DrumBeat: February 11, 2007
Posted by Leanan on February 11, 2007 - 8:31am
In Niger, Trees and Crops Turn Back the Desert
Recent studies of vegetation patterns, based on detailed satellite images and on-the-ground inventories of trees, have found that Niger, a place of persistent hunger and deprivation, has recently added millions of new trees and is now far greener than it was 30 years ago.These gains, moreover, have come at a time when the population of Niger has exploded, confounding the conventional wisdom that population growth leads to the loss of trees and accelerates land degradation, scientists studying Niger say.
The vegetation is densest, researchers have found, in some of the most densely populated regions of the country.
After So Many Deaths, Too Many Births
After the 1994 genocide, in which more than 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered, it seemed difficult to believe that overpopulation would ever be a problem. Yet Rwanda has long had more people than its meager resources and small area can support.
China’s Influence in Africa Arouses Some Resistance
Mr. Hu’s stop in Sudan, where China has extensive oil interests, reignited criticism that Beijing has helped shield its ally and oil supplier from global outrage over attacks on civilians in Darfur.
Summit takes a look at a world without oil
The future of energy has to be one without oil.But what direction energy production may take depends on economic, political and environmental factors, as well as what people and businesses are willing to do.
No matter what course is taken, it has to be a definitive solution, said Paul Roberts, a journalist and author of "The End of Oil."
"If we go for a patchwork solution, we'll be back here in five to 10 years," he said. "This is an opportunity to reinvent the way we use energy, produce energy and think about energy."
Arab nuclear ambitions stir arms race jitters
Arab fossil fuel reserves will run out one day. Nuclear power would allow a larger share of oil and gas to be exported, boosting hard currency revenue, and help counter global warming....“It’s important that China is ready to assist in nuclear technology transfer in exchange for oil. In terms of financial resources, you have to ask what is the cost of not going nuclear,” he said, citing rising prices of oil, gas and coal.
Nuclear programmes in Middle East
Many Middle Eastern countries, including some which are worried about Iran's nuclear programme, have declared an interest in developing atomic energy resources.
Exxon Mobil Warming Up To Global Climate Issue
When it comes to the issue of climate change, Exxon Mobil says it has been misunderstood."Many people want to stick us in a bucket that says we want to deny this," said the company's vice president for public affairs, Kenneth P. Cohen, during a conference call this week. "That is flat wrong."
CSIRO's horror climate forecast
HEAT waves that kill thousands, gigantic bushfires and regular 100-year storms are part of a frightening new climate change forecast for Australia.A leaked CSIRO report into the impact of global warming predicts a century of climatic horrors for Tasmania and the rest of Australia. The doomsday scenario will form the basis of the Australian chapter in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, the Federal Government's key stocktake on global warming due for release in April.
Tokyo has set a record for its longest snowless winter amid growing worldwide concerns about global warming, according to meteorologists.The metropolitan area of the capital has not had snow this season, making it the longest snowless winter since statistics were first kept in 1876, the Japan Meteorological Agency said.
G7 finance ministers make little headway on climate
Group of Seven finance chiefs made little headway here on energy and global warming questions, the German finance minister disclosed at the end of a meeting that closely followed a major warning on climate change from the United Nations.
Pat Sajak: Gl_b_l W_rm_ng D_n_ _ r ( _ssh_l_!)
Imagine being absolutely certain we are the verge of a man-made catastrophe and not doing everything within your power to help reverse it. Anyone who truly believes it and still uses anything more than the lowest-wattage single bulb or drives one mile more than absolutely necessary is nothing short of a monster! A skeptic's actions can be blamed on ignorance; a believer's can only be chalked up to a shocking disregard for his children's futures.
"Lukoil (Russia's largest privately held oil producer) and Saudi Aramco are seeking areas of cooperation to explore oil wells in the south of the Kingdom," said Koudriavtsev....Russia's energy giant Gazprom is also showing interest in energy projects in the country. Saudi Arabia is estimated to be tendering $20 to $25 billion worth of investment in the natural gas sector.
Energy crisis: For gas, why forget Russia?
The fast growing Indian economy has created the growing need for energy, which is hard to come by. Iran has held the gas hope, but there are twisted roads to be traversed. The other and better option for India is Russia — its long time, trusted ally.
A senior Iranian oil official said 90 foreign firms had shown an interest in 17 new onshore and offshore blocks that were offered to investors earlier this month, state radio reported.
It is seldom that the Russian president is publicly contradicted by officials in Moscow. But in the Russian reaction to Tehran's proposal for formal cooperation among the major gas-producing countries, it happened.
British Energy heralds new nuclear age
British Energy, the nuclear generator, has held talks with Europe's largest power companies about building a new generation of nuclear reactors in the UK.
Seoul Wants 6 Nations to Shoulder Burden for Energy Aid to North Korea
But one thing that has not changed is the U.S. hope of not repeating the "mistake" it made with the Geneva agreement.From 1994 to 2002, Pyongyang received 3.56 million tons of heavy oil, equivalent to $500 million, from the now-defunct Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO), and the United States shouldered the largest share of $347 million.
The food prices will quadruple in the next five to ten years. The energy prices will also quadruple in the next ten years. The rest of the world economies will suffer severe deflation and depression because of hyperinflation in oil, natural gas and food will drain the economies out. The corn prices have already doubled in the last three months because of its need in producing Ethanol – a gasoline substitute. The sugar and all grain prices are headed higher. The meat complexes like pork, chicken and eggs are also appreciating prices. Orange Juice, Cocoa, Coffee – you name it, they are going higher.
Study: Coal plants would foul D-FW air
Pollution created by new power plants planned for East and Central Texas will harm Dallas-Fort Worth's air quality and probably put Waco and Austin in violation of federal clean-air laws for the first time.
Oil industry finds hot rock resource
Major players in the oil sands, under political pressure to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, have quietly formed an industry-wide consortium to explore using heat in the Earth's crust as a clean alternative to natural gas.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
"Many people want to stick us in a bucket that says we want to deny this," said the company's vice president for public affairs, Kenneth P. Cohen, during a conference call this week. "That is flat wrong."
Translation - We don't want to deny this, we have been denying it, and here is $10,000 for anyone with the right credentials to help us continue in our denial, not that we admitting to that denial.
'He added that "the global ecosystem is showing signs of warming, particularly in polar areas" and "the appropriate debate isn't on whether the climate is changing but rather should be on what we should be doing about it."
Translation - now that polar regions are growing more accessible, our tanker fleet is ready to sail the Northwest Passage (the 'Sea River Mediterranean,' oops 'S/R Mediterranean,' oops, the 'Mediterranean' is ready to return to its roots, so to speak, after things get a bit warmer, though it will have to skip Prince William Sound), and we have rigs just waiting for that CEO president to finally do something which should warm his heart - letting us make money hand over fist off of public lands.
"The fact that we were supporters of some of those groups had become a real distraction to the issue at hand, which is how do we produce the energy the world needs without more greenhouse gas emissions," Cohen said this week.
Translation - 40 billion dollars profit allows us to say pretty much whatever the hell we want, without any opposition from a major news source, regardless of how absurd it is for an oil company to talk about oil consumption without greenhouse gas emissions.
'At the annual shareholder meeting last May, the testiest moment came when chief executive Rex W. Tillerson responded to a question about the company's skeptical stance on climate change in the face of a growing scientific consensus. Tillerson said that "scientific consensus" was an "oxymoron."'
Remark- And some people here thought a certain Mr. 'Rational Scientific Debate' poster was pretty isolated in his perspectives, but look, even an oil company president agrees with him, it seems.
'More climate data has also emerged. "There is increasing evidence that the earth's climate has warmed on average about 0.6 degrees centigrade in the last century," Cohen said in a recent e-mail. He said "the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks."'
Translation - anything that can endanger our profits could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainty that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the risks.
'With the change in climate in state legislatures, Exxon Mobil and other major companies also face the prospect of a multiplicity of regulations if Congress doesn't act first. "One thing heavy industry cannot live with is a patchwork quilt of regulations," Cohen said.'
Translation - money is all we care about, and if we keeping earning it like this by saying that climate change is happening, who cares - just as we are as shameless as anyone at underfunding our pension liabilities while racking up massive profits, we don't care what anyone thinks we believe, as long as the money keeps rolling in. Besides, Congress has a much higher ROI.
Truth
Shall we rename this site, The Oil Doom?
Let me be clear first. The Earth is warming. But.
Climate change studies consistently forget the larger system in which weather operates, ie, the solar system and our galaxy. When will climate doomers address the warming of Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn?
There are then the issues of rising earthquakes and volcano counts throughout the last century, which indicates a more active geology. Which climate model predicts those changes and their effects on Gaia?
And what about the decreasing intensity of our magnetospere? Which model predicts that, or takes into account the global effect a waning magnetic field has on our weather?
I just finished an interesting article on a scientist's work on cosmic rays influence on our weather, and while I'd not think of that before, the link between CR's and cloud cover looks fairly strong, at least until more science is done on this topic.
As an aside, the article points out that we don't understand the mechanics of clouds. We should not forget that we cannot explain a thundercloud's lighting either.
All in all, we are vastly ignorant about the Earth system.
Don't take this for laisser-faire. There are many things worth worrying about, like the soot produced by coal or acid rain, clear cut deforestation or petrochemicals and pesticides moving in the food chain.
But global warming's science is dubious. And for those claiming otherwise, always consider the motive of money in screaming about GW.
Hello paradox,
Shall we continue to pollute the atmosphere in the hope that our ignorance doesn't kill us all?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Dave. I've not advocated pollution or laisser-faire in regards to our atmosphere.
If there is one advantage to the GW scare, it is that more people will look into solar, wind, geothermal, thorium and electrification as viable, instead of impractical pipe dreams.
Coming back to my point, there is a similarity in pointing the flawed understanding of climatology and the flaws of our irresponsible behavior. Both scientists acting with certainty and polluters acting innocent are reprehensible and often do so when large amounts of money are involved.
Hello paradox,
The "large amount of money" flows primarily to the polluters and destroyers of the environment. How else to explain how this world has degenerated into such a mess.
The scientists are attacked because they are seeking to limit industry's freedom to pollute.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Paradox - everything you list is pseudoscience. I suggest spending a little more time reading about real science written by real scientists.
Yesterday night Klaus Toepfer, former UNEP chairman, said in german TV that the last IPCC report found a "90 per cent probability" that man is changing the climate.
"And there are still many people hoping for those other 10 per cent", he said. "Now imagine you are boarding an airplane, and the pilot tells you that with a 90 per cent probability the plane will crash on that flight. Do you expect anybody to stay in that plane?"
'But global warming's science is dubious'
'Climate change' is a much better term, and I think that most honest scientific discussion hinges on how the climate is changing - generally, 'gloabl warming' is bandied about by those with an agenda.
But in what sense is the science dubious? As a predictive model of future climate in 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? etc. If you mean that the future is unknown, and that climate is an incredibly complex system, with a myriad of external influences, and a number of unknown parameters, well, no argument there.
If you mean that human caused geological scale emissions of CO2 over several centuries due to the burning of fossil fuels is somehow in the realm of 'dubious science,' well, good luck, as we all are participants in a planetary scale climate experiment, regardless of how dubious the science is in the eyes of some of those taking part.
As a matter of fact, essentially as far into the future as can be imagined, human beings will be able to seriously advance the still fairly primitive state of their understanding of Earth's climate, as they will have one major variable (atmospheric CO2) which was not introduced by natural means - that is, by reversing several hundred million years of carbon removal, humans will be able to conclusively experience what it means to reintroduce it to their one and only planetary habitat.
In a few centuries, the science will be anything but dubious.
The science of how methane is being reintroduced to the atmosphere is a brand new area, where the science is exciting, not 'dubious.'
Another exciting scientific area involves the history of the discovery of the ozone hole - for example, at this link, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct99_1.htm , 'NASA instruments have been measuring Antarctic ozone levels since the early 1970s. Since the discovery of the ozone "hole" in 1985, TOMS has been a key instrument for monitoring ozone levels over the Earth.' What that little text misses is found at this link - http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/history.html -
'A large shock was needed to motivate the world to get serious about phasing out CFC's and that shock came in a 1985 field study by Farman, Gardinar and Shanklin. Published in _Nature_, May 1985, the study summarized data that had been collected by the British Antartic Survey showing that ozone levels had dropped to 10% below normal January levels for Antarctica. The authors had been somewhat hesitant about publishing because Nimbus-7 satellite data had shown no such drop during the Antarctic spring. But NASA soon discovered that the spring-time ''ozone hole'' had been covered up by a computer-program desiged to discard sudden, large drops in ozone concentrations as ''errors''. The Nimbus-7 data was rerun without the filter-program and evidence of the Ozone-hole was seen as far back as 1976.'
See, in 1985, the ozone hole was dubious science, without any satellite data backing it up, and the sceptics (I personally knew one when working at a PR department - pleasant man, and very well paid for his scientific credentials) had a field day showing just how dubious the science of ozone depletion was.
Strangely, these days, you don't hear too much about the man-made destruction of the Antartic's ozone layer, the international agreements which seem to have at least halted the process, and the fact that the sceptics tended to be even more wedded to their economic well being than that of their fellow man, while proudly sprouting their platitudes about science while contributing nothing in terms of actual research, especially as how ludicrous their well founded scepticism was revealed to be, though this was long after their checks had cleared the bank.
Climate change will be a serious issue with immense complexity, and many people will simplify it for their own ends, no debate there. But the history of scientific inquiry tends to be marred by massive economic interests hindering such inquiry at any turn which may threaten their profits or business model.
Instead of an edit, a second post concerning that second NASA link.
This link is quite confusing, which may because the last edit was May 30, 2001. Though they present the paragraph I noted as fact, it is then contradicted thusly -
'It is important to note that the description of the discovery of the ozone hole presented above is not accurate. Dr Richard D. McPeters, Principal Investigator, Earth Probe TOMS at Goddard Space Flight Center explains "Ozone is derived on a FOV-FOV basis and there has never been a filter applied as described. The explanation I usually see is that we "threw out" the low values. This is not correct either. Our software had flags for ozone that was lower than 180 DU, a value lower than had ever been reliably reported prior to 1983. In 1984, before publication of the Farman paper, we noticed a sudden increase in low value from October of 1983. We had decided that the values were real and submitted a paper to the conference the following summer when Joe's paper came out, showing the same thing. As the first one in print, he gets full credit for discovery of the ozone hole. It makes a great story to talk about how NASA "missed" the ozone hole, but it isin't quite true."
This is a very strange addendum - especially the 'isin't' mistake, and how it flatly contradicts what was not attributed as a story, and then attempts to show that the story is somehow wrong, while at the same confirming the fact that data was ignored until 1984. Further, this disclaimer is written in such a way as to discredit all the information above it - for example, the fact that 'In 1974 M.J.Molina and F.S.Rowland published a laboratory study demonstrating the ability of CFC's to catalytically breakdown Ozone in the presence of high frequency UV light.' would seem to be part of the 'not accurate' discovery of the ozone hole.
Strange - this all has a certain memory hole feel to it, actually.
Got it - Google connects a few dots - the author of the article is Brien Sparling, who also seems involved with The Environmental Literacy Council, which according to this link at http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Environmental_Literacy_Council has the sort of funding you would expect of conservative/corporate America.
Wow - 2001 - it seems as at least a few Americans were far sighted, and very involved in helping the youth of America protect themselves against any of that science based reality clap-trap, unless it is 'good' science. Yes, things are not merely ignored, they get smothered when no one is looking.
Another cheap example, unfortunately.
Let us agree to climate change then, which is a term more accurate reflection of our reality.
The science is dubious in the sense, as you pointed out, that there are many hidden variables and the available computing power dedicated to the task of understanding climate is still very low. The science is dubious in the sense that it cannot make predictions when new facts are being uncovered about the workings of the climate. To say otherwise undermines the validity of the model's first answer.
What about when the business model is making science?
As for the ozone hole, well, we haven't been observing that area for all that long. I was just reading about Mt Erebus, a volcano continously spewing chlorine gas into the Antartic stratosphere. Is it any wonder that this area would show a thinning ozone, especially at a time when the Sun's UV rays, which would replenish the ozone, fades from view? Especially in a water-poor zone, water which would otherwise mitigate the effect of volcanic chlorine?
As to why we don't hear from PR people, well, the Montreal Protocol went into effect, the battle is lost, so why keep paying?
It doesn't matter. Do you buy insurance, for anything? Even thought the proposition that your house will burn down is (to say the least) "dubious", you buy insurance regardless, right? It doesn't require 100% ironclad knowledge that your house will burn down before you buy fire insurance, at least for most people it doesn't.
Regardless of the state of the art, the only thing that must be proven is that it IS PLAUSIBLE that human CO2 emissions will cause a very serious and long lasting problem. This hurdle was passed many years ago, and it has been continuously upgraded from plausible to likely to just about certain since then. Given the availability of substitutes (it is 100% idiocy that we burn coal, killing millions of people a year worldwide for electricity, as an example), those substitutes should be utilized as soon as possible. In the case of coal we'd actually save money, medical bills aren't cheap, they're more than enough to cover the differential between coal and most other power sources. Once we get rid of all the things that not only cause climate change, but are also actually more expensive and nasty than the alternatives, then maybe we can even talk about whether or not spending more resources on energy is worth it, or just roll the dice and take what we've got. We haven't even come close to reaching that point yet, and we likely never will.
The future will almost certainly see us using effectively all the world's oil in the next decade or two, and gas will be close behind. They will be exhausted long before the economists realize that they are not physicists, so that problem will "take care of itself", in the sense that we're probably already locked in for 100% of the bad effects that might come from this. The only carbon source of significance that isn't all but guaranteed to end up in the atmosphere in the next 100 years is coal, if we steer clear of that one, we're probably at least in much better shape. This is just about the only choice we have to make at this point anyway, and it's a no-brainer. It costs us more to burn coal than most of the alternatives (due primarily to medical bills resulting from poisoned water, mercury in fish, emphysema, etc...), and that's without even considering climate change.
Of course, digging up what untouched wilderness we have left for a few more barrels of oil doesn't help anybody. It won't be enough to change that fact that in 50 years cars had better be electrical, and it certainly won't make climate change any less bad, so why do it at all?
'What about when the business model is making science?'
This seems quite strange as a perspective - as if there is some sort of business associated with observing data in the physical world around us, formulating a hypothesis/theory which can be refuted, then attempting to gather additional data to either confirm or refute the original hypothesis/theory. Obviously, as a human endeavor, it shares human flaws, including vested interests and inertia (comets as a major, if not the main, source of water on Earth is my favorite example of a current proven paradigm which will take a generation to be accepted, much like plate tectonics took that long for acceptance) and all the participants do agree on a set of rules, which may be pithily summed in the observation that while you can dispute theories, you can't dispute facts. And science can be done by anyone - whether a monk in his garden, or an alchemist who just happens to make a few pertinent observations about prisms, for example.
As for the science, the suggestion of visiting somewhere like realclimate.org is a very good one - there are a number of effects of vulcanism on climate, for example, and that is a fairly good forum to discuss such matters, though a rigorous one.
Without trying to cast any aspersions, there is something strange in your posting style, which seems to attribute motives to people without actually knowing the individuals at all. In the case of climate change, many more people are convinced of it these days, because they simply notice the world around them, which is not the same as a scientific explanation. And those who often opposed seem to have a direct interest in continuing their activities, regardless of scientific evidence - as witnessed by the company that started this thread.
It is quite reasonable to keep pointing out facts in a scientific discussion when discussing an explanatory framework, but to imply that the discussion somehow trumps the facts is simply not correct.
So you've just been reading up on Mt. Erebus and now you KNOW that it is the major source of the stratospheric ozone that helps create the annual ozone hole(s)?
Sorry. Scientists have known for decades that volcanoes spew chlorine, in the form of HCl, into the troposphere. As a result, chlorine from Mt. Erebus was one of the first suspects for causing the ozone hole after the hole was initially reported. However, scientists quickly discovered that very little HCl from volcanoes makes it up into the stratosphere because HCl combines very easily and very rapidly with water vapor and condenses out of the troposphere in rainfall. This NASA article discussing volcanic chlorine sources as a cause of the ozone hole is just one of many sources on this subject.
Even though "typcical" non-explosive volcanic emissions were soon ruled out as significant stratospheric chlorine sources, there was still some concern that major eruptions such as that of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines, the largest volcano eruption since 1912, with their columns of smoke reaching 20 or more kilometers up into the sky, might be major, albeit irregular, sources.
Extensive direct measurements of HCl from Mt. Pinatubo in the stratosphere has lead researchers to determine that it contributed less than .04 million tons of HCl to the stratosphere. For comparison, about 1 million tons of human produced CFCs and related compounds were being added to the stratosphere each year at the time th ozone hole was first reported.
The Mt. Saint Helen's and El Chichon eruption of the 1980's also added very small amounts of HCl to the stratosphere, as small or smaller than Mt. Pinatubo. Research very strongly suggests that even mega-eruptions, such as Krakatoa in the early 1800's, are usually not a major source of stratospheric HCl. Those eruptions produce as much as 1000 times more water vapor than HCl. As the eruption plume rises, the water vapor condenses into liquid. Given the very high affinity of HCl for water, the liquid water quickly washes almost all the HCl from the plume. For a much more detailed discussion and explanation, with extensive scientific references, see this.
Sorry to butt in here - I never intended to post on this site (for personal reasons I haven't posted anywhere for years). However, since I have found the level of interaction on this forum to be a significant cut above that of others I have seen, I would like to make an observation. In this thread there is something I have noticed occur from time to time: intolerance of ideas that are not considered mainstream to this site. While the flames at Paradox have been mild, the tenor is, I think, one that can cause lurkers such as I am, and posters of variant ideas, to ultimately flee the company of those here.
Let me begin by quoting from two comments on this post begun by Paradox.
Sunspot wrote:
Second, by Expat:
Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory.
Concerning the first point: I am a scientist, I have a higher degree in applied science, I have been employed in applied science most of my working life. I am now semi-retired. I can assure everyone who is reading this that you will not learn 'truth' by reading works written by 'real scientists'. The only thing you will learn is the scientist's opinions about the facts they have. It can be as grossly biased as that of any pseudo-scientist (such as Velikovsky).
Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge.
Concerning the second point: I am a total political sceptic. If the pollys are beating very heavily on one drum, look around, someone or something is being hidden from you. In the case of GW I believe that something is PO as personified in Iraq/Iran.
My most serious point is that concerning the comment by Expat. Without meaning anything personal against Expat, I feel the belief Expat expresses here is an almost universal falsehood and is one of the most egregious errors that we humans are making based on a false premise that has been espoused by environmentalists and greenies for decades.
The idea that humans are not part of nature probably began when religions first decided that we are a special creation, apart from nature, and ruling over it. I know that many here probably feel this is true, if so, you will probably concur with Expat that what we humans do is unnatural. I do not agree.
If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms.
Environmentalists (whether scientists or laypersons) tell us it is unnatural for us to mine and exploit this fossil material and therefore wrong to do this. Why is it being stated that this recycling is wrong? After all, all that can happen is the planet is returned to the equally natural environment it experienced for hundreds of millions of years while higher life forms were evolving.
My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities.
nice little attempt at promoting 'double think' while throwing fud at the scientific process. the reason why climate change is accepted is that it has been tested by many people many different times.
they all basically came to the same conclusion. we are changing the climate, and we have been since the beginning of agriculture.
Hi TrueKaiser,
Never heard of a 'fud' but I guess it must be like dung?
However, I believe precisely the opposite of what you say. I wish more peple understood science and what scientists actually do. The scientific process is one of mankind's truely great achievements. And it usually works very well. Unfortunately, few lay people understand that theoretical science is rarely about discovering truth, it is about developing theories that can successfully avoid being falsified. A round-a-bout, but very effective, way of eliminating poorly reasoned assumptions.
Hence my warning, the non-scientist needs to realise that a quorum of scientists believing the same thing does not make it so, it just means that their theory is probably the last standing current theory on the subject. That does not make the current theory ultimate truth or that a new and better theory won't appear tomorrow. The simplest example being Newton/Einstein. Both theories of motion are right to a point, but then each breaks down. One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.
Science is good, I'm a lover of science and scientific method. But it should not interfere with intelligent thinking about alternatives - which is, after all, what science is all about.
'One day poor old Albert will probably be supplanted, just as Isaac has been.'
Newton has not been 'supplanted' - Newtonian physics remain a cornerstone of various disciplines involving motion on this planet. What has happened is that Newtonian physics is seen as being applicable to a certain range of reality - after all relativity effects are easily ignored in automobile engineering.
Quite correct. Isaac's concepts are immensely useful, but they are not absolutes. Similarly, climate change theories are still little more than an explanation of an observed state of change in the planet's operation. To believe absolutely that we are all doomed because the climate is changing is not warranted by any observable data. The exact opposite could equally hold true.
Ian,
FUD stands for "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt".
It is a well established technique that is routinely used with great success by those who wish to manipulte the mob.
We all seem to agree that the "science" of climate change is a young one and full of uncertainties. However, given the "gravity" of the potential danger posed by methane burps and runaway warming, shouldn't we be giving this a lot more serious consideration than that of merely mocking those who cry wolf?
Remember, at the end of the tale, the wolf did come.
I'm with you Ian. I am not a 'practicing scientist' but spent an undergraduate career in the sciences and have had one foot in the academic sphere most of my life (another foot in the blue-collar world, and my third foot in the technical world :>).
I generally enjoy expat's posts and agree with much of what he/she says, but I take issue with the old 'canard' of "you can't argue with facts." It always depends, as a good scientist knows, whose version of the facts you are dealing with.
My main beef with many in the scientific world, or, even worse, scientist wannabes, is the lack of understanding of the epistemology of science. One of the best courses I ever took was a history of science. Great for the perspective of how the 'truth' changes depending not only on the data we collect but the general way thinking proceeding at a particular time in history.
Better leave it at that before rambling into a volume or two.
ET,
Of course the majority view is constantly changing.
Let's hope it continues to change.
The current view is taking us straight to the edge of the cliff:
1. The Market will provide
(1a) The Invisible Appendage knows best.
2. Technology will arrive on a "just-in-time" basis and save us.
3. Things are never as bad as they seem.
4. God loves me and will never let anything bad happen to me.
Not to get all ontological here, but if you wish to insist that there is something to discuss about a measurable fact like current CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere, a concentration represented independently using similar instrumentation on many points of the globe, then we aren't really talking about science. And yes, a lot of people seem to think science is static, and that what they learned in school is somehow anchored - far from it.
In this sense, whether you wish to call it a fact, a data point, or a measurement, the essential element is that this bit of observed information remains independent of the observer - and no, now is not the time to jump into quantum physics, or Pirsig's 'quality' or whatever else strikes our fancy. But the albedo of the Artic's sea ice is higher than its water, and that fact remains pretty hard to dispute, even as we dispute the various definitions of sea ice and albedo. The changing ratio of reflection and absorption of solar radiation in the Artic will be completely unaffected by this discussion, however - which is what I mean by 'fact.'
Does this mean we are doomed? I don't know about anyone else here, but I am utterly and completely certain that everyone I know, including myself, will die. That to me is a fact, which many, many people seem to have a hard time with. Of course the climate changes, of course every civilization ends, of course things change. That is the beginning of the discussion, not its end, as we are not dead yet.
I disagree that the 'bit of observed information' remains independent of the observer. This is exactly what I mean when pointing out the lack of understanding of an epistemology of science. Putting it in another way that makes it more obvious, "No observations are independent of the observer."
I don't wish to get into a long discussion on this, but if you pick up a good book on history of science or, better yet, read an old book on science, you may be surprised at how many 'facts' have changed over time.
The bottom line is that the word 'fact' conveys a level of absoluteness of knowledge that IMO does not actually exist. And, no, this is not solipsism or a denial that we cannot know anything. It is just a reminder of the limits of our ability to know.
Exactly.
I used to buy/sell books as the bread and butter of my business. I once came upon a large number of the Signet Science Library collection, a collection of small paperbacks with volumes on scientists, and on scientific ideas, spanning the late 1940s up into the early 1950s.
These were popular books. People bought them and bought them for their kids. People and their kids read them.
They were great reading. I used to wake up at 8AM and spend an hour in bed reading one, before starting my day. They're great stuff - also hard to find these days.
One thing that shocked me like a slap in the face though: The "new" science we're getting served up in magazines like Discover and Scientific American, etc., is in these books.
How do I get this across? The average Amurrikan thinks "all these new things" are being come up with, but what they're seeing/hearing is old stuff that's 50 or more years known, with a silver lining of media glitz.
The new stuff isn't happening in the US anyway, it's happening in Japan and Europe and India and even odd places like pockets of the ex-USSR.
Once we've Olduvai'd a bit down further, it won't matter anyway, old tech will be new news to most.
Hello Ian,
If your definition of "natural" includes burning oil & coal and polluting the atmosphere ... well, you might as well define "dropping nuclear bombs on cities" as natural, too.
You ask: How can it be wrong?
Simply: These behaviors could drive Homo sapiens to extinction.
And, yes, the extinction of the Homo sapiens is a perfectly natural act. Perfectly acceptable, too, in my view.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello, David Mathews
What time are you passing out the 'punch' tomorrow?
It might be useful to think about this "nature", "not nature" bit as being more about "biosphere", "not biosphere". The higher animals, and the plants that support us, have evolved in a world where all that carbon was hidden away. So if out interest is really in protecting the biosphere that we need to continue living then calling coal mining "unnatural" seems OK to me.
You could say the same about creating thousands of tons on nuclear waste.
Well, the comment about 'natural means' ties into the fact that human activities have managed to release geological scale amounts of CO2 in a couple of centuries that had been accumulated over hundreds of millions of years - generally speaking, oil wells and coal mines aren't what most people consider 'natural processes.'
And this brings up the question of something tricky - call it intent, call it self-awareness, call it intelligence. We have made choices (being a more or less firm believer in both free will and in responsibility for one's actions), and these choices are not in the same category as natural law.
A debatable point, but when the next city gets nuked, please don't tell me it exactly the same thing as an asteroid hitting a planetary surface. I find the difference quite, quite plain, even if tritium fusion is a 'natural process.'
I find it amusing that someone seriously writes about thinking away from the mainstream as a measure of objective reality - after all, 20 years ago, belief in 'global warming' (which means nothing to me - I believe in climate change, and think that human actions are only a part of it) was the belief which contradicted what was taught by respected scientists, religious dogma, and the media.
It must be interesting to live in a worldview that is constantly changing based on how many people accept it. This is one of the appeals of peak oil as a hobby - whether accepted or not, the amount of oil coming out of the pipeline is the only measure. Reality - coming soon to a society near you.
Ian down under - "Until very recently, I was a happy believer in the Global Warming concept. But two events made me think more laterally: 1. a report that 98% of scientists accept the theory, 2. Politicians began promoting the theory."
Interesting attempt to both patronise and confuse the AGW argument. So you are a scientist so answer this how does 98% of scientists accepting the theory or polititians promoting the theory change the facts to make your opinion change? The scientists that accept AGW theory do so because the theory fits with observed facts. As a self proclaimed scientist are you proposing the facts change because scientists accept a theory? No new research has been published in peer reviewed literature that contradicts AGW theory enough to cause a scientists such as yourself to disbelieve. So you would need to list the facts that have changed.
"Warning: be wary of scientists, they are all human, most have personal agendas (promotions, recognition, Nobel prizes, but mostly acceptance by their peers), they do not have copyright on truth or knowledge."
Absolutely thats why there is such a thing as peer review. It may be flawed however it does catch most of this. You saying this is like someone saying "some of my best friends are black or gay" as a preface to claims that they are not racist or homophobic. You suggesting that you as a scientist should distrust other scientists but believe you is almost the same thing.
"If we burn oil, dig out coal, pump CO2 into the atmosphere it is every bit as natural as a lion killing a wildebeest or a meteor plunging into the ocean and ending the era of dinosaurs.
Therefore, if what we are doing is 'natural' how can it be wrong? As Expat noted, the C has been being removed from the surface for several hundred million years. It has therefore been locked away where it cannot be used by life forms."
Absolute and complete rubbish. How can you possibly compare the industrial mining of billions of tons of carbon compounds from where the Earth has safely sequestered them with animals in the cycle of life or a random event like a meteor. This is not even close to scientific and seriously casts doubts on your credentials. The NATURAL carbon cycle of the Earth has consigned this carbon to a place where it is out of the cycle. Us unnaturally digging it up is totally outside the natural cycle.
"My whole point in writing this is that if we wish to think away from the mainstream, if we want to arrive at something other than 'mass thinking' we need to look beyond what scientists are telling us, what we have been spoon-fed through media, in religious dogma, and bombarded on us by self-serving politicians. We must always review what we have accepted in the past by using our naturally developed logical thinking facilities."
Absolutely correct. However by your definition as a scientist you are telling us to look beyond what you are saying. So we can't trust scientists such as yourself so who can we trust? Corporations???? You might be spoon fed through the media however you have picked the wrong crowd to try and preach this load of BS.
Anytime you want to debate the facts of AGW try me however how about you stop with the patronising BS.
Hi Ender,
Thank you for commenting on my post. It is this type of reply I am most keen to hear. As I stated, 'I was a happy believer in GW' - what I now see was a very dangerous position. Belief, instead of knowledge is a certain way to error. When I read that 98% of scientists accept GW the absurd concept entered my head that this means that only 2% of scientists must be climatologists. Thus began my lateral thinking on the subject.
This is not my contention at all. I am totally happy that scientists have measured CO2 levels, that they have drilled ice cores, that they have peer reviewed each other's work. That is all science, that is inarguable. What is not science is the creation of models looking out five or seven decades through the most complex system we know of - the biosphere - and arriving at conclusions that tell us we are doomed to cyclones, droughts, drowned islands and all the other fears that are being promoted. This is not science, this is speculation based on a necessarily limited data input about a dynamic, complex and poorly understood system.
Climate Change is happening, it may have serious consequences, it may equally have very positive changes that I have not seen addressed: CO2 is food, plant growth in many systems may be accelerated, phytoplankton, zooplankton, krill, whales, fishing may all be positively effected. I've seen nothing of the potential positives of the increase in CO2. We know during the earlier periods of Earth's existence, when coal and oil were being formed, that while all this CO2 was being converted into biomass the planet flourished and evolution rampaged along. Why now is this beneficent gas suddenly a poison?
The only object that can be outside the natural cycle is a divine presence. Granted, if there is a God that created the Earth and placed the fossil fuels underground to (well I can't think why she would have done that)…then okay it's outside the natural cycle. However, there is no mechanism in the natural carbon cycle that could have placed the carbon where it is, I'm sure it was a natural rather than supernatural phenomenon, perhaps meteor strike? But it was not the carbon cycle. All the biomass in the fossil fuels would be still being recycled if the carbon cycle had been allowed to function freely.
I worked for 25 years for the world's biggest mining company. I witnessed first-hand the devastation that this company has created in PNG. I was horrified to see how little that massive corporation cared about the indigenous population or the flora and fauna of that beautiful country. I saw a pristine river turned into a yellow cess-pond running for hundreds of kilometers through virgin forests. I'm not spoon-fed by the media. I've been at the coal-face in person. And yes, it was a part of the natural state - if we accept that humans are natural and we are guided by our natural insitincts for survival and that we are not divinely created - that doesn't make it desirable.
I'm not preaching, I am voicing an opinion that we are not looking properly at the whole GW debate and emotions, politics and pre-conceived ideas are clouding the debate - one of the biggest being that whatever humans do is somehow 'unnatural'. If you think this is patronising to the thinkers on this forum, that's fine, I don't believe that controversial questions and concepts are patronising - quite the opposite.
Very unlikely. First humanity has built it's infrastructure and even culture around the climate "as is". ANY changes (and the period of chaos as changes appear) will be negative. Each spring farmers must decide whether to plant wheat, corn, soybeans or even rice in his fields. Uncertainity over which climate to plant for is VERY negative ! (And if wheat growing areas become corn growing; what to do with all the wheat threshers ?)
Stable is good; change is bad.
And one specific I am aware of. 98% of the native trees of Iceland are one species; Icelandic birch. And unheated greenhouse controlled experiments have shown that higher levels of CO2 "confuse" the Icelandic birch in preparing for winter hardening; resulting in much more severe frost damage some years. As a consequence, the Icelandic Forest Service is importing exotics and trying to develop some minimal adaptation to the various Icleandic climates.
Best hopes,
Alan
PS: I did not read closely, but did you claim to be a scientist ?
While you certainly have the right to debate the issue, I would suggest that you go over to realclimate.org to do so. You will find that there are many qualified climate scientists there that can fully engage you on the issues and adequately address each of your points. In fact, I believed they have already addressed the cosmic ray theory and found it fully inaeqaute. I think you will also find that the climate scientists take into account the effects of volcanoes and earthquake. In fact, I am surprised you brought up volcanoes, because, if anything, they tend to cause cooling, not warming. So despite what you call the "more active geology", we have warming. I think you will also find some answers regarding the alleged warming of Mars, etc.
Climate change is the most throughly researched phenomenon in the history of science and the most thorougly peer reviewed. Yes, we don't know everything, but our knowledge of this phenomenon is vastly superior to what is was decades ago. I think intellectual honesty requires that you engage the real experts and not the random individual on this cite who may know a bit about climate science, but not be an expert. I think you will find that we are less ignorant of how the climate works that you seem to think.
As for your claim that money is driving GW research, that is absurd. If the motivation was money, climate scientists would express a greater degree of skepticism, not certainty. If one is certain about a phenomenon, this is hardly an argument for getting more funding. If one expresses skepticism, however, that is an argument for more money for more research to iron out the uncertainties.
So, go to realclimate.org and give it your best short, that is your claim that the science is dubious. And the n try to back up that claim. I think you will find that your assertions are dubious and you will not be able to adequately defend your positions. If you think the scientists have not considered your objections, you are sadly ignorant of the state of the science.
And btw, have your hear of global dimming? The irony is that if we had not made the progress we have made regarding pollutant emissions, the world would be even warmer than it is.
So, go to realclimate.org and give it your best short, that is your claim that the science is dubious. And the n try to back up that claim.
Better advice would be to go to realclimate.org and lurk. Ill-informed people should listen more, argue less.
Excellent post , but may I suggest a spell-checker?
I agree 100%. I have read this article too here in Germany. Of course there is much money involved. Scientists, which don't even understand the mechanics of clouds want to tell us, why Earth is warming!
Parallels are obvious to the passiv somking fraud, funded by the big pharmaceuticals.
Who are these idiots?
I know. They are the cream of the crop. They are the unwashed, unemployed, uninformed children of our throw away captialist system. They are angry. They want to blame someone. They want to get into someone's face and tell them, "See, you ain't so smart, Mister." These deniers are the poor hapless, easily duped victims of mass media. Here we see the result of "balanced" journalism, where any theory that would upset the capitalist (repugnican/neocon/neonazi) apple cart is reported with so-called "balanced" rebuttal. I am surprised we have not seen David Duke on FauxNews explainng the holocaust away.
Quadour88, perhaps you have a few thoughts on that? You seem particularly susceptible to the blandishments of faked-up science and crack-pot theory. I'm sure you have a few pieces of NAZI memeorabilia in your trailer home.
Cherenkov, you are right about the dubious arguments of the global warming denial crowd, when even Exxon has changed its tune. But, gratuitous insults lead only to flame wars. Its probably better to ignore the babbling of these provacatures.
You'll have to excuse quadour88. He/she seems to be having some sort of identity crisis. One day quadour88 is farming 18,000 acres in Western Australia -- and writing in perfectly good English...
... and a couple of days later he/she is in Germany and not speaking or spelling so well.
The same person? I don't think so.
Paradoxically I'm working on a post that started out as a weather update but has grown into a broader review of climate factors that climate scientists don't seem to be fully taking into account.
This has led to a lengthy email round with TOD contributors and one of the questions I just posed was "what about the Earth's magnetic field and its roll in deflecting the ionising radiation from the solar wind". The polarity of the magnetic field flips on a regular basis (every few million years).
The origin of the earth's magnetic field is the liquid Ni-Fe core, ultimately kept liquid by heat from radioactive decay of U and K. Without it there would be no life on Earth as we know it.
So I'm very interested in your comment - not so much in the Mars, Venus, Jupiter stuff, but in what you know about the effect of solar wind, "cosmic rays" etc on cloud formation and climate.
Any links please?
Something came out not long ago on this:
Cosmic rays linked to cloudy days
I talked to a local expert on clouds about this, and he was intrigued but not convinced. In any event, there will always be unknowns, but to use them as an excuse for inaction on climate change is unwarranted based on what is known.
There are satellite instruments that measure or have measured particle fluxes into the atmosphere (e.g. SAMPEX). Given the energy and the flux it is possible to calculate the energy deposition distribution and the associated ionization. Particles with energies less than 500 keV do not penetrate below 60 km. Protons associated with major solar flares (such as the 2003 late October, early November event) have energies high enough, in the 10s of MeV range, to reach down to 30 km. Cosmic rays can reach the troposphere but the flux is miniscule. The ions produced by cosmic rays are a tiny fraction of the tropospheric cloud condensation nuclei from other sources (e.g. SO2).
Titles like "Cosmic rays linked to cloudy days" are flat out misinformation. We'll get cloudy days from cosmic rays at the same time surface life on this planet is wiped out from the radiation.
OK, I'll just give the info from the research article:
And one of their supporting references is:
Nigel D. Marsh and Henrik Svensmark
Danish Space Research Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark
Received 18 May 2000; revised 15 August 2000
The influence of solar variability on climate is currently uncertain. Recent observations have indicated a possible mechanism via the influence of solar modulated cosmic rays on global cloud cover. Surprisingly the influence of solar variability is strongest in low clouds (≤3 km), which points to a microphysical mechanism involving aerosol formation that is enhanced by ionization due to cosmic rays. If confirmed it suggests that the average state of the heliosphere is important for climate on Earth.
And then a dissenting opinion:
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE:
Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
K. S. Carslaw, R. G. Harrison, J. Kirkby
It has been proposed that Earth's climate could be affected by changes in cloudiness caused by variations in the intensity of galactic cosmic rays in the atmosphere. This proposal stems from an observed correlation between cosmic ray intensity and Earth's average cloud cover over the course of one solar cycle. Some scientists question the reliability of the observations, whereas others, who accept them as reliable, suggest that the correlation may be caused by other physical phenomena with decadal periods or by a response to volcanic activity or El Niño. Nevertheless, the observation has raised the intriguing possibility that a cosmic ray-cloud interaction may help explain how a relatively small change in solar output can produce much larger changes in Earth's climate. Physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain how cosmic rays could affect clouds, but they need to be investigated further if the observation is to become more than just another correlation among geophysical variables.
Very interesting, but seeing as you are so down on this idea, I'll stop looking into it.
JB and Dissident - thanks very much for your input here. First, I fully accept the climate forcing produced by elevated greenhouse gasses and other anthropogenic effects. At the same time I'm trying to get a better understanding of natural pehenomena that may cause climate fluctuations on a century - millenium time scale.
I see polarisation in the climate debate between those who want to explain all observed warming by natural processes and the climate scientists who seem to be down playing natural processes and want to explain everything by greenhouse gasses and other anthropogenic activities.
The truth I dare say probably lies somewhere between these extremes.
I have another question for which I feel I have not received an entirely satisfactory answer: in the SPCC summary report (Fig 2)
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
a large negative forcing is attributed to the albedo of increased cloud cover resulting from aerosols. But there is no positive forcing attributed to the insulating effect of increased cloud cover. Any ideas why?
Euan - "a large negative forcing is attributed to the albedo of increased cloud cover resulting from aerosols. But there is no positive forcing attributed to the insulating effect of increased cloud cover. Any ideas why?"
I will have a go. Cloud cover and the effect on warming are one of the biggest unknowns in AGW theory. From what I have read GCMs only use approximations and fairly crude ones at that to model clouds. The insulating effect of clouds is not well known however the radiating properties are better known so they made it into the report as the report is a consensus document.
Aerosols are interesting because the small particles act as cloud seeders and they also reflect radiation in their own right.
This post from Real Climate summerises the current state of the art best.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and...
Despite what a previous posters may say Real Climate IS the first site that you should go to for accurate climate science. It is written by working climate scientists striving to communicate the incredibly complex problem of Earth climate in the simplest manner. No question is to stupid for them to answer if you take the time to be polite and on topic. While nothing in this world is absolute you stand the best chance of getting accurate information from a site like RealClimate. It is much like the Oil Drum is the best Peak Oil site and first point of reference. Not the only one - but the first one.
Euan, the sites escape me at the moment but there are discussions taking place that cover your concern. Going from memory i hope i have it right, but i believe the gist was that high cloud deflects sunlight and low clouds insulate the earth.
A hybrid of these discussion involves the degree to which urbanization causes night cloud, thence insulation, thence warmer nites than historic ... and leads to the further discussion that urban heat islands skew the global temp reporting in more ways than one. While these latter debates have merit, i had found that the effects were not statisically significant.
The high/low cloud debate gets into some debates on cloud seeding for mitigation purposes down the road.
All these replies to deal with a Flat-Earther. What a waste of time the climate deniers are.
That's the crux of it, no?
In an inclusive media or social climate that frowns on critical thinking and dismissal, it only takes one person to generate a 'controversy,' which must be covered in a fair and balanced way.
Purely and simply, Exxon wants a seat at the table. Yes, the debate is now what to do about it and they provide the talking points to the Bush administration which is talk about pie in the sky hydrogen and ethanol in the distant future and do nothing in the present that will endanger one Exxon dollar or one American job.
The Bush administration will make sure that Exxon retains their seat in the halls of power, but time is running short. The actions by Exxon are criminial, at least as criminal as the actions of the tobacco executives. From now on, if they are to have a seat at the table it will be under oath. Any further lying, hopefully, will be grounds for contempt of congress, fraud, and criminal prosecution.
You don't really believe that American jobs are a factor in this do you? Have you ever heard of a corporate executive that thought of an employee as anything but an expense to be gotten rid of?
Hello TODers,
I was pondering the GW projections for the Southwest whereby we will get less annual rainfall & snowpack-- not good news for the 50 million of us-- and I started wondering what we will do if the Colorado River System starts failing us in electrical generation from low levels behind the series of dams along the river.
We desert dwellers could find ourselves like Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and other drought stricken areas where we are not dying of thirst yet, but the storage reservoirs are low enough that electrical hydro-output is vastly reduced causing rolling blackouts, or else requiring the imposition of extremely high kwh rates to force people to remove themselves from the area grid so blackouts will not occur, but the service area is vastly shrunk.
Obviously, the worst case scenario to arise from this situation is that we start a superhuge migration to Cascadia and other places with greater precipitation and more reliable flows of electricity. But something tells me that Salem, Eugene, and other northern towns don't want to grow to 5-10 million people.
Additionally, Peakoil may be upon us before we can reasonably mitigate by widely building sufficient PVs and windmills throughout the Southwest to stem this outward migration tendency. Cantarell's collapse and the resulting ELM will probably shrink the Southwest's detritus spiderwebs first. Lastly, PO + GW diminishing returns sure as Hell won't give us a chance to build more dams for more water and electricity. Sure reads like we are glued, screwed, and tattooed--Death Valleys all over the Southwest!!!
Suddenly--BINGO BABY!!!--my next wild & crazy idea!!!
It occurred to me that Death Valley, CA is far below sealevel and hotter than Hell. Could we quickly build a totally non-polluting siphon pipeline from the ocean to this low spot to generate juice and let the water evaporate in the blazing desert sun? A pipeline is a lot cheaper than building a dam, and all that billions [trillions?] of gallons of evaporation might add more rainfall and snowpack to the surrounding basins further east to help alleviate some water shortages. Could this help the Southwest gain mitigation time to hold off the march to Cascadia? To Olduvai Gorge? Even an additional 1/4 inch of rain over the entire Colorado Basin could give my Asphalt Wonderland some extra time for mitigation.
A quick google to WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_valley
--------------------------------------
At 282 feet (86 m) below sea level, Death Valley shares most of the characteristics found in other places around the world that lie below sea level. Generally, the lower the altitude of a place, the higher the temperatures tend to be. This is especially true in Death Valley, due to the mountains that encircle the valley. The valley radiates extreme amounts of heat, creating temperatures that are among the hottest on earth. The hottest temperature recorded in the U.S was 134 °F (56.7 °C) at Furnace Creek on July 10, 1913. The highest average high temperature in July is 116 °F (47 °C) with temperatures of 122 °F (50 °C) or higher being very common. The valley receives less than 2 in (50 mm) of rain annually.
--------------------------------------
Cool idea so far, ehh?---errh, I mean a really hot idea. Please read the wikilink text and pictures to understand how I can further build this idea for power generation.
From WIKI: "During the late Pleistocene, Death Valley was inundated by prehistoric Lake Manly. Please read the relevant link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Manly
--------------------------------------------
[Check out the graphic!] In 2005, large amounts of flooding resulted in Lake Manly's reappearing on a large scale. Over a hundred square miles were covered by the lake, allowing some tourists and park rangers to become probably the only humans to canoe across the valley. The lake was about two feet at its deepest point. As a result, it evaporated quickly, leaving behind a mud-salt mixture.
--------------------------------------------------------
So, huge amounts of water can be transferred to Death Valley and it will evaporate quickly--a pipeline/generator could provide a huge and reliable non-polluting electrical baseload!
Additionally, if later networks of windturbines/PVs can be added to the Death Valley System: during non-peak hours additional water can be pumped uphill to recreate Panamint Lake & Lake Tecopa for additional electrical generation for when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. The downstream release towards the recreated Lake Manly can thus generate electricity for peak electrical demand times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Death_Valley_area
------------------------------------------------------
Lake Manly, the lake that filled Death Valley as late as 10,500 years ago, was the last of a chain of lakes fed by the Amargosa and Mojave Rivers, and possibly also the Owens River. It was also the lowest point in the Great Basin drainage system. At its height during the Great Ice Age some 22,000 years ago, water filled Lake Manly to form a body of water that may have been 585 feet (187 m) deep, about 8 to 10 miles (15 to 16 km) wide, and 90 miles (145 km) long. But the saltpans seen on the valley floor are from the 30 feet (10 m) deep Recent Lake, which dried-up only a few thousand years ago and was likely formed due to a Neoglacial ("little ice age").
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, could this whole setup potentially be a non-polluting, non-Global Warming Biosolar Powerup Solution for the Southwest? If enough water evaporates, then falls farther east, could Lake Tecopa become a steady hydro-baseload too? Would enough water fall on the Colorado Basin to help sustain that habitat for food, drinking water, and steady electrical power? I would like to read your TODer comments on further elaboration or disputation.
Obviously, it would be very disruptive to the people living in this area currently. But relocating this relatively small amount of people in a pre-planned fashion should be preferred to the multi-million people migration from no mitigation at all. Could Death Valley turn out to be a Life-Saving Biosolar Valley generating one terawatt of baseload, two terawatts at peakload? Okay Engineers--get busy!!!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Bob,
Death Valley is a national park with a unique & fragile ecosystem. No one is going to pipe ocean water to Death Valley.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Dmatthew1,
Thxs for responding. Yes, it is a unique & fragile ecosystem, but it might be worth the sacrifice if it keeps 50 million Southwesterners from invading Yosemite, Yellowstone, Sequoia, and all the other unique & fragile ecosystems. I admit is it a tough call, but it might be preferable to pre-plan, then relocate early any critical Death Valley plants & animals to other suitable habitats. The presently growing pollution, global warming, and smog levels are probably already driving them to extinction or migration now. Maybe wise intervention by ecologists/biologists could help these lifeforms survive better than if we did nothing but continued business as usual.
EDIT: just wanted to add that it does not have to be saltwater pumped---it could be desalinized first if a cheap and easy method is found.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello Bob,
All of the National Parks are under attack. Sacrificing Death Valley for any cause would lead to the sacrifice of all these other national parks.
The 50 million people of the American Southwest will need to find somewhere else to live. This is simply non-negotiable. Prior civilizations which inhabited this region have collapsed -- and these were natives who had adapted to the desert without any of the technological crutches such as automobiles, air conditioners or grocery stores.
Americans wouldn't survive in the desert for a week under similar circumstances but these ancient civilizations endured for hundreds of years. When the fossil fuel subsidy ends American civilization in the Southwest will come to an end. Where will those millions of people go? I don't know. This country is already filled up with too many people and there is another 100 million on the way between now and 2040.
A zoo, maybe? Death Valley is their suitable habitat and that is where they will stay.
I was in Death Valley as recently as 2004. These plants and animals are doing very well. They will continue to do well as long as humans don't destroy their habitat.
But this is really a silly argument: Death Valley is safe. American civilization is in danger.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
Hello Dmatthew1,
All good points, recall that I am a fast-crash doomer or realist too [but I am certainly not advocating for it]. But you must admit that neither you or I will make the call on how it all goes down. The full-on ICBM gift exchange or the Pandemic Powerdown are the elites' options, not ours. As members of the huddled masses--you and I must strive for grass root growth. IMO, the human flow across the planetary landscape can only be altered sufficiently to possibly optimize our decline rate, but decline it will, both numerically and detritus-energetically.
My hope is that widespread PO + GW Outreach combined with all the other clever ideas here on TOD & elsewhere will achieve an ideal squeeze through the Dieoff Bottleneck that brings the maximum possible numbers and variety of other lifeforms through too.
Sadly, many humans and other species will die-- we see this already in the news. I believe it will get much worse too, but if the youngsters now and further ahead can accept their destiny to wisely steer a more thoughtful course--it does not have to be the worst case scenario. It will be a very close call afterall is said and done, but my hope is that Biosolar Powerup is what gives us the best chance and positive mental outlook to best reassimilate to a more natural lifestyle. Time will tell.
I forget who said: "It will take all of us, cooperating all the time--but isn't that the whole point?"
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
"I forget who said: "It will take all of us, cooperating all the time--but isn't that the whole point?""
I'm reading a book titled "Stone Age Economics". One of the scenarios described in the book is the behavior of New Guinea tribes to natural disaster, hurricanes I think. The human behavior that resulted was chillingly familiar sounding: Cooperation and community following the disaster, theft and anti-social behavior when the disaster merged into a long term situation. I suspect that the future will look a lot more like that than long term cooperation. The previous dark ages lasted for 1000 years.
Hi Bob,
Just a quick note of appreciation for your thought of easing negative transitions, "...clever ideas here on TOD & elsewhere will achieve an ideal squeeze through the Dieoff Bottleneck that brings the maximum possible numbers and variety of other lifeforms through too."
I'd like to add to this: "quality of life" as well (for those maximum numbers of humans), which is why the quality of our interaction here matters, (as I see it).
Something similar was proposed for the Red Sea & Qattara Depression in Eygpt for much the same reasons. The power output after the first filling would be low (figure 2 m evaporarion/year) and drilling the world's longest tunnel would take close to a century (Swiss 58 km tunnel is scheduled to take 17 years) with a LONG time to get EROEI up to 1.0. Earthquakes and rock movement will complicate engineering.
The big gain would be additional water, most of which might stay in the watershed of "Death Lake" (mountain ranges on either side). A chemical extraction business from the brine might be set up. Not enough extra water to save Phoenix. (Higher lake > more water evaporates, less power, more ecosystem damage)
A small upside at high cost with a large downside, a large modification of the local ecosystem (it would largely survive above lake level, and has survived in modified form as things have changed over the years). I was there in 2005 after the heavy rain and saw once in 20 year blooms and saw the wave erosion at different levels on the surrounding mountains.
BTW, Palo Verde nuclear power plants are significantly larger than Hoover Dam. And they were designed for a Phoenix of ~2 million people. Two new power lines from Wyoming to Phoenix are planned to import coal fired power & wind power.
Best Hopes ?
Alan
Hello AlanFromBigEasy,
Thxs for responding. The off-peak backpumping to the higher lakes allows greater inflows to Lake Manly increasing baseload generation yet keeps Lake Manly lower because alot of the evaporation is accomplished at the higher Lakes Panamint and Tecopa.
Not a geologist, but Death Valley is a rift valley [like in Africa]--eventually to be filled by seawater, usually in a cataclysmic rush when the barrier is breached. This would wipe out in a few days [hours?] any existing lifeforms--no migration possible as the habitat is radically reformed by seawater gravity flow. Recall that some Biblical scholars think that the Great Flood & Noah' Ark was when the Bosphorus was quickly breached creating the Black Sea. An example of radical punctuated equilibrium transformation--rather harsh on all biota.
My proposal is just doing it early and slowly to harvest the gravitic biosolar power for hopefully optimal electric generation, combined with preplanned ecologic conservation and ameliorative migration. As outlined in my original post--this area has flooded in the past to varying degrees in non-human scale timelines--it might be good for us to think on a near geologic timescale.
Not positive on Palo Verde, but I think alot of the juice is contracted to go to CA, not stay locally--that is one reason for the new powerlines.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hello TODers,
Here is a link to another article talking about seawater pumped to inland California, but I think my idea is better =) :
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/waterforall.html
Another consideration is that the largest geothermal genplants are in the Great Basin Area, but adequate water is a problem. My Biosolar Powerup Solution would provide tremendous acquifer waterdrive to increase effective steam yields over this large basin. This EIA link details just one example:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/renewable.energy.annual/ch...
-----------------------------------------------------
An ongoing issue in the geothermal power industry is the prudent management of finite geothermal resources. Known geothermal resource areas (KGRAs) in the United States with resource conditions sufficient to generate electricity are rare, occurring domestically only in the Western United States and Hawaii, with an estimated electricity generating capacity of 27,400 megawatts, which is believed to be sustainable for 40 years.
The major industry concern about KGRAs is, and for the past decade has been, the declining production at The Geysers, located along the San Andreas Fault in Sonoma County, California. The Geysers KGRA produces more electricity than any other geothermal field in the world.
Reduced Steam Pressure
Venting of steam instead of reinjection of the condensed steam has led to the current reduced steam pressure at The Geysers. Figure 26 shows that steam production averaged about 240 billion pounds for 1987-89 and about 195 billion pounds for 1992-94. On a peak-to-trough basis (through 1994), steam production declined from 246 billion pounds in late 1987 to about 188 billion pounds in 1994. At the same time, the injection-production ratio increased from about 70 percent to about 90 percent. Without an increase in injection, production might have fallen more than it has.
Halting Pressure Declines by Well Injection
In 1989, Calpine and the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) started a joint injection program. The two organizations control a total of 198 wells, 10 power plants, and 325 gross megawatts of capacity, all in the southeastern portion of The Geysers KGRA. The flow rate of wells surrounding Calpine CA956A-1, one of the wells converted from production to injection in 1989, had been declining at an exponential rate of about 26 percent during 1988 and 20 percent during 1989 until injection began in late 1989 [212]. Injection had the effect of slowing the decline in the remaining 12 production wells to an exponential rate of about 10.5 percent. Combining Calpine’s CA956A-1 and the NCPA’s nearby C-11 well, the two organizations are injecting roughly 1,500 gallons per minute. Within 5 months, steam flow at 25 nearby wells increased, resulting in 20 megawatts more power and a drop in noncondensible gases.
Because of the demonstrated value of water injection in slowing steam flow declines, several well owners have increased injection or have planned injection programs. The major injection program is the Southeast Geysers Pipeline Project, which involves the construction of a 20-inch-diameter, 29-mile-long pipeline with a capacity of 5,400 gallons per minute (7.8 million gallons per day).
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, recall that most Nevadans are against Yucca Mountain being a nuclear waste repository. Of course, longtime readers of my postings already understand my Yucca Mountain projection timeline of building an elite bunker. But if the increased acquifer absorption can be enhanced by my idea-- it makes it even easier to abandon Yucca as a planetary rectal repository of nuclear waste suppositories:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2003/secy...
---------------------------------------------------
2003 Devils Hole Workshop and Death Valley Regional Flow Model Interaction Meeting
On May 21-23, 2003, staff from the Division of Waste Management attended and presented a paper at the 2003 Devils Hole Workshop hosted by the University of Nevada - Las Vegas. The workshop provided the opportunity for members of the scientific and research community, affected agencies, and all others interested in the Death Valley Regional Flow System (DVRFS) and regional water resource issues to meet, exchange information, and discuss pertinent and related issues. Understanding the DVRFS and Yucca Mountain's role within this regional flow system helps to assess the suitability of the chosen site as a potential repository. The latest results of the Inyo County drilling program were presented, as were future planned activities. Inyo County's main concern regarding a potential Yucca Mountain repository is contaminant transport through the Lower Carbonate Aquifer into the Death Valley springs located in Inyo County. Additional presentations included an overview of the modeling efforts of the DVRFS, spatial and temporal variations in ground-water levels in southern Nye County, and estimated ground-water withdrawals from the DVRFS, 1913-1998, by the U.S. Geological Survey. The Department of Energy will be using data from DVRFS in its evaluation of Yucca Mountain.
------------------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Actually it was a couple of Lamont-Doherty geologists, Bill Ryan and Walter Pitman who wrote the book Noah's Flood that proposed this theory. Walter Pitman is one of the grand old men of geology, having done some of the seminal work in plate tectonics in the early 70's that nailed the theory.
Pitman and Ryan are good friends and colleagues of my wife's mother who is also a geologist. I get the feeling that they published this book because it was a fun project to do, a bit out of their direct field, but there might have been more to it than that. Apparently Bill Ryan did some early work (having been involved in oceanography) that narrowed down where the Titanic lay on the ocean floor. Along came Robert Ballard and grabbed the glory. When Pitman and Ryan were speculating on the Black Sea flood angle, they got wind that Ballard was setting out to do that one too, so they hurried out the publication of their book. Sort of inside dope on a set of personalities, but often how 'science works.'
Hello ET,
Thxs for that report. When looking down at a map or satellite photo it seems obvious now with the added geological hindsight.
Hi Bob,
This sounds kind of like this tunnel that someone tried to build from Waldo Lake in Oregon for producing electricity and irrigating the Willamette Valley.
Thank goodness it was a failure. Would have drained the lake to ruinous levels since Waldo Lake has no inlet rivers feeding it. Short story is, massive projects to alter the function of the landscape often have unintended consequences, ususally bad.
Hello ET,
Thxs for responding. I agree with your assessment that draining Waldo Lake would have been bad. My guess is that it is not a sub-sealevel rift valley lake comparable to Lake Manly. My idea takes advantage of the already naturally occuring gravity differential with slow water flow instead of waitng for the naturally occuring cataclysmic flow [i.e., breaching into the Black Sea] at some future geologic time.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob,
Here are a few numbers:
Just choosing a number, let's say you wanted a 1 MW power production. At around 80% efficiency for the hydro, you need about 1.5 cubic meters/sec flow rate.
Assuming about 250 miles to the coast (?), I estimate that you would need about a 2.5 meter diameter (Stainless Steel) pipe to keep the head loss down to 10% of the 86 meters you start with, and of course is has to withstand the pressure on both ends. Concrete has over twice the friction losses and who knows about corrosion. Also, you would need pumps which could elevate the water to the high point and get the siphon going, and depending on the high point, this might be harder to achieve than tunneling. The NYC water tunnel #3 is a comparable project (taking decades), although yours would have a greater distance and perhaps higher pressures.
At that flow rate, you would deliver roughly the volume of water that filled Lake Manly in 2005 (~50 million cubic meters), although it would be a bit saltier and would evaporate slower.
In all, a whole lot of civil engineering for a small amount of power, although maybe the skiing up near Flagstaff (AZ) would go later in the season.
Hello JoulesBurn,
Thxs for your Eng. Input--I have little expertise in this area. Perhaps, if a detailed evaluation could be done:
1. My wild & crazy idea is worthless for Biosolar Powerup and PO + GW mitigation. TSHTF.
2. My wild & crazy idea might be just another small 'silver BB' to add to our arsenal--perhaps can only scale to small % of SW population. Most likely?
3. My wild & crazy idea might scale up to provide a significant biosolar kwh output to vastly reduce the postPeak multi-million migration of Southwesterners and Mexicans into Cascadia and other biosolar habitats until our population stabilizes sustainably. My hopes?
ADDED EDIT: But if it works somehow--reliable biosolar power for thousands of years!
It will be up to the engineers, ecologists, biologists, and govt. leaders to determine the final outcome. Like Steve Martin--I am just a wild & crazy guy! =)
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Seeing the discussion from yesterday, something written a few weeks ago -
To get back to basics, with an overview of some information just picked up near the train station, at a brand new wood oven store across the street - maybe unironically located on Schwarzwaldstrasse (Black Forest Street). Along with a nice catalog of wood fired stoves for heating and cooking from the Italian company La Nordica S.p.A., among many others, there was a pamphlet from the Schornsteinfeger (chimney sweeps) association just full of information concerning that most basic of non-fossil fuels, wood.
Being this is Germany, I will take the various facts being condensed at face value. However, I don't plan to do any conversions to help the non-metric among us, so it isn't like there isn't work left to be done.
1 cubic meter of air dried hardwood (ca 450 kg) equals 2100 kWh, which is the equivalent of 210 liters of heating oil, or 385 kg of brown coal (lignite, it seems).
Properly air dried wood has roughly 5.0 kW heating value per kilogram. Fresh wood (which can't quite mean green, I'd think) with 60% water has 2,6 kW per kilogram.
Drying times are thus important. 12 months for pine/fir or poplar, 18 months for linden, willow, alder, spruce, pine, and birch, 24 months for beech, ash, and fruit trees, and 30 months for oak.
Wood needs to be burn with flames, and no wood with a water content over 30% should be burned, for efficiency and thus environmental reasons (Germans sees absolutely no distinction between efficiency and environmentalism - if you use less, you tax the environment less). Burning twice as much due to water content not only creates twice the smoke and uses twice the wood, the forest growth rate is fixed, and living within that rate is currently mandatory. In general, smoke is a bad sign, since it indicates that the wood is not burning well - flames are a sign of proper combustion. The air flow should only be restricted when nothing but coals are left.
A very interesting chart compares how long 10 euros lasts when converted into heating fuel - natural gas is 2.11 days, heating oil 2.15 days, brown coal (lignite it seems) 3.32 days, wood pellets (saw a delivery just a few weeks ago - the truck and trailer essentially looked like a grain/flour transporter) 3.88 days, and shredded/chipped beech 5.44 days.
Of course, much is left out, including particulate pollution and the (in)efficiency of a wood burning stove.
And keep in mind this somewhat unsubtle point - wood, like any other commodity, has a timeframe. It is possible to waste wood by burning it before it is dry, for example. This point is made multiple times in the brochure, clearly spelling out the time frames, efficiency values, and regulations concerning wood burning.
As you may guess, Germany is either a leader in environmental friendly uses of technology and organization, or a stodgy bureaucratic nightmare.
Drying times are thus important. 12 months for pine/fir or poplar, 18 months for linden, willow, alder, spruce, pine, and birch..
Yes. A village down the road from me, 700 souls, has decided to build a wood-burning plant to heat / provide hot water to all the homes. The project is almost completed. I have tried, not very hard, to chase up tech info, but had no joy. The discussions of the municipal council are public, and on the net - these are charmingly vague and enthusiastic. Very summary descrs. were published in newspapers, and the engineers responsible have published a short brief. (see link)
Inhabitants have received no clear documentation, just been asked to sign up, a ‘good green idea’ and overall costing households the same or less, it was stated, than their present heating - they can have their old boilers etc. just ripped out, and need not, any longer, manage the ‘heat’ themselves.
Such projects are of course funded by the Federal Gvmt. if only by the potential lifting of a not-yet-fixed (details skipped) ‘carbon’ tax, in other ways as well, but that I can’t detail; the physical implantation will be funded in part by higher taxes (?), which everyone seems happy to pay. Villagers (I have spoken to many) are satisfied but know little about where the wood will come from (detritus from Lothar figure large), nor about anything else.
They trust the elected representatives, and the Federal authorities, big time.
Interesting to see the differences between Germany (bureaucracy, precise info) and the sort of happy-go-lucky trust in local initiative, due to different structures; in Switzerland, communes (which may be tiny) have to obey the Fed. Gvmt. on a few matters, but basically they can take many decisions on their own.
project, in French
Heaven knows I won't go into the differences between Germany and Switzerland, but generally, even many Greens in Germany seem to be quite capable of understanding how a problem has multiple dimensions. In Germany, maybe too much so, which leads to a sort of deadlock (whether Stillstand, Reformstau, or any other clever German term). The idea of using biomass in any form is accepted, as are its limitations - there just isn't enough to replace fossil fuels, which is why home insulation is such a major focus of German interest (you can't buy/sell a house any longer unless it meets various energy standards, for example, and new houses are built to very strict insulation standards).
Speaking broadly, secrecy isn't really considered acceptable for government institutions, mainly for historical reasons - transparency is considered a necessary virtue of a functioning democracy, one that most Germans believe in, having experienced the polar opposite.
In this sense, Germans tend to rely on data more than they do institutions when making decisions, as they feel institutions are following institutional interests, not their own.
Whether this is practical or not is another discussion, but you can see this is in action in terms of the decision to shut down the nuclear power plants here - most Germans feel the waste disposal problem is critical, and as of now, vague promises that it will be solved sometime in the future don't satisfy citizens, who continue to express their clear will in elections that leaving long term nuclear waste around for their children or great grandchildren to deal with is immoral.
Whether a good decision or a bad one, this consensus is based factually on what people here consider important, and the government has to accept it or lose power. However, if conditions change, so might the opinions of the citizens.
Oh - the Basel earthquakes do keep making the news here - after all, it is almost the same region in Karlsruhe, though the distance is far enough that no one has felt any.
Of course the drying times for firewood will vary quite a lot depending on not only the species of wood but how finely it is split and the weather conditions during the drying season. In Western Oregon, we have almost 3 months between June and September when it hardly rains at all, the daytime temperature is frequently above 90F and the relative humidity is ~20%. Under these conditions, a stack of split (nothing bigger than ~6" diameter) Douglas Fir that has been cut in Feb - April will be bone-dry by the beginning of heating season in late November, especially if it is stacked in the sun.
I have become very fond of Douglas Fir for firewood, after my initial skepticism, coming from the Eastern US where we burned Black Locust, Beach, Oak and Hickory. Doug Fir, measured by weight, has greater heat content than Hickory and burns extremely cleanly. You can stoke the stove for a week (if the weather ever gets that cold, which it seldom does here) and still not have enough ash to be worth cleaning out. And it is a breeze to split, a boon to an aging baby-boomer.
At Wikipedia, they're making moves to separate out a new article about the economic, social and political consequences of peak oil. Right now, that information is within the "Hubbert peak theory" article which is being envisioned as a more technical article about the geological decline in oil field productivity over time. If anyone has a strong opinion on whether these strands ought to be kept in the same article or whether they ought to be separated, you can weigh in at the "talk page." I think the movement to create two separate articles is coming from a wariness on the part of some about what is perceived as alarmism by Kunstler.
It has been a seperate page at least two or three times in the past, with extensive coverage of side issues.
I got exasperated with it after a while. Things get merged, duplicated, deleted for duplication, collateral-damaged, recategorized, etc. Meanwhile, once a week a major flamewar occurs on the talkpage about some low-level point about peak oil, which tends to dominate any serious discussion about where the article is headed. The same ill-informed arguments are made, debunked, remade, archived, and made again, keeping the article from improving in a significant way, because of ongoing editwars.
The article “Oil industry finds Hot Rock Resource” makes no mention of the geo-thermal project in Basel, Switzerland (see links), also under the aegis of GeoPower, which has now been halted due to unexpected earthquakes. One was Richter 3.4 and quite a lot of people were outraged, or just alarmed, by being shaken off sofas, knocked down; flying pictures in their frames, broken household object, etc. (They drilled 5 kms down.) It is not known if or when this project may continue; many say the future of the project looks dim, because repeated earthquakes caused by human activity are simply not acceptable to the people who live on the ground above, and have at their disposal the tools of a hands-on democracy.
short sci. descr. - PDF
news article, earthquakes
Indeed. I used to live in a small community named Anderson Springs in Northern California. There's several 'natural formation' geothermal power plants in the area. About twenty years ago, their aquifers ran out so they pumped lake water and treated sewage into them. There are at least ten earthquakes per day in the area now.
And, there isnt enough direct democracy to fight the monied interests which own the power plants.
Hello Capslock,
Thxs for responding. See my upthread post on how my Biosolar Powerup solution might help provide sufficient acquifer waterdrive to help eliminate the earthquake problems from acquifer depletion.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hi US TODers,
Here's a thought. It will be easier for the US to reduce it's oil consumption than it will be for the UK (where I live).
Comparing the US and UK per capita oil production and consumption is simplistic. Temperatures are much hotter or colder through the year and distances are much greater but the McMansions and 3 ton SUVs don't help. On the other hand we're not so badly off here in the UK and we do fly a lot.
I thought it would be instructive to swap the figures for the two countries to see what the US oil deficit would be if you had UK levels of consumption. The figures are from the latest BP statistical review for 2005 in mbpd:
The US Equiv value (8.95mbd) is US oil consumption at the UK per capita consumption rate.
So, if the US had the same per capita oil consumption as the UK then you would be importing 10.24% or your oil needs. Throw in Canada and Mexico, and North America is a net exporter of oil. Wow! How hard was that?
My next car will be a Ford Fusion 1.6 liter diesel which gets 48.8 mile per US gallon. It's easy if you try.
True, but the UK has less need to do so than the US; see here for discussion of that point (although the numbers are not quite correct, as it turns out the article I drew the data from erred in their data collection; the numbers they give are gas-only, and the gas+diesel ratio is 2.8:1).
Not really. That's been discussed, and it turns out that the USA has only 9% more degree-days (a measure of heating/cooling needs) than Europe, and that population density in Western Europe/US states has little or no correlation with per-capita energy consumption.
8.95/6.83 = 31% imports.
Still, your point is quite valid. If the USA had the UK's gas taxes, we'd probably see similar consumption rates.
Raising gas taxes by a factor of 10 in the US might prove politically tricky, though...
Heating and cooling has very little to do with oil consumption, especially cooling. People use oil in cars, not to run their house's air conditioners. A few places use oil for heat, but there are plenty of ways to heat a building, no need to waste liquid fuel on such a simple task. In any case, I'm not sure what fraction of the total heating in the country is done by oil (or what fraction of the country's oil goes to heating), but I imagine it is very low, perhaps a few percent in each case.
Cars are the issue. If cars were hybrids then we'd be that much closer to the EVs we need, and the US would use much less oil, helping our economy dramatically. Would likely only delay global warming, as it's likely that all the oil that is currently reachable will be extracted in the next few decades either to fill up US SUVs or Chinese motorcycles, I'm not sure it makes much difference for the environment. Would certainly help the US out if we weren't the ones paying the theocrats for it though.
Slap:
90% of Mainers use oil heat. I agree that there are viable workarounds, but that only supports the argument that it would be possible for US to affect consumption patterns. I don't know how many northern states use oil like we do, but I doubt we're alone in this. Cars, no doubt, have to be a major target for change. But don't forget Trucking and industrial vehicles (construction, mining, military, roadwork, air freight, garbage collection, local small trucks, etc...)
I'm not trying to defend commuting, but I also see an ongoing bashing of our neighbors and ourselves as the 'real' culprits, which starts to sound like some form of subconscious class-bashing instead of really looking at the whole energy setup. There's also an almost unspoken rule in this country about challenging business or the economy at the practical level. In broad strokes, fine, but not when targeting a business and saying 'you aren't right to waste fuel, just because it enhances your bottom line'.. that's taboo, where the 'Joe Schmoe's' can be blasted as fat, dumb, lazy and arrogant for their acquired energy tastes.. it's too easy to pin it on the 'dumb Suburbanites'.. (and this last critique isn't necessarily what you were doing, but I mention it since it has gotten to feel implied in any mention of McMansions, Commuting or SUV's.
Regards,
Bob
Considering that the U.K. consumes 2% of world energy, they deserve kudos for their attempts to reduce their energy consumption. They could easily throw up their hands and say, look at the U.S., they consume 25% plus of world's energy and they are doing nothing. Without breaking a sweat, the U.S. could save the entire consumption of the U.K. so it must be frustrating for the people in the U.K. and elsewhere to see how, until recently, we were still debating the science.
If the U.S. doesn't get its act together, the E.U. is perfectly justified in adding carbon duties to U.S. goods until we wake up and come up with a serious effort to cut our long term consumption by 80%.
Ah, but that would be a supposed violation of so called free trade. Maybe so, but even if one accepts the premise that free trade leads to maximum trade, cutting back on trade wouldn't necessarily be a totally bad thing considering that it would save, at a mimimum, the energy required for transport of all those goods.
As a side note, the way we compute energy consumption and greenhouse gases should be changed to reflect the energy required to produce the goods that we import and transport. If this were done, both the U.K. and the U.S. would be shown to be having a greater impact than is currently claimed.
The Gathering Storm
George Will, on ABC this morning, said that the US may be sending a third aircraft carrier battle group to the Middle East.
As I said before, IMO, a US attack on Iran may be to World War Three as Germany's attack on Poland was to World War Two.
From Stratfor.com:
Looking for a Gulf of Tonkin “Incident?”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418/site/newsweek/
Rumors of War
By Michael Hirsh and Maziar Bahari
Newsweek
are the slimy bastuds actually thinking of a war with iran or just looking for someone to blame for THEIR failure in iraq ?
Gunboat diplomacy is hardly new. It is fairly standard operations; in this case obviously to communicate the idea that Iran should not be supporting insurgents/dissidents/call-them-what-you-will in Iraq.
I think the message to Iran is simpler than that. It's "Don't Blink".
Much propaganda flying that Iran provides materiel to "insurgents" (a loaded term) but no credible evidence at all. See Juan Cole's discussion from this morning if the press coverage itself does not set off all your personal alarms.
The message being communicated is that the White House is still controlled by two sociopathic alcoholic fools and that Iran should be afraid of them, as all the world is afraid of them.
Gunboat diplomacy is quite normal and the outcome, unfortunately, will be particularly bad in this case.
You know, I hate to sound nhilistic but maybe it's time for WWIII. This is only sort of tounge in cheek. But it would solve peak everything, perhaps, including peak Earth.
Hi Todd,
It's an abstraction - not a solution. There are seeds of a way through this...we've seen them.
Once again the MSM (e.g. NYT) are working hard to spread the Bush-Cheney BS like the claims of WMD before the start of the Iraq invasion. It is time to stop giving the MSM the benefit of the doubt and pretend that it is a plurality of independent voices. The MSM spews the same propaganda at exactly the same time. There is no way this happens by random chance. It is organized and deliberate.
It would be much more preferable if it was just a couple of alcoholic sociopaths who were the whole problem. But unfortunately there is much more corruption underneath.
Oh sure, agreed.
OTOH it's hard to be really afraid of Katie Couric (though we probably should be).
Anyone and everyone is terrified of Dick Cheney.
InJapan,
The saber-rattling directed at Iran is probably less about insurgents and more about (1) oil security and (2) Iran's decision to begin selling oil for euros and possibly other foreign currencies.
The long pursued "strong dollar policy" and the global economy's access to oil takes precedence over concerns about the Iraq insurgency. Noam Chomsky, William Blum, and several other scholars have made very convincing arguments that the priority in American foreign policy has been to compel international compliance by making an example of those nations that dare defy the current economic order. It appears that this is more than a situation of efforts to fight terrorism taking a back seat in foreign policy matters and rather a situation where fanning the flames of terrorism has become the accepted cost of doing business. As an example, Noam Chomsky has often pointed out that during the Clinton administration Syria was willing to cooperate in ferreting out dangerous terrorists but they were instead punished and made an example of for their lack of support for the U.S.-Israeli peace plan. To read Chomsky's arguments go here
Interesting side note that Syria recently announced that they will be diversifying their currency reserves away from dollars and adding euros.
These discussions are somewhat beyond the scope of TOD. I've found that an excellent source of news links regarding behind the scenes geopolitical movements is Matt Savinar's (lifeaftertheoilcrash.net) breaking news section. I don't know how he does it, it is simply an amazing collection of articles.
It is time we wake up. Several Mid-east governments are pursuing or considering nuclear power. Maybe they are keenly aware of the finite character of their resources. That genie left that bottle a long time ago.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=companyNews&sto...
WT,
As I was googling to find info about global warming, I found a site that had an interesting mispelling. It went something like:
"Causes of Global Warmind."
So who is in charge of "Global WarMind" research?
The push seems to be on in the MSM as well to prepare the masses for eventual war with Iran. I caught an ABC news segment half way through re the potential for a US attackon Iran. The information was nothing really new, but the tone was alarming. The tone was quite nonchalant as if they expected it to happen and when it does, it should be taken and accepted as if it were really nothing to question or be worried about.
The Russians may believe that it is certainly going to happen given the rare direct attack on the US by Putin yesterday.
I have an engineering friend here in Australia whose company runs a nickel mine. They are importing sulfur to burn to creat electricity (rather than use diesel or gas), one of the products is H2SO4 which they use in their mine operations. Power output is about 40MW. Has anyone any info on this way of creating energy, how common it is, waste products etc?
I've not heard of a sulfur-burning power plant, but it ought to be possible.
Your boiler would have to be really corrosion resistant, I'd think.
Just from around the chemistry lab in school, it burns in air to SO2 and makes a nice hot flame. Add an oxygen atom and a water molecule and you have H2SO4. I think that second oxidation is also exothermic. This is the fate of sulfur in an aerobic environment — that is, it ends up as sulfate.
Coal-burning utilities are usually required to capture their SO2 combustion byproduct. If vented in large quantities, it makes sulfuric acid in the atmosphere and becomes acid rain. So the main environmental consideration for your nickel mine is disposal of the waste sulfuric acid. And I assume it has various metals in it by the time the mine is done with it...
There is some geo-engineering proposal to dump SO2 into the stratosphere to offset global warming via the dimming effect of sulfate aerosols. But first they are going to have to figure out how to dump it above 25 km and not in the troposphere. Supposedly around 10-20 megatons a year is needed and this amount will be too disperse to produce acid rain problems like the regional effects of smelter stacks, etc.
Now the honeybees are dying. Great. Just what we needed...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070211/ap_on_sc/dying_bees
deep sigh...
Hello Sunspot,
This can only add to the coming superspike in food prices. =(
From the article:
--------------------------------------------
Among the clues being assembled by researchers:
• Although the bodies of dead bees often are littered around a hive, sometimes carried out of the hive by worker bees, no bee remains are typically found around colonies struck by the mystery ailment. Scientists assume these bees have flown away from the hive before dying.
• From the outside, a stricken colony may appear normal, with bees leaving and entering. But when beekeepers look inside the hive box, they find few mature bees taking care of the younger, developing bees.
------------------------------------------------------------
Sounds to me like Hans Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome [GAS] whereby all stressed species are genetically driven to blowback decline. Perhaps Honeybee Anna Nicole Smith's family tree beehive decimation is more anecdotal evidence of GAS spreading through our specie. Yikes!
Google GAS or read Reg Morrison's article, "Hydrogen: Humanity's Maker or Breaker" for more on GAS:
http://www.regmorrison.id.au/
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I just logged on to post this same story;
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/11/AR200702...
This is one of those that really scares me, along with the usually unnoticed (except here) relationship between energy and food supply. One or two posters here HAVE made proud overtures about not giving a dang about some dying breed of Caribou somewhere, but who knows what ecosystems are lightly balanced on any given species? The systems' relationships could tip (ARE TIPPING), and knock us down without really trying. Pollenators are a good example. Besides bees, human expansion has massively affected many of the populations of migratory birds, through pollution, loss of landing/feeding areas along their routes, or nesting/breeding sites. This has affected other species that depend on or are fodder for these birds. Some of the migratory relationships are off due to warming now, too, as some 'food'-insects are hatching earlier, but the migratory timing is tuned to have a migration arrive on or around the 'regular' hatching cycles. Of course, nature has shifted and adjusted to these things (Those parts of nature that aren't ideologically antagonistic to changing or evolving), but the speed of change due it seems to our help is outpacing the ability of populations to adjust.
I really do try to stay positive, but don't look now, 'cause we're already seeing a pretty serious die-off..
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0207-extinction.html
"Just how bad is the biodiversity extinction crisis? In recent years, scientists have warned of a looming biodiversity extinction crisis, one that will rival or exceed the five historic mass extinctions that occurred millions of years ago. Unlike these past extinctions, which were variously the result of catastrophic climate change, extraterrestrial collisions, atmospheric poisoning, and hyperactive volcanism, the current extinction event is one of our own making, fueled mainly by habitat destruction and, to a lesser extent, over-exploitation of certain species. While few scientists doubt species extinction is occurring, the degree to which it will occur in the future has long been subject of debate in conservation literature. Looking solely at species loss resulting from tropical deforestation, some researchers have forecast extinction rates as high as 75 percent."
Fellow TODers, you can check out a little photo of me on one of my trikes in winter in Minnesota online, plus a short preview of the MPR show "In the Loop" during which they will play recent interviews of myself and also of a guy at a hockey game about global warming and what to do about it.
Very interesting stuff: the guy at the hockey game turns out to own a snowmobile dealership, and is getting out of the business due to low sales due to warmer winters and poor snowmobiling conditions in MN....
....but thinks there's nothing to be done about global warming if it is really real.....
....and then there's me, crazy idealist out hauling stuff in sub-zero temps, battling global warming as an ecological "army of one."
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/loophole/in...
Or google "in the loop mpr" if that is easier.
Two links to download or stream the preview of the show, which will air at 9 PM this Friday night on MPR.
Beggar,
You sound pretty intelligent in the clip. I enjoyed it. But Mutt and Jeff, or whoever those Loop fellas are... they are way lost. They need a double-espresso. Or perhaps oxygen.
Hello Beggar,
Great job on getting press visibility! The sad irony was not lost on me when you said that you are working hard pedaling away inhaling vehicle exhaust fumes--Be careful!
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Thanks, guys. We'll see how the full tape of the show goes on Friday evening. They talk to a live audience on Thursday night and splice tapes to create the full show to be aired on Friday.
The more awareness the better, as far as I am concerned.
RE: the auto fumes.
Some local guy with some science background tried to convince me that nothing in auto exhaust is carcinogenic.
Meanwhile, an environmentalist activist told me once that there are carcinogens and other very bad things in the exhaust. My son has asthma, and it is worse on high-pollution days, for sure!
But I wonder if we did a careful study of auto exhaust -- would we find health impacts that the auto and petrol companies would rather not have anyone pay attention to?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/weekinreview/11egan.html
Registration required
If no one has already posted it, this article also appeared this past week:
Spain to Open World's First Cellulosic Ethanol Plant
Studies show a negative EROI for biofuels.
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/pfeiffer-dirty-biofuels
Yet they keep building these things. I can see the profit in this for ADM as they have the political power to obtain subsidies and force the use of ethanol in the market. What keeps the rest of them going?
Hello TODers,
I enjoyed Leanan's toplinks on Niger & Rwanda. The people are getting smarter in terms of recycling wastes in Niger, and the Rwandan govt is working on population controls--obviously a struggle going forward, but does give some minor hope for widespread acceptance of Malthusian Math. Too bad we didn't start on teaching this math when Malthus first wrote it about 200 years ago.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?