[peeb]

500 scientists who don’t believe in global warming... It turns out some of them did not know they were on the list...

45 Scientists Dump Global Warming Deniers in 24 Hours : Environmental News Blog | Environmental Graffiti

I am horrified to find my name on such a list. I have spent the last 20 years arguing the opposite.”
Dr. David Sugden. Professor of Geography, University of Edinburgh
I have NO doubts ..the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there.”
Dr. Gregory Cutter, Professor, Department of Ocean, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Old Dominion University
I don’t believe any of my work can be used to support any of the statements listed in the article.”
Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford

[Macrobat]

I see your copy/paste and raise you one:

Bloomberg.com: News

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

I see your copy/paste and raise you one:

Bloomberg.com: News

Interesting. More support for the existence of climate change.
"Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. "Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.''

The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature.

"If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,'' Keenlyside said in an interview. "There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''

[Big Mac]

It's climate chaos now, huh? When they abandoned the emphasis on warming they implicitly admitted their arguments were bunk, IMO. The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles. That doesn't mean we shouldn't care about pollution or reckless use of resources, but the ones advocating panic over natural temperature fluctuations have some ulterior motive for doing so.

[Macrobat]

BTW, there is no such thing as a "Climate Change Denier," except in talking points. The only thing in contention is the cause of climate change.


Yeah, it's not meeting their models, so the current "wisdom" is "wait until 2018!"

[tie]

And is this a surprise? Over in the other thread, we had ebuddy trumpeting another list of scientists and publications that disputed climate change, or at least the human role in climate change. It turned out that the list had been compiled by the same guy who had been paid by tobacco companies to deny links between smoking and cancer. ebuddy of course never saw any problem with this.

Generally, the intellectual standard of people arguing against climate change is so low that any real debate is lost in the noise.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

It's climate chaos now, huh?

No.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

When they abandoned the emphasis on warming they implicitly admitted their arguments were bunk, IMO.

The mean temperature of the planet is increasing. "Global warming" is a misnomer because microclimates are affected differently by the rise in mean temperature. People who don't understand the basic mechanics (you, for example) wrongfully assume that because some parts are getting colder, that it means the entire theory behind global climate change is invalidated somehow.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling cycles.

Yes, and those trends are being adversely affected by human actions.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

BTW, there is no such thing as a "Climate Change Denier," except in talking points. The only thing in contention is the cause of climate change.

Is this true? It certainly wasn't true a couple years ago. All sorts of people were denying climate change. That's great progress! Maybe a couple years from now the few remaining skeptics will be totally convinced.

However, I don't think you're right. Look in the other very long thread, and probably fifty or sixty times Buckaroo has posted an article about an unusually large snowstorm, claiming that this proves global warming is false. He certainly is a "climate change denier," so there is at least one of them.

Yeah, it's not meeting their models, so the current "wisdom" is "wait until 2018!"

I heard from my friend in the business (spacefreak) that the current wisdom is "wait until 2028!" I think your gossip is out of date, because spacefreak is the most reliable source around (he knew all about the Iraqi WMDs, for example, and some/most/all of his inside info still hasn't been made public).

[peeb]

I think the 'current wisdom' is that the effects of climate change are with us now.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

People with baked brains?


Yup.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

And is this a surprise? Over in the other thread, we had ebuddy trumpeting another list of scientists and publications that disputed climate change, or at least the human role in climate change. It turned out that the list had been compiled by the same guy who had been paid by tobacco companies to deny links between smoking and cancer. ebuddy of course never saw any problem with this.

I didn't trumpet anything. The articles in that link were perfectly legitimate. You weren't able to take issue with the articles so you found it more convenient to take issue with the compiler. Funny thing was you couldn't even work-around your own logic when I suggested that we should then happily disregard all evidence presented by the questionable Al Gore.

Generally, the intellectual standard of people arguing against climate change is so low that any real debate is lost in the noise.

No winkee face?

[Helmling]

People, what world are you all living in? Can you honestly look at a world where fishstocks are dropping off dramatically, where deserts are spreading, where islands are disappearing into the sea (yes, it's f'ing happening, ask the Tuvaluans), and where food riots are already beginning and argue that there's no climate crisis.

People, you need to pull your axes off the grindstone. These are real problems that will, unless we act quickly and decisively to change our lifestyles and help the rest of the world do the same, define the lives of our grandchildren.

This is our wake up call, and our chance to do right by our posterity.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Repent Ye Sinners!

Fire and brimstone! Gloom and Doom!


Future generations -you, know, those living in the world that HASN'T ENDED, and wasn't ever in need of saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavi ng by a bunch of weenies, will look back at some of you sheeple as the most annoying bunch of religious lunatics the planet has ever seen. They'll have the same laughs at the majority of your propaganda and "climate chaos!!!!" crap as people now looking back on things like "Reefer Madness" do now, and wonder to themselves, "Wow, was anyone really ever that gullible?"

Yup.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I didn't trumpet anything. The articles in that link were perfectly legitimate. You weren't able to take issue with the articles so you found it more convenient to take issue with the compiler. Funny thing was you couldn't even work-around your own logic when I suggested that we should then happily disregard all evidence presented by the questionable Al Gore.

Actually, no, they weren't. They were not credible evidence at all, and your willingness to count such a clearly biased and incompetent source really destroyed your own credibility. I don't care about arguing whether smoking causes cancer or not, and wouldn't give two cents to a "scientist" who claimed that there was no link between the two. You trumpeted the article and completely disregarded the source.

It is news to me that Al Gore is a scientist, I'll have to look into that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

Actually, no, they weren't. They were not credible evidence at all, and your willingness to count such a clearly biased and incompetent source really destroyed your own credibility. I don't care about arguing whether smoking causes cancer or not, and wouldn't give two cents to a "scientist" who claimed that there was no link between the two. You trumpeted the article and completely disregarded the source.

It is news to me that Al Gore is a scientist, I'll have to look into that.

Yep, this is pretty much where we left off. I trumpeted the article tie. You win. Global warming will destroy us all and it was your well-reasoned, informed, unbiased, and fair-natured analysis of the issue that convinced me.

night-night now k?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Repent Ye Sinners!

Fire and brimstone! Gloom and Doom!


Future generations -you, know, those living in the world that HASN'T ENDED, and wasn't ever in need of saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaavi ng by a bunch of weenies, will look back at some of you sheeple as the most annoying bunch of religious lunatics the planet has ever seen. They'll have the same laughs at the majority of your propaganda and "climate chaos!!!!" crap as people now looking back on things like "Reefer Madness" do now, and wonder to themselves, "Wow, was anyone really ever that gullible?"

Yup.

The problem of course is that many of these evangelists will not be able to show a smaller footprint than you nor can they tell you exactly what it is they'd like you to do. Obviously, there's nothing damnable about caring for one's environment and certainly I appreciate being a good steward of the planet, but It's not about substance or action, it's about symbolism and activism. it is fashionable hype that grips their reason and it might take 10 solid years of evidence of cooling for natural climate change deniers to be convinced that the climate changes in more than one direction. I often wish their concerns were more for global climate and less for political climate.

[ghporter]

We obviously have at least short-term climate change. It's STILL snowing in the Dakotas, and it's going to break 90 here in Texas. Again. Weather patterns are very different from historical storm records, areas with "stable" precipitation (as far apart as Maine and Arizona) are experiencing extremes that were never imagined. Yep. CHANGE is upon us.

I can have an open mind about "global warming" being the driver behind this. It could be. Or the trend could be part of a very long term weather pattern that we don't have enough historical data to see. But one thing that is completely certain is that man-made pollution isn't helping at all. Could it be that we're accelerating a 10,000 year (or longer) upswing in temperatures, of the same magnitude as the "little ice age" of the Middle Ages?

Cutting down on pollution-EVERYBODY'S POLLUTION-is a Good Thing. It can't hurt, WILL help locales be healthier, and might even make this global problem less of a problem.

So why are we arguing about the cause when we can do something productive now-whether it has a controlling affect or just an ameliorative affect?

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

People, what world are you all living in? Can you honestly look at a world where fishstocks are dropping off dramatically, where deserts are spreading, where islands are disappearing into the sea (yes, it's f'ing happening, ask the Tuvaluans), and where food riots are already beginning and argue that there's no climate crisis.

People, you need to pull your axes off the grindstone. These are real problems that will, unless we act quickly and decisively to change our lifestyles and help the rest of the world do the same, define the lives of our grandchildren.

This is our wake up call, and our chance to do right by our posterity.

I think you're the one who needs to get your axe off the grindstone.

Fish stocks are lowering because of overfishing and pollution. This has been a known problem for pretty much hundreds of years and is far from a new thing.

Deserts are spreading because of poorly managed human land-use. We re-route natural waterways and reshape the land we want for our own needs. The land we don't want suffers because of it. Again, this has been a known problem for a long time.

As for Tuvalu, yes the sea levels are rising. At a rate of less than 2 mm per year. Yes, flooding in Tuvalu has been worse recently then in the past. And yes, this probably has a lot more to do with land erosion due to poor land management and hurricanes than anything else.

Whether anthropogenic global climate change is a significant phenomenon or not, it has little if anything to do with the particular issues you just pointed out.

[Macrobat]

Um ghporter, the Middle Ages was a warming period, the Little Ice Age ended not too long after the US Revolutionary War.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The problem of course is that many of these evangelists will not be able to show a smaller footprint than you nor can they tell you exactly what it is they'd like you to do.

That's exactly the problem I have with most of them. They're the same annoying breed as people standing on street corners, holding up obnoxious signs, screaming at people to repent or face chaos and doom with absolutely no logical thought in their pea brains that many of the people they're yelling at probably lead just as "sin-free" or even moreso lives than they do, and don't really feel the need to be yelled at by some self-righteous moron.

You're absolutely right- the problem I have is that most of this from the eco-weenie crowd has devolved into symbolism and activism without a shred of substance behind it- and along with it, the doomsday rhetoric gets even more shrill. Most don't even have the ability to realize that preaching the end of the world unless people 'repent' is the oldest tactic in the book, and only ends up with you looking like a complete moron by future generations living in the wold that hasn't ended.

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yep, this is pretty much where we left off. I trumpeted the article tie. You win. Global warming will destroy us all and it was your well-reasoned, informed, unbiased, and fair-natured analysis of the issue that convinced me.

night-night now k?

No, you still haven't admitted that smoking causes cancer. But I'll leave you to your fantasies. Nighty-night now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by tie 

No, you still haven't admitted that smoking causes cancer. But I'll leave you to your fantasies. Nighty-night now.

I was having this fantasy you asked me whether or not I thought smoking causes cancer, then I realized... no one asked me. Why would I admit that smoking causes cancer? A great many things cause cancer including smoking. I'll be sure to predict and address your strawmen in advance from now on.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Weather patterns are very different from historical storm records, areas with "stable" precipitation (as far apart as Maine and Arizona) are experiencing extremes that were never imagined.

What extremes are occurring that were never imagined?

Cutting down on pollution-EVERYBODY'S POLLUTION-is a Good Thing. It can't hurt, WILL help locales be healthier, and might even make this global problem less of a problem.

So why are we arguing about the cause when we can do something productive now-whether it has a controlling affect or just an ameliorative affect?

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of pollution. This would be like arguing in favor of kicking little puppy dogs. People argue about the cause because the cause has been assumed by other causes and used to thrust even more causes. The question is what you consider "productive", who is EVERYBODY, and what exactly is less of a problem.

[lefty mclefty]

oh boy, how about snow in atlanta, and in the same week 70 degree temps in the northeast? the weather gets more unstable every year...you need to pay attention!

[tie]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

A great many things cause cancer including smoking.

LOL, and ebuddy is on the record! No, as I replied to Macrobat above, I see this as a ten-step program. He wrote, "BTW, there is no such thing as a 'Climate Change Denier,' except in talking points. The only thing in contention is the cause of climate change." And I took this as a pretty good sign of progress, that people are slowly starting to get the point, and in a few more steps they'll be caught up to the twenty-first century on this issue. Now you are admitting that smoking causes cancer, another step or two and you'll have realized that your source is a completely bogus scientist, and maybe in another seven or so steps you'll have caught up, too. <winkyface>

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lefty mclefty 

oh boy, how about snow in atlanta, and in the same week 70 degree temps in the northeast? the weather gets more unstable every year...you need to pay attention!

Can you show me where this hasn't happened before? I just want to make sure we didn't start paying attention two weeks ago.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Um ghporter, the Middle Ages was a warming period, the Little Ice Age ended not too long after the US Revolutionary War.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

any of several dates ranging over 400 years may indicate the beginning of the Little Ice Age:

* 1250 for when Atlantic pack ice began to grow
* 1300 for when warm summers stopped being dependable in Northern Europe
* 1315 for the rains and Great Famine of 1315-1317
* 1550 for theorized beginning of worldwide glacial expansion
* 1650 for the first climatic minimum

It kind of depends on what you call the actual time period where this effect occurred-when it started or when it hit its stride. I was basically referring to when it got started as a noticeable issue, in the 1300s, but I still got my dates messed up because it wasn't a real "problem" until several hundred years later. My bad.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What extremes are occurring that were never imagined?

Snow to the extent we're seeing it in April in places that don't usually have snow after February. Flooding in places like Maine that have had very consistent rain patterns for many decades. Extreme weather to include tornadoes in February and March-until recently tornadoes this early in the year were considered exceedingly rare. Is that a good sampling of examples?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of pollution. This would be like arguing in favor of kicking little puppy dogs. People argue about the cause because the cause has been assumed by other causes and used to thrust even more causes. The question is what you consider "productive", who is EVERYBODY, and what exactly is less of a problem.

Pollution interacts with the normal processes in the atmosphere. Soot blocks sunlight, affecting crops. Oxides of nitrogen can interfere with cloud formation and rain. Carbon dioxide changes how much heat is trapped by various layers of the atmosphere. And we share the same atmosphere with people all over the world-the difference being how quickly our exhausts bother people in Deli and how quickly exhausts in Shanghai bother us.

I used the term "productive" to refer to actions that can be taken to reduce how much crap we belch into the air, how crappy it is, and how concentrated it is. I that context, a productive action would be to require that power plants scrub their exhausts to completely eliminate particulates (soot), reduce the amount of CO2 below some technically feasible level, and to eliminate all sulfur emissions. EVERYWHERE.

China's dependence on coal makes them a major player in the belching of crap into the air, and they're only getting worse with their increasing demand for electrical power. Since pollution is a major problem in China already, wouldn't it be "productive" for them to start building cleaner coal-fired power plants now? Like even as clean as a 1960-vintage American power plant? Wouldn't that reduce the crap in everybody's air?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Snow to the extent we're seeing it in April in places that don't usually have snow after February.

Like western Nebraska? There have been blizzards as late as May 28th in Nebraska. I wouldn't categorize this as unimaginable.

Flooding in places like Maine that have had very consistent rain patterns for many decades.

There were noteworthy floods in Maine in 1987, 91, 94, 96, 2003, and 2006. These are not unimaginable weather extremes.

Extreme weather to include tornadoes in February and March-until recently tornadoes this early in the year were considered exceedingly rare.

Where?

Is that a good sampling of examples?

IMO, no. Weather is a fluctuating and at times wildly fluctuating phenomena. Always has been and I suspect always will be. From what I understand of the weather data I've read, La Niña has had the most profound affect on recent weather patterns. This is not to suggest that we shouldn't be good stewards of our environment, but there's no reason to suggest what we're witnessing is unprecedented or unimaginable. This leads to a degree of urgency that could cause far more significant and immediate problems.

I used the term "productive" to refer to actions that can be taken to reduce how much crap we belch into the air, how crappy it is, and how concentrated it is. I that context, a productive action would be to require that power plants scrub their exhausts to completely eliminate particulates (soot)

Scrubbing carbon dioxide out of exhaust gases isn't simple. Your proposal sounds great, but with existing federal restrictions on nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury many companies have had financial difficulty focusing on CO2 emissions. AEP for example has budgeted $4.2 billion between 2004 and 2009 to control these other issues. A gasification power plant (converts the waste into usable gas) in West Virginia could cost at least $2.4 billion and raise the collective electricity rate by 12% with some projections as high as 50% for recovering the cost of other processes elsewhere. A degree of discipline is required in a balanced approach that doesn't cause more immediate problems.

reduce the amount of CO2 below some technically feasible level, and to eliminate all sulfur emissions. EVERYWHERE.

Easier said than done. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but we can't just impose oppressive measures that will only cause those who need to go without. Especially with an already questionable economy. These are the realities of your proposals. Realities that need to be part of any proposal and subsequent requirement.

China's dependence on coal makes them a major player in the belching of crap into the air, and they're only getting worse with their increasing demand for electrical power. Since pollution is a major problem in China already, wouldn't it be "productive" for them to start building cleaner coal-fired power plants now? Like even as clean as a 1960-vintage American power plant? Wouldn't that reduce the crap in everybody's air?

I can't disagree here, but their economy has become extremely dependent on this resource as well and they will likely require discipline in their proposals just as we have ours.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like western Nebraska? There have been blizzards as late as May 28th in Nebraska. I wouldn't categorize this as unimaginable.

On a short-term historical scale (say the last 100 years) this is highly out of the ordinary. Whether it's been becoming "common" in the last couple of decades is not an indication that there isn't change happening.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There were noteworthy floods in Maine in 1987, 91, 94, 96, 2003, and 2006. These are not unimaginable weather extremes.

Again, from a short-term historical perspective, these floods are extremely odd.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Where?

THIS year, the Ohio River valley suffered a "super tornado" outbreak on February 5 & 6. 82 tornadoes in the first week of February is VERY uncharacteristic; having them all spawned by ONE weather phenomenon within a 24 hour period is outright rare.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

IMO, no. Weather is a fluctuating and at times wildly fluctuating phenomena.

La Nina and El Nino patterns have been behaving erratically over the past two decades; what passes for "climatological weather pattern expectations" has become a bad joke. Sure, weather is a daily event that is influenced by an enormous number of variables. But the PATTERN of weather is assumed to be fairly constant on the long term-until the last few decades.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Scrubbing carbon dioxide out of exhaust gases isn't simple. Your proposal sounds great, but with existing federal restrictions on nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and mercury many companies have had financial difficulty focusing on CO2 emissions. AEP for example has budgeted $4.2 billion between 2004 and 2009 to control these other issues. A gasification power plant (converts the waste into usable gas) in West Virginia could cost at least $2.4 billion and raise the collective electricity rate by 12% with some projections as high as 50% for recovering the cost of other processes elsewhere. A degree of discipline is required in a balanced approach that doesn't cause more immediate problems.

Easier said than done. This isn't to say we shouldn't try, but we can't just impose oppressive measures that will only cause those who need to go without. Especially with an already questionable economy. These are the realities of your proposals. Realities that need to be part of any proposal and subsequent requirement.

I didn't say it was going to be easy, nor that it would make people who wear silk suits to board meetings feel really happy. But it IS doable, and with even a token attempt by the industry to make progress, it will become MORE doable. And much cheaper. All they have to do is apply all that lobby money to a little research (not even fundamental research, just application research), and they are likely to find a cost effective answer readily at hand. And doing that research will also make consumers feel a little less taken advantage of when they look at their energy bills.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I can't disagree here, but their economy has become extremely dependent on this resource as well and they will likely require discipline in their proposals just as we have ours.

China's economy is dependent on everything. They're dependent on US for scrap metals that they could mine at home. They're dependent on the American child for so much of their national income that if every parent of a child of four or younger just refused to buy ANYTHING for their kid from Wal-Mart for a full year, Beijing would be rocked by a financial crisis of biblical proportions. But while they use enormous amounts of coal, they don't even try to make their coal use efficient, let alone cleaner. They are still using basic crushed feed coal burning systems that were common in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1980s OUR coal industry managed a quantum leap and introduced an ultrafine powder feed system that makes the coal almost like a liquid-which makes it much easier to extract energy from it, uses less coal per kilowatt hour, and eliminates much of the dirty part of the coal in the process, so it burns cleaner too. Just changing to a finer crush could save the Chinese billions over a couple of years, and reduce the amount of particulate and acid emissions by tons and tons in those years. No change so far.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

On a short-term historical scale (say the last 100 years) this is highly out of the ordinary.

Last 100 years? Why stop there? Seriously. Our industrialization started global warming almost immediately?

Whether it's been becoming "common" in the last couple of decades is not an indication that there isn't change happening.

The information I gave you covered the last couple of decades because you had originally stated that the weather patterns in Maine had been consistent for "many decades". I decided to go back at least three decades to establish that this is simply incorrect. There were many more flood accounts prior to that, many caused by ice damning, many others caused by erratic and severe rainfalls in Maine.

Again, from a short-term historical perspective, these floods are extremely odd.THIS year, the Ohio River valley suffered a "super tornado" outbreak on February 5 & 6. 82 tornadoes in the first week of February is VERY uncharacteristic; having them all spawned by ONE weather phenomenon within a 24 hour period is outright rare.

Not unlike the super outbreak in '74 that spawned 148 tornadoes through 13 US States. I think global cooling was the call of the day at that time. Not to mention the fact that any increase in the number of tornadoes reported must take several things into account.
- population growth, more tornadoes reported
- advances in radar technology, specifically doppler has increased detection rate.
- many tornadoes from one damage path are now classified individually whereas historically they were commonly attributed to only one tornado.

La Nina and El Nino patterns have been behaving erratically over the past two decades; what passes for "climatological weather pattern expectations" has become a bad joke. Sure, weather is a daily event that is influenced by an enormous number of variables. But the PATTERN of weather is assumed to be fairly constant on the long term-until the last few decades.

Do you have any sources at all to make the claim that the PATTERN of weather is assumed to be fairly constant on the long term-until the last few decades? It has been all too tempting of late to make such claims founded on sandy premise, then call to action. Again, I have no problem with being a good steward of the planet, but imposing more regulations has implications. Implications that if not considered will cause far more severe and immediate issues.

I didn't say it was going to be easy, nor that it would make people who wear silk suits to board meetings feel really happy.

I have a feeling it could make some silk suits in government happy however. We may have a philosophical disagreement here, but many of the proposals I've seen cost money. Often, money to the government. I don't think a cigar-chomping politician has more integrity than a cigar-chomping business man.

But it IS doable, and with even a token attempt by the industry to make progress, it will become MORE doable.

Many of these corporations have done a great deal. For some, it'll never be enough and they will cite snow storms in Nebraska, heatwaves in Arizona, and flooding in Maine as a call to action. For some, another ten years of cooling data might be necessary to convince them that natural climate change is VERY REAL.

And much cheaper. All they have to do is apply all that lobby money to a little research (not even fundamental research, just application research), and they are likely to find a cost effective answer readily at hand.

GE's "green lobby" makes the oil industry lobby look like the public golfer's association. The money has to be recovered somehow. It'll be recovered by the user of the utility. Again, there are many pollution regulations already at play and costing billions to these corporations. I'm not into the "sock it to 'em" mentality because I believe there are undesirable consequences of it.

And doing that research will also make consumers feel a little less taken advantage of when they look at their energy bills.

I'm not in favor of a 12% increase in energy costs and even less in favor of some of the projections of up to 50% higher. Look, there's money on all sides of this issue and no one is showing any more or less integrity than the other. I doubt I'll feel "less taken advantage of". Ever notice how the environmentally conscious recycled trash bags are twice as costly as the average Glad bag and half as durable?

China's economy is dependent on everything. They're dependent on US for scrap metals that they could mine at home. They're dependent on the American child for so much of their national income that if every parent of a child of four or younger just refused to buy ANYTHING for their kid from Wal-Mart for a full year, Beijing would be rocked by a financial crisis of biblical proportions.

How do you propose to achieve this? Are you going to subsidize the income lost to more expensive clothing for the poor?

But while they use enormous amounts of coal, they don't even try to make their coal use efficient, let alone cleaner. They are still using basic crushed feed coal burning systems that were common in the 1940s and 1950s. In the 1980s OUR coal industry managed a quantum leap and introduced an ultrafine powder feed system that makes the coal almost like a liquid-which makes it much easier to extract energy from it, uses less coal per kilowatt hour, and eliminates much of the dirty part of the coal in the process, so it burns cleaner too. Just changing to a finer crush could save the Chinese billions over a couple of years, and reduce the amount of particulate and acid emissions by tons and tons in those years. No change so far.

Sounds good. No doubt the measure taken above were extremely expensive to these industries. How do you propose we get China on board and can you indicate to them how soon their actions will have positive impacts on their environment?

[ghporter]

All I'm saying is that what is common for weather now is not in keeping with what can be called "traditional" weather patterns. Since we only have real records going back about 125 years for the U.S. and perhaps another 100 years in Europe (depending on where you look), it's important to look at "traditional" expectations of weather-and those traditional expectation are so seldom met in the last 30-50 years that it's obvious something is up.

And as I stated earlier, a little applications research by oil and power companies and we could have cleaner coal and gas power plants in a relatively few years. China has plenty of power plant designers that can explain how crushing the coal to a finer consistency makes it more efficient and cleaner-that's the first step for them to make, and I guarantee that nobody outside of Beijing is going to get China to make it. This whole thing is anything but rocket science; it's doing things smart instead of "the way we've always done it" because nobody ever though things out.

[smacintush]

Nuclear is a great alternative to coal that exists right now. Coal is far worse than nuclear yet no one wants to get serious about it. Why is that? If things were so damned urgent as they say, then there isn't time to wait for research, and there isn't time to wait for governments to mandate things that don't exist yet.

Because this isn't about finding a "cure" for anthropogenic global climate warming change chaos, it's about advancing an agenda.

This agenda has nothing to do with saving the planet™, it has everything to do with power and money.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Nuclear is a great alternative to coal that exists right now. Coal is far worse than nuclear yet no one wants to get serious about it. Why is that?

Because nuclear is a failed technology. It's terribly expensive, inefficient, dangerous and produces very nasty stuff that we don't know what to do with. Yes, yes, coal is terrible too. Luckily the choice is not between two terrible options....

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Because nuclear is a failed technology.

Nuclear isn't perfect, but failed? You're delusional. In this country it hasn't gotten a fair shake, but others know better.

It's terribly expensive

There is high overhead, yes. The fuel is cheap however, and easy to transport. And exactly what is the cheap alternative? Renewables that require living in certain areas or the renewables that require vast fields of equipment running at single-digit or low double-digit efficiency to create enough electricity to be useful?

inefficient

Technically yes, but the oxidation of an atom of carbon releases about 4 electron-volts of electricity. Splitting a Uranium atom releases 200,000,000 electron-volts. This is why it's so competitive despite its inefficiencies.

dangerous

Certainly is…theoretically. But when was the last major accident? Every so often there are minor incidents, usually involving employees getting hurt, not the doomsday scenarios like the anti-nuke people would have us believe. (like Chernobyl)

produces very nasty stuff that we don't know what to do with.

The most compact and controllable waste product of any power plant that produces waste. And it doesn't produce nearly as much waste as some would like us to believe. The entire US stockpile would fit into one high school gymnasium.

Yes, yes, coal is terrible too.

I like how you just wave that off. Coal is just "terrible too". It spews all of its hydrocarbons into the air constantly as well as 1500 tons of airborne radioactive material a year. Uranium and Thorium to be exact. Coal ash is MORE radioactive than nuclear waste. Only, it's not contained and stored. It flies through the air and it leaches into the soil. Those living near coal plants are exposed to as much as 200% the radioactivity of those living around nuclear plants.

Luckily the choice is not between two terrible options....

So, what is the efficient, safe, inexpensive, waste-free alternative that we can reach the majority of people with right now?. Which of the non-fossil fuel, non-nuclear options could you use to power NYC right now?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Helmling 

People, what world are you all living in? Can you honestly look at a world where fishstocks are dropping off dramatically, where deserts are spreading, where islands are disappearing into the sea (yes, it's f'ing happening, ask the Tuvaluans), and where food riots are already beginning and argue that there's no climate crisis.

People, you need to pull your axes off the grindstone. These are real problems that will, unless we act quickly and decisively to change our lifestyles and help the rest of the world do the same, define the lives of our grandchildren.

This is our wake up call, and our chance to do right by our posterity.

*sigh* Almost none of those arguments have stood up for scientific merit as proof of climate change.

You want something interesting about islands disappearing, go look at the old maps of the Chinese coast that were made by the Dutch. There are WAY less islands now than there were then. Islands do disappear naturally.

The current thought is deserts are spreading because we allow farmers to overgraze and slash and burn where they shouldn't.

Fish stock is far more interesting, but once again, is more likely due to overfishing, bad El Niño years, and destruction of coastal wetlands, or If you believe the nuttier people, quite possibly the fact that the US sequestered nearly all of it's VX and sarin into the ocean (which happens to kill fish and just about anything it comes into contact with during it's two week journey after it leaks out of it's containers).

[smacintush]

We've had ten years of fish left since 1970.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

We've had ten years of fish left since 1970.

1970s is when we really started to keep track. Since then, 20% of all fished fresh water species are extinct or endangered. There are many "common" types of saltwater fish you can't find in the supermarket anymore because they're now either too rare or extinct.

All that happens is after a species of fish is overfished, the market adjusts to a different species. We have 10 years left of a particular species, then they move onto the next one.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Technically yes, but the oxidation of an atom of carbon releases about 4 electron-volts of electricity. Splitting a Uranium atom releases 200,000,000 electron-volts. This is why it's so competitive despite its inefficiencies.

It is amazing how much power is generated, but only a tiny fraction of it is harvested. It would be incredible if there was a more efficient way of harnessing the energy. Fusion is looking more and more doable.

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Which of the non-fossil fuel, non-nuclear options could you use to power NYC right now?

Solar.

[peeb]

And wind, and conservation.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Solar.

Solar? By itself? Are you joking?

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by peeb 

And wind,

Solar and wind.

How much equipment would it take? How many acres would it take up? Where's it gonna go? Who's gonna pay for it? (lemme guess, government subsidization, right?)

and conservation.

Mandated conservation I suppose?

[Chuckit]

Since when does conservation generate power?

[tie]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Nuclear isn't perfect, but failed? You're delusional. In this country it hasn't gotten a fair shake, but others know better.

This is the oddest thing that I don't understand at all. People like peeb and lots of environmentalists really need to be pushed on this issue. As far as I can tell, for a lot of people (surely not peeb ), their opposition to nuclear power isn't for any logical reasons---it isn't based on any cost-benefit analysis---similarly to how a lot of these people blindly support organic foods without a cost-benefit analysis (organic foods waste resources that could possibly be better spent protecting the environment, you'd need an analysis to see).

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Since when does conservation generate power?

We've been over this before - it's pretty obvious that reducing demand is functionally the same as increasing supply when you're looking at something the size of a city. If we're pedants, it doesn't 'generate' power, but it reduces the gap between supply and demand.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Solar and wind.
How much equipment would it take? How many acres would it take up? Where's it gonna go? Who's gonna pay for it? (lemme guess, government subsidization, right?)

Well, the first thing to do is to stop the government subsidization of carbon based fuels. Then start costing in the actual cost of carbon, and the market would deal with it by itself. As long as you want the general taxpayer to subsidize the worst kinds of fuels, alternatives will not take off. If the government would get out of the energy market and make polluters pay for the cost of cleanup, simple economics will take over.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

As far as I can tell, for a lot of people (surely not peeb ), their opposition to nuclear power isn't for any logical reasons---it isn't based on any cost-benefit analysis.

The cost / benefits of nuclear have been amply analyzed, which is why there are so few nuclear power plants being built except where governments step in to subsidize them.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by peeb 

We've been over this before - it's pretty obvious that reducing demand is functionally the same as increasing supply when you're looking at something the size of a city. If we're pedants, it doesn't 'generate' power, but it reduces the gap between supply and demand.

They're somewhat similar functionally, but not really the same. By the same logic, murder is equivalent to growing your own food — it brings supply closer to demand, but it has other side effects that are considered undesirable. The question was what source could power New York "right now" if we didn't use any fossil or nuclear power. If supply is reduced effectively to zero, no amount of conservation will work, unless by "conservation" you mean "reverting to the Stone Age."

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

They're somewhat similar functionally, but not really the same. By the same logic, murder is equivalent to growing your own food — it brings supply closer to demand, but it has other side effects that are considered undesirable.

That's a particularly bizarre and obtuse analogy, but there is a grain of truth to it. In the case of energy use though, cutting my usage by 20% by installing efficient bulbs is the functional equivalent of increasing supply by the same amount. No stone age required.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by peeb 

That's a particularly bizarre and obtuse analogy, but there is a grain of truth to it. In the case of energy use though, cutting my usage by 20% by installing efficient bulbs is the functional equivalent of increasing supply by the same amount. No stone age required.

until you have to figure out how to dispose of the mercury in your efficient bulbs.

Make the Government force the lightbulb mfrs to pay for the disposal?

not practical, I imagine.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

until you have to figure out how to dispose of the mercury in your efficient bulbs.
Make the Government force the lightbulb mfrs to pay for the disposal?
not practical, I imagine.

That's true - it's actually not that hard, and having all manufacturers deal with the full cycle of their product is a good idea anyway. Some places are already starting to voluntarily do this.
There's not that much mercury, and it's not expensive to reprocess.