Effects of Global Warming ??

[micah719]

We skeptics are stubborn....you'll have to work harder. If only this pic had an anchored GPS-only multihull in it....

[Lake-Effect]

Thanks hpeer.

Actually, nursie was late on her rounds but my thorazine has arrived, and all is bliss now.

(Yes I know this is the internet. Yes Barnum said that no-one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the ... people. Oh well)

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... It's only because fossil fuel is under-priced that alternative energy needs a kickstart.

Originally Posted by micah719

Underpriced? Lol. The cost of extracting and processing it is an order of magnitude less than the price we peons pay.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, I mean that most consumers aren't paying enough to cover the true cost of using fossil fuels. In overall $$$ the west subsidizes oil consumption more than alternative energy.

In 2011, the global fossil fuel (a finite resource) subsidies *were about $523 billion, and renewable energy subsidies about $88 billion in 2011.
*This doesn't include the (potentially huge) UNFUNDED costs of cleaning up behind (or mitigating the ill effects of) fossil fuels.

In other words, the mature POLLUTING fossil fuel industry receives about 60 times the directsubsidy that the nascent CLEAN renewable energy sector receives.

[micah719]

So? The same scoundrels that made a motza off oil are now switching to a new scam. Some of us are not falling for it.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Tar34

Because you're borderline hysterical and project a certainty of calamity which is a little off putting. We hear your dire warning of doom. Now, please describe for us how, if you had the power, the various constraints you would impose on our "western" lifestyle and freedom to consume. Place that in the context of what another poster described as the under consuming per capita in the poorer nations and his complaint of overpopulation in those regions. Be specific as how you would ensure compliance given the looming catastrophe.

I'm f'ing angry at the stupid, Tar. No-one has presented or linked to ANYTHING that materially alters the conclusions of climate scientists... just a bunch of horse-droppings coupled with some fanciful imaginings.

Exhibit #324 - "Now, please describe for us how...."

Which has nothing to do with climate change, it's just a dumb debating trick to dodge the issue.

And it's not my certainty of calamity, it's the certainty of the people who know this stuff better than you and I. This isn't sports. WTF will convince you to listen to scientists over a bunch of well orchestrated FUD?

If it's off-putting, look away.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by GordMay

The global fossil fuel subsidies were $523 billion and renewable energy subsidies $88 billion in 2011. This doesn't include the (potentially huge) UNFUNDED costs of cleaning up behind (or mitigating the ill effects of) fossil fuels.

In other words, the mature POLLUTING fossil fuel industry receives about 60 times the subsidy that the nascent CLEAN renewable energy sector receives.

It might be better cast as "subsidy dollars per kilowatt-hour." That is, way more fossil fuel power is produced so the subsidy per kilowatt-hour may be very small compared to renewable energy.

Then there is the national issues of what is counted or hidden and not counted as a subsidy.

I think in 2009 or around that time the 25,000 windmills in Germany (which have changed the beauty of the islands, land, and oceans) produced about 6 percent of the national power. BTW, the fossil fuel plants must be built and ready to come on line immediately for all of the solar and wind power equipment. Consequently, all renewable generation equipment is added capital investment, nothing is saved.

[osirissail]

Originally Posted by hpeer

. . . Not because there is nothing we CAN do (which is looking increasingly true) but because there is nothing we WILL do.

With that I can absolutely agree - but would suggest extendiong it a little to add "until there is sufficient money to be made doing it."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

It might be better cast as "subsidy dollars per kilowatt-hour." That is, way more fossil fuel power is produced so the subsidy per kilowatt-hour may be very small compared to renewable energy.

No, the truth is that oil consumption receives about $520B in subsidy and renewables only $90B. You do know what "nascent" means? There's such a thing as R&D, and a realistic time-frame for amortizing the cost.

The point is, oil should receive ZERO subsidy. We should be conserving it, not paying people to burn it as fast as possible. Complain when renewable subsidization is $500B and fossil fuel only gets $80B.

[Tar34]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm f'ing angry at the stupid, Tar. No-one has presented or linked to ANYTHING that materially alters the conclusions of climate scientists... just a bunch of horse-droppings coupled with some fanciful imaginings.

Exhibit #324 - "Now, please describe for us how...."

Which has nothing to do with climate change, it's just a dumb debating trick to dodge the issue.

And it's not my certainty of calamity, it's the certainty of the people who know this stuff better than you and I. This isn't sports. WTF will convince you to listen to scientists over a bunch of well orchestrated FUD?

If it's off-putting, look away.

I'm listening. You have the high ground of certainty. Now please, without dodging the issue, what do you proscribe as possible solutions? Your defensiveness belies a certain hesitancy to tell us what you really think which in a way is a little dishonest. You, with all the science on your side, come empty in the possible solution department. Interesting.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by GordMay

In 2011, the global fossil fuel (a finite resource) subsidies *were about $523 billion, and renewable energy subsidies about $88 billion in 2011.
*This doesn't include the (potentially huge) UNFUNDED costs of cleaning up behind (or mitigating the ill effects of) fossil fuels.

In other words, the mature POLLUTING fossil fuel industry receives about 60 times the directsubsidy that the nascent CLEAN renewable energy sector receives.

Not doubting what you say Gord, (To my knowledge I haven't seen you say something incorrect) but this amazes me.

What form do these subsidies take? And to what fossil fuels are they applied?

I'm probably like most people in thinking that the oil and coal industries are a huge source of REVENUE for governments, not an expense, as you indicate here.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

No, the truth is that oil consumption receives about $520B in subsidy and renewables only $90B. You do know what "nascent" means? There's such a thing as R&D, and a realistic time-frame for amortizing the cost.

The point is, oil should receive ZERO subsidy. We should be conserving it, not paying people to burn it as fast as possible. Complain when renewable subsidization is $500B and fossil fuel only gets $80B.

Lake-E, don't hold back, you are with friends here! Thank you for inquiring if I know what nascent means. Kind of like you just trying to learn how to behave in public.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Lake-E, don't hold back, you are with friends here! Thank you for inquiring if I know what nascent means. Kind of like you just trying to learn how to behave in public.

(sorry. My hostility wasn't deserved. Just frustrated.)

[DeepFrz]

http://i928.photobucket.com/albums/a...rainforest.jpg

And Agent Orange

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I'm f'ing angry at the stupid, Tar. No-one has presented or linked to ANYTHING that materially alters the conclusions of climate scientists... just a bunch of horse-droppings coupled with some fanciful imaginings.

Exhibit #324 - "Now, please describe for us how...."

Which has nothing to do with climate change, it's just a dumb debating trick to dodge the issue.

And it's not my certainty of calamity, it's the certainty of the people who know this stuff better than you and I. This isn't sports. WTF will convince you to listen to scientists over a bunch of well orchestrated FUD?

If it's off-putting, look away.

Much here can be explained by the below. Various folks are at different stages.

Very few, if any, self included, have come to Acceptance.

Kübler-Ross model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The stages, popularly known by the acronym DABDA, include:[2]

Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of possessions and individuals that will be left behind after death. Denial can be conscious or unconscious refusal to accept facts, information, or the reality of the situation. Denial is a defense mechanism and some people can become locked in this stage.
Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Anger can manifest itself in different ways. People can be angry with themselves, or with others, and especially those who are close to them. It is important to remain detached and nonjudgmental when dealing with a person experiencing anger from grief.
Bargaining — "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..."
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the individual is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just do something to buy more time..." People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek to negotiate a compromise. For example "Can we still be friends?.." when facing a break-up. Bargaining rarely provides a sustainable solution, especially if it's a matter of life or death.
Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed. Depression could be referred to as the dress rehearsal for the 'aftermath'. It is a kind of acceptance with emotional attachment. It's natural to feel sadness, regret, fear, and uncertainty when going through this stage. Feeling those emotions shows that the person has begun to accept the situation.
Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
In this last stage, individuals begin to come to terms with their mortality, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. This stage varies according to the person's situation. People dying can enter this stage a long time before the people they leave behind, who must pass through their own individual stages of dealing with the grief.

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by Sabbatical II

Interesting as some of these posts are, is there anyone out there who just wants to answer my question?
I'll ask it a different way.

A few years ago in NSW Australia, summer meant warm or hot days where the sun shined. We would get occasional rain but you could usually count planning an outdoor event (sailing?) and you'd be unlucky if it was spoilt by rain. This hasn't been the case this summer or last summer. In fact in both summers we've experienced "extreme weather events" or natural disasters. I'm trying to determine if this is a localised phenomena or is it being repeated worldwide?

Gemerally, wet summers or dry summers in Eastern Australia are linked to the ENSO (El Nino Souther Oscillation)

ENSO Wrap-Up

We've just come out of a long period of very dry weather. (Which was blamed on global warming.) Now we're getting some wet weather. (Which is also being blamed on global warming)

These cycles, as well as "extreme weather events" happened here long before industrialisation.

I believe the last couple of seasons have actually had fewer than the average number of tropical cyclones. But the ones we've had have been more notable because they have impacted on populated area.

And as more of the coastline becomes populated, the more likely this is.