Your insulting people doesn't really add much to the conversation.
Those are not people, they are politicians. And always fair game for insults. They take my tax money, I insult them every chance I get. Following California's example for anything proves they are less than bright.
I know you would like to keep this on a purely scientific level. That has become impossible due to the contamination that politics bring into any research. Whoever pays the bill, has expectations, of some kind of return on investment. That does nothing for the pureness of the science. Show me a group that has no agenda and I will consider their credibility.
is trying to reduce global warming from auto pollution. Here's what they are doing to us us in Texas and maybe you now or later. Hate to keep linking Ed Wallace but... "Toll Roads: By the Numbers"
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’
Here in the United Socialist States of Great Britain a Meteorological Office guy has said that winter '09-'10 is already the warmest on record. Apparently, the Met Office sees "Winter" as being between November and March. They take the 15 highest temps during that period, average them and then compare to previous records. November '09 was a particularly mild month and the highest 15 temps from that month give us the officially warmest winter on record. See, it's just a matter of how you play the numbers game. Sound familiar ?
Now you, or I, might have taken a different, and wider, set of figures to more accurately represent the whole of the winter period. However, you and I are not part of the ruling class so we don't have a say.
Temperature here in Lincoln is rising; but that's probably just due to the effect of my blood boiling at all of this. :mad:
This year is not the problem! It's the next few years! Wait until they start comparing '10-'11, '11-'12, and '12-'13 to '09-'10!! If the next few years are the least bit milder than this year, they will all be screaming about how the earth has been warming since '09-'10!! But, in reality, the weather has varied, but the climate has not!
I swim in a heated indoor pool which is maintained at a constant temperature. However, there are small warmer or cooler spots, here and there. Every swimmer, upon entering the pool, remarks as to whether the pool is warmer or cooler that day. They are each correct in their opinions, but all wrong in their conclusions!! .
I am so relieved that 'Global Darkening' has apparently stopped here in NC! I observed that each day, since late June of 2009, the Sun rose and set a little farther to the south, and each night was a little longer! By December the nights were several hours longer!! I feared that by June 2010, NC would be in total darkness!! But now in January, thank God, there seems to have been a halt to the ever encroaching 'Global Darkening'!! The nights are actually getting shorter!! Perhaps using so many CFLs has driven the darkness back!!!! Please help - with enough CFLs maybe we can have Spring this year!! :shades:
First thing we have to do is form a committee and ask for some tax money. We just do not have enough info to tell if the global darkening will continue or not, but it is better to err on the side of safety.
Yes!!! I noticed the planet seemed to be darkening too!!! The worst day with hardly any daylight at all was right about December 21st or so!!!! The days seem to be recovering more daylight but I'm still very scared!!!
Does anybody have any theories??? Has this been studied???
I was so frightened that it had something to do with Global Warmi..... I mean Climate Change (one must stay fashionable), I immediately suspended all automotive use until Al Gore issues a statement. He must be frightened too because I have not heard anything!!! Should we burn down brand new home construction somewhere or torch cars in a brand new car lot somewhere to draw attention to this less daylight problem?
Is anybody a Druid in here? I heard they had a ancient ceremony that would insure the Sun would come back more but only after they performed their ceremony!
How desperate is the MMGW fanatics to now have to quote Grad Students. Wow, I'm impressed. And with a "could" in the article title. :P Give him a Noble Prize too!
Look, use your common sense. The Amazon and other warm, tropical areas are the most lush and biodiverse of any areas on Earth. Life loves tropical environments. Retirees love FL and AZ. Warmth is good! Cold weather causes excessive amounts of fossil fuels to be burnt for heat, snow requires tremendous expenditures to remove and salt-environmental damage, and causes general economic slowdowns. About the only people who benefit from snow/cold are the ski-resorts.
Because some grad student thinks 1 area "could" be negatively impacted does not mean there aren't more areas that benefit.
. ""Is anybody a Druid in here? I heard they had a ancient ceremony that would insure the Sun would come back more but only after they performed their ceremony!""
I would be willing to sacrifice a virgin or two in the name of Global Enlightening, if we could find even one over the age of 17!
It might be easier to produce a movie showing what happens to a virgin in the dark! Oh wait, that's been done! Darn! Guess our only hope is to ask Al Gore how to enlighten the world! Oh wait, that's been over done!! Well, actually under done, as in half-baked!! He is the expert at portraying half-baked theories as near biblical truths!
But let's not be hasty! Maybe there are brighter days ahead! Better to do nothing than waste billions on hare-brained schemes!! I hope we are learning our lesson on that score!!!!
Not to scare anyone, but if the current trend of shortening nights continues, we may need to take action to protect owls and vampires that only come out at night!!
My, oh my! How did God keep everything running so smoothly before mankind took over!??! :confuse:
Copenhagen Summit Turned Junket? Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month
(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.
CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.
They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.
That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it "will comply with disclosure requirements" but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."
"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen. Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar."
Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five -- up to 64 passengers -- traveling in luxurious comfort.
Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.
I think they forgot to mention Obama and his entourage of up to 500 people.
Were there any virgins available in Copenhagen and if so, were any of them sacrificed for carbon offset? If not, did anybody volunteer their Volvo or vacation home to be burned up by ELF?
Here's yet another case of Al Gore and the warmer's misfeasance: In his movie he used Mt Kilamanjaro's receding ice cap as an example of the effects of global warming. At over 19,000 feet high, the top of the mountain is almost always well below freezing. The ice cap is getting smaller but it is due to.....surprise! THE SUN. It seems the same thing that causes a fish fillet, or an ice cube to disappear in you freezer over time, sublimation, is causing the cap to recede. More here:
Sublimation is more a function of wind erosion than solar. Sublimation is simply ice "skipping" the liquid state and evaporating directly from a solid physical state. Howling winds and to a lesser part, solar action can evaporate... Ice.
Ice is not permanent just because it is going to stay cold for a long period of time - a fact that "global alarmists" often ignore because it REALLY damages their claims.
One or two good storms on "Killy" will probably re-establish its white crown and if not, Mother Nature has simply changed her mind about the region in a semi-permanent way - humans had nothing to do with it. It could actually go the other direction with more ice!
Did anybody ever take ninth grade earth science after the year 1975?
It's pretty embarrassing when somebody spouts off about global warming at a cocktail party but then they don't even know what the Younger Dryas was let alone the name of the last Ice Age.... Yikes!!!
Next thing you know we will start sacrificing virgin Volvos to the environmental gods of our wonderful new climate change religion.... Whatever makes you happy, silly, but happy.
Perhaps no one knows why. Since we only started to notice the reduction in the 1800s (who knows when it actually began to shrink) the history of the cap is uncertain.. One thing is certain, ice appeared there in the past and if it goes away in our time, it probably will reappear sometime in the future. Its clear that the shrinkage began before mankind began really fouling up the atmosphere.
Someday we might be able to control earthquakes, volcanoes, and the climate, but not today.
"So why are they shrinking at Killy? Shifting weather patterns or *gasp* climate change?"
Why does the Tug Hill region of New York State get incredibly bad snowfalls for a few years and then..... Nothing but a smattering for a few years?
Why do skiers around Tahoe exclaim "It's the best snow of any place - you can count on it and then.... They're cursing bad seasons in a row of seasons!
Did the dust bowl around the time of the Great Depression end? Many exclaimed that the farmers abused the land to the point that the soil couldn't retain itself against high winds and the fact that IT DID NOT RAIN for a long time got totally discounted!
Did it or did it not rain... or snow for a decade or two?
How's Atlanta doing lately? Not really complaining anymore about the lack of rain!
"Its clear that the shrinkage began before mankind began really fouling up the atmosphere."
Humans, in their tiny little blink on the planet, have existed in the Holocene Epoch which, many scientists agree, is coming to a close. The Holocene epoch's nickname is "The Garden Epoch" characterized as one of the best climates the planet has ever experienced, regardless of region, your religion (no comment) and your over-use of your Ford F-150.
Anybody writing in this forum (I hate to be morbid) will be long dead and gone as well as their generations of offspring when the Holocene starts to close.
This is not a trick question: What happens after the Holocene? A dead planet or, another ice age?
Don't worry about ninth grade.... Just google it. I'll give you a hint, the tomatoes are going to have a little bit of a problem growing except if you live in Africa.....
This is another article that shows how complex the climate system is. I used to think Physics and Astronomy were the "cool" sciences. I have changed my mind and now think that biology is more exciting and more complex. :shades:
I am still waiting for someone to do a study of the climate impacts (local and regional) of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. The mussels altered the algae mix and increased the clarity of the water. Sunlight can now penetrate deep in the water. The lakes are big enough that there might even be a tiny impact on global weather patterns.
This is one of many articles that leads me to think we are still a few decades away from being able to predict what will happen in 2100. The climate puzzle is still taking shape.
One last comment for now, skeptics of human influence on climate may want to read about the ozone layer and the ozone hole.
"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document)."
One last comment for now, skeptics of human influence on climate may want to read about the ozone layer and the ozone hole.
I for one am skeptical of the course of action the wealthy World governments are proposing to cut GHG. Just because they raise the cost of electricity with higher taxes does not mean I don't need or want to use the electricity. I wish my house was warmer than it is right now. Not enough to run the furnace at the price of propane. There are literally Billions of people just emerging from the dark ages. They see via satellite TV a standard of living they would like to have. It is no wonder that China and India have balked at the ignorance put forth by the US and other wealthy countries. In case you did not notice, China passed US in 2009 as the largest car market. They are an emerging market. All the taxes in the World are not going to slow down the growth. As we can see from what has happened over the last few years, it will only continue to destroy the US economy. If that is what people want. That is what the GW Cult is trying to do. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford to maintain their lifestyle. How many of the folks at Copenhagen came in by train or bus? How many were shuttled from their private jets by Prius? That should give you a clear picture of what AGW is about. It is a means to control the little guy while maintaining the lifestyles of the rich and powerful.
Yes the volcanos we see, don't put out a lot of CO2. The main problem with volcano is all the particulate dust that goes up to the stratosphere and blocks sunlight, and I'm sure all the sulfur compounds cause a lot of acidic problems in the local environment.
BUT, we don't see most volcanos, do we? There are many, many volcanic eruptions along the continental plates, which are deep within the oceans of the world. There are also many rifts where methane continually is pumped into the ocean waters. So it is the ocean that first absorbs the CO2 and other chems. and release them to the atmosphere, as the continually emissions exceeds the equilibrium points of the water to hold the gases. These gases are typically described as "natural sources". I don't have the link, but I'm sure someone here could google the CO2 cycle and tell us how much more natural emissions there are then man-made. I think man-made GHG were a few % of the total (man-made + natural).
The other thing to note is that the numbers are ESTIMATES - nobody knows the true extent of subsurface volcanic emissions. I'd bet that the earthquake in Jamaica yesterday, caused quite a release of gases into the ocean. Is society being given an estimate of that? No. Why? Because it doesn't fit the story that: man-made is unnatural and bad? Al Gore and his buddies want you to repent, and give him power and $, because of your few % emissions compared to the climate effects of nature. Ridiculous. May Al Gore freeze in a Florida orchard! :P
From your article, man's CO2 emissions are insignificant compared to nature's.
So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.
Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
So why does our small amount of CO2 get so much more attention than the hundreds of gigatonnes put out naturally. Why does nature get to claim all the Carbon sinks and humans have to account for theirs? Why don't the AGW group go after nature. Maybe kill off a few million excess deer, elk and moose that are out their spewing GHG. We could ship the meat to starving people all over the World. Solve two problems at the same time.
My take is the people on the side of AGW are more concerned with the 3 toed newt and the snail darter than they are with human welfare. When we have fed the World then worry about Polar Bears going extinct.
By the way. I have planted a lot of the trees and other CO2 absorbing plants that nature is claiming in that 440 GT carbon sink. Where's my cut of the Carbon Tax?
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s,
So let's consider that 26.4 Gt versus the (440 + 330 = 770Gt) estimate of nature. The 26.4 Gt from ALL of man's enterprises includes what we produce by breathing, farming, heating, manufacturing, transportation, and number #1 cause of CO2 production - producing electricity. Now of that 1 part transportation, that is further broken down into modes of transportation - planes, ships, trucking, rail, and personal transportation. So by the time you really get down to dividing that 26.4 Gt up and figure how much is due to our personal automobiles you might get 3-4 Gt? Or about 0.5% of all CO2 comes from our personal autos. That is why I have said before that the amount of CO2 that we produce from our personal autos is insignificant.
There are so many other factors too besides CO2, like other GHG's, amount of cloud-cover and solar activity, that the amount of CO2 emitted from our autos becomes even MORE MINISCULE a factor.
Yes; because any human activity can be linked to an increase in man-made CO2, environmentalists realized that they had an all-encompassing boogie-man, if they can link CO2 to change. And any change will have both negative and positive effects.
So environmentalists come upon the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Using that factor alone and ignoring all the other things that can change the climate, they get a self-propogating theory together that CO2 is causing warming. They collect weather data from years and through careful-selection of certain data, and "adjustment" of data, they present a case that man is warming the Earth, and that it is significant and only negative effects will be seen. Catastrophe is straight ahead!
And out of this, what do different groups gain?: 1) Environmentalists now have a boogie-man for almost any development that man may want. For example - Before the CO2 Boogie-man they could get the new chemical plant to put in some controls, but they never had an issue to stop them. So the different environmental groups who would have us go back centuries in lifestyle, and want to save every species on Earth, are very happy. 2) Climatologists and environmental scientists have seen their stature in society raised. No longer are they treated with disdain. They are now flush with grant money, and self-importance. 3) Politicians have gained, as they have claimed new powers to regulate and tax all phases of society. They have increased their power, and they have increased their influence over industries, who then are more likely to "support" their individual careers. Political donations should be up! 4) Gore and the like, who are connected to the political-world have influence and inside-information that leads to making quite a bit of $, which comes from all the taxes and fees that everyone will pay for emitting CO2.
I will continue to post the truth here, for anyone who's doltish or naieve enough to think that these people are not just running this GW-scam for their own environmental-world-picture, power, fame, and $. When I see jet-setting, caviar-eating, autograph-selling big-wigs, who just happen to make 10000% on their investments,meeting in Copenhagen, I smell a bunch of rats. Don't be stupid boys, don't save your e-mails! Throw the servers in the fire every few months!
I would agree with the writer in that scientists must become better communicators. The Internet has changed things. Just about any Tom, Dick or Harry can post a message or start a blog.
It is looking like it will be another 5 years before we hit 400 ppm (a nice round number). And with China expected to add 10+ million new cars a year and dozens of coal power plants it will be interesting to see if the rate goes up. Australia is planning on doubling their exports of coal and Iraq is expected to more than double their oil output, so it appears enough fuel will be available. Peak oil might even be delayed 5-10 years.
What I find interesting in the AGW debate is just that. The same folks that believe man is a major cause of GW/CC, also believe Peak Oil is just around the corner. So why are they worried? If oil and fossil fuel is the problem, as soon as it is gone, the AGW problem will be history. That is NOT the issue. Those pushing the agenda don't believe in either theory. They are only trying to use their alarmist tactics to get more of my money and yours.
Peak oil theory got pushed in the background as more oil keeps being found. So they had to use a new terror tactic. GLOBAL WARMING will drown us all in our sleep and kill those fuzzy wuzzy polar bears. As Kernick has pointed out very well. We would all be better off with a more heat. Better crops, more usable land, etc etc. We could open up millions of square miles of Canada, Greenland, Russia and the US for agriculture to feed the added billions of people.
I think we do need more horsepower from a safety and from a reliability and just from an emotional standpoint. Safety...the ability to merge easily with traffic prevents accidents. Reliability...overstressed engines wear out more easily. And emotion is just that...that said the '95 era 4-cyl Camry did fine with 120-130 hp and the new ones don't feel that stronger. Of course power foot massagers and an over-the road linkup with Match.com do add weight...
Actor Danny Glover believes that the Haitian earthquake was caused by climate change and global warming:
Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity.
The more these whacko AGW types open their mouths the sooner this whole Cult will fade into history. Reminds me of another idiot Robert Kennedy Jr blaming Katrina on George Bush. Because he did not sign onto the Kyoto scam.
I did not hear Glover blame Obama for the failure in Copenhagen. You can bet if it was Bush he would have. What a jerk.
:surprise: The first Honda Accord, 1976, according to R&T had 68 HP, weighed 2045#, did 0-60 in 15.4 sec, and got EPA 31c/44h!! It cost $3,995!
Mine ran just fine, didn't feel sluggish, was very comfortable, and was safe (because I never crashed it)!!
Remember, this was the Accord! The Civic was even smaller! By comparison, the 'tiny' Honda Fit has 117 HP, weighs 2489#, and gets EPA 27c/33h! That's only 75% of the highway MPG of the first Accord!! The 2010 4-cyl Accord Coupe weighs 3175 and only gets EPA 22c/31h!
It seems that what we need to do is to put our cars on a serious diet! We don't need hybrids, just light, comfortable, economical cars!! (And with modern safety equipment they can be safe too!)
While we can go into the whole thing about old and new methods of EPA mpg testing, it's not worth it.
Because on a higher level, any gain we'd see by the U.S. going to higher mpg vehicles does not reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, it only reduces the rate-of-growth.
Overall we have a much higher mpg fleet on the road then we did in 1976. Maybe 2X better mpg? But has U.S. gasoline usage gone up or down since then? Why? Answer: the number of drivers and the amount driven/driver have increased faster than mpg-gains.
And also consider that this year in China 13M new vehciles were sold, where not a decade ago they weren't selling 1M. So you have all these new vehicles being put into service around the world that increase gasoline demand.
If our whole nation decided that starting tomorrow no one would drive, gasoline usage would surely go down. The price of gasoline around the world would plummet, making gasoline more affordable to more people. Within a few years you'd find the usage around the world was right back where it was when the U.S. stopped using gasoline.
The only way to stop fossil fuel use is to offer to the 6.5B people of the world a reliable, cheap alternative energy. If we only provide the alternative energy to the 1B people in the developed world, then the remaining 5.5B (and growing) people of the developing world will continue to burn fossil fuels.
So does someone want to make a guess when the world is going to have windmills and solar panels for 6.5B people? when it seems under normal circumstances running-water is a luxury in many areas of the world.
P.S. Before someone overly sensitive to race issues scolds me: that's not using "earf" as an Ebonics demonstration. It's my personal favorite way to spell Earth. Earf.
Long term peak oil will help lower CO2 emissions. There is still a lot of coal and natural gas available, so as people shift over we might still see about the same emissions. The numbers can get fuzzy just because we do not know exactly how much of each resource will be available and at what cost.
There is also the question of how much oil shale or gas hydrate we will be using in the future.
All of which makes Peak oil subject to many variables and a lot of speculation. Just as MM/GW science is very suspect. I personally would like to see US using less fossil fuel. I do not believe the folks running this country share my desire to that end. If they did my Sequoia would be getting 30 MPG instead of 15 MPG. That does not apply across the whole 235 million personal vehicles on the road. It is safe to say we could cut our consumption by a minimum of 30% by using Natural Gas and Diesel. That leaves US with a surplus of gasoline which is why we are where we are today.
I am not interested in weak mandates such as CAFE, that look like they are doing something. That is a big joke and a money making scheme by the EPA. All the alternative energy mandates in CA have only raised our utility bills with little progress.
By TODD WOODY Published: December 21, 2009
AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
The federal government made a competing commitment in 2005, though, when President George W. Bush ordered that renewable energy production be accelerated on public lands, including the Catellus holdings. The Obama administration is trying to balance conservation demands with its goal of radically increasing solar and wind generation by identifying areas suitable for large-scale projects across the West.
NIMBYism arises among people of all kinds when they don't want a big new public project placed near them. Until fairly recently, the rich did far better than the poor at fighting off LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Uses).
But high-speed rail is the single planned project that brings out the most NIMBYs, primarily because it is a LULU in the most places. This rail line ultimately would stretch from San Diego to San Francisco, with branches running to Las Vegas and - perhaps - Sacramento. For anyone who has ridden bullet trains in Spain, France, Great Britain and Japan, it's enticing to think of riding from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in less than three hours without leaving the ground.
Plenty of voters loved the idea in November 2008, when a high-speed rail bond issue passed by a 52-48 percent vote. But some are now beginning to feel bait-and-switched, as they learn the project's pricing and ridership might not be as advertised and as they discover more about the routes.
NIMBYism over the rail project is active in Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley and Orange County, but strongest on the San Francisco Peninsula, where bullet trains of the future might zip from San Jose to San Francisco at about 200 mph using either the current Caltrain right of way or something adjacent. That's a region where the $45 billion bullet train proposition won 60 percent approval.
Now activists urge tunneling under much of the Peninsula for fear of noise, collisions with cars or trucks and worries about two-level stacks of train tracks splitting their communities. The cities of Atherton and Menlo Park would like the route off the Peninsula altogether. They prefer it to run through East Bay cities like Oakland and Livermore, reaching San Francisco through a new underwater tube. Some activists have even suggested slowing trains to 5 mph for one stretch. Some bullet.
One legitimate question for the NIMBYs in these cases: If renewable energy development can't go into some of California's most deserted, desolate places, how can the renewable mandate ever be met?
In many cases, the Kennedy's come to mind, it is the very people in government screaming the loudest for alternatives that block progress in that direction. You cannot have it both ways folks. Hopefully the High Speed Rail is a dead Monkey, before they waste a lot more valuable resources. By the time the LULUs and NIMBYs get done with it, we will have a 5 MPH snake weaving its way around every fat cat in the state. Better to expand the airports and make air travel more efficient and safe.
" I do not believe the folks running this country share my desire to that end. If they did my Sequoia would be getting 30 MPG instead of 15 MPG."
Toyota made the vehicle not the government. Nobody held a gun to your head and said you need to buy this vehicle. You could have bought another vehicle. Remember your basic physics. F=MA No matter how you slice it a large vehicle will use a lot more fuel. The link below is to a great report. The report shows how insane the current car market is.
The automakers build vehicles to fit criteria mandated by the Feds and CA. PERIOD. The same vehicles sold in the EU do in fact get 30 MPG. Toyota builds what they are allowed to sell in the different markets. You are making excuses for the folks in DC that are puppets of the special interest lobbies.
PS The Toyota Land Cruiser sold in the UK TODAY, gets 35+ MPG on the highway. At least 50% better than my gas guzzling Sequoia. It was not my first choice. The alternatives were not as desirable. You cannot buy what is not offered for sale.
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/puzzle-me-this-climate-change-theory-allows- -no-ice-age-20100115-mcgx.htm Here we have a skeptic preaching his beliefs. ''In science, the world isn't wrong so the calculations must be wrong.'' This is why the extremists on each side of this issue have it wrong. Man is influencing the climate, but at the same time it is too early in the information gathering process to undertake expensive solutions until we have more data and more time to think about this. This is a really, really, really complex issue.
Exactly how are we impacting the climate? The second question is what will be the impact. Thousands of areas will be impacted. Does it matter? As we gain a better understanding we will need to determine if we can make a change (cost/benefit analysis). OR will we be better off dealing with the change? If the coast floods, do we move everyone inland?
There is a precedent for this by the way. China moved over a million people in a few years for the Three Gorges Dam. A sea level rise of several feet over 90 years or so would be manageable. Some 50 or 60 million people might complain, but so what, right? Some might even want to take the same action the Dutch took over the last few hundred years. We could spend a few trillion dollars on dikes.
Baring any tipping point issues, in another 20 or 30 years sea level rise might put people in a panic. How will they react?
Comments
I think we should start putting emissions equipment on volcanoes...at the expense of the first world, of course.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Those are not people, they are politicians. And always fair game for insults. They take my tax money, I insult them every chance I get. Following California's example for anything proves they are less than bright.
I know you would like to keep this on a purely scientific level. That has become impossible due to the contamination that politics bring into any research. Whoever pays the bill, has expectations, of some kind of return on investment. That does nothing for the pureness of the science. Show me a group that has no agenda and I will consider their credibility.
"Toll Roads: By the Numbers"
http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.
They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.
He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.
Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.
'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.
‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-a- ge-starts-here.html
Now you, or I, might have taken a different, and wider, set of figures to more accurately represent the whole of the winter period. However, you and I are not part of the ruling class so we don't have a say.
Temperature here in Lincoln is rising; but that's probably just due to the effect of my blood boiling at all of this. :mad:
.
This year is not the problem! It's the next few years! Wait until they start comparing '10-'11, '11-'12, and '12-'13 to '09-'10!! If the next few years are the least bit milder than this year, they will all be screaming about how the earth has been warming since '09-'10!! But, in reality, the weather has varied, but the climate has not!
I swim in a heated indoor pool which is maintained at a constant temperature. However, there are small warmer or cooler spots, here and there. Every swimmer, upon entering the pool, remarks as to whether the pool is warmer or cooler that day. They are each correct in their opinions, but all wrong in their conclusions!!
.
I am so relieved that 'Global Darkening' has apparently stopped here in NC! I observed that each day, since late June of 2009, the Sun rose and set a little farther to the south, and each night was a little longer! By December the nights were several hours longer!! I feared that by June 2010, NC would be in total darkness!! But now in January, thank God, there seems to have been a halt to the ever encroaching 'Global Darkening'!! The nights are actually getting shorter!! Perhaps using so many CFLs has driven the darkness back!!!!
Please help - with enough CFLs maybe we can have Spring this year!! :shades:
.
First thing we have to do is form a committee and ask for some tax money. We just do not have enough info to tell if the global darkening will continue or not, but it is better to err on the side of safety.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Does anybody have any theories??? Has this been studied???
I was so frightened that it had something to do with Global Warmi..... I mean Climate Change (one must stay fashionable), I immediately suspended all automotive use until Al Gore issues a statement. He must be frightened too because I have not heard anything!!! Should we burn down brand new home construction somewhere or torch cars in a brand new car lot somewhere to draw attention to this less daylight problem?
Is anybody a Druid in here? I heard they had a ancient ceremony that would insure the Sun would come back more but only after they performed their ceremony!
Look, use your common sense. The Amazon and other warm, tropical areas are the most lush and biodiverse of any areas on Earth. Life loves tropical environments. Retirees love FL and AZ. Warmth is good! Cold weather causes excessive amounts of fossil fuels to be burnt for heat, snow requires tremendous expenditures to remove and salt-environmental damage, and causes general economic slowdowns. About the only people who benefit from snow/cold are the ski-resorts.
Because some grad student thinks 1 area "could" be negatively impacted does not mean there aren't more areas that benefit.
""Is anybody a Druid in here? I heard they had a ancient ceremony that would insure the Sun would come back more but only after they performed their ceremony!""
I would be willing to sacrifice a virgin or two in the name of Global Enlightening, if we could find even one over the age of 17!
It might be easier to produce a movie showing what happens to a virgin in the dark! Oh wait, that's been done! Darn! Guess our only hope is to ask Al Gore how to enlighten the world! Oh wait, that's been over done!! Well, actually under done, as in half-baked!! He is the expert at portraying half-baked theories as near biblical truths!
But let's not be hasty! Maybe there are brighter days ahead! Better to do nothing than waste billions on hare-brained schemes!! I hope we are learning our lesson on that score!!!!
Not to scare anyone, but if the current trend of shortening nights continues, we may need to take action to protect owls and vampires that only come out at night!!
My, oh my! How did God keep everything running so smoothly before mankind took over!??! :confuse:
.
Exclusive: At Least 20 Members of Congress Made the Trip to Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen Last Month
(CBS) Few would argue with the U.S. having a presence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit. But wait until you hear what we found about how many in Congress got all-expense paid trips to Denmark on your dime.
CBS investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports that cameras spotted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the summit. She called the shots on who got to go. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and embattled Chairman of the Tax Committee Charles Rangel were also there.
They were joined by 17 colleagues: Democrats: Waxman, Miller, Markey, Gordon, Levin, Blumenauer, DeGette, Inslee, Ryan, Butterfield, Cleaver, Giffords, and Republicans: Barton, Upton, Moore Capito, Sullivan, Blackburn and Sensenbrenner.
That's not the half of it. But finding out more was a bit like trying to get the keys to Ft. Knox. Many referred us to Speaker Pelosi who wouldn't agree to an interview. Her office said it "will comply with disclosure requirements" but wouldn't give us cost estimates or even tell us where they all stayed.
Senator Inhofe (R-OK) is one of the few who provided us any detail. He attended the summit on his own for just a few hours, to give an "opposing view."
"They're going because it's the biggest party of the year," Sen. Inhofe said. "The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar."
Our investigation found that the congressional delegation was so large, it needed three military jets: two 737's and a Gulfstream Five -- up to 64 passengers -- traveling in luxurious comfort.
Add senators and staff, most of whom flew commercial, and we counted at least 101 Congress-related attendees. All for a summit that failed to deliver a global climate deal.
I think they forgot to mention Obama and his entourage of up to 500 people.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
More here:
http://www.medindia.com/news/Shrinking-of-Mt-Kilimanjaros-Ice-Cap-Not-Due-to-Glo- bal-Warming-Study-21991-2.htm
Regards, DQ
Ice is not permanent just because it is going to stay cold for a long period of time - a fact that "global alarmists" often ignore because it REALLY damages their claims.
One or two good storms on "Killy" will probably re-establish its white crown and if not, Mother Nature has simply changed her mind about the region in a semi-permanent way - humans had nothing to do with it. It could actually go the other direction with more ice!
Did anybody ever take ninth grade earth science after the year 1975?
It's pretty embarrassing when somebody spouts off about global warming at a cocktail party but then they don't even know what the Younger Dryas was let alone the name of the last Ice Age.... Yikes!!!
Next thing you know we will start sacrificing virgin Volvos to the environmental gods of our wonderful new climate change religion.... Whatever makes you happy, silly, but happy.
Snow falls, packs and glaciates. If enough snow doesn't fall, the glaciers will shrink since the ice isn't getting replenished. More or less, right?
So why are they shrinking at Killy? Shifting weather patterns or *gasp* climate change?
Someday we might be able to control earthquakes, volcanoes, and the climate, but not today.
Regards, DQ
Why does the Tug Hill region of New York State get incredibly bad snowfalls for a few years and then..... Nothing but a smattering for a few years?
Why do skiers around Tahoe exclaim "It's the best snow of any place - you can count on it and then.... They're cursing bad seasons in a row of seasons!
Did the dust bowl around the time of the Great Depression end? Many exclaimed that the farmers abused the land to the point that the soil couldn't retain itself against high winds and the fact that IT DID NOT RAIN for a long time got totally discounted!
Did it or did it not rain... or snow for a decade or two?
How's Atlanta doing lately? Not really complaining anymore about the lack of rain!
The key phrase is "semi-permanent"
Humans, in their tiny little blink on the planet, have existed in the Holocene Epoch which, many scientists agree, is coming to a close. The Holocene epoch's nickname is "The Garden Epoch" characterized as one of the best climates the planet has ever experienced, regardless of region, your religion (no comment) and your over-use of your Ford F-150.
Anybody writing in this forum (I hate to be morbid) will be long dead and gone as well as their generations of offspring when the Holocene starts to close.
This is not a trick question: What happens after the Holocene? A dead planet or, another ice age?
Don't worry about ninth grade.... Just google it. I'll give you a hint, the tomatoes are going to have a little bit of a problem growing except if you live in Africa.....
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18364-why-antarctica-isnt-melting-much--ye- t.html
Makes a person wonder when or if a tipping point will be reached.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/pine-beetles-trans- form-bc-forests-into-greenhouse-enemy/article1424989/
This is another article that shows how complex the climate system is. I used to think Physics and Astronomy were the "cool" sciences. I have changed my mind and now think that biology is more exciting and more complex. :shades:
I am still waiting for someone to do a study of the climate impacts (local and regional) of zebra mussels in the Great Lakes. The mussels altered the algae mix and increased the clarity of the water. Sunlight can now penetrate deep in the water. The lakes are big enough that there might even be a tiny impact on global weather patterns.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/-
The battle continues.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/01/bering-20100111.html#more
Global Ice Age Climate Patterns Influenced by Bering Strait
This is one of many articles that leads me to think we are still a few decades away from being able to predict what will happen in 2100. The climate puzzle is still taking shape.
One last comment for now, skeptics of human influence on climate may want to read about the ozone layer and the ozone hole.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638
Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
"Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year - about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document)."
I for one am skeptical of the course of action the wealthy World governments are proposing to cut GHG. Just because they raise the cost of electricity with higher taxes does not mean I don't need or want to use the electricity. I wish my house was warmer than it is right now. Not enough to run the furnace at the price of propane. There are literally Billions of people just emerging from the dark ages. They see via satellite TV a standard of living they would like to have. It is no wonder that China and India have balked at the ignorance put forth by the US and other wealthy countries. In case you did not notice, China passed US in 2009 as the largest car market. They are an emerging market. All the taxes in the World are not going to slow down the growth. As we can see from what has happened over the last few years, it will only continue to destroy the US economy. If that is what people want. That is what the GW Cult is trying to do. Only the very wealthy will be able to afford to maintain their lifestyle. How many of the folks at Copenhagen came in by train or bus? How many were shuttled from their private jets by Prius? That should give you a clear picture of what AGW is about. It is a means to control the little guy while maintaining the lifestyles of the rich and powerful.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
BUT, we don't see most volcanos, do we? There are many, many volcanic eruptions along the continental plates, which are deep within the oceans of the world. There are also many rifts where methane continually is pumped into the ocean waters. So it is the ocean that first absorbs the CO2 and other chems. and release them to the atmosphere, as the continually emissions exceeds the equilibrium points of the water to hold the gases. These gases are typically described as "natural sources". I don't have the link, but I'm sure someone here could google the CO2 cycle and tell us how much more natural emissions there are then man-made. I think man-made GHG were a few % of the total (man-made + natural).
The other thing to note is that the numbers are ESTIMATES - nobody knows the true extent of subsurface volcanic emissions. I'd bet that the earthquake in Jamaica yesterday, caused quite a release of gases into the ocean. Is society being given an estimate of that? No. Why? Because it doesn't fit the story that: man-made is unnatural and bad? Al Gore and his buddies want you to repent, and give him power and $, because of your few % emissions compared to the climate effects of nature. Ridiculous. May Al Gore freeze in a Florida orchard! :P
So what's going on? It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".
The consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and by microbes (rotting, in other words) emits about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, while respiration by vegetation emits another 220 Gt. These huge amounts are balanced by the 440 Gt of carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere each year as land plants photosynthesise.
Similarly, parts of the oceans release about 330 Gt of CO2 per year, depending on temperature and rates of photosynthesis by phytoplankton, but other parts usually soak up just as much - and are now soaking up slightly more.
Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in February 2007 (pdf format). Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year.
So why does our small amount of CO2 get so much more attention than the hundreds of gigatonnes put out naturally. Why does nature get to claim all the Carbon sinks and humans have to account for theirs? Why don't the AGW group go after nature. Maybe kill off a few million excess deer, elk and moose that are out their spewing GHG. We could ship the meat to starving people all over the World. Solve two problems at the same time.
My take is the people on the side of AGW are more concerned with the 3 toed newt and the snail darter than they are with human welfare. When we have fed the World then worry about Polar Bears going extinct.
By the way. I have planted a lot of the trees and other CO2 absorbing plants that nature is claiming in that 440 GT carbon sink. Where's my cut of the Carbon Tax?
So let's consider that 26.4 Gt versus the (440 + 330 = 770Gt) estimate of nature. The 26.4 Gt from ALL of man's enterprises includes what we produce by breathing, farming, heating, manufacturing, transportation, and number #1 cause of CO2 production - producing electricity. Now of that 1 part transportation, that is further broken down into modes of transportation - planes, ships, trucking, rail, and personal transportation. So by the time you really get down to dividing that 26.4 Gt up and figure how much is due to our personal automobiles you might get 3-4 Gt? Or about 0.5% of all CO2 comes from our personal autos. That is why I have said before that the amount of CO2 that we produce from our personal autos is insignificant.
There are so many other factors too besides CO2, like other GHG's, amount of cloud-cover and solar activity, that the amount of CO2 emitted from our autos becomes even MORE MINISCULE a factor.
yeah. but the warmers have defined GHGs so that water vapor, which contributes may 90%+ of all global warming effect, is excluded.
Anyone with half a brain would have gotten this right, without spending an dollar.
but our politicians are just eager to spend the people's money by fear mongering us around global warming.
So environmentalists come upon the fact that CO2 is a GHG. Using that factor alone and ignoring all the other things that can change the climate, they get a self-propogating theory together that CO2 is causing warming. They collect weather data from years and through careful-selection of certain data, and "adjustment" of data, they present a case that man is warming the Earth, and that it is significant and only negative effects will be seen. Catastrophe is straight ahead!
And out of this, what do different groups gain?:
1) Environmentalists now have a boogie-man for almost any development that man may want. For example - Before the CO2 Boogie-man they could get the new chemical plant to put in some controls, but they never had an issue to stop them. So the different environmental groups who would have us go back centuries in lifestyle, and want to save every species on Earth, are very happy.
2) Climatologists and environmental scientists have seen their stature in society raised. No longer are they treated with disdain. They are now flush with grant money, and self-importance.
3) Politicians have gained, as they have claimed new powers to regulate and tax all phases of society. They have increased their power, and they have increased their influence over industries, who then are more likely to "support" their individual careers. Political donations should be up!
4) Gore and the like, who are connected to the political-world have influence and inside-information that leads to making quite a bit of $, which comes from all the taxes and fees that everyone will pay for emitting CO2.
I will continue to post the truth here, for anyone who's doltish or naieve enough to think that these people are not just running this GW-scam for their own environmental-world-picture, power, fame, and $. When I see jet-setting, caviar-eating, autograph-selling big-wigs, who just happen to make 10000% on their investments,meeting in Copenhagen, I smell a bunch of rats. Don't be stupid boys, don't save your e-mails! Throw the servers in the fire every few months!
Thank you Kernick.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I would agree with the writer in that scientists must become better communicators. The Internet has changed things. Just about any Tom, Dick or Harry can post a message or start a blog.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It is looking like it will be another 5 years before we hit 400 ppm (a nice round number). And with China expected to add 10+ million new cars a year and dozens of coal power plants it will be interesting to see if the rate goes up. Australia is planning on doubling their exports of coal and Iraq is expected to more than double their oil output, so it appears enough fuel will be available. Peak oil might even be delayed 5-10 years.
What I find interesting in the AGW debate is just that. The same folks that believe man is a major cause of GW/CC, also believe Peak Oil is just around the corner. So why are they worried? If oil and fossil fuel is the problem, as soon as it is gone, the AGW problem will be history. That is NOT the issue. Those pushing the agenda don't believe in either theory. They are only trying to use their alarmist tactics to get more of my money and yours.
Peak oil theory got pushed in the background as more oil keeps being found. So they had to use a new terror tactic. GLOBAL WARMING will drown us all in our sleep and kill those fuzzy wuzzy polar bears. As Kernick has pointed out very well. We would all be better off with a more heat. Better crops, more usable land, etc etc. We could open up millions of square miles of Canada, Greenland, Russia and the US for agriculture to feed the added billions of people.
Says Glover: “When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?” His obscene opinion would be bigger news if Glover had – in the manner of others – idiotically blamed a less-fashionable deity.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/commen- - ts/pact_with_gaia/
The more these whacko AGW types open their mouths the sooner this whole Cult will fade into history. Reminds me of another idiot Robert Kennedy Jr blaming Katrina on George Bush. Because he did not sign onto the Kyoto scam.
I did not hear Glover blame Obama for the failure in Copenhagen. You can bet if it was Bush he would have. What a jerk.
The first Honda Accord, 1976, according to R&T had 68 HP, weighed 2045#, did 0-60 in 15.4 sec, and got EPA 31c/44h!! It cost $3,995!
Mine ran just fine, didn't feel sluggish, was very comfortable, and was safe (because I never crashed it)!!
Remember, this was the Accord! The Civic was even smaller! By comparison, the 'tiny' Honda Fit has 117 HP, weighs 2489#, and gets EPA 27c/33h! That's only 75% of the highway MPG of the first Accord!! The 2010 4-cyl Accord Coupe weighs 3175 and only gets EPA 22c/31h!
It seems that what we need to do is to put our cars on a serious diet! We don't need hybrids, just light, comfortable, economical cars!! (And with modern safety equipment they can be safe too!)
:shades:
Because on a higher level, any gain we'd see by the U.S. going to higher mpg vehicles does not reduce the amount of fossil fuels used, it only reduces the rate-of-growth.
Overall we have a much higher mpg fleet on the road then we did in 1976. Maybe 2X better mpg? But has U.S. gasoline usage gone up or down since then? Why? Answer: the number of drivers and the amount driven/driver have increased faster than mpg-gains.
And also consider that this year in China 13M new vehciles were sold, where not a decade ago they weren't selling 1M. So you have all these new vehicles being put into service around the world that increase gasoline demand.
If our whole nation decided that starting tomorrow no one would drive, gasoline usage would surely go down. The price of gasoline around the world would plummet, making gasoline more affordable to more people. Within a few years you'd find the usage around the world was right back where it was when the U.S. stopped using gasoline.
The only way to stop fossil fuel use is to offer to the 6.5B people of the world a reliable, cheap alternative energy. If we only provide the alternative energy to the 1B people in the developed world, then the remaining 5.5B (and growing) people of the developing world will continue to burn fossil fuels.
So does someone want to make a guess when the world is going to have windmills and solar panels for 6.5B people? when it seems under normal circumstances running-water is a luxury in many areas of the world.
Earfquakes are caused by Global Warming?
Say wha?.................what???????????????
P.S. Before someone overly sensitive to race issues scolds me: that's not using "earf" as an Ebonics demonstration. It's my personal favorite way to spell Earth. Earf.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There is also the question of how much oil shale or gas hydrate we will be using in the future.
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html
http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2005/5294/pdf/sir5294_508.pdf
I am not interested in weak mandates such as CAFE, that look like they are doing something. That is a big joke and a money making scheme by the EPA. All the alternative energy mandates in CA have only raised our utility bills with little progress.
By TODD WOODY
Published: December 21, 2009
AMBOY, Calif. — Senator Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation in Congress on Monday to protect a million acres of the Mojave Desert in California by scuttling some 13 big solar plants and wind farms planned for the region.
The federal government made a competing commitment in 2005, though, when President George W. Bush ordered that renewable energy production be accelerated on public lands, including the Catellus holdings. The Obama administration is trying to balance conservation demands with its goal of radically increasing solar and wind generation by identifying areas suitable for large-scale projects across the West.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/22/business/energy-environment/22solar.html
So where are these suitable locations for alternative energy? So far in my area they have blocked all buy a small Indian reservation from Wind Farms.
NIMBYism arises among people of all kinds when they don't want a big new public project placed near them. Until fairly recently, the rich did far better than the poor at fighting off LULUs (Locally Unwanted Land Uses).
But high-speed rail is the single planned project that brings out the most NIMBYs, primarily because it is a LULU in the most places. This rail line ultimately would stretch from San Diego to San Francisco, with branches running to Las Vegas and - perhaps - Sacramento. For anyone who has ridden bullet trains in Spain, France, Great Britain and Japan, it's enticing to think of riding from Los Angeles to the Bay Area in less than three hours without leaving the ground.
Plenty of voters loved the idea in November 2008, when a high-speed rail bond issue passed by a 52-48 percent vote. But some are now beginning to feel bait-and-switched, as they learn the project's pricing and ridership might not be as advertised and as they discover more about the routes.
NIMBYism over the rail project is active in Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley and Orange County, but strongest on the San Francisco Peninsula, where bullet trains of the future might zip from San Jose to San Francisco at about 200 mph using either the current Caltrain right of way or something adjacent. That's a region where the $45 billion bullet train proposition won 60 percent approval.
Now activists urge tunneling under much of the Peninsula for fear of noise, collisions with cars or trucks and worries about two-level stacks of train tracks splitting their communities. The cities of Atherton and Menlo Park would like the route off the Peninsula altogether. They prefer it to run through East Bay cities like Oakland and Livermore, reaching San Francisco through a new underwater tube. Some activists have even suggested slowing trains to 5 mph for one stretch. Some bullet.
One legitimate question for the NIMBYs in these cases: If renewable energy development can't go into some of California's most deserted, desolate places, how can the renewable mandate ever be met?
http://www.presstelegram.com/opinions/ci_14137661
In many cases, the Kennedy's come to mind, it is the very people in government screaming the loudest for alternatives that block progress in that direction. You cannot have it both ways folks. Hopefully the High Speed Rail is a dead Monkey, before they waste a lot more valuable resources. By the time the LULUs and NIMBYs get done with it, we will have a 5 MPH snake weaving its way around every fat cat in the state. Better to expand the airports and make air travel more efficient and safe.
Toyota made the vehicle not the government. Nobody held a gun to your head and said you need to buy this vehicle. You could have bought another vehicle. Remember your basic physics. F=MA No matter how you slice it a large vehicle will use a lot more fuel. The link below is to a great report. The report shows how insane the current car market is.
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/publication_detail.php?id=1305
The automakers build vehicles to fit criteria mandated by the Feds and CA. PERIOD. The same vehicles sold in the EU do in fact get 30 MPG. Toyota builds what they are allowed to sell in the different markets. You are making excuses for the folks in DC that are puppets of the special interest lobbies.
PS
The Toyota Land Cruiser sold in the UK TODAY, gets 35+ MPG on the highway. At least 50% better than my gas guzzling Sequoia. It was not my first choice. The alternatives were not as desirable. You cannot buy what is not offered for sale.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/puzzle-me-this-climate-change-theory-allows- -no-ice-age-20100115-mcgx.htm
Here we have a skeptic preaching his beliefs. ''In science, the world isn't wrong so the calculations must be wrong.'' This is why the extremists on each side of this issue have it wrong. Man is influencing the climate, but at the same time it is too early in the information gathering process to undertake expensive solutions until we have more data and more time to think about this. This is a really, really, really complex issue.
Exactly how are we impacting the climate? The second question is what will be the impact. Thousands of areas will be impacted. Does it matter? As we gain a better understanding we will need to determine if we can make a change (cost/benefit analysis). OR will we be better off dealing with the change? If the coast floods, do we move everyone inland?
There is a precedent for this by the way. China moved over a million people in a few years for the Three Gorges Dam. A sea level rise of several feet over 90 years or so would be manageable. Some 50 or 60 million people might complain, but so what, right? Some might even want to take the same action the Dutch took over the last few hundred years. We could spend a few trillion dollars on dikes.
Baring any tipping point issues, in another 20 or 30 years sea level rise might put people in a panic. How will they react?
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=242&rn=news.xm- l&rst=2444
An interesting trend, but losing 24 cubic miles a year of ice doesn't appear to be that significant yet. Over 5.3 million square miles of Antartica is covered by ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antartica