Eocene Park!

[The_Global_Warmer]

Obviously, but as the chart shows, most countries are reducing CO2 emission. Its time to use some of your millions and head over to China and start innovating a solution over there.

Its been a movement for years to clean the earth, but technology is finally starting to make it a reality. Its pretty much a done deal that the arctic will melt out, its more about finding a solution to mitigate and bridge us to the next level of sustainability.

The technology to lower emissions is great. But we are headed for 600PPM without almost no chance to stop it, outside of asteroids, volcanoes, anything exterminating us.

So this is about that, that bike looks great and low emissions technologies are far better than the ones now. But this is about feeding mouths and wetting lips with water. 9-10 Billion people will need food and water everyday for as long as we exist at that level.

We apparently can not feed them now. So how will we help this issue in the future? Humans thrive on a balanced climate. We need protein above else, where will we get the amounts we need for 75-150Grams per day for 9 billion people.

900,000,000,000 billion grams per day.

Just one example of what the end goal is vs what we are currently doing to prevent it from ever happening.

[Jonger]

The technology to lower emissions is great. But we are headed for 600PPM without almost no chance to stop it, outside of asteroids, volcanoes, anything exterminating us.

So this is about that, that bike looks great and low emissions technologies are far better than the ones now. But this is about feeding mouths and wetting lips with water. 9-10 Billion people will need food and water everyday for as long as we exist at that level.

We apparently can not feed them now. So how will we help this issue in the future? Humans thrive on a balanced climate. We need protein above else, where will we get the amounts we need for 75-150Grams per day for 9 billion people.

900,000,000,000 billion grams per day.

Just one example of what the end goal is vs what we are currently doing to prevent it from ever happening.

I would probably keep this tight lipped around friends and family, but you better wish for high energy prices, thats the only hope we have. If oil gets back to $50 a barrel, we are going to see 2ppm a year increased to 4ppm.

[skierinvermont]

I think you're optimistic, but it's not beyond supposition. Remember that the Easter Islanders and the inhabitants of Tasmania forgot how to build the ships that got them there.

I think fairly large communities are needed to retain knowledge over generations, and the're subject to attack from nomadic bands. Nomads may have an edge being less burdened in having to find a suitable local for all seasons, but they're limited to what they can carry. Generators are easy enough to repair until new bearings are needed, then you need a machine shop.

Even the Amish farmers were/are reliant on imports into their communities.

God what a depressing topic!

Can't we just get somebody in power to actually do something?

You can generate electricity just by spinning a magnet through coiled wire by hand. Hydroelectric. Even in the worst case methane gun scenario it will still take hundreds of years and humans will have time to adapt in certain parts of the globe. Bandits could be a problem but not as much in less densely populated areas. Refugees from political or climate crises are unlikely to travel far.

[Jonger]

We could cut down old growth forests, lacquer the logs and bury them... Replant to forest and repeat the process several thousand times over.

[Jonger]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/bury-co2-in-ocean.htm

[WeatherRusty]

http://science.howst...o2-in-ocean.htm

Thanks for that positive contribution. Good stuff!

I am rather resigned to the belief that CO2 emissions will continue on the rise over the next several decades and that the effects of global warming will worsen with time as a result. The use of fossil fuels world wide just carries too much inertia to think humans will be able transition to alternatives rapidly enough to avoid significant climate change induced disruption.

No one wants to force the developing world to slow down in their development. We are not sadistic. No one is seeking to kill the golden goose that is economic prosperity. A global community of prospering nations stands a better chance for stability and national security. To have a fighting chance against threats such as AGW, resource depletion and overpopulation which actually do stand in the way of future prosperity for the greatest number of humans on the planet, we must first recognize and acknowledge the scientifically issued warnings and then work together to arrive at solutions.

Scientific denial has no place in securing our future. Carbon capture and sequestration may be seen as a large part of the solution. Again, thanks for the solid contribution.

[roardog]

The climate would eventually change even without AGW just because that's what it always has done. Whether it would be colder or warmer, all life would either have to adapt to it or go extinct. We can do what we can to reduce our contributions to changing the climate but in the end it will eventually change anyway. Thinking the climate will continue to be stable forever is idiotic. Do we cause a global economic failure by trying to immediately curb CO2 emmissions or do we continue to let the ever advancing technology gradually reduce our emmissions? I think since our climate is going to change regardless, I'd rather take the second option and go from there. If we go extinct, then I guess our planet will have shown us who is in charge.

[cmc0605]

The climate would eventually change even without AGW just because that's what it always has done. Whether it would be colder or warmer, all life would either have to adapt to it or go extinct. We can do what we can to reduce our contributions to changing the climate but in the end it will eventually change anyway. Thinking the climate will continue to be stable forever is idiotic. Do we cause a global economic failure by trying to immediately curb CO2 emmissions or do we continue to let the ever advancing technology gradually reduce our emmissions? I think since our climate is going to change regardless, I'd rather take the second option and go from there. If we go extinct, then I guess our planet will have shown us who is in charge.

This is like saying that since people die anyway, we minus well go on a mass killing spree to get rid of the overpopulation problem for a little while.

There's absolutely no evidence that the climate will "naturally" change to anything like you'd expect with a doubling , tripling, or quadrupling of CO2 over timescales of the next hundreds of years. Based on orbital changes, it will take many thousands of years from now to begin to plunge into another ice age. I don't quite see how this should be placed as a high priority in human policy making. Arguing from the inevitability of future climate changes is sort of silly.

[roardog]

This is like saying that since people die anyway, we minus well go on a mass killing spree to get rid of the overpopulation problem for a little while.

There's absolutely no evidence that the climate will "naturally" change to anything like you'd expect with a doubling , tripling, or quadrupling of CO2 over timescales of the next hundreds of years. Based on orbital changes, it will take many thousands of years from now to begin to plunge into another ice age. I don't quite see how this should be placed as a high priority in human policy making. Arguing from the inevitability of future climate changes is sort of silly.

So, you're saying we should all live as the Amish do so we can avoid a warmer planet? Gee, where do I sign up for that type of lifestyle?

[WeatherRusty]

The climate would eventually change even without AGW just because that's what it always has done. Whether it would be colder or warmer, all life would either have to adapt to it or go extinct. We can do what we can to reduce our contributions to changing the climate but in the end it will eventually change anyway. Thinking the climate will continue to be stable forever is idiotic. Do we cause a global economic failure by trying to immediately curb CO2 emmissions or do we continue to let the ever advancing technology gradually reduce our emmissions? I think since our climate is going to change regardless, I'd rather take the second option and go from there. If we go extinct, then I guess our planet will have shown us who is in charge.

What is idiototic is to belief that climate scientists think climate stays stable forever unless man disrupts it. Why would you write something like that? You can't seriously base your argument on such a claim.

Science knows of 5 great extinction events to have occurred on Earth during the period since the Precambrian Eon. It is thought that all of them took place at least in part due to rapid disruption of the global environment and in particular climate change and changes in ocean and atmospheric chemistry, most likely due to tectonic events and asteroid impacts.. By rapid I mean over the course of a few short MILLION YEARS or less.

Yes the climate will change on it's own in time, but when was the last time global average temperature reached 2,3,4,5,6C warmer than today? Life on Earth has not had to adapt over just a few centuries of time to such a disruption in a very, very, long time.

[roardog]

What is idiot is to belief that climate scientists think climate stays stable forever unless man disrupts it. Why would you write something like that? You can't seriously base your argument on such a claim.

Science knows of 5 great extinction events to have occurred on Earth during the period since the Precambrian Eon. It is thought that all of them took place at least in part due to rapid disruption of the global environment and in particular climate change and changes in ocean and atmospheric chemistry most likely due to tectonic events and asteroid impacts.. By rapid I mean over the course of a few short MILLION YEARS or less.

Yes the climate will change on it's own in time, but when was the last time global average temperature reached 2,3,4,5,6C warmer than today? Life on Earth has not had to adapt over just a few centuries of time to such a disruption in a very, very, long time.

So we should live as the Amish do?

[WeatherRusty]

So, you're saying we should all live as the Amish do so we can avoid a warmer planet? Gee, where do I sign up for that type of lifestyle?

That is not what we are saying at all. We have to bring about a shift in energy production and usage while at the same time maintaining modern society. I don't belief we will do it, partially because of the widespread attitude you present.

[roardog]

We have to bring about a shift in energy production and usage while at the same time maintaining modern society.

What should be done today to reach this goal? Please explain.

[cmc0605]

Intelligent discourse would be a good start.

[WeatherRusty]

What should be done today to reach this goal? Please explain.

The big proposals out there involve a tax on carbon with the proceeds returned to consumers, or cap and trade schemes. Both are geared toward fostering investment in clean, renewable sources of energy. On the efficiency end, we could modernize the electrical power grid to better utilize and disseminate power in a "smart" manner. We can increase fuel efficiency standards for transportation. We can improve on new construction energy standards for homes and business construction. We can employ carbon capture and sequestration.

That and a lot more if we put our collective minds together and become determined to do so. Don't care for cap and trade? Help find a better solution. As it stands now, we are arguing the need for any of this common sense behavior much the same way we were 20 years ago and making little progress. Some progress, but not nearly enough or fast enough.

[roardog]

The big proposals out there involve a tax on carbon with the proceeds returned to consumers, or cap and trade schemes. Both are geared toward fostering investment in clean, renewable sources of energy. On the efficiency end, we could modernize the electrical power grid to better utilize and disseminate power in a "smart" manner. We can increase fuel efficiency standards for transportation. We can improve on new construction energy standards for homes and business construction. We can employ carbon capture and sequestration.

That and a lot more if we put our collective minds together and become determined to do so. Don't care for cap and trade? Help find a better solution. As it stands now, we are arguing the need for any of this common sense behavior much the same way we were 20 years ago and making little progress. Some progress, but not nearly enough or fast enough.

This is basically what I was saying originally. These types of actions will gradually reduce our contribution to climate change. Modernizing as technology advances is what we should be doing. Then we just go from there and try to adapt to whatever climate change occurs. If the change is so great that we become extinct then I guess so be it.

[dabize]

No one wants to force the developing world to slow down in their development. We are not sadistic. No one is seeking to kill the golden goose that is economic prosperity. A global community of prospering nations stands a better chance for stability and national security. To have a fighting chance against threats such as AGW, resource depletion and overpopulation which actually do stand in the way of future prosperity for the greatest number of humans on the planet, we must first recognize and acknowledge the scientifically issued warnings and then work together to arrive at solutions.

Scientific denial has no place in securing our future. Carbon capture and sequestration may be seen as a large part of the solution. Again, thanks for the solid contribution.

Oddly enough, the free market OUGHT to be our best friend here, especially once carbon sources are properly priced to reflex their actual cost of use. The Chinese are actually trying to fix the CO2 problem a lot harder than we are, because they see first hand what AGW is doing to their country. Sure they're emitting more than we are now as a country, but it is still much less per capita.

The classic American solution would be to come up with solar panels, hybrid cars, sequestration plant designs etc. that are commercially viable in China and India, and make money on AGW. It's a pity that so many "conservatives" don't think this way any more......

[Jonger]

Oddly enough, the free market OUGHT to be our best friend here, especially once carbon sources are properly priced to reflex their actual cost of use. The Chinese are actually trying to fix the CO2 problem a lot harder than we are, because they see first hand what AGW is doing to their country. Sure they're emitting more than we are now as a country, but it is still much less per capita.

The classic American solution would be to come up with solar panels, hybrid cars, sequestration plant designs etc. that are commercially viable in China and India, and make money on AGW. It's a pity that so many "conservatives" don't think this way any more......

I'm getting interested in the topic of carbon sequestration, can you indicate a few measures the Chinese are taking in this science. I was under the impression they were polluting like drunken sailors.

[Jonger]

Its 100% proven that CO2 levels are rising, step two needs to be in order... Lets do something about it.

Economics alone are beginning to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption and that will only get better as prices remain high.

[WeatherRusty]

Its 100% proven that CO2 levels are rising, step two needs to be in order... Lets do something about it.

Economics alone are beginning to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption and that will only get better as prices remain high.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the price of oil per barrel determined by the oil cartel. Even if we attempted to "drill baby drill" our way to supposed energy independence wouldn't the price of that oil still be determined by off shore entities? We are being jerked around by outside powers, the price of oil not being determined by simple supply and demand economics.

Eventually the price will be more and more determined by the discord between a dwindling supply and a never slowing global demand. Used to be the U.S. was the only big game going, increasingly so we losing control of the commodity we are so dependent on. Isn't it time to take back control of our energy future in a manner in which we truly can continue to control. No one can control the cost of raw materials like Sunlight, hydroelectic, geothermal or the wind.

[Jonger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the price of oil per barrel determined by the oil cartel. Even if we attempted to "drill baby drill" our way to supposed energy independence wouldn't the price of that oil still be determined by off shore entities? We are being jerked around by outside powers, the price of oil not being determined by simple supply and demand economics.

Eventually the price will be more and more determined by the discord between a dwindling supply and a never slowing global demand. Used to be the U.S. was the only big game going, increasingly so we losing control of the commodity we are so dependent on. Isn't it time to take back control of our energy future in a manner in which we truly can continue to control. No one can control the cost of raw materials like Sunlight, hydroelectic, geothermal or the wind.

I'm not sure the best economists on earth have this figured out. The price of oil I mean.

I can tell you this, Michigan is rapidly being covered with wind turbines.

[skierinvermont]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the price of oil per barrel determined by the oil cartel. Even if we attempted to "drill baby drill" our way to supposed energy independence wouldn't the price of that oil still be determined by off shore entities? We are being jerked around by outside powers, the price of oil not being determined by simple supply and demand economics.

Eventually the price will be more and more determined by the discord between a dwindling supply and a never slowing global demand. Used to be the U.S. was the only big game going, increasingly so we losing control of the commodity we are so dependent on. Isn't it time to take back control of our energy future in a manner in which we truly can continue to control. No one can control the cost of raw materials like Sunlight, hydroelectic, geothermal or the wind.

From what I understand, a few OPEC countries (the Saudis) probably could drill a bit more oil if they wanted to, and this would lower the price a bit in the short-term. But there is not a ton of extra cheap supply out there even among OPEC countries, which is why there is so much expensive offshore drilling occurring. The price will probably continue to rise over the next decade regardless of what OPEC does.

[dabize]

Eventually the price will be more and more determined by the discord between a dwindling supply and a never slowing global demand. Used to be the U.S. was the only big game going, increasingly so we losing control of the commodity we are so dependent on. Isn't it time to take back control of our energy future in a manner in which we truly can continue to control. No one can control the cost of raw materials like Sunlight, hydroelectic, geothermal or the wind.

Bolded phrase sums it up exactly. It increasingly doesn't matter what OPEC and even Wall Street does to affect crude oil prices. The 3rd World demand is going to drive up the price. We can drill (or for that matter, fill oil "strategic reserves") all we like, and the price will go up inexorably. edit - I see Skier got to this one first.......

Problem is, we need petroleum products for much more important things than our wasteful use of energy (e.g. plastics manufacture etc.). An oil reserve should be used for that, not to fill the tank of Joe Sixpack's F250.

So the only sensible thing is to severely tax or ration petroleum use for transport/energy (a 100% dividend from returns according to income level would help make it more palatable politically - socialistic as this might sound). At the same time, we have to invest in developing other energy sources and conservation/sequestration measures as if there's no tomorrow..........cuz in a very real sense, there isn't if we don't

[Jonger]

From what I understand, a few OPEC countries (the Saudis) probably could drill a bit more oil if they wanted to, and this would lower the price a bit in the short-term. But there is not a ton of extra cheap supply out there even among OPEC countries, which is why there is so much expensive offshore drilling occurring. The price will probably continue to rise over the next decade regardless of what OPEC does.

Peak oil hit around 1995-2005.... Peak coal has hit as well (high caloric content coal).... Energy is going to be expensive. China is having an effect on every market on earth.

[Jonger]

Bolded phrase sums it up exactly. It increasingly doesn't matter what OPEC and even Wall Street does to affect crude oil prices. The 3rd World demand is going to drive up the price. We can drill (or for that matter, fill oil "strategic reserves") all we like, and the price will go up inexorably. edit - I see Skier got to this one first.......

Problem is, we need petroleum products for much more important things than our wasteful use of energy (e.g. plastics manufacture etc.). An oil reserve should be used for that, not to fill the tank of Joe Sixpack's F250.

So the only sensible thing is to severely tax or ration petroleum use for transport/energy (a 100% dividend from returns according to income level would help make it more palatable politically - socialistic as this might sound). At the same time, we have to invest in developing other energy sources and conservation/sequestration measures as if there's no tomorrow..........cuz in a very real sense, there isn't if we don't

Its a finite resource, we should impose usage penalties on vehicles and assess that at registration and yearly renewal. Revenue generated should go into a fund to build state/private wind turbines. Feed that power right back into the grid.

[aslkahuna]

We'll see weather capable of producing the France 2003 scenario in Philly and St Louis in most summers pretty soon.

The only difference will be readily available AC.

Can you imagine what it will be like in places like Karachi, Mumbai and New Delhi if the monsoon gets delayed from June to July?

Temperatures closer to 125F rather than the 115-120F they see now during the pre monsoon heat burst.

Steve

[aslkahuna]

The funny thing is that if we could simply reduce or eliminate our wasted light that we send into Space above our cities we could reduce energy usage by as much as 50% which would mean an instant reduction in the use of fossil fuels to generate that energy and hence less CO2. Another reason for doing this is that studies show that there's a link between light pollution and air pollution in our cities.

Steve

[beneficii]

The funny thing is that if we could simply reduce or eliminate our wasted light that we send into Space above our cities we could reduce energy usage by as much as 50% which would mean an instant reduction in the use of fossil fuels to generate that energy and hence less CO2. Another reason for doing this is that studies show that there's a link between light pollution and air pollution in our cities.

Steve

This sounds intriguing, but I'm not quite sure i understand and I'm not sure where to start asking questions. Do you have a link to more information on this? Thanks.

[dabize]

Temperatures closer to 125F rather than the 115-120F they see now during the pre monsoon heat burst.

Steve

I was in Delhi on June 7th 1971

The monsoon had not yet come, and there was near 100RH. I don't know what the temp actually was.

We went to Agra to see the Taj, and I remember my sister (she was 16, me 14) having heat prostration.

I just can't imagine how anyone could survive a rise of 2C there without AC - and 10s of millions of poor Indians are going to have that very soon. The middle class will be OK, but the poor?

[WeatherRusty]

The funny thing is that if we could simply reduce or eliminate our wasted light that we send into Space above our cities we could reduce energy usage by as much as 50% which would mean an instant reduction in the use of fossil fuels to generate that energy and hence less CO2. Another reason for doing this is that studies show that there's a link between light pollution and air pollution in our cities.

Steve

And I'd be more inclined to haul my telescope out to the back yard for a little deep sky observing! Damned light pollution.