Originally Posted by TimWalker

Discussion of novel climates seem mainly about the tropics and the polar regions.

What if cooling schemes should manage to preserve these climates by keeping the average global temperature down? Cooling efforts may concentrate in non-polar, non-tropical latitudes. For example, the continental interior of the USA, over the western states. Or ocean sprays to cool southeastern Australia, southern South Africa, etc. Would these efforts have strange side effects, resulting in novel climates, or novel microclimates, in these countries?

I've seen various proposals, with different amounts of cost, risk and likely results. One might fertilize the ocean to create huge algae blooms to take carbon out of the oceans and atmosphere. One might orbit giant umbrellas to reduce the amount of light getting to the planet. One might relax standards on reducing soot release into the atmosphere, to allow global dimming to in part cancel global warming.

I don't think the science is well enough advanced to seriously considering implementing any such schemes. The computer models are decent at global averages, but we'll need a lot more work before they start doing local climates well enough to meddle with confidence. I would not be surprised if we eventully do resort to some sort of climate management, but I don't think we're far enough along in such things to do more than think about it and work the theory.

The Hazardous Earth

Climate Change

Shifting Glaciers, Deserts, and Climate Belts

by Timothy Kusky, Ph.D.

"As the climate warms, the oceans and land are able to take up less and less carbon dioxide, so more and more remains in the atmosphere at higher temperatures. These complex relationships predict an increasing rate of climate warming and that the climate may continue to warm after 2100. Warming will be greatest over land and in high northern latitudes and least over the Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.

"Most climate models predict changes through the year 2100, but the changes are predicted to continue for centuries after that, due to the slow response of the ocean system....

"Whatever level of greenhouse gases is emitted to the atmosphere, these gases will remain in the system for more than a thousand years, contributing to global warming and sea level rise for the entire time period."

Climate Change continued....

"Recently, it has been recognized that wind-blown dust contributes significantly to global climate. Dust storms that come out of the Sahara can be carrtied around the world and can partially block out some of the Sun's radiation. The dust particles may also act as small nuclei for raindrops to form around, perhaps acting as a natural cloud-seeding phenomenon. One interesting point to ponder is that as global warming increases global temperatures, the amount and intensity of storms increase, and some of the world's deserts expand. Dust storms may serve to counter this effect, reduce global temperatures, and increase precipitation."

We all need to think of what impact our actions have on the environment. The Earth is us and we are the Earth. It is an amazingly beautiful jewel of a planet. It's beauty nourishes us. It is of much greater value, even economically, when preserved, than when exploited. A city or state with a great environment is attractive, and that brings dollars as well as healthy souls and bodies. A polluted and damaged environment costs lots of money in medical bills and destroyed communities.

All of this is obvious now, but it is Earth Day, and it is worth saying again. Because we still have a senate and other governments that refuse to act. We still have states and cities that want to roll back laws that deal with climate change, even in my California and SF Bay Area, the leader of the environmental movement.

The challenges of the 21st century are great. Unless we end the use of fossil fuels soon, our water supply everywhere will greatly diminish, leading to more pressures on our land, rivers and wildlife. More land will turn to desert. Sea levels will flood many states and nations. Acidification in our seas will continue to leave dead zones. Storms will be stronger and there will be more Katrinas. Meanwhile as our population increases, and global warming continues, thousands of other species will die, reducing our biodiversity. Fish and wildlife will dissappear as habitat is destroyed and poisoned. If there is a core meaning to our current, new fourth turning, this is it.

We need a new vision of life, one that recognizes that each being is an organic, living soul, not just a body; each one is intrinsically valuable, not a dead object to be exploited. The Earth and cosmos is a living system infused with intelligence, and everything that we are as individuals comes from and depends on nature and its spirit. Our quality of life is not the same as our standard of living. The purpose of life is not to make money; that's only a means of subsistence. We need to think of future generations, not just personal ambitions programmed by society; and at the same time, appreciate our lives now instead of being driven and captivated by addictions and fears for our own survival. This is a great challenge, a terrific opportunity to shift human history. We need change both within and without; culturally, economically and politically. New green technologies are being developed, and we can support them. We are privileged to be alive at this time.

I'm wondering if this 4T will be remembered - not for epic battles of a Crisis war - but for strange weather. For example, the first hurricane for form (in recorded history) over the Mediterranean.....

Recall the flickering climate in The Day After Tomorrow.

I realized something that put my climate change skepticism in to an interesting context: I'm already living a sustainable lifestyle. My footprint is about 5-10% of the typical American's, and my offset is equal to exactly two trees (which is a small fraction of the foliage in my never watered, never fertilized lawn. Anyone want some magnolia trees? Oak? I've got a few dozen youngsters growing up)

So yeah, its all the rest of ya'll who need to stop driving, flying, and guzzling the aquifers. Just don't you dare make my own life more expensive in the process, because that would just require me to consume more resources

But the thing is, no one wants to change their own behavior. Everyone seems to think that the government needs to come in and make someone else fix the problem. Live the example you want to see in the world or just shut up about it.

Originally Posted by independent

But the thing is, no one wants to change their own behavior. Everyone seems to think that the government needs to come in and make someone else fix the problem. Live the example you want to see in the world or just shut up about it.

Right. Here you're discussing the classic "Tragedy of the Commons" thinking. "I can't make a difference alone, so I'm not going to sacrifice for the public good unless everyone else has to sacrifice along with me."

And in so doing, Easter Island becomes a wasteland.

How To Build A Dinosaur

Extinction Doesn't Have to be Forever

by Jack Horner and James Gorman


"Evolution driven by catastrophe is not what Darwin had envisioned. He, and many of those who came after them, saw natural selection acting gradually, preserving, or selecting for, the traits of animals that left more offspring. That would still happen in a catastrophe, of course, but it would not be a honing of traits best suited to particular niches. For a time chaos would serve those organisms that could thrive in a wide range of environmental conditions, and at first there would be little selection of the sort Darwin imagined, because as the damaged planet recovered, there would be plenty of room for the fit and unfit to prosper, as long as they weren't too ecologically picky.

"Think of the Permian extinction, for instance. Before the extinction, in which 95 percent of species were wiped out, many changes in behavior or form prompted by mutations in genes would have been lost, because organisms had particular niches that they had evolved to exploit and too much deviation would probably diminish their fitness. After the extinction, however, refinements in exploiting one kind of environment might be nothing compared to a fast reproductive rate and an ability to eat anything and everything. If every niche were opened by the extinctions, the world would be welcoming to all sorts of mutations.

"Nature had suddenly become a kind of Wild West, far less picky about whom it welcomed. It was a new frontier of sorts...."

Originally Posted by independent

I realized something that put my climate change skepticism in to an interesting context: I'm already living a sustainable lifestyle. My footprint is about 5-10% of the typical American's, and my offset is equal to exactly two trees (which is a small fraction of the foliage in my never watered, never fertilized lawn. Anyone want some magnolia trees? Oak? I've got a few dozen youngsters growing up)

So yeah, its all the rest of ya'll who need to stop driving, flying, and guzzling the aquifers. Just don't you dare make my own life more expensive in the process, because that would just require me to consume more resources

But the thing is, no one wants to change their own behavior. Everyone seems to think that the government needs to come in and make someone else fix the problem. Live the example you want to see in the world or just shut up about it.

It's not either/or, I think; it's both. We need to change our lifestyle, and support the right things; AND the government needs to give us incentives to do this, and more importantly, to stop the big forces that cause most of the problem and subsidize solutions that individuals alone can't institute.

What we don't need to do is worry about the fortunes of a few oil and coal company executives. They are the only ones who will be "inconvenienced" by the needed changes. Meanwhile, we need electric cars now in order to compete with them and thus bring fuel prices down (and this will not raise them as the skeptics think).

This probably deserves a new thread but I don't see one yet. But it MUST be clear to any awake and observant person that NO WAY can coal and oil be "safe," as Obama and the people he is placating think. We just saw 40 people give their lives for these "dinosaurs" (the oil and coal companies), and now millions of fish and the people who depend on them for a living are being literally soaked. This is the kind of thing I knew was coming in these times, and there will be more wake up calls to come. It has been 40 years now since the first Earth Day, and we've known about global warming for decades. The game is up folks; it's time to tell the oil and coal executives to get into another line of work, or go out of business. It's time to tell our so-called representatives to stop feeding at the corporate trough and pass real climate change legislation, and to protect and use the clean air act.

And from the Brin list, "we should stop using long-lasting oil-based plastic for plastic feed and disposable packaging and start using it for things that have to last."

While I agree with Dr. Brin about that for reasons having nothing to do with the longevity of resources, in fact if we stop burning oil as a fuel we'll have no shortage of it for other purposes.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

This probably deserves a new thread but I don't see one yet. But it MUST be clear to any awake and observant person that NO WAY can coal and oil be "safe," as Obama and the people he is placating think. We just saw 40 people give their lives for these "dinosaurs" (the oil and coal companies), and now millions of fish and the people who depend on them for a living are being literally soaked. This is the kind of thing I knew was coming in these times, and there will be more wake up calls to come. It has been 40 years now since the first Earth Day, and we've known about global warming for decades. The game is up folks; it's time to tell the oil and coal executives to get into another line of work, or go out of business. It's time to tell our so-called representatives to stop feeding at the corporate trough and pass real climate change legislation, and to protect and use the clean air act.

How do you suggest we transition off of fossil fuels without completely disrupting our economy?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

How do you suggest we transition off of fossil fuels without completely disrupting our economy?

New fuels will create millions of jobs, especially if encouraged by the government. Obama has made a start; we need more.

I could care less if a few oil executives are inconvenienced. Let them take their golden parachutes and retire. If some people have to change jobs, well and good. It is better if peoples' jobs are sustainable. Change now while you can, I say.

This sort of question forgets the fact that whole industries have come along and replaced outdated ones. It may have been difficult for some people, but it did not "completely disrupt our economy." New media and new technology has come along over and over again, forcing the old out of business or into decline; why not electric cars and solar panels? The old industries need to be starved out of existence through competition and subsidy to the new ones.

The disruption to our ecology is far more severe, and will have much greater impact on our economy, than bringing new technologies online will have.

Other nations are not waiting to grab this new opportunity for green transition. As Obama said, we need to be the nation that leads, not falls behind.

I just hope Obama will jump in with both feet, and stop placating the dinosaurs that recently showed they will never be safe.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

New fuels will create millions of jobs, especially if encouraged by the government. Obama has made a start; we need more.

I could care less if a few oil executives are inconvenienced. Let them take their golden parachutes and retire. If some people have to change jobs, well and good. It is better if peoples' jobs are sustainable. Change now while you can, I say.

This sort of question forgets the fact that whole industries have come along and replaced outdated ones. It may have been difficult for some people, but it did not "completely disrupt our economy." New media and new technology has come along over and over again, forcing the old out of business or into decline; why not electric cars and solar panels? The old industries need to be starved out of existence through competition and subsidy to the new ones.

The disruption to our ecology is far more severe, and will have much greater impact on our economy, than bringing new technologies online will have.

Other nations are not waiting to grab this new opportunity for green transition. As Obama said, we need to be the nation that leads, not falls behind.

I just hope Obama will jump in with both feet, and stop placating the dinosaurs that recently showed they will never be safe.

I agree with The Wonkette where we need to transition into new a new green fuel-based economy. We will all need to buy new cars and you will need to tell the New England States to go from oil/gas to electric power for their homes. We need to think this through before we go both feet in with the right solutions.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

How do you suggest we transition off of fossil fuels without completely disrupting our economy?

If any significant amount of that oil gets around the Florida coastline and into the Atlantic, my guess is more than just our economy stands to be disrupted.

Were the costs of this disaster adequately priced into oil as a global commodity (along with all the other negative externalities that accompany using and drilling for oil), my guess is consumers and business would be leading the charge for plug-in cars powered by electricity from wind turbines. Oil is unfavorable as a source of energy precisely because the total price of using it is far too high when one considers all the factors involved, compared to things like wind and solar.

Were there no environmental damage or threat of peak oil, then nobody would be complaining about oil as a source of energy.

Edit:

The most obvious way to price in externalities is, of course, a carbon/gas tax. So much of these externalities are paid for by governmental entities already: they more than anyone should have some sense of the costs.

Politically unpalatable and possibly dangerous when the economy is bad already, but it's something to keep in mind when the boom times come back.

Australia is in a drought that has gone on seven years. People are starting to assume that it isn't a slow natural cycle, or something like the North American Dust Bowl that went on for a similar time but eventually reversed. It might be permanent. It might be climate change.

Either way, the agricultural sector of Australia is going into a big time collapse.

National Geographic wrote an article on it, Australia's Dry Run. It is written from the perspective of a dairy farmer who has sold off his last cows, a citrus farmer who is cutting down trees to preserve water, and a rice farmer who simply retired.

If global warming is true, if some dry areas are to get dryer, wet areas get wetter, this might be an illustration of what is to come in other parts of the world.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

I agree with The Wonkette where we need to transition into new a new green fuel-based economy. We will all need to buy new cars and you will need to tell the New England States to go from oil/gas to electric power for their homes. We need to think this through before we go both feet in with the right solutions.

We have already thought it through, for decades. We have been fiddling while Earth burns for decades. The new tech is there; it will create jobs. ALL the states and all countries need to switch fuels NOW. What we need to think through, in my opinion, is how to defeat the interests who are doing everything they can to keep their money and ruin our planet.

Right now, the oil and coal execs are trying to buy California. They bought a ballot initiative to kill public power, and are spending millions directly from the money we pay for power for TV ads to deceive the people. Valero apparently has bought another initiative to scuttle our climate change bill. And the chamber of commerce candidate, Meg Whitman, is trying to buy the office of governor so they can stop the only state that can stop climate change.

We don't need to think through anything now but how to jump in with both feet to defeat the greedy ones who can't see the oil in the Gulf.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The new tech is there; it will create jobs.

Some new tech is here. I would challenge you to show that it will be a net creator of jobs.

"For instance, Spain was lauded by President Obama as a model for a new economy driven by green jobs. Yet Spain’s example isn’t one to be emulated if one is trying to boost employment. A 2009 study from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University found that for every green job the government “creates,” 2.2 jobs are lost in competing industries or as factories lay off workers to cover the higher energy costs of the green technology. In addition, only 10 percent of those green jobs were permanent with the average green job adding nearly $750,000 in costs to consumers’ bills."

more here: http://bit.ly/9eccvw

There are plenty of reasons to try to end dependence on carbon for energy, but making jobs is not one of them.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Some new tech is here. I would challenge you to show that it will be a net creator of jobs.

"For instance, Spain was lauded by President Obama as a model for a new economy driven by green jobs. Yet Spain’s example isn’t one to be emulated if one is trying to boost employment. A 2009 study from Madrid’s King Juan Carlos University found that for every green job the government “creates,” 2.2 jobs are lost in competing industries or as factories lay off workers to cover the higher energy costs of the green technology. In addition, only 10 percent of those green jobs were permanent with the average green job adding nearly $750,000 in costs to consumers’ bills."

more here: http://bit.ly/9eccvw

There are plenty of reasons to try to end dependence on carbon for energy, but making jobs is not one of them.

James50

I don't know if Spain is a good model. Certainly not the only one! Many more nations are converting now; the USA is lagging behind. Look at Germany and Denmark. One thing to keep in mind is that high gas prices was definitely one of the causes of the great 2008 recession, though that is often forgotten. This also happened twice in the 1970s. Such high prices are definitely dangerous and crippling for our economy, and will only get much, MUCH worse if world demand for oil increases-- which it absolutely will if a switch is not made soon.

I don't see how the cost of building solar, geo-thermal and wind energy plants is larger than the high costs oil companies incur now with their constant search for new and ever-diminishing and ever-more distant sources of oil and building new off-shore platforms, etc. It's a zero-sum proposition.

Electric car companies will permanently replace the jobs that exist now in the auto and oil industries, and this will also keep the cost of transportation much lower-- with a resulting great boom for our economy that is held back now by the high cost of going or shipping anything anywhere today. Trade and its jobs will mushroom as a result-- especially domestically and locally, which is what we need. Look for that boom to grow later in this decade (as I predicted years ago btw, based on my astrological acumen). Honda and other car companies will bring out electric cars soon, and the demand for them will spike, as high gas prices continue and get worse. Meanwhile the oil industry employs very few jobs, and coal is also a relatively minor industry job-wise. Many more jobs than those will be created converting and building energy-efficient buildings. Many permanent jobs will be created building and improving solar panels, windmills and other clean energy tools that each of our billions of people on Earth can buy and put on their own roofs for decades and centuries to come. Replacing the source of our energy is, if anything, a huge net gain for the economy; the same people, and more, will be needed to do the same things more efficiently. Will the USA get out front on this, and reap the economic rewards, or be deceived again by Republican and Libertarian charmers into further decline-- as has happened over the last 30 years?

Not to mention the benefits of avoiding the huge ECONOMIC costs of droughts, floods, storms, pollution, spills and accidents, vast losses of water and food, lands submerged, millions of refugees, poisoned oceans, lost tourism and biodiversity.. the list is endless of the costs of NOT acting. And scientists like Hansen say we have to act now, not wait until the so-called economic damage can somehow be "avoided" by delays. It is simply deadly-dangerous to any longer hold the outdated, deceptive view that conversion away from the global-warming energy economy to a green one is economically difficult. Fear and greed are not good solutions to our problems. And we have no right to kill off thousands of species for the sake of supposed human economic convenience.

You can no longer separate ecology from economy. The only way to help and preserve the latter is to do so to the former. End of story dude!

We are going to run into problems with startup costs and such during the transition from one form of energy to another. That's certain. As someone said, "The time to railroad isn't the time when it's cheaper to ship by rail than to ship by horse. It's the time when it's cheaper to *build* a railroad to ship by rail than to feed and stable all those horses."

So in calculating costs we have to factor in the one-time investments in new equipment and infrastructure.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

We are going to run into problems with startup costs and such during the transition from one form of energy to another. That's certain. As someone said, "The time to railroad isn't the time when it's cheaper to ship by rail than to ship by horse. It's the time when it's cheaper to *build* a railroad to ship by rail than to feed and stable all those horses."

So in calculating costs we have to factor in the one-time investments in new equipment and infrastructure.

I guess calculating costs will create some new jobs for the accounting sector!

Meanwhile we need to switch all the one-time investing that goes on already, in new off-shore rigs and oil-sands bulldozers, to windmills, batteries and solar panels!

The time to do so is NOW! Don't let the Republicans hoodwink you into waiting.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know if Spain is a good model. Certainly not the only one! Many more nations are converting now; the USA is lagging behind. Look at Germany and Denmark.

Spain instituted the most generous feed in tariff ever to boost solar installations. They had to eliminate it because of costs. Their current unemployment rate is 20%. Germany has the largest amount of solar - again because of a generous FIT. I don't think it makes sense to just brush off the Spanish study.

One thing to keep in mind is that high gas prices was definitely one of the causes of the great 2008 recession, though that is often forgotten. This also happened twice in the 1970s. Such high prices are definitely dangerous and crippling for our economy, and will only get much, MUCH worse if world demand for oil increases-- which it absolutely will if a switch is not made soon.

I don't see how the cost of building solar, geo-thermal and wind energy plants is larger than the high costs oil companies incur now with their constant search for new and ever-diminishing and ever-more distant sources of oil and building new off-shore platforms, etc. It's a zero-sum proposition.

Fine, but picture doing away with all subsidies for renewables, nuclear, and fossil fuels. Get rid of all the depletion allowances, tax credit, FITs, and everything else. Let's have a pure market based choice. Is there any doubt that all the renewable installations would end the next day?

Electric car companies will permanently replace the jobs that exist now in the auto and oil industries, and this will also keep the cost of transportation much lower-- with a resulting great boom for our economy that is held back now by the high cost of going or shipping anything anywhere today. Trade and its jobs will mushroom as a result-- especially domestically and locally, which is what we need. Look for that boom to grow later in this decade (as I predicted years ago btw, based on my astrological acumen). Honda and other car companies will bring out electric cars soon, and the demand for them will spike, as high gas prices continue and get worse. Meanwhile the oil industry employs very few jobs, and coal is also a relatively minor industry job-wise. Many more jobs than those will be created converting and building energy-efficient buildings. Many permanent jobs will be created building and improving solar panels, windmills and other clean energy tools that each of our billions of people on Earth can buy and put on their own roofs for decades and centuries to come. Replacing the source of our energy is, if anything, a huge net gain for the economy; the same people, and more, will be needed to do the same things more efficiently. Will the USA get out front on this, and reap the economic rewards, or be deceived again by Republican and Libertarian charmers into further decline-- as has happened over the last 30 years?

Not to mention the benefits of avoiding the huge ECONOMIC costs of droughts, floods, storms, pollution, spills and accidents, vast losses of water and food, lands submerged, millions of refugees, poisoned oceans, lost tourism and biodiversity.. the list is endless of the costs of NOT acting. And scientists like Hansen say we have to act now, not wait until the so-called economic damage can somehow be "avoided" by delays. It is simply deadly-dangerous to any longer hold the outdated, deceptive view that conversion away from the global-warming energy economy to a green one is economically difficult. Fear and greed are not good solutions to our problems. And we have no right to kill off thousands of species for the sake of supposed human economic convenience.

You can no longer separate ecology from economy. The only way to help and preserve the latter is to do so to the former. End of story dude!

I know you really believe this stuff, and parts of it may be right, but what you have written is more a faith statement than an argument with facts. Thats OK, we all need to have faith in something, but you cannot be expected to persuade others with faith statements. I think we should move toward renewables for a lot of reasons, but we do not need to immolate the economy on the altar of green energy. We need to talk about costs. Just waving your hands and saying its all going to be cheaper is not convincing. All the current US and European subsidies are in place for a reason. The renewables are more expensive than alternatives. We can and should absorb some of these differences in cost, but let's at least do some arithmetic (and try to learn something from the European experience).

Also, keep in mind that we do not all live in California. Georgia has fairly meager renewable resources - little wind except perhaps offshore and too many clouds to make solar viable. Our best bets for electricity are biomass (we have lots of trees) and nuclear. If you want to go all solar in CA, be my guest, but I will want the same subsidies for Georgia nuclear that you are getting for CA solar and wind.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

... There are plenty of reasons to try to end dependence on carbon for energy, but making jobs is not one of them.

James50

I don't know about that. The new economy is coming, or else.

Considering that "or else" is not acceptable under any model of the future I've seen, we need to start moving there as soon as we find a path in that direction. We'll do stupid things and fail, and some will turn out well in spite of us. We'll adjust as we go.

The economy is like the climate - a model of chaos in action. Let's hope that it trends positive.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The new economy is coming, or else.

Agreed, but to do it right, with minimum dislocation, will take at least 40 years or more. So far none of the renewables scale well enough to take on the whole energy burden. Except for pre-existing hydro, they are all a few percent of total energy production. The oil we do have left will be needed to make the transition. Let's head that direction, but we have other needs to keep in mind as well.

James50