Climate Change

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

I'm for alternative energy like solar/wind/wave because in the long run its cheaper and kinder to the planet.. and us.. than incidents like Chernobyl and things like this... how much for your Pacific Paradise now......

The problem is, at current (or even foreseeable) levels of efficiency, we cannot replace our energy demands with renewables. These sources have niether the energy-density, nor do they come as "clean" sources when full life-cycle analysis is applied. Please note, I am NOT saying we should ignore them. Exactly the opposite. However, I am pointing out that the renewables are not up to the task of running our civilization. Unless we are willing to reduce (which is still the only real answer), then we must embrace the best of a bad lot.

What are we left with? Coal, oil and gas, OR nuclear. Nuclear produces off-the-scale toxic waste. Stuff that won't be safe for 10,000 years. Really bad. But it does it in very small quantities; in the tens of thousands of cubic meters per year globally. Now, compare this to the billions of tons of toxic waste produced each year by petroleum-based energy sources.

What is worse?

And yes, Chernobyl and Fukushima are major environmental blows, but compared to the ongoing, and global, impacts of fossil fuel use, there's really no comparison. Morbidity and mortality that is directly linked to coal/oil/natural gas burning measures in the 10s of thousands each year (tons of studies ... just google). Morbidity and mortality linked to nuclear? Virtually zero. Even in the tiny number of disaster (four, maybe five) the numbers are exceedingly small.

Waste disposal; a big problem indeed for both options. Well, not so much on the fossil fuel side; we just dump it into the environment with few controls, and let it kill and maim tens of thousands of people, and alter the global climate in unpredictable ways. But on the nuclear side we have nasty, concentrated toxic stuff that we don't really know what to do with. However, the volumes are tiny (in comparison) so we've been able to manage it so far. Burying it deep into the cores of continental cratons appears to be the best answer so far. Another options is shooting it into the sun. Neither option is without risk, but both are doable.

So it's a balance of risk and measurable harm. On the fossil fuel side one can already measure massive harm and moderate risk (unless you add in climate change, in which case the risk goes off the charts). On the nuclear side one can measure low harm and small risk. And unfortunately, renewables only work if we significantly reduce our civilization's energy use -- this seems to be one thing we are completely unwilling to do.

So you pick...

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

One of the frustrations of the cloud cover uncertainty along with all the other model uncertainties, and I do modeling for a living, is that a certain segment of the human community want me to make significant and expensive lifestyle changes based on the models.

Look into the cold fusion debacle. There were a number of scientific laboratories (GTRI, etc.) that reported replication of Pons et al cold fusion results. Cold fusion never happened it was a mistake. Especially the financial pressure and herd mentality play into the science. The GW issue has many of the cold fusion similarities.

Actually, very few (if any) labs claimed to be able to replicate the Pons results on cold fusion -- that's why the mostly media-driven frenzy was basically doorknob dead within the same year that the whole idea was first broached.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Mike, every week there was another press release from a laboratory confirming the CF results. The piling on was amazing. There were big name laboratories that were seeing CF. I was electrified by news at the time...free energy for the planet. The Wikipedia statements have been significantly modified on this point over the last 3 years. Yes science did win out in the end as it will with GW and AGW and Lake's shouting will have no impact on the AGW endgame.

Additionally the research is not nearly settled on the water vapor and relationship to low and high altitude cloud formation contributions to the energy balance as evidenced by the referenced NASA article above.

The "physics" of cold fusion are at best highly counterintuitive -- in reality they are ridiculous -- and respectable scientists never gave the idea much credence. I lived through this time period, too and do not remember there ever being anything close to a consensus on CF. What I remember was a lot of hoopla, a lot of caution from mainstream scientific community, a lot of press coverage and then psst. It was over, quickly.

[omgitsgela]

Using the argument that the earth has been warmer and cooler before and will continue to do so to justify putting tons of bad stuff in the environment is like me justifying stealing a candy bar just because the door opens and closes.

The earth has cycles, we all know that. What has gotten people alarmed is the change over a rapid period of time within this cycle. Scientists used drill samples to determine when we should be at this climatic state according to previous ice ages, and the numbers today don't match up, indicative of climate change by man made factors.

Can we do anything about it? Probably the only thing we can do is take care of the nature and not throw tons of chemicals at it. This seems obvious. Regardless of your beliefs on this, it's obvious to recycle and use renewable energy where possible. Make smart decisions about what you do, that's all this is about. And whose against making smart decisions?

[SailOar]

State asks insurers: Are you ready for climate change?

Minnesota has joined four other states in requiring its insurance companies to discuss how extensively they’ve prepared for climate change.
About 70 companies have until Aug. 31 to respond to an eight-question survey. The questionnaire, developed by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), focuses on the assessment of risk associated with climate change. However, it also seeks information on whether insurance companies are working to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions, have altered their investment strategies in response to climate change, or have encouraged policyholders to reduce losses caused by “climate change-influenced events.”


State Insurance Commissioner Mike Rothmann said Minnesota joined California, Connecticut, New York and Washington in the survey in order to help develop a broader base of information about possible disaster coverage. While the other states face risks of coastal storms that Minnesota does not, Rothmann said Minnesota firms are vulnerable to tornadoes, severe storms and river floods, which some climate models suggest are increasing with a warming climate...


Identifying, pricing the risk
Unlike many traditional businesses, some insurance companies, particularly European “reinsurance” companies that insure insurance companies themselves, have been outspoken in putting a price tag on climate change by connecting disasters with it.


The president of the Reinsurance Association of America recently told a Senate committee that the insurance industry is “at great financial peril” if it doesn’t understand climate change science or the potential ramifications of a warming atmosphere.


The NAIC developed its survey in 2009, noting what it viewed as a clear link between climate change and the viability of insurance companies, as well as its effect on premiums. Earlier this year, Ceres, a Boston-based organization that advocates environmental sustainability in business and helped the NAIC develop the survey, analyzed the 2012 survey results from California, New York and Washington and determined that only 23 of 184 insurance companies had comprehensive plans to accommodate the risks of climate change...

[SailOar]

Rise in violence 'linked to climate change' | BBC

US scientists found that even small changes in temperature or rainfall correlated with a rise in assaults, rapes and murders, as well as group conflicts and war.


The team says with the current projected levels of climate change, the world is likely to become a more violent place.


The study is published in Science.


Marshall Burke, from the University of California, Berkeley, said: "This is a relationship we observe across time and across all major continents around the world. The relationship we find between these climate variables and conflict outcomes are often very large..."


The researchers say they are now trying to understand why this relationship exists.


"The literature offers a couple of different hints," explained Mr Burke.
"One of the main mechanisms that seems to be at play is changes in economic conditions. We know that climate affects economic conditions around the world, particularly agrarian parts of the world.



"There is lots of evidence that changes in economic conditions affect people's decisions about whether or not to join a rebellion, for example."
But he said there could also be a physiological basis, because some studies suggest that heat causes people to be prone to aggression...


Instead, Dr Halvard Buhaug, from the Peace Research Institute Oslo, Norway, concluded that the conflict was linked to other factors such as high infant mortality, proximity to international borders and high local population density...

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by omgitsgela

Using the argument that the earth has been warmer and cooler before and will continue to do so to justify putting tons of bad stuff in the environment is like me justifying stealing a candy bar just because the door opens and closes.

The earth has cycles, we all know that. What has gotten people alarmed is the change over a rapid period of time within this cycle. Scientists used drill samples to determine when we should be at this climatic state according to previous ice ages, and the numbers today don't match up, indicative of climate change by man made factors.

Can we do anything about it? Probably the only thing we can do is take care of the nature and not throw tons of chemicals at it. This seems obvious. Regardless of your beliefs on this, it's obvious to recycle and use renewable energy where possible. Make smart decisions about what you do, that's all this is about. And whose against making smart decisions?

Yea, it's like a Subaru owner telling a SUV owner that he is causing the planet to run out of petroleum. We all have dirty hands and they are not going to get clean in our lifetimes. I am sure that if CO2 is the GW driver then if we get to 450 - 500 - 550 ppm in 10 years or 50 years we cook the planet in 10 years or 50 years.

The best solution for us to reach Shangri La is a stabile population at, pick a number, a 10th of where we are now and zero growth economic models. This would slow CO2 production and give science and technology time to fix the problem. Clearly not a practical fix. IMO and others, population growth is a much larger, higher probability, threat to mankind's well being. Clearly, limiting population growth is not the flavor of the year or the sweetheart topic of the gentle people so we work and discuss the GW issue instead.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Yea, it's like a Subaru owner telling a SUV owner that he is causing the planet to run out of petroleum. We all have dirty hands and they are not going to get clean in our lifetimes. I am sure that if CO2 is the GW driver then if we get to 450 - 500 - 550 ppm in 10 years or 50 years we cook the planet in 10 years or 50 years.

The best solution for us to reach Shangri La is a stabile population at, pick a number, a 10th of where we are now and zero growth economic models. This would slow CO2 production and give science and technology time to fix the problem. Clearly not a practical fix. IMO and others, population growth is a much larger, higher probability, threat to mankind's well being. Clearly, limiting population growth is not the flavor of the year or the sweetheart topic of the gentle people so we work and discuss the GW issue instead.

Now THERE'S an idea! Now whom do we kill off?

I just love the hypocrisy of the GW folks; scream and whine about our impending doom..... on their electrical powered computer, in their air conditioned office to which they drove in their automobile, from the airport where they got off the jet which took them home from their eco-vacation in Alaska. You want people to pay attention? Practice what you preach: live in the Amish style.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

The best solution for us to reach Shangri La is a stabile population at, pick a number, a 10th of where we are now and zero growth economic models. This would slow CO2 production and give science and technology time to fix the problem. Clearly not a practical fix. IMO and others, population growth is a much larger, higher probability, threat to mankind's well being. Clearly, limiting population growth is not the flavor of the year or the sweetheart topic of the gentle people so we work and discuss the GW issue instead.

Actually, population reduction only address part of the problem. The core issue is the amount, and rate, of the Earth's resources that are being consumed. High population (mostly in the so-called 3rd or developing world) contributes to this, but so do we in the rich industrialized world. On this side of the equation our per-capita usage -- our intensity of usage -- is equally (probably more) to blame.

So yes, population reduction is necessary, but we also need to take responsibility for the problems the planet is facing. We need to reduce. But as I keep saying, this seems to be the one idea which really is impossible.

[boatman61]

It took coal well over 100 years to develop and kick off the industrial revolution... in the UK it carried us into the 1970's... it then took oil over 100 years to take over from coal as the main energy supplier today... solar/wind/tidal have only just started yet the 'experts' are ready to kill it off...
As for Nuclear... anyone who supports that path has a vested interest... and don't give a damn for the world or his offspring..

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by capngeo

Now THERE'S an idea! Now whom do we kill off?

I just love the hypocrisy of the GW folks; scream and whine about our impending doom..... on their electrical powered computer, in their air conditioned office to which they drove in their automobile, from the airport where they got off the jet which took them home from their eco-vacation in Alaska. You want people to pay attention? Practice what you preach: live in the Amish style.

You're right, of course. We all contribute to the problem. But we in the west contribute far more, per-capita, than most people on this planet. We can all do things to reduce our contribution. The challenge though, is that individuals in the west have a limited ability to reduce our environmental footprint. Outside of killing yourself, it is very hard to exist within our societies without using a lot of stuff. This is why recycling, or composting, or buying a few less things ... while all good, will never make that much impact. We need a system-wide approach that actually reduces our usage of resources.

In other words, we must reduce our standard of living -- something we seem unable to consider.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by boatman61

It took coal well over 100 years to develop and kick off the industrial revolution... in the UK it carried us into the 1970's... it then took oil over 100 years to take over from coal as the main energy supplier today... solar/wind/tidal have only just started yet the 'experts' are ready to kill it off...
As for Nuclear... anyone who supports that path has a vested interest... and don't give a damn for the world or his offspring..

Ignoring how insulting this post is Boatie, I suggest you take a look at the actual facts.

The real solution is for all of us to use less -- a lot less in the case of people in the rich industrialized world. Barring that (and that seems to be the only thing completely off the table), the most pragmatic solution that is actually available to us is nuclear.

Renewables are absolutely necessary. They will continue to improve, and need to be fully supported and expanded. But I prefer to look at reality. And the fact is, there is no prospect for solar, wind and tidal to be able to power our current civilization.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

Clearly, limiting population growth is not the flavor of the year or the sweetheart topic of the gentle people so we work and discuss the GW issue instead.

I am not sure that many folks have adopted that position. The environmental problems that we are facing are multifaceted. I favour a smaller population; I have no children. But that smaller population also requires a smaller environmental footprint.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Ignoring how insulting this post is Boatie, I suggest you take a look at the actual facts.

The real solution is for all of us to use less -- a lot less in the case of people in the rich industrialized world. Barring that (and that seems to be the only thing completely off the table), the most pragmatic solution that is actually available to us is nuclear.

Renewables are absolutely necessary. They will continue to improve, and need to be fully supported and expanded. But I prefer to look at reality. And the fact is, there is no prospect for solar, wind and tidal to be able to power our current civilization.

I'm sorry... where was the insult...? did I call you names...? all I did was look back at 'fuel development' over the years...
Unless of course you are a full blooded supporter of the nuclear industry... maybe you've stated this somewhere in the last few hundred posts which seem to be links and copy and pastes too or by vested interests... which I've barely skimmed... or is this a 'Nerds only' Thread...
If your offended so easily by a laymans simple perspective of things then something is wrong in this argument you present...
This post may be construed as mildly aggressive...
PS; Standard of living needs no reduction... lifestyle does... 2 entirely different animals

[Group9]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

We can discuss your misconceptions, if you like.

What makes you so sure I have misconceptions?

It appears that you think your lifestyle is okay and doesn't need to be changed, but that others should change theirs.

I think the same thing about my lifestyle. I think we are buds on this one.