Comments ClimateCriminal has made

Small is Beautiful, Big is Ugly

A compost heap is just a small example of what happens in nature. Therefore it is unnecessary to examine the science, because it must inevitably be sustainable. Of course the process will vary depending upon local conditions and organisms, but wherever leaves and other natural materials decay naturally, will be fine for a small compost heap.

As mentioned by others, disposal in landfill cannot replicate a natural decay process. First of all is the enormous scale of the waste produced by a community, secondly the anaerobic nature and thirdly the energy used to transport it there.

It is perfectly ridiculous to claim that 'stuff in landfills doesn't break down'. There must be some decay of organic material in landfill, otherwise, what is the origin of all that methane? However is is fair to say that the decay processes in landfills are probably slower than the aerobic equivalent.

Small is truly beautiful, big is ugly.On Umbra on compost and climate posted 1 year ago 13 Responses

Peak Oil and Its Consequences and the US

CRUDE OIL - THE SUPPLY OUTLOOK - Report to the Energy Watch Group.From page 12.
October 2007 - EWG-Series No 3/2007
"This paper is one of many by authors inside and outside ASPO (the Organisation for the Study of Peak Oil) showing that peak oil is anything but a "theory", it is real and we are witnessing it already. According to the scenario projections, the peak of world oil production was in 2006."
http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_ ...

Supporting statement 1
World oil production is at its peak and set to fall 32% by 2020 as discoveries wane, said Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, a former executive of Iran's state oil company...,
"We don't know how far the price has to go for demand to begin to be dented; the normal economics don't work any more,'' Bakhtiari said at a lecture in Sydney, hosted by the Financial Services Institute of Australasia. "Is it $125, is it $150? I don't know. I don't think it can go much higher than $300.''..,
"I can see the peak very easily,'' Bakhtiari said. "In the short-term future production can only decline. It will not go up again because there's faster depletion in all these fields than new fields coming on stream.''..,
The Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries has a maximum production capacity of 31mn bpd, while non-Opec countries have a maximum of 50mn, Bakhtiari said.
"Neither of these two entities can today go above these capacity figures,'' he said. Saudi Arabia, which produces about 9mn bpd, is "struggling'' to keep up production, particularly at the Ghawar field, the world's largest, Bakhtiari said...,
Kuwait's Burgan field, Mexico's Cantarell field and the North Sea fields are already in decline, he said. Russia's production probably already peaked in September 2004, he said. Oil producers, including Russia, are overstating their output, said Bakhtiari...,
..,Bakhtiari, who publishes papers and lectures on the theory that global oil production is on the verge of imminent decline.
11 July, 2006
http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2 ...

Supporting statement 2
This quote is from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia : "The oil boom is over and will not return," then-Crown Prince Abdullah said in his address to the Gulf Cooperation Council in 1998. "All of us must get used to a different lifestyle." [Editor's note: The original version did not give the year in which Abdullah made this statement.]
The Christian Science Monitor: A tipping point in Saudi Arabia
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0815/p09s02-coop.html

Living in a world of a declining oil output with increasing demand and spiralling oil prices is clearly going to be dramatically different from living in a time where oil output was increasing, abundant and cheap. [paraphrased]
Lester Brown
Plan B: Rescuing a Planet under Stress & a Civilization in Trouble (2003)

Biofuels sound so environmentally friendly but sadly things aren't always what they seem, with their dreadful consequences, rainforest deforestation, rocketing food prices as foods are increasingly diverted for conversion into vehicle fuels and thereby result in worsening third-world starvation.
[the grain needed to make 25 US gallons of bio-ethanol is sufficient to feed one person for one year]

What does it all mean for the future?
If the US remains essentially an oil-based economy, the oil [which is increasingly imported] will increase the US dependence upon foreign oil supplies - not a good idea for security. It will discourage and therefore delay the development of renewable resources and the technologies to exploit them, which will ultimately be imported, when a home-grown industry would benefit the US economy.

When the effects of peak-oil begin to bite, energy costs will soar, severely impact the costs of transportation and manufacture, which are very likely to exacerbate the resultant US economy  slowdown. Such a slowdown combined with high energy costs will substantially affect and hinder investment in new technologies and inhibit competition with the world market [China & India], who will have in all probability stolen a lead over the US in technological advances.

There is a huge amount of monies presently ear-marked originally for the questionable NASA manned Mars landing, this could be put towards better uses. Such as, if the US were to invest in the future by funding a series of research and development grants to industry for renewable energy sources, new transport technologies, increased energy efficiency and preparing for the inevitable decline in oil output. That way, the worst effects of the slowdown resulting from the passing of peak oil could be averted and the US economy could be given a substantial boost and move ahead. These new technologies would restore the US lead in technology, boost exports, reduce the trade deficit and could help benefit the US by helping reduce its dependence upon imported oil.

At the same time CO2 emissions could be reduced substantially. Which might just be quite a good idea!

----------------------------
Science - our understanding of nature and the universe, trumps everything - religion, politics!

Alternatives to Fossil-Fuels Are Essential

Apart from the ExxonMobil and the rest of the dyed-in-the-wool fossil-fuel disinformation industry, people are beginning to realise [albeit rather belatedly], that our addiction to oil, coal & gas will have to end sooner rather than later.

Yes, it seems likely we will have to go cold-turkey which is going to be difficult, but the alternative is the possible runaway greenhouse climate, which is likely to be even worse, perhaps even terminal. BTW, it's happened before, so it seems quite possible that potentially disastrous warming could happened again, it's the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55 MYA. The PETM visited its very own MASS EXTINCTION upon earth.

There are increasing indications that the climate can change abruptly, once threshold conditions have been reached, the problem is, only nature knows where these thresholds are. For references see bottom of post.

The profligate wasting of energy will have to cease, and powered transport will have to be lighter, smarter and most probably electrically powered.

Perhaps super-capacitors have a part to play, let's hope the technological hurdles are cracked quickly to start the process of letting-go of oil!
-------------------------
Quote from abstract
..,We suggest that the evidence indicates that long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes, which does not bode well for the future.
Endquote
2001. Maslin, M., D. Seidov and J. Lowe, Synthesis of the nature and causes of rapid climate transitions during the Quaternary
http://www.essc.psu.edu/~dseidov/pdf_copies/maslin_seidov ...

Quote from abstract
Large, abrupt, and widespread climate changes with  major impacts have occurred repeatedly in the past, when the Earth system was forced across thresholds. Although abrupt climate changes can occur for many reasons, it is conceivable that human forcing of climate change is increasing the probability of large, abrupt events. Were such an event to recur, the economic and ecological impacts could be large and potentially serious. Unpredictability exhibited near climate thresholds in simple models shows that some uncertainty will always be associated with projections. In light of these uncertainties, policy-makers should consider expanding research into abrupt climate change, improving monitoring systems, and taking actions designed to enhance the adaptability and resilience of ecosystems and economies.
Endquote
Abrupt Climate Change
R. B. Alley, J. Marotzke, W. D. Nordhaus, J. T. Overpeck, D. M. Peteet, R. A. Pielke Jr., R. T. Pierrehumbert, P. B. Rhines, T. F. Stocker,L. D. Talley, J. M. Wallace
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2003/2003_Alley_etal.pdf

Science trumps everything - religion, politics!

Well Worth Listening to

A really excellent interview. Clearly, not all scientists are as good at communicating the science at an intelligible level. We need more scientists like Dr. Chris Rapley.
I'd like to see a head to head between a panel of top climate scientists like Ripley against the contrarians like Seitz, Lomborg, Legates, Soon, Baliunas, Singer, Michaels, Christy and the rest of the usual Exxon-funded suspects.

Afterwards, the losers [guess who] get to feed the Polar Bears.On Is climate change an artifact of computer models? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Steven McIntyre interview on BBC Radio Four

Steven McIntyre interview on BBC Radio Four 'Today' programme ~ 6.52 a.m. 17 August 2007

Link valid until expiry Monday 20th August.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today1_ ...

Interview transcript

Interviewer
A blogger in Toronto has caused an international stir over climate change. Steven McIntyre discovered that some of the measurements used by NASA to track average annual temperatures in the US were, to put it bluntly - wrong. The leaps over the last few years have not been as dramatic as previously thought. Global Warming sceptics in America are delighted.
Steven McIntyre explained to me how he spotted NASA's mistakes.
McIntyre
I compared the input data that NASA was using for US temperature to the original data in that was archived at other sources. When I made those comparisons, I noticed that there was a sharp jump in 2004 mini-series and the jump was up to one degree centigrade for some stations in the US, it was a negative jump in other stations.
Interviewer
And this was because NASA had not adjusted their figures correctly, is that right?
McIntyre
What they had done is they used one version of  US data before 2000 and a different version after 2000. The version before 2000 had certain adjustments in it, the version after 2000 didn't have those adjustments in it.
Interviewer
And what sort of adjustments are we talking about?
McIntyre
At the level of an individual station, the jump could be as much as one degree centigrade. For the United States temperature history as a whole, the jump was about point one five degrees centigrade, which compares to a increase of about half a degree for the entire century, so relative to the reported US increase, it wasn't a small adjustment.
Interviewer
So the conclusion that you drew was essentially that the world, or America at least is not getting hotter at the rate that others had previously assumed.
McIntyre
When I examined the changes that NASA made to their yearly rankings after they corrected this error: four of the top ten warmest years were in the thirties, whereas only three of the of the top ten were in the last ten years.
Interviewer
So your conclusions is that the trend is till up, but not just quite as sharp as most people originally thought it was.
McIntyre
As to what trend exists in the US data, one would have to enquire very closely as to why the nineteen thirties were so warm, relative to the modern period. And one thing that people should keep in mind is that NASA adjusts the temperature and the adjustments can be almost as large as the effect that's being measured, so that the adjustments can be half a degree per century, where the observed warming is half a degree. What I think is necessary is that there should be very careful scrutiny of how temperatures are measured over time, how we know whether the nineteen thirties compared to the two thousands and here we run into the problem that many of the weather stations are not meeting World Meteorological Organisation Standards. For example, the station in the US with the highest increase: the sensor is located in a parking lot in Tucson and if you can picture a worse environment for having a unbiased temperature reading than having a sensor above asphalt in Tucson in the Summer day, it's hard for me to imagine.
Interviewer
Steven McIntyre, Thank-you very much.

Punctuation has been added for readability.On Move over, 1998 posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses