Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Not with the cold California current off the coast. Any tropical storm would be sapped of its energy before it hit any part of coastal California -- provided that it didn't go through the Gulf of California instead.

There have been suggestions that the Sonoran Desert was much greener during the Ice Age (about like northern Nevada) when the westerlies went farther south. Warmer conditions might allow more of a monsoon season. In between such times, as now, southeastern California and southwestern Arizona are desert.

Traveling up the Gulf of California-perhaps this would beome Hurricane Alley.

"But in the long run, we have to find ways to slow down. By conserving energy and switching to cleaner sources, we can start to move away from fossil fuels – and to use remaining reserves less wastefully." ........ David Suzuki

Rail, Pipeline and Climate Disasters are Symptoms of Oily Addiction

by David Suzuki

Massive pipeline spills and devastating rail accidents are among the immediate and frightening consequences of our growing appetite for fossil fuels, but our bad habits are really starting to hit back with climate change. The homes and lives lost around the world, numerous plant and animal species facing extinction, rising health-care costs from pollution-related illness and massive clean-up efforts after flooding show that failing to address climate change is far more costly than doing something about it. Much of what we’re seeing now – from increased intense rainfall and flooding in some parts of the world to extended droughts in others – is what climate scientists have been predicting for decades.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/17-0

While many of the social issues are important, IMHO, the really serious issues are not being dealt with by either party. We have an environmental crisis that is all but being ignored. Unless you consider the so called *clean* energy spin acceptable.

While we are asked to keep our eye on the deceptive ball, our climate is headed for a melt down. Not to mention that very few politicians are asking us to stand up to big oil corporations. Meanwhile, all of the whistle blowers that keep the PTB in check, are branded traitors, while the politicans stuff their campaign coffers with corporate cash..

Former Mobil VP Warns of Fracking and Climate Change

Few people can explain gas and oil drilling with as much authority as Louis W. Allstadt. As an executive vice president of Mobil Oil who ran the company's exploration and production operations in the western hemisphere before he retired in 2000. In 31 years with the company he also was in charge of its marketing and refining in Japan, and managed its worldwide supply, trading and transportation operations. Just before retiring, he oversaw Mobil's side of its merger with Exxon, creating the world's largest corporation.

Methane release: fracking the planet's future

So when you talked about "the race for what's left," that's what's going on. Both the horizontal drilling and fracturing have been around for a long time. The industry will tell you this over and over again - they've been around for 60 years, things like that. That is correct. What's different is the volume of fracking fluids and the volume of flow-back that occurs in these wells. It is 50 to 100 times more than what was used in the conventional wells.

Obama and the future

What are your thoughts about President Obama's national address on climate change?LA: Well, when he talked about the XL pipeline he said he wanted to be sure it didn't increase carbon emissions. When he talks about natural gas, he kind of broad-brushes it and implies it's better than coal.

The whole speech is feeding into [Exxon-Mobil CEO] Rex Tillerson's comments at a recent Exxon-Mobil shareholders' meeting where he said there's nothing we can do to switch to alternative fuels [and still] allow economies to continue the way they are. Society has to solve the problems by dealing with global warming - building levees around the cities, things like that. Obama is feeding into that, saying we have to strengthen the infrastructure. Basically what the industry is doing is unloading all the costs of what it's been doing onto the public. Just go out and build miles and miles of levees around New York City and build drainage systems and things like that. Obama is saying the same thing. We'll go on producing natural gas and keep the cost low by having the taxpayers pick up the cost of dealing with the consequences of global warming. Obama proposed some very positive steps toward developing alternative energies but he is not addressing the impact that methane has on global warming.

Conclusion

EC: You've been on both sides now - promoting fossil fuel development for your whole life until your retirement and now trying to fight fracking. Do you think the anti-fracking movement and other environmental movements are the main hope now?

LA: I think the main question is how fast can these movements educate enough people about the dangers of fracking and its impact on global warming. It will take masses of people demanding action from politicians to offset the huge amount of money that the industry is using to influence lawmakers, a world-scale version of those standing-room-only town meetings. Something has to wake up the general public. It will either be education from the environmental movements or some kind of climate disaster that no one can ignore.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/17605...climate-change

Tropical Storm Dorian has now formed. It's a Cape Verde storm.

Originally Posted by Deb C

"But in the long run, we have to find ways to slow down. By conserving energy and switching to cleaner sources, we can start to move away from fossil fuels – and to use remaining reserves less wastefully." ........ David Suzuki

Rail, Pipeline and Climate Disasters are Symptoms of Oily Addiction

by David Suzuki



http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/07/17-0

-You know that the train in Canada was transporting oil because there isn't a pipeline which could do it efficiently and safely, right?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-You know that the train in Canada was transporting oil because there isn't a pipeline which could do it efficiently and safely, right?

Pipelines have ruptured, too. A natural-gas leak and a careless smoker can easily imply some human flesh -- extra-crispy, of course.

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Tropical Storm Dorian has now formed. It's a Cape Verde storm.

Dorian. Now there's a name ripe for creating havoc.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Dorian. Now there's a name ripe for creating havoc.

A textbook portrait for a grey depression.

Could hurricanes form in the Gulf of California?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Could hurricanes form in the Gulf of California?

Not enough water area. They could form outside, but the Baja peninsula, and the restricted water area would weaken the storm. Major flooding for Mexico and the southwest.

Dorian's projected track is moving south. Looks like it may enter the Gulf, via the Straits of Florida.

Where's Hopeful Cynic? I need validation from him, on hurricanes...

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcomm...warming-3.html

Came across an article about reflective nano discs that would hover in the atmosphere. The shiny side would point up. And there is the concept of using the Earth's magnetic field to control the nano discs.

Dorian has downgraded to a tropical disturbance NE of Cuba.

But Albuquerque had a Category 1 hurricane Friday night.

http://www.abqjournal.com/226808/new...orms-fury.html

Okay, it's not just the farting, but it did get your attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ve-the-planet/

Could a test-tube burger save the planet?
By Ezra Klein, Published: August 5 at 4:40

The most expensive burger ever made was served in London today. It cost more than $300,000 — thanks, Google’s Sergey Brin — and didn’t taste very good. But the texture was right, and it saved a cow. Maybe one day it can save the Earth.

That’s the real play behind the test-tube burgers. The hope, according to Dutch scientist Mark Post, who led the team, is that they can eventually help stop global warming.

The case for moving away from raising and slaughtering animals for food is typically portrayed in terms of animal welfare. But increasingly the argument is about planetary welfare: Meat is simply a huge, huge contributor to climate change, and it’s only going to get bigger as the billions of people in emerging economies begin demanding the meat-heavy diets they associate with wealth.
In this 2009 column, I laid out some of the numbers behind this debate. They’re worth thinking about today. The column is slightly edited from its original version....

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

But Albuquerque had a Category 1 hurricane Friday night.

http://www.abqjournal.com/226808/new...orms-fury.html

We've had quite a year here as well. Replacing siding, awnings, and a downspout is coming up; the insurance adjuster said that I had come off lightly, compared to others in my area.

Now, I'm going to have to deal with contractors. Capitalism at it's finest.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Okay, it's not just the farting, but it did get your attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ve-the-planet/

At a quarter million a burger, it's still bit pricey for my budget.

It seems like our wonderful (cough cough) southeast region has not caught the drift on this one either:

http://energy.gov/articles/wind-farm...-through-years

Interesting fusion reactor research, but too far in the future to be of any help.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23408073
By David Shukman
Science editor, BBC News

…"At a conference in Belgium last September, I asked a panel of experts when the first commercially-available fusion reactor might generate power for the grid.
A few said that could happen within 40 years but most said it would take another 50 or even 60 years. The fusion dream has never been worked on so vigorously. But turning it into reality is much more than 30 years away."...

I would hope that we could remove even the slightest possibility of nuclear energy as a remedy to our energy crisis.


Japanese Govt Admits SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS Of Radioactive Water Leaking Into The Ocean EVERYDAY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZJb-KXQjg

Originally Posted by radind

Interesting fusion reactor research, but too far in the future to be of any help.

Of course it will be of help, just not as soon as needed to avoid the catastrophe in progress. The real questions will be, how long will it take to recover, and to what extent? None of us will be around to know the answer, but how we are considered by posterity rides on those results.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Of course it will be of help, just not as soon as needed to avoid the catastrophe in progress. The real questions will be, how long will it take to recover, and to what extent? None of us will be around to know the answer, but how we are considered by posterity rides on those results.

Such a recovery, if needed, will ONLY be a recovery from our failure of political will (Republicans in power).

Originally Posted by Deb C

I would hope that we could remove even the slightest possibility of nuclear energy as a remedy to our energy crisis.


Japanese Govt Admits SEVERAL HUNDRED TONS Of Radioactive Water Leaking Into The Ocean EVERYDAY!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYZJb-KXQjg

Pointing at stupidity and saying its universal is a huge stretch. The Japanese pushed the envlope far beyond rational limits, much like the Russians did. But even older conventional fission reactors can and do operate safely, and newer designs are dramatically better. Fossil fuesl, on the other hand, kill people every year. There are very few options for baseload generation, and baseload is mandatory. Of course, we could go the third-world way, and do without electricity several hours a day. I doubt that will fly, even in Green Energy Land. So basic pragmatism calls for bridging techonology of some kind. Nuclear is clearly superior in many ways ... not that it should be employed with no oversight.

But if you say no to nuclear, you'll get more coal and more AGW. It's pretty simple.