• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

What World Under Climate Change


Tyger has decicided to spend more time with his wife Pixel, and has decided to stop trolling his Billy Mieir'esque climate nonsense here.

Not that that will save him from me showing yall what a viscous little trolling twat he REALLY is.

His facebook page contains 3 links to 3 shows, nah nah the only 3 shows

Conscious Evolution Radio - Timeline | Facebook

Planet X Live - Radio City Talk 105.9fm - Timeline | Facebook

Don Ecker's Dark Matters Radio - Timeline | Facebook


And i even think the facebook page is a fake, or he is the loneliest person in the world.
 
Last edited:
But lets look at him in action a few weeks before he joined here, and hint at being female in his very first post, then quickly moved on to sharing lipsticks with his [her] sisters etc etc.

This is him in full troll, boom straight in, doesnt know the WOMAN he is attacking is a well known scientist, just that it is a woman.

This is what HE guided ME to, for whatever reason i have no idea, maybe he enjoyed waving it infront of me, knowing i would be loathed to go there, a game.

This is a funny troll because this demonstrates perfectly how a professional woman really debates, and even tho here at the paracast he tried to keep up the middle-aged professional female of the science's persona, when you contrast a real professional woman to it, it was poor, lots of times he didnt even bother to act, it was male posting.


Troll to follow its a cracker, gets made a muppit out of,.
 
Last edited:
A very fitting way for his 'climate science' thread to end Pixel.

Let his own words hang him for what he is, a hardcore climate change troll, on a daily basis, same shit, different day, different sock, different place.


Find this troll, and you will find tyger.
sou climate change troll - Google Search

In my opinion Miriam is who he based his persona on.
 
Last edited:
silencing debate by any means possible then running away is the standard protocol for these anti science trolls.
 
That post i was going to make picking out the convo between himself and the 2 'quite' famous scientists, where he is unaware of who they are is funny, he scrambles for credibility by becoming ''Dr tyger'' halfway thru the convo after he is mocked for not knowing even the basic's of what and who the debate was about, and by other people in the convo not the 2 scientists, then mocks the 2 scientists for not being really famous.

But i cant be bothered picking it all out, the post he bows out with is enough, and his love of sou his trolling partner was enough to nail him all the way back to his facebook page, and the tyger tyger account that trolls crikey magazine climate change comments section almost daily, he is a bullshitter there to, he was in 2010 a 57yr old male from california, [his words], now in 2015 he is a full blown Aussie.

Anyway this is how he bowed out of the convo above, this last post is to the well known physicist, after the physicist [carrick] killed him with 'professional speak' [constantly correct terminology], and the link is live.

Tyger at 14:12 PM on 11 September, 2012
Carrick we cross-posted, I think we just have to agree to disagree on McIntyre. That might sound lame, but I really don't think going down that road is conducive to constructive dialogue. Apologies for my sometimes intemperate and sometimes snarky remarks-- I get worked up about this stuff and with the web it is hard to remember sometimes that you are addressing a person.

Got to go, my wife is getting impatient! Good night.
 
This is why the cowardly trolling dickhead ran away, friending him on facebook must of been quite a surprise, devious twat.


And i need to be clear about some confusion i had over the tyger account being Angelo's sock.
I was sure at the time the account was male, i got the wrong impression of angelo in the short time our paths crossed, as a mod i thought he was arrogant, abit of a piss-taker.
And after really checking out lance moody, i just couldnt figure lance for the sock, it just wasnt him.
So without having looked at Angelo's previous postings much, i let my impression rule my head, it was his thread, and i thought he was taking the mick out of pixel, and i got a right verbal slap from Gene, in private [ january] for my voicing it.

Then i checked Angelo out proper, then i realised how far out i was, Angelo's twitter account shows a happy family man, nothing arrogant about him at all, i deerved the verbal slap just for mis-judging how well Gene would know him.

But then i remembered tygers several kind invites months earlier to read the SS blog comments, ofcourse it was just 'taunting trolling' at the time about 6 months earlier.
But once i knew it wasnt a sock trolling me, it all unstitched for him.


Let him have the last word tho

[QUOTE="Tyger, post: 215078

Paracast Forum chat site? I'd say any woman who posts here has to have balls.
 
Last edited:
I think at this point we can safely discredit ALL of the climate BS that tyger had the BALLS to post here.
 
What kind of man, listens to 3 podscasts on the paranormal, don eckers planet x and the consciousness one.
Then joins a small forum like here, as a female, aligns himself with the forums most prolific posters, feigns interest in those subjects for awhile, just to gain his own climate change graffiti board, bullshits the mods into giving him just that, by the little woman being stalked and bullied routine, the exact reason he tried playing the female persona, then runs away when he gets what he came for, he has no other interest, but climate change promotion, and climate debate suppression.

Skeptical science devotees, away teams etc etc hit squads etc, are absurd, the absurdity of the time spent here by him, farming his flock with likes and feigned interest, just to further his activism is quite beyond belief.

To be frank it is mental, it is some kind of dis-order, the same kind the rabid randi'ites suffer from.

It wouldnt surprise me one bit, if it turns out this forum was part of another one of Lewanbowsky's sceptical science dodgy surveys.
Wouldnt surprise me one bit if half those ss links he posted were not just ip collectors from here, for statistical purposes.

The only reasonably sane reason i can think of for him spending time in other areas here was for credibility, 'im a science teacher'' impression, in the 100s of his trolling posts off-site, credibility is very important to him, it makes him look foolish, as he has no in-depth knowledge of the subject, so he just verbally dance's throwing out ad-homs, and dropping see here replies when cornered, the here always leads back to an SS myth fact section.
He debates purely by ss links.



See like our likes system, they [ lewanbowsky's place ] have a points system, 5pts 10pts 15pts etc etc for each link back to skeptical science they can post elsewhere, i was almost tempted to sign up to see how he was doing.
 
Last edited:
You separated the signal from the noise quite well.

I hope the other users and moderators here can now see his climate posts were pure propaganda and that tyger deliberately conned them.
 
Right from the very first post.

sex age location, all horse-shit.

Oh well - happy days - an actual thread on this where one can ask questions about it! :)

In fact, after viewing a UFO program on television and hearing within the program that someone who had an unusual experience contacted MUFON to have it investigated, I decided to search out MUFON and came across the LA MUFON website with info on their 3rd Tuesday of the month meetings in Studio City. By the time I had gotten this far it was May and the next meeting was going to have a guy named Gary Wade talk. So.....after watching a lecture by Gary Wade on YouTube as suggested by the LA-MUFON website, I toodled myself up to Studio City on said Tuesday evening.

Pretty impressive audience size. Gary Wade - not so much impressive. Kinda scary in fact. A woman left mid-way and as she left cast me a glance for some reason and rolled her eyes. She must have sensed a kindred spirit because I was feeling pretty much the same way. There's a saying in German that translated into English means one is 'reaching for the door' in a situation one finds oneself in that becomes uncomfortable. Yep.

But what is really significant about this meeting on May 21st was that when I arrived I was told that the lecture fee was $15, but if I paid just $20 I would get MUFON membership and could attend all future events for $10 or some such - a lower fee. If I thought I was going to attend more than just that evening's lecture, the membership seemed a good idea, so I signed up. I filled out the paperwork and was told that when I left I could pick up my membership card - it would be on the table as I went out the door. Okay.

When I leave - just as Gary Wade is talking about most people in the world being abductees (sorry - just not my thing - especially not my thing is the fuzzy thinking) - I come to the table and it is awash with membership cards. Clearly a good night for signing up new members. I take my card and off I go.

Next day or so I decide to go on the LA-MUFON website to find out who the speaker is on the June meet-up date and discover the website is no more. Poof! Gone. Instead, in the website's place, is this Loren Ipsum Meet-up site and I can attend an after-meet-up meet-up at a Big Boy in Studio City for chit-chat. Okay - because now I am a bit curious. I've just been recruited for MUFON membership - and paid a money to a group in good faith - and the group that recruited me has just split from MUFON and now what? (Switch-and bait?)

So I go to the Big Boy Restaurant in Studio City. Interesting. The MUFON rep - seems like a nice lady - Nikki Wall, MUFON, Director, Public Relations, Assistant Organizer - introduces herself and this is my first experience of exactly what MUFON folks might be like. She gives her UFO background - as we all wind up doing as introduction. She is an 'investigator' - and there is a couple present who apparently are having lots and lots of paranormal activity at their house . This is being 'investigated' by Nikki - she is their MUFON investigator. It seems this particular house is having routine visitations by UFO's and a whole raft of things (words and ideas) start getting mentioned that I am not familiar with - and it reminds me at this point of being at a religious meeting where there is an underlying 'narrative' that everyone knows about and accepts and is the basis for all conversation. It was a steep learning curve but I was getting the drift. There was a general invitation to everyone to come to the location to see the "inter-dimensional beings' and stuff. :eek:

Anyway, when my turm comes around to say howdy and give some background I do mention my sparkly experience in Hawaii - mentioning the 'sparkly tree' event I saw reported on in the UFO show - I'm grabbing at straws. Nikki isn't too helpful - except to say that the 'sparkly tree' incident reported on in the show is 'very famous' and stuff. Oh. Now I know.

Then I go for the obvious - because the human mind does so like a mystery - and point blank ask about the fact that I just joined MUFON and now its something else and what is that? Nikki has no real explanation except to say that there was a disagreement with MUFON itself and this LA group has other ideas about what they want to do. But now there is no LA-MUFON group to attend. Maybe I'm not interested in paranormal stuff (I'm not). Why recruit me - and a ton of others - on a night when they knew they were separating from MUFON? Strange, no? Nikki then says that the FaceBook page will be coming down and so forth. Okay. Politics. And secrecy. Does no one see the irony?

So now it's the UFO and Paranormal Research Society of Los Angeles. I did ask Steve Murillo via messaging why those interested in something different didn't just splinter off into a new group - why take the whole LA-MUFON and morph it into something else. The answer was no answer at all except to say that I was welcome to exchange my MUFON membership card for a UPARS card. Thing is, Studio City is only a 20 to 30 minutes away - the Orange County MUFON is a good 60 minutes plus drive - so this political 'take over' is very inconvenient.

I understand there is a kind of UFO store in Santa Monica that might be a meet-up site for MUFON interested people. Has gotten me thinking. I am really interested in a scientific minded group.
 
I think at this point we can safely discredit ALL of the climate BS that tyger had the BALLS to post here.

He took to much pleasure out of rubbing nose's in it when the ''lil distressed lady act worked'' dropping in comments around the forum about how SHE is changing the way this forum works, funny really since i could of burst his bubble anytime since around the new year.

[well you wont be changing it anymore son :p]

The timing had to be right, most people did believe the poster was a woman, even tho an attention seeker, still a woman, and i had blotted myself with Gene, over the Angelo debacle
.
But i spooked him off-site and he has run off, i tempted him to reply to my 'all us guys like fast cars' post reply to his, in his jeremy clarkson thread, but he didnt reply, if had done, that would have been his last.


One more thing the only things i think are true on his firewall facebook page ,are his australian education, and previous Assie government job.

They both tie him to lewanbowsky and sou, and why he can now pull off being full blown aussie at crikey, after morphing from 57yr old male from california.

The same ID he gave away here in those first 2/3 posts, except here he '''hinted''' at being female, until jimi i think it was assumed he was female, then he was off and running.


All in all i think it more than anything displays nicely how weak the real arguement for social change is via ''climate change'' as the vehicle, theres no solid basis for climate alarmism, its just so easily dealt with.

Deception, fraud, and sophistry, thats all climate change alarmism consists of.
 
Last edited:
The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States
LINK: From Boom to Bust? Climate Risk in the Golden State | Risky Business

TEXT: "Impact Overview: California
"What happens if we stay on our current "business as usual" path? Click a region [on the Interactive Map within the Link] to explore the most likely economic impacts of climate change on labor productivity, energy, and public health. To view the "tail risks," or lower-probability, high-impact climate futures for each state, click "1 in 20."

"California is the most populous state in the United States and the world's eighth—soon to be seventh— largest economy. It's also a microcosm of the nation's diverse economy and geography. With a wealth of natural resources, California leads the U.S. in agriculture, manufacturing, and tourism and is a major international exporter. From high-tech to Hollywood, California is a hub of innovation that supports cutting edge industries and leading multinational companies. For decades, the state has led the way on new economic growth models, new technologies, and creative solutions to policy challenges.

"Today, California faces a new set of challenges and opportunities in the form of climate change. The state's vast and varied topography—from the Redwood Coast to the fertile Central Valley, and from the Mojave Desert to the Sierra Nevadas—provides a glimpse into the significant and varied risks the state faces if we stay on our current climate course.

"Along the coast, rising sea-levels will likely put billions of dollars of property and infrastructure at risk. Further inland, increasingly warm and dry conditions threaten the productivity of one of the richest agricultural regions in the world. Eastern California, a haven for natural recreation and tourism, will be permanently marked by warming temperatures and shifting precipitation patterns. And across the state, extreme heat will fuel large and costly wildfires, endanger water resources, drive up energy costs, exacerbate air pollution, and threaten human health.

"The mission of the Risky Business Project is to quantify the economic risks to the United States from unmitigated climate change. Our inaugural report, Risky Business: The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the United States, highlighted these risks across every region of the country, with a focus on three sectors: agriculture, energy demand, and coastal infrastructure. We also looked at overarching issues such as changes in labor productivity and heat-related mortality.

"This follow-up report focuses on California and explores some of the likely economic consequences to the state of continuing on our current greenhouse gas emissions pathway, 1 with no significant new national policy or global action to mitigate climate change.

"Our research combines state-of-the-art climate science projections through the year 2100 (and beyond in some cases) with empirically-derived estimates of the impact of projected changes in temperature and precipitation on the California economy. We analyze not only those outcomes most likely to occur, but also lower-probability, higher-cost climate impacts. These "tail risks" are most often expressed here as the 1-in-20 chance events.

"Our findings show that if we stay on our current global emissions pathway, California will likely face multiple and significant economic risks from climate change. However, if policymakers and business leaders act now to reduce emissions and adapt to a changing climate, we can significantly reduce these risks.

"Given California's diverse geography and economy, the risks posed by climate change vary significantly by region. These risks include:
    • A dramatic increase in extreme heat across the state, especially in the San Joaquin Valley and Inland South regions
      • By the end of this century, summers in California will likely be hotter than summers in Texas and Louisiana today, and the average number of extremely hot days each year—with temperatures above 95°F—will likely double or even triple.
      • By mid-century, the San Joaquin Valley, which accounts for more than half of the state's agricultural output, will likely experience 63 to 85 days over 95°F each year compared to an average of 44 such days per year over the past 30 years. By the end of the century, the number of extremely hot days will likely increase to three to four full months per year.
      • Meanwhile, a likely 60% to 90% decline in the annual average number of days below freezing statewide is expected to reduce snowpack, affecting state water supplies along with winter tourism and recreation.
    • Changes in the timing, amount, and type of precipitation in California, which could lead to increased drought and flooding and put the reliability of the state's water supply at risk
      • Warming temperatures will cause California to see a shift in precipitation from snow to rain, as well as a change in the timing of snowmelt.
      • Most regions in California will likely see a decrease in fall and spring precipitation. The majority of precipitation will continue to fall during the winter, but increasingly more as rain than snow.
      • These changes will impact California's snowpack—a major water reservoir for the state—and affect the freshwater supply for multiple industries and communities.
      • California should also expect to see more heavy storms, which could increase the number and severity of floods in parts of the state, and longer dry spells between storms. The risk of drought could increase as well, especially given more extreme temperatures.
      • Changes in precipitation, combined with rising temperatures, could also have serious consequences for California's water quality.
    • Widespread losses of coastal property and infrastructure due to sea-level rise along the California coast
      • If we continue on our current path, between $8 billion and $10 billion of existing property in California will likely be underwater by 2050, with an additional $6 billion to $10 billion at risk during high tide.
      • By 2100, $19 billion in coastal property will likely be below sea-level, with a 1-in-100 chance of more than $26 billion at risk.
      • In San Francisco, mean sea-level will likely rise 0.7 to 1.1 feet by 2050 and 1.8 to 3.3 feet by 2100. Meanwhile, San Diego will likely see sea-levels rise 0.8 to 1.2 feet by 2050 and 1.9 to 3.4 feet by 2100.
      • Rising tides could also damage a wide range of infrastructure, including water supply and delivery, energy, and transportation systems.
    • Shifting agricultural patterns and crop yields, with distinct threats to California's varied crop mix of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and other highly valuable commodities
      • In 2012, California produced one-fifth of the nation's supply of dairy, nearly two-thirds of its fruits and nuts, and over one-third of its vegetables.
      • California's major crops, livestock, and dairy operations face distinct threats from climate-driven temperature variation across the state, which could have major repercussions on local and global markets.
      • Without significant adaptation by farmers, several regions will likely see yield losses for heat-sensitive commodity crops like cotton and corn, with potentially high economic costs. For example, the Inland South region will likely take an economic hit of up to $38 million per year due to cotton yield declines by the end of the century.
      • Climate-driven changes in water availability, quality, and timing could have a significant impact on California's agricultural economy, which is heavily dependent on irrigation.
      • Changing climate conditions are expected to increase the spread of invasive pests and plant species and threaten livestock productivity.
    • Increasing electricity demand combined with reduced system capacity, leading to higher energy costs
      • Rising temperatures will likely increase electricity use for residential and commercial cooling, driving up demand across the state.
      • Increasing heat, drought, and wildfires will stress California's electricity infrastructure, decreasing the efficiency of the state's centralized natural gas and nuclear power plants, jeopardizing hydropower generation, and disrupting transmission.
      • Building new capacity to meet additional electricity demand will result in significant increases in energy costs in some parts of the state. The Inland South region will be the hardest hit, with total energy costs likely to increase by up to 8.4% in the short term and as much as 35% by end of century.
    • Higher heat-related mortality, declining labor productivity, and worsened air quality
      • California will likely see up to 7,700 additional heat-related deaths per year by late century—more than twice the average number of traffic deaths annually in the state today.
      • With 30% of California workers in "high risk" industries that are vulnerable to high temperatures, labor productivity is likely to decline across the state, most notably in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley regions.
      • Higher temperatures and more frequent wildfires will exacerbate ozone and particulate pollution in areas that already suffer from poor air quality, worsening respiratory health problems and increasing hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and absences from work or school.
"California is already taking aggressive action to address climate change. By fully understanding the climate risks the state faces if we stay on our current emissions path, California businesses and policymakers have the opportunity to become models of climate risk mitigation and resilience for the nation and the world.


"FOOTNOTES

1 The “current greenhouse gas emissions pathway" we use throughout the report refers to RCP 8.5, one of the four “Representative Concentration Pathways" developed by the Integrated Assessment Modeling Consortium. It represents a continuation of recent global emissions growth rates, with atmospheric concentrations of CO2 reaching 940 ppm by 2100.
 
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein

I am assuming you are referencing posts coming from other posters. Posters who I have on ignore - the usual suspects. I've been gone for a while. Had a great vacation. :)

Once more the discussion has been steered to a blinked narrow, short sighted set of parameters.

The problem is population/consumption

Overpopulation, overconsumption – in pictures | Global Development Professionals Network | The Guardian

@mike Again, not sure what you are referencing, since this thread is exploring the ramifications of Climate Change and is not a debate about it. (As stated so many times - the threads debating the science are scattered throughout this chat site like beached whales - and are there for the using).

@mike However, I agree that (over) population is a driving force behind the crisis looming for the whole. It's not going to stop, no more than the carbon emissions will stop. The solution is finding locally based, locally controlled systems that address local population issues. I see this as taking centuries - generations of try-and-fail. Though one thing is certain to start happening as the climate shift takes place - draught, failed harvests - starvation and disease. Population problem solved. :( (Some hope with the Pope speaking out recently).

Someone on another thread directed attention to the author of this book -

LINK: Powering the Future: How We Will (Eventually) Solve the Energy Crisis and Fuel the Civilization of Tomorrow Paperback - by Robert B. Laughlin (April 23, 2013)

ADD: Re our energy future: a link to one of the most coolly objective analyses of the subject I have seen.


@boomerang, I would disagree. Overall he is giving a good summation but he is already behind-the-times (at least in this video from 2013/14) - that's how fast the technology is innovating. The problems he is floating are being addressed. In the US we have an aging power-grid. It's upgrading is long overdue, and when it comes it will inevitably factor in the new technologies and sources of energy.

I do like his view as interpreted by the below reviewer: "It's worth noting here that Laughlin (who has been called a climate change skeptic lately) is not denying global warming or its consequences here; it's just that he thinks that it's sort of beside the point when it comes to thinking about future energy, which will be mainly dictated by economics and prices more than anything else. I found this to be a commonsense approach based on an appreciation of human nature."

I do not agree with his acquiescence to Nuclear energy. The problems with Solar energy are being addressed as we speak. The algae stuff is highly questionable. Others have been beating that drum, too. The food problem is real.

Here is the top Amazon review of the book: "In the tradition of physicists writing for the layman, Robert Laughlin has emerged as a writer who pens unusually insightful and thought-provoking books. In his "A Different Universe" he explored the consequences and limitations of reductionism-based physics for our world. In this book he takes an equally fresh look at the future of energy. The book is not meant to be a comprehensive survey of existing and upcoming technologies; instead it's more like an assortment of appetizers designed to stimulate our thinking. For those who want to know more, it offers an impressive bibliography and list of calculations which is almost as long as the book itself.

Laughlin's thinking is predicated on two main premises. The first is that carbon sources are going to eventually run out or become inaccessible (either because of availability or because of legislation). However we will still largely depend on carbon because of its extraordinarily fortuitous properties like high energy density, safety and ease of transportation. But even in this scenario, simple rules of economics will trump most other considerations for a variety of different energy sources. The second premise which I found very intriguing is that we need to uncouple our thinking on climate change from that on energy instead of letting concerns about the former dictate policy about the latter. The reason is that planetary-level changes in the environment are so vast and beyond the ability of humans to control that driving a few more hybrids or curbing carbon emissions will have little effect on millennial events like the freezing or flooding of major continents. It's worth noting here that Laughlin (who has been called a climate change skeptic lately) is not denying global warming or its consequences here; it's just that he thinks that it's sort of beside the point when it comes to thinking about future energy, which will be mainly dictated by economics and prices more than anything else. I found this to be a commonsense approach based on an appreciation of human nature.

With this background Laughlin takes a sweeping and eclectic look at several interesting technologies and energy sources including nuclear energy, biofuels, energy from trash, wind and solar power and energy stored beneath the sea. In each case Laughlin explores a variety of problems and promises associated with these sources.

"Because of dwindling uranium resources, the truly useful form of nuclear energy for instance will come from fast breeder reactors which produce their own plutonium fuel. However these reactors are more susceptible to concerns about proliferation and theft. Laughlin thinks that a worldwide, tightly controlled system of providing fuel rods to nations would allow us to fruitfully deploy nuclear power. One of his startling predictions is the possibility that we may put up with occasional Chernobyl-like events if nuclear power truly becomes cheap and we don't have any other alternatives. Laughlin also finds promises and pitfalls in solar energy.

"The basic problem with solar energy is its irregular availability and problems with storage. Backup power inevitably depends on fossil fuel sources which sort of defeats the purpose.

"Laughlin sees a bright future for molten salt tanks which can very efficiently store solar energy as heat and which can be used when the sun is not shining.

"Biofuels also get an interesting treatment in the book. One big advantage of biofuels is that they are both sources and sinks of carbon. Laughlin talks about some recent promising work with algae but cautions that meeting the sheer worldwide demand for energy with biofuels that don't divert resources away from food is very challenging. Further on there's a very intriguing chapter on energy stored under the sea. The sea provides a stupendous amount of land beneath it and could be used for energy storage through novel sources like high-density brine pools and compressed natural gas tanks. Finally, burning trash which has a lot of carbon might appear like a useful source of energy but as Laughlin explains, the actual energy in trash will provide only a fraction of our needs.

"Overall the book presents a very thought-provoking treatment of the nature and economics of possible future energy sources in a carbon-strapped world. In these discussions Laughlin wisely avoids taking sides, realizing how fraught with complexity and ambiguity future energy production is. Instead he simply offers his own eclectic thoughts on the pros and cons of energy-related topics which may (or may not) prove important in the future.

"Of the minor gripes I have with the volume is the lack of discussion of some promising recent advances in solar cell and next generation nuclear reactor technology. Laughlin's focus is also sometimes a little odd and meandering; for instance at one point he spends an inordinate amount of time talking about interesting aspects of robotic technology that may make deep sea energy sequestration possible. But these gripes detract little from the volume which is not supposed to be an exhaustive survey of alternative energy technologies anyway.

"Instead it offers us a very smart scientist's miscellaneous musings on energy dictated by commonsense assumptions based on the simple laws of demand and supply and of human nature. As responsible citizens we need to be informed on our energy choices which are almost certainly going to become more difficult and constrained in the future. Laughlin's book along with others will stimulate our thinking and help us pick our options and chart our direction."
 
Last edited:
It is my view that it will be those locales that are aggressively addressing a shift in energy base who will survive the coming 'tossed-salad'. California continues to forge ahead -

LINK: What is the California Climate Credit? | Energy Upgrade California

TEXT: "What is the California Climate Credit?
"You may notice something called a California Climate Credit on your electricity bill. This credit is your share of money from a state program that is fighting climate change. It happens automatically in April/May and October/November for most California homeowners and monthly for most California small businesses – and it’s yours to keep. But if you spend it on a few energy efficient measures, you’ll see even more savings. And our climate will be the better for it.

Learn more about the Climate Credit for households

Learn more about the Climate Credit for small businesses

Use Your Credit to Save Money and Help California Stay Golden
By reinvesting your Climate Credit to purchase low-cost in other low cost products you are well on your way to managing your energy use that will pay dividends in the long run. Click here to find our 30 products under $30 that you can purchase to help you Stay Golden.
More Ways to Spend Small and Save Big
Here are a few other simple products that can make a positive impact on the environment and help you save money. They each cost about the same as one climate credit will save on your utility bill.

Learn more by downloading our handy one-page sheet

How the California Climate Credit Works
California requires large industrial facilities like power plants to pay for permits when they put carbon pollution into the air. Some of that money is used by the state to fight climate change, and some goes to households and small businesses as the California Climate Credit. The climate credit is designed to help you play a part in California’s efforts to build a clean energy economy, cut air pollution and save money.

DOWNLOAD
cc_where_does_it_come_from_small.jpg

Other Useful Web Resources
 
Last edited:
This is what will start to happen on a wider and wider scale. In the case of Sao Paolo the civic authorities knew the drought conditions were coming but did little to prepare. In November of 2014 the headline read: Brazil drought: Sao Paulo sleepwalking into water crisis. That is what confronts so many - the problem is so large, how to address it? Sleepwalking is a good metaphor.

Many reasons for the problem, however.

Taps Start to Run Dry in Brazil’s Largest City
São Paulo Water Crisis Linked to Growth, Pollution and Deforestation

LINK:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/w...ao-paulo-brazil-toward-water-crisis.html?_r=0
 
Last edited:
Brazil water shortage: Sao Paulo devastated by its worst drought on record
LINK: Brazil water shortage: Sao Paulo devastated by its worst drought on record - Americas - World - The Independent

TEXT: "As Brazil continues to battle a historic drought, millions of people in its largest city are about to run out of water. São Paulo, home to around 20 million, is experiencing its lowest rainfall since 1930, and new water-saving measures have been introduced in an attempt to manage the escalating catastrophe.

Services including schools and hospitals are having to adapt to the country's newfound water struggles, with The Telegraph reporting that doctors have even been forced to cut short dialyses treatment for kidney patients.

The Cândido Fontoura children's hospital has refuted claims that it went without water earlier this month, but biologist Analice Dora expressed fear: "Everyone is worried. Hospitals are the one place that can't lack water."

Though there has been a recent uptick in rainfall in the region, it hasn't been enough to boost supply in a country nominally the most water-rich in the world.

Current reserves stand at just 10 per cent - known as the "dead volume" - and the government has warned that it could get worse in the coming months.

Professor Decio Semensatto from the Federal University of São Paulo has likened the current water situation to a "semi-desert".

With the water crisis likely to last for years, Semensatto sees the testing of solutions as "training for the next few years, which will be worse".

He holds water utility Sabesp responsible; it has known for years that drought-like conditions would soon arrive, but took few preventative steps.

READ MORE:
BRAZILIAN TOWN THAT DISAPPEARED UNDER WATER FOR 45 YEARS RE-EMERGES AMID SEVERE DROUGHTS

BRAZIL HIT BY WORST DROUGHT SINCE 1930 AS TAPS IN SAO PAULO AND RIO DE JANEIRO RUN DRY

BRAZIL DROUGHT: IT'S A REALLY DRY JANUARY IN THE SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRY, WITH RAINFALL IS AT ITS LOWEST LEVEL SINCE 1930


The current crisis has reached a point that actual water rationing may be necessary, with state governor Geraldo Alckmin last month admitting it was already happening.
 
São Paulo water crisis is source of wave of Brazilian art activism
Artists taking their outrage and painting murals to raise awareness and compensate for what they believe is a lack of media coverage
LINK: São Paulo water crisis is source of wave of Brazilian art activism | World news | The Guardian

TEXT: "A grey minivan rattled through São Paulo’s hilly suburbs, loaded with spray cans, paint rollers, buckets and a ladder as five street artists drove to the Atibainha river, rap lyrics blaring from their speakers. On the sweltering afternoon of 26 February, they painted colourful protest murals on the legs of a bridge that crosses one of São Paulo’s most important water sources, nestled in the Serra da Cantareira mountain range.

"Months earlier, as fears of drought loomed over the region, Thiago Mundano had tagged the words “Welcome to the Cantareira desert” on to an abandoned car under the same bridge. That image became an icon of crisis as water supplies fell to a historic low and taps ran dry in South America’s largest city. “My idea was to show people how much water we are losing and that São Paulo will be a desert soon,” the artist explained. “Photographers started taking pictures and it became a way of measuring the water. There are many images with different levels.”

"The car has now been removed, but the crisis continues – and Mundano painted a new picture of the vehicle next to its original resting place, alongside a poetic message about waiting to see if the reservoir recovers its depth. His work is part of a growing movement involving artists, activists and independent journalists to raise awareness of the issue and compensate for what they believe is a lack of thorough coverage in mainstream media. “The media is just replicating government communications, so we need to put pressure on them,” said Caio Tendolini, an activist who wants to “create a new narrative” that goes beyond the official line circulated by Sabesp, the São Paulo water authority, which has yet to declare a state of emergency.

" “Management is the main problem, not climate change. The government has been saying this shortage happened because of rain, but we need solutions on a structural level,” Tendolini continued. Recent rainfall has eased the strain, but with the next wet season expected in November, the megacity’s 20 million residents could be hit with a drastic rationing plan of two days per week. As anxiety spread and people began stockpiling water in open containers, cases of dengue fever have surged.

"While artists were painting the bridge last month, Tendolini organised a gathering of independent journalists at an area of the Cantareira reservoir that is now completely dry, with the hope that multiple outlets publishing content at the same time would make waves on social media. “Our idea is to run more tours like that and bring people to face the problem. The desert is a very shocking image – it feels like something died in the cracked ground,” Tendolini said. “We need to get society looking at the issue in a more blunt way, prepare people for the moment when taps run out, and stop them panicking when it happens.”

"Another organiser of the desert meeting was André D’Elia, a film-maker who spent 16 months producing The Water Law (New Forest Code); a documentary that explores the consequences of a controversial 2012 legislation regulating deforestation of the Amazon. D’Elia believes many journalists “failed to understand” the final law after President Dilma Rousseff vetoed several articles. “The code allows deforestation, which leaves water unprotected,” he said, “but the media bought the idea that Dilma is saving the environment.”

"A crowdfunding project has been launched to finance screenings around the country, and the film will be available via iTunes. “Our campaign slogan is ‘Water doesn’t come from pipes – it comes from forests and rivers,’” said D’Elia. “Building more pipes and reservoirs won’t take care of the problem. You need to protect the source.” In São Paulo’s trendy Vila Madalena neighbourhood, Mundano’s work is now on view in a new joint exhibition with artist Mauro, at the A7MA gallery. It features a canvas painting of the infamous car, junk “icons” found in the Atibainha river and a model building tagged with graffiti that offers free water to visitors.

"Several pieces invoke Mundano’s signature motif, a cactus with water taps sunk into its stalk. In December, images of a live plant installation in the barren Cantareira reservoir went viral after a Reuters photo was widely published. “Art has the power to give visibility to new questions – I am fighting for people to reflect on the crisis,” said Mundano. “I want people who see the show to think differently when they go home.” "
 
Lets hope they learn their lesson, and others take heed, they destroyed their own habitat, whats has it got to do with climate change ?.

Urban Water Blueprint
40 Million new trees is a start, and a much greater appreciation of what nature has given them, will go most of the way to solving their problems.
Why do they deserve our pity, or concern, they ruined their own environment for short term gain.


Three Key Lessons From São Paulo's Water Crisis | Mark Tercek
São Paulo faces a crisis: The Brazilian city is running out of water.

Citizens are growing increasingly concerned, even drilling through their basement floors in hopes of finding groundwater. An impending ration mandate could leave residents with access to water only two days a week. Scientific projections suggest the city's water supplies could run dry by year's end.

São Paulo's rapid growth has outpaced its water supply's ability to replenish, and current drought conditions further exacerbate the issue.

Solving São Paulo's water crisis will require drastic short-term actions. But for other cities in which growth is out of sync with water supplies, one relatively simple strategy can go a long way toward avoiding a similar crisis: employing nature as an ally.


Brazil's Atibaina Reservoir, part of the Cantareira system, which provides 50 percent of São Paulo's drinking water. (Photo © Scott Warren)

Cities that invest in protecting their watersheds can achieve three goals:

1. Improve water quality and quantity.

Protecting existing forests and restoring logged areas can often improve cities' water quality and sometimes increase the availability of clean water. The watersheds that supply half of São Paulo's water have lost nearly three fourths of their forests. That also means fewer tree roots to hold the soil in place, which has led to erosion that pollutes rivers and reservoirs with sediment. Upstream forests can also hold water like a sponge, regulating the flow of water.

Along with forests, riparian buffers -- strips of vegetation along rivers -- protect cities' waterways when they filter pollutants out of farmland runoff and prevent sediment from entering the water. One study found protecting and restoring riparian buffers in São Paulo would significantly reduce sediment in the city's water supplies.


Timber cutting near Brazil's Cachoeira Reservoir, part of the Cantareira system, which provides 50 percent of São Paulo's drinking water. (Photo © Scott Warren)

2. Save money.

Treating drinking water is expensive. And treatment costs will rise even higher if sediment interferes with water supplies, the way it did in São Paulo. Investing in relatively cheap natural infrastructure can save money over time by eliminating the need for expensive technological upgrades. Our organization, the Nature Conservancy, recently ranked São Paulo among the top five large cities that could reap a positive return on investment from protecting nature.


Water intake system at the water purification plant that supplies 50 percent of São Paulo's drinking water. (Photo © Scott Warren)

3. Boost biodiversity and recreation.

A host of co-benefits accompanies cities' investments in nature. Along with improving water quality and quantity, protecting nature generates recreational opportunities that bring in tourism dollars and foster related economic development. Investing in green infrastructure also creates habitat for animals and plants, increasing biodiversity.

Under a recent agreement between the State Secretary of the Environment in São Paulo and the Nature Conservancy, the state pledged to plant 40 million trees in its watershed to reduce erosion that pollutes water supplies. That kind of habitat restoration could provide untold spillover benefits for wildlife. Take Quito, Ecuador, for example. Another Nature Conservancy partnership there protected drinking water along with critical wildlife habitat. The same could happen in São Paulo; the region's Atlantic Forest is home to 200 bird species found nowhere else on Earth, and 60 percent of Brazil's threatened animal species.


Tree planter Pedro Agustin plants about 300 trees a day for the Nature Conservancy in Extrema, Brazil. (Photo © Adriano Gambarini)

The Nature Conservancy's Urban Water Blueprint demonstrates how natural solutions can measurably improve water quality for more than 700 million people in the world's 100 largest cities.

As São Paulo takes steps to solve its water challenges, it has the opportunity to become a leader in sustainable water management. Cities that embrace natural solutions alongside traditional manmade water infrastructure can improve water quality and availability, save money and protect important habitat.

With smart planning, cities can better protect their future water supplies by putting nature to work. The time to invest in nature is now.
 
Last edited:
Relevant article because it speaks to the consequences we will live under if the Climate Warming continues under the use of fossil fuels. As stated, with the possible rises in global temperature "Today’s climate and planet would very likely be unrecognizable."

If We Dig Out All Our Fossil Fuels, Here’s How Hot We Can Expect It to Get

LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/u...t-to-get.html?ref=science&_r=3&abt=0002&abg=1

TEXT: "World leaders are once again racing to avert disastrous levels of global warming through limits on greenhouse gas emissions. An agreement may be in reach, but because of the vast supplies of inexpensive fossil fuels, protecting the world from climate change requires the even more difficult task of disrupting today’s energy markets.

"The White House last month released a blueprint to reduce United States emissions by as much as 28 percent by 2025. The plan lays the groundwork for the formal international climate talks this December in Paris, where the goal is a treaty on emissions that will seek to limit the rise in global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above preindustrial levels. Beyond 3.6 degrees, scientists say, the most catastrophic climate consequences will occur, possibly including the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

"Forging a treaty in Paris would be no small task, yet would be just the beginning of a solution. The greater challenge will be deciding how much of the world’s abundant supply of fossil fuels we simply let lie. (Bill McKibben and more recently The Guardian have taken a maximal position in their Leave It in the Ground campaign.)

"To understand the scope of this challenge, I’ve tallied the projected warming from fossil fuels extracted so far and the projected warming capacity of various fossil fuels that can be extracted with today’s technology. This accounting was done by taking the embedded carbon dioxide in each energy source and using a standard model for the relationship between cumulative carbon emissions and long-run temperature changes based on a 2009 Nature article. (More detail on the method is available here.)

"For those who don’t like suspense, here’s the total: an astonishing 16.2 degrees. And here’s how that breaks down. Since the industrial revolution, fossil fuels have warmed the planet by about 1.7 degrees. We are already experiencing the consequences of this warming. In recent weeks, we have learned that the world had its warmest winter on record and that Arctic sea ice hit a new low, even as intense storms continue to inflict harm on communities globally.

"Next, look at fossil fuel reserves, the deposits we know to be recoverable under today’s prices and technology. That is, they are inexpensive to access. If we were to use all of this coal, natural gas and petroleum, the planet would warm by an additional 2.8 degrees. Add the heat from those reserves to the 1.7 degrees from what has already been emitted, and you get a world that is 4.5 degrees warmer since the industrial revolution; this is beyond scientists’ recommended 3.6-degree threshold.

"The next set of fossil fuels in line is referred to as resources, rather than reserves. The difference is that they are recoverable with today’s technology, but not at current prices. There is 3.1 degrees’ worth of warming if the oil and natural gas in this category are utilized, which would lead to a total increase in global temperatures of 7.6 degrees.

"This warming does not even consider our coal resources. A middle-of-the-road estimate of the coal that qualifies as resources indicates that its use would lead to an additional increase of 8.6 degrees. Thus, the use of all reserves and resources would lead to a total increase of 16.2 degrees. Today’s climate and planet would very likely be unrecognizable.

"Without pricing carbon to reflect expected climate damages, all of this coal, oil and natural gas is worth many trillions of dollars, so keeping it in the ground would mean passing up economic opportunities that are waiting to be taken and turning our backs on a long history of going to great lengths to recover these energy sources. A January study in Nature developed estimates of which fuels would have to be abandoned to stay below the 3.6-degree threshold. It found that most Canadian tar sands; all Arctic oil and gas; and a significant share of potential shale gas would need to stay locked up. It also found that major coal producers like the United States would need to keep 90 percent of their reserves in the ground.

"There are essentially only three long-run solutions to the climate challenge. The first is to price carbon emissions to reflect the damages from climate change. In practice, this means pricing carbon in as many parts of the world as possible — and ideally, globally — so that there is a level playing field for all energy sources. There has been important progress in this area, including in the European Union, individual American states and regions (for example, California and the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative), and parts of China. And there are several ways to introduce carbon pricing, as a New York Times Op-Edby David Hayes and James Stock underscored. But we are a long way from a global price on carbon, and the prices in existing carbon markets are lower than the projected damages from increased carbon emissions.

"The second way to disrupt the energy market is to have low-carbon energy sources like nuclear, wind and solar become cheaper than their fossil fuel competition. Although there has been much progress in reducing the costs of wind and solar recently, they generally remain more expensive than fossil fuels. Further, the fracking revolution makes it clear that there will be continued technical advances that reduce the costs of recovering fossil fuels. Indeed, it is well known that there are ample supplies of coal deeper beneath the Earth’s surface that do not yet qualify as resources, and there is increasing evidence that energy from methane hydrates may become relevant commercially. In other words, it seems unlikely that today’s low carbon energy sources will play a major role in the solution without significant public investment in research, development and test deployments of new technologies.

"The third approach is to continue using those fuels, but capture and store the carbon before it is released or pull it out of the atmosphere after its release. Neither approach has yet been proved to work at scale, and costs remain high. Even if costs come down, it will very likely remain more expensive than using fossil fuels without capture and storage, so a carbon price would be necessary for it to be applied broadly. A related idea is to reflect sunlight away from the earth so temperatures do not rise as much. This approach does not reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and there is agreement that further research is necessary.

"If we use all of the fossil fuels in the ground, the planet will warm in a way that is difficult to imagine. Unless the economics of energy markets change, we are poised to use them."
 
Back
Top