Comments christophersj has made

Jabailo isnt real

Jabailo isnt real.  I think he's an invented person that the Grist staff inserts into the dialog.  Each staffer taking a turn.  That's why he sounds different from time to time.  This could be done just to keep things lively and traffic up on the site.

Just a hunch.On Inhofe's resident media agitator leaving to start a new climate-skeptic website posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

Ted Clayton

Dada would be a very unhelpful and unskillful method of communicating right now.

Dada has its time and place, but this isnt it.  Now is the time for clarity.On Lessons from cognitive dissonance theory for U.S. environmentalists posted 8 months, 3 weeks ago 30 Responses

David

That is an ideal position to have, I agree.  At the same time, he has the ear of Boxer, Obama, and a good section of the public.  So his reputation matters.On He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT posted 9 months ago 10 Responses

Jabailo

Hey Jab,

Your mom is calling you to dinner.On He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT posted 9 months ago 10 Responses

Something

Something has to run large trucks, cranes, and airplanes -- even if its less efficient than batteries.

I dont care if its hydrogen or Algal biodiesel.  But it should be more free of carbon, than natural gas.

These items are constantly ignored on these boards at Grist.

These arent passenger cars.On High energy requirements make the manufacture of algal biofuel prohibitive posted 9 months ago 35 Responses

Jabailo

And...?On On climate, how should progressives respond to the conservative strategy of 'obstruct and delay' posted 9 months ago 5 Responses

BillHook

I must be missing something.  How does a demonstration take away from the topic of a solid international agreement?  Its the opposite in my eyes.

Where and what is the "limited resource" that is being taken away from Copenhagen by this street demo?

I dont think this is a dichotomy.  Am I missing something here?On Authors of economic collapse advise us to stick with coal posted 9 months ago 25 Responses

Ted Clayton said

Ted Clayton said,

"You know, its just not worth it to speak out".

"Better not take the risk, its risky".

"Speaking out might have unintended consequences.  Better not do it."

and,

"The head that pops up gets cut off.  Better to keep down and quiet about things."On Authors of economic collapse advise us to stick with coal posted 9 months ago 25 Responses

Luntz Wallaby

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.  Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a PRIMARY issue in the debate".

-Frank Luntz
Republican Strategist in 2003On Does the New York Times also employ several know/do-nothing fact checkers? posted 9 months ago 11 Responses

I would enthusiastically welcome that

I would enthusiastically welcome thatOn Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public posted 9 months ago 13 Responses

AGW is not a group

Its not something you stand outside of, looking in, Ted.On Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public posted 9 months ago 13 Responses

Tom Friedman thinks so too

He thinks this should all be couched in terms of patriotism, and then the general public will sign on.  Its not a point of view without merit.On Dear public advocates for addressing climate change, posted 9 months, 1 week ago 7 Responses

Ted Clayton interpreter

Ted Clayton interpreter:

"Slow down.  Take it easy.  No need to rush.  Baby steps.  I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with anything.  Let's just talk for while.  Come on.  Sit and chat.  Relax.  Lets pour over these details in the corner here, and again tomorrow."

Ted, please tell us:  why would you wish to see some other person doing a "more effective" job of informing politicians about the science of AGW.

Do you wish for regulation of CO2 to happen "more effectively"?

What is your end-goal?  Are you here for choreographed tail chasing, or to help the knowledge and action around human caused climate and ocean change be "more effective".

You have an obligation to reveal your ultimate motivation to Grist readers.On Will U.K.'s prime minister act to address the biggest threat to Britain's youth? posted 9 months, 1 week ago 36 Responses

Ken, Ted, Russ,

While I too am vexed everyday by a lack of attention from Liberal Democrat media outlets -- from MSNBC editorial programs to Left political blogs (honestly, when is the last time Olberman or Maddow or Crooks and Liars devoted significant time to the environment), I have to say that the line of logic you gentlemen are using is dangerous.  This is very, very, counterproductive.

How can we get the votes for regualtion of greenhouse gasses without Congressional votes and the support of their constituents???  It has been shown again and again that several key legal guideposts must be put into place for the people and the market to flow through on their way to carbon neutrality.  We MUST have some popular support to get those laws passed.

This isn't an either/or thing.  Its an ALL OF THE ABOVE thing.

There WILL be both national and international regulation of greenhouse gasses within the next 24 months.  We need the core and the population for this.

A contraction or withdrawal or circling of the wagons is not an option.On Understanding polling in terms of core vs. general public posted 9 months, 1 week ago 13 Responses

Wait

Wait Jabailo, something isnt jiving here:

1.)  what kind of batteries were in the Seattle cars?  

2.) there are 2 very different reports on the Google plug-in hybrids and they dont match up:

Here is the low score the Seattle paper reported (on one of the individual test models)

http://www.google.org/recharge/dashboard/car?car=Garamba% ...

And here is the fleet average, which IS near 100 MPG mixed.

http://www.google.org/recharge/experiment/

Someone explain this.On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses

I hear you Dr. X

If by ad hominem you mean this part of the definition:

* attacking an opponent's motives rather than the policy or position they maintain.

Then that is EXACTLY what I wish to do.  Not as an attack per se, but to understand the nature of the foe.  Almost in a compassionate way.

I really think this answer could give us a tremendous amount of insight into diffusing this doubter's movement in the U.S. and Australia.  To know their base fear, at the root of their psyche, could inform a strategy for us in a very sophisticated way.

I am convinced that the original impulse of these folks can be understood as a  fear of a George Orwell-type oppressive government.  A smothering mother and father, curtailing individual liberty.  It explains almost all of the behavior and tactics -- from Bjørn Lomborg to James Inhofe.  All prejudices and biases born from that fear at the root of their minds.

I am confident that if this issue were to be addressed, it would diffuse a large portion of the denial movement, and the recent gearing up of their campaigns.

One quick example:  you would be surprised how many U.S. Republicans gave carbon taxes a second chance when they learn that it could involve an equal lowering of payroll taxes for the individual.

I don't think this is a quirky side issue, but rather, I am convinced it is the heart of the matter.On Washington Post is staffed with people who found no mistakes in George Will's denial posted 9 months, 1 week ago 20 Responses

Yes.

Yeah.  Its a shame and I hope it gets fixed.  Its awful to have a month of bad data.

And this changes anything policy-wise how?  And this addresses your internal psychological intentions how?
On Washington Post is staffed with people who found no mistakes in George Will's denial posted 9 months, 1 week ago 20 Responses

No doubt

No doubt you speak of some broad and generalized philosophical truisms there Ted.  And you do appear to do a lot of reading about the methodology.

But I dont see any link at all between what you are talking about and this past summer's report of "likely lowest volume of Arctic sea ice" from NSIDC.  If that direct connection comes up let me know, OK?

And no, I DO expect mistakes and imperfections can and will happen.  I DO expect models to improve in sophistication.

But listen:

My interest and emphasis is coming from the policy side.  And for that, the conclusions of all of the science (so far, and imperfect) combined are sufficient to make a rational and reasonable decision to reduce anthropogenic CO2 and methane to near zero.

If your motivation is pure as snow, and you only wish to keep the conversation as accurate as possible, then bully for you.  Awesome.

But if instead, you are revealed to be biased against regulation, then you are persona non grata my friend.

By the way.  Where are your postings on right-wing blogs about the mistake of conflating the current La Nina with a long-term cooling trend?  Surely your unbiased quest for accuracy has bitten at some of the right-wing blogs making leaps of faith too?On Washington Post is staffed with people who found no mistakes in George Will's denial posted 9 months, 1 week ago 20 Responses

Planes and ships

I'm still wondering about airplanes and ships and heavy equipment.

Maybe there is a place for hydrogen there?  Even with its inefficiencies.  So lets just raise the price on them and get them carbon free ASAP.On L.A. Times: 'Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars' posted 9 months, 1 week ago 77 Responses

Dick Cheney

I wonder if Cheney is reading it.On NYT breaks story on CO2 regulations ... after two years of Grist coverage posted 9 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

Oh

Oh, I guess my deleted post means that I did misinterpret the novelty of the NYTimes article?  OK.On NYT breaks story on CO2 regulations ... after two years of Grist coverage posted 9 months, 1 week ago 12 Responses

But Kevin

But Kevin,

Climate scientists ALWAYS acknowledge other climate forcers besides anthropogenic CO2.

Dr. Easterbrook is SUBTRACTING the greenhouse effect from his.

OF COURSE other factors like long term ice ages and orbits have their effect too.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

Virus

Virus is a good metaphor for the disease of misinformation campaigns.  Thanks Ted.

And it looks like we found patient zero:  an ignorant hick Senator from Oklahoma and his little secretary.
On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 1 week ago 19 Responses

2 things

2 Things

1.)  the moment NASA, NOAA, Scripps, Stanford, and the AGU all say the greenhouse effect is not factor, I'll be on board, buddy.  Until then?  Take a hike.

2.) All of this is moot when it comes to swaying CO2 regulation policy.  Ocean acidification, and the ease with which it is linked to fossil fuel burning, is all that is needed to make a regulation policy.

The madness must stop.

Morano is outed.  He's brings us harm on the taxpayer's dime.  It will be stopped.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

Ted Clayton

Are you equating nonviolent demonstrations with not being "peaceful"?   I want to make sure I understand correctly.  Maybe I misunderstood.On James Hansen wants you to join in civil disobedience at the U.S. Capitol coal-fired power plant posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 11 Responses

And why...

And why does Dr. Don Easterbrook need to get his climate science from a hick Senator's secretary?

Why?On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

What are

What are Dr. Eastbrook's qualifications on knowledge of the greenhouse effect?On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

Wow

Wow.  Its like finding patient zero in a virus outbreak.

And look at the vitriol over at the Wonk Room.  Its like an ant hill got kicked.  Oh my God.On Marc Morano's secret list of climate deniers posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 19 Responses

Interesting history

That corridor from San Antonio to Tulsa has a unique history.  That diagonal line follows the Balcones Fault.  That's where the coastal plain and the mud run into limestone rock and the hill country.

That exact path was used by:

• Wooly Mammoths migration trail
  
• Cattle drive trail from Texas to Chicago
  
• Interstate Highway 35

Friedman been on this for a while

I get huge amounts of grief from my friends for promoting the environmental message of Friedman.   But the fact remains that he has an audience that many of us environmentalists do not -- and that has value.

He's been at this for a while now.  Besides his excellent book, Hot Flat, and Crowded, he has brought the issue of global warming into the homes of millions via Discovery Channel specials and a now famous New York Times Magazine piece, "Green is the New Red White and Blue", where he reclaims the word "green" as a patriotic word.

In fact, it was in 2006 when Friedman came on Charlie Rose and spent an hour sounding the alarm about the lack of leadership on global warming.  It was a very clear and precise public attack on the Bush-Cheney environmental legacy, but was pro-American in its faith about the creative will of the people in the U.S.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/395

Now, lets wait and hear the haters chime in below this post...On Thomas Friedman enthuses over 'eco-friendly alternatives to fertilizers' posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 8 Responses

Ted Clayton

Your comment is confusing for me.  Help me understand.  How does science watering down the truth help get milquetoast climate legislation passed?

My, you're walking on pins and needles aren't you?On Will U.K.'s prime minister act to address the biggest threat to Britain's youth? posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 Responses

rbs

rbs,

That was a fantastic post.  Glad he's losing power in the Senate.On The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 23 Responses

Black Wallaby & Manacker

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly.  Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a PRIMARY issue in the debate".

-Frank Luntz
Republican Strategist in 2003

"Tobacco industry documents show that the industry created controversy over the dangers of tobacco smoking, and later passive smoking,[6] without actually denying the claims. A 1969 Brown and Williamson internal document describes the strategy:

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the `body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. ... Spread doubt over strong scientific evidence and the public won't know what to believe."  

The same tactics were used a generation later in the passive smoking debate. A 1988 meeting of the United Kingdom tobacco industry concerned Philip Morris's plans to use "vast sums of money" to fund research that could cast doubt on the health effects of second-hand smoke. Their intention was to "coordinate and pay scientists on an international basis to keep the environmental tobacco smoke controversy alive".[6]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_controversy
On There is no negative feedback in the climate system posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 51 Responses

I see

I see your point is that the Sierra Club may be too easily led to compromise.  That may be true, and then I would be a critic as well.

But then you then said:
"  I am not commenting on the effectiveness of Bruce's efforts, just the fact that it is not a movement"

In this case, we're talking about both CO2 displacement and traditional pollution displacement.  There is nothing more important than "effectiveness".  Who cares if it doesn't look like the costume you want it to come in?

If frickin Wal-Mart had the answer to CO2 emissions would you turn them down because they are Wal-Mart?On Voting has ended: Grist readers have chosen top eco-hero and eco-villain of 2008 posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 10 Responses

The main point before I go...

Thanks, Peter.

Manacker, I am highly confident in the relevancy of my points.  Thanks for the critique though.

You are correct.  I am engaging in polemic.  This is conscious.  Details are the last thing I want to discuss with you at this point because you are insincere.

I think the main message I want to leave with you and Black Wallaby is this, and then I'll leave it:

Because your nitpicking, which is noble in the abstract, is actually an extremely biased behavior, and not distributed equally among offenders, (Where is your online criticism of right-wing blogs equating La Nina with long term cooling?   I'm waiting...) you are both frauds and not who you claim to be in intention.

What you need to know is how obvious this is to the readers here.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 50 Responses

Manacker

Manacker

I DONT HAVE TO do original research.  I DONT HAVE to go to Antarctica and do ice core drillings that go back 650,000 years.  I DONT HAVE TO invent satellites and launch them myself.  I DONT HAVE TO set my own ocean buoys with instruments.  I DONT HAVE TO make super-computer models and update them with every new finding as it comes out.

I don't have to.  I'm not a scientist.  I just have to understand the results from the vast majority of credible sources -- evolving or not.  

Its YOU who has the burden here.  Not me.  Please spare me the false logic.

I have a job and responsibilities as a citizen that take up my day.  
There is a division of labor:

I am also not a cancer researcher, but I go with the majority of them on my dietary needs.

I am also not a strauctural engineer, but  I rely on the opinion of the majority of them before entering a high-rise.

I have also never seen the flu virus in real life, but I rely upon the vast majority of epidemiologist about my behavior and contacts with others when I am sick.

Were you the one who claimed the majority of science were crazy during the early 20th Century, during the North American Flu epidemic.  Was it YOU who said, "there are no small invisible bugs that spread disease, these guys are nuts!  They just want money for their research grants!"  HA!

What I AM is a rational and thinking human being - sans sociopathic paranoia.

So, no, I dont have to publish ANYTHING.  I'm not the contrarian.

But I AM an enthusiast and would love to see the majority of the climate science community swayed your way.  After all, who WANTS there to be a climate crisis?  Not me!  Thats sadistic/masochistic wish fulfillment.  I'd LOVE to NOT have this issue on our collective plate.

Spare me the minutiae.  Not interested nor qualified to engage on that level.  Go talk to Lonnie Thompson, or Hansen, or Ken Calderia, or Susan Solomon, or on and on and on...

See you in Copenhagen.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

No silliness here

You really don't comprehend what I mean by calling out BOTH left AND right wing bloggers who use specific events and draw a long-term conclusion?  Really?  I think Im beginning to understand the bias here.

Either you have spent as much time critiquing asanine conservative comments as naive liberal ones, or you have not.

Manacker said:
"There is also no "just right" temperature for our planet."

Yeah, except when you need to feed and water 8 billion people.

And on ocean acidification, your just out-ranked on every point.  Coal can take us to enough emissions to matter.  Many phytoplankton require calcium building blocks and will crumble under acidification.  Its already started.  Please stop while you are digging yourself a hole.

Sir, I'm neither ranting nor being silly.  I'm calling you out on bias and lack of credibility vs. other sources.  That's called responsibility where I come from.

I may lack grace, but it comes as a reaction to your offense.

You and Wallaby can stick to your 'death of a thousand cuts' tactics, where you use minute details to obscure the larger issues, but I ask you with all sincerity: use your analytical skills in a balanced fashion and add to the help we all need.

We definitely need accurate and sophisticated science.  And sincere criticism.  But the two of you have only sewn a costume that looks like that.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Marc Morano Lies

And for those of you who have not seen it:  here is a video of what Morano was saying on the boob tube the day of the 2007 IPCC release.

http://web.me.com/cjohnsonla/Site_5/Mark_Marano_Lies.html ...
On The entire conservative media is informed on climate science by the office of James Inhofe posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 23 Responses

By the way

And by the way, Manacker and Black Wallaby:

MY goal.  MY underlying intention and bias.  MY motivation.

is to ensure the same relatively stable climate conditions that allowed for the agricultural revolution in 10,000 BC up to the 20th Century.  Hopefully until the next ice age begins -- is my wishful thinking.

I dont want to control ANYBODY, but if populations dont get on board there will have to be some kind of incentive.  I prefer heavy carbon pricing from government combined with free market competition for meeting the new goals and lower prices, over draconian measures.

But the Japanese used military force with the Samurai to guard the cutting of forest and if thats what it takes in the end, then thats what it takes.  I think we should be able to avoid that drama.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Manacker and Black Wallaby

Thank you for your answers about your original intentions.  My assessment is that, intended or not, your "pure as snow" efforts to make the science more accurate are 100% of the time transmitted in a fashion that would seek to curtail carbon regulation.  And never the other way.

At least I will harp on my Liberal friends when they make an unadvised conclusion for an individual event:  like this past year's floods in the Mid-West of the U.S.  So my criticism goes both ways on that common mistake.  Where is your criticism of a conservative claiming that the effects from La Nina mean the Earth is on a long-term cooling trend?

Manacker

I dont feel "obviously confused"

Your first answer is almost sarcastic.  You DO give the overall impression that AGW is not a crisis issue. To say, "Climate is continuously changing on a global basis, as it always has and is today." is, by its very nature, a slippery statement meant to diffuse talks of action.

My criticism stands.

Your second answer has a wrong mathematical error somewhere in it.  I dont know what you have left out of your equation.  I'm not a climate scientist.  But I am a rational person and if you are asking me to believe YOUR scribbles vs. the likelihood estimates of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, and the AGU, even in their imperfections, then I am afraid you will be disappointed with my reaction.  It is unlikely you know more than these others.  Possible, but unlikely.

My criticism stands.  You DO argue both of these incongruous points.

1.) A long term warming trend is not happening

2.) It IS happening but humans are not responsible

If that is not your intention, then maybe you might look at your wording.  I'm not going to debate you on the minutiae, I'm telling you about the big picture impression you are making.

Black Wallaby.

Like Manacker your over-all impression is that of an obstructor to action.  OF COURSE the science needs to be as accurate as possible.  

OF COURSE the understanding of the climate crisis is becoming more and more sophisticated as time marches on.  OF COURSE some are tempted to draw false conclusions based on individual events, and they should be called out on it.  Those are noble points.

But the aggregate - the big picture - of you efforts is one of contrarianism and a intention to sow confusion and disrupt action.  If we could plot your comments on a graph, all of the dots would be in one corner.

Both of you:

AGW is a complex beast  - I agree 100%.  There WILL be a better, superior, more sophisticated understanding of it in the future.  But NOW, there is ENOUGH of a likelihood for rational people to take rational action, and bring humanity's industrial, agricultural, and transport CO2 emissions to ZERO.

And besides ALL of this above.  Ocean acidification is NOT complex.  It is 100% provable and attributed to humans.  There are no nuances to be had on this matter.  Even without AGW, that is reason enough to change out the entire engine that runs under the human race.

The community of countries WILL sign in December in Copenhagen, and there is ZERO effect either of your efforts will have upon that.

In the meantime, please, keep the bloggers honest.  But at least PRETEND to do it to the right-winger's silliness too.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Wallaby

What is your motivation?

What is at the base of your crusade?

Why do you only use the tactic of toying with the most minute details, and yet prove a false witness when it comes to your larger desires?

And when it comes to trying to derail CO2 regulation, what role does an obstructionist have when the entire topic of global warming has been flanked by that of ocean acidification,  which has none of the complexities of climate science and is 100% provable?

The answer is:  the role of the obstructionist is over.

Why not turn your skills into authentic skepticism, with a positive motivation, and help your society and Earth.  We need everybody.On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Black Wallaby and Manaker

Besides the fact that the two of you constantly make the mistake of citing specific historical events instead of long term global trends, there is another flaw in much of your arguments:

In this thread you are intending to give the impression that no general global climate change is happening at all.  And yet in other instances you concede the warming, but that its not the fault of AGW, but the sun or whatever your flavor is that week.

Which is it?  You cant hold both points of view.  You're just being contrarian for its own sake and jumping into different logic pools when it suits you.  Its like some kind of psychological addiction.

If you were really on to something, you would publish.  But you don't.  You know you would be a laughing stock.  So instead you spend your bored evenings on here, just being a wise ass.

Where is the value in that behavior?  What value do you bring to the world?

There are so many areas of climatology and oceanography that can benefit from sincere skepticism and further study.  But thats not who you are.  You are not a participant.  You are a dead weight and an obstructor to the situation we are dealing with here.

Get a hobby.  Get a meaningful relationship.  Volunteer.  Add something to the world.

Both Australia and the U.S. are going to sign in Copenhagen.  Howard and Bush are history.  Its out of your hands now.  Its 2009, not 2006.  
On Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in posted 9 months, 3 weeks ago 50 Responses

Dual news

Its interesting to note that this very same past week the Monaco Declaration proclaimed the same feature to ocean acidification -- the OTHER major CO2 problem.

The ocean scientists say that here to, because of the longevity of CO2 and the "clogged bathtub effect", it will be impossible for any sort of "healing" or "restoration" of either species or habitat, especially those comprised of calcium carbonates (shellfish and corals and pteropods).

Even with a complete cessation of our CO2 emissions, only a plateau of the acidity and damages is possible.  Not a return to the way it was before.  At least not for millennia.  Sounds a lot like the NOAA report for the atmosphere and land.

Of course this is all the more reason to act quickly.  Zero emissions ASAP.  Copenhagen. Ect.

After both of these reports (the NOAA one and the Monaco one) an ocean and climate scientist I spoke to said, "I dont know why people are surprised, we've known about this for a while."

Well, I didn't, and I suspect most of you did not either.  I naively imagined a century of zero emissions would start a reverse course for global warming or ocean acidification and their damages incurred.On 'Irreversible' climate change does not mean 'unstoppable' climate change posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 7 Responses

Right

Right I understand the possibility of a mistaken conclusion.  But what are you advocating?  Censorship?

I think if explained properly, the conclusion is, faster and stronger regulation of CO2 emissions down to zero.  With even MORE determination.

Now, that being said.  I also recognize some of my own denial and naivety in my first post no longer holds.  After consulting with a couple of ocean/atmospheric scientist I now understand the severity of the message:

There is no "restoration" that can happen before 1000 years or more.  CO2 and its damaging behavior can only be plateaued.On NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

After a week

After a week of an emotional and rational roller coaster over this NOAA study, and after spending time with an ocean chemist/climatologist, I am left feeling cold and grim.

The realization that our best efforts will only "freeze" a certain level of climate trouble, for more than a thousand years, rather than cause a "healing" back to "normal" in something like just 100 years, has darkened my mood beyond compare.

And the same "bathtub" analogy appears to be even more egregious when it comes to ocean acidification.  Much more.

Of course this doesn't sway me from being an advocate for the most radical and swiftest CO2 reduction policy.  It increases it.

But now, it is under a much more grim tone I didn't have before.On NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

Wolverine

Wolverine,

I was also worried about people taking the wrong conclusion away from this, so I sent out an email and Facebook post to anyone who would listen.  But make no mistake, the findings of this NOAA study are very, very important and actually INCREASE the swiftness needed for both carbon emissions stopping AND an effort at propagating carbon sinks for what is already there!

This is called the "bathtub effect" and here are some great links with animation and movies that explained it for me.  Its quite the important development.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/28/revkin-has-leading- ...

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/the-greenhou ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82357251433341106 ...

http://scripts.mit.edu/~jfmartin/sip/master/

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/an ...
On NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

NPR, Grist, and NYTimes = different details

This is interesting. The details are always developing, but before this study, EVERY OTHER study indicated that it could be turned around in 100-200 years.

This would indicate a major change in understanding.  Grist bloggers?  Where are you on this?

Let's keep abreast of the peer climate's community (other climate scientist) reaction to this publication. There could be an informed debate in the coming week.

And even so. The difference between a 2 degree C rise and a 6 degree C rise is the difference between Irish riots and Rawanda! If that "unstoppable 1000 year increase" is only to 2 degrees C, then we can survive as a species through mitigation and migration. All the more reason to enact a heavy price on carbon emissions now!

Thought #2

OK here is some critical information that sheds a bit more light upon this study, from today's New York Times article. Please note:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/earth/27carbon. ...

"The researchers describe what will happen if the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide -- the principal heat-trapping gas emission -- reaches 450 to 600 parts per million, up from about 385 p.p.m. today. Most climate researchers consider 450 p.p.m. virtually inevitable and 600 p.p.m. difficult to avoid by midcentury if the use of fossil fuels continues at anything like its present rate."

So there is a condition for being "irreversible" . Then this still coincides with  everyone from Bill McKibben to James Hansen to Al Gore, who are calling for a 350ppm hard cap on society's emissions. It means sacrifice and innovation, but it also means not going over the tipping point Solomon speaks of and the NPR and Grist story assumes.

And then Solomon (the study's author) goes on to say in the NY Times (and totally missing from NPR and Grist articles):

"Dr. Solomon said it would be wrong to view the report as evidence that it was already too late to do much good by reducing carbon emissions. "You have to think of this stuff as being more like nuclear waste than acid rain," she said.

Acid rain began to abate when pollution contributing to it was limited. But just as nuclear waste remains radioactive for a long time, the effects of carbon dioxide persist.

"So if we slow it down," she said, "we have more time to find solutions.""

Why are NPR and Grist leaving out the condition that is necessary for "unstoppable" global warming for 1000 years?On NOAA: Global warming 'irreversible' for next 1,000 years posted 10 months ago 15 Responses

She also

She also had a recent episode about "The house of the future" and barely mentioned ANYTHING about efficiency or electricity.On Oprah gained weight and confused the public about renewable energy posted 11 months ago 5 Responses

Jab

Katwink, this point has been made to Jabailo around 1000 times.  He's just trying to stir shit up because he has no life.  His foolishness is insincere.

He KNOWS he is incorrect.On U.N. talks set programme to a landmark climate pact in '09 posted 11 months, 2 weeks ago 5 Responses

Victim

Jab, since the election your latest tack has been one of the "victim".  Victim of name-callers.  Victim of a Stalinist Environmental movement.  Victim , victim, victim.  That isn't very "boot-strap" conservative of you, is it?

You probably bitched about being a victim all the way back in the 80's because you had to buy a car with a catalytic converter.  Oooo it was sooo evil, huh?

Its in your DNA to be a victim, I understand.

Why don't you do something constructive?  

I know others on here have decided to just ignore you, and that is most likely the wisest path, but I have to say:  You are a huge drag.  You have no real contributions that bring legitimate information or reasonable challenges to this community.  You just injure the efficacy of the conversation with your inane paranoia.

Please.  Go build something in your garage or volunteer in your community or write a novel.  Do you really want to go down in life being known just as a dead weight to some environmental blog in some corner of the Web?  How sad is that?

I formally request that you expand your horizons and leave this perch for good.   And I wish you a productive and healthy life.On Global climate deal? Yes we can, Gore says posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 3 Responses

The Mac issue

Right now there is no Mac love for the Clean Energy Project section at World Community Grid.  They say to check back soon for a Beta.  There are, however, other good causes there to donate computer time to, like cancer and AIDS.

Instead, I am looking at http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php

They have a Mac client specifically for working on climate prediction models.  I'm donating my time to them while I wait for the other guys to get their Mac stuff off the ground.On The World Community Grid sets its sights -- and processing power -- on clean energy posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

Biomusicologist,

I am highly confident that you are right about the war being a disaster, and even more so that you are wrong about Friedman's ability to have a positive impact on America's transition to renewables, especially with business-types and green-hawks.

Its already happening.  You don't have to like it, though.

Did you really think this transition would happen with just us peaceniks at the wheel?

Speed is paramount and its time to use the "tools" at hand.  I hung up my chastity belt a couple of years ago.  

Now my conservative relatives have more than 50%-70% of their homes running on CFLs which they purchased from Wal-Mart.  Wal-Mart and I did that TOGETHER.On Grist talks to Tom Friedman about 'green recovery' and restoring America's global role posted 12 months ago 10 Responses

dobermanmacleod

I cant speak for the average reader here, but the average poster here DOES understand the stakes.On Hansen and Danny Bloom inspire vicious hate speech on web posted 12 months ago 7 Responses

Biomusicologist

Biomusicologist, 2004 called and they want their whiner back.

Say what you will about his Iraq columns in the beginning of the war, Friedman has gone way, way out of his way to bring an understanding of the environment and global warming to the masses.  Many of these masses wouldn't give you or I the time of day.

Freidman is an ally who has the ear of those you do not.

You can poo-poo the resources of Friedman, Wal-Mart, and other easy targets (I have problems with them to), but we have to recognize where the heavy tools are for turning the rock of our society over.  Go ahead, stay a purist, see how how much impact it has on your Hummer owning neighbors down the street.On Grist talks to Tom Friedman about 'green recovery' and restoring America's global role posted 12 months ago 10 Responses

Jabailo

I dislike you very much and wouldn't hurt a hair on you if my life depended on it.  You're too cute, like Odie the dog in the Garfield cartoon.  I think most folks feel more sad regret and sympathy than anger towards you.

I do wish you would stop inhaling glue fumes, though.On Hansen and Danny Bloom inspire vicious hate speech on web posted 12 months ago 7 Responses

sorry

sorry, should have read:

 "$100 says this puts the word on the tongues of many who would have NOT thought of it otherwise."

SheeshOn I finally got to see Bill McKibben in action posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

Yes Biodiversivist

And speaking of biodiversity, Friedman specifically addresses it in his new book.  $100 says this puts the word on the tongues of many who would have thought of it otherwise.

By the way, both he and Al Gore were on the great CNN Sunday program, GPS yesterday.  Here on my blog I have a nice quality clip of it.

http://web.me.com/cjohnsonla/Christopher_S._Johnson_Websp ...
On I finally got to see Bill McKibben in action posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

This topic reminds me

By the way, anybody know what happened to Black Wallaby?  Was he kicked out or did he get a  job?On A taxonomy of denial posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

The Ford Escape Hybrid

The Ford Escape Hybrid gets better City MPG than a good number of cars up on that list.  Whats up with that?

I'm getting 36 in stop and go traffic and the engine isnt even running a third of the time.

I think this might be a bias with the authors because it appears to be an SUV.

Can we go by the numbers, please?On 15 Green Cars posted 1 year ago 27 Responses

Thank you Backcut

Thank you Backcut.  I will read it.

I wasn't aware that there were "camps" in the environmental movement about how to handle forests.  That is how little I know about this topic.

If anyone else has a position paper (at the basic level) that is environmentally concerned, but contradicts what I am about to read above, let me know.

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn The New York Times blows the bark beetle story posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

Backcut

Hey Backcut,

Some of us here are neophytes about "the ignored science" of forestry.  I mean, I know what erosion is, and riparian areas, and the bark beetle, but I think some of us could use a primer.  Sort of a "Forestry for Dummies".  

 I spend too much of my environmental reading time involving things like plug-in hybrids, and almost none about forestry.

Can you help me out or point me to a source of basics of the current situation in the North American West?

Thanks.On The New York Times blows the bark beetle story posted 1 year ago 14 Responses

AND...

And the Ford Escape Hybrid still beats this VW in City MPG.On Volkswagen Jetta TDI: 2009 Green Car of the Year posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

Hydrogen booster

What powers the electrolysis that made that hydrogen?  Would a hybrid battery have been a more efficient use of that original electricity?

I think, if anything, hydrogen may have a roll in heavy transport like planes and trains and big rigs, but not for cars and light trucks.

Even T-Boone Pickens now admits batteries are best for cars and light trucks, with plug-in hybrids being the bridge.
On Volkswagen Jetta TDI: 2009 Green Car of the Year posted 1 year ago 10 Responses

I dont understand

I  dont understand the lack of clarity here.  When else would there be the leverage and opportunity to change American autos forever?

The deal:  a bailout in exchange for a complete changeover of cars and light trucks (every single model) to plug-in hybrids within 5 years.  No change means no money.  It will be paid in installments when intermediate goals are met.

Do we want to be cynical or clever?

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn Nix fuel-efficiency requirement from Big Auto loan, says White House posted 1 year ago 11 Responses

Well...

Well, my interest is in SPEED of transition away from CO2 production.  I made peace a long time ago with the fact that greed and corporations can be a very powerful ally in this, especially if Congress makes the playing field lean that way for them.  Wal-Mart is a good example.  If it is profitable for them to go green, then that is 10000 times more powerful than a Sierra Club when it comes to CO2 displacement.

So my question is, with Pickens' NEW plan, which I havent seen recognized here at Grist yet, does this become something to support again?  It recognizes the superior position of plug-in hybrids for cars and light trucks.

I've been writing anti-Picken's emails and blogs for a while now.  But if wind is a big part again and he's only talking about NG for big trucks, then that starts to make me look at it again.

Im not saying I'm subscribing to anything.  This is something very recent that I just noticed on The Daily Show Wed. night.

We got to stay flexible and smart guys.  Rigidness is going to kill us.

I estimate NG would reduce big trucking's CO2 footprint by a third until "super batteries" or algae diesel or hydrogen becomes a reality.  Maybe a third reduction isnt worth the effort, maybe it is.  Oh and dont forget the reduction in sooty pollution too.  The L.A. port has a huge problem.  Its making people sick.On T. Boone Pickens' wind-power plans becalmed posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Bailing Out Detroit is Perfect Opportunity

Every argument I am seeing out there, except here at Grist, on whether to bail out GM and Ford seems to emphasize the short term economic concerns of the situation and forgets this could be an incredible opportunity for something much deeper.

Transportation accounts for roughly 1/3 of the United State's CO2 emissions.  And while token steps have been taken by the big 3, like Ford's Escape Hybrid or GM's Volt, Detroit has gone out of its way to subvert environmental law.  They don't just lobby against environmental protection, they actively seek to infiltrate government positions, like the Department of Transportation, the EPA, and Congress, with insiders and then corrupt the decision making process from within.  Witness the recent denial of a long-traditional waiver for California to enforce stricter CO2 emission rules after the DOT was practically man-handled by the automakers.  Rep. Henry Waxman is currently holding an investigation.

Now, they are hurting, and that is good.  They need to be in a kneeling position -- begging.  Its a perfect time for leverage.  Obama needs to cut a strong deal:  We bail you out and you make your entire car and light-truck line of vehicles plug-in hybrids within 5 years.  Full stop.  All of them.  You get a little of the money now, and we dole out the rest as you meet intermediate goals.  If you don't, we'll pull the (ahem) plug, and let you die.  End of story.  No re-dos.  Take it or leave it.

I'm a big supporter of American industry.  I bought a Ford hybrid because it achieves its goal very well and supports American jobs and ingenuity.  But its nothing more than a tiny baby step towards carbon neutrality, and Ford has almost completely buried any promotion of the vehicle.  And it does this not only in the face of the threat of dangerous global warming, but strangely, in the face of Toyota's financial successes with hybrids.  

At this point I look at myself and think, this isn't support anymore.  Its blind codependence with a violent drunk daddy in the house!  And he's reeling and swaying and asking for a ride to the liquor store!

Put the thumbscrews on Detroit, Obama.  Make them beg and then make them commit.  All new cars and light-trucks converted to plug-in hybrids within 5 years, or not even a dime will fall in your laps!

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn Pearlstein: 'A Detroit bankruptcy beats a bailout' -- but what do you think? posted 1 year ago 29 Responses

That was

That was for JabOn Scientists eye rock that converts CO2 to solid mineral posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

Obama gives up carbon caps?

The New York Times today implied Obama will no longer emphasize carbon caps.  But the wording is cloudy:

Sunday's NY Times:

"On energy and climate change, Mr. Obama's focus has shifted markedly over the course of the year as the economy has weakened.

An earlier proposal put an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gases, requiring industry and utilities to buy credits from the government to emit carbon dioxide. That plan would produce hundreds of billions of dollars in government revenue and drive up the cost of energy for everyone.

Mr. Obama is now emphasizing a program to spend $150 billion over 10 years to develop renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar and biofuels, and to encourage energy conservation in homes, offices and public buildings. He would also provide substantial financial help to the auto industry to develop high-mileage and electric cars. JOHN M. BRODER"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises. ...
On What can greens expect from Obama? posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

You should publish

Jabailo, you really should publish your well researched counterpoints to the many, many peer reviewed papers out there.  I'm sure that the journals would find them fascinating.  

Aren't you a peer?  Where is your dialog with the poor misguided scientists?  In this case, you would need to speak with teams from UK, US, and Japan, who have been studying and refining the process of observing for years.  So much so that even a former critic of their methodology complimented them this time around.  http://tinyurl.com/68dbbc

You can start by telling them what you tell us every single god-damned day:  That your back yard is fine, so you know better.

Being a contrarian has its helpful and unhelpful points.  Why not spend your time helping in the areas of less confidence (like hurricanes) than in the center of a fairly well understood theory?

Otherwise it seems you are wasting your time and spinning your wheels here.  

And if policy influencing has been your goal then you lost that battle when both McCain and Obama became the front runners.  And that was a while ago now.  There is a 100% chance carbon will be heavily regulated.  As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow.  So you could have no influence upon that at this point.On Polar warming directly attributed to humans, study says posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

Great

Great and insightful review.  Friedman is an important ally.On My review of Tom Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

The Ford Escape Hybrid

The Ford Escape Hybrid ends up being near $30,000 after all of the taxes and everything is signed.  Looking forward to plug-in conversion soon.

At least it still beats a Toyota Yaris in City MPG.

Oh, and I second the call for carbon fiber bodies.  Amroy Lovins has great demos of this.

-CJOn Is a 40-mile all-electric range too much? posted 1 year, 1 month ago 20 Responses

Mreinbold

Mreinbold,

All trolls everywhere are truth tellers?  Really?  Is that really what you want to say?  What a significant contribution to critical thinking.

On this subject:  the saddest thing about the trolling is that it is out of sync by about 4 or more years.  The community here at Grist is in "creative solutions" mode, but the trolls think we are still trying to prove something.

Its like gravity.  The Grist crowd is talking about parachute making and the trolls are still in their cave saying gravity can't be 100% accurately described so it doesn't exist.   So its not even in the same universe.  Its not just trolling -- its bad out of sync trolling.

Really effective and in-sync trolling would be much more fun and relevant.  Something like "man, corn ethanol rocks, screw tortilla prices!"On More Couric and Palin, on drilling and climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 29 Responses

another forum request

Another really basic request for the forums -- a feature I get on the most basic of them -- is an email alert to the current conversation getting updated.

This alone would be very helpful as we all lead busy lives, except Jabailo, and could use a reminder to look back at the issue.  I miss a lot of good points because time and attention march on.On More Couric and Palin, on drilling and climate change posted 1 year, 1 month ago 29 Responses

Yes there is

Every expert I have heard has said that there is time if major steps are taken this decade.On Last year's world CO2 emissions exceeded most dire IPCC predictions posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

Paleocon

Palecon,  I have read your comments and response three times now and I am still at a loss.  Are you high?

I'm not advocating class warfare in any way.  There is a 100% chance carbon will be regulated because both presidential candidates claim they will do so to one degree or another.  How can this be interpreted as anything other than a plain fact.

Take a deep breath, then read what the actual scientists who study the climate are saying.  Then look at the opportunities that can come with our energy transition to renewables.  I'm driving through West Texas today and I see a win/win situation:  thousands of wind turbines and jobs and profits on every horizon surround me for miles and miles and miles, all the while reducing the potential global warming catastrophe.

The train has left the station.

The egg has been fertilized.

-CJOn Conclusions of 'hockey stick' graph stand up to further scrutiny posted 1 year, 2 months ago 20 Responses

"I'm trying Ringo"

"I'm trying, Ringo.  I'm trying real hard to be the shepherd..."  -Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction

This is pure hatred of the biosphere and I need your guy's support to find my nonviolent center today.  Any URL links to meditations intended to foster nonviolence and mental calm?On Bush admin tries sneaky attack on endangered-species protections posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

What about large machines

What about large machines like airplanes, locomotives, 18 wheelers, space craft, and construction equipment?  Isn't hydrogen a "battery" that could work for these machines?  I cant imagine enough Lithium-Ions for a 747.

Also, although I am aware of some of these problems for hydrogen, and that energy is lost during the process of storage, but how does it compare to even the best batteries today?  Is there a comparison chart?

Why be so negative about a battery that doesn't lose its charge over long periods of time and can be used as a "currency"?  So home use may not be ideal -- so why throw the baby out with the bath water?  I could see large 18 wheelers and trains using the fuel at special stations in industrial sectors.

And if our PV and solar thermal and wind are becoming so much more efficient and powerful, then perhaps they WILL provide more than what is needed at peak day times.  Why not store it then?

These are sincere questions from me as an environmentalist.  I certainly do not participate in this strong pro/con game around hydrogen and don't understand the political references made here around it.  How can one be politically biased about a battery?  It either works better or worse than other carbon free  techniques and one chooses the most efficient.
On 'Major discovery' from MIT unpractical, and ignores present advances in solar baseload posted 1 year, 3 months ago 22 Responses

Hey Tasermon

Hey Tasermon,  thanks for engaging,

How many production vehicles with the weight of an Escape get average 34 in the city?  NONE.  I get the utility of an Escape and the milage of a very small Japanese car.  

If you are going to compare an SUV with a Prius, then yes it produces more CO2.  But its better than a Yaris or a Matrix.  Its  better  than an Accord or a regular Civic.

Lets compare it to another hybrid SUV, not even a big one.  How about the Toyota Highlander Hybrid?  The Ford gets 10 more MPG and cost 10 grand less.

I use it 90% in the city where I haul video equipment around.

 And on the highway I'm easily getting 34 - 35 MPG while going camping somewhere.  

No way is this perfect and in no way is this adequate for where we need to go.  The plug-in version will be coming out within the next 3 years.  If I save enough money, this current Esacpe can be converted to plug-in because, like the Prius and unlike the Honda, its a full hybrid, able to go completely into electric mode.

The main point is that I'm sitting in traffic here, looking at many, many folks in smaller SUV's and mid-sized sedans getting horrible city MPG, and I'm wondering where the campaign is to attract them to this version of the Escape?  A form factor they would obviously be comfortable with.

Now on to sooty/particulate/evaporative emissions.  I live in Los Angeles.  As a bonus, while I'm in traffic, my engine is completely turned off.  In fact, the engine doesnt run for 1/4 to 1/3 of the time I am driving.  In combination with that and the extraordinary evaporative controls, the Escape Hybrid is probably the cleanest production ICE every made in American history.  The ratings don't go any higher for a vehicle with an ICE engine inside.

So, yeah, in no way is this perfect.  But for 2007 to 2010 its my solution to reducing my carbon footprint (besides living close to work, CFLs, 3Rs, ect.)  And I KNOW that many average folks, if they knew about its stats, would jump on it and it would be like a bunch of Yaris' running around the city and not a bunch of Explorers!

As an example, I got one of my freinds in Houston to exchange her Explorer for an Escape Hybrid.  She is very happy and would not have bought a Prius I do not think.

As a meaningless footnote: Gore, Edwards, and Clinton all drive this vehicle.
On Surprise first-quarter profit for Honda, unsurprising giant loss for Ford posted 1 year, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Jabailo is RIGHT

Jabailo is RIGHT!  You should ALWAYS judge the validity of AGW on the weather in your back yard.  ALWAYS!

:-/

-CJOn Most sunscreens ineffective or pose a health risk, says group posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

Jon Rynn

Hi Jon, we are discussing your point at this other Gore thread on this site.  There was confusion about Gore's goal and whether it was just for electricity or all carbon sources.  Even live audience members were having to carefully parse the words.

http://www.grist.org/news/2008/07/17/GoreDC/
On Blogosphere responds reservedly to Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity posted 1 year, 4 months ago 14 Responses

Ben Carmichael

Ben,

That is a nice blog, and I love the NRDC, but even after all of the discussion about this above, and on your site, the article you wrote and provide a link to still says:

" his proposal to move America to carbon neutrality by 2018. "

Can you correct this to say "carbon free electricity"?

I wish you and the NRDC magazine well.On Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

And again Charles

And again Charles, on the front page of this very site,

"Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?
Blogosphere responds reservedly to Gore's call for 100 percent renewable energy in 10 years."

OK I'm done with my examples.On Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Good examples Charles

You mean besides Grist, Climate Progress, and the NRDC blog, On Earth? Who else has misstated the thesis?

Well, looking at the exact sources you mention, you are right, those headlines do get it right.  Bravo.

But I heard over the day, at least 5 times , from NPR to CNN to MSNBC,  teaser lines and introductory sentences that totally messed it up.  That, combined with the big environmental blogs getting it wrong, really made me scratch my head.

I have no idea if the stories you cite changed throughout the day.

And of course one hopes that plug-ins make the two issues into one single issue about electricity.  I know I do.

But It has not been evident to me in commentary and postings around the net and on television/radio that the majority understands that Gore made a somewhat confused distinction between "energy" and "electricity".

And I say all of this as a co-advocate.On Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Media misunderstanding the speech

My point was that his stated goal is being MISSTATED  everywhere in the media today.  I'm the biggest Gore fan around but his speech purposefully conflated the issues of oil use and his stated goal (replacing current carbon sourced electricity) that had almost nothing to do with oil!

The media are quoting him as saying "get off of all carbon ENERGY in 10 years"  and he said no such thing.On Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Ten years

Ten years.  Wow.  I've always subscribed to the Amory Lovins goal of the 2040's for complete withdrawal.  Ten years.  That is inspiring.

By the way, Gore said "electricity", not "energy".  Did he leave the transportation sector out of the equation on purpose?  He only spoke of buildings and homes and industry -- at least from the portions I heard by jumping from channel to channel.

My bet is that CSPAN runs this in its entirety tonight.On Al Gore details plan for exclusively carbon-free electricity in U.S. by 2018 posted 1 year, 4 months ago 21 Responses

Most important story on Grist

This is the most important story on Grist.

That's it.  The eight years are over and we can let go of that now.  It was never going to happen.

George, you are off-the-hook, baby cakes!  Congrats on a damn well played game!  HA-ha!  You won!

You did teach me a few things, though:

•  Money is always more powerful than the will of the people or the reasoning of science.  

•  Until a dollar price is put on carbon, and alternative energy cost less per kilowatt than coal/oil, there is a zero chance of anything ever happening on this front.  Ever.  It is as absolute and fundamental as that.  

Wow, you know what?  I don't know about you, but this is kind of a weight off of my shoulders.  Whew!  Breathe out.  Whoooosh.  Better than yoga, man.  Yeah, it feels good.  Kinda fatalistic instead of having to fight.  Nice.  I'm thinking huge vodka and cranberry tumblers (big ones) and poolside lounging now.  Maybe a pedicure.  Fuck it.  

Its been fun y'all!  The first decade of the millennium was a riot!  Epic fail.  See you in 2009 when there is a possibility again -- Obama, Copenhagen, ect.  Until then its party time as far as I'm concerned.

-Christopher
On Bush admin gets senior-itis, says it won't decide on emissions before term ends posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

The funny thing

The funny, and tragic, thing about this is that particulate pollution actually masks global warming and cools the Earth.  The forcing for warming still happens in the background, though.

The more we clean up sooty particulate pollution, the more global warming comes to reveal itself, all other factors being equal.  But of course we have to mitigate both.

There is an excellent PBS NOVA episode about this.  It was not a popular episode and is only available via WGBH if you say you are an "educator".   The episode title is "Dimming the Sun".On EPA says climate change could worsen smog levels, extend smog season posted 1 year, 4 months ago 6 Responses

Slightly ahead?

Slightly ahead?  The cars come out almost half the CO2!On Umbra on driving versus flying posted 1 year, 4 months ago 10 Responses

AHA

AHA!  Now I know you're a Grist staffer in disguise just trying to keep the posting lively.  Tee-hee... funny...On U.S. driving declines posted 1 year, 4 months ago 18 Responses

Huge story

I think this is a huge story.  And the SECOND story of the week concerning this whistle-blower in the EPA and the White House.

It looks like, except for AP, this was released late in the day and got lost in the shuffle.  Let's hope it gets more coverage tomorrow (Wednesday).On Ex-EPA official details White House interference on climate action posted 1 year, 4 months ago 15 Responses

Natural Gas

How much less CO2 does burning natural gas compare to gasoline?

How much less particulate/aerosol ?

My elementary understanding of this says NG is much better, but not sufficient to get us to a 80% by 2050 goal.  Is this your understanding as well?

There are neat ideas out there that parallel Honda's home garage unit that reform NG into hydrogen.  Maybe a CCS system can be attached to that?

Honda's current NG Civic (with home garage unit) is known for being particularly clean.

But maybe this is all second rate goods compared to what we really need to be doing.On Texas oilman unveils Pickens Plan to avert U.S. energy crisis posted 1 year, 4 months ago 12 Responses

MAD MAC

Mad Mac, its funny that you ask because one scientist who spoke at the same TED conference as above, demonstrates doing exactly that.  But there can be unintended consequences.  

Check out this video at TED of David Keith and spewing sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/david_keith_s_surprisi ...
On Venture capitalist John Doerr shares four lessons on climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

MAD MAC

I does beg the question, though, why was it so much colder at the turn of last century? There appears to have been a cycle that lasted quite a while where the temperatures were dropping almost, not quite, as fast as they are rising right now. I would be curious as to what the cause of that was..

Good question.  Climate scientists ALWAYS leave room for other forcing agents on the climate.  The mainstream theory goes like this:

Even though more and more CO2 will have a correlate of increased global average temperature, other forcing agents like volcanoes, El Ninio, La Ninia, particulate pollution, ect., can mask or hide those effects for a period of time, but once that temporary event is over, the CO2 cause will be there waiting, and stronger than ever.

A classic example of this is Mt. Pinatubo eruption in 1991.On Venture capitalist John Doerr shares four lessons on climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

Larry9247

Larry9247 said:

Human induced climate change is a myth
Worldwide temperatures have not increased in over ten years.

 Here is the NASA graph that demonstrates global temp rates.  You can clearly see that you have stated a lie.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

By the way, you do know that cigarettes don't really cause cancer, right?  You should go buy a pack right now...On Venture capitalist John Doerr shares four lessons on climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 24 Responses

A little review

Just a little review of some important points further up this discussion:

•  If one is going to make a large centralized solar plant in the desert, a real world impact evaluation has to happen that weighs the pros and cons of habitat disturbance vs. carbon free energy, reducing global warming and thus reducing large scale environmental problems.

• new studies have shown that desert crust and brush are a significant carbon sink, and some solar installations scrape all of this away.

•  Because we want to replace all coal AND petro-fuels at once, rooftop solar and energy conservation alone are not likely to be enough to provide society's needs.

• The video posted above shows Germany with solar arrays with vegetation and grazing animals in harmony.  It also shows the use of long stretches of already disturbed highway easements, bordering the road, used as a place to run solar panels and transmission lines.

Am I being heard?

Am I being heard correctly?

It is EXACTLY because we know of Wal-Mart's motivation that we can make them a tool for the fast and substantial change of many, many ignorant people who are not going to do the right thing on their own.

It may be cynical, and it may be elitist, but I dont think you are going to get the millions and millions of people out of Wal-Mart in 20 years.  I think they are too under-educated and selfish.

But if the bargain bins at all of the Wal-Marts in the world are telling these masses that this here $5 solar panel is going to knock off 25% of their electric bill, THEN you have MASSIVE movement QUICKLY.

All of this movement also requires a price on carbon, of course.

Do you guys understand the difference between what we would LIKE to see happen in the future and what our tools actually are, here in front of us?
On Wal-Mart gobbles up local produce posted 1 year, 4 months ago 23 Responses

The German Solar Highway

Please update us on German solar PV

Ask you shall receive.  Here is a great video clip.

http://web.mac.com/cjohnsonla/Christopher_S._Johnson_Webs ...
On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

Cut the wires then

So, what if it doesnt need to be on the grid at all?

If transmission is one of the main issues then what if a centralized solar-plant is used to only produce hydrogen for large trucks, trains, ect.

Even if local generation powers all of our personal electric cars and buildings, the heavy machinery, trucking, trains, and other large craft still need a more robust fuel than just batteries (I assume an 18 wheeler or a locomotive would need a liquid or gaseous fuel) .  Why couldn't that be hydrogen produced from a solar-plant?

 Still, just as with refineries, train and truck transport would need to come in and move the hydrogen to markets.  It should be near something like the Interstate 10 or 40 or 80 corridor in the Western U.S.   In fact, even if a pipeline were needed, it could follow the Interstate HWY.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

More than 50% agreement

You seem to have the misconception that the plants and the bunnies will still exist beneath the solar collectors. This is not what happens. Rather, the entire area is scraped bare.

You're right, that was a misconception of mine.  I was imagining the wind farm here near Palm Springs.  Brush and bunnies do exist among those.

And desert plants do have value, even if you only value them as carbon sinks.

I saw that recently as well.  Then the math will have to be done about how much CO2 is displaced by the solar-plant or the native ground.  And perhaps the whole way the solar-plants are designed has to be re-drawn.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water may not be wise here.  Creative design and changing technique has changed everything from airplanes to surgeon's tools.  Maybe the mirrors need to be on stilts, maybe they need to have huge gaps between rows -- I don't know.  But there are thousands of examples in history where a re-design has changed the whole game.

If the facility is far from existing transmission lines, how much impact will those new lines have, how many resources (think open-pit copper mines) will be used, how many greenhouse gases will be released in this construction?

In fact, the EIR on the Sunrise Powerlink shows that this 150-mile power line will cause greater greenhouse gas emissions than would be saved by the renewable energy it is promoted to carry.

Really?  For what length of time is that being measured.  That is difficult to believe.   Perhaps that particular plant is a bad idea, but doesnt mean another plant in another location is not a good idea.

Those are the sorts of questions an environmental review is made to answer,

I have never been against a real review.  On the contrary.  And any company that said "why do we have to follow environmental laws" deserves a swift kick in the nuts.

It sounds like we actually have a significant amount of overlap in our ideas about this.

Also, please show me the coal-fired power plant that will be decommissioned as a result of these solar plants.

When alternative energy is up and running at large capacity and cost LESS than coal per Kilowatt?  And throw in carbon taxes on top of that?  Are you kidding me?  Coal plants will be shutting down everywhere!  I'm willing to bet cash on that.

Efficiency and conservation first, local solar second, distant solar third.

Ideally, yes.  But there is a 100% chance we will need all three of those.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

I'll take the Man

I'll take "the Man" over a 4 degree temp rise ANY DAY.

And honestly, this is a false choice.  We need BOTH.

I agree that local and individual power generation is better. Duh!

I agree that large corporations take advantage of the people. Duh!

I agree that endangering the sustainability of a species is immoral.  Duh!

I agree that reasonable environmental impact studies have to be done.  Duh!

But if you look at the raw power needs, even with the changing of lifestyles and efficiencies, that include replacing BOTH oil AND coal, I think you will find that we need generation locally and at large plants, just to make enough.  Unless some unforeseen tech is around the corner.

It is immature, and according to a desert ecologist/specialist here on the Grist boards, inaccurate to portray the Southwest deserts as not having some redundancy (species-wise) and ability to support some shaded areas.

This is an interesting intellectual debate we are having, but you and I both know that BOTH local AND central power are going to happen.  Lets do it smartly.

The goal for many of us here is to not be purist, living in a romantic fantasy with white robes, but simply in a sustainable relationship with the biosphere.

Hippo wallows and beaver dams and fire ants all have their environmental impacts and we will too as a fellow animal.  But the real story is about sustainability.

If shade from solar facilities causes ecological collapse or extinction of a species or poisons ground water in a desert please let me know and I will join you in a protest of that facility existing.

Please don't offer false choices.  Lets all be smart and holistic about this and eschew our 1990's "Ishmael" masturbation fantasy.On BLM reverses stance on solar-project moratorium posted 1 year, 4 months ago 37 Responses

Re: Cheating models

Yeah, they shouldn't have done that.  Its a shame.

I am sure there is bad science in any field.  That's why there is peer review, conferences, and public journals.
On Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

And...

And you can talk to Amory Lovins about more specifics than I can provide.  I'm just a dude with a day job who comes by this forum from time to time.

Pssst.  By the way, you know that BOTH McCain AND Obama have said they are going to regulate carbon.  So why are we even talking about it at this level?  This train has already left the station.On Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

My understanding

I am not an economic expert, as I said in my first post.  Someone credible here correct me if am wrong.  This scenario below is as plain as day and answers your question:

Tomato soup from a carbon free company will cost less than tomato soup from a polluting company.  The carbon free tomato soup company will make sell more and more profits to pay for their new CO2-free energy and equipment and hire more workers.  Basic economics will dictate the rest of behavior.  

Don't you have faith in the entrepreneur and the creative passions of competition?

And this DOES reward individual behavior.  I am rewarded for buying carbon free tomato soup by paying less for it!!
 On Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

2 reasons you are wrong Jabailo

2 reasons you are wrong Jabailo.  You are a liar.

1.) every tax or cap and trade proposal includes relief for the consumer, especially low income consumers.  The current bill that your Republican friends just killed in Washington had those amendments.

Its not a new tax, its a tax shift.  Stop lying.

2.) a tax shift, with its punishment and reward for industry behavior, will do one million times the amount of good as a tiny hand-out to the poor.

And finally, these "taxes" are the most gentle and pro free-market way to start this endeavor. Its pro free-market because it  assumes faith in the creative competition amognst private industry.

 If rejected, the next steps to accomplish the desired goal can only be more disruptive, uncomfortable, and harsh.  Beware of corporate propaganda claiming that this is "big government" wanting to tax the consumer to death.  It's not.  It's the will of the people who wish to see a sustainable world for their grandchildren.

-ChristopherOn Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

Right

Right, most tax proposals I have heard make it revenue neutral for the consumer -- no money lost to the individual.  It kills Republican arguments.

Now I am a neophyte when it comes to economics, so someone tell me why having BOTH a cap and trade AND a tax cannot be done?  Al Gore told Hillary Clinton that it could be done on national television when he had his 2007 congressional hearing.

Is it a false choice between the two?On Day five of the UN Dispatch-Grist collaboration posted 1 year, 5 months ago 21 Responses

Yes

Yes I agree that over-consumption is a major factor.

By the way, check out the new movie from PIXAR, titled "Wall-E".  Its about over-consumption on Earth.  Amazing animation.On Even U.S. government says human emissions are changing climate posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

2=5

OK now I say 2 and mean 5.

 :-)    Couldn't stop myself with such foolishness going on.On U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Wolverine

Wolverine, in a perfect world living just a low impact "natural" style would be enough but with the population we have I think  technology will still play a major role.  There isnt enough room for everyone to be hunter/gatherer or agrarian.

I see no difference between the bow and arrow, plow, pulleys and sails, and a solar panels and low carbon producing jet planes and cars, and large properly managed shellfish farms.  Its how they are used.

At this point isn't SUSTAINABILITY the important goal for all, even if lifestyles differ?

Can't the slick and futuristic AND the earthy and wholesome BOTH be used for getting 7 billion people to live a sustainable life?

Forcing a certain kind of window dressing on some folks isnt going to work and will cause a backlash in some.

That being said, I want to learn how to garden.On Even U.S. government says human emissions are changing climate posted 1 year, 5 months ago 6 Responses

A delayed answer for Black Wally

A delayed answer for Black Wally

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/PDF/ ...
On Mainstream media misses connection between global warming and Midwest floods posted 1 year, 5 months ago 120 Responses

Re: Solar thermal in desert

Re: Solar thermal in desert by Gar Lipow,

That is a beautiful combo.  Love it.  Can you say "pipeline from Gulf of California to Arizona border"?

-ChristopherOn Solar thermal can save us, but it needs public clamor posted 1 year, 5 months ago 35 Responses

WOW!

WOW!  MAD MAC, Wolverine, and Christophersj just agreed on the same thing!  That should be a Grist-blog post in and of itself!

Now who is it that said the WE campaign sucked?

:-)

I tell you now, it may not look exactly like any of the three of us would want it to be in a perfect world, but I am thoroughly convinced that by somewhere in the 2040's we can get society's energy needs into a relatively sustainable position.  Imperfect, but sustainable.

-ChristophersjOn I think Friedman is upset with Bush posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Hi Black Wallaby

Hi Black Wallaby!  How are you my friend?

I tell you, keeping up with a thread on Grist days after it started is priority number 26 for me in my life.  I work and have a life.  In addition, Grist decided to omit the feature that would be really helpful on a forum:  email alerts when a thread is updated.

Until then, its spotty responses from me.

What was it you wanted me to answer?

I know I have a question for you that is danced around because of so many complex details on this issue:  

What is your motivation?  Do you really want to help clarify what are the fuzzy edges of humanity's understanding of our relationship with the biosphere?  Are your criticisms meant to bring a more sophisticated and nuanced understanding of human caused global warming or other environmental issue, or are you simply out for a drive by shooting of the entire effort?

Or, do you want to contradict the CENTRAL THESIS of this endeavor, contradicting the scientific findings of

-NOAA
-NASA
-IPCC
-AGU

If so, then why arent you publishing peer reviewed articles in the scientific community rather than hanging out with us amateurs here?

You remind me of a High School bully who couldn't make the team so you went and picked on the freshmen to bide your time.

This isn't a game!  If you have the incredible knowledge to debunk anthropogenic global warming outright, or any other environmental travesty, then what the f*ck are you doing with us here on this little web-forum???  Why aren't you publishing???

OF COURSE the edges of the knowledge are fuzzy and changing on a regular basis!  Duh!  That is good!  That means scientific efforts to understand are increasing and getting better.  But none of that dismantles the central thesis at all!

Be honest what is your internal, personal, motivation?

And I have to add:  In the United States, there is now a 100% chance that carbon will be regulated in the next presidency and that the energy transition will start.  At this point you are powerless to do anything about that.  The train has left the station.  So what is your goal here?  To waste our time or to clarify the lesser understanding on then edges?

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Everybody lost

Everybody lost.  There is indeed a time when unnecessary loss of life of the other, and opening the savage beast within ourselves, makes military combat immoral.

And the fact that you are replying to my offhanded comment about Gulf of Tonkin and how one would justify lies says a lot.  

That is what this Grist site is about: exploring the truth.  And you're going to lecture us on the justification of lies from our government?  The same institution that censored climate science from the public?

Please  -- shove off friend.

Either participate in how to make our environmental understanding better, or take a f*cking hike.

-ChristopherOn U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Jabailo

Jabailo,

You may be interested to know that every single scenario for a carbon tax I have ever heard of also includes a REDUCTION in payroll taxes, so that it is revenue neutral.

Everyone from Al Gore to Thomas Friedman has been publicly advocating a revenue neutral carbon tax.  Where do you see this not being proposed?On The GOP disinformation machine settles on an angle posted 1 year, 5 months ago 4 Responses

MAD MAC

MAD MAC,

You can only come back if you fly on an airline with NO regulation and safety standards.

And you know what else, Ron Paul?  Energy independence means real freedom: not being a slave chained to OPEC and Chavez oil and borrowed money from China.  And clean energy independence will require SOME regulation and SOME revenue-neutral taxation.

By the way, what exactly happens there in Thailand when you criticize the royalty?  How is the free speech there?

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn U.S. federal report details climate change's impact on weather extremes posted 1 year, 5 months ago 29 Responses

Wrong PDF URL

The hyperlink for the PDF of "The Nuclear Illusion" is bad.  Here is the actual link:

http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNuclIlu ...

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn Lovins and Sheikh defend their work in 'The Nuclear Illusion' posted 1 year, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Sam

Sam, like I said above.  That is HALF of the understanding and consensus on this.  The other half is about likelihood of long term trends -- that look similar to what is currently happening.

You guys have to take the whole pill.

• no specifics events
  
• long term trends look bad with more CO2

Thin ice

Every report I have seen about any growth in sea ice has also shown that it was abnormally thin and would melt at the first sign of even "normal" warmth.  

This makes the denier's arguments as thin as the new ice.

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn Arctic sea ice update: 2008 poised to repeat -- or beat -- 2007 posted 1 year, 5 months ago 11 Responses

My cynical approach

At this stage in things I am completely comfortable with pandering, trickery (sexy energy efficient products), and even emphasis on self interest and greed for profits, if it moves along the Great Energy Transition.  

It sounds cynical but I dont think anymore about getting everyone on board the understanding of Gia and our interdependence with nature.  I dont think thats going to happen in time.  I see the general American public as too dense and set in its ways.  Do you travel the country and have friends and family spread out?  Or do you only take the temperature of your educated peers?  Speed is a factor here, is it not?

And the activist are FINE.  I couldn't care less about the emotional needs of the activists and what they think of the WE campaign.  They already get the whole ball of wax just fine.  We are just fine.

Bring on the the superficial pop movement!  It just needs to be around long enough to get the right caps and taxes through US Congress and the right market demand for cheap solar panels and such.  When 1kw of alternative energy costs less than 1 kw of coal, the dense masses will move the right way.

When its both cheaper and sexier to have a carbon neutral footprint, then the country will move that way.

Its a cynical approach but I dont see any evidence that middle America will get real authentic religion on this in time.  I am confident about this.

-ChristopherOn An ad campaign on climate needs spokespeople who believe what they're saying posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

What WE is

Hi Jon I just happened across your reply.  Is there any way to have an email notice in my account when a reply comes in?

My question to you is:  why put all of the responsibility on this one camping.  Why not have 100 campaigns.  Each with a different role.  WE, for now, is just trying to get across the concept of "We".  That WE are all in this together.   Clearly this has not sunk in enough amongst much of the population.  The moment a message tries to do everything it is going to turn off many with its complexity.

Why does WE need to be a swiss army knife?  Is this really the only game in town?

Let campaign number 2 or 3 or 4 give out clever ideas for helping (like "Big Ideas for a Small Planet TV show).  And maybe the funding will come from that same 300 million.  But for now WE needs to show more conservative icons just saying, "This is about all of us and not just a Liberal granola crunching issue".  Period.  That one single idea has to succeed.

Different jobs at different times with different tools, or I think it overwhelms a skeptical public.

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn An ad campaign on climate needs spokespeople who believe what they're saying posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Additionally

Additionally,  the lack of environmental concern from the African American community in general, with some shining exceptions, is staggering.  So it goes much deeper than Sharpton.

It might be explained by Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs, but I still see the situation with a sense of missed opportunity and tragedy.  

Having Sharpton in the video, inspite of himself, is a godsend.

-Christopher S. JohnsonOn An ad campaign on climate needs spokespeople who believe what they're saying posted 1 year, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Nucbuddy

Nucbuddy wrote,

   "What would solar power have to do with saving the earth?"

In this case, the popular use of "save the earth" is not literal but means,

    Saving "the relatively stable range of climate on planet Earth where agricultural based societies came into being and flourished".

How bout that, smart-alec?

-ChristopherOn Concentrated solar power is already doing great; no breakthroughs needed posted 1 year, 7 months ago 49 Responses

April Fools!

April Fools!

Tragic roller coaster for the brain, though.On Gore will run for president as independent, sources tell Grist posted 1 year, 8 months ago 34 Responses

He didn't

Al Gore didn't make personal profit from his the movie or book, "An Inconvenient Truth".

And you CAN get your cut of a new income.  Why don't you go create a business that caters to the coming carbon regulations and hire some green collar employees -- and make a profit?On Giant Antarctic ice chunk collapses posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

Not an either/or

I do not think this is not an either/or situation.

New personal lifestyles will have an effect.

Informed regulation will set rules for commerce.

Free market (with regulations), and prizes (X-Prize),  will find the most efficient paths.

Sacrifice and a personal accounting is needed for sure.  But calling for a radical shift to communism or anarchy in the face of global warming is not helpful now, but rather, turns middle America off and makes them less likely to adopt, adapt, and understand.

Puritans can be pure on their own, but its not a path to popular change.On No sensible warming response can exclude carbon pricing posted 1 year, 8 months ago 50 Responses

HumanPower

HumanPower,

Almost all of the models for taxing carbon include a reduction or outright elimination of personal income tax.  Its revenue neutral.  Al Gore, Thomas Friedman, everyone promoting it says this.  Its not an extra tax.On No sensible warming response can exclude carbon pricing posted 1 year, 8 months ago 50 Responses

No

No, the Supreme Court ruled last summer that the EPA definitely has jurisdiction over CO2 emissions under it's mandate.  This is law.  This now opens opportunities to sue the EPA for not doing its job.

-ChristopherOn Johnson made a decision that should have belonged to Congress posted 1 year, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Gey Falcon

Because insisting that we don't prioritize is just a futile waste of effort.

Right, nobody wants a foolish endeavor wasting time.  But solar thermal doesnt look like a waste of time.  Its just imperfect.  But they do work and the one in Arizona will even turn a profit in few years.

The more the merrier.

Google's ideas do look good.   I wonder if you can put ad space on a high altitude kite...On Solar thermal plants make a comeback posted 1 year, 8 months ago 24 Responses

Stocky Pig

Stocky Pig,

Then contribute for crying out loud.  Sheesh.  Are those bluebonnets blooming and making you so cranky?

Also:  please be clear about your new information.  Which category does it fall under?  Something new around the edges of the subject, or something that changes the fundamentals.

-ChristophersjOn The Heartland conference recycles the usual climate change skeptics in its speakers list posted 1 year, 8 months ago 287 Responses

GonzoDon

GonzoDon,

You're not going to find anyone in here who supports felling 1000 acres of forest.

Your also not going to find a majority of environmentalists who support wanton destruction of property.

The whole gestalt of "you are either a radical with us or your a poser and a fake environmentalist" is just absurd.

I know you're not saying this directly and so I apologize for the leap.  But you imply it.
On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 8 months ago 80 Responses

Karen, tell me about

Karen, tell me about wastes storage.

I'm a lay person here, not an engineer or scientist.  Tell me in plain language about storage over very long periods of time.

-ChristopherOn What if the MSM simply can't cover humanity's self-destruction? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

Sunflower

Sunflower, lets have both.  Why choose?   Remember, silver buck-shot, not a silver bullet.On Solar thermal plants make a comeback posted 1 year, 8 months ago 24 Responses

LegumeSam, caniscandida

 LegumeSam, caniscandida,

Believe me, I'd love to discuss the 20% of things we disagree on.  We could start with the partialness of anarchy philosophy and the child-like  counter-productiveness of throwing bottles at cops and a history and psychology lesson on nonviolence, and regressiveness of the radical environmental movement.

  And I would love to explain how it was YOU who cut off the dialog early on when I asked genuine questions about documentation on ELF and received an insulting reply that cut off the conversation.

But instead I'd really, really, much rather focus on the 80% that we DO agree on:  We have to ween society into a sustainable position with the biosphere.  It may not look like the picture you want to see or that I want to see.  It may not use the language or economic politics you favor or the 21st Century sheen I favor,   but we all agree it has to happen soon and a super majority of the population has to play along.

So, what if we put our two different styles to work and move on in this endeavor?

- Christopher

PS:   And yes I am an elitist.  I KNOW that you and I know more about the relationship between mankind and the biosphere than a purposefully ignorant citizen who purposefully looks the other way.  I include friends and family in this description.  

There isnt enough time to rationalize with EVERYBODY on the slow train.  So yes, "tricking" them with awesome low-carbon producing products and lifestyles and money saving efficiencies and profitable green businesses that seem "cool" in the culture, is definitely a strategy.  And I'm proud to be a part of it.  

 I'm a video editor, and when I have an opportunity to use a shot that makes something green look "cool", then I do it, adding my drop to the cultural bucket.On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 8 months ago 80 Responses

You know what Radical Guys

You know what?  Your radicalism sounds like a dark corner of the 1990's that has somehow popped up here.  We understand Gaia theory but we also understand smart grids.  This is the 21st Century.  Mud huts and horses aren't the goal anymore.  Now the emphasis is:

• Modern

• Light Impact

• Sustainable

• Carbon Free

Tricking the ignorant into green living will be much more fun than burning down their houses.  Join us!On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 8 months ago 80 Responses

I like the zeppelin

I like the zeppelin.  It rocks.

Anything is possible.On New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

I'm not going to stop

I'm not likely to ever stop driving or associate my independence with a personal car.

But I will go way, way out of my way to get the most technologically advanced and least CO2 and smog producing vehicle I can.  And I will vote with the ballot and my dollars to influence carbon free solutions.  And I will convince friends and family to do so as well.
On USDA head suggests harvesting switchgrass on conservation land posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

Wiscidea is right

If the ultimate goal is to have a sustainable society that is in harmony with the Earth (whether it looks like mud huts or colonial houses with solar panels),  then it requires getting the majority of the people on your side of the issue.

Which method is more efficacious and convincing to middle America for really transforming society?  Acts of violence or advocating for public policies and private behavior through media, the marketplace, elections, and frickin cool plug-in hybrids that rock?

This web site and the people who tend to gather here believe in the second path, and its working in case you haven't noticed.

Its normal to be angry and hurt about the sick parts of our society.  All of us concerned about the environment are.  But what we do with those emotions can make or break a chance at real widespread change.  Violence begets violence.

Besides, its neither mature nor clever and doesn't deserve the respect of the environmental movement.

-ChristopherOn 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Pangolin

Pangolin,

 it sounds like you have this figured out from every angle.  Have you thought about contacting the NRDC, National Geographic, Sierra Club, Rocky Mountain Institute, ect. and letting them know about the huge mistake they are making in promoting cellulosic ethanol?

 It sounds like all of these well meaning organizations are lacking fundamental and basic knowledge.  Have they been hood-winked?

I'm not a scientist so I rely on reports from these organizations for my environmental information.On New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

I dont know

I dont know.  Beats me.  How were we ever going to figure out how to fly to the moon or eradicate small pox?

What were you going to put into the liquid  tank portion of your plug-in hybrid in 2012?  I'd rather it not be gasoline.  Lets do the least bad thing.

If battery technology and nano-tube solar panels can do the whole job, then great.  I'm the first in line.

-ChristopherOn New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

Again

Again, another blog post that doesnt differentiate the huge differences between corn and switchgrass.  In fact, isnt this whole posting confused by naming corn as a cellulosic ethanol???

Why mention the worst kind of ethanol (corn) and then dis cellulosic woody switchgrass types?  Isnt this like mentioning Twinkis and Broccoli in the same breath and saying "food is bad for you"???  Am I missing a point?On New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

Where can

Where can we find reliable info on the lack of a real ELF organization?On 'Eco-terrorism' suspected in Seattle-area arson posted 1 year, 9 months ago 80 Responses

Jon Boy, David Nicholson,

Jon Boy, David Nicholson,

You guys make it so tough for me.  Should I believe your half baked ideas or those of the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, AGU, and the vast majority of published and peer reviewed studies?

Man, I just cant decide.  This is gonna keep me up tonight...On Climate science doesn't rely on a consensus of opinion posted 1 year, 9 months ago 16 Responses

Grey Falcon and Open Minds

Grey Falcon,

Thanks for the feedback.  

Why do you think Argonne Labs is lying?  Do they stand to gain financially by exaggerating and making speculation appear as fact?  Nevertheless that is good to know for my reality check.

My mind is open because I am here on the board asking questions instead of just stating my own opinion.  I'm not necessarily blindly attached to the "method" of switchgrass ethanol, but as a non-scientist I read things like National Geographic and Wired,  and listen to TV interviews with people like Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute.  And these sources have been good to me -- they educated me about the mistake of corn ethanol, ect.   But they also made huge overtures to the benefits of switchgrass.

The only contrary information I have ever encountered was the story here last week about a couple of new studies that theorized that the disruption of soil would outweigh the benefits.  But then that same article had quotes from the authors  holding out some positive opinions of the "better" ethanols.  That was downright confusing and I don't have an expensive subscription to the science journals with those two studies.

Is all of your skepticism about switchgrass born from these two recent studies?  Is there some other school of knowledge that I and people like Lovins are unaware of?

Oh, and you are right:  of course the goal is what is important -- not the method.  I'd love for solar, wind, ect. to handle everything.On Billionaire Branson regrets mindless biofuel support posted 1 year, 9 months ago 22 Responses

I need convincing

I need convincing that switchgrass and other cellulosic ethanol products are so bad.  Where is the real evidence of this?

A few months ago both Wired and National Geographic wrote of these facts about switchgrass:

•  can get up to a 36 to 1 energy return

•  crop to wheels, produces up to 90% less CO2 than gasoline

•  barely needs fertilizing

•  can grow in harsher environments where there are less crops or forest; like in the Dakotas

So, whats up with this hatin' on Switchgrass?On Billionaire Branson regrets mindless biofuel support posted 1 year, 9 months ago 22 Responses

Hey guys

Screw all of this arguing around the edges.  I'm looking at the ice core data charts from hundreds of thousands of years in frickin' National Geographic and can plainly see the back and forth dance between CO2 and temperature.  One always tipping the other in an exchange.

I'm no scientist but I can plainly see recent anthropogenic CO2 levels pushing the CO2 line higher than anytime in those hundreds of thousands of years.

You pinheads give me one good reason that unprecedented level of CO2 would NOT cause unprecedented levels of heat trapping?  Hello?

Also, can you explain why the predictions of earlier IPCC reports concerning temp rise and ice melting were LOWER than what has actually transpired?  How does that make for an organization who is just bent on scaring us?  They cant even be scary enough to match what's happening!On The fourth IPCC report is still going strong a year later posted 1 year, 9 months ago 65 Responses

This study is limited - Gives False Impression

Its a real shame that the New York Times would publish such limited information.  Now the public will think all bio-fuels are bad.

Clearly, if the authors of the study claim that sugarcane is not quite so damaging as corn and soy.  Then what about switch-grass for ethanol and algae for bio-diesel???  These are MANY MANY times more efficient, less CO2 emitting, and energy-returning than sugarcane.

WTF?

Here National Geographic compares global warming pollution and energy return on different types of bio-fuels.  The differences in plants are AMAZING.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/2007-10/biofuels/bi ...
On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses

Punting the ball

Whatever the motivation,

1. either a way to circumvent Bali and convince other industrialized nations to go into climate change policies in a way that satisfies the U.S.,

2. or a gathering intent on pressuring China and India into being equals in responsibility on any agreement forthcoming,

These meetings will buy time for GW Bush to not do a damn thing during the last year of his presidency.  This is known as "punting the ball".  Forget national action during 2008.  2008 is about states and cities and the market taking action.

Oh and can we take the hypocrisy out of the criticism for the travel CO2 hit for this meeting?  Bali and Kyoto and Rio anyone? This has normally been a stupid denier tactic.  The possibility of progress and even just plubicity about the climate change problem is WELL WORTH the CO2 footprint a a handful of people going to Hawaii.

-ChristopherOn U.S. sets low expectations for this week's climate meeting posted 1 year, 10 months ago 1 Response

Greed is Good

Some of you are missing the main point here:

There isn't time to get religion to all of business and society.  Most will become green because of free market competition influences, especially after CO2 regulation comes down the pipe.

Its a GIFT that profits can be made during the great energy transition.  It brings huge and fast movers into the effort that wouldnt otherwise be there.

Wal-Mart can move mountains in society.  Grist.org cannot.

Imagine solar panels in the bargin bins at the check-out line and people who are only concerned about saving on their electric bill encountering them in every town in America.

PLEASE let the profit seekers do there thing, because this time, many are headed in our direction.

I promise the slow altruistic train you and I are on will continue to move forward as well.

-ChristopherOn Wal-Mart CEO outlines lofty green goals posted 1 year, 10 months ago 6 Responses

No, there are WARM CFLs that look good

Wiscidea, you havent tried the warm CFL's yet?  Please do, I think you will like them much better.  The packaging doesn't always communicate this well.  Look for "soft" in the description and NOT "daylight" or "standard".

Grist did a wonderful comparison and found the warm "soft" bulbs:

http://www.grist.org/advice/products/2007/12/14/?source=m ...

They indicate that you would probably like the Phillips Soft White.  Try it.  I am often fooled into thinking I am looking at incandescent light.On Compact fluorescents can cause health problems, say groups posted 1 year, 11 months ago 11 Responses

A Pragmatic Environmentalist

I'm a pragmatic environmentalist.  If its sustainable for this gentleman and his ecosystem to use 800 gallons of fresh water a day then thats fine by me.  But for where I live, in Southern California, it would be almost prosecutable as a crime to use that much.

I'm trying to figure out how I could use 200 gallons today.  I'm out of ideas.  I literally cannot figure out how to do it.

Oh and about new water vapor that didn't exist before:
The author was definitely saying that.  It was being made with atoms of hydrogen that have not been paired with oxygen in millions of years.  So there would necessarily be more new water after the reaction.  thats my understanding of the article and comments above.

-ChristopherOn FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

More than about water vapor

"You were worried about water vapor in the atmosphere, not CO2. Burning fossil fuels generates an insignificant amount of water vapor relative to normal evaporative cycles.  To the extent that fossil fuels contribute will be offset by reduced evaporation as the atmosphere and surface water reach equilibrium".

The author and commentators were explaining to me the possibilities of NEW water vapor being introduced.  I'm just learning about that and appreciate your input.  But your statement was a general knock on being concerned about human activity at all when compared to world wide weather, and I had to comment on it because the attitude is out of sync with reality.

"Burning fossil fuels increases CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by only 1-2 ppm per year. The debate is over how much of the warming over the last 150 years is caused by man-made CO2 and how much is due to natural variation in climate."

The IPCC consensus, which is historically conservative, says that it is a 90% chance that a very significant amount of the warming and increased CO2 are anthropogenic and directly related to us.  

"The argument over FutureGen is the cost of sequestration and whether there are better or cheaper ways to reduce CO2."

Yeah, dont build the damn coal plant to begin with.  Tax carbon and reduce my income tax.  Give tax and loan breaks to alt energy start-ups and home improvements. Set high goals by Federal Law and watch the market go that direction with enthusiasm.

- ChristopherOn FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

Trock

Trock said, "It might be true that relative to the earth weather system, the burning of gasoline may be insignificant."

Relatively, yes, but the statement is meant to dissuade concern from CO2 and the significant impact that it does have.

-ChristopherOn FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

No bias here

"Relative to the energy in the earth's weather systems, our use of fossil fuels is totally insignificant."

That statement just doesn't fly anymore.  There is not even a debate to be had about it at this stage.  Billions of people, doing many small things, can have a huge impact

And this is really really old now but you and I both know that things like heat, CO2, water vapor, ect. can take turns influencing each other.  It goes both ways.  The 650,000 year ice core samples prove that it goes both ways.  Its a dance between heat and greenhouse gasses.

- Christopher
On FutureGen "clean coal" demonstration plant slated for Illinois posted 1 year, 11 months ago 26 Responses

Jabailo, warm vs. cool light

Jabailo, I think that the author was clear in stating that some of these bulbs were made to emit warmer yellow light.  Have you seen or tried these?On A review of compact fluorescent bulbs posted 1 year, 11 months ago 28 Responses

Hey Gonzo Don -- Big Ideas for A Small Planet

Gonzo Don, here is a web site for a TV show (in High Def, no less) that does smart stories about positive green projects that are happening now.

Big Ideas for a Small Planet

http://www.sundancechannel.com/series/thegreen_bigideas

 Clever little show.  You can view full episodes!!  The HD version runs on the Universal HD channel.  The SD version runs on Sundance Channel and the website has webisodes.
On High drama leads to compromise at climate conference posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses