a back-up for cloudy days. Under a carbon tax regime, they would be penalized anyway for burning gas on days when solar isn't sufficient.

Another issue is the dependency of government on taxes. When taxes become a significant source of revenues, the government doesn't do away with them, even when they are obsolete.

Example:

Alternative minimum tax
certain permits and licensing fees
sales taxes

The results of this is that even going out over a long period of time, assuming the presently modern world develops to where fossil fuels were hardly used at all by the W. hemisphere plus Europe and Asia, then the governments will still want an energy tax. They'll end up taxing the clean energy anyway. They'll tax solar power and wind when there's no carbon fuels to tax, probably by some absurdity like land area used, or air space impeded by the turbines, or maybe by the difference of the thermodynamic efficiency from the ideal.

If hydrogen fuel was made viable somehow, they'd tax water vapor. Or if Rossi's E-cat ever works, they'll tax the nickle you use, or the copper the machine makes, or the water to make the hydrogen it uses.

Give them the power now, and they'll abuse it later.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
In practice, the economic recession has led to an industrial slowdown, less emissions and an overabundance of permits for sale. Thus, the price of carbon has collapsed to less than %u20AC5 per ton.

That means buying carbon credits to burn coal is cheaper than fueling power stations with expensive gas. Analysts say a price of %u20AC20 is needed to incentivize power plants to switch to low-carbon energy.
If you're going to cite that article as evidence that C&T doesn't work, you should cite the whole thing, including the following:

"With its conventional gas fields nearly depleted and gas prices four times higher than in the United States, Europe would like to develop a thriving shale gas industry, but that seems unlikely in the near term. European drillers...face greater geological challenges, more stringent environmental regulations and stronger public skepticism of hydraulic fracturing."

IOW, it's dishonest to blame C&T alone for Europe's slide back into coal usage.

Having said all that: C&T by itself isn't generally a very good system; a hybrid system consisting of both C&T and a carbon tax are what many economists suggest might work better--and either is preferable to doing nothing, the non-answer "answer" suggested by some.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13256
Quoting spathy:


Ok then. Nothing to see here/no problems.
I wish you and the rest of us luck.


The current rate of inflation is fine. Here is a historical look at inflation Link At the moment, inflation is not a major issue or an issue at all. Aggregate demand is the problem, combined with increasing wealth inequality. I know you abhor Keynesian theory, but you should give it a reread to better understand why our mixed-mode economy (i.e. not a true free market) is experiencing what it is experiencing. The big kicker is even supply-side guys like Bruce Bartlett have jumped back on board the Keynesian train.
Member Since: June 1, 2010 Posts: 4 Comments: 2665
#357 - RTSplayer - are you disagreeing with the Science Daily article? If so, what is your argument? Are you saying that the heat absorbed in the oceans will not go back into the atmosphere? I'm not arguing with you; I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. Thanks.
Member Since: January 6, 2013 Posts: 3 Comments: 1884
Subsidising fossil fuels is bad for us, for our descendants, and for the planet, says the International Monetary Fund – and it damages the global economy.

LONDON, 8 April – Fossil fuel subsidies provided by both rich and poor countries to keep their citizens happy are holding back the world economy, accelerating climate change and damaging the health of current and future generations, according to the International Monetary Fund.

The worst offender of all is the United States, which allows annual subsidies of $502 billion on fossil fuels. China with $279 bn and Russia at $116 bn are the two next largest offenders.

The IMF researched 176 countries to investigate fuel subsidies. These are both direct subsidies, where consumers are sold petrol, oil, gas and coal at below the price of production, and indirect subsidies, where the tax is so low it does not pay for the damage to the planet from climate change, the cost of pollution to health, road damage by lorries, and the cost of accidents.

In developing countries a large part of the subsidy is frequently direct. India is an example, where the price of energy is kept stable by the Government even though the international price of imports is rising steeply.

But aside from India many developing countries are both losing potential revenue and damaging their development prospects. They are at the same time distorting electricity prices with subsidies and selling petrol and diesel to consumers at below cost price.

Worse, says the IMF, some developing countries spend more on subsidies for fossil fuels than they do on health and education for their citizens. The worst example is Uzbekistan, which spends seven times as much on fuel subsidies as on the combined total for health and education.

The IMF lists the offending countries in a table based on the percentage of their budget they spend on subsidies compared with the welfare of their citizens.

Renewables neglected


All of them spend more on providing cheap fuel than on health and education, including some of the poorest nations and some of the richest in per capita income. Iran, Algeria, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Zambia are among them.

This is a radical document written by economists who have a reputation for imposing harsh budgets on profligate nations. The Fund says in this report that while the subsidies are aimed at protecting consumers they actually do the opposite.

Underpriced energy encourages people to use excessive quantities, reduces incentives for investment in renewable energy, and accelerates the depletion of natural resources.

Increased consumption makes the balance of payments worse and promotes smuggling to neighbouring states which have higher domestic prices.

The benefits of subsidies are also felt most by higher-income households. “Even future generations are affected through reduced growth and the damaging effects of increased energy consumption on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming”, says the IMF.

Although the figures for subsidies in the report run into trillions of dollars worldwide, it says they probably under-estimate the total. The reason for this is the estimate of damage caused by pollution.

Cleaner air to breathe


For example, the IMF uses as the price for damage done to the planet the sum of $25 for each tonne of carbon dioxide produced, which it says is “conservative.” The Stern report put the damage per tonne as high as $85.

It is the low American petrol and diesel taxes which take no account of these external costs that make the US the largest fossil fuel subsidizer in the world.

The IMF analysis says that all countries would be better off if they cut fuel subsidies, making themselves more competitive in the process, as well as freeing resources to be spent on more essential development like the education and welfare of their citizens.

It says reform would reduce carbon dioxide emissions worldwide by 4.5 billion tonnes, representing a 13% reduction in global emissions. It would also generate significant health benefits by reducing local pollution, particularly sulphur dioxide. Another beneficial result would be a reduction in the international price of oil and gas, because demand would fall.

The report studies 22 country cases where energy reform was attempted, sometimes at the insistence of the IMF. In some cases it was a failure because governments increased the price of fuel only to reduce it again because of public unrest. In others energy efficiency and economic advances were achieved. Of 28 reform packages tried in these countries, 12 were classified as a success, 11 as a partial success and five as failures. – Climate News Network
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Oceans continue to warm, especially the deeps

ARStechnica.com

When discussing global warming, the public eye is mostly directed to global average surface air temperatures, but that’s just one slice of the climate pie. If you haven’t noticed, the ocean is awfully big, and it holds a great deal more heat energy than the atmosphere. In fact, about 90 percent of the energy that’s been added to the climate system by human activities has gone into the ocean.

Unfortunately, it’s hard to monitor that. There are a multitude of measuring stations for surface air temperatures, but our presence in the ocean is limited. With the advent of the Argo array—a fleet of autonomous, drifting floats that measure ocean temperatures—in the early 2000s, our data improved drastically. Still, the uncertainty has historically been greater for deeper waters.

In 2010, researchers identified an imbalance in our global energy arithmetic. If we measure the energy that's being trapped by increasing greenhouse gases, some of it seems to disappear—there wasn’t enough warming in the atmosphere or shallow ocean to account for all that extra energy— and there's been a deficit since 2004. (Though a later study suggested the mismatch might be within the margin of error for the temperature estimates.)

Some expected the “missing energy” would be found in deeper waters, but we didn’t have the data to demonstrate that. Meanwhile, the rapid atmospheric warming trend of the 1990s, boosted by strong El Niños, slowed in the La Niña-ridden 2000s, prompting some to posit that global warming was over and the scientists could all go home.

A new paper published in Geophysical Research Letters compiles the available measurements of the ocean’s heat content, including information on the deep ocean. The study finds that those deep waters have absorbed a surprising amount of heat—and they are doing so at an increasing rate over the last decade.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Climate change may be irreversible, but we control the future trajectory


ARStechnica.com


Irreversible does not mean unavoidable when it comes to climate change. Although we're committed to the damage from past carbon dioxide increases, steps to cut carbon emissions today would start to affect the rate of future global warming immediately.

In a “Perspectives” article in the journal Science, two scientists (Damon Matthews and Susan Solomon) say that the inevitability of future warming if carbon dioxide emissions remain fixed at current levels has been misinterpreted. It does not mean that the rate of increase in Earth’s global temperature is inevitable; it may change based on how much or how quickly emissions decrease.

Earth’s climate warms in response to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, which result from burning fossil fuels, clearing land, and certain industrial and manufacturing processes. The carbon dioxide allows visible light to reach the Earth, but absorbs infrared light that would otherwise escape to space. The atmosphere's warming can be slowed by heat storage in the ocean, but that slow transport of heat generally means there's a lag—longer time periods are required for changes to be seen in the atmosphere.

If emissions were to cease abruptly, average global temperatures would eventually stabilize, and remain stable for centuries. Less radical changes, if they're made now, would impact warming at the end of this century; both the warming and how quickly it happens would depend on the emission levels between now and then. Decreasing them now means temperatures would increase less than they otherwise would by then, and that means avoiding some of the global warming that would then persist for centuries.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:The value of the US currency has deflated/ devalued by 16% in the last ?4 years.

It's called inflation, Dude. Actually healthy in a modern economy. I think that 16% over 4 years would be around a 3% annual rate - not at all high by historical standards.

Added - Looks like 16% over 5 years would be a 3% rate. Still close enough for me.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnLonergan:

I just checked the your thread at Neven's, one correction to my post, the link that I posted only goes to the executive summary of the Stern Review, the link to the entire(very long) is here.



Thanks
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting OldLeatherneck:


Thank you for that link. I have re-posted this on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum on the topic of "Global Impact of Declining Arctic Sea Ice (Economical and Societal)". This topic, to date, has over 1,900 pages views and 90 replies!

Arctic Sea Ice Forum

NOTE: Ignore any security warnings. This forum is a secure HTTPS site!

I just checked the your thread at Neven's, one correction to my post, the link that I posted only goes to the executive summary of the Stern Review, the link to the entire(very long) is here.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting barbamz:
Oceans may explain slowdown in climate change: study

By Environment Correspondent Alister DoylePosted 2013/04/07 at 1:04 pm EDT

OSLO, Apr. 7, 2013 (Reuters) — Climate change could get worse quickly if huge amounts of extra heat absorbed by the oceans are released back into the air, scientists said after unveiling new research showing that oceans have helped mitigate the effects of warming since 2000.

Read the whole article on Science Daily

Have a nice start into the new week, everybody!


silly willies, still don't get it.

The entire hydrosphere and entire atmosphere are going to warm, one way or another.

Potential for greater extremes some years vs others? Sure.

Here's how this really works. Keep in mind I didn't even believe in this stuff 4 years ago, but now it seems I understand some of it better than the experts.

Reason A:

1, CO2 traps heat.

2, Heat melts snow, glaciers, and sea ice,etc.

3, Let's focus on sea ice. Positive albedo feedback heats the ocean under newly melted sea ice.

4, Light penetrates to about 700m, heating the NEWLY exposed arctic water column.

5, The region is still colder than the temperate region, and so this "cold" arctic water sinks, but because it is exposed to sunlight now, it absorbed much more heat than it should have, producing net warming.

6, Therefore much of the heating from second order feedback does not occur at the surface in the arctic, but rather gets transported into the deep ocean, where the currents later carry it back to the temperate zones and tropics.

7, This effect will never decrease except by increasing convection.

8, This effect will always increase as ice cover decreases, as long as there is remaining ice-covered days (to be removed) when sunlight is hitting the concerned area*. Put another way, it increases to it's maximum potential and there's no way to stop it without REDUCING CO2 concentration...

* read carefully.

I could draw a diagram if I had a decent paint program. I have no Idea what happened to mine from my last computer, or was it the one before last? Oh well. The built in one sucks.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting spathy:
The value of the dollar has dropped by 16%?
Relative to what?
Quoting spathy:

So the Federal Government is producing money out of essentially thin air,causing its devaluation.
Nope, not true at all.
Quoting spathy:

And now people want to funnel money through the US Federal Gov. (rev neutral)and trust that they will give back to the poor and spend the rest on things like r&d and the increased cost to others will be incentive to consume less and "change".
That's the idea.
Quoting spathy:

So isnt the inflationary devaluation of the US $$$$$ already causing a change in behavior?
What inflation? The inflation rate in the US has been very low over the past 5 years and there's no sign it will pick up anytime soon. Hint - what's the rate on a 10-year T-bill these days.
Quoting spathy:My goodness,just the other day a report came out that the Sandy relief fund is missing millions of $$$$$$$$$$$...
What Sandy relief fund? Please provide a link so we can all see what you're going on about.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 406 - 356

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11Blog 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.