Almost every reputable climate scientist agrees that this period was warmer than now. Who caused it if it was not a natural warming of the planet? I am old enough to recall the 1970s when we were politically terrorized by the global winter bunch. The only difference is now we brought the whole world into our politics of terror and hysteria.
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam."
And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."
At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this."
Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community.
At Boulder-based NCAR, researchers project a world with warmer temperatures, fiercer storms and higher seas.
From CSU, Gray and Roger Pielke Sr., another climate professor emeritus, question the data used to make those projections and their application to regional climate change.
Science by its nature is disputatious - with every idea challenged, tested and retested. It's always been that way.
My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now? Follow the money and you will find your answers.
> You will get arguments right here on Edmund's concerning hydro dams being environmentally sound.
Well, less polluting than burning fossil fuels, uranium including. Larger dams pose greater challenges. There is no 100% clean energy producing device, and that include renewable energy technologies. All is in choosing the best balance.
>Now if a city or state decides to build mass transit such as HST and the PEOPLE vote to borrow the money
What was the process when the Interstate system was established and all the highways built? Were there local consultation/votes ? Were the increases in tax clearly defined and advertised? Was a business plan established ? What was the involvement of private investors and which profit scheme was settled?
I think you and I know the answer. We know that massively building roads helped develop US to now. The limit of the system has been reached. I propose for the US govt to launch a similar infrastructure investment for high speed lines.
Regarding train service, it makes sense to let private operators use the line for keeping competition and service levels. Many such services operate under PPP agreements (Private -Public - Partnership). It is naturally healthy for such operators to post profits.
>Either EVERYONE sacrifices or it is a SCAM for the wealthy to further push the middle class into the ranks of the POOR
I strongly disagree. Environment must be a profit making business as any others. I suggest to drop the old clichés of the big bad elitist conspiration against the masses. Why sacrifice anything ? I am not suggesting self whipping. We just need to do the necessary investments to increase our quality of life, our transport efficiency and decrease oil use which is harming the US in many aspects.
>Will people buy into riding the train after having the freedom of personal transportation?
mmm, it seems many people already accept to board planes for the speed they offer. Modern HST are easy to board and the journey is actually a pleasant experience. Even though I own a car, I generally prefer to take the train because I don't need to risk speed tickets or accidents while the children enjoy the landscape.
I understand people are not used to, but the first experience is very convincing. It is a great alternative between car and plane.
If we go back to the carbon levels of 1990 with all the additional people, someone has to decrease their carbon footprint. In 1990 there were approximately 30 million people in California. Today approximately 37 million people. Not counting the illegals which may push us over 40 million. Now how do you & Ahnold propose we get 40 Million people to produce less CO2 than 30 million people did in 1990? First the cars in 1990 were not that much different than today. They still average 27 MPG as they did in the mid 1980s. CO2 is directly related to fuel consumption. The 1990s saw the biggest increase in large SUVs. Many are still on the road today. When we have people with carbon footprints the size of small towns, are they going to give up their lifestyle. Why should Oprah have several homes with high carbon output while I am expected to cut back?
The CA plan is to reduce GHG by 30% over the next 12 years. They have all these expensive ideas and a budget shortfall. Ahnold is proposing huge solar electric projects. Who does not get to sell when they have too much electricity as just happened in the NW with the high winds and wind farms? So sorry that $60k solar system on your house is not needed this month.
Half the state is on fire causing more CO2 than all the vehicles in the state for probably 20 years. That was the other environmentalists that do not believe in clearing dead fall and brush from residential areas.
I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved. I think our layers of regulations will block any kind of progress for the foreseeable future.
I can see it now. You are going to have to take that high speed train over that mountain, this is a valley of California Coastal Sage. The prime nesting area for the Black Gnat catcher.
And the oceans are consuming the CO2 along with the plants on the earth. More CO2, better food for tree leaves!!!
I would be much more concerned with the actions of the earth's core and the magma movement affecting the tundra mentioned earlier than the pop science culture determining that CO2 is a threat using The View quality of science comprehension.
If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY. I haven't seen any move that way. Maybe The View will pick up on that idea if they really care about lowering CO2 (as if it would effect a change).
The earth went through Ice Ages and warming without blaming mankind. The Hollywood types worry about whatever is pop culture science. I recall an actress deciding the alar scare foisted by Meryl Streep (another Hollywood type).
From Wiki--an example of pop science scares.
"On February 26, 1989, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is one of the handful of environmental groups that can afford to hire a public relations company, and it chose the firm of Fenton Communications, which developed and helped distribute public service announcements featuring actress Meryl Streep, who warned that Alar had been detected in apple juice bottled for children. An NRDC report, issued at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast, stressed that risks to children were higher than to adults, because children consume far more apple products per pound of body weight.
The NRDC report focused on inconsistencies in government regulatory policies and the need for better policies to protect children. Nowhere did it suggest that eating a single apple or drinking a single glass of juice posed a significant risk. Nevertheless, the prominence of 60 Minutes and Streep's movie-star status helped produce a dramatic public reaction, as some mothers poured apple juice down sink drains and school lunchrooms removed apples from their menus.
The apple industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, growers' profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers in Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications, claiming that the "scare" had cost them $100 million and sent orchards into bankruptcy, but their case was eventually dismissed. The judge who presided over the lawsuit pointed to failures in the federal government's food safety policies and noted that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs."
..."Consumers Union, in its 1989 report on the Alar issue, noted that its own tests on apples showed a lower cancer risk than the EPA's estimate -- only five cancers per million, instead of fifty. Consumers Union also advised parents that even with Alar, they were still better off feeding apples to their kids than candy bars. Nevertheless, it concluded, the chemical should be banned, because a risk of even five cancers per million is unacceptable."
"No study has ever shown a clear causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks in humans at normal doses, though some studies have shown a correlation between consumption and cancer incidence.[14] Some of the animal studies were procedurally flawed.[15] According to tradegroup-operated saccharin.org, "Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised twenty years ago after a flawed study that administered huge quantities of the sweetener to laboratory rats produced bladder tumors in rats. New and better scientific research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans." The U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences came to the same conclusion in 2000, recommending that saccharin be removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens.[16]"
Note also Wiki on science is editable and faux tenets can be added. A good program is the one that shows the edits on a topic in Wiki. It came out when a current female candidate for president was in senate and likely to run. Many edits of topic about here were from IP addresses in offices related to her workers.
I recall the alar and saccharin scares so I can filter Wiki. On the topic of global warming as though mankind were the source of methane et al, the obvious sequal to those wanting to selectively stop auto use as though that's the only source and the sole cure of alleged ill... is to suggest killing all animals on the earth because they produce methane and CO2!!! That would stop CO2 and methane from one source. Think the alleged global warming would change? Nooooooo.
>Almost every reputable climate scientist agrees that this period was warmer than now
Frankly I struggle to find any reference for this, but I am open to your suggestions
Regarding Mr Derek Kelly's claims that man was growing crop in Greenland, I simply can't find it in the country's history. I also failed to establish his background or to find studies he did or supported.
Well, here is a small essay about the GW and the media. It is an interesting read.
www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pd- f
Those two links sum up key findings in GW /CC issues.
>My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now?
This is the classical GW-denying rhetoric. Nobody knows what will happen in detail. we just know weather is very likely to get warmer and many climate patterns are going to change drastically.
>f we go back to the carbon levels of 1990 with all the additional people, someone has to decrease their carbon footprint.
I believe in education and incentives. People need to understand what the carbon footprint means, whereas the govt must enact laws that push people to adopt less carbon intensive ways of life.
Should people insist in commuting alone in their Caddy Escalade, It is their own choice, but they should learn to pay for the real price of it. Cheap gas gave very bad habits and correcting them is painful. It is like getting obese and discover how strenuous it is to exercise and loose weight.
Cheap electricity is also a trap as people will be less likely to consider thermal insulation in home improvement and be less vigilant against waste.
I am familiar with renewable energies and I can just tell that the technologies (especially solar) are not mature yet. It is all about R&D. Regretfully there is no real national/governmental project for the next generation solar cell. only patchy projects from private corporations or universities.
> I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved.
because your problems are my problems too. Pollution has global consequences. Whatever we think, US is still leading the word and what happens in the US influences many other countries. I wish it to be for the best.
>It was done by a military man thinking of moving men and equipment easily around the USA.
It looks like with this man a the helm, US experienced a very strong economic growth. Maybe this way of doing things is missing in the US now.
to cover the USA that is 3000 miles by 1500 miles would cost TRILLIONS of dollars Today.
I think the HST price estimate is very expensive in comparison to European systems. this is about 100 million USD per built mile whereas it is about 30 millions USD in Europe. I think that when US develop their own HST know how, the price per mile will drop.
You are right to underline how expensive it is. It is the cost of starting from scratch.
I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity. I think this way helped US go out of the recession in the beginning of the 30s too.
Only a fraction of the investment is going to go abroad, most of the engineering will have to be done locally.
it is true, the current administration burned the money that would right fit into those difficult times. But priorities should be seriously revised. there are areas where money can be saved, and some where more tax (gas tax) can be raised.
>Even that little 432 mile run from SF to LA would probably not be done for 10 years if it gets voted in this year
One more reason to start NOW. Already 10 years lost. this is ridiculous.
>And the oceans are consuming the CO2 along with the plants on the earth.
This is always true and this hopefully balance the natural production of CO2 emitted by any aerobic life on earth.
All ther problem is about upsetting the balance. If CO2 was fixated at an accelerated pace on to vegetals, why would be the CO2 be at a 800000-year high today?
The answer is in deforestation too. While cutting wood and making furniture is a good way to store carbon in a pretty stable way, not replanting after cutting is a very bad idea. I don't even need to comment forest burning, voluntarily or not.
>If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY
What alternative to jet flying do you propose ? I advocate HST lines in America, but it look likes those aren't for tomorrow. CO2 is a real threat but there is currently no viable alternative to oil powered air flight.
>From Wiki--an example of pop science scares.
Wiki is not the unique reference. I link to them for practical reasons. GW is not a science scare nor a scam, but an issue we need to tackle seriously.
I am not flaming cars. I advocate people having other choices than car or other oil burning transportation modes, which is not possible in today's US. Why having more choice would be a bad thing ?
One more reason to start NOW. Already 10 years lost. this is ridiculous.
So you think it is a lame argument? I do too when used by those trying to block further oil exploration. They always say it will take 10 years to see any oil from ANWR so lets not do it.
I do not believe we will drill our way out of the World energy situation. I do think it is practical to keep all options on the table. I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity
In theory I do agree with you on this. In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government. Look at the mess they have made with the ethanol boondoggle. Look at the banking and lending problems. Every thing they touch turns to wasted money. With little to show for it. There was a time when money could be spent on R&D and we would see good results. Not much lately I am afraid. It all ends up as corporate welfare into the pockets of the executives. From there it goes offshore to some hedge fund.
Funny what happens when the "lights went out in CA" during the electrical energy debacle. SUDDENLY an electrical power plant sub station that was literally dead in the water for @ LEAST 15 years, got built in less than 1.5 years!!!!!! servicing the silicon valley, located 2/3 miles from Moffitt Field, CA. Believe it or not the power was lost in three states and a foreign country. Imagine going through the city of San Francisco with literally no electronic traffic control and at night NO and I mean NO electric lights!!!!!!!
Frankly I struggle to find any reference for this, but I am open to your suggestions Here are a few references to it. Many of the PRO GW charts will make the period look similar to the current climate. That would be hard to prove as there is proof that Greenland was much warmer than it is currently. As was most of Northern Europe. Many would like us to believe the debate is over. It is far from over and many have quit drinking the Koolaid served up by the likes of Al Gore.
>They always say it will take 10 years to see any oil from ANWR so lets not do it.
I oppose drilling oil from ANWR, not only for obvious environment protection reasons, but because I see in expensive oil an opportunity to wake people up and think about what burning oil really means.
If money was seriously invested in clean technologies /alternative energies, this would be a long term asset.
>In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government
So better do nothing ? Or wait for private investors to fill in the gap? I think we can wait for some more time
Did private investors advance the cash for US highways and bridges ? I speculate that if they did, it was only a small part of those.
It is up to the government to build the infrastructures the country is in need of. If we just rely on private initiative for this, they will concentrate on short term financially profitable ones only.
If we build rail lines, this investment can't disappear into smoke. Some rail lines are still in use 150 years after being built.
the author endorses the IPCC assessment report and even quotes
# The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2. # Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
An interesting book describing the links between historical climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations. Nothing that contradicts my views so far. On the contrary, it supports my thinking that CC wilI have a big influence on civilizations.
This one is challenging my views that Global warming is a serious issue. The author even consider that the IPCC chart depicting the mediaval warming was "edited". There is such a gap in the analysis that i am interested to dig it further.
" I personally feel all those things are best done by private enterprise with making a profit as incentive."
If we every get to the point that profit is the only incentive, we will be in big trouble. Someone has to look at the big picture and try to balance the needs of a society.
Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming. Certain vested interest groups are doing their best to stop or limit research into climate change. On the other side we have people that are in panic mode that want immediate action when we still do not understand the issue well enough to implement a solution. The polarization of the debate between the right wing dingbats and the left wing dingbats has unfortunately set us back 20 years or more.
Vehicles are certainly part of the GW equation. The question is how much.
I suspect that we probably will see an increase in carbon dioxide for another decade or two. After that a lack of resources like steel and fossil fuels will start to flatten out the curve. Energy prices will increase to the point that people in general will be forced into a low carbon footprint.
Look at how quickly SUV and pickup sales tanked when gas went to $4 a gallon. If the current prices continue, which I think they will, we should start to see a noticeable change in CO2 emissions in the next 5 years.
Energy prices will increase to the point that people in general will be forced into a low carbon footprint.
The per capita use in the U.S. may decline slightly, but with the population increasing energy demand will increase, though that growth may be accomodated by renewable energy increases. Also remember that the energy cost increases aren't felt as badl around the globe as they are here in the U.S. The U.S. has been hit harder because of the decline of the $ vs. other currencies.
Also there are hundreds of years of coal and natural gas which will have their production increased. These of course are as carbon-based as oil. I was just talking to some people about winter-heating and whether they were using propane, oil, wood, or electric. The concensus was use more wood and electric. Wood emits carbon-products, and our electricity is mainly coal or gas-fired. If I get an electric-car in the next few years that will be powered by an electirc-plant burning more and more coal.
Unless someone knows how we would practically get > 50% of our electricity from solar and wind in the next 10-20 years, you can picture that coal and natural gas use are going to climb greatly.
Actually one of the 15 people or so I work with has just converted to a coal-furnace for his house. I can see that many more people will do so. I'm going to be cutting and burning as much wood as I can. Now if it were warmer we wouldn't burn so much fuel for heating.
If we every get to the point that profit is the only incentive, we will be in big trouble. Someone has to look at the big picture and try to balance the needs of a society.
Most inventions over the last 150 years were profit motivated. Even the vast store of products that are a result of defense and space research were done by those looking for fame and fortune. I realize a lot of R&D money is spent without showing a profit. That is not the motivation. Giving money to universities for research is mostly a good thing. Handing it to corporations in this day and age is questionable. Too much fraud and waste in our grant system. I saw a lot of it in the Arctic. People sitting for weeks in camp on the government nickel waiting for the tundra grass to grow and make measurements. Or hoping to get a clear day to try and spot a whale from a helicopter. With all of them sipping coffee for days on end. Millions are wasted on research that will gain US nothing.
Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming.
I agree with your assessment of the GW/CC issue. Too much hysteria at either end to get a clear picture. If Peak oil is upon US the problem should resolve itself in the next 50 years. Of course how are you going to stop those countries that have no alternative except coal? China is building ONE coal fired generation system per week last I read.
On the contrary, it supports my thinking that CC wilI have a big influence on civilizations.
On that we totally agree. If the tropics become desert and the Arctic becomes a fertile garden the changes in civilization are going to happen. Should we go crazy trying to stop the inevitable? While I can see merit in your ideas of high speed mass transit. I do not see the will to get it done in this country. Most of US like our lives the way they are. We only make changes when forced by circumstances. That should be obvious by the recent high gas prices. People are buying higher mileage vehicles. A few at the bottom that cannot afford gas to get to work are taking the bus.
Have you heard any of our politicians on the National level pushing for HST? I have not. They are looking for alternative energy to maintain the status quo. More roads and money to repair old roads and bridges. The scope of HST for the masses is too big in this country to gain a foothold.
>China is building ONE coal fired generation system per week last I read.
I think it was every month. whatever the figure, it is huge and the famous 3-gorge dam, despite its massive unit power of 26 GW, represents only 2% of the country total electricity need.
Why is the electricity consumption growing so quickly ? not only because of growth but because it is too cheap. Coal is too cheap in China and government also subsidize electricity somehow. There are talks about raising tarrif for power-greedy industries, but the larger they are, the more power they yield in face of local governments, which in turn grant them with cheap electricity. Cheap electricity means a lot of waste Aircon units set to freezing temps in open rooms/with open windows, Poor SEER from climate control systems. Electrical apparatus with low efficiency (cause higher efficiency ones are more expensive), inexistant insulation, poor maintenance....
I not only support raising the price of gas but I also support raising the price of electricity. in China, we should no less than double it to create the shock that electricity is precious. This won't happen.
>The scope of HST for the masses is too big in this country to gain a foothold.
I remember my short time in California being a nice time, except for transport which was a very frustrating experience. Speed limits were so low that it drove me crazy, and I got stuck many times in the same traffic jams caused by everyone driving the same way at the same time.
We went once from LA to LV. This journey was boring to death, with the driver religiouly stuck at 75 in front of the open road. It looked like we were staying still on the highway. We took maybe 3 or 4 hours for a journey that would maybe take 2 hours with a HST.
I just can't understand how so many ppl in the US can be satisfied with being dependent (I would say prisoner) from one unique transport system.
I know you won't go to Europe anytime soon, the Euro being too expensive or the USD being too cheap. Should you have the opportunity to go to Japan, try their Shinkansen System. Impressively well designed and managed.
We went once from LA to LV. This journey was boring to death, with the driver religioulsy stuck at 75
That corridor to LV is a good place to use autobahn speeds. Yet it is a big money maker for CA with all the tickets they write. Would a HST to LV from LA be a good deal. It would be great for LV. LV should foot the bulk of the cost. They will reap the benefits. How can you expect the citizens of CA that have NO interest in going to gamble in LV, to foot any of the cost of that HST? The populations that benefit should pay the bill. I used to visit my sister when she lived in LV. I flew a couple times. I hated the LV airport. It was a stinking mess of a place before 9/11. It took me longer to go to the airport catch the flight on SouthWorst cattle flight, than to jump in my car and drive. I am sure it would be the same getting on a HST in downtown LA for a trip to LV. For those unfortunates that would live within 20 miles of the HST station it may be an OK way to get to LV. The HST portion being the only good part.
I think most Americans would agree with me if they think it out. HST is NOT practical for most of the USA. Maybe a few VERY heavily traveled corridors. Replacing current trains with HSTs makes some sense.
If the USA was interested in saving fossil fuel and cutting GHG they would have embraced the diesel automobile when the EU did. Same can be said for HST.
We should be encouraging people to move away from the GHG causing cities to the country. Plant more fruit trees, eat a lot of peaches. I had fresh peaches from my trees on pancakes this morning. Life is good outside the city. Cleaner air and less noise & crime.
The very thing you advocate (getting less density) is the thing that is seen as bad by most Americans, if the fact that most American's live on one of three coasts and in larger cities is any indicator. Again counterintuitively cities and crowding cause more waste and green house gasses. But the herding to cities has been a very old and long time policy. (3 generations back for starters)
That is correct; and not the taxpayers of LV or the state. If the reason for the HST is to take tourists to spend money in the LV economy, then the LV casinos and other businesses should fund this. They throw several billion a year into new construction of casinos; let them build their railline if they wish.
Why haven't they done it yet though? Maybe because it doesn't make economic sense to do so. It costs too much to acquire the land right-of-way, build the tracks, buy the train, and operate the train then it is worth to bring a thousand tourists into the city. A few planeloads from LA works instead. 90% of the tourists come from other areas than LA. If it made financial sense I'm sure it would get built.
I suspect a HST from NYC to Miami would be popular. Amtrak runs three trains a day back and forth as it is. The DC - Orlando Auto Train would probably be a lot more popular if it didn't take a 16 hours or so.
>Why haven't they done it yet though? Maybe because it doesn't make economic sense to do so.
If cities are responsible for build nice new stadiums at taxpayer expense for bigmoney owners of sports teams to use..., why shouldn't taxpayers in LA/LV built their HST?
You've never heard "2 wrongs do not make a right"? I am totally against government taking your or my taxes and spending them on non-essential services. If you and others not willing to put up your own money on a business-venture, it mustn't be too good an idea. It's more palatable to take others' money and spend it on a questionable venture right? And why would our politicians do that? Oh I guess it creates more jobs for their friends, and makes the wealthy business owners wealthier (who then support the politicians' campaigns).
Note my sarcasm about how only the LA people and LV people should pay for their own HST between the two cities; they are going to be the ones using them. That's instead of using fed government funds and grants to build a railway for them! :sick:
Yes, if it's a workable venture private money would build it!
BTW I don't think stadiums should be built by all the taxpayers for individual owners to overpay athletes for couch potatoes to worship, when the athletes are not in jail (can you say Bengals?). In Ohio there's a sales tax for the county, State of Ohio money, and I forget what other that went to build the Reds and the Bengals' stadiums.
AND the same goes for trying to get the economy in a mess over carbon credit frauds and climate change and global warming without a bit of scientific proof it's anything other than the standard variations in the earth's massive systems. I was watching a program on History Channel about the magma from deep within the earth coming nearer the surface around Iceland. Do you think that could warm the areas where the Artic ice is? Or cause glaciers to warm and melt/move faster!
Cute terms like "greenhouse gases" and all make it sound even more like a massive distraction from the real business at hand.
Do you think that could warm the areas where the Artic ice is? Or cause glaciers to warm and melt/move faster!
I posted a report about scientists seeing for the first time volcanic eruptions under the Arctic Ice. I also posted the scientific study on the ocean temperatures that ARE NOT rising as all those scientists had claimed. Almost every day more scientific data comes to the surface challenging the so called consensus pushed by the media, the UN and those lined up to sell Carbon Credits. I can accept that the earth may be getting warmer. I cannot accept the politicized man is the culprit view of Climate Change.
Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer posted: 27 June 2008 05:10 pm ET
New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.
Until now, scientists thought undersea volcanoes only dribbled lava from cracks in the seafloor. The extreme pressure from the overlying water makes it difficult for gas and magma to blast outward.
But the Gakkel Ridge, which is relatively unexplored and considered unique for its slow spreading rate, is just the place for surprises.
Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and his colleagues discovered jagged, glassy fragments of rock scattered around the volcanoes, suggesting explosive eruptions occurred between 1999 and 2001.
They hypothesize that the slow spreading could allow excess gas to build up in pockets of magma beneath the oceanic crust. When the gas pressure gets high enough, it pops like a champagne bottle being uncorked.
With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.
"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."
The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.
What if Climate Change is real but a totally natural process which we can not effect no matter what we do. Also consider that we bankrupt ourselves trying to change a natural process over which we have no control.
Now consider what shape we will be in dealing with this natural climate change without any resources because we wasted them all trying to change something that was unchangeable.
I fear that humankind is in for a shock.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Indeed, while we make fun of ancient civilizations for doing this in the past, such as: human sacrifice, vestal virgins, cutting the hearts out of those being sacrificed etc.etc., Money changers in the temples......So when the volcano eruption that buried Pompeii, was the the end of the world? NO! BUT... YES for Pompeiians!!?? And for whatever radius got wiped out- FOR SURE !!!!
Carbon credits would be the equivalent/ are the proposed "secular" version of practices long past, but effectively have had the same effect: ZERO......................... Global warming? NO CARS during this period?
There are psychological archetypal deep seated needs these fulfull, however......So if ya make moo lah from the concept.....................
"Is it possible this has something to do with the ice melting? "
the answer is a resounding
NOT QUITE.
If that were a significant cause, all the anti-GW organizations and scientists would be standing on that report with a megaphone declaring the melting arctic ice as having nothing to do with GW.
Are automobiles a major source of global warming? Yes. What may surprise a lot of people is that China and India are producing as much global warming gases as all the vehicles in the U.S. simply by out-of-control, useless, underground coal fires they have burning for no useful good. Go to www.google.com and type in the words coal fires china global warming
From Wikipedia on the subject: "Globally, thousands of inextinguishable mine fires are burning, especially in China and India, where poverty, lack of government regulations and runaway development combine to create an environmental disaster. Modern strip mining exposes smoldering coal seams to the air, revitalizing the flames. Rural Chinese in coal-bearing regions often dig coal for household use, abandoning the pits when they become unworkably deep, leaving highly combustible coal dust exposed to the air. Using satellite imagery to map China's coal fires resulted in the discovery of many previously unknown fires. The oldest coal fire in China is in Baijigou and is said to have been burning since the Qing Dynasty."
It would be nice if the world could put its resources into putting out those coal fires instead of fighting wars, or, as the rich oil countries in the Middle East do, put all their money into palaces and resorts.
..."We can't muster enough ingenuity and technology to put out a coal mine fire?..."
I didn't read the article but if I remember correctly, coal fires are tough to put out because the burn in the CEILING of the mine. You can pour all the water you want into the mine and it just runs along the FLOOR and out the many cracks in the rock. It's like trying to fill up a sieve.
I don't think you can send fire fighters in to attack it directly either because the fire works it's way into small areas and because of the toxic gases.
I may be wrong on this but thats seems to be how I remember reading about it.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Kind of ironic. They probably closed the coal mine because the people quit using coal for fuel. So it burns itself up. Seems like they could re-open the mine and start digging it out and using it. Better that it pollutes doing something than just dumping GHG into the air with no benefit.
..."Palm trees grew in what would be Alaska, large reptiles roamed in northern Canada and the ice-free Arctic Ocean warmed to the equivalent of a tepid swimming pool."...
All we need to do is collect all that excess CO2 that people are making that some think is causing climate change. Then we put the CO2 into the mine to put out the fire. Just seal off all the entrances. The CO2 is heavier than air so pour it in one opening and it settles and voila, no oxygen because the CO2 has filled the mine!
And here Battelle is spending good public grant money for a study of how to compress CO2 into a rock structure underground to get rid of a gas causing global warming (some think). Of course the CO2 is going to migrate through the rock and escape into the ground water and carbonate it.. Fizzy water out the tap, anyone?
What's even funnier is the CO2 they're trying to get rid of is from a greenies dream process of making ethanol!!! The green ethanol produces a side product that's causing global warming (some think). :confuse:
Then of course if you are vegetarian, you might be rationed because those "food sources" actually EAT C02. So what is more important given the fascist policies people getting "FAT" or saving the EAF from C02.....? So do we now give "FAT FOLKS" time to lose weight and if they don't we now execute them because they produce too much C02? (taking the place of vestial virgins, etc etc) ..... George Orwell's 1984 has been happening for MANY MANY YEARS.
>I suspect a HST from NYC to Miami would be popular
I speculate that a HST line from Portland to Miami would take about 7 hours. This would not be enough to beat the plane on those destinations, but would be still competitive in intermediate city to city transport.
There are maybe 30 millions people living along such a corridor. It may cost 100 to 150 billion USD. It would certainly make sense in the long term, but I don't expect private investors to have that kind of money.
It may cost 100 to 150 billion USD. It would certainly make sense in the long term, but I don't expect private investors to have that kind of money.
Neither does the US government. We are $9.5 TRILLION in debt and a big chunk of our current budget of $3 trillion will add to that debt. Maybe after we pay that down a few trillion we think about HST. You will have to get through Congress. Each Senator has a state that wants something. You spend $100 billion on one state the other 49 want their share. That would be about $5 trillion in one bill to get a HST from DC to Miami or where ever. When the $25 billion was allocated in 1956 we had a balanced budget we were not adding to the National Debt. Our President was impressed with the German Autobahn and wanted US to have that kind of system across the USA. It was to be for every state at the time. What you are proposing will only benefit very small segments of the population. That is hard to get through Congress that wants to please the whole USA.
It looks like Donald Trump is a believer in GW. Get out while the getting is good...
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
PALM BEACH — The Donald's deal is done.
Real estate mogul Donald Trump on Tuesday closed the sale of a Palm Beach mansion to a Russian billionaire for the blockbuster price of $95 million.
"I love breaking records," Trump said Wednesday, "and this is a record."
It's believed to be the most expensive house ever sold in the United States.
"At the same time, I believe the buyer made an absolutely fantastic deal, and time will prove this right," Trump said.
The house, located at 515 N. County Road, was sold to an entity known as County Road Property LLC. Russian fertilizer billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev last month acknowledged he is the buyer of the Trump property.
Trump called the deal a $100 million sale, but the deed lists the price as $95 million, said Robert Brody, a West Palm Beach lawyer representing the buyer.
Sources say Trump paid all closing costs and brokerage commissions, including $665,000 in documentary stamps. Brody declined to discuss closing costs payments. Trump's Palm Beach attorney, Paul Rampell, declined to comment.
The sale marks a triumphant end to a bid by Trump to turn a troubled but prime piece of Palm Beach land into gold.
Trump scooped up the home, the former Abe Gosman estate, for $41.35 million in 2004 as part of the health-care magnate's bankruptcy filing. Although Trump performed a renovation of the property, the 6-acre property's real appeal is its 475 feet of unobstructed oceanfront.
The final price ended up lower than Trump's initial asking price of $125 million, and a hair under initial reports of a $100 million contract sales price. The house's final sales price was adjusted downward from $100 million during last-minute negotiations, sources said.
But the deal still is a victory for Trump and for the Palm Beach mansion market, which continues to prove resilient despite the crisis striking the real estate market throughout the country.
Trump can gloat when the Russian Billionaire is under water....
>We are $9.5 TRILLION in debt and a big chunk of our current budget of $3 trillion will add to that debt.
There is good and bad debt. Good debt is done with money borrowed for investment. those investments will create more growth and wealth, resulting in easier paybacks and improved standard of living.
Bad debt is done with money borrowed for spending. This is a case when a budget is not tight and that money is borrowed to cover expenses. Expenses don't create wealth nor growth. Some expenses are even counter productive.
The healthy way to keep a budget is to cut expenses, especially non-essential ones. Any new expense decision above a certain level should get through a strict validation process.
I don't agree with your view that infrastructure or major development projects should be halted, whereas many other less necessary expenses (welfare, military, credit rescue..) be carried further without reconsideration.
Maybe your view would be to cut expenses as to lower the debt. but with current economic situation, this means going straight into recession without alternate business model to break the vicious circle.
>That would be about $5 trillion in one bill to get a HST from DC to Miami or where ever
We are down to speculation. With this amount, I think there would be enough railways to criss-cross the country without setting foot in a car. This is not what I think is realistic.
>Our President was impressed with the German Autobahn and wanted US to have that kind of system across the USA
Why wouldn't the president be impressed by the High speed network in Europe or Japan ? I guess at that time he did not ask the question of the short term profitability of highways, and just considered it was good for the US. Thanks to this, US enjoyed a nice period of growth and nobody argues today that it was a mistake. Let us quit double standards and do what must be done instead of whining before high gas price and doing nothing.
Comments
AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown.
GW Hoax
Global Warming Consensus, Not hardly:
The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray: "It's a big scam."
And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."
At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay. "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says. "He has a mind block on this."
Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins. But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community.
At Boulder-based NCAR, researchers project a world with warmer temperatures, fiercer storms and higher seas.
From CSU, Gray and Roger Pielke Sr., another climate professor emeritus, question the data used to make those projections and their application to regional climate change.
Science by its nature is disputatious - with every idea challenged, tested and retested. It's always been that way.
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4387552
My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now? Follow the money and you will find your answers.
Well, less polluting than burning fossil fuels, uranium including. Larger dams pose greater challenges. There is no 100% clean energy producing device, and that include renewable energy technologies. All is in choosing the best balance.
>Now if a city or state decides to build mass transit such as HST and the PEOPLE vote to borrow the money
What was the process when the Interstate system was established and all the highways built? Were there local consultation/votes ? Were the increases in tax clearly defined and advertised? Was a business plan established ? What was the involvement of private investors and which profit scheme was settled?
I think you and I know the answer. We know that massively building roads helped develop US to now. The limit of the system has been reached. I propose for the US govt to launch a similar infrastructure investment for high speed lines.
Regarding train service, it makes sense to let private operators use the line for keeping competition and service levels. Many such services operate under PPP agreements (Private -Public - Partnership). It is naturally healthy for such operators to post profits.
>Either EVERYONE sacrifices or it is a SCAM for the wealthy to further push the middle class into the ranks of the POOR
I strongly disagree. Environment must be a profit making business as any others. I suggest to drop the old clichés of the big bad elitist conspiration against the masses.
Why sacrifice anything ? I am not suggesting self whipping. We just need to do the necessary investments to increase our quality of life, our transport efficiency and decrease oil use which is harming the US in many aspects.
>Will people buy into riding the train after having the freedom of personal transportation?
mmm, it seems many people already accept to board planes for the speed they offer.
Modern HST are easy to board and the journey is actually a pleasant experience.
Even though I own a car, I generally prefer to take the train because I don't need to risk speed tickets or accidents while the children enjoy the landscape.
I understand people are not used to, but the first experience is very convincing. It is a great alternative between car and plane.
If we go back to the carbon levels of 1990 with all the additional people, someone has to decrease their carbon footprint. In 1990 there were approximately 30 million people in California. Today approximately 37 million people. Not counting the illegals which may push us over 40 million. Now how do you & Ahnold propose we get 40 Million people to produce less CO2 than 30 million people did in 1990? First the cars in 1990 were not that much different than today. They still average 27 MPG as they did in the mid 1980s. CO2 is directly related to fuel consumption. The 1990s saw the biggest increase in large SUVs. Many are still on the road today. When we have people with carbon footprints the size of small towns, are they going to give up their lifestyle. Why should Oprah have several homes with high carbon output while I am expected to cut back?
The CA plan is to reduce GHG by 30% over the next 12 years. They have all these expensive ideas and a budget shortfall. Ahnold is proposing huge solar electric projects. Who does not get to sell when they have too much electricity as just happened in the NW with the high winds and wind farms? So sorry that $60k solar system on your house is not needed this month.
Half the state is on fire causing more CO2 than all the vehicles in the state for probably 20 years. That was the other environmentalists that do not believe in clearing dead fall and brush from residential areas.
I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved. I think our layers of regulations will block any kind of progress for the foreseeable future.
I can see it now. You are going to have to take that high speed train over that mountain, this is a valley of California Coastal Sage. The prime nesting area for the Black Gnat catcher.
And the oceans are consuming the CO2 along with the plants on the earth. More CO2, better food for tree leaves!!!
I would be much more concerned with the actions of the earth's core and the magma movement affecting the tundra mentioned earlier than the pop science culture determining that CO2 is a threat using The View quality of science comprehension.
If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY. I haven't seen any move that way. Maybe The View will pick up on that idea if they really care about lowering CO2 (as if it would effect a change).
The earth went through Ice Ages and warming without blaming mankind. The Hollywood types worry about whatever is pop culture science. I recall an actress deciding the alar scare foisted by Meryl Streep (another Hollywood type).
From Wiki--an example of pop science scares.
"On February 26, 1989, CBS-TV's 60 Minutes aired an exposé titled "A is for Apple," which became the opening salvo in a carefully-planned publicity campaign developed for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The NRDC is one of the handful of environmental groups that can afford to hire a public relations company, and it chose the firm of Fenton Communications, which developed and helped distribute public service announcements featuring actress Meryl Streep, who warned that Alar had been detected in apple juice bottled for children. An NRDC report, issued at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast, stressed that risks to children were higher than to adults, because children consume far more apple products per pound of body weight.
The NRDC report focused on inconsistencies in government regulatory policies and the need for better policies to protect children. Nowhere did it suggest that eating a single apple or drinking a single glass of juice posed a significant risk. Nevertheless, the prominence of 60 Minutes and Streep's movie-star status helped produce a dramatic public reaction, as some mothers poured apple juice down sink drains and school lunchrooms removed apples from their menus.
The apple industry, its back to the wall, hastily abandoned its use of Alar, and the market for apples quickly rebounded. Within five years, in fact, growers' profits were 50 percent higher than they had been at the time of the 60 Minutes broadcast. Apple growers in Washington state filed a libel lawsuit against CBS, NRDC and Fenton Communications, claiming that the "scare" had cost them $100 million and sent orchards into bankruptcy, but their case was eventually dismissed. The judge who presided over the lawsuit pointed to failures in the federal government's food safety policies and noted that "governmental methodology fails to take into consideration the distinct hazards faced by preschoolers. The government is in grievous error when allowable exposures are calculated . . . without regard for the age at which exposure occurs."
..."Consumers Union, in its 1989 report on the Alar issue, noted that its own tests on apples showed a lower cancer risk than the EPA's estimate -- only five cancers per million, instead of fifty. Consumers Union also advised parents that even with Alar, they were still better off feeding apples to their kids than candy bars. Nevertheless, it concluded, the chemical should be banned, because a risk of even five cancers per million is unacceptable."
Even the saccharine scare from Wiki exemplifies the problems with pop science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin
"No study has ever shown a clear causal relationship between saccharin consumption and health risks in humans at normal doses, though some studies have shown a correlation between consumption and cancer incidence.[14] Some of the animal studies were procedurally flawed.[15] According to tradegroup-operated saccharin.org, "Concerns over saccharin's safety were first raised twenty years ago after a flawed study that administered huge quantities of the sweetener to laboratory rats produced bladder tumors in rats. New and better scientific research has decisively shown that the earlier rat studies are not at all applicable to humans." The U.S. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences came to the same conclusion in 2000, recommending that saccharin be removed from the list of known or suspected human carcinogens.[16]"
Note also Wiki on science is editable and faux tenets can be added. A good program is the one that shows the edits on a topic in Wiki. It came out when a current female candidate for president was in senate and likely to run. Many edits of topic about here were from IP addresses in offices related to her workers.
I recall the alar and saccharin scares so I can filter Wiki. On the topic of global warming as though mankind were the source of methane et al, the obvious sequal to those wanting to selectively stop auto use as though that's the only source and the sole cure of alleged ill... is to suggest killing all animals on the earth because they produce methane and CO2!!! That would stop CO2 and methane from one source. Think the alleged global warming would change? Nooooooo.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Frankly I struggle to find any reference for this, but I am open to your suggestions
Regarding Mr Derek Kelly's claims that man was growing crop in Greenland, I simply can't find it in the country's history. I also failed to establish his background or to find studies he did or supported.
Well, here is a small essay about the GW and the media. It is an interesting read.
www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Other/rahmstorf_climate_sceptics_2004.pd- f
and a summary for policy makers
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Those two links sum up key findings in GW /CC issues.
>My take is they cannot predict the weather tomorrow. So how the heck can they predict 100 years from now?
This is the classical GW-denying rhetoric. Nobody knows what will happen in detail. we just know weather is very likely to get warmer and many climate patterns are going to change drastically.
I believe in education and incentives. People need to understand what the carbon footprint means, whereas the govt must enact laws that push people to adopt less carbon intensive ways of life.
Should people insist in commuting alone in their Caddy Escalade, It is their own choice, but they should learn to pay for the real price of it.
Cheap gas gave very bad habits and correcting them is painful.
It is like getting obese and discover how strenuous it is to exercise and loose weight.
Cheap electricity is also a trap as people will be less likely to consider thermal insulation in home improvement and be less vigilant against waste.
I am familiar with renewable energies and I can just tell that the technologies (especially solar) are not mature yet. It is all about R&D. Regretfully there is no real national/governmental project for the next generation solar cell. only patchy projects from private corporations or universities.
> I appreciate your anxiety to see us get our problems solved.
because your problems are my problems too. Pollution has global consequences. Whatever we think, US is still leading the word and what happens in the US influences many other countries. I wish it to be for the best.
It looks like with this man a the helm, US experienced a very strong economic growth. Maybe this way of doing things is missing in the US now.
to cover the USA that is 3000 miles by 1500 miles would cost TRILLIONS of dollars Today.
I think the HST price estimate is very expensive in comparison to European systems. this is about 100 million USD per built mile whereas it is about 30 millions USD in Europe. I think that when US develop their own HST know how, the price per mile will drop.
You are right to underline how expensive it is. It is the cost of starting from scratch.
I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity. I think this way helped US go out of the recession in the beginning of the 30s too.
Only a fraction of the investment is going to go abroad, most of the engineering will have to be done locally.
it is true, the current administration burned the money that would right fit into those difficult times. But priorities should be seriously revised. there are areas where money can be saved, and some where more tax (gas tax) can be raised.
>Even that little 432 mile run from SF to LA would probably not be done for 10 years if it gets voted in this year
One more reason to start NOW. Already 10 years lost. this is ridiculous.
This is always true and this hopefully balance the natural production of CO2 emitted by any aerobic life on earth.
All ther problem is about upsetting the balance. If CO2 was fixated at an accelerated pace on to vegetals, why would be the CO2 be at a 800000-year high today?
The answer is in deforestation too. While cutting wood and making furniture is a good way to store carbon in a pretty stable way, not replanting after cutting is a very bad idea. I don't even need to comment forest burning, voluntarily or not.
>If CO2 were a real threat, Al Gore would be demanding all jets quit flying other than military aircraft TODAY
What alternative to jet flying do you propose ? I advocate HST lines in America, but it look likes those aren't for tomorrow.
CO2 is a real threat but there is currently no viable alternative to oil powered air flight.
>From Wiki--an example of pop science scares.
Wiki is not the unique reference. I link to them for practical reasons.
GW is not a science scare nor a scam, but an issue we need to tackle seriously.
I am not flaming cars. I advocate people having other choices than car or other oil burning transportation modes, which is not possible in today's US. Why having more choice would be a bad thing ?
So you think it is a lame argument? I do too when used by those trying to block further oil exploration. They always say it will take 10 years to see any oil from ANWR so lets not do it.
I do not believe we will drill our way out of the World energy situation. I do think it is practical to keep all options on the table.
I think US are going to struggle with recession this year. A good way to go out of this vicious circle is to launch key engineering/infrastructure projects that will in turn, create an incredible amount of economic activity
In theory I do agree with you on this. In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government. Look at the mess they have made with the ethanol boondoggle. Look at the banking and lending problems. Every thing they touch turns to wasted money. With little to show for it. There was a time when money could be spent on R&D and we would see good results. Not much lately I am afraid. It all ends up as corporate welfare into the pockets of the executives. From there it goes offshore to some hedge fund.
Here are a few references to it. Many of the PRO GW charts will make the period look similar to the current climate. That would be hard to prove as there is proof that Greenland was much warmer than it is currently. As was most of Northern Europe.
Many would like us to believe the debate is over. It is far from over and many have quit drinking the Koolaid served up by the likes of Al Gore.
Google medieval warming period
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html?ref=science
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don%27t-believe-it.- html
I oppose drilling oil from ANWR, not only for obvious environment protection reasons, but because I see in expensive oil an opportunity to wake people up and think about what burning oil really means.
If money was seriously invested in clean technologies /alternative energies, this would be a long term asset.
>In practice I just do not trust our Federal Government
So better do nothing ? Or wait for private investors to fill in the gap? I think we can wait for some more time
Did private investors advance the cash for US highways and bridges ? I speculate that if they did, it was only a small part of those.
It is up to the government to build the infrastructures the country is in need of. If we just rely on private initiative for this, they will concentrate on short term financially profitable ones only.
If we build rail lines, this investment can't disappear into smoke. Some rail lines are still in use 150 years after being built.
>http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html
When I scroll down and click on "conclusion"
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/conclusion.html
the author endorses the IPCC assessment report and even quotes
# The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), leading to very high confidence that the globally averaged net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2.
# Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/books/21book.html?ref=science
An interesting book describing the links between historical climate change and the rise and fall of civilizations.
Nothing that contradicts my views so far. On the contrary, it supports my thinking that CC wilI have a big influence on civilizations.
>http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
This is great, they also use IPCC data. We are in agreement.
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533290/Climate-chaos-Don%27t-believe-it.- - html
This one is challenging my views that Global warming is a serious issue. The author even consider that the IPCC chart depicting the mediaval warming was "edited". There is such a gap in the analysis that i am interested to dig it further.
If we every get to the point that profit is the only incentive, we will be in big trouble. Someone has to look at the big picture and try to balance the needs of a society.
Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming. Certain vested interest groups are doing their best to stop or limit research into climate change. On the other side we have people that are in panic mode that want immediate action when we still do not understand the issue well enough to implement a solution. The polarization of the debate between the right wing dingbats and the left wing dingbats has unfortunately set us back 20 years or more.
Vehicles are certainly part of the GW equation. The question is how much.
I suspect that we probably will see an increase in carbon dioxide for another decade or two. After that a lack of resources like steel and fossil fuels will start to flatten out the curve. Energy prices will increase to the point that people in general will be forced into a low carbon footprint.
Look at how quickly SUV and pickup sales tanked when gas went to $4 a gallon. If the current prices continue, which I think they will, we should start to see a noticeable change in CO2 emissions in the next 5 years.
The per capita use in the U.S. may decline slightly, but with the population increasing energy demand will increase, though that growth may be accomodated by renewable energy increases. Also remember that the energy cost increases aren't felt as badl around the globe as they are here in the U.S. The U.S. has been hit harder because of the decline of the $ vs. other currencies.
Also there are hundreds of years of coal and natural gas which will have their production increased. These of course are as carbon-based as oil. I was just talking to some people about winter-heating and whether they were using propane, oil, wood, or electric. The concensus was use more wood and electric. Wood emits carbon-products, and our electricity is mainly coal or gas-fired. If I get an electric-car in the next few years that will be powered by an electirc-plant burning more and more coal.
Unless someone knows how we would practically get > 50% of our electricity from solar and wind in the next 10-20 years, you can picture that coal and natural gas use are going to climb greatly.
Actually one of the 15 people or so I work with has just converted to a coal-furnace for his house. I can see that many more people will do so. I'm going to be cutting and burning as much wood as I can. Now if it were warmer we wouldn't burn so much fuel for heating.
Most inventions over the last 150 years were profit motivated. Even the vast store of products that are a result of defense and space research were done by those looking for fame and fortune. I realize a lot of R&D money is spent without showing a profit. That is not the motivation. Giving money to universities for research is mostly a good thing. Handing it to corporations in this day and age is questionable. Too much fraud and waste in our grant system. I saw a lot of it in the Arctic. People sitting for weeks in camp on the government nickel waiting for the tundra grass to grow and make measurements. Or hoping to get a clear day to try and spot a whale from a helicopter. With all of them sipping coffee for days on end. Millions are wasted on research that will gain US nothing.
Global warming is an issue, but, we really need to understand climate change not just any potential warming.
I agree with your assessment of the GW/CC issue. Too much hysteria at either end to get a clear picture. If Peak oil is upon US the problem should resolve itself in the next 50 years. Of course how are you going to stop those countries that have no alternative except coal? China is building ONE coal fired generation system per week last I read.
On that we totally agree. If the tropics become desert and the Arctic becomes a fertile garden the changes in civilization are going to happen. Should we go crazy trying to stop the inevitable? While I can see merit in your ideas of high speed mass transit. I do not see the will to get it done in this country. Most of US like our lives the way they are. We only make changes when forced by circumstances. That should be obvious by the recent high gas prices. People are buying higher mileage vehicles. A few at the bottom that cannot afford gas to get to work are taking the bus.
Have you heard any of our politicians on the National level pushing for HST? I have not. They are looking for alternative energy to maintain the status quo. More roads and money to repair old roads and bridges. The scope of HST for the masses is too big in this country to gain a foothold.
I think it was every month. whatever the figure, it is huge and the famous 3-gorge dam, despite its massive unit power of 26 GW, represents only 2% of the country total electricity need.
Why is the electricity consumption growing so quickly ? not only because of growth but because it is too cheap. Coal is too cheap in China and government also subsidize electricity somehow. There are talks about raising tarrif for power-greedy industries, but the larger they are, the more power they yield in face of local governments, which in turn grant them with cheap electricity.
Cheap electricity means a lot of waste
Aircon units set to freezing temps in open rooms/with open windows,
Poor SEER from climate control systems. Electrical apparatus with low efficiency (cause higher efficiency ones are more expensive), inexistant insulation, poor maintenance....
I not only support raising the price of gas but I also support raising the price of electricity. in China, we should no less than double it to create the shock that electricity is precious. This won't happen.
I remember my short time in California being a nice time, except for transport which was a very frustrating experience. Speed limits were so low that it drove me crazy, and I got stuck many times in the same traffic jams caused by everyone driving the same way at the same time.
We went once from LA to LV. This journey was boring to death, with the driver religiouly stuck at 75 in front of the open road. It looked like we were staying still on the highway. We took maybe 3 or 4 hours for a journey that would maybe take 2 hours with a HST.
I just can't understand how so many ppl in the US can be satisfied with being dependent (I would say prisoner) from one unique transport system.
I know you won't go to Europe anytime soon, the Euro being too expensive or the USD being too cheap. Should you have the opportunity to go to Japan, try their Shinkansen System. Impressively well designed and managed.
That corridor to LV is a good place to use autobahn speeds. Yet it is a big money maker for CA with all the tickets they write. Would a HST to LV from LA be a good deal. It would be great for LV. LV should foot the bulk of the cost. They will reap the benefits. How can you expect the citizens of CA that have NO interest in going to gamble in LV, to foot any of the cost of that HST? The populations that benefit should pay the bill. I used to visit my sister when she lived in LV. I flew a couple times. I hated the LV airport. It was a stinking mess of a place before 9/11. It took me longer to go to the airport catch the flight on SouthWorst cattle flight, than to jump in my car and drive. I am sure it would be the same getting on a HST in downtown LA for a trip to LV. For those unfortunates that would live within 20 miles of the HST station it may be an OK way to get to LV. The HST portion being the only good part.
I think most Americans would agree with me if they think it out. HST is NOT practical for most of the USA. Maybe a few VERY heavily traveled corridors. Replacing current trains with HSTs makes some sense.
If the USA was interested in saving fossil fuel and cutting GHG they would have embraced the diesel automobile when the EU did. Same can be said for HST.
We should be encouraging people to move away from the GHG causing cities to the country. Plant more fruit trees, eat a lot of peaches. I had fresh peaches from my trees on pancakes this morning. Life is good outside the city. Cleaner air and less noise & crime.
Find some big time financiers in LV and get started on that project Gary.
It can be your last hobby.
That is correct; and not the taxpayers of LV or the state. If the reason for the HST is to take tourists to spend money in the LV economy, then the LV casinos and other businesses should fund this. They throw several billion a year into new construction of casinos; let them build their railline if they wish.
Why haven't they done it yet though? Maybe because it doesn't make economic sense to do so. It costs too much to acquire the land right-of-way, build the tracks, buy the train, and operate the train then it is worth to bring a thousand tourists into the city. A few planeloads from LA works instead. 90% of the tourists come from other areas than LA. If it made financial sense I'm sure it would get built.
NYC-Atlantic City casino train startup delayed
A SoCal casino train (light rail) proposal back in '02 was voted down.
Aqua Caliente Tribe defends support of failed Proposition 51
I suspect a HST from NYC to Miami would be popular. Amtrak runs three trains a day back and forth as it is. The DC - Orlando Auto Train would probably be a lot more popular if it didn't take a 16 hours or so.
If cities are responsible for build nice new stadiums at taxpayer expense for bigmoney owners of sports teams to use..., why shouldn't taxpayers in LA/LV built their HST?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
If you and others not willing to put up your own money on a business-venture, it mustn't be too good an idea. It's more palatable to take others' money and spend it on a questionable venture right? And why would our politicians do that? Oh I guess it creates more jobs for their friends, and makes the wealthy business owners wealthier (who then support the politicians' campaigns).
Yes, if it's a workable venture private money would build it!
BTW I don't think stadiums should be built by all the taxpayers for individual owners to overpay athletes for couch potatoes to worship, when the athletes are not in jail (can you say Bengals?). In Ohio there's a sales tax for the county, State of Ohio money, and I forget what other that went to build the Reds and the Bengals' stadiums.
AND the same goes for trying to get the economy in a mess over carbon credit frauds and climate change and global warming without a bit of scientific proof it's anything other than the standard variations in the earth's massive systems. I was watching a program on History Channel about the magma from deep within the earth coming nearer the surface around Iceland. Do you think that could warm the areas where the Artic ice is? Or cause glaciers to warm and melt/move faster!
Cute terms like "greenhouse gases" and all make it sound even more like a massive distraction from the real business at hand.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I posted a report about scientists seeing for the first time volcanic eruptions under the Arctic Ice. I also posted the scientific study on the ocean temperatures that ARE NOT rising as all those scientists had claimed. Almost every day more scientific data comes to the surface challenging the so called consensus pushed by the media, the UN and those lined up to sell Carbon Credits. I can accept that the earth may be getting warmer. I cannot accept the politicized man is the culprit view of Climate Change.
Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice
By Jeanna Bryner, Senior Writer
posted: 27 June 2008 05:10 pm ET
New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.
Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface.
Until now, scientists thought undersea volcanoes only dribbled lava from cracks in the seafloor. The extreme pressure from the overlying water makes it difficult for gas and magma to blast outward.
But the Gakkel Ridge, which is relatively unexplored and considered unique for its slow spreading rate, is just the place for surprises.
Robert Reeves-Sohn of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts and his colleagues discovered jagged, glassy fragments of rock scattered around the volcanoes, suggesting explosive eruptions occurred between 1999 and 2001.
They hypothesize that the slow spreading could allow excess gas to build up in pockets of magma beneath the oceanic crust. When the gas pressure gets high enough, it pops like a champagne bottle being uncorked.
With news this week that polar ice is melting dramatically, underwater Arctic pyrotechnics might seem like a logical smoking gun. Scientists don't see any significant connection, however.
"We don't believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice," Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, "but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column."
The eruptions discharge large amounts of carbon dioxide, helium, trace metals and heat into the water over long distances, he said.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/080627-sea-volcanoes.html
Is it possible this has something to do with the ice melting?
Now consider what shape we will be in dealing with this natural climate change without any resources because we wasted them all trying to change something that was unchangeable.
I fear that humankind is in for a shock.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Carbon credits would be the equivalent/ are the proposed "secular" version of practices long past, but effectively have had the same effect: ZERO......................... Global warming? NO CARS during this period?
There are psychological archetypal deep seated needs these fulfull, however......So if ya make moo lah from the concept.....................
"Is it possible this has something to do with the ice melting? "
the answer is a resounding
NOT QUITE.
If that were a significant cause, all the anti-GW organizations and scientists would be standing on that report with a megaphone declaring the melting arctic ice as having nothing to do with GW.
Have you seen such events occurring?
From Wikipedia on the subject: "Globally, thousands of inextinguishable mine fires are burning, especially in China and India, where poverty, lack of government regulations and runaway development combine to create an environmental disaster. Modern strip mining exposes smoldering coal seams to the air, revitalizing the flames. Rural Chinese in coal-bearing regions often dig coal for household use, abandoning the pits when they become unworkably deep, leaving highly combustible coal dust exposed to the air. Using satellite imagery to map China's coal fires resulted in the discovery of many previously unknown fires. The oldest coal fire in China is in Baijigou and is said to have been burning since the Qing Dynasty."
It would be nice if the world could put its resources into putting out those coal fires instead of fighting wars, or, as the rich oil countries in the Middle East do, put all their money into palaces and resorts.
So you are saying that they are going to sacrifice our money because there are no virgins left?
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Centralia Mine Fire
Seems like we could put it out for far less than 42 million bones.
I don't know enough about coal mining of coal mines, but there ARE experts in this area.
This needs to be handed to someone competent like "America's Mayor Rudy" and get the dang thing put out.
My gosh - what year is this - 1888? We can't muster enough ingenuity and technology to put out a coal mine fire?
I didn't read the article but if I remember correctly, coal fires are tough to put out because the burn in the CEILING of the mine. You can pour all the water you want into the mine and it just runs along the FLOOR and out the many cracks in the rock. It's like trying to fill up a sieve.
I don't think you can send fire fighters in to attack it directly either because the fire works it's way into small areas and because of the toxic gases.
I may be wrong on this but thats seems to be how I remember reading about it.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
link title
So what was "WRONG" with
..."Palm trees grew in what would be Alaska, large reptiles roamed in northern Canada and the ice-free Arctic Ocean warmed to the equivalent of a tepid swimming pool."...
This is perfect. I've read about this before.
All we need to do is collect all that excess CO2 that people are making that some think is causing climate change. Then we put the CO2 into the mine to put out the fire. Just seal off all the entrances. The CO2 is heavier than air so pour it in one opening and it settles and voila, no oxygen because the CO2 has filled the mine!
And here Battelle is spending good public grant money for a study of how to compress CO2 into a rock structure underground to get rid of a gas causing global warming (some think). Of course the CO2 is going to migrate through the rock and escape into the ground water and carbonate it.. Fizzy water out the tap, anyone?
What's even funnier is the CO2 they're trying to get rid of is from a greenies dream process of making ethanol!!! The green ethanol produces a side product that's causing global warming (some think). :confuse:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Bulldoze those farming for the above: like : Burgundy? Champage? Napa Valley? etc etc etc???
And the cattle giving meat and milk emit, hold on to your hat, both CO2 and CH4 (methane)!!! :mad: :sick: :lemon:
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
He should have asked Al Gore, he has all the answers. Heck they gave him some kind of funky award because he knows SO much about Global Warming.
I speculate that a HST line from Portland to Miami would take about 7 hours. This would not be enough to beat the plane on those destinations, but would be still competitive in intermediate city to city transport.
There are maybe 30 millions people living along such a corridor. It may cost 100 to 150 billion USD. It would certainly make sense in the long term, but I don't expect private investors to have that kind of money.
Neither does the US government. We are $9.5 TRILLION in debt and a big chunk of our current budget of $3 trillion will add to that debt. Maybe after we pay that down a few trillion we think about HST. You will have to get through Congress. Each Senator has a state that wants something. You spend $100 billion on one state the other 49 want their share. That would be about $5 trillion in one bill to get a HST from DC to Miami or where ever. When the $25 billion was allocated in 1956 we had a balanced budget we were not adding to the National Debt. Our President was impressed with the German Autobahn and wanted US to have that kind of system across the USA. It was to be for every state at the time. What you are proposing will only benefit very small segments of the population. That is hard to get through Congress that wants to please the whole USA.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
PALM BEACH — The Donald's deal is done.
Real estate mogul Donald Trump on Tuesday closed the sale of a Palm Beach mansion to a Russian billionaire for the blockbuster price of $95 million.
"I love breaking records," Trump said Wednesday, "and this is a record."
It's believed to be the most expensive house ever sold in the United States.
"At the same time, I believe the buyer made an absolutely fantastic deal, and time will prove this right," Trump said.
The house, located at 515 N. County Road, was sold to an entity known as County Road Property LLC. Russian fertilizer billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev last month acknowledged he is the buyer of the Trump property.
Trump called the deal a $100 million sale, but the deed lists the price as $95 million, said Robert Brody, a West Palm Beach lawyer representing the buyer.
Sources say Trump paid all closing costs and brokerage commissions, including $665,000 in documentary stamps. Brody declined to discuss closing costs payments. Trump's Palm Beach attorney, Paul Rampell, declined to comment.
The sale marks a triumphant end to a bid by Trump to turn a troubled but prime piece of Palm Beach land into gold.
Trump scooped up the home, the former Abe Gosman estate, for $41.35 million in 2004 as part of the health-care magnate's bankruptcy filing. Although Trump performed a renovation of the property, the 6-acre property's real appeal is its 475 feet of unobstructed oceanfront.
The final price ended up lower than Trump's initial asking price of $125 million, and a hair under initial reports of a $100 million contract sales price. The house's final sales price was adjusted downward from $100 million during last-minute negotiations, sources said.
But the deal still is a victory for Trump and for the Palm Beach mansion market, which continues to prove resilient despite the crisis striking the real estate market throughout the country.
Trump can gloat when the Russian Billionaire is under water....
There is good and bad debt. Good debt is done with money borrowed for investment. those investments will create more growth and wealth, resulting in easier paybacks and improved standard of living.
Bad debt is done with money borrowed for spending. This is a case when a budget is not tight and that money is borrowed to cover expenses. Expenses don't create wealth nor growth. Some expenses are even counter productive.
The healthy way to keep a budget is to cut expenses, especially non-essential ones. Any new expense decision above a certain level should get through a strict validation process.
I don't agree with your view that infrastructure or major development projects should be halted, whereas many other less necessary expenses (welfare, military, credit rescue..) be carried further without reconsideration.
Maybe your view would be to cut expenses as to lower the debt. but with current economic situation, this means going straight into recession without alternate business model to break the vicious circle.
>That would be about $5 trillion in one bill to get a HST from DC to Miami or where ever
We are down to speculation. With this amount, I think there would be enough railways to criss-cross the country without setting foot in a car. This is not what I think is realistic.
>Our President was impressed with the German Autobahn and wanted US to have that kind of system across the USA
Why wouldn't the president be impressed by the High speed network in Europe or Japan ? I guess at that time he did not ask the question of the short term profitability of highways, and just considered it was good for the US.
Thanks to this, US enjoyed a nice period of growth and nobody argues today that it was a mistake.
Let us quit double standards and do what must be done instead of whining before high gas price and doing nothing.