Global Warming is still with us!

Email Print posted by thinkingblue 04/21/2008 11:41:36 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
But I know some of you wished it would go away...

I have a friend who started lending an ear to the conservative ideology. She was introduced to this body of so-called ideas, by supporting Ron Paul. In the past she was an avid Liberal (before Paul) and we gave each other great support during the last 7 years of insanity. Now her emails reflect the "thinking" of the "conservatives who prefer to mimic instead of think", who reject everything if they believe it will go near their pocketbooks or power. Sadly,there are too many who want to hide from the fact that we DO live in dangerous times. Not dangers from Bush's "Evil-Doers" that the NEOCONS keep waving in our faces to keep power but dangers from being on a fragile celestial body revolving around a star. Dangers from greed which is the main cause of fouling up our planet to the point of no return.
Please read this recent article: Go to this link:
http://www.buffalonews.com/ 185/story/327697.html
To Read: Global warming is melting our children’s chances!

I made up a small video on how the right-wingers use certain people loaded with GREED to make people of frail minds believe Global Warming is just a liberal scare tactic... FOR WHAT I ASK? http://www.youtube.com/v/4k 1jvS4FBlI&hl=en
< How Hillary Clinton Can Still Win The Primaries | Cenk's Head Just Exploded... >
 Display:
Global Warming is still with us! | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
liked (none / 0)
The video

by Chinese Democracy on 04/21/2008 11:57:53 AM EST

Point of no return (none / 0)
I was in my social activism class a couple of months ago, and the professor brought in a well-known, in activist circles, an environmental activist. The point he made was that at this point, the point of no return has been reached. Essentially, that even if we reduced our emissions to zero, temperatures would still go up for decades to come due to the amount of CO2 we have in the atmosphere. The fact that we are continually pumping more of it into the atmosphere means we are basically doomed. It was certainly very depressing, but certainly believable.

Blog: http://perspectivos.blogspo t.com/

by Nick86 on 04/21/2008 12:22:32 PM EST

WE'RE DOOMED!!!!!! (none / 0)
I knew it!! It's too late to worry about it. So I'm gonna party like there's no tommorow. By the way, remember that extra degree we gained in the last century? Well, we lost the entire degree this winter. One more winter like 2008 and you guys will be officially branded ignorant for life.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 09:33:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Marked as the one who ran (none / 0)
"One more winter like 2008 and you guys will be officially branded ignorant for life."

Ken, could you post a picture of your brand so these fine folks can see whats in store for them?

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:34:09 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Take some engineering classes (none / 0)
Nick, I'm not sure what you're studying, but i'd recommend taking some engineering classes to balance out your "social activism classes". 

As for being "doomed", this is exactly the problem with the global warming rhetoric these days.  These guys are starting to sound like Bush on terrorists!  I am currently working on my PhD in Sustainabillity and over the past year I've heard far too many self important acedemics tell me that we "have to do something about global warming" only to suggest that we will all be fine if we just change our lightbulbs and drive priusi.  (If you can't tell this experience has made me quite cynical).  

The problem I have with most of these folks is that they are unable to grasp two important concepts.  The first is how vitally important energy is for the continued functioning of the economy.  Besides the few wackos who are suggesting the best way to combat global warming is to all become Amish, this means we have to replace all of our energy infrastructure over to new sources of energy that generate less CO2.  This may sound simple enough to non-engineers, but it is far from it.  It will take a bit more than a $20/ton tax on carbon to make it happen. 

The second point is the utter scale of the problem.  The world uses 15 TW of energy.  For comparison, global production capacity of solar cells is about 1 GW per year of rated capaciy (actual energy will be about 16% of that due to night time and clouds).  Even at continuously maintaind 40%/year growth in this capacity it will take at least 25 years for solar to meet just 10% of global energy demand.  Also, the capital investment required to change over just 1/2 of the cars and light trucks in the US is $2.3 trillion!  Even with carbon taxes and huge incentives for alternative technologies it will take many decades to turn around carbon emissions.  We'll be lucky to stabilize emissions in the 650ppm CO2e range.  

On the plus side, the impacts are also somewhat exagerated and the adaptability of humans is ignored by many alarmists.  While there will certainly be rising temperatures and impacts resulting from them, we humans will do what we always do and find a way to muddle through.  Yes, some people with beach front property will lose money, or force their governments to spend billions fighting rising tides, and yes some poor people in developing nations will die or starve (like they have for thousands of years), and yes some rare species will die off by not adapting to new realities.  In the end though people are resilient and they'll find a way to survive and thrive no matter what mother earth throws at them. 

 

by alphasigmookie on 04/21/2008 10:24:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
my new manifesto (none / 0)
Alpha, I love this post.  I'm going to print it and put a copy in my shoe so that I always have it with me, even in the liely event of a devastating earthquake.  Seriously though, this is great stuff. As soon as you have a PhD, just like the scarecrow in Wizard of Oz, you will be an "expert" and you have to come on the Young Turks to elaborate these thoughts.

David

by yturks on 04/21/2008 10:39:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Third Grade Science For Social Activists (none / 0)
First Law of Thermodynamics: The law of conservation of energy states that energy can not be created or destroyed, it can only be converted from one form to another.

Hydroelectric dams are used to convert water power into electricity.
dam it 

Electricity is used to process nuclear fuel.
Iran has 54,000 of these

Nuclear energy is an extremely dense, efficient form of energy that can provide power to meet the needs of industrial and residential requirements.

uranium for peace

Borosilicate glass from the first waste vitrification plant in UK in the 1960s. This block contains material chemically identical to high-level waste from reprocessing. A piece this size would contain the total high-level waste arising from nuclear electricity generation for one person throughout a normal lifetime.

lifetime worth of waste 

Notice that no CO2 was produced during any conversion step in this process.

by KenTX on 04/21/2008 11:18:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
A couple of comments on this (none / 0)

"On the plus side, the impacts are also somewhat exagerated"

There's no way to know this.  The impacts could be exaggerated, or they could be much worse than feared.  I do know that the predictions of the early 1990's have proven to be overly optimistic.  Glaciers and arctic ice are receding considerably quicker than predicted at the time. 

"Yes, some people with beach front property will lose money, or force their governments to spend billions fighting rising tides"

If you consider the Florida peninsula and alluvial areas of the Mississippi and other major rivers of the Gulf coast to be nothing but "beachfront property".  Coastal erosion is already a huge problem here in Louisiana.   I think there is much more at stake here than some rich people having to give up their summer homes.

I respect your argument for sanity, I really do, but there are indications of positive feedback loops that can take this to whole new levels of urgency in a hurry.

It's a huge job, as you pointed out, but there are excellent national security reasons to pursue all of the options as quickly as possible.  I suspect that your professors are trying to instill a sense of urgency because virtually nothing has been done in response to a problem that requires action on a grand scale.  If changing the light bulbs is step one then let's get on with it and check it off the list and get moving on the other 999 items.  If the problem is not near as bad as they believe then I suspect we will know it long before we hit item 337 anyway.  By then we should at least have gone a long way toward extending the time we have before we  run out of fossil energy altogether.

by bfaul on 04/22/2008 11:28:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Reply (none / 0)
I do not deny that global warming is a threat, I just think it tends to get overblown by alarmists to the detriment of the movement as a whole.  I can't shake the similarities between their claims and Colin Powel at the UN (mobile bio weapons labs anyone?).  They latch onto possible, but low probability outcomes and tout them as certainties. 

I do believe we need to move towards a lower carbon future based mostly on renewable energy forms (but yes some nuclear and carbon sequestration Ken), I just think we need to do so an a cautioned and rational way.  The market is already mobilized towards meeting this challenge and needs continued support through tax breaks and continued investment in fundamental research.  The main reason I am optimistic however is that the time horizons for global warming are quite long, despite what many will have you believe.  Because of the beauty of compound growth in technology and renewable energy industries I don't think it will be much of a challenge to transition our energy system to a significantly lower carbon system over a period of 40-50 years.  However, doing so within 10-20 years is darn near impossible. 

Now the reality is that this will not stop all impacts, we will still probably see another 1-3 degrees of increased temperatures before stabilizing, but that is where the adaption and resiliency come in. 

The long transition time however is exactly why i'm more worried about limitations in fossil fuel energy sources than I am about global warming.  If fossil fuel sources begin to peak there are likely to be large economic disslocations that will force this transiton to take place quicker but at greatly increased costs.  Along with this transition are a high probability of extended economic recession or even depression and possibility of conflicts over remaining resources (Iraq war anyone?).  In this type of crisis it is unlikely that concerns of the environment will overtake concerns of crumbling economies. 

I realize this seems a like a conflicting veiw, and I guess in some ways it is.  The point is that we need to be careful about how much we discourage and attack the fossil fuel industries as their services will be vital to ensuring a smooth transition to more sustainable energy sources. 

BTW, the professors I speak of are mostly outside academics who have been invited as guest speakers.  I am lucky enough that most of my professors and many of my fellow students are much more on the realistic side.

by alphasigmookie on 04/22/2008 06:07:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
mookie, you made a mistake (none / 0)
"The point is that we need to be careful about how much we discourage and attack the fossil fuel industries as their services will be vital to ensuring a smooth transition to more sustainable energy sources."

They're energy companies, not fossil fuel companies. They exist to make money, not win friends and influence people. If and when the world's largest corporations (such as Exxon) recognize profit potential in alternative energy, they will be the first into the market.

I don't think they believe the planet is running out of oil, and I don't think they perceive a viable, feasible alternative on the horizon.. As you are fond of saying, watch how Exxon votes with their money.

Outside of small scale PR fluff, are any of the energy guys investing big in alternative energy? I'm not talking about the hokie stuff that BP does.
bp 

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 01:31:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Touche (none / 0)
If Exxon was private and run by a single person you might have had me there.  As it is, Exxon is potentially subject to institutional inertia and groupthink as well as focused on wallstreet's favorite game of "beat the number".  With the exception of Buffet and maybe GE and BP, it's hard to find large cap multinationals that can see farther than their current stock price or next quarter's or next year's profit number.   &n bsp;

As for BP, their few billion a year invested in alternative energy may be small compared to their huge revenues from oil, but it's still significant compared to overall investment in alternative energy. 

Now here is a guy who is putting his money where his mouth is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008 /02/23/business/23wind.html ?_r=1&ref=science&o ref=slogin

“I have the same feelings about wind,” Mr. Pickens said in an interview, “as I had about the best oil field I ever found.” He is planning to build the biggest wind farm in the world, a $10 billion behemoth that could power a small city by itself.

by alphasigmookie on 04/23/2008 02:54:53 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just for you Ken (none / 0)
http://articles.moneycentra l.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJ ournal/WhyOilCouldHit180Dol larsABarrel.aspx

MSN's Jim Jubak just wrote an article with an argument for $180 oil.  His argument is basically that new oil fields are far from markets and require huge capital investments while being controled by national oil companeis that are being taxed to death by their governments. 

By the way he has a fairly good track record with his average pick beating the market by 12%

http://caps.fool.com/ViewPl ayer.aspx?t=010400000000000 00026

by alphasigmookie on 04/23/2008 03:15:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
So much for global warming! (none / 0)
It took us an entire century to gain a single degree increase in temperature, and we lost the entire degree in a single year.

Now we're faced with global cooling.

it's cold!

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 01:58:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Instructive post (none / 0)

Note the trend of the above graph.  The person posting is oohing and aahing over the last squiggle in the line, as though he doesn't understand the difference between a single point deviation and a trend.

Remember that this guy claims to be an engineer. 

by bfaul on 04/23/2008 10:28:34 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I love the comment (none / 0)

about "mobilizing an army of scientists to create fear". You know, how scientists all think the same way and are easily swayed by alarmists and activists. In fact scientists ARE alarmists! Now that I understand this, I'm going to start burning tires in my front yard just to prove those libs wrong.

by hazmat on 04/21/2008 12:54:01 PM EST

See scientist created fear all by himself! (none / 0)

Ken Sux!

C'mon fellow Marvelites.  Who is it? 

by ProfRich on 04/21/2008 01:24:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Mister Fear (none / 0)
What a nerd I am.

by Spencer on 04/21/2008 08:05:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Revel in it (none / 0)

Somewhere along the way it became ok to be a nerd.

I am even starting to hear Huey Lewis' "Its Hip to be Square" on the radio again.

Dear God, didn't that man torture me enough in the 80s 

by ProfRich on 04/22/2008 12:26:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Global Warming is still with us! | 18 comments (18 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: