Are we going to have winter?

[tiptap]

Having discussed the inhibitor feedback it would be important to mention positive feedback. You mentioned that ice lost would mean positive feedback. The big concern amoung climatologists is frozen methane. As a enviromental chemist you should have some introduction to this. The methane tied up under the ocean is quite large. But the exposure is more close to the shore (and includes shore in Siberia and Northern Canada) in higher latitudes. Methane with increase in temperature of a few degrees will become gaseous and not trapped. Methane ultimately adds to the COtwo but even as Methane it will as heat trapping gas. And this conversion could be cataclysmic. It is a real concern as ice retreats in the northern latitudes.

In the scale of millions of years this burb may have little effect (though a similar event is tied to the Permian Extinctions). But within the lifescales of human civiliztion of 10,000 years the 100 years of displacement as the climate shifts wildly even more so than now before settling down into some quasi equilibrium would be dire.

It would seem prudent to cut back rather than accelerate the gamble. And as the most advanced country it would seem we could choose to do the hard and right thing rather than the easy and profitable notion.

One of the hardest human understandings is to recognize when the status quo is an extreme position. To understand and anticipate when to change as opposed to reacting and being behind in changing.

Most studies in behavior whether it is economic, biological or otherwise tend to indicate we wait to long in accomodating change to our harm. We don't have confidence in the prediction of the future vs the evidence within our life. Well this thread is all about how we use to have snow and winters in Kansas or Iowa or Missouri. And now we have a blistery December and winter plays out for the rest of the season. So we have indications of change already, not just predictions.

So go back and look at the timing for prediction of change of even the most conservative predictions. And understand how large a ship that we will need to steer clear of the danger. And it is your responsibility to calmly ask for a more conservative direction in the economy rather than the rather peculiar outlier now (compared to so much of human history production) of such huge production of hothouse gases. I do think opportunities for industry will still exist. But energy plants don't want to lose their cash cow.
Reform in the energy economy requires distributed energy production. But that would mean the trend would be everyone producing their own energy. This parallels the distributed process in computing. We do have the technology to make a difference. The solutions are easily democratic and not autocratic. But it does require we all move in the general direction. And so this plea.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Having discussed the inhibitor feedback it would be important to mention positive feedback. You mentioned that ice lost would mean positive feedback. The big concern amoung climatologists is frozen methane. As a enviromental chemist you should have some introduction to this. The methane tied up under the ocean is quite large. But the exposure is more close to the shore (and includes shore in Siberia and Northern Canada) in higher latitudes. Methane with increase in temperature of a few degrees will become gaseous and not trapped. Methane ultimately adds to the COtwo but even as Methane it will as heat trapping gas. And this conversion could be cataclysmic. It is a real concern as ice retreats in the northern latitudes.

In the scale of millions of years this burb may have little effect (though a similar event is tied to the Permian Extinctions). But within the lifescales of human civiliztion of 10,000 years the 100 years of displacement as the climate shifts wildly even more so than now before settling down into some quasi equilibrium would be dire.

It would seem prudent to cut back rather than accelerate the gamble. And as the most advanced country it would seem we could choose to do the hard and right thing rather than the easy and profitable notion.

One of the hardest human understandings is to recognize when the status quo is an extreme position. To understand and anticipate when to change as opposed to reacting and being behind in changing.

Most studies in behavior whether it is economic, biological or otherwise tend to indicate we wait to long in accomodating change to our harm. We don't have confidence in the prediction of the future vs the evidence within our life. Well this thread is all about how we use to have snow and winters in Kansas or Iowa or Missouri. And now we have a blistery December and winter plays out for the rest of the season. So we have indications of change already, not just predictions.

So go back and look at the timing for prediction of change of even the most conservative predictions. And understand how large a ship that we will need to steer clear of the danger. And it is your responsibility to calmly ask for a more conservative direction in the economy rather than the rather peculiar outlier now (compared to so much of human history production) of such huge production of hothouse gases. I do think opportunities for industry will still exist. But energy plants don't want to lose their cash cow.
Reform in the energy economy requires distributed energy production. But that would mean the trend would be everyone producing their own energy. This parallels the distributed process in computing. We do have the technology to make a difference. The solutions are easily democratic and not autocratic. But it does require we all move in the general direction. And so this plea.

If it all comes to pass we will make adjustments to the situation. Human's are remarkably adaptable.

And the idea that everyone will be generating their own power is just ludicrous. Here on campus they have demo wind/solar unit. The people who sponsored it were disappointed that on what they considered a windy day (think breezey) that the wind mill wasn't really turning. It takes a lot of wind to drive a windmill. The solar units were not efficient enough to keep the batteries at the site charged. Once you are generating enough power for your house and to recharge your electric car and are completely disconnected from the grid, you can tell me about your experiences and maybe I'll listen then.

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by cdcox

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

I say we go completey Nuke, and put all the waste on a rocket and launch it into the Sun.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by redhed

I say we go completey Nuke, and put all the waste on a rocket and launch it into the Sun.

Yeah, that wouldn't be bad when a ring went faulty and it exploded in the atmosphere.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Yeah, that wouldn't be bad when a ring went faulty and it exploded in the atmosphere.

You doubt the quality of our space program?
Maybe wave action (oceans) is the answer.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by redhed

You doubt the quality of our space program?
Maybe wave action (oceans) is the answer.

I doubt the quality of anything run by any govt.

[Skip Towne]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

I doubt the quality of anything run by any govt.

Me too.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by cdcox

If it all comes to pass we will make adjustments to the situation. Human's are remarkably adaptable.

And the idea that everyone will be generating their own power is just ludicrous. Here on campus they have demo wind/solar unit. The people who sponsored it were disappointed that on what they considered a windy day (think breezey) that the wind mill wasn't really turning. It takes a lot of wind to drive a windmill. The solar units were not efficient enough to keep the batteries at the site charged. Once you are generating enough power for your house and to recharge your electric car and are completely disconnected from the grid, you can tell me about your experiences and maybe I'll listen then.

When you start advocating the construction of hundereds of new nuclear plants, I'll consider that you are serious about CO2 emissions. If we are going to shift our energy supply away from fossil fuels, nuclear is the only current enery source that will be able to bear the burden. Some other technologies such as wind can contribut 10 to 20%, but nuclear will lead the way.

I have little problem with Nuclear Plants. But new technologies can be inplimented. Dual grid systems one lower voltage for lighting say. Houses have been built very tightly that can be heated by just the water heater. But the cost can't be brought down and the energy production reduced unless there is a concerted effort. You want to discount the needed change instead of looking for solutions. You are still grounded in Adam Smith mentality in an information age economy. (Not that scarcity doesn't play a part but that we generate novel solutions with our scientific understandings).

This in face of the reality of the effects of greenhouse gases. There have been plenty of times that resilency and been exceeded and the result is dire.

[Frosty]

Four inches of snow this morning.

C'mon global warming, get it together.