 | The Anatomy of a Natural Gas Price Spike - Past and Future | The Oil Drum | Matt Simmons' Video on Oil and Gas Markets |  |
DrumBeat: March 7, 2009
Posted by Leanan on March 7, 2009 - 10:45am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Jan Lundberg: Counter argument for "Stimulus," growth and employment
It is not clear where we are headed in terms of a society impacted by ecological destruction and the end of globalized consumption. I for one am not sure I want to see the result. However, as things are not so bad now compared to where they seem to be heading -- with too many mouths to feed and no social safety net or ecological capacity up to the challenge for avoiding big pain -- I continue to soldier on, so to speak. I try to serve the greater good while I worry about my own survival and that of my loved ones. I also have a good time when I can, but things are getting weirder for me as they seem to be for most of us.I keep in mind my former career-training as an oil-industry analyst and my generalist knowledge gained, in order to try to make sense of our changing, swirling world. It's what I learned after leaving the industry and government that ultimately allowed me, I believe, to find out more or less fully what is going on, and thus feel I can offer ideas on what needs to be done. That is not to say I know everything or am prepared for any direction the human experience may take. But some things I know for sure from experience and meditating on the forces of both history and the universe.
So you see, any pause in present trends, with particular attention to how gold is steeling the show due to grand scale deleveraging, would only be that – a pause within a secular trend of the highest order. And it’s very important you understand this, because the bad news doesn’t end there. No, the world is not just deleveraging a rotten and corrupt financial system. This is only a symptom of the disease. What is happening on a larger scale is the entire socio-political economy of our very existence is coming into question, brought on by Peak Oil, excessive population growth, etc., where up until now the prognosis appears to be increasingly bleak considering special interests still have far to much influence on the pace at which alternative energy systems are being developed. In this respect it appears the combination of faulty pricing mechanisms in concert with everything else (think misplaced intervention, deflation perception, etc.) keeping energy prices too low right now could manifest into an increasingly profound crisis in coming years, one where economic hardship, and even famine, reach populations presently viewed as insular. (i.e. that means you.)
Arab investments in energy plunge
Riyadh: Investments in the Arab energy sector, especially in the oil industry in the Gulf, have undergone a major decline due to the global financial crisis, which could endanger the future of the industry, according to a survey conducted by an Arab oil investment firm."The future of investments in the Arab energy sector would face a number of potential challenges over the coming five years. The most important among them is a fall of 19 per cent in the projected volume of investments in the energy sector, mainly in the oil sector of the Gulf region, from $650 billion to $450 billion over the period between 2009 and 2013," the report said.
Rescue plan for North Sea jobs
THE government is finalising the terms of a rescue package for North Sea oil firms amid warnings that more than half the companies in the sector will fail this year and put tens of thousands out of work.The plan could include several unprecedented measures, including immediate release of several hundred million pounds held by the Treasury in accumulated tax credits and an offer to groups that won licences in last year’s auction of new North Sea blocks to hand them back if they are unable to fund their development.
Interview with Jorma Ollila, the Chairman of the Board of Royal Dutch Shell
Question: There was a man called M. King Hubbard employed by Shell. How do you view his intellectual and scientific legacy, i.e. the peak oil theory which proved to be broadly true for the continental United States.Answer: I think the peak oil theory has a certain explanatory power for individual oil fields. But if you take a global view with all technological opportunities and oil reserves which have not been discovered, the theory's explanatory power is more limited. I don't think we have seen the peak point in oil production globally. There is more oil to be discovered through exploration and more oil to be produced due to new technologies.
Three injured, 25 detained in takeover attempt in south Russia
ROSTOV-ON-DON (RIA Novosti) - Police have detained 25 people who attacked an oil refinery in south Russia's Rostov Region and injured three guards, police said Saturday.Director Anatoly Skiba told RIA Novosti that the incident was an attempt to forcibly take over the refinery.
Police said about 30 people armed with firearms and airguns attempted to seize the refinery. The attackers rammed the gate with a tractor and opened fire on the guards.
Iraq says non-Opec producers need $70 oil price
"Below $70 would mean that many of the oil fields outside Opec would stop production because they cannot produce at a loss."
Tareen in S Arabia to seek oil on deferred payment
LAHORE: Finance Adviser Shaukat Tareen is in Saudi Arabia on a four-day visit to seek oil supply for Pakistan on deferred payment and a $100-million aid for the rehabilitation of the quake-affected people in Balochistan, a private TV channel reported on Friday.
Michael Pollan Fixes Dinner (Extended Interview)
One of the things that happened is that we lost the cultural skills that used to allow people to eat well cheaply. For example making three or four meals from a chicken, rather than buying chicken breasts. Every peasant cuisine has incredible ingenious tricks for getting a lot of nutrition out of a small amount of ingredients. There are people who don't have the money to invest in better food, but perhaps they have the time. There's a trade-off: The more time you're willing to put into food preparation, the less money you have to spend. And people have gone out and done studies on "Can you eat locally on a food stamps budget?" And you can, but you've got to put in like all day Sunday cooking meals. And a lot of people feel as pinched for time as they are with money, but you're going to have to invest more time or more money if you want to get off this industrial food chain, and that is a challenge.
Farmers could face rough year, MU institute says
After last year's meteoric rise in food prices, shoppers can expect to see some relief in the grocery aisles this year — or, at least, be slightly less sticker-shocked. But the farmers who produce that food could be in for a rough year.
Don’t Get Comfortable With Cheap Oil
Oil was officially taken down last summer. Fine American institutions like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are fully capable of moving markets in either direction and profiting accordingly. Do you think you could make a few bucks if you absolutely knew the direction a market was to be taken? I have zero confidence in the integrity of elitist paper markets, be they gold, silver, oil, Treasuries or orange juice.
Exxon CEO's Meetings with Obama 'Constructive'
Exxon Mobil Corp. Chief Executive Rex Tillerson said Thursday that meetings with President Barack Obama and other government officials to discuss energy policy had been "cordial" and "constructive."
Dubai oil exchange in push for liquidity
But now the Dubai market faces its biggest challenge: to persuade the state oil companies of the region – starting with the largest, Saudi Arabia – to use the DME Oman futures as the basis for their export pricing.“The Saudis are the linchpin and they know that,” said Thomas Leaver, chief executive of the DME, in an interview. “We are talking to Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Kuwait, Iran and Iraq. They have all told us if the Saudis move, they will move with them.”
U.S. McDermott gets Saudi gas field contract-Aramco
RIYADH (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's state oil firm Aramco said on Saturday it had awarded a contract for the Karan gas field to J.Ray McDermott, which is wholly-owned by U.S. engineering and construction firm McDermott International Inc.
Team Formed to Study KSA’s Asphalt Shortage
DUBAI - A team, comprising representatives of various ministries and road contractors, has been formed in Saudi Arabia to study the current shortage of Asphalt in the local market.
Pakistan: Closure of power plants causes loadshedding
ISLAMABAD: The closure of AES Pak Gen and one unit of Uch Powerhouse has led to over 500MW power deficit which is why many areas of the country are being exposed to loadshedding.However, the country had power shortage of 2,800MW in last year in the same period. According to a senior official at the Ministry of Water and Power, the boiler tube of the AES Pak Gen has become out of order owing to which Pakistan Electric Power Company (Pepco) lost 350MW of electricity.
It's Time For Double Daylight Saving Time
Tonight, the clock shifts forward. Tomorrow, sunset moves from 6:07 p.m. to 7:08 p.m. But our work here is not done. If we really wanted to fill our lives with joy and save energy and money, if we really wanted to move beyond the fiction of our agrarian conception of time and into the modern world, we'd shift to year-round Daylight Saving Time--or, if we really wanted to embrace reality and maximize life, go to Double DST, a big, two-hour push forward of the clocks that would turn our summers into a marathon of gorgeous, endless evenings.
America's Wind Power Imperative: A Call to Action
One of the few bright spots in today's struggling economy, wind power holds the promise of sparking a new economic renaissance for America. As the second largest source of new electrical capacity in the U.S. for the past four years running, behind only natural gas, wind power provided 42% of the nation's new electric generating capacity in 2008. The wind industry also invested $17 billion in domestic wind farm construction in 2008 alone, bringing good-paying jobs to rural America and to a hard-pressed U.S. manufacturing sector. This is great news, given that the rapidly escalating climate crisis demands that we kick our addiction to fossil fuels as quickly as possible.
Builders go 'green' with new standards
"Green" is also becoming more standard for homebuilders in our state, driven partially by the new Michigan Uniform Energy Code that took effect in October, and the recent energy "crisis" that has more and more consumers looking for ways to save energy around their homes.The new Michigan code requires builders to use a higher level of insulation in new homes; a level that is at an Energy Star or higher rating. For instance, on a typical new home ranging from 2,000-2,500 square feet, the added cost to bring it up to this Michigan code is $3,000 to $5,000. However, the higher level of insulation also can decrease a typical homeowner's energy bill by an average of $1,000 annually when compared to the same size home without the energy upgrades.
Nuclear waste dogs US energy policy
Washington - President Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2010 all but sinks prospects to store America's nuclear waste at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.But it leaves wide open the role of nuclear power in building "a new economy powered by clean and secure energy" – and the question of what to do with existing, highly toxic nuclear waste.
"The nation has already accumulated 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear waste, and the material is going to have to be isolated from the environment for hundreds and thousands of years," says Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.
"There's no way to make the waste disappear. No matter what the French say, there's no alternative to having a mined geological repository," he says. The challenge is to find one that is technically and politically acceptable.
Oil above $45; many think bottom may have been hit
NEW YORK – Every day this week arrived with more evidence that energy usage is unlikely to bounce back soon, yet some experts believe oil prices may already have struck bottom.
IEA and OPEC may cut global oil demand forecasts next week
LONDON (Reuters) - The world's top energy forecasters look set to cut further their estimates of oil demand for this year as the global economy slips towards its first contraction since World War II, analysts say.
Oil May Rise as OPEC Cuts Curb Supplies, Survey Shows
(Bloomberg) -- Crude oil may rise on speculation that OPEC production reductions are beginning to curb U.S. inventories and imports.Twenty of 40 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg News, or 50 percent, said futures will increase through March 13. Eleven respondents, or 28 percent, forecast oil prices will be little changed and nine said that there will be a decline. Last week, 48 percent of analysts expected prices would rise.
China's CNPC forecasts global oil to average at $40 a barrel this year, a conservative market view that has led the firm to expect its crude output to drop for the first time in years, a company executive said on Saturday.The world's number two oil consumer, accounting for more than a third of incremental world oil demand in the past few years, has been hit by the global economic crisis, with its oil use falling since November and fuel stocks brimming as industrial activities slow.
Venezuela's Chavez turns to confrontation in crisis
CARACAS (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's aggressive moves against the food industry show the socialist leader will respond to growing economic woes in the OPEC nation with takeovers and tighter controls on business.
Pdvsa seeks partners; tightens its belt
State-run oil company Petróleos de Venezuela (Pdvsa) is trying to ride out the storm of sinking oil prices by reducing costs and looking for new partners to join the projects at the Orinoco Oil Belt; however, for this to happen it will have to loosen its business schedules.The value of the Venezuelan crude oil, which yields more than 90 percent of the foreign exchange and accounts for 50 percent of the domestic budget, has plummeted almost USD 100 from a peak of USD 130 in July 2008. Now, the Venezuelan oil barrel is around USD 36, far from the amount of USD 60 estimated in the 2009 budget, AFP reported.
Venezuela May Take Over More Rigs to Allow Drilling to Proceed
(Bloomberg) -- Petroleos de Venezuela SA, the state oil company controlled by President Hugo Chavez, may take over privately owned oil rigs to ensure that they keep operating, Oil and Energy Minister Rafael Ramirez said.If contractors try to use workers to halt production, equipment will be confiscated, Ramirez said today in a statement from the oil company known as PDVSA.
...Venezuela, the biggest oil exporter in the Western Hemisphere, is seeking to avoid a loss in oil field productivity as private contractors shutter some rigs in response to non- payment of outstanding invoices.
State-owned companies in trouble
Venezuelan oil workers, who are requesting a renewal of their collective bargaining agreement and have complained about the alleged breach of employment benefits related to health and food, among others, will talk to government authorities to find a solution to their situation.
Qatar robust to oil price shocks, says Capital Intelligence
Qatar's sovereign ratings are supported by the strength and flexibility of the government's balance sheet and the country's external finances, which in turn are underpinned by the sheer scale of hydrocarbon production relative to the small size of the population.
Oil's Backed Itself Into A Corner
TOKYO (Dow Jones) -- Imagine what it would be like to watch oil prices climb to a spectacular record high of $150 per barrel and then leave the planet for the next several months.That's practically what happened to me.
With much fanfare, oil hit an all-time high in July. I dropped off the face of the oil world four months later, and I've come back to find nothing less than a shocking drop in prices.
The report is further proof that last year's speculative surge in crude oil prices affected consumer behavior. Motorists cut back on trips after experiencing gas-pump sticker shock with a gallon of regular shooting above $4 in Honolulu in May and staying at those levels until early October.At the same time, Hawai'i electricity prices spiked because most of it comes from generators fueled by fuel oil or diesel. Hawai'i is the most oil-dependent state in the nation.
Petrobras 4th-Quarter Profit Surges as Real’s Rate Lifts Assets
(Bloomberg) -- Petroleo Brasileiro SA, Latin America’s biggest publicly traded company, reported fourth- quarter profit rose a more-than-forecast 46 percent as a weaker Brazilian real boosted the value of the company’s dollar assets.
The Norwegian oil industry is focusing on winning the battle of developing the Lofoten area in northern Norway first. However, the ambitions for future development projects lie further north in the Arctic.
Peak oil body calls for protection of industry's future
The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association -- the peak industry body for Australia's oil and gas companies -- has used its pre-budget submission to exhort the federal Government to act swiftly to relieve pressure on the sector as the global financial crisis takes its toll.APPEA warned that a decline in petroleum production in Australia would expose the nation to "major trade imbalances and potential economic, environmental and social costs".
Suncor refinery slammed with OSHA fines
Suncor Energy faces $130,500 in penalties for more than two dozen health and safety violations at its refinery in Commerce City.Suncor allegedly failed to test monitors properly for hydrogen sulfide, a toxic and flammable gas, and failed to follow safety standards while processing hazardous chemicals, according to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which issued the citations.
Newly appointed House Chairman of the Committee on Global Warming and Climate Change, Rep. Frank Smizik of Brookline, will join 30 state and local leaders from across the country in Washington to meet with members of Congress to urge support for legislation that will lead to an increase in freight rail capacity.Smizik is a member of Go21, a national public interest organization that advocates the public benefits of moving freight by rail, such as increased fuel efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and easing traffic congestion. Go21 members are joined in the ninth annual Railroad Day on Capitol Hill by 300 representatives of the nation’s freight railroads and rail supply industry.
19-cent gas tax hike proposal too low, transit advocates say
Bob Terrell, Marvin Martin, and other transit advocates take issue with the proposed 19-cent increase to the state's gasoline tax - but only because they think it might not be high enough.
"It's a matter of commitment," Smith said just after attending a Japanese music concert in Yokohama, where he also took the local JR East train and subway route from Tokyo. "Japan is committed to its train system."And, right now, the United States is not — instead hooked on a long-obsolete interstate highway system dependent on millions of individual diesel-burningsemis and millions more other vehicles, experts say. While Japan and Europe have used high-speed train systems and linked them to other transportation networks for more than 40 years, the U.S. has relied on its interstate highway network.
Utah's 4-day workweek draws out-of-state attention
Utah switched to a four-day week last year primarily to save money on electricity, gasoline and other energy expenses. The change affected 17,000 state employees, who now work 10 hours a day, four days a week.These days, employees have embraced the long weekends, and the public has grown accustomed to state agencies being closed on Fridays.
An interim report released earlier this month by Gov. Jon Huntsman shows that the initiative will cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 12,000 metric tons, reduce gasoline consumption among commuting employees by 744,000 gallons annually and pump as much as $3 million into the economy from workers who have to spend less money on gas.
Bangladesh Faces Acute Electricity Outages in Peak Season
Entire Bangladesh including its capital Dhaka will experience nagging electricity outages as the country's Power Development Board (PDB) is seemed unable to meet the demand of power during the upcoming peak summer season, officials said on Thursday.They said in Bangladesh during the peak summer season, usually from mid-March to mid-October, power demand goes up to its highest level because of hot weather as well as a huge need for irrigation by farmers.
Our food habits poison not only our bodies but also our rivers, soils, forests, and climate. By raising animals in overcrowded feedlots far from fields, we transform manure from a valuable fertilizer into a pollutant. Nutrient-rich runoff is killing our rivers and creating a large “dead zone” in the Gulf of Mexico. The demand for cheap meat spurs the clearing of rainforests for cattle. Meat production accounts for a whopping 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. When managed organically—in a way that restores our connection to the land—farming can instead store carbon in healthy soil and help solve our climate challenge.
UK: New green strategy could create 400,000 jobs
New jobs will be created in low-carbon industries for 400,000 people - from lagging lofts to nuclear power - the government will announce today.
Producers want higher ethanol limits for gasoline
WASHINGTON (AP) — Ethanol producers asked the Environmental Protection Agency on Friday to boost the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline, but automakers argued the increase could damage car engines and fuel lines.The ethanol producers want the EPA to increase the amount of ethanol that refiners can blend with gasoline from a maximum of 10 percent to 15 percent, which could boost the demand for the renewable fuel additive by as much as 6 billion gallons a year.
US Energy Secretary outlines wishlist for energy research
US Energy Secretary Steven Chu yesterday made his pitch for more support for energy-related research as the new administration prepares for its first budget.Energy research is lagging behind other areas, he said. While overall R&D investment is around 3% of gross domestic product (GDP), the energy sector represents only about one-tenth of that.
Resources should also be directed toward transformation research, he added.
“What do I mean by transformational technology? I mean technology that is game-changing, as opposed to merely incremental,” he told the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Russia flexes muscle over arctic oil and gas treasures
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Global warming doesn't just mean there will be new patterns of mass migration, wars and border lawlessness in the 21st century. For the great climate change isn't affecting just the warmest parts of the world; it's also affecting areas that used to be the coldest.The great Arctic Ocean polar ice cap is already melting. The Arctic Ocean could be navigable year-round within decades. The rate of melting of the ice cap, scientists say, is actually accelerating. This may completely transform the strategic resource map of the world.
Has recession trimmed CO2 output? We’ll know by 2010
The financial crisis has slashed industrial output and trade but it will be months before there is an accurate picture of how much the downturn has curbed greenhouse gas emissions, two leading scientists said on Friday.
Little Impact Is Foreseen Over Change for Emissions
A move by Gov. David A. Paterson to increase the free allowances for carbon-dioxide emissions that New York gives power plants is unlikely to undermine efforts by nine other states that signed a landmark pact to reduce global warming, officials said on Friday.
Obama's doomed carbon plan should please Ottawa
U.S. President Barack Obama's climate change plan is, by his country's standards, a dreamy wish list.His cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be tougher than any tried or contemplated elsewhere.
But Obama, despite sky-high popularity and the Democrats' strong grip on the Congress, isn't likely to get what he's seeking.
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's green pledge was all hot air
WHEN KEVIN Rudd took to a UN stage in Bali, 2007, to announced he would ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it was a moment that received rapturous applause.But the only thing that vanished in the year that followed the PM's grand gesture was the Federal Government's credibility on tackling global warming while stimulating the economy to move to a carbon-free future.
Silicon Valley manufacturers must reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Under new California rules, computer chip makers must slash releases of sulfur hexafluoride and other fluorinated gases by more than half.
Bob Ryan's Global Warming Discussion
In years past, I have done a variety of stories about weather, climate, the environment and global change, but have always been a bit reluctant to write the series I begin today. So much emotion and politics is tied up in the subjects that science sometimes falls by the wayside.But the issue and science itself are becoming ever more pressing and important. I begin what I hope will at once be objective on my part and yet give you a sense of how science and scientific discovery work to help you better understand issues that will be ever more important in the years ahead.
This tome is especially geared to students and young people to take a bit of the mystery and fear out of global change, climate change, weather and global warming. It also could not have been written without the many helpful comments, edits and input from my colleagues, including some of the leading scientists in the field.
Defense Focus: Warming wars - Part 1
Global warming already is changing the way global wars are going to be fought -- and the weapons they are going to be fought with.
A few days ago, poster SamassaVeneessa posted a link about a company called AlphaKat, and asked for comments on whether it was too good to be true. I checked out some of the videos, which sounded intriguing but highly improbable, so I did some digging.
First, there is nothing that I am aware of that is capable of unraveling cellulose and turning it into a fuel in 3 minutes. So it definitely sounds too good to be true. Second, people too often ascribe magical properties to catalysts. Catalysts can speed up a reaction, but they do not allow you to bypass physical laws.
However, I usually give people the benefit of the doubt, and I investigate. This sounded pretty intriguing, until I worked my way to the website of Michael Spitzauer, who was a partner of the inventor and is now trying to implement the technology in the U.S. The website was incredibly cheesy and full of fractured English. If you dig, you can see that he has made his wife – a former cocktail waitress - a Senior Vice President of the company.
Clean Energy Projects
At this point, things are starting to smell funny. Digging a little deeper, I found that the guy has been convicted of fraud, and has been involved in multiple shady dealings. He was also scammed by a Nigerian advance fee scheme, so may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer:
Austrian Fights Extradition
Something's Rotten - Green Power
Discussion on Snopes' Message Board
In that last thread, he says the oil companies are out to get him, and this is why his past has been exposed.
So, we have a process that sounds too good to be true and the involvement of a convicted fraudster who is now saying the oil companies are out to get him. Not knowing more, I would steer clear. This all sounds much like the claims that Xethanol was making. One of their founders was a convicted felon as well. What happened? Fraudulent claims, and Xethanol finally went bankrupt (as I had predicted) because they pulled in investors based on false claims:
Xethanol Now Defunct
Finally, I should point out that this Spitzauer guy has split from Dr. Koch. So it is still possible – albeit I think remotely – that there is something here worth merit. But, if you want to put the final nail in the coffin, test the machine with some biomass that is spiked with a radioisotope (C14, maybe) that would show up in the product. I will bet money that the spiked carbon doesn't show up in the hydrocarbon, and that will be the end of that. If I were a prospective investor, I would insist upon such a test.
You can see interviews with both Dr. Koch and Spitzauer (who again says the oil companies are out to get him) here:
Interviews with Koch and Spitzauer
I believe that Koch was also behind the now-defunct NanoKat. My impression was that AlphaKat was his personal company - he was trying to create the 2nd company and license the technology to it.
I remember someone saying that Koch was quite secretive as well. Which really only means that whatever the heck he is doing, it is hard for anyone else to know for sure.
You mean kinda like Bernie Madoff kept his money making investment strategy secret.
Surprised he didn't make his wife chief chemist since she has experience mixing cocktails and all.
There's a comment in today's NYT regarding the national power grid.
Home-Grown Power
The author suggests that there's no need for a large increase in cross-continental power transmission.
E. Swanson
And he seems to suggest it based on nothing more than the sort of romantic opposition to large projects popular for its own sake among some folks here. But all of the 'renewable' energy sources he enumerates are subject to the short, medium, and long term erratic vagaries of the weather. Localized or even regional reliance on such things will be a recipe for suicide. After all, there is a reason why, for example, famines once killed a much higher share of the population, before food could be transported at reasonable expense into areas suffering drought or flooding.
Of course, he's just another politician, engaged in bog-standard short-term grandstanding, pleasing crowds incensed about Big (not that said anger ever seems to stop said crowds from reproducing like rabbits, making Big ever Bigger.) It will take quite a while to reshape Massachusetts in his desired image, and longer still before a streak of bad weather collapses the state economy when the only time left to 'shift' demand to is 25h00 on the 32nd of Never. Typical politician: he probably expects to be long-dead by then, and so escape all accountability for the consequences.
Opposition to large projects because they are large projects makes good sense. Scale is an important consideration. Failure to consider scale is why we are in so many of the messes in which we find ourselves.
Expanding the grid so we can ship electricity all over the place is a waste of resources when what we need most is to cut the grid apart to increase resiliency and decrease scale. We need to build in brown out and intermittency. Get to the point of making hay while the sun shines sort of thing - not "flick the switch" mentality.
If there are going to be windmills all over Maine, those windmills should first power Maine, not Georgia, NYC or Connecticut. As we move to a solar economy, variability will be the norm.
cfm in Gray, ME
"If there are going to be windmills all over Maine, those windmills should first power Maine, not Georgia, NYC or Connecticut."
Ah, yes, petty provincial narrow-minded 17th-century mercantilism come back from the grave to haunt us, risen up with the wooden stake still through its rotten heart.
One teensy weensy little problem among a raft of others. People in NYC aren't really going to wait a week or three or six for the sun to come out or the wind to rise so they can use the elevator again. Or the toilet. It's just not on. Do you seriously expect to make NYC uninhabitable with impunity? NYC is huge. It has scale nine ways from Sunday. Do you believe for an instant that pipsqueak fortress Maine wouldn't be overrun by even a fraction of NYC's former inhabitants? Do you really think NYers are going to roll over and die just because you have a flippant objection to scale, an objection entirely unintelligible to most of them?
Oh, and are the residents of pipsqueak fortress Maine really going to mine all their own ores in their own backyard, smelt and form the metals, and build the windmill controllers all by themselves? How much useful ore is there in Maine? People have been trading since before the dawn of history. Is it possible that Mainers might need to give something in trade in order to have windmills at all, such as some of the electricity? Is it conceivable that Mainers might need to import some electricity from elsewhere to avoid freezing during a long calm cloudy/foggy stretch of winter? They can't do either if the grid is 'cut apart' for your aesthetic pleasure.
Pared down it appears that your argument is: if it won't support the needs we have now, the system under consideration won't work.
It is easy to see why you would have difficulties accepting arguments of the form: circumstances will force us to scale back, power down and become more local in the provision of energy, food and commerce.
I think that the first perspective argues for continuation of BAU, while the second is pointing to an alternative possible future scenario.
It is likely that neither scenario is going to play out exactly the way either group would have planned. But I do find it interesting to consider what the strengths of each state, province or geographical area might be in a 'power down' scenario. And I also think that considering regional self sufficiency is a valuable exercise.
Regards,
Al
"Do you really think NYers are going to roll over and die just because you have a flippant objection to scale, an objection entirely unintelligible to most of them?"
I got a real chuckle out of this post. And yes that is exactly what I expect, when the city is cordoned off and under martial law, and you have no power, you can whine all you want. I'm not willing to pay for New York's life style, they can sit and spin or die, no matter to me, would not effect my life at all and if we lose New York's financial district my life might actually be better.
I'm not ready to save everyone who makes bad decisions on where and how they live.
Maine is quite serious about leaving ISO New England, we're being overcharged for power to support southern New England and their massive need for more power. This at a time we have have our own surplus.
"Maine officials protested that the decision aimed at reducing energy bottlenecks in southwestern Connecticut and northeastern Massachusetts will result in higher energy prices for Mainers at a time when the state has a surplus of power."
http://www.abcmoney.co.uk/news/1920078928.htm
"pipsqueak fortress Maine" yes we don't have a large population, I lived here when we just went over a million, we do have serious natural resources, and one thing I can tell you for sure to live up here it takes attitude and we all have that.
Take down a couple of bridges, pop a few transmission lines, maybe 3 days work at most.
Yep I'm not in favor of producing power here only to have the mac-mansions in Connecticut and New York power up more toys.
Thanks for the chuckle.
Don in Maine
Why can't we have both? Of any two arbitrarily selected polar positions, it can usually be found that both are right and both are wrong, and some middle way solution is best.
Assuming now that we can survive and are not doomed to inevitable extinction, at least in the short run of the lives of those currently living, a system of transportation and energy distribution is needed to maintain social and national cohesion. Local power sources should, of course, first meet local needs, but with a national grid power could be sent where it is most needed and locally unavailable (like solar at night or wind when all is calm). If we were all relying on solar power only, then as darkness descended, power could be shifted from places further west, and for the West itself, power could be shifted from some other source.
In the northwest corner of the country where I live, we the people control the public utility system. We have considered wind power, so-called clean coal, and are now seriously thinking that if the two-year experiment works out then tidal power offshore can supply all our needs, with some left over for shipping elsewhere, though at this point we really can't shift elsewhere because of the grid, or lack thereof.
You seem to be grandstanding , too, Paul. It's just too fun to snipe at 'Them Politicians' I guess.
Here's the end of his piece..
PaulS Wrote "Localized or even regional reliance on such things will be a recipe for suicide. " .. Were you paying attention to Europe and Russia's Gas-Tango this winter? Do you think that exclusive reliance on Trucks and Highways for your town's food supply is some kind of a safety measure? How about the weeks that Kentucky was iced in? If even a fifth of the homes had Solar Hot Water, Air or Electric, would those communities have been more resilient, or less?
It's fine if you like the power implicit in the 'Big' Projects. I don't think they're going away.. but I don't think it's hollow political grandstanding to suggest that we have a healthy mix of local and personally-owned backups to keep the sources diverse and unmonopolized, which is the great danger of 'Big Power'..
"If even a fifth of the homes had Solar Hot Water, Air or Electric, would those communities have been more resilient, or less?"
Since you seem to want me to generalize from a single brief idiosyncratic storm scenario to the whole country forever, it depends. A lot. A whole lot.
I'm not even sure about the specific scenario. Solar gear doesn't work very effectively when it's covered with ice and snow and it's cloudy outside - so fat lot of good it would have done them. Not that it matters all that much - planning around the scenario of that one ice storm prepares you for little but a recurrence of that very same storm.
The real problem is that in the north and east, it can stay cloudy for many weeks on end. That's why they need a wide-area grid unless, of course, they're flippant about letting people freeze because it's cold and cloudy out, which happened a lot in the good old days of Small. With the grid, they can still get energy when it's cold and cloudy at their particular little locality. Without the grid, having perhaps themselves off for the sake of an irrational poetic objection to Big, they're guaranteed frequent severe problems instead of the rare severe problems experienced now. How about a Kentucky-like situation caused by clouds twice a winter in most localities, instead of in one small area every few years?
No, this notion that we should cut ourselves off from the world and live in petty little fortresses still seems like a dangerous fantasy. Bellyaching about Big won't make the fantasy one iota less dangerous. For as long as we have a huge population at the ragged outer edge of carrying capacity, and no practical way to store huge quantities of energy in our private little basements, Big will be with us almost as surely as gravity.
Oh, and yes I did notice the gas-tango. Apparently the Russians didn't want to invite a war after all, which is what made it a tango rather than the apocalypse. Not that anything about "Europe" suggests that it would ever have the bottle to stand up for itself, but the Russians can never be 100% sure about that. Still, the Russians are excellent at brinksmanship, so I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more.
Paul, I clearly don't need to beg to get any number of hyperbolic generalizations from you..
I live in the 'North and East'.. and from my corner of the country across to Totoneila's, if you had just dug in a couple hundred feet of cheap drainpipe 50" underground, there'd be no reason ANY storm or grid failure (Not just the exact storm you built it for) would EVER leave you unprotected against extremes in heat or cold. Furthermore, after an icestorm, assuming you can hold out a day or three, you'll pretty likely get some sun in there. A family friend up in the white mountains was giving his neighbors hot showers on the afternoon after the '98 Ice Storm.. and I suspect those same panels would do the same thing for ANY storm or power interruption.. not just the ONE that he built it for. You can even get hot water from them when there's NO storms! Maybe Airdale can tell us if there was ever any sun in the three weeks or so people were out of power. It is possible, FYI, with simple tools to clear the ice and snow from them, far easier than replacing downed utility poles and blown transformers, anyhow.
"that we should cut ourselves off from the world and live in petty little fortresses "
See, THAT's why I put in his last paragraph, where he said 'We Need a Smart Grid AND more Renewables'
OK, so you can titter about Europe's undersized 'bottle'.. but clearly their overwhelming dependency on those pipelines doesn't manage to remind you of the vulnerabilities that are the reason this site exists.
Big, centralized systems have been really great at feeding and lighting and supplying our every need.. but if we don't take the opportunity to diversify into a reasonable portion (can you see those last two words, 'REASONABLE PORTION'?, because even though I said it very clearly before, you still came back with "that we should cut ourselves off from the world and live in petty little fortresses" ) of Regional, Community and Residential alternatives, then we will be tossing the dice that as the era of cheap, easy energy sputters and coughs.. that our basic needs will similarly start to choke. Diversify, Diversify.. (While you possibly see that as simply 'BIG is BAD, BIG is BAD')
"- planning around the scenario of that one ice storm prepares you for little but a recurrence of that very same storm. " What does that mean? Isn't it cold all winter? You'd want the heat either way, right? Wouldn't you use electricity from your PV whether there was a storm or not..
"Solar gear doesn't work very effectively when it's covered with ice and snow " .. and you see, this simple little glass box I just put on my roof is blowing 95 degree air into my house when it's in the teens outside, and IS half-covered with snow. (Which proceeds to melt quickly)
Serious tech must be needed here, solar panels with snow. Up here we call it a roof rake. Many use them to avoid ice dams, enough snow and ice buildup so the melt-water backs up under the shingles. Simple and effective.
http://www.silverbear.biz/products/roofrake/index.html
Don in Maine
Well put.
PaulS is either ignorant of these things (well known to anyone who has bothered to look into them for any amount of time, even just wiki them, for pete's sake) and is eager to spread his ignorance, or is well informed but eager to spread ignorance.
The main valid concern is that these souped up long distance transmission lines will merely be used to transport dirty coal fired electricity to major cities. This is a very real and valid concern, one we are fighting in MN right now.
Exxon-funded scientist testifies to Senate Environmental and Public Works committee, claims that times were prosperous 80 million years ago.
Where to begin? OK, strictly speaking, the ecology of the planet was "prosperous", but would we really like to find out how many humans can survive a return to the cretaceous period? Of course humans evolved during previous high CO2 periods; in a broad evolutionary sense, we've been evolving since life began on the planet. And how does a scientist confuse the pleistocene with the cretaceous? I think I know: he's paid by the energy industry to disinform. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_C._Marshall_Institute
Well, it IS a fact that greenhouse operators bring their greenhouses up to 1,000 ppm CO2 to achieve max growth; and,
plants DO get sick and die at 150 ppm, or less.
And do they also raise temperatures to 115F - 120F?
Don't be daft.
Are you saying they DON'T add CO2 to levels approx. 1,000 ppm?
Are you really obtuse, or just being an argumentative arse?
Cheers
See. Nothing to worry about.
Great picture!
But I think you got the date wrong. That would be about 4000 years ago or so. Jesus didn't come until a few thousand years after Creation.
Predating Stonehenge by 6,000 years, Turkey's stunning Gobekli Tepe upends the conventional view of the rise of civilization
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html
Don't you mean 2000, not 4000? It was creation that took place 4000 years ago, and Jesus only 2000 years ago, give or take a few years here and there. Considering, however, that old Hesu is a fictitious character and probably never existed, this is just a frivolous comment. The picture was fun, however.
That guy HeyZeus should be shown riding a Dodo, Moa or an Ostrich, as those were the descendants of the long dead dinosaurs. Funny thing, the Dodo and the Moa are extinct too. the Ostrich would be fitting with it's habit of facing change with it's head in the sand...
E. Swanson
Is warming going to be "an overall benefit to mankind" as Dr. Happer claims?
Just now (10 AM), the temperature ourside has already jumped to 57 F. The forecast is for temperatures rising into the 70's F this weekend. The local plants are just beginning to leaf out, the first hint of grass beginning to show green. Is this Spring? Will we see a quick warm up for a few weeks or a month, then a sharp cold snap as a last gasp of winter which happened a couple of years ago? A hard freeze after the trees were fully leafed killed all the leaves and the trees looked like it was Fall all over again.
If this is the new reality, I seriously doubt that it will be seen as "prosperous".
EDIT: I notice that my old nemesis, Roy Spencer is also on the board of Directors of the Marshall Institute.
E. Swanson
I knew the Marshall propaganda machine was a pile of crap, but I had no idea it was even less substantial than that. They aren't a science body and they don't do science. Go figure.
To wit:
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459
Cheers
Prosperous or not, the geological record shows us this: Abrupt excursions in the global carbon budget are very bad for the biosphere.
Indeed. For us Yanks, that's roughly 18 degrees change, though I may be off a bit there. Suffice to say, it's a flippin' lot of change to adapt to in one decade.
Cheers
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080918192943.htm
Indeed. For us Yanks, that's roughly 18 degrees change, though I may be off a bit there. Suffice to say, it's a flippin' lot of change to adapt to in one decade.
Cheers
But, often good for evolution. Repopulating all the biological niches left unoccupied after an extinction is when the greatest evolutionary changes happen. The biggest such event, the Cambrian explosion happened shortly after the last snowball earth event.
That's taking the long view!
Dear Wisco,
Did you actually listen to this broadcast?
Dr Happer did NOT say Pleistocene when quizzed by Boxter. That was from another person : The interruptor says 'Plastocene - I think he said'.
Dr Happer stated that we evolved to our present state in the Holocene in his opening remarks.
And yes, the bulk of earth history has seen CO2 levels much higher than at present. The bulk of CO2 forced warming occurs in the first 0-200 ppm, thereafter the curve decays dramatically.
Dr Happer is correct.
rgds
dropstone
The IPCC stated, I believe, that you will get 1.3 C for a doubling of CO2. Obviously, that's not going to set anyones world on fire. So, you've gotta get massive "Positive" feedbacks from water vapor.
But, the Aqua Satellite data seems to say this is very unlikely. That, plus the fact that it's never happened in the previous 5 Billion years of world history.
Of course, the warmistas' story would be much more interesting if we were actually getting hotter. There's some guy out there that is offering to bet all comers that the line from 2005 to 2020 will be downsloping. I hear he's having a hard time finding "takers."
The usual question. Where's your reference to the literature supporting your claim about AQUA data?
Also, please tell us who is offering this bet you mention? What odds is he offering and what sort of payment is allowed? I've got some stock I would throw in that is now nearly worthless. I suspect that's about like his offer to bet...
E. Swanson
Yes, I'd like to be in on this bet. And I'll put down cash...but I may want something other than cash in return, especially if we have to wait for a few years to settle the bet.
Well, you knew this name was coming (in that he's your "old nemesis.")
THIS isn't the best reference I've seen on this; but it's handy.
As for the "bet:" 15 years is a long time to "sweat" a bet; but with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation now in solidly negative territory I think you could probably go over to Anthony Watts' site, and scrounge up this bet. That's where I saw first mention of it.
I think I'll save my money to bet on Memphis in the NCAA Tournament.
No, I don't recall being aware that Roy Spencer was on the Board of Directors of the Marshall Institute.
Looking at the link to his blog which you post only re-enforces my opinion that Spencer has drifted toward the political side and away from the science. I wish I had known that when I published my paper back in 2003. I might have been more motivated to counter his one sided "lawyer science" as I used to do when the Idsos' would post station data cherry picked from the USHCN sites. Neither Spencer nor John Christy have bothered to reply (in public) to my paper, which demonstrated that their UAH TLT data was flawed over the Antarctic. That lack of interest is not what science is about, as I understand things. It's entirely possible that there is a basic flaw in the TLT which these guys don't want to discuss as it would kill their careers, as it indeed should, IMHO.
E. Swanson
Black Dog - I believe that the data is being "held" pending many more peer reviews, since "it is contrary to current thinking." I believe a letter was released to that effect about a year ago.
I don't know about the bet, but here is one source of the data: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:ivuWlMcdBtAJ:sci.tech-archive.net/p...
I am presuming that you are referring to the paper found here: http://physics.nmt.edu/~krm/minschwaner_dessler_jcli2004.pdf
What this paper says is that the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere with increased surface temperature does not follow the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. I saw a seminar on this problem last year, which indicated that global climate models generally agree with this as well. AIRS observations do not disprove the water vapor feedback by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. You also might want to read this paper http://physics.nmt.edu/~krm/Dessler_Minschwaner_JGR2007.pdf as well, which shows that the water vapor distribution of the atmosphere appears to be fairly insensitive to local cloud microphysics, which is one aspect of Lindzen's "adaptive eye" hypothesis.
Caelius, I understand that there is no "consensus" on the meaning of the results, so far, from AQUA. My link above is Spencer's refutation of the Dessler paper. My take is that Spencer, and Christie are, more or less, on the offensive; and the opposition is a bit "back on the heels."
As a layman who is pretty much "agnostic" on the whole deal my gut feeling is that they aren't going to find the "Large" Positive Feedback they need for their theory to work.
I really don't think it matters. If we have a couple more years of relative cooling the "politics" of AGW will become untenable. If, on the other hand, we get a couple of strong El Ninos the momentum will definitely shift the other way.
But, as far as the "practicalities" of Energy policy goes, I think we're going to get about the same either way. Some Wind, some solar, some pressure on coal, and some more biofuels. The price of gasoline will be the informing factor.
If we have a couple more years of relative cooling the "politics" of AGW will become untenable.
There is no cooling trend, even over the period 1998-2008:
Hadcru data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
At least 1.5-2yrs more up to date than the above graph.
So the last 5 years of the data from the present, not from sometime mid 2007, show a flat-declining temp record.
This of course could be a pause in global warming like the many others, a turning point, reversal.....who knows?
There are quite a few other indices besides these 2 showing a recent reversal (in the last 5 years) of global warming.
Marco.
Please see this post to understand why we can't make inferences about climate change over time scales of less than about 30 years:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/01/results-on-deciding-tren...
Marco.
Dont expect any help from Dropstone on this one.
At circa 18:30 hours last night, he was banned from TOD. This was after editing posts with suggestions that his posts had been deleted / mysteriously 'disappeared'
This site is becoming Soviet.
Little cocks like CCPO get protection from Leannan while legitimate skeptics get banned. (boy, is this site gonna look stoopid after a couple more cold winters...)
TOD is turning into a left wing drivel screed for AGW.
Expect this post to be 'one time use' as well....
Yours
(probably once and for all time....) TotalDepth/Dropstone :-(
PS: CCPO: you have WAY too much time on your hands to be any kind of a good English Teacher
TotalDepth (aka: Dropstone) and Marco,
All good scientists are skeptics. Any new data is important to a scientific discussion and when data runs counter to whatever theory has been developed to explain previous data, then there's a scramble to find out why.
But, the denialist camp can not claim to be "legitimate skeptics" until they (and you) learn the difference between weather and climate. A few colder than trend winters in one part of the Earth (say, in Britain or Europe) proves nothing about AGW. That's because AGW is a global problem and one must consider global temperatures. Hint: there's no "winter" in the tropics...
E. Swanson
And really this hasn't turned out to be a particularly cold UK winter either - just one a bit colder than the unusually warm winters we've had recently. Here's the Met Office summary for February
And here's the average UK temperature as used by National Grid for natural gas demand.
Thats Feb stats only. Dec and January were well below average. But Eric is correct: I and others have to be careful not to confuse weather with climate. I'm not so happy with this delineation and the recent 5 years of global temps are flat to falling - so i'm thinking is this a trend or weather?
5 years in my book is just too long for 'weather'.
look at the latest graphs:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
The dip down is unmistakeable. Who knows what will happen next.
Marco.
And that is your problem. As posted elsewhere in this thread, in terms of climate, 5 years is meaningless. You've been told this numerous times. If you are told you are factually and/or logically wrong, and this is clearly demonstrated, yet you continue to argue the same point, what are we to think of your intellect and/or honesty?
Do you not see why people like me offer no quarter to people like you? Over and over again you demonstrate that you are either unable to deal with the issue intellectually, or are simply not honest. Neither is a very positive state of affairs, but how many times do you allow facts and reality to be questioned without merit?
There is no science that demonstrates human beings are not changing the planet. NONE. So, then, why should we allow people to claim otherwise?
I say again, list your science. Or as debate class participants are wont to shout at one another: Cite your sources!
CCPO, thats not even "proven". telling me numerous times doesn't make it true either.
There is pleny of science that demonstrates that abrupt climate shifts have occured in the recent past (circa 6000BC onwards). However there can never be any 100% conclusive eveidence for either case due to the nature of climate being dynamic.
Some refrence on recent temperature records during t he late holocene to present ie 8000BC to present. Includes 2000yo proxy thats shows temps higher that now during Roman climate optimum.
http://biocab.org/Holocene.html
Have you seriously just posted that 5 years in climate science is statistically meaningful in determining long term trends?
Incredible.
Let me help you out: You stated elsewhere rapid cliamte change happens.
True. And if it does, it will be at least in part due to the incredibly fast rise in temps and GHG's. That is, any rapid climate change will be proof of AGW, not the opposite.
Further, using RCC as support for your contention that 5 years = long-term trends is ridiculous. RCC represents anomalous events, not trends.
You don't understand the scientific use of "trend." E.g., 1998 temps were an anomaly, not trend. Temps after Pinatubo were anomalous, not trend. If we have cooling over the next ten years it will still not be a trend because it will be due to local oscillations, not a general global trend.
Something you need to realize: These short-term "cooling" events aren't even actually cooling events in many cases. The reason the paper from last summer predicting a ten year cooler period ALSO said warming would zoom right back up after it ended is because the energy is still being absorbed, but is being masked.
Think of it like the planet putting on an asbestos suit for ten years so you don't feel the heat. But the heat is still there. Cold deep ocean water may be welling up, but that has nothing to do with the total energy being absorbed by the planet. The temps during the cool period are essentially a set of false readings.
Barrett can explain this far better than I, I'm sure.
Cheers
In your black and white world you can't understand that long term - short term are not delineated. There is no magic line that divides the two. You just cannot seem to understand this simple wood for the trees fact. What is a trend 1 year, 5 years, 25 years?
If el-nino - la- nina flips every 7 years is this a trend or an anomoly? If that event is not entirely repetive in the time domain does it then cease to become a trend and become anomoly?
If th PDO flips on a quasi-periodic 30 years (but sometimes not) is this a trend or anomoly.
You want these various climate influences nicely pidgeon-holed so you can put it all into context for your argumnet.
I don't see it as black and white as you.
Marco.
Neither. It's an oscillation.
Neither. It's an oscillation.
Dude, take your GED and get back to your video games.
An ocillation driven by what?
We know they are quasi - priodic but what makes them so?
Climate science is still in its infancy.
Dum de dum de dumm hmmmmmm note lack of response from CCPO on this post.
taps finger waiting.........
Who knows what will happen next.
What will happen next is that Earth will continue to warm, because it must. If somehow we manage to remove 500 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere and oceans this century, then we may realistically ask, "What happens next?"
Well, if one were to look at the very graph you link to one might notice dips down also occurred (I eyeballed this, so don't hold me to exact years) at 1857, 1867, 1877, 1898, 1940, 1960, 1970, 1983 and the current "dip" at about 2005 and conclude this is natural variability.
One might also decide to play the gee whiz game with you and point out that from 1850 to 1900 there were four dips, but from 1900 to now there were only five dips. One might then point out that these are dips due to natural variability and/or other events that are not climate and are coming less often, thus we might conclude heating is becoming more the norm.
1850 - 1900: 50 / 4 = every 12.5 years on average.
1900 - 2009: 109 / 5 = every 21.8 years on average.
Cheers
To see graphically why five years (or eight years) are not enough to distinguish the trend from natural variability:
It always amuses me that the last few years are missing off all these graphs getting posted. The up to date data-sets all show a turning point.
Marco, you really just should not post.
That graph? It cuts off in 2007. Besides, it wasn't posted as an argument against whether or not the micro-trend is down, it was posted to juxtapose short term trends vs. long term trends.
What *I* get a kick out of is that you ignore the point being made and attempt to deflect the fact you just had your arse handed to you. Again.
CCPO, look at the proxies for the last 6000 years and our little excursion +0.6 degC looks meaningless so nobody's arese has been handed to anyone. Thats my whole point - natural variability makes our current warming pale into insignificance.
Marco.
And what *I* get a kick out of you is how selectively you answer my posts.
Marco, which of you half-dozen posts am I supposed to be answering while I am responding to the previous? You're being childish.
Also, none of your posts are WORTHY of response. You haven't said anything. Worse, you've posted no legitimate science.
Finally, I tend to let others do the technical responses as they are much better at it than I am.
What are you posting?
8 year trends = climate? Idiotic drivel.
Sunspots? Idiotic drivel.
How many times have you made these same points and been shown the science proving you to be posting idiotic drivel? How can you pretend these questions have not already been answered over and over? What sheer dishonesty does it take for you to allow yourself to claim to the readership at large that you have not been answered over and over again?
You could start by responding to the one below aboutt the 2000 year old proxies then the post (7 above here?) about the 6000Year old proxies.
You've responded to neither of the study/links I provided RIGHT AFTER you telling me you wanted me to cite sources!
Go read!.
Marco.
You're starting to piss me off. You whine about respect but offer the same stupid crap repeatedly.
1. You did not offer any SCIENCE. The "journal" you cite is a known rubber stamp for anti-AGW bullcrap. We have dealt with this "journal" and it's editor before.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future...
2. The authors of the non-peer reviewed paper (Energy and Environment does not do legitimate peer review) are NOT climate scientists, and neither are the people on the review board, if memory serves.
3. You did not post the paper, you posted a BLOG ENTRY.
4. The updated hockey stick uses non-tree ring proxies.
So tell me, if these guys use proxies and publish in non-peer reviewed fashion, why do you not ALSO re-post the updated hockey stick for a "fair and balanced" discussion of the statistical treatment of non-tree ring proxies?
Why do you not equally support the fully peer-reviewed Mann, et al. material?
Rhetorical question.
Here's a suggestion: why don't you ask the actual climate scientists at RealClimate to take a look at that paper?
Emotion is a powerful thing that can cloud your vision.
What innacuracies is it in particular that you disagree with in that Journal?
The realclimate link you is about C02 reconstruction which I don't even disagree about - it does not in any way refute the temperature reconstruction in the article I posted the link to.
I havn't actually seen any Mann,et al. studies on the previous 6000 years.
Hockey stick? If you extend the temp graph back a few 1000 years there are hockey ssticks all over the place.
I posted on real climate a few times but the replies Gavin gave me were at best evasive. They don't seem to like uncomfortable questions there.
Marco.
This is my last response to you because you are dishonest and/or intellectually challenged.
1. Your comments on short vs. long-term trends is just plain stupid.
2. I did not post the link to RealScience to attack the paper you presented, I posted it show the source is not legitimate and cannot be considered to represent scientific enquiry. This was crystal clear, so we are again brought back to one conclusion about your intellectual capacity and/or honesty.
3. He didn't answer you? Bull. I read everything that comes through RC and their answers are always explicit and succinct. The responses you got from Gavin were either a.) above your head or b.) didn't fit your ideology. As is always the way with you denialist trolls, you find an excuse to reject the science while offering none, or at least none that will pass peer review.
4.
Mann covers more than enough to establish the trend. What is your point? Five years is a trend but several thousand isn't, but, oh, wait, it is if it's a non-peer reviewed paper in a rubber stamp anti-AGW journal?
You're dishonest. Stated months ago. Confirmed here. Troll.
May your banning be swift and decisive.
Definition of Troll from wikipedia:
You do yourself a disservice CCPO
Regarding sunspots. Links between climate and the 11 year cycle were disproved years ago. You know why - not enough forcing. There is very recent research into grand maxima and minima in the cycles which DOES effect climate - we saw this with the Dalton and Maunder minima.
To me it is absurd to suggest that only thing that keeps us alive and mikes life possible and drives the WEATHER cannot possibly drive the climate - I find this idea to be idiotic drivel. But if you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that multidecadal changes in the suns activity does not happen then I suggest you start reading up!!
Marco.
While i'm waiting here is a study temperature reconstruction for the last 2000 years based on 18 global measurements. The most recent part dips lower than current temps because of the 30 year average so I accept that it is warmer presently than the graph depicts.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-globa...
Marco.
Here's the most recent graph from GISS. Your claim is that last little dip demonstrates a statistically significant inflection point, correct?
Yes, in conjunction with a recent state change in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and (less importantly?) recent forcast into a possible dalton minimum in solar cycle. We are looking at 2 potential forcings.
If you look at that graph that "little dip" is the 5 year mean so it starts becoming significant.
If it were to resume an upward trend in face of the above 2 forcings then it does look indeed as if AGW gets more weight. If it continues down for the next few years we have to look to other forcings and how these effect natural variability.
Marco.
If it were to resume an upward trend in face of the above 2 forcings then it does look indeed as if AGW gets more weight.
The upward trend has not stopped. Every year in this decade is on the top-10 hottest list.
Sunspots are not a forcing; they show no correlation with the upward trend. They cannot dominate the 8 gigaton/year carbon excursion in the atmospheric carbon store.
That is not the case. Succesively low cycles "add up" to a greater forcing that would be had if difference in solar minima and maxima over the 11 year cycle was only taken into account. It is no coincidence that the (multi solar cycle long) Maunder minima and Dalton Minima co-incided with low global temperatures.
You never mentioned my point on the PDO indice so please take a look / do some research on PDO, NOA ,SOI ,ENSO -the science of these indices are progressing quickly and there is a lot of very ne interesing research.
Marco.
Successively low cycles "add up" to a greater forcing that would be had if difference in solar minima and maxima over the 11 year cycle was only taken into account.
To the degree that the miniscule TSI changes from sunspots have any effect on climate, the effect for the last 20 years or so has been cooling: Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature.
I don't address the various regional oscillations because they have no effect on Earth's radiative equilibrium and therefore no effect on the warming trend.
From that study:
Backs up my argument, not yours! If a similar long term event of the type listed in one of the studies above "that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate", happens again then yes it could therefore effect the climate and cause negative or positive forcing. The fact that the study is eliminating said forcing from the present warming does not invalidate previous studies that are mentioed in the first 2 sentences! They tell you that these studies exist!
Marco.
Climate science is acutely interested in TSI changes and studies them intensively. But there is no trend in TSI that correlates with the observed warming.
The TSI changes would only affect climate cumulatively low cycles such as the Maunder and Dalton minima. But I agree with you that TSI cannot account for the recent warming; but the last cycle was lower than the previous and current forecasts are even lower rof the next so you have a cumulative effect with succesivlely lower activity on each cycle - remember there are always lags in the system so the current mild pause/slight decrease in global temps could be the results of the last lower solar maximum and it virtual silence now - more on this silence as it's starting to net noticed.
It is close to being at a 200 year low in terms of activity.
As for the PDO acting in unison - I belive thats why the American Alminac has predicted lower than average temps.
Marco.
Sunpots.
Idiocy.
To wit:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/09/the-trouble-with-s...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/m1.html
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.php
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-cl...
I'l deal with your links 1 by 1:
1. They say "which implies only a modest decrease in solar flux at the Maunder Minimum for instance." - yes - enough to cool the planet. All temp records show this cooling.
2. They say "This is not to say that there is no solar influence on climate change, only that establishing such a link is more difficult then many assume"
3. They say "Even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend" We are talking about far longer term than this.
4. They say "There has been work done on reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century before satellites were available. According to the Max Plank Institute where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is not enough to explain it all, but it is responsible for a large portion of that trend in temperature" - for goodness sake CCPO these guys are saying it has influence.
5. They say "So what role, if any, have solar fluctuations had in recent temperature changes? While we can work out how Earth's orbit has changed going back many millions of years, we have no first-hand record of the changes in solar output associated with sunspots before the 20th century" - so basically they don't know
6. Cosmic rays? Is that what bit of the blog you are pointing me to? That is a whole different area of study I've not done enough research on yet.
Basically CCPO none of you posts above disprove a sun-climate link and in fact most of them hint at/state a moderate influecnce does exist - they just don't seem to know how much.
Marco.
Basically CCPO none of you posts above disprove a sun-climate link...
Straw man fallacy. No climate scientist disputes a sun-climate link. What climate science has shown is that there is no correlation between TSI and the recent warming trend.
He knows that. We have dealt with Marco in the past. Same crap, different day. I should not have engaged him beyond my usual 2x4 salutation.
Same crap? Which part of my argument exactly have you disproved? You should not have enguaged me? Why because you get an argument..oh sorry for not believing your almighty highness right out of the bat. Go re-read right from the start...what sparked this off was the comment that you either agree with AGW or you are wrong! An absurd position to take in any scientific debate.
Marco.
What are you talking about? Scientists are constantly trying to downplay the role the sun plays in climate change. There is no straw argument - CCPO argued there that a solar climate link was.....read his abusive posts.....idiocy?
I am arguing that solar forcing caused the maunder and dalton minima and that recent solar analysis point to a possible new dalton minima and, in conjuntion with the PDO could act negatively on the climate in terms of temperature.
But Marco, it's not parsimonious to appeal to multiple, miniscule, ambiguously directed signals to explain a strong trend. You have to invoke a mysterious, extreme sensitivity to sunspots/cosmic rays/phlogiston, while simultaneously invoking an extreme insensitivity to abrupt, gigantic changes in the global carbon budget.
But that is my problem. I want to know what it is about long term solar forcing over periods of a few decades that can alter the climate as is has clearly done so in the past in the two examples I give.
As for the insensitivity to changes in the carbon budget - this has me stumped. I simply don't know. [In the paleo climte prior events appear to trigger carbon release before feedback loops set in and our +100ppm C02 we've added could have an effect...]but maybe the climate models have factored in an incorrect amount of influence?
Marco.
but maybe the climate models have factored in an incorrect amount of influence?
No need to appeal to climate models; a simple blackbody model with a "gray gas" atmosphere gets us to within 1K of the observed equilibrium surface temps of Mars and Earth.
The contribution of CO2 to the planet's energy budget is very well understood. To learn about it, I always recommend a college-level textbook on climate science. This one's excellent and free online: Principles of Planetary Climate.
Dropstone,
Knowing you won't be able to resist returning to the scene of the crime, let me answer you. You did, after all, call me a noisy bird.
Let's see... this is a private site. Being banned from it indicates nothing other than the owners no longer wanted you here. Your characterization is illogical and childish. It's the same logic people use about free speech. How can you claim First Amendment on someone else's property? How do you call a non-governmental entity communist? IIRC, Leanan and others specifically called into question your poor application of logic. Just maybe there was more to it than communist leanings.
I think the best you could say about my relationship with Leanan is that there is none. Given I've received two warnings from her, I believe, all the more so. I think I've had at least one from another staff member, too.
There are no legitimate sceptics. To the extent that there might be, they would show up with science in tow. You never have. In fact, if I had any influence on your banning it would only have been because I pointed out that you have never provided links to legitimate science to support any of your claims. It was that that I suggested you should have been banned for, not your stance or whacky claims.
If overwhelming evidence via links to legitimate science = "left wing drivel screed for AGW," then I suppose you may have a point. But even then your logic breaks down: it's not the site, it's posters. The admins rarely jump into the fray on AGW.
You've never studied, or taught, English in Korea, apparently. That aside, I fail to see how much free time I have has to do with my ability as an English teacher. [I will toot my horn with this little tidbit: My summer school students (2 class hours a day for 3.5 weeks) improved their performances on Cambridge YL pre- and post-tests by an average of 10%; zero class content was included in the test. My wife co-taught, so she must be crappy, too.]
Straw man noted.
Final point: Other denialists certainly were not banned at 6:30 last night. You might ask yourself why you were and they were not.
My theory? Having your disguise lifted time after time and your schtick revealed and challenged eventually got to you. As expected. It always does.
Cheers
CCPO, when it comes to arguing AGW vs natural variablility you are a bit like a blunt tool, a cudgel if you like. I find sometimes you make some good rational arguments and enjoy enguaging with you but many times your "shouting down" just seems to detract from your message. You may accuse me of being shallow in this respect but I simply cannot ignore your insulting manner. People would not speak face to face in this tone and certainly not Teachers! So why do it online? You accuse me of being either stupid or dishonest.
Presumably you want to bring poeple over to your persuasion but you have a curious way of trying to do this! This eco-warrior tactic of yours, I find very negative.
Just my penny's worth.
Marco.
1. There were no insults in the above. Why did you post this here? Are you an alter ego of Dropstone?
2. If one makes unintelligent statements, repeatedly, should one not be perceived as unintelligent?
3. Since the stance underlying my responses to denialists is that they are, in fact, bought and paid for and/or ideologues and/or literally not educated/intelligent enough to understand even basic science, does it make sense to treat such people with respect? The very last grouping is actually quite rare, so it must be admitted by me that I am being a little rhetorical when questioning people's intelligence. When I do that it almost always means I think they are lying. However, it may well be true, too, so I toss it out there.
You have provided a perfect example here: short term trends = climate. You can understand the concept, but still argue it. It's bizarre. How can I conclude other than either stupidity or dishonesty? This is so clear cut there literally are no other options.
4. Given #3, it would be unethical and immoral of me not to challenge the denialists strongly. They are killing me and mine, albeit slowly for now. They are damned lucky all they get is rhetoric, if you ask me. I suspect that in the future those people who intentionally blocked response to Anthropogenically-driven Climate Change will be among the most reviled people on the planet. I would not be surprised at all if an EcoNuremberg was the final say in this matter.
5. While I intellectually understand the argument about playing nice, I've always wondered at the intellect of people who are basically admitting they are not able to separate the rhetoric from the data. Sticks and stone, after all.
If you are so easily swayed by a little pejorative that it prevents you from dealing with reality, I really think you need to put some serious thought into your own fortitude and mental strength.
6. I am of the opinion it takes all kinds, and that cuts both ways. There are those who will *only* respond to a 2x4 upside the head. Consider me the 2x4.
7. You really must be aware I could not possibly care less what your opinion of me is, right? With that in mind, why did you bother with your post?
Cheers
1. This is a round table and anyone may comment. I will have to disagree that it was not insulting and no, I am me, Marco!!
2. I don't think a statement can be pigeon holed as intelligent or unintelligent. People have intellegence to varying degrees but even that is very difficult to measure.
3. I'm not a 'denialist' in that sense so I think I do deserve respect. As I've pointed out numerous times I happen to be doing many things to resuce my folssil fuel usage / C02 footprint as I believe out energy crisis is greater.
Further more I am not arguing short term=climate - I am arguing that this could be the start of a long teerm trend and gave my evidence of this above.
4. Challenging strongly is not persuading or challenging convincingly. Sometime you have to caox people gentlyor they just plain rebel.
5. As long as there exists evidence that natural variability still plays a part (how much is under debat - I think a lot) then your statement here is meaningless.
6. Yes, I do!
7. In the hope that would change!!!!!!!
Marco.
#2. Good job proving the point.
#3. Bull. Your self-perception is way off. You argue one side and one side only, and not objectively. You dismiss, e.g. a 159 year trend in favor of a 3 year trend. This is no supported by facts, scientific reason or simple logic, yet you do do it. You are a denialist, and you are ignoring reams of facts in favor of the few that make you happy in your delusion of anti-AGW rhetoric.
4. Denialists are not coaxable. Barrett, for example, is taking the tack you suggest. It does not help. You and others persist. Logically, you should cease and desist. Were this a court of law or a formal, science-based debate you'd either be convicted or laughed off the stage.
Barrett, et al's, gentlemanly response has the effect you desire: it allows you to claim your stance is worthy of debate. It is not. It allows you to pretend at legitimacy when all you represent are false equivalencies.
Barrett focuses on the debate, I focus on the false equivalency. I will not allow lies nad BS to go unchallenged in such a way that people reading this - or any - forum can leave with the opinion the debate is equal and thriving. It is not equal, it is not thriving.
A recent survey of scientists doing active work found that 97% of climate scientists agreed that AGW is real. Yet, you challenge that. And you do so on the word of....? Wattsupwiththat? Non-scientists?
Foolishness.
You are arguing this *could* be the start of a long-term trend? Based on....? We have pointed out eight other downturns just like this one over the last 159 years. They didn't last. Despite this "downturn" producing temps that actually take the long term trend *up.* Despite this "downturn" producing several of the ten hottest years on record.
In other words, you are pulling this reversal crap out of your arse. Rather, from non-scientifically derived opinions of non-scientists writing non-peer reviewed blog entries.
Ah, but you're *objective* and *intelligent*. Right?
I only need to reply to this comment because is patently delusional! The dabate is far from settled and the shrillness of the AGW bridade started increasing when global temperatures started to decrease and armageddon didn't in fact happen at the north pole.
You want to know how settled it is: the world is doing virtually NOTHING to tackle "AGW" - that is how settled it is.
Sometimes I think you guys want to be right. I hope for all our sakes you are not!!
Marco.
FACT: 97% of climate scientists responding to a recent survey say you are full of shit.
What about 97 vs. 3 do you not understand, troll?
What part of EVERY major scientific organization ON THE PLANET says you're full of crap do you not get, troll?
What part of ZERO peer-reviewed science to support your claim do you not get, troll?
What part of an intentional campaign by think tanks starting with the Marshall Institute and ending with Exxon and the BuCheney administration do you not get, troll?
What part of open your eyes and look at the environment around you do you not get, troll?
Submit your warped little proxy study to RealClimate or a REAL scientific periodical, then get back to us, troll.
The debate is far from settled? That is a bald-faced lie. You are a shill, a liar.
Realclimate know about all the eproxy studies but for some bizarre reason fail to give them due attention.
They know why too - it would imply that natural variability has a greater importance than they give it.
Definition of Troll from wikipedia:
You do yourself a disservice CCPO
Remember when you first came here using the denialist line, "Really! I just want to UNDERSTAND!"
Remember what you wrote within the last day or two about opposing the AGW activists?
You are a troll, a liar and a shill.
EcoNuremberg. Off with you.
CCPO;
I do not deny that you have challenged many charlatans but you are not the guardian of my gate, Much more can be accomplished by rational discourse than by attack.
Yes, there are shills, but there are also those that are uninformed, IMO, we have the obligation to inform first and, if warranted, attack later.
Marco appears to be a troll, but you may be jumping the gun. I also acknowledge that he may be a skillful troll.
No disrespect but in order to maintain the integrity of the site, we should first afford every latitude regardless of misguided or misinformed posts.
If some trolls seep (or ooze) in so be it, we are bigger than that.
The frauds will expose themselves soon enough.
What has my posting got to do with you, except in the We are the World sense?
Bull. Look at the polls in the US and GB. The liars are winning.
That you don't understand Marco is a troll does not have much to do with this. I have demonstrated clearly that he is. This is not our first dance.
I understand your stance, but all your comments here are off.
Cheers
CCPO:
Before I reply on point, I am not your enemy, but you may be your own worst enemy in trying to advance your views.
Well, for a start, you are a poster, just like me. The site belongs to someone else. Everyone is entitled to post here unless they violate pre-defined rules and I am here to learn and to try modify perception as I feel appropriate.
Thank you for that bit of aggressive ad hominem dogma. Do you care to cite any sources? You often slam posters for no references. Personally, I have seen a gradual, albeit slow, shift to acceptance of AGW.
Au contraire mon ami. It has everything to do with this because I never said marco was not a troll. In fact, I said he was likely a troll and a skillfull one at that.
If you truly understood my stance, then none of my comments are off.
Obviously you are sharp, but more and more you appear to defend your aggressive behaviour rather than your position. As I said at the outset, I am not your enemy, but I think you need a reset. Honey catches more flies than vinegar.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-grap...
Spencer is an industry... um... lady of the night.
He also won an award from RealClimate this year:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-year-in-review/
Best hopes for EcoNuremberg
He said 80 million years ago. That was the era of dinosaurs, not proto-humans. As the posters above suggest, perhaps in science fiction these two time periods are jumbled, but the fossil record seems pretty clear. Dr. Happer is not correct.
Gee, whiz. Prosperous, eh?
Did he happen to say how the stock market was doing back then?
Prosperous for whom .... ? Which species thrived ... ?
Was that an idyllic Golden Age or Garden of Eden where members of our species simply frolicked about beside the Pagan Streams or walked and talked with God in the cool of the day?
How was GM doing back in the age of, er, was it dinosaurs and Flintstones?
Were there lots of little think tanks flourishing to spread obvious dis-info-tain-ment around back then also?
Just wondering.
It is interesting because most models of a 4C warming seem to say most of the World will become desert. This didn't happen in the Cretaceous. They don't say where all the rain would have gone.
Hint: Does this globe look anything like the one you live on today?
Best Hopes for EcoNuremberg
Nice. When you look at it this way (in animated form, as seen from a few thousand miles above) cretaceous Earth does look quite prosperous! You can almost make out the Walmartasauruses scattered across the fertile plains. 350 ppm? If you really want a prosperous planet, let's jack this up to 1200! Like the good doctor says, we are CO2 deprived! Think about the children: they deserve a CO2 rich future. Who are we to deny them? I'm gonna start by torching some petrol stations...
Ha... this stuff would be funny if we, the real scientists, didn't encounter it so frequently.
Prosperous? The sea level was where again in the hothouse Cretaceous, Mr. Exxon Scientist? Which would leave what percentage of our largest cities underwater?
No mention that the sun has gotten hotter in the intervening millions of years?
Friday night failures:
17th bank fails this year
Curious that Georgia is such a hot spot.
California and Florida you can see - they were Ground Zero for the mortgage crisis. But why Georgia? Banking rules that encouraged risky banks to settle there, maybe? Or was it that widespread mortgage scam?
May have something to do with the real estate bubble around Atlanta. I listened to a property assessor on the radio last night who was forced out of business because he insisted on giving realistic values for the properties he evaluated. The mortgage brokers quit calling him and went with dishonest assessors who insured larger commissions for the brokers and realtors. He is now a truck driver. As long as compensation for mortgage brokers and other realty services is commissioned based then they will always try to jack up prices to dishonest levels.
Historical perspective of bank failures:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/R4jwVwesbiI/AAAAAAAADS4/MnK3l6QMC1...
Meanwhile, in Canada:
from: http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC816555
"Canada has had only 2 bank failures since 1923 while the US has had over 17 000. ... the banking system remains basically a banking oligopoly dominated by the "Big Five", who have 43% of the total assets of the major classes of consumer credit-granting and deposit-taking financial intermediaries in Canada."
This refers to chartered banks. Credit unions are provincially controlled. There is also the unique case of ATB Financial, owned and operated by the Alberta Treasury Branch of the provincial government as a hangover from the Social Credit days of the late 1930s. All deposits in ATB Financial are guaranteed 100% by the Alberta government.
Funny. I was looking at the blog linked to this chart which had this assessment (see BOTTOMLINE):
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2008/01/history-of-us-bank-failures.html
Probably a small contribution to Georgia's banking failure rate might be their economy being mildly whipsawed by the recent drought problems, and then the fuel distribution problems from recent hurricanes. Thus, if farmers are struggling, it eventually ripples up throughout the economy.
All Wisconsin Retirement System pension checks to see a cut in May
By mid-summer, you could probably take every state and county pension fund, and write the same article about them, but with bigger payment cuts.
Honestly, where do all these people with pension funds think their money is invested? Mars?
The ironic thing is that due to the Ponzi scheme nature of the US economy, current retirees are extremely fortunate compared to young workers.
Dr. Michael Hudson lays it out very well in this newest interview;
"Guns and Butter - "The Way We Were and What We Are Becoming" - March 4, 2009 at 1:00pm"
http://kpfa.org/archive/id/48892
Yep-it is pretty transparent at this point. I think I have reached the point where I have more respect for the looters than the ostriches still slavishly looking to their leaders.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+1...up;-{o)
I just listened to it. Many will dismiss his comments due to his obvious leanings toward socialism/marxism, but he's on the same page as the rest of the short-term crash folk.
Time is oh so very short.
Catabolic my fat arse. 50+ years? Fantasy. Well, maybe to complete and total collapse. I suppose much depends on your definitions.
Cheers
Well not really.
Young workers still have bodies that work well. They can actually do some work to earn a living -- hoeing potatoes if nothing else. The elderly that have been receiving dividend checks are going to really be out in the cold.
I wonder what is going to happen to all those ex-patriot retirees in Mexico and Costa Rica and Barbados?? Not much of a "safety net" in those places when the dividend checks fail.
For many this may be literally true.
Well, if the dividend checks are what they are relying on go away, they're toast. However, if they have social (in)security, they can do well on very little. In the Philippines, you can rent a house for $150 and $200 more will cover all costs for DSL, food, entertainment, etc. if you're not living in a big city and don't require luxury, but even that would be around $1000. As for other places, you can live well for $500 a month if you live in the style in which the upper middle class lives--Dominican Republic, Panama, and other places. Ecuador would be cheaper. If you live out in the countryside, you could get by on $200 for everything--house, food, utils, transport, and so on. If you want to live yuppie style, however, you're going to be pretty sad.
And here it is:
Someone's leaked the Counter Parties to AIG:
According to the WSJ, these are the counter-party banks paid by AIG with bailout money:
Covered Counterparties
Goldman Sachs
Deutsche Bank
Merrill Lynch
Société Générale
Calyon
Barclays
Rabobank
Danske
HSBC
Royal Bank of Scotland
Banco Santander
Morgan Stanley
Wachovia
Bank of America
Lloyds Banking Group
This is simply unconscionable . . .
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
And Barclays finds $3 billion
it got from Lehman:
Barclays questioned on funds
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d22cf3a2-0909-11de-b8b0-0000779fd2ac.html?ncli...
By Francesco Guerrera, Greg Farrell and Julie MacIntosh in New York
Published: March 5 2009 00:00 | Last updated: March 5 2009 11:03
Lehman Brothers’ US liquidators have asked Barclays to explain what happened to an estimated $3.3bn earmarked for bonuses and other liabilities that the UK bank received when it acquired part of the bankrupt Wall Street company last year.
In its yearly results last month, Barclays booked a gain of £2.3bn ($3.3bn) on the difference between the fair value of the assets and liabilities acquired from Lehman and the price paid for them. The gain accounted for about a third of Barclays’ pre-tax profits and helped Barclays Capital, its investment banking arm, to record a profit of £1.3bn."
Must be nice, to be insolvent, and then take $3 billion
just lying around.
Here the Wall Street Journal article that your link references.
TS
Is this a surprise?
Is it true?
What can anyone do about it when the crooks are in charge and cooking the books?
People say "pitchforks". That won't get you very far on the Capitol Mall.
Who is going to prosecute the miscreants.
I will continue to develop my local network in my peasant way. It feels like the best bet for survival.
mgowanmc -
Aha, did I not indeed say in one of my replies just the other day that this bailout will result in a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class US taxpayers to the global investor class!
So here we have the likes of Deutsche Bank, Société Générale, and Banco Santander sticking their hands way down into my pocket and rudely tickling me privates ..... something to the tune of close to $50 billion.
Now, how much more evidence does one need for one to understand who is really running the show? The Fed is and always has been of, by, and for the financial establishment. As a result, a global network of highly interconnected financial entities has managed to suck massive amounts of blood out of US middle class taxpayers with nary a peep of protest out of our so-called representatives in Congress. Nay, they are actually co-conspirators in the dirty deed.
To paraphrase something once said about kings: Justice will not be done till the last politician is slowly strangled with the still-warm intestines of the last banker.
At risk of being seriously flamed by all and sundry I have to say that the US taxpayers should pay all the counterparties in the rest of the world for the debts of AIG and others. Reason? the US taxpayers let their politicians and banksters make a mess of things for so long that the Americans are now reaping what they sowed. Yes some did protest and not support the practices (including many TOD contributors and others) but the majority of the sheeple let the crap slide. Now you have to pay (both sheeple and the rightious) and hopefully the pain will cause the sheeple to punish the crooks in govt and wall st (let them hang/burn or put in labour camps and not house arrest in their penthouses). Your mess not ours.
Sets his Zippo on the Table next to him....
Um, being a former tax payer, I don't think so. Sure some of us elected the guys and gals who put the lobbist's interests before the voter's interest. But just because we elected them their crimes we should not pay for.
Crime is crime and should be dealt with. You are saying you want to blaim the victim of this crime for the mess as well, WHY?
Charles.
Still have my Zippo handy.
I don't recall any American taxpayer going abroad and putting bankers/speculators/people at gun point and ordering them to buy derivatives.
I understand your point of view Charles; but more than "some" Americans let this cr*p get worse over the past few decades whilst the sheeple watched American Idol. You (the American public) let your regulatory agencies give seals of approval (with govt consent and support) to wall st shenanigans and your govt encouraged foreigners to invest in supposidly triple A financial instruments. Now ALL americans will pay the cost of this dsciet. Like you Charles I'm p*ssed off at having to pay for govt bailouts for companies that have failed here (but here the sheeple watch Australian Idol) with our KRudd govt smelling as bad as your BO govt.
Au contraire. It is entirely *our* mess, whether you like it or not. It takes two to tango, regardless of whoever is providing the music.
According to Peter Ward and Robert Brownlee in their book 'The Life and Death of Planet Earth', the big-picture geologically long-term trend is for CO2 levels to slowly decrease over time as the Earth's interior cools, thus slowing then stopping plate tectonics and shutting down the silicate/carbonate rock weathering/volcanic CO2 cycle. Thie (and others') theory is that as Earth's temperature increases, plant growth increases, rain fall increases in places, and therefore weathering increases. CO2 is sequestered into rocks and ocean silts as part of mineral compunds and atmospheric CO2 drops. As the rocks and silt become subducted into the trenches and this material spews forth from mountain chains above subduction zones (such as the Sierras), CO2 is returned to the atmosphere. If the geologic plate tectonic engine slows then stops, then over time CO2 will be pulled from the atmosphere by plants, sequestered in minerals, and after long enoght there will not be enough CO2 in the atmosphere to support plants. As the plants die off, so goes the source of atmospheric O2, which will combine with surface minerals and leave the atmosphere that way. I don't have the book in front of me, but Ward and Brownlee predicted that this death of the Carbon cycle would occure much earlier than the death of the Sun, say, in about 1 billion years or so. Of course, the oft-quoted in textbooks from my youth statement that the Sun and the Eartth will 'last' another 5B years is false anyway...solar brightening will force Earth into a 'wet greenhouse' then a loss of al,ost all water much sonner than 5B years anyway (but still later than the death of the CO2 cycle).
Now back to present reality: Any revanchist non-scientific AGW denier who might have heard these theories and might want to use them to say that our dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a good thing clearly need to go back to school. The Present time scale and the time scale for solar influx doom and for tectonic/CO2 cycle doom before that are much much further in our future than humanity's recorded history, or even much longer than we have been a distinct species.
Weekend conference on the psychology of deniers - with discussion
http://tinyurl.com/cmc5zt
San Francisco Historians Condemn 1906 Earthquake Deniers
Wow, that one nearly swindled me, Leanan. After all, I remember they revised the death toll upward for the centennial: http://www.ktvu.com/earthquakes/4130203/detail.html
Dear Robert,
Of course, we are all mad you know, MAAAAAD....
Enjoy:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/06/what-will-they-think-of-next-confe...
rgds
dropstone
Ad hominem as informal fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:
- Source A makes claim X
- There is something objectionable about Source A
- Therefore claim X is false
Ad hominem is one of the best known of the logical and systematic fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.
Leanan I can only presume you for some reason "censored/deleted my post" so i have reworded the bit I belive you censored me for........
my post:
Yes, it's interesting how the debate has panned out: there are those who believe in AGW and all others are just mad. No evidence whatsoever that natural variability plays some part, nothing to see here folks, move along. Preacher beats the drum.....drum....drum....repeat 150 times: the Earth's climate has always been the same stable place since for ever....now where did I put that AGW grant money?
Personally I think you "AGW believers" are completely brainwashed. There is plenty of growing evidence in the paleo record that prove the climate has altered in the past far more quickly and more violenly than it is doing so now. Also as the years go by there is an interesting trend in the temp records that show static to declining global temperatures for at least the last 5 years. There is also growing acceptance that the solar forcing may be more important than previously considered.
The matter is far from settled and in actual fact there is plenly of evidence mounting up to suggest that natural variability in key multiyear indices like the NOA ,PDO, SOI, ENSO are the major driving force of the earth's climate - but what is driving those? Hmmmm.....big ball of hydrogen/helium springs to mind.
Now to put the "denier" bit into context.: I myself am trying my best to reduce my energy consumption. This year I will be doing a complete assessment of insulation in my house and have already installed major energy saving appliances. I cycle to work most days and try and grow some of my own vegetables. These are just a few examples. So if i'm a "denier", why would I do this? Simple: I'm not a denier....i'm reducing my C02 footprint as we are facing an energy/resouce crisis that will dwarf any worries imposed by AGW, and my research into climate change leads me to believe that it is primarily natural variablility and maybe some AGW.
I have friends that can't understand why I try to destroy the AGW argument that could geopordise the movement to a low carbon way of living...but for me thats just as decietful as the politicians who deny AGW so they can still have their Hummers and 16 boxes of various cereal in their cupboards.
Marco.
Marco,
Your description of "those who believe in AGW" does not describe the scientists I have read who have gone to great pains to describe the variation in climate. It's apparent that you can't see the difference between short term variation and the longer term changes, such as the Ice Age cycles. do you actually think that an Ice Age represents no problem for civilization? What if AGW actually results in another Ice Age? Are you willing to ignore that possibility and if so, why? Or, do you think living in desert conditions is possible if it's no longer possible to find food from other areas because the drought conditions apply everywhere?
BTW, those short term variations you point to do not "drive" climate, but are indications of variation within the weather system, with the possible exception of the ENSO oscillations. The driving forces are the solar energy which flows thru the Earth's atmosphere into the climate system and the IR which leaves.
E. Swanson
No it does not describe the scientists. It describes those that take the scientists word for gospel.
There is no concensus on how we delineate short term from long term. Climate from weather. Extreme climate frequency etc...is five years weahter or climate? Heck I don't know if anyone knows the answer to that? It is even that black or white?
Of course natural variability is just as dangerous to human survival and for sustaining 6Bn+ people as AGW could be.
Those variables I listed; some have periods of 30+ years and it is not understood if they are driven or the driver - they are possibly both! Remember even for non-anthropogenic C02 needs a step/ramp input from something...in order for an increase in it to be triggered in the first place.
Agree fully with your last statement.
Marco.
This statement is almost always missing whenever I read/see/hear a "denier" arguing with a "believer" (or vice versa).
If I might oversimplify:
Denier Argument: AGW is a joke/hoax/conspiracy, it's all natural variability and the sun. So, that means BAU can and should continue.
Believer Argument: AGW is real and it's here right now and getting worse. We must change BAU, and start living within our biosphere better.
Since most Deniers use the argument above, I immediately ignore them (see: Limbaugh, Rush et al). However, I must admit that I tend to paint all deniers with the same broad brush, which is not always helpful or correct. I'm glad to see a "denier" make that important point. (Though, I still think the Believer Argument is much more responsible)
There is no consensus on how we delineate short term from long term. Climate from weather.
In fact, there is consensus:
Sorry Barrett; this is very flawed statistical analysis; for the simple reason than the paleo climate has not been mapped to a high enough degree for inclusion: remember some rapid climate changes in the past have happened on timescales less than a decade.
remember some rapid climate changes in the past have happened on timescales less than a decade.
Indeed, but you can't distinguish such changes from noise until 20-30 years later.
Those rear view mirror events!!! - I refer to the fact that Peak oil is like this too!!
We really need better resolution on that paleo data - who knows it might actually support AGW.
I have to side with you in this constant, ongoing discussion. Science is a method of knowledge for which there is always, necessarily, no certitude, and always room for doubt, unless you find a counter-example that completely refutes a theory. No amount of "positive" or confirming instances can ever prove a theory or establish certitude.
Yet many people here seem to think AGW is an article of faith, a certitude, that cannot be doubted. Their position is as horrendous as any rabid right-wing creationist. We "know" from our science that there have been numerous climate changing events in the past and will likely be many in the future, so climate change is a given. Whether or not it is in fact warming or cooling in the long term view is still open to question, and so is the long-chain inference that we are doomed if the trends inferred continue. The AGW crowd may be right, and they may be wrong, though they seem to think they cannot be wrong--only the deniers and doubters can be wrong. This arrogant dichotomizing--you are wrong and I am right--is probably the most serious denial of science and rationality that exists. I see no difference between the rabid AGW's and the group of crackpots who are filing frivolous lawsuits about Obama's birth.
On the other hand, there are some people who are equally rabid in their belief that there is no global warming or climate change or deny that we have severely damaged our home and could very well face extinction, so both the affirmers and the deniers are probably right in some respects and wrong in others, but you're wasting your breath with either group.
The AGW crowd may be right, and they may be wrong, though they seem to think they cannot be wrong.
Climate science is not a matter of belief. It is relatively straightforward thermodynamics. Using basic principles of climate science, we're able to accurately predict the surface temperatures of Earth and Mars, and we get a tolerable value for Venus.
Whether or not it is in fact warming or cooling in the long term view is still open to question, and so is the long-chain inference that we are doomed if the trends inferred continue.
This is the chain of inference. Which discovery do you dispute?
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas (Tyndall 1859).
2. CO2 is rising (Keeling et al. 1958).
3. The new CO2 is mainly from burning fossil fuels (Suess 1955).
4. Temperature is rising (NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, UAH, RSS, etc.).
5. The increase in temperature correlates with the increase in CO2 (76% for temp. anomaly and ln CO2 for 1880-2007).
"Global warming in five bullet points" by Barton Paul Levenson
LOL....I wish I'd known than when I studied thermodynamics and fluid mechanics at university....people really struggled with those subjects! Which leads to to your next point:
Thats guys model is a fixed state (snapshot if you like) predictor for current temperature. The GCM's run by the top climate modellers are woefully simplistic, make many initial state assumptions and leave out MANY unmeasured variables for lack of understanding. Of course these models will improve over time along with the computing power to be able to run a model with 100+ variables!!!!
I only dispute point 4.
Also a a point of note - bullet 5 you list is not evidence for AGW - it is evidence against AGW as we know that there are always lags in the system and our current temperature/c02 uplift are happening almost simaltaneously!?!
There is no doubt man has lifed C02 rought 100ppm. BUT as the earth appears to go through many periods of warming so that the current temperature uplift could just as easily be natural variablility.
Here is an interesting point - becuase in geological terms the Current C02 increase can be assumed to be a step input we have to look at other step inputs in the past. But as far as paleoclimatologists can tell the huge C02 or methane releases to the system apppear to be CAUSED by prior warming. But by whay mechanism?
I once had an argument with gavin over at realclimate about the fact that 6000-4000 years ago the are studies that show that sea levels we 1-5m above present ergo the world was warmer than it is now. His response was to dismiss the studies as wrong. Also looking to the last interglacial is not a fair comparison as orbital mechanics gave favour to a slightly hotter world than now so I prefer to use the current interglacial as an argument.
I also admit that I could be wrong and in fact AGW is correct. But to me the evidence to the contrary is too strong.
Marco.
That guy's model is a fixed state (snapshot if you like) predictor for current temperature.
Almost correct -- "steady state" is more accurate. Mars and Venus are in radiative near-equilibrium. Earth is in radiative disequilibrium due to the large, abrupt excursion in the atmospheric carbon store. To regain equilibrium, the atmosphere must warm.
there are always lags in the system and our current temperature/c02 uplift are happening almost simultaneously!?!
There are lags in Earth's radiative balance, but they're very short, on the order of hours for convective heat fluxes, and days for CO2 mixing.
The slowing of the tectonics is not needed for a CO2 drawdown. The mechanism that higher temps mean greater erosion implies that average CO2 concentration will decrease as the sun gradually brightens. After about another billion years, it will require CO2 to be down to mayve 10ppm, to keep the temperature from soaring. But then plants probably can no longer exist. It is also claimed in Pierre Humbert's climate textbook, that in about 700 million years a runaway greenhouse is conditionally possible, i.e. if the planet gets hot enough, the runaway (to Venusian type conditions is possible), by 1.7 billion years the runaway greenhouse of unavoidable.
principles of planetary climate
The absolute low CO2 limit for plants depends on their carbon fixation pathway, i.e., C4 plants will persist longer than their C3 counterparts. But you are correct that the slow rise in solar luminosity will eventually draw CO2 down low enough to make plant life untenable. My advisor and another colleague from our program have written a book about this subject that I feel obligated to plug: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Planet-Earth-Astrobiology/dp/0805075127... (It's the sequel to a better known book, Rare Earth.)
I'm not a climate modeler but I think I remember learning that the runaway greenhouse isn't likely to occur on Earth. Jim Kasting's work suggests that not only is CO2 increase alone insufficient to produce a runaway greenhouse, the amount of input required is something like 1.5 times the current solar flux. Since the increase in the sun's output is gradual, not stepwise, it is far more likely that a more modest increase (to ~1.1x nominal) will trigger the rapid loss of water from the top of the atmosphere--known as a "moist greenhouse." This is actually thought to have happened on Venus, and would explain its hugely enriched D/H ratio. With the sun's output at only about 70% of today's value, there was seemingly not enough input for a runaway greenhouse in the Archean, even at the orbit of Venus. However, it should have been above the moist greenhouse threshold even then. So its water vapor is cleaved by UV photons at the top of Venus' atmosphere, and the hydrogen escapes into space. Once all the water is lost, the CO2 has nowhere to go. It can't be locked up in surface rocks without liquid water and it can't escape from the top of the atmosphere, so the result is the mess you see today.
It is merely a rhetorical difference, but I would consider that just another type of runaway greenhouse, albet probably much slower.
The distinction is meaningless from the perspective of human survival, of course, but a planetary scientist would disagree with you. "Runaway greenhouse" is a term with a specific meaning; IIRC, the salient point is the positive feedback, as the rising temperatures due to greenhouse gases cause the evaporation of water, thus boosting the greenhouse effect (more water vapor) in the atmosphere, causing more evaporation, etc. Eventually you end up with a steam atmosphere. In a moist greenhouse scenario, this can't happen, because the water is already gone. The subsequent greenhouse is not "runaway" in the same sense, just a direct function of the amount of CO2 liberated (obviously, both Earth and Venus have a hefty amount of carbon).
And believe it or not, it has been argued that there is a functional difference with respect to what happens subsequently and any future prospects for life. I don't remember the exact argument, but I have Lunine's new book in my office and will take a look tomorrow.
Re: Double Daylight Saving Time. Up top.
I have rarely read such outrages reasoning. He wants to move "beyond the fiction of our agrarian conception of time and into the modern world". Oh right. The modern world needs a different clock because agriculture time no longer applies.
Get a clue. The hours in a day and hours of daylight to do not change just because the clocks change. Time still moves the same and in seasons that result in crops and such. It is the modern world that is the fiction and that becomes more so each day with people like the article's author running the show.
I hate day light sayings time. It is a bi-yearly headache of clock changing. I have several vehicles and each one seems to have a slightly different way of setting the clock forward/backward. And come the next time to adjust, I've forgotten how each works and have to look it up again for each one. And I like to have a clock visible from wherever I am in the house since I don't like wearing a watch. That means I have a lot of clocks to change.
Living on a farm also makes getting up too early a waste of time. The dew is too heavy to mow and it is often cold and uncomfortable in the morning. Plus traffic picks up early past my place and keeps me awake. I am an early to rise and early to bed type person anyway so long as is not too early in the morning.
It is the evening consequences of day-light savings time that I particularly hate. During the warmest and longest days when one is tired from being up all day and wants to sleep, the sun is still up past 9 o'clock or later. What on earth do people want to do at that hour that requires sunlight?
I have a biological clock that is pretty precise. We all have one. We evolved with a rhythm. That is why there is jet lag for example.
These rhythms are based on day and night and seasons. The author supposes that we can override these basic evolutionary rhythms and achieve a nirvana of "gorgeous, endless evenings". What rubbish.
He says the clock shift was originally designed to "create" more leisure time. From what I have read people have less leisure time than ever lately. Especially working people. I submit that if his stupid idea or double daylight savings time were put into effect most people would have even less leisure time.
As it is, people like me do not get enough sleep anyway. It is a major national health concern. It can result in diabetes which I have. It is well known among educators that test results fall when a student does not get enough sleep. Sleep, regular hours and the expectation of such make for good judgement IMO.
Perhaps the author should try it. I think his judgement would improve and he would forget about double daylight saving time.
I will change the clocks tonight but my parrot will sack in an hour later tomorrow ... the lazy critter.
Excellent points. We do need to do away with this silly and counterproductive time change. This doesn't rank up there with putting all the pharmaceutical companies out of business because they are poisoning what little water we have left and making half the country into zombies, but eliminating these time changes will be a welcome result of the reversion to a simpler way of life, if it does come to be.
Interestingly, they have an equal and opposite problem in China where the entire country is on the same time, so people in different regions have to change their sleeping, eating, and working habits to fit the business world: in the West, four logical time zones from the East, their 6AM is in darkness while everyone in the East is doing their Tai Chi exercises in bright sunlight.
I’ve been working with my church to help make their operations more energy efficient. The church would like to reduce its operating costs and put their funds to better use. But beyond that, they want to be “good stewards” and set a positive example for their parishioners, so the motivation here is not simply one of dollars and cents.
Earlier this week, I started working on the parish hall. This building, in addition to its regular functions, is used by a local food bank and hosts weekly continuing education classes. Some improvements were simple, relatively inexpensive and could be completed in about thirty minutes. For example, the hall has six exit signs, each illuminated with two 15-watt incandescent lamps. These signs were retrofitted with 1.5-watt LEDs for a net savings of 1,419 kWh/year and a 5.5 per cent reduction in overall demand.
I also re-lamped sixty-one 2-lamp T8 fixtures in the lower hall and second floor offices with new, high performance 28-watt T8 lamps. The original lamps operated at 32-watts and after ten years of service were nearing the end of their nominal life. It was a good time to do a group replacement and in the process trim their electrical demand by 488-watts. I also replaced their thirty 65-watt BR incandescent reflectors with 50-watt halogen PAR30s I had salvaged from another job; this cuts that load by 450-watts (the fixtures are used for dinners and other functions where dimming is required and so CFLs wouldn’t have been a good choice). Next week, my firm will convert the remaining T12 fixtures on the second and third floors to T8s, further reducing demand by another 700-watts.
The second floor main hall had been illuminated with four 300-watt PS35 incandescent lamps housed in industrial-style reflectors. These long-life lamps were not very efficient (you effectively trade lumens for longevity) and some of the light was lost inside the neck of the fixture. I replaced these lamps with 100-watt halogen-IR PAR38s that I had stashed away in my basement. Light levels are more or less the same, but we gain an additional 800-watts in savings.
The parish hall has two 250-watt barn-style exterior lights that operate from dusk to dawn and 100-watt incandescent lamps at each of the three entrances. These will be replaced with 70-watt metal halide wall packs and 13-watt, hard wired CFLs respectively.
The church itself has three 250-watt mercury vapour post lamps at the front circular driveway and a 1,000-watt mercury vapour fixture that illuminates the front facade. These fixtures also run from dusk to dawn. We will be removing the ballasts from the post lights and refitting them with 27-watt CFLs and the 1,000-watt flood will be replaced by a 70-watt metal halide; it won’t be quite as bright but, then again, the light will be white and not a ghastly green.
Inside, the T12 fluorescent valances will be re-lamped and re-ballasted (a 1,900-watt savings). The tea cup chandeliers have already been converted from incandescent to CFL (a 1,692-watt reduction). Tomorrow afternoon, we will replace the eleven 150-watt incandescent BR40s illuminating the front altar with 23-watt PAR38 CFLs for a further 1,397-watt savings. Monday, the vestries and transepts will be re-lamped and re-ballasted, which bumps up the savings by another 464-watts.
Lastly, the parish kitchen is equipped with two commercial BUNN coffee markers that have internal water reservoirs that are kept hot 24-hours a day. I plugged one into my power monitor and discovered that they use 75-watts in standby operation. Simply unplugging these two coffee makers when not in use will save approximately 1,300 kWh/year – roughly five per cent of the parish hall’s total demand.
Many of us have made our homes about as energy efficient as possible, but there’s really no reason why we should stop at this. We should be seeking out other energy saving opportunities at our schools, churches, community halls and other non-profit organizations. We might also consider donating a couple six-packs of CFLs to a local food bank so that they can be distributed to those in greatest need. If you can spare $50.00 or $100.00 for supplies and perhaps donate a few hours of your time, the potential benefits to your community can be enormous.
Cheers,
Paul
Paul,
It is always heartening to hear about your work; it must be satisfying to know you are part of the solution.
Thanks.
Paul, thanks for this. I have a few questions.
What's your estimated kWh of savings over a year? And savings in $'s? Also, if you can share it, what will the ROI be?
P.S. Your idea of putting some CFL's in a food bank is great.
This is an outstanding post that illuminates the immense levels of waste that currently exist in society.
It should be propagated far and wide across the Internet!
Many thanks for taking the time to share, +1000 if I could.
test
here
Good on you Paul.
Note that the stimulus package includes $11 billion to do similar work in government facilities in the U.S. The post office in my little burg has a double set of entry doors. The interior set is always (24 hours a day) propped open. The facility has no recycling bins in the lobby. A friend related to me recently that most federal offices in D.C. have no recycling capabilities. There are a lot of low hanging fruit.
Thanks to everyone for your kind words.
André has requested additional detail on the economics of this work. I can only speak in general terms, as some of this information is protected by privacy legislation and I’m also bound by a non-disclosure agreement with Nova Scotia Power. Although I haven’t identified the church by name, at least one member of this board is aware of my affiliation.
So, with that said, I expect the reduction to be between 13,000 and 14,000 kWh/year. The church currently pays $0.11796 per kWh, so this puts the dollar savings at about $1,600.00/year. The 1,000-watt mercury vapour flood at the front of the church has been out of service for sometime, but the ballast still presumably draws 100-watts when energized; the potential savings would be even greater if this fixture were, in fact, operational.
I would like to add a time clock to the outdoor lighting so that it can be used in conjunction with the existing photo-eye control. This way, the timer can energize the circuit at 16h00, say, but the photo-eye won’t allow the lights to come on until dusk. The timer can then subsequently open the circuit at 01h00, whereas the photo-eye, by itself, would allow the lights to remain on until sunrise. This could potentially trim five or six hours from their daily use, thereby extending lamp life and further reducing energy demands. Alternatively, we could simply replace the photo-eye with an astronomical timer that would effectively do the same thing. Either way, there’s no reason why they should be burning at three or four in the morning.
In terms of the economic payback, a LED retrofit kit retails for about $20.00 CDN ($US 15.50); with a 27-watt reduction per fixture and 24 hrs/day operation, the breakeven point is less than nine months. A 100-watt halogen-IR PAR38 retails for about $10.00 CDN and at a 200-watt per socket savings, the payback is about six months, assuming an average usage of 15 hours/week.
The simple payback on the 28-watt T8 swap is considerably longer but, in this case, the 32-watt lamps they replace were ten years old and starting to fail with increasing frequency. Our cost for a 28-watt Osram Sylvania XPS 850 series T8 is $2.72 CDN ($US 2.11); at current rates and assuming 25 hours per week usage, the breakeven point is just under 4.5 years.
In addition to the two coffee makers I mentioned above, I’ve asked the church to turn off their commercial dishwasher at the breaker panel. The dishwasher is used twice a week (Thursdays and Sundays) but its internal booster tank is kept hot continuously. It has a ready light that comes on when it's up to temperature and if our volunteers snap on the breaker ten or fifteen minutes before use, it should work perfectly fine; the challenge will be to have them remember to turn off the breaker when they’re done.
With respect to food banks and the donation of CFLs, our firm does a lot of business with a major lamp manufacturer and I plan to ask our local rep if he will donate a couple cases to us in exchange for various promotional considerations (e.g., a thank you note in our church bulletin). If your employer is disposing of excess inventory that may be helpful to local charity or non-profit organization, or if you are in a position to solicit donations from a supplier, this is a good way to leverage additional assistance at no cost.
I’m also thinking we need to generate some friendly competition between ourselves and our counterparts within the Archdiocese. Why not challenge each other to find ways to lower our energy demand and lessen our collective “environmental footprint” while having some fun at the same time?
Cheers,
Paul
Amazing! The $1600 a year savings you cite is very close to the $1800-odd a year I've been living on for the past couple of years.
Thanks, Paul.
WRT the coffee maker and the dishwasher - I wonder whether a simple timer knob on the wall would work. Instead of a simple on-off switch, you just twist the knob by hand to set how long it should be on. The ones I have see seem to have some sort of spring-operated timer inside - you can hear a slight noise.
I have seen these types of switches used in storage facilities where people rarely spend very much time.
A good idea. We discussed the possibility of operating these coffee makers on a seven day programmable plug timer, as this would allow them to come up to temperature ten or fifteen minutes before the first pot is brewed. However, the church wants to speak with their equipment supplier before they make any decision on this, just in case cycling them on and off could harm the unit (personally, I don't see any problem, but I have to defer to their wishes).
The dishwasher is 240-volts/40-amps and so a wind-up timer may not be feasible. The thought is that we would post a reminder on the dishwasher to turn it off after the last load is run and have the caretaker verify this prior to lock-up.
Cheers,
Paul
This weekend, the University of the West of England’s Centre for Psycho-Social Studies is holding a conference on ‘The Psychological and Political Challenge of Facing Climate Change’
http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/03/under-the-spreading-chestnut-t...
dear jmygann,
the UWE-Bristol should really be referred to as Bristol Poly and college of Nursery Nurses. It is of no academic consequence whatever.
rgds
dropstone
Interesting blurb from Michael Pollan. I've had recent experience in eating cheap using fresh ingredients. I found a breadmaker at the thrift store for $13. It was new and unused but had been sitting a very long time in someone's closet or garage from the looks of the box. You dump all the ingredients in and it bakes a delicious loaf of bread in 3 hours. Flour costs $.65/lb at the supermarket or $.30/lb at Costco. The cost of sugar, salt, yeast and butter are negligible.At supermarket prices the ingredients cost at most $.80. Hard margarine is cheaper, but it's full of trans-fats. Cost of yeast is a little hard to estimate since it's expensive but you only need a little. Compare that to $2.50 to $3.00 a loaf at the supermarket. As long as the electric grid holds up, I'll have my bread. The only problem now is it tastes so good, it's gone in half the time of supermarket bread.
I'm now exploring cost-effective cooking with a slow cooker.
I've purchased a 3.5qt Rival Crock-Pot for $27. This 'new' smaller size is perfect for a couple (lots of delicious leftovers) or a four-person household.
Some of its features:
Other features I considered:
These extra features cost a bit more money but I wanted to see what a standard, bare-bones model could do. I considered a timer unit since I like the idea of it stopping automatically. However, a simple appliance timer could do the same job with my model and I already have one of those.
We had our first meal from it last night, lentils, vegetables and jalapeno pepper with turkey kielbasa. It was delicious the prep took all of 15 minutes (not including shopping for the ingredients). The next recipe will be Beef French Dip (probably tomorrow).
The lentils took 4 hours to cook on high and the pot was over full (almost to the top, which apparently is a no-no in the manual). It made enough food for my wife and me plus leftovers for one more complete meal, in other words, four generous servings.
The power it took was thus 0.72 kilowatt hours. And at 180W that means a single solar panel could provide it power.
The meal cost :
Food total: $10.83
Electricity: about 12 cents
Cost per meal (assume four adult portions): $2.74
Next time I'll use fresh tomatoes but I wanted to follow the recipe pretty closely this time. The turkey kielbasa has less than half the fat of the regular kielbasa (a nod to my wife) but I think it might have tasted even better with the regular kielbasa.
Next I'll do some slow cooking tests with a solar oven, but I haven't decided which one to buy (or make) yet.
A good crock pot recipe to try - uses up lots of different vegies:
Crock pot borscht:
Note: quantities depend on size of vegetables and crock pot, and are not very critical; you can also scale this recipe up or down a bit if desired
1 pint canned diced tomatoes, with juice
2-3 beets, diced or shredded
1 turnip, diced or shredded
1-2 carrots, diced or shredded
~ 1 c red cabbage, shredded
1-2 stalks celery, sliced or diced
1 leek, thinly sliced
1 onion, diced
1 clove garlic, minced
Several sprigs parsley, minced
1 bay leaf
1 tbsp sugar
1 tsp salt (or a little more to taste)
Optional: Up to 1.5 lbs stewing beef chunks
Cook all day, stir and mash down a couple of times.
Optional: If you want this to be bright red when you eat it, then shred another beet and simmer in a couple tbsp white distilled or red wine vinegar and a couple of tbsp beef broth for a few minutes or so, then mix in to borscht right before serving.
Serve with dollop of sour cream on top
Thanks, WNC. I was eyeing the borscht recipes online; I'll definitely give this one a go. Right now the pot is busy making a tomato sauce from an 102-oz can of tomatoes, some garlic, onion and various herbs (plus a bit of Minor's chicken base). But I'll go shopping later to get the ingredients for the borscht. Thanks again for the nudge!
You are right that a single solar cell would have enough wattage however it would only provide some minimum voltage and require some sort of additional widgets (controller and inverter) to work at 110VAC. However, direct solar cooker would do the job quite easily. Solar cooking and drying fruits and veggies are my next projects.
BTW: Our solar powered golf cart has 7000 watts available at 110VAC and would run your slow cooker quite well for a long time. At present we have only 300 watts/hr solar charging (max light) but we will up that as we can afford to. I would like to save the SPGC for pumping water and a couple small lights if the grid goes down and thus the working toward direct solar cooking.
Good point about the cooker.. I'm very interested in getting a 'Solar Crockpot' put together, as the Long-cooking, Med. Temps work well with simple solar-cooking arrangements. It would be important to set this up with a Thermostat and be ready to run it from Mains power if the Sun Abandoned you during the day.. not hard to do.. could even set it up to have Solar gathering its charge to battery, and kicking in when the sun is behind a cloud..
Bob
Not a bad idea, Bob. But when you can build a solar oven, and cook literally anything in it, for ten bucks, depending on what you have around the house, I think it's worth doing.
- Two carboard boxes of similar shape, but differential of 1 - 2 in. in size
- insulation (I happened to have old long johns which worked brilliantly)
- glass for the top, preferably tempered
- weather stripping or caulk to set the window into
- aluminum foil
- non-toxic black paint
Cooking:
- glass or black pots, pans, jars
* you can paint pans/jars black or blacken them with soot.
Living in So Cal I was able to cook anything. I cooked meat, veggies, bread. Food never tasted better nor was ever so tender. Amazing.
There are lots of plans on the internet. There's no need to buy one for hundreds of dollars.
I like the idea of incorporating one into the wall of my house, though obviously you'd be looking at heat loss unless out of the envelope. Then, again, might be a nice heat addition in winter.
Cheers
Hey CCPO;
Yeah, that last part is where I'd like to go with it. We don't have easy sun-to-kitchen access, and I'm also just looking at how to make these more built-in in general so they could really apply to peoples' daily cooking. I have a big, unused chimney coming through my kitchen where I'd like to channel tracked sunlight down the 12-18 feet or so from roof to hearth, and have an oven-door right on the wall of the old chimney. As you say, it could be tossing heat into the house whenever it's not on cooking duty, as well. BUT, even with our pretty abundant MaineCoast sunshine, If we're off at work, I'd want there to be backup heat so I know the potroast isn't just bacteriating away at 99 degrees all day.
I do still think about your Heat-Engine proposal, but as you see, I've weighed myself down with a cumbersome range of experiments already! Yesterday, it was 60 here (!!), and I finally lofted my 'Solar Tower' up to the roof, a roof-access hatch, roofed with the PV to drive my Hot Air Box, and has provisions for the Tracked Daylight system as well.
Best,
Bob
You're the only one! I had a former student who is a chemical engineer over to check out my ideas as I thought he'd at least be able to help me figure out the electronics and magnetics, but he's so busy with work we've never been able to have a follow-up.
At least I know the concept works. It's just frustrating because I see no reason why my design wouldn't be an improvement.
**sigh**
This is what I get for being lazy in math classes.
I enjoy your posts on what you are doing and am jealous as hell of you and others. I am going crazy being stuck here in Korea unable to do anything but read. Aaargh...
Cheers
Hi André,
We have a larger, 6-quart Rival Crock-Pot (http://www.amazon.com/Rival-38601-C-6-Quart-Smart-Pot-Cooker/dp/B00008I8NR) which I obtained by redeeming credit card points. It's a terrific product, except that you have to be careful not to burn your fingers on the lid handle.
I know our unit cycles on and off once it reaches its set temperature, so you may find that it uses even less electricity than you think. The best way to confirm this is to plug it into a Kill A Watt or similar power monitoring device.
I place a folded towel over the glass lid to help minimize heat loss and wrap the sides with a second towel to do the same, leaving only the front control panel exposed; this cuts its power consumption by more than half. We can cook an entire meal (e.g., roast chicken and vegetables) using less electricity than what would be required to pre-heat a conventional oven.
Cheers,
Paul
Thanks for the tips. I'm going to look at insulating mine because the outside metal does get hot, lots of lost heat thus it took forever for my tomato sauce to get warm yesterday. I did plug in my killawatt but just long enough to verify how many amps it was pulling. I'll check if mine cycles, too.
I've been making my own bread using a breadmaker for years now. I CAN do it the old fashioned way, but time is an issue; this way, it actually gets done.
My recipe, using the 2.5-3lb whole wheat setting:
1.5 cups whole wheat flour
1 cup white bread flour
1 tbsp veg oil
1.5 tsp yeast
1 tsp salt
2 tbsp honey
1.25 cups water
I buy the yeast (Fleishman's) in the little brown bottles, and keep it in the refrigerator. Each bottle will last me for several months. I'm a beekeeper so I have my own honey. I suppose one could buy and store wheat in bulk and then grind it as needed; maybe I'll get set up for that some day soon. It still helps to have the bread flour in the mix, though - whole wheat flour just doesn't have enough glutin.
Make yourself a brick woodfired bread oven in your backyard. Then when the power goes out you still have home made bread.
charles
Hello Leanan,
Thxs for the toplink update on Yucca Mountain. Recall my much earlier postings on it ultimately being used as an elite bunker, paid for by the common taxpayer. Time will tell...
Rant>
You get to name the elites, they get to each carry in the nuke-waste and someone gets to brick them all in there. okay?
Somewhere to store or some why to get rid of the waste or at least find a way to reduce it would be helpful, but nooo. they kill the only site they got going for it. Pandering again.
Rant off<
Charles
If Congress can't figure out a way to store the waste safely, lets just make each member of Congress take home 50 pounds of it and store it under their beds. It is, afterall, Congress' problem, not one the the average citizen can solve. After the election is held to replace all those dead Congressmen, the vote could be repeated. I don't think there would be a problem after the second vote...
E. Swanson
Hello TODers,
Have you hugged your bag of NPK today?
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=277299&src=4
-------------------------
Spring is here: Let's get ready to garden
...Just $50 worth of seeds and fertilizer can produce $1,250 in food, according to Burpee, the mail order garden company.
------------------------
Taxfree EROI of $1250/50 = 25. IMO, this helps validate Liebscher's Optima, and O-NPK can help leverage this further.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newjersey/ny-bc-nj--golfcourseclo...
-----------------------
ELIZABETH, N.J. - Duffers in Union County will soon have one less golfing option.
..It's estimated that closing the 80-year-old course will save the county $740,000 a year.
-----------------------
http://blog.nola.com/tpsports/2009/03/closing_of_the_bluffs_golf_cou.html
--------------------------
Closing of the Bluffs golf course is a sign of the times
..Before The Bluffs became a private club 13 months ago, it had been widely regarded as Louisiana's No. 1 golf destination and one of our country's top residential golf communities. Now it sits dormant..
---------------------
http://www.record-eagle.com/local/local_story_065225527.html
-------------------------
Golf course is latest victim of economy
High Pointe Golf Club is one of several in area to close in recent years.. [they list 23 more that have closed]
------------------------
I wonder who will be the first PGA professional to advocate for plowing these closed golf venues? I am still hoping for Tiger Woods to lead the charge [see prior postings]. Would a banker choose to make safe and profitable micro-loans for permaculture on these courses, or would the banker rather negative-EROI bailout some of these courses so that he can get in some more rounds?
The situation in Zimbabwe suggests the bankers' funding direction will ultimately result in rusty wheelbarrows for moving fast expiring piles of cash and people around the golf courses to the landfills.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hmmm....golf courses could grow a lot of food in or near urban environments....
The soil on those golf courses is likely to be very heavily polluted with herbicides, pesticides, etc. Keeping all those greens in pristine shape is a chemical intensive activity.
Food from such sources could well have some nasty residue levels.
Agree. First three harvests should be for biomass energy only.
One option I thought of was for desert courses, say around Phoenix, to replace the grass with Astroturf. Requires so much less water and other inputs.
Edit: here is a clever solution in Djibouti: course is juts dirt, but the caddy carries around a square of astroturf for you to hit off. You hit your ball, then just place the turf mat under where it landed to take your next shot.
http://www.travelblog.org/Africa/Djibouti/blog-49229.html
Here in the "still barely first world" you could probably afford to make the whole course out of the stuff and make up the savings on maintenance and water.
They were going to turn a golf course into a public park and social housing in down-town Caracas, Venezuela.... turns out that's still too revolutionary for the Bolivarian Revolution.
They were also going to nationalise "Banco de Venezuela-Santander Group", but when it got downgraded from stable to negative by Standard + Poor the plan changed.
With one crucial difference. The natural grass is water cooled, which is why it takes so darned much water in the desert. The astro-turf would probably have a temperature well in excess of 150F at noon. The only cure that doesn't require water cooling, would be highly reflective astroturf, but that would be tough on the eyes. As an idea of how powerful direct solar radiation can be, today we had what some would call a bluebird day. With an air temperature of 58F, the outer wall of the house facing the low angle sun was 120F. And this wall is an off-white color, a dark color would be much hotter.
Yes, I thought about that after posting...how long to get that soil back in good shape is an interesting question. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
One season of repeated crops of BuckWheat, each time the crop flowers you mow it down and move it off to a biomass to fuel plant, and you should let the weeds grow back where they will. Use no till and plant the buckwheat again. You should be able to get 3 to 5 plantings out of the grounds.
Then next year grow whatever you want, but cut the place up into tracts for the locals to come in and grow what they want on it. All sales of extra produce go to enhance the grounds with more long term crops like fruit trees and vines and bushes.
Not going to happen but hey at least we can hope.
Charles.
What does that do to NPK, tho? Is BuckWheat a fixer of any kind? This sounds like a good way to rehabilitate or build non-toxic soils, too, if so.
Cheers
It can pull N out of the soil. But the question was pulling the toxins out of the soil from all the "Greens" from pesticides and herbicides. I was giving you a fast growing crop that would pull the toxins out, or at least should do some of the work for you besides not adding more and letting the rain run the rest off.
BuckWheat is a Green-Manure. It grows fast and draws nutrients out of the dirt helping make soils. Normally you till the crop under. But you can mow it and compost it, or mow and turn with a fork the land you have planted.
Charles.
Nice. Then a good soil rehabilitation scheme might be to co-plant clover and BuckWheat, or to alternate them, no? Would seem like a good idea for fields being rested in a rotation scenario, too.
Cheers
Bob, the PGA is one of the thousands of backwards-looking so-called professional sports organizations that help to keep people in a bubble of unreality.
We cannot afford the PGA at all -- just as we cannot afford the NBA or the NFL.
We are wasting our time hoping that incremental changes can be brought about by such organizations, or that they are capable of doing anything other than encouraging denial and disinformation.
Our civilization has become brittle and corrupt, branch and root.
We have become increasingly resistant to chage even as people and politicians cry out for change with greater apparent fervor.
What people really want is anything that will keep them in their little personal bubble of unreality, insulated from the reality that we are killer apes: we are killing our own habitat and killing off others of our own species in a contest for the scraps of resources that yet remain.
Tiger Woods is no more capable of looking around at reality than Bernie Madoff is at looking around and seeing that there just might be an ethical livelihood versus rapacious confidence schemes.
We've pretty much cultivated a crop of sociopaths to lead us fearlessly into Armageddon.
Remember -- we do not want to know enough to care, or to care enough to know. For the rest, there is an endless litany of false hopes, false promises, and songs about somewhere over the rainbow. We can purchase our preferred fantasies on DVD or we can insist that frenetic activity will result in outcomes which are clearly beyond human control.
Who lives according to careful, thoughtful, comapssionate principle? Those people are already the first to be cannibalized. They will be used up in support of a rapacious culture, and then killed off and consumed in various ways as our civilization implodes.
Too bad, but there it is. "And so it goes ..."
I sort of understand that Children can be kept in a fantasy world, although I think it is being taken to extremes, as this colors their way of thinking throughout life.
What I don't get is all of the "adults" who are still in fantasy land. Plenty of 25+ year olds are still obsessed with NFL, NBA, Academy Awards, reality TV, etc. How can you still be in Disneyland as an adult? Even before I discovered Peak Oil at age 30, I knew about population overshoot, biodiversity, etc.
I'm not saying everyone should be an expert, and I'm far from perfect, but how can an adult think American Idol is real life?
I don't think many adults think American Idol is real life. American Idol is a temporary distraction from real life, and I think most viewers know this.
It's the same with sports. You see this spelled out explicitly at some sports blogs these days - fans talking about how baseball or hockey or basketball is desperately needed distraction from the economic crisis.
I'm a sports fan myself. I know it's not real life. I'm expecting sports to be heavily impacted by peak oil and the economic crisis. But I love sports, and I always will.
I hear that, Leanan.
I'm still a happy, geeky Sci-fi fan, and some of it can be 'meaningful metaphor' .. and then sometimes, it's just getting off this rock. I'm about to go work on one of my own projects.. which still gets me 'off-rock'.
The benefit of power down hopefully will be community up, complete with sports, BBQs, fish fries...
Better to do than to watch. The worst thing about pro sports has been how many people stopped participating to watch instead.
Cheers
"I'm a sports fan myself. I know it's not real life. I'm expecting sports to be heavily impacted by peak oil and the economic crisis. But I love sports, and I always will."
But you can obviously discuss other things and spend a lot of time learning about the real world. I'm talking about adults who talk about nothing but sports, know about nothing but sports, and spend all their time watching sports and spend large portions of their income on sports.
Anyone that was taught that TV was a visual form of books can be taught to see that TV and all that is on it is just so much escapism.
But taking our TV and Cable and Books from us will be hard on us because Reality is so much harsher than it once was. That Harsh transition will almost kill some people.
Riots and strife will be the norm for a while as we lose the ability to view our fantasy worlds.
Charles
Hey Charles, (good to see you around)
Don't forget the Einstein line, though.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
There is occasionally something brilliant on those tubes. Chaff, meet Wheat!
Bob
To many times I have been away from TOD either to many other things to do, or computer problems. I don't post everyday, but I do post when the topic suits my tastes.
The more Knowledge you have the more your Imagination can bloom, is what I say. But I am good at making up stories in my head and keeping them there for years, when I put them down on paper I tend to forget about them.
Real life has been keeping me busy lately.
Charles.
I am an on again off again Doomer, your post is gloomy not wrong or right but gloomy.
All in all I think we will hit a point where some of our modern life is still here holding its own, not the internet or cell phones, but knowing that there are people and places over the rainbow that if we can get there using some of the methods still in use today. Trains, Planes, Sailboats, and other ships, we can still do international trade. But we will have a smaller base from which to work. But I don't know the time frame of this.
Charles.
We just got our seeds from Burpees and the plants will be coming later because of our cold spring. Since we have a couple horses next door I believe we won't need any NPK this year but we will need some other minerals so we will get the $1000+ worth of food for about $40 - $50. Some of the plants we ordered are berries and asparagus, which will produce for a long time. Make no mistake; high desert gardening is a challenge though. Also we have a couple tons of sheep compost (five years old) coming from a sheepherder friend. We haven’t tried that yet but it should be great to build the soil.
We went to Japan several years ago and visited a farm north of Tokyo. The soil felt wonderful compared to here. It was alive. They had been farming that ground for well over a thousand years. Our land will be like that in only a few hundred years if those AGW guys above don’t screw it all up …
Wow. A high-school buddy of mine had a brand new ~400K home built in the bluffs couple of years back. Houses lined almost every fairway - ranging from 350K - 1+ Million? If they don't find funding soon, they will all lose their arses. This community is roughly ~30 - 45 mins. outside of Baton Rouge (where the jobs are). No sustainable future whatsoever.
Thing is ... the home values were propped up by ... the golf course! Cannot imagine trying to offload one of those massive McMansions at this point.
The last time I visited (baby shower), there were "For Sale" signs everywhere. Because I am an avid reader of TOD, I knew what was happening (this was back in Sept. 08), but noone else seemed to have a concern in the world. If I had mentioned, I would have been dubbed the equivalent of SNL's "Debbie Downer". People don't want to hear it.
So here we are now, roughly 6 months later and I would assume property/home values there have plummeted since Sept. 08.
They have a young son and I am pretty sure the wife wants another. I realize that humans are animals and that there are fundamental driving forces in all of us that blind us from realizing limits, but with proper parenting (and daily TOD readings), there is no excuse.
BTW, I enjoy your NPK postings Totoneilla. Since becoming a reader of the forum last summer, my girlfriend and I have put up 3 plots in the backyard - sweet potato, tomato, greens ... cannot wait for harvest time. Thanks to everyone for their contributions to the Drumbeat. I enjoy Darwinian's posts. Writes very well and makes things easy to understand.
Hi Totoneila,
Sustainable Ballard will be doing a group hug of NPK on March 23rd, at our monthly meeting :-)
Hope it goes well. We had a "intro to home gardening" session in my little burg (pop 25K) today and over 60 people came out (slightly more than expected).
http://v2.ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/03/06/53286/the-bank-of-england-...
-------------------------
The Bank of England speaks: This is ‘not Zimbabwe’
-------------------------
Yep, as Zim completes its Thermo/Gene Dieoff process: the UK may find itself postPeak forced into building a New Rhodesia to relieve their Overshoot.
Indeed it is not, totonella:
http://www.dailyreckoning.com.au/zimbabwe-stock-exchange/2007/04/12/
The above refers to 2007; wasn't ZSE also the only index to finish in the black in 2008?
That hopeless feeling, even here in one of the greenest places (literally and figuaratively) in the US:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2009/03/states_agree_to_...
The readers' comments at the end of the article bring tears to the eyes, they're so lucid and obvious: "We're broke," We're on the downslope of oil production," "Fix public transit first," but in the end it's a few small voices in the wilderness, easily marginalized.
There's apparently too much money to be made to allow public opinion to interfere.
There was a city meeting to discuss the expansion of our 295 highway, which already chops the city in half, and the bike and trail and transit advocates helped twist the meeting into a debate on whether we shouldn't dismantle the thing entirely, not expand it. This was a rude shock to the planners.. Yay, Portland! (Not that it's happening that way, yet.. but the voices for restructuring are getting in there.)
One TOD poster could do this story more justice than I can, if willing.
Cyclone Hamish is running down the Queensland Coast at the moment.
Currently category 5, Winds 295 KmPH. If this turns inland it will cure the drought and do some serious damage.
http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDQ65002.shtml
925 kpa is a seriously low central pressure.
How many civilian nuclear power experts does TOD have? What do you think about this?
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/22114/
There seems to be no shortage of 'Generation 3', 3+, 4, and other non-generation-specified designs such as this...and I use the word 'design' loosely for some of them...some of them seem to have blueprints on the shelf, and others are pretty pictures and hopeful words. I wonder how much engineering design work this one has? What happened to the pebble-bed reactor design?
It would be a great achievement to move away from dirty coal electricity generation to a relatively fail-soft, lower-nuclear-waste design such as this one claims to be.
Before the folks jump out of the woodwork and voraciously point out that a credible, cleaner energy supply will not solve the World's resource depletion/over-population/pollution woes...I get it...I have railed myself against over-population...this post is about new ideas for base-load electricity...
You might get more feedback if you could do this earlier in the day.. these are really one-day blogs..
While I'm generally opposed to Nuclear, I'm definitely listening to the discussions around it.
Bob
Thanks, you are correct. Maybe I will recycle this post to the Sunday March 8 Drumbeat. I'm not retired yet, I'm in the rat-race of my second career, and my children have not flown the coop yet, so I am rather busy with the odds and ends of living and don't get to TOD until late most days.
There are several scientific comments that I would like to make about "Global
Warming" and "Global Climate Change". There is a basic principa l involved
that has been overlooked by most of the non-scientific media.
Every statement in this paper is covered in detail in the references presented at the
conclusion of this discussion.
FIRST -- is that Global Warming is NOT a new effect. It has occurred five times
during the past 500,000 years! The basic cause is Methane (CH4) and
NOT man-made Carbon Dioxide (CO2). The present global warming
cycle began about the time man was crossing the frozen land bridge
from Siberia to North America.
We need to understand the sources and mechanics of Methane that
are actually the basic cause of our global warming. Anything that has
grown, ranging from yard clippings to a decaying body, produces
methane as it decomposes. Methane gas from permafrost is a decay
product. Methane gas from the deep ocean (methane hydrate) is totally
different.
Methane gas from oil wells is yet a very different composition. These
must all be recognized as such and understood as to their manner of
existence, production, and/or release.
Deep Sea Methane appears to be the waste product of a bacteriological
process and is therefore a renewable resource! ( See Reference 2).
It is a relative clean product of our environment. It has recently been
produced (as clean natural gas) in continuous commercial quantities
by Japanese & American scientists in Canada in 2008. It is this Methane
gas that has been bubbling up, for eons,from the continental shelfs
around the world that is the real culprit
and basic cause of our present situation.
Oil well Methane gas is a very dirty gas mixture — it is methane with
huge amounts of sulfur and other noxious gases mixed with it. The
Methane often mentioned in the media as "Bubbling up from Undersea
Permafrost" is a decay product. It is NOT from a Hydrate!
NEXT -- Drastic Global Climate Change has taken place at least FIVE
different times during the last 500,000 years. Our present cycle is
the only one during which man has been a factor! (Ref. 1 & 2). Methane
gas which bubbles up continuously from the deep ocean sources (and
which in turn disassociates into CO2) is the true source of the "Greenhouse
Gas" that has operated in the previous five interglacial cycles — all
of which have been extinction cycles! As will this one!
These five previous cycles are NOT man made effects, nor is the
present cycle, and it IS TOO LATE to change our present cycle, we
may actually now be past the peak. We can only learn to adapt!
We cannot STOP the process although we might slow
it down for a few years, which in geological time is nothing.
We MUST ADAPT to survive! ADAPT! ADAPT ! ADAPT !
REFERENCES
There are several prime references associated with the material that I
have covered, if ever so briefly.
(1) EARTH's CHANGING CLIMATE. Lecture Series by Dr. Richard
Wolfson, the Benjamin F. Wissler Professor of Physics at Middlebury
College. This is a six hour lecture series (12 segments of 30 minutes
each) on two DVDs produced by The Teaching Company of Chantilly VA
20151-1232. http://www.TEACH12.com
This series covers in-depth detail of the science and methodology of
climate change. It is not an advocacy program. Interestingly, Dr.
Wolfson does not even mention Methane-Clatherate in this lecture
series — knowledge on that subject is almost too new to have been
included. It was first discovered on a moon of Venus by NASA about
1985. At the time we did not even know that it existed on Earth!
(2) FIRE IN THE ICE. Quarterly Journal , U.S.Department of Energy,
Office of Fossil Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory. Also
known as Methane Hydrate Newsletter. Recommended reading is all
issues to current issue from about 2000 forward. This is the best of
several technical journals devoted to the science of Methane
Clatherates. http://www.netl.doe.gov/about/index.html
(3) HIGH TIDE by Mark Lynas. Picador, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY.
10010. ISBN 0-312-30365-3. This well written book clarifies the problems
of Global Warming "… The American People have been subjected to one
of the most pervasive misinformation campaigns ever undertaken …
http://www.picadorusa.com
(4) WITH SPEED AND VIOLENCE [Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in
Climate Change] by Fred Pearce. Beacon Press; 25 Beacon Street;
Boston, MA 02108. © 2007. "We are on the precipice of climate system
tipping points beyond which there is no redemption"
http://www.beacon.org
(5) Natural Gas Hydrate Studies in Canada; Hyndman & Dallimore from
The Recorder, 26,11-20, 2001, Canadian Society of Exploration
Geophysicists.
JCSpilman, P.E. (Ret.) Huntsville, AL
====================================================
Hello JCSPILMAN,
Welcome to TOD! Your last link took me to the Beacon homepage. Instead, I offer a 75 minute video of Fred himself talking about Speed & Violence:
http://forum.wgbh.org/lecture/speed-and-violence-tipping-points-and-clim...
Of course, this is nothing new to longtime TODers, but it is always good for newbies. A profound tipping point will occur when methane clathrates [hydrates] starts setting off lots of tsunamis like the earlier Storrega event or the more recent Unimak/Hilo of 1946:
http://www.semparpac.org/tsunami.jpg
http://www.sitnews.us/0205news/021205/021205_asj_tsunami.html
Please take some time and read up on the history of AGW posts on TOD. You will discover many people here are quite well aware of the discussion around AGW, and a surprisingly high number of TOD members can discuss AGW is enough detail to address specific issues with plenty of references to the literature. Cutting and pasting someone else's sermon is not going to go far here.
As or CH4, there is quite a long list of papers and discussions in the literature on the subject, and atmospheric scientists have not discounted CH4 at all.
Welcome fellow TOD person!
Huntsville Al, Nice city, but a bit out of place as far as the rest of Alabama goes, it is big on Techies.
Darwinian and myself are former natives of that city. I think there are at least 1 or 2 more that used to post on TOD that are from there.
E.Mail me and we can talk about the city and whom we know. My brother still lives there and I visit him a few times a year.
Charles.
Someone posted this at PeakOil.com:
Oil majors in the North Sea are also asking sub-contractors to cut 20% and even upto 30% on running contacts.The sub-contractors are not believing what they hear...
But production is still going full-steam in spite of falling oil prices. The Norwegian government is looking the other way ... with eyes wide shut.