What World Under Climate Change

[Tyger]

When the danger is to the largest Naval base in the world, TPTB cooperate. Should we be surprised? No. But Virginia is the future. What they are dealing with, all the coastal regions, densely populated with major urban areas, are going to have to deal with. The responsible civic entities are planning for the eventualities to come now.

SEA CHANGE
The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change
July 1, 2014
LINK: The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change – Quartz

TEXT: "The usual US partisan divisions over climate change were absent today in the state of Virginia, where Republican and Democratic officials met to discuss what to do about the threat of rising sea levels to the state. The proposals include the launch of a climate-change task force, which Virginia’s Democratic governor will announce tomorrow. Christina DeConcini, government affairs director at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, told Quartz this is the first time to her knowledge that Republican leaders (very few of whom accept global warming as both real and man-made) and Democratic ones have come together to craft a policy on global warming.

"That’s probably because Virginia is more vulnerable to storm-surge destruction than anywhere else on the US’s east coast. Problems are particularly acute in Norfolk, Virginia’s second-biggest city and home to the world’s largest naval base; sea levels there are now 14.5 inches (37 cm) higher than they were in 1930—so high that parts of Norfolk flood when the moon is full. Sea levels are rising faster there than anywhere else along the coast, due to the vagaries of ocean currents:

Sewells Point is a peninsula off Norfolk.(Natural Resources Defense Council)
“A severe Category 2 or a Category 3 storm—if we were to receive a direct hit, almost all of the city would be underwater,” Paul Fraim, Norfolk’s mayor, told National Public Radio in 2012.

"This doesn’t mean that high tide is lapping at Virginians’ front doors. The main danger comes when storms pummel the coasts with huge waves, which are amplified by tidal forces. Here’s an illustration of how high tides and storm surges, as they’re called, differ:

"As you can see in the chart below, huge storm surges are becoming more frequent. (Also not shown here is the 5.17 foot surge from Hurricane Sandy in 2012):

"Worse, scientists expect sea levels in southern Virginia to rise at least a foot (30 cm) and perhaps as much as three feet by 2060. Moreover, that’s only accounting for the sea-level rise. Factoring in subsidence—sinking land—Virginia’s tides could be eight feet higher by 2100 in some areas, according to a study by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, with about six of those feet from sea-level alone.

"This is a big problem for coastal Virginia given that the military, tourism and its ports generate a hefty share of the state’s economic output, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs. Homeowners and insurers, however, are likely to sustain the biggest blow. A three-foot rise in sea-levels would inundate the homes of between 59,000 and 176,000 Virginia residents, according to WRI.
"But these nightmare scenarios aren’t confined to Virginia alone; they’re very much a national-level threat. Coastal counties generate just under half of US GDP and support tens of millions of jobs. In the 18 states that abut the Atlantic, the insured value of residential and commercial property totals $10.6 trillion; New York and Florida account for $2.9 trillion apiece. Whether leaders in other states can put aside partisan differences and follow Virginia’s lead, however, is another question.

(Union of Concerned Scientists)​

 

[Tyger]

Scientists confirm that the Arctic could become a major new source of carbon emissions - April 8, 2015
LINK: Scientists confirm that the Arctic could become a major new source of carbon emissions - The Washington Post

TEXT: "Last week, I reported on a serious but little discussed threat to the climate system: As the frozen Arctic soil known as “permafrost” thaws, it could release a large amount of carbon — in the form of both carbon dioxide and methane — to the atmosphere. And this new source of greenhouse gas emissions could be large enough that it could substantially undermine attempts to cut down on emissions from fossil fuels.

"Now, a new overview of what we know about the permafrost carbon problem has just come out in Nature, written by a group of 17 experts on the matter. In other words, this is probably the most thorough scientific look at the issue yet. And the researchers, led by Edward Schuur of Northern Arizona University, basically confirm that we have a serious problem — if not necessarily a catastrophe — on our hands.

"The bottom line is that the permafrost carbon problem doesn’t look like it’s going to just go away as researchers better refine their estimates. Rather, it’s something that the world, and especially its leaders who are the ones making climate agreements, will have to deal with. “Initial estimates of greenhouse gas release point towards the potential for substantial emissions of carbon from permafrost in a warmer world, but these could still be underestimates,” the study notes.

"A much cited estimate from past literature is that northern permafrost contains 1,700 gigatons of carbon — a gigaton is a billion metric tons — which is a vast amount and around double what currently exists in the atmosphere. The new study goes back closely over past estimates in light of new evidence, and comes to a broadly consistent conclusion. It finds that there are between 1,330 and 1,580 gigatons of carbon in the top three meters of global permafrost soil, in what are called yedomas (permafrost with particularly high ice content), and in Arctic river deltas. And then on top of that, it says, there is a possible 400 additional gigatons in “deep terrestrial permafrost sediments” — not to mention a simply unknown amount in permafrost below the sea in shallow continental shelves, such as beneath the East Siberian Sea.

"Overall, it’s a troubling large amount of carbon — especially in light of numbers presented by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, suggesting that if we want to have a good chance of holding global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, we probably have only about 500 more gigatons of carbon in total that we can emit. “We’ve gone back with this whole synthesis effort, looked through all the data, and synthesized, and yeah, this problem is not going away,” says lead study author Schuur.

"Fortunately, the new study also finds that any sudden or catastrophic release of Arctic carbon stores is unlikely. Rather, the experts estimate that by 2100, somewhere between 5 and 15 percent of the 1,330-1,580 gigatons could be emitted. Ten percent of the total would equate to around 130 to 160 gigatons of carbon emitted this century — which is both good news and bad news at the same time.

"The good news is that the permafrost emissions are “unlikely to occur at a speed that could cause abrupt climate change over a period of a few years to a decade,” as the study puts it. The bad news, though, is that 160 gigatons, even though it’s less than we’re expected to emit from fossil fuels in coming decades, is still a large enough amount to really matter for the planet — especially given the relatively tight carbon budget that we have remaining. And it could, of course, be more. If you assume 15 percent of the carbon will be emitted in this century, for instance, then the range becomes about 200 to 237 gigatons. Moreover, the emissions don’t end at 2100 — they continue well into the next century.

"Much of the research that is synthesized in the new Nature paper has been conducted since the last official report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — whose climate projections didn’t include permafrost emissions. New models, perhaps, will — and accordingly, may spit out results suggesting that reducing our emissions enough to stave off the worst climate outcomes will be even harder than previously thought. “I think this highlights, there’s a big carbon cycle out there that we’re influencing, but we don’t control the whole thing,” says Schuur."​

 

[manxman]

When the danger is to the largest Naval base in the world, TPTB cooperate. Should we be surprised? No. But Virginia is the future. What they are dealing with, all the coastal regions, densely populated with major urban areas, are going to have to deal with. The responsible civic entities are planning for the eventualities to come now.

SEA CHANGE
The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change
LINK: The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change – Quartz

TEXT: "The usual US partisan divisions over climate change were absent today in the state of Virginia, where Republican and Democratic officials met to discuss what to do about the threat of rising sea levels to the state. The proposals include the launch of a climate-change task force, which Virginia’s Democratic governor will announce tomorrow. Christina DeConcini, government affairs director at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, told Quartz this is the first time to her knowledge that Republican leaders (very few of whom accept global warming as both real and man-made) and Democratic ones have come together to craft a policy on global warming.

"That’s probably because Virginia is more vulnerable to storm-surge destruction than anywhere else on the US’s east coast. Problems are particularly acute in Norfolk, Virginia’s second-biggest city and home to the world’s largest naval base; sea levels there are now 14.5 inches (37 cm) higher than they were in 1930—so high that parts of Norfolk flood when the moon is full. Sea levels are rising faster there than anywhere else along the coast, due to the vagaries of ocean currents:

Sewells Point is a peninsula off Norfolk.(Natural Resources Defense Council)
“A severe Category 2 or a Category 3 storm—if we were to receive a direct hit, almost all of the city would be underwater,” Paul Fraim, Norfolk’s mayor, told National Public Radio in 2012.

"This doesn’t mean that high tide is lapping at Virginians’ front doors. The main danger comes when storms pummel the coasts with huge waves, which are amplified by tidal forces. Here’s an illustration of how high tides and storm surges, as they’re called, differ:

"As you can see in the chart below, huge storm surges are becoming more frequent. (Also not shown here is the 5.17 foot surge from Hurricane Sandy in 2012):

"Worse, scientists expect sea levels in southern Virginia to rise at least a foot (30 cm) and perhaps as much as three feet by 2060. Moreover, that’s only accounting for the sea-level rise. Factoring in subsidence—sinking land—Virginia’s tides could be eight feet higher by 2100 in some areas, according to a study by Virginia Institute of Marine Science, with about six of those feet from sea-level alone.

"This is a big problem for coastal Virginia given that the military, tourism and its ports generate a hefty share of the state’s economic output, as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs. Homeowners and insurers, however, are likely to sustain the biggest blow. A three-foot rise in sea-levels would inundate the homes of between 59,000 and 176,000 Virginia residents, according to WRI.
"But these nightmare scenarios aren’t confined to Virginia alone; they’re very much a national-level threat. Coastal counties generate just under half of US GDP and support tens of millions of jobs. In the 18 states that abut the Atlantic, the insured value of residential and commercial property totals $10.6 trillion; New York and Florida account for $2.9 trillion apiece. Whether leaders in other states can put aside partisan differences and follow Virginia’s lead, however, is another question.

(Union of Concerned Scientists)​

The article is old pure nonsense.


This is the bang up to date science, volcanic vents, totally naturally, unless the very promoters of climate change are liars, NASA.


'Warm Blob' in Pacific Ocean to Blame for Wonky US Weather
by Tia Ghose, Staff Writer | April 10, 2015 07:52am ET

According to yesterday's Washington Post, there is a gigantic warm blob in the Pacific Ocean that is fueling California's four-year-long drought, and it has nothing to do with global warming. Two new studies released this week in the journal "Geophysical Research Letters", explain how this large expanse of warm ocean water is affecting California's weather as well as the East Coast's past two brutal winters.

In the first study, Nick Bond, Washington's state climatologist, believes the blob, a.k.a. the "warm anomaly," is behind California's ongoing warm and dry winters. Discovered in the fall of 2013, the warm anomaly is roughly 1,000 miles wide and about 300 feet deep, and according to Bond, is about 3°C (5°F) warmer than is typical for that area of the Pacific ocean. When viewed on a map showing ocean water temperatures, "the great circular mass does indeed look like a blob."

Bond and his researchers believe the anomaly was created when a high-pressure air system got stuck over the circular blob's current location, allowing the ocean water to stay calmer and warmer. This in turn allowed the air above this system to carry heat instead of the typical rain and snow as it worked its way toward land, leading to California's multi-year drought.

"The West Coast’s high temperatures and dire drought, which has led to mandatory water restrictions in California, are likely attributable to this phenomenon," the researchers said. "These new studies also confirm the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) March report, which said "that West Coast waters are becoming less biologically productive as they become warmer. The report attributed the strandings of nearly 1,500 starving sea lion pups, the decline in copepods (tiny crustaceans that support the base of the food chain) and other environmental shifts to the expanding blob." NOAA also put most of the blame on California's drought on natural variables and not climate change.

NOT CLIMATE CHANGE MEANS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE I THINK
JUST MORE OLD TIRED JUNK SPAM, THAT YOU HAVE POSTED A DOZEN TIMES ALREADY.




In the second study, headed by Dennis Hartmann, they found that the "warming waters of the northeast Pacific are tied to an anomaly in water temperatures thousands of miles away, roughly where the International Date Line and the equator intersect in the Tropics." Surface waters in this location are much warmer than normal and are heating the air above them, which eventually reaches the West Coast. Hartmann likens it to "throwing a rock into a pond...the wave eventually makes its way to the other side."

And while the warm waters create a unyielding high pressure system off the West Coast, they cause "cold, wet, low-pressure air in the central and eastern U.S., leading to heavy snowfall and bitterly cold winters." According to the historical record, unusual ocean warming in the Tropics has occurred before, and Hartmann admits, "it could be just another natural variation in ocean and atmosphere temperatures, similar to the El Niño-La Niña cycle."

Bond also said in the same joint release that "although the blob does not seem to be caused by climate change, it has many of the same effects for West Coast weather."

The blob also has all the characteristics of another less-known phenomena termed megaplumes: massive underwater vents that spew out vast amounts of heat, which in turn warm the waters above. According to geologist James Kamis, “An ongoing very large megaplume is responsible for generating a cell of unusually warm seawater that extends across a vast region of the Pacific Ocean, including much of North America’s west coast. This sub-sea volcanically induced giant warmed cell is acting to alter normal California climate patterns and inducing a long term draught.

Even Discover Magazine noted the importance of a megaplume's influence on ocean waters, writing "Megaplumes stir up huge amounts of ocean, carrying minerals and gases and heat almost to the sea’s surface. Vertical mixing doesn’t happen easily in the ocean. Cool, dense water tends to stay near the bottom and warmer buoyant water near the top." David Butterfield, a chemist at the the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, told Discover Magazine that, "They could be doing things to the energy of the ocean that we don’t even know about."

Scientists first discovered megaplumes in 1986 when they identified a large cell of unusually hot and chemically charged seawater off the coast of Washington state. Baker et al discovered this phenomenon near the Juan de Fuca Ridge, and it was the first cataclysmic hydrothermal vent or megaplume."

NOAA even developed an entire group, the VENTS Program, to research hydrothermal vents. "As research by the VENTS and other groups progressed, even larger megaplumes were identified," writes Kamis. These include "megaplumes discovered in the Indian and Atlantic oceans," which were immense: 44 miles by 20 miles by 5,000 feet tall. "Calculations of total energy released per megaplume were so astounding, researchers concluded, that megaplumes could "'significantly effect ocean dynamics.'"

Kamis found that "scientists were beginning to get a handle on the effect that geological forces have on the ocean, and as a result, the climate. Then it happened: Atmospherically trained climate scientists proposed the theory of man-made global warming. Seemingly overnight, these scientists had waylaid further investigation into the megaplumes’ effect on the climate."

"Credible evidence increasingly supports the theory of plate climatology, which states that geological forces influence El Niños, Arctic sea ice melt patterns, hydrothermal methane and CO2 emission rates, deep-ocean currents, coral reef bleaching, plankton blooms, mega-droughts, and so on."

"The discovery of geologically induced megaplumes played an important historical role in the evolution of climate science." Kamis adds. "To the satisfaction of field geologists, that notion is currently experiencing a resurrection."

 

[manxman]

NOAA report on California drought stirs controversy among climate change experts

A new report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asserts that California's recent drought is the result of natural variations and not due to global warming. The results were summarized by the report's lead authors at a special news conference held today and almost immediately generated a firestorm of criticism among some of the world's climate experts, including notables such as Michael Mann and Joe Romm.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The authors of the report - Richard Seager, lead author & professor at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and Marty Hoerling, co-author & researcher at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory - said that their research shows that California's recent drought is driven primarily by natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns. These include a high pressure ridge off the West Coast that has blocked wet season storms and ocean surface temperature patterns that made the ridge more likely. Global warming was not the cause; indeed, they asserted that the most recent global warming models, including those used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC report, suggest that California should have experienced increased precipitation instead of a drought.

California's drought is extremely important to California residents, particularly those in Bakersfield and the San Joaquin Valley, whose economic prosperity is significantly tied to agriculture and the availability of water.

In a NOAA article accompanying the report, Seagar said, "It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state. In fact, multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again. Thus, preparedness is key."

 

[Tyger]

I do have a friend who does a lot of weather-watching-cum-cosmic-observation as a sideline. He's learned never to predict the weather, but he recently went out on a limb to say that 2016 is going to see a deluge of rain in California - Noah's Flood. More rain than we will be able to handle. Hope he's right - but, of course, too much is not good, either (our ground does not have the big-root trees to hold the earth in place - in SoCal). If it happens, just one more example of how squirrely things have become. Don't know if it will happen. Interesting prediction. 'Twill see.

Startling before and after pictures of California's drought

TEXT: "Published on Apr 1, 2015: Before and after photos show us the severity of California's drought."

 

[pixelsmith]

WTF? Not you again.

 

[boomerang]

SEA CHANGE
The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change
LINK: The ocean is swallowing up Virginia so rapidly that its leaders are forgetting to bicker about climate change – Quartz

TEXT: "The usual US partisan divisions over climate change were absent today in the state of Virginia, where Republican and Democratic officials met to discuss what to do about the threat of rising sea levels to the state. The proposals include the launch of a climate-change task force, which Virginia’s Democratic governor will announce tomorrow. Christina DeConcini, government affairs director at the World Resources Institute, a research organization, told Quartz this is the first time to her knowledge that Republican leaders (very few of whom accept global warming as both real and man-made) and Democratic ones have come together to craft a policy on global warming.
​

Ha ! Wish I were a talented cartoonist. I'm picturing our esteemed legislators oblivious and waist deep in water while arguing their usual partisan nonsense on this issue.

 

[manxman]

As if they could do anything about it, its laughable, Obarma going to declare war on tectonic shift.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The authors of the report - Richard Seager, lead author & professor at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and Marty Hoerling, co-author & researcher at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory - said that their research shows that California's recent drought is driven primarily by natural oceanic and atmospheric patterns. These include a high pressure ridge off the West Coast that has blocked wet season storms and ocean surface temperature patterns that made the ridge more likely. Global warming was not the cause; indeed, they asserted that the most recent global warming models, including those used in the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC report, suggest that California should have experienced increased precipitation instead of a drought.

 

[boomerang]

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.



@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)



@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."​

It' hard to tell when Laughlin is looking human nature and predictable behavior straight in the face, and when he is simply applying a a kind of sociological Ockham's razor to the business of predicting earth's energy future by assuming we will take the path of least resistance. He seems to go out of his way to treat wishful thinking like the plague. Hence, I think, his seeming acceptance that mankind will choose to deal with the concrete consequences of global warming (by doing things such as moving cities inland or changing agricultural practices) rather than by a coordinated scheme to reduce carbon emissions. I will certainly leave the workability of the latter to better minds.

He does indeed seem to underrate the utility of wind and solar energy. Or perhaps that's just my impression. What he does not overrate (I think) is the innate utility of hydrocarbons. Some things are of fixed value in nature. Hydrocarbon fuel is one of them. All electric jet liners are probably not in our future. Likewise, wishful factions of society have long promoted a vision in which personal transportation will be rendered obsolete by virtue of cost and lack of demand. I applaud Laughlin for having the courage to point out that personal transportation is, in most contexts of the world's infrastructure, simply superior to mass transportation. Whether the future can afford automobiles for the masses or not. No--this doesn't mean you should take your Toyota to NYC or Boston. But personal transportation usually lends a degree of personal freedom that no bus or high speed rail can match.

I thought the most questionable and salient part of Laughlin's lecture was his near certainty that we will rely heavily on fission reactors in a post-petroleum world. It had never occurred to me that uranium, like petroleum, is a finite resource which must eventually be supplanted by something else. What I do know is that humans will tolerate very high levels of risk and even environmental damage from fission before throwing in the towel to return to a world of candles and horse drawn plows. Let's hope wind and solar continue to make inroads suggested by the recent proliferation of both.

 

[Tyger]

It' hard to tell when Laughlin is looking human nature and predictable behavior straight in the face, and when he is simply applying a a kind of sociological Ockham's razor to the business of predicting earth's energy future by assuming we will take the path of least resistance. He seems to go out of his way to treat wishful thinking like the plague. Hence, I think, his seeming acceptance that mankind will choose to deal with the concrete consequences of global warming (by doing things such as moving cities inland or changing agricultural practices) rather than by a coordinated scheme to reduce carbon emissions. I will certainly leave the workability of the latter to better minds.

In this aspect I think he has a point. We do have indications that we are rolling back some of the man-made carbon, but it's too-little-too-late, and in too narrow of an area imo. I think we're pretty well set on our trajectory. We're 'cooked' one way or another.

He does indeed seem to underrate the utility of wind and solar energy. Or perhaps that's just my impression. What he does not overrate (I think) is the innate utility of hydrocarbons. Some things are of fixed value in nature. Hydrocarbon fuel is one of them. All electric jet liners are probably not in our future. Likewise, wishful factions of society have long promoted a vision in which personal transportation will be rendered obsolete by virtue of cost and lack of demand. I applaud Laughlin for having the courage to point out that personal transportation is, in most contexts of the world's infrastructure, simply superior to mass transportation. Whether the future can afford automobiles for the masses or not. No--this doesn't mean you should take your Toyota to NYC or Boston. But personal transportation usually lends a degree of personal freedom that no bus or high speed rail can match.

Agree overall, especially for the current generations - but that could change - especially under extraordinary duress. which I think is very possible. I am a strong believer that at least certain sectors of the world populace will convert to new energy sources, ushering in a new kind of civilization, but I do not hold out much hope for the world as a whole. I think we're locked in to a hotter world which we will just have to deal with.

I thought the most questionable and salient part of Laughlin's lecture was his near certainty that we will rely heavily on fission reactors in a post-petroleum world. It had never occurred to me that uranium, like petroleum, is a finite resource which must eventually be supplanted by something else. What I do know is that humans will tolerate very high levels of risk and even environmental damage from fission before throwing in the towel to return to a world of candles and horse drawn plows. Let's hope wind and solar continue to make inroads suggested by the recent proliferation of both.

Yet the reactors are being shut down as we speak. After Fukushima, there has been a serious dance-backwards from nuclear.

 

[manxman]

It' hard to tell when Laughlin is looking human nature and predictable behavior straight in the face, and when he is simply applying a a kind of sociological Ockham's razor to the business of predicting earth's energy future by assuming we will take the path of least resistance. He seems to go out of his way to treat wishful thinking like the plague. Hence, I think, his seeming acceptance that mankind will choose to deal with the concrete consequences of global warming (by doing things such as moving cities inland or changing agricultural practices) rather than by a coordinated scheme to reduce carbon emissions. I will certainly leave the workability of the latter to better minds.

He does indeed seem to underrate the utility of wind and solar energy. Or perhaps that's just my impression. What he does not overrate (I think) is the innate utility of hydrocarbons. Some things are of fixed value in nature. Hydrocarbon fuel is one of them. All electric jet liners are probably not in our future. Likewise, wishful factions of society have long promoted a vision in which personal transportation will be rendered obsolete by virtue of cost and lack of demand. I applaud Laughlin for having the courage to point out that personal transportation is, in most contexts of the world's infrastructure, simply superior to mass transportation. Whether the future can afford automobiles for the masses or not. No--this doesn't mean you should take your Toyota to NYC or Boston. But personal transportation usually lends a degree of personal freedom that no bus or high speed rail can match.

I thought the most questionable and salient part of Laughlin's lecture was his near certainty that we will rely heavily on fission reactors in a post-petroleum world. It had never occurred to me that uranium, like petroleum, is a finite resource which must eventually be supplanted by something else. What I do know is that humans will tolerate very high levels of risk and even environmental damage from fission before throwing in the towel to return to a world of candles and horse drawn plows. Let's hope wind and solar continue to make inroads suggested by the recent proliferation of both.

I like your common sense.

Tyger put a new thread up about gadgets or something, i think you will find several side stories/links on the page promoted there.
Those 300 mph trains are the future, airliners that run on rails, graphine will revolutionise rail transport, and also public 'pod' transport, public but for single/small group, and straight A to B service, its not future tech its real now, and in use every day.
A whole train uses half the fuel in generating the electric than an airliner uses per mile.

 

[Tyger]

Thom Hartmann on Science & Green News: February 16, 2015

TEXT: "Published on Feb 17, 2015: Thom Hartmann brings you science and green news for the week of February 16, 2015."

 

[Tyger]

Hard to know where to post these as they are both illuminating the political situation local communities in various locales are finding themselves confronting - so rightly on the Political thread - but this also is describing life under warming.....

One Small Town's Fight to Survive Climate Change...

TEXT: "Published on Oct 23, 2014: Thom Hartmann talks with Walter Harris, Commissioner & Vice Mayor-South Miami, FL, Website: South Miami, FL - Official Website whose city commission has voted to secede from the state of Florida in order to be in control of how climate change is affecting their city."

 

[Tyger]

I believe that we need to proceed 'as if ' we can have an impact, but the more I study this the less I am sure we have the global will to stop burning fossil fuels until it becomes screechingly obvious - and by then it will be too late, of course. It's a matter of human nature - as anyone can see who is reading these threads. In the end those areas that invest in alternate energy will be ahead of the game and in the future will be able to help the laggards out. But in that, one can do the math to understand who the losers and winners will be.

Why Faster Melting Glaciers Should Worry You

TEXT: "Published on Nov 28, 2014: The latest episode of Thom Hartmann's documentary series, Green World Rising: Why Faster Melting Glaciers Should Worry You."

 

[Tyger]

Dear Readers of this Thread - It has been brought to my attention that manxman is spamming the thread. Just so you know, I am aware of that. While I cannot see his content, I do see - occasionally - that he has posted something. I don't see what he has posted, of course, since he is on ignore. That's fine with me, though I do understand that it is clogging the thread up. (It's called spamming - the intent is to clog up the thread - a thread I started).

BTW - I started the thread at the request of certain posters on this site to see if manxman would follow me over to this new thread. Manxman was spamming another thread I had started, and it was suggested that I move on to another thread. I did so - and now manxman is here. He is clearly stalking me across the board, and has now given proof. (As is pixel). What the game is I don't quite 'get' - it may be just a 'bit of fun' - but what is clear is that pixel (in particular) has been successful in shutting down every global warming thread that has ever been started on this forum. Any poster who dares profess an alignment with global warming science risks having to deal with what I am dealing with. So everyone has gone silent - except me - so what you see is what is getting delivered. Pretty sad, except that in RL actual smack-down of pov's does happen, and is happening. Sobering.

However, manxman appears to be doing something a bit more nasty and subversive at this point. I have been told he has placed into his signature some text he is purporting to be mine. The text has been quoted to me and my response is pure disbelief. Anyone familiar with my writing style will recognize that I could not have written the quoted text. He is also ascribing text to me that says preposterous things about my personal life at a time when I wasn't even here on the chat site. The problems with what he is quoting are legion. But you already see that. It is also noteworthy that the line-of-attack with me - as with all the global warming science/scientists - tends to be 'sexual' and personal, rather than on the content. Name calling seems to be the best they can come up with rather than well-reasoned succinct arguments.

Anyway, until moderators put an end to manxman, I would suggest that posters put him on ignore so that the thread can be read without the spam. As for the rest - and that includes pixel (also on ignore) - my view is that we are looking at seriously obsessed and (potentially) unhealthy people. I know of no one in RL who could behave the way they are and not meet with consequences.

I appreciate the pm's but my interest is in posting the reading I find. I have no interest in engaging the spammers.

To state once again: this thread is not debating climate change. there are innumerable threads for that. This thread is about the world under climate change as a fact, beyond dispute.

 

[Tyger]

A very striking summation of the current science and how it's playing out in Real Time. Significant is the predictions from a decade ago regarding the displacement of the Jet Stream with the reduction of the Arctic ice cap. Seems to be taking place. If the cause-and-effect is correctly aligned, the on-going consequences are clear. In all of this, the observation of scientists (in this instance Mann) is that "climate change is unfolding [...] in a way that's faster and has a greater magnitude than what the climate models actually have predicted [even just a few years ago]."

Mounting Evidence Has Republican Climate Change Deniers on Thin Ice for 2016

TEXT: "Uploaded on Mar 31, 2015: Subhankar Banerjee and Michael E. Mann reveal a mounting body of evidence that disruptions in the Arctic sea ice are impacting not only the Northern Hemisphere but are also connected to what is happening to the water supply in California."

TEXT: "Michael, recently we've seen some very dramatic reports in terms of the degree at which the ice caps are melting. How do we know that? How do we measure it? How do we know the ice caps are melting to the degree that it is?

"DR. MICHAEL E. MANN, DIR. OF EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, PENN STATE UNIV.: We have a variety of measurements that we make. We use satellites primarily. We can use those satellites to measure the amount of mass that is actually contained within the ice sheets. So we can detect fairly small changes in how large the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet are through these satellite measurements. They're basically measuring the gravity, the disturbance of the gravity field by these very large masses of ice.

"In addition, we can monitor changes in the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean. We use satellite measurements. We can look at the surface and we can determine if it's ice or if it's open water.

"We have very accurate assessments, for several decades now, of how much sea ice there is in the Arctic. We know that we are on a trajectory right now where we will see potentially ice-free conditions at the end of the summer in the Arctic Ocean, perhaps in just a matter of a few decades, far in advance of what the climate models had predicted just a few years ago. So here's an example of where climate change is unfolding, and in a way that's faster and has a greater magnitude than what the climate models actually have predicted.

"It turns out that when you change the amount of sea ice in the Arctic, you change the amount of heat that escapes from the Arctic Ocean into that very cold Arctic atmosphere. More than a decade ago, scientists began to speculate that as we saw a decrease in that sea ice in the Arctic, we would actually see a large enough change in the amount of heat that escapes from the ocean into the atmosphere in the late fall and the early winter that we would actually change the behavior of the jet stream. Not only would we change the behavior of the jet stream, but we would do it in a fairly specific way, in a way that causes the jet stream to swing way northward in the winter over the West Coast of the U.S., so that all of that moisture that normally comes to California in the winter instead goes northward. It also takes all that warmth much farther the northward. So you get unusually warm winters in Alaska, in western North America, like we've seen this year in particular. You see very dry winters in California. California also had its hottest year on record last year.

"So you've got decreased precipitation, you've got increased warmth, which means increased evaporation, which means increased loss of water from the soils, and you get a perfect storm of consequences for drought. And that is why California has now experienced what we think is the worst drought in 1,200 years, in at least 1,200 years. There is almost certainly a human fingerprint in that drought. And my colleague Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, and I had a commentary a week ago in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences where we explained how there is now mounting evidence that this historic drought that we're seeing in California had a human fingerprint in it, the fingerprint of human-caused climate change.

"But it doesn't stop there. You change the pattern of the jet stream in a way that may, ironically, give us more of those very powerful nor'easters that have pounded the Northeastern U.S. this winter, giving Boston record snow, producing fairly cold conditions in parts of the Northeastern U.S. So, that entire change in the behavior of the northern hemisphere jetstream and the very strange weather that we're seeing around North America and around much of the rest of the world, climate change is now starting to play a role in that very unusual--in some measure, unprecedented--extreme weather that we're seeing.

"PERIES: Michael, what is your take on the recent report we saw in terms of California having one year of water supply left?

"MANN: That's right. It was a very distinguished colleague of mine, Jay Famiglietti, from the University of California, Irvine, who published an op-ed in the L.A. Times where he outlined why it is that California may be just one year away from water rationing.

"And when you think about it, right now California has record low snowpack, the lowest snowpack ever on record. So that means they're not going to be getting that meltwater in the spring that provides them with some of the fresh water that they need. They haven't been getting the rainfall they need. And you have certain special interests, like the natural gas industry, through fracking, using up a fair amount of water for energy. And so you have all these factors coming together in a way that could spell a disaster for California. If you ask Californians if climate change is real, not only is it real; it is impacting them in their daily lives now. And that's true over an increasingly large part of the world.

"PERIES: Subhankar, you're a scholar of the Arctic and you've been monitoring and looking at the implications of the melting ice caps for quite a bit, for quite a long time. Tell us what your observations are.

SUBHANKAR BANERJEE, EDITOR, ARCTIC VOICES: RESISTANCE AT THE TIPPING POINT: I started my work in the Alaskan Arctic in 2001. Just to briefly summarize what Michael just talked about is why it is so significant, because when I started the work, we were beginning to see the impact of climate change on the Arctic ecology and human communities way back then. And I'll give couple of quick examples. But what we're seeing now: that what happens in the Arctic is impacting not only the Arctic but really kind of the northern hemisphere at large, and possibly many parts of the globe as well. So that's why Michael's comments were that these were all connected, what's happening in the Arctic, to what's happening in California, in the Northeast, and so on.

"One of the things with the melting of the Arctic sea ice - you mentioned Arctic ice cap, which is the Greenland ice sheet, and then we have the sea ice - has hit a record winter maximum low. Usually the summer low is more significant, but the winter maximum is also low.

"That means that the Arctic sea ice is on a death spiral. That's having significant impact on both the Arctic ecology and the human communities. It is widely known that the polar bears are suffering. The 40 percent of the polar bear population in the southern Beaufort Sea in Arctic Alaska and Arctic Canada declined between 2001 and 2010. The walrus populations in the Chukchi Sea is really suffering. Six out of the last eight years, tens of thousands of walruses hauled out onto the barrier islands and the tundra because there was no sea ice for them to rest on. And there are many other impacts of the local ecology, the marine ecology.

"What is not understood is that what's happening in the Arctic Ocean is also impacting the land animals. In fact, I'll give you one really kind of a sad example of that. In 2001, I had photographed 13 muskox, these kind of woolie, prehistoric animals from the Pleistocene era, and they're in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with a newborn calf in April. Today there is no muskox in the refuge. One of the impact is this icing on the tundra in the winter because of increased precipitation and warmer weather. Instead of snow, you're getting rain, and that becomes ice. That then impacts the animals' access to food sources. That's impacted the muskox in part. So climate change kind of took a toll on the Arctic refuge muskox.

"Right now, in the Norwegian Arctic, in the Svalbard Archipelago, in the reporting of this winter lowest record on the winter maximum sea ice extent, the Guardian journalist did a wonderful connection between the open water in the Arctic seas, but ice on the tundra of the Svalbard, which is impacting the same way the reindeer population did, that really struck me, because when it's ice, they cannot break the ice through their hooves.

"Then you have the human communities. What's happening--and I know this from first-hand experience from Arctic Alaska, that many human communities, indigenous communities, are now being forced to relocate. One example is, of course, Kivalina. Because of the reduced sea ice extent, you have more open water, more coastal erosion, combined with storms, as well as melting of the permafrost. These are all connected, happening.

"Let me just wrap this up by saying that what the melting, this rapid vanishing of the Arctic sea ice has opened up in my mind is perhaps the most significant contradiction of our time. And the contradiction is this. On one hand, the Arctic sea ice is melting rapidly, causing local, regional, as well as global impacts for human communities, as well as animal communities. At the same time, there is an incredible push to industrially exploit the Arctic seas for oil and gas. In fact, right now this month, the Obama administration is poised to give shale the kind of--one of the permits, and this will continue all through April, and Shell might, if they get all the permits from the Obama administration, will likely drill there. So it's really--I see that as the greatest contradiction of our time. On one hand, the very thing that is destroying us, not only up there but all over, we are further destroying it by sending Shell and other oil companies to drill in the Arctic Ocean."

​

 

[boomerang]

Statistics for percentage of electrical power consumption produced by wind show much room for improvement. But are still quite encouraging.

American wind power reaches major power generation milestones in 2013

 

[pixelsmith]

Michael Mann is a crook. His "science" is fraudulent and the sooner Mann and other climate cronies face criminal prosecutions the better! Tyger continues to promote this fraudulent science and should be ashamed.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Stop it here! Saying a person is a "crook" means you are accusing them of engaging illegal activities. Whether or not you believe in their evidence doesn't make a person a crook. If there is evidence someone was charged and convicted of a crime, that's another thing. Otherwise, stop it!

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I looked up Dr. Mann's Wikipedia biography to get a background on the claims that he may have falsified data:

Here are the relevant passages:

CRU email controversy[edit]
In November 2009, hackers obtained a large number of emails exchanged among researchers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and with other scientists, including Mann. The release of their correspondence on the Internet sparked the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, in which extracts from emails were publicized to raise accusations against the scientists. A series of investigations cleared the scientists of wrongdoing. It was found that their critics, who made unsupported accusations of falsification and manipulation or destruction of data, were commonly mistaken about the scientific issues.

Mann was specifically cleared by several inquiries. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and his research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[37][38] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) gave detailed consideration to petitions with allegations against Mann from lobbyists including the Southeastern Legal Foundation, the State of Texas, Peabody Energy, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and the Ohio Coal Association: the EPA found their claims were not supported by the evidence.[35][39] At the request of Senator Jim Inhofe, who has called the science of man-made climate change a hoax, the Inspector General of the United States Department of Commerce investigated the emails in relation to NOAA, and concluded that there was no evidence of manipulation of data.[36][40] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation also carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on August 15, 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.