I absolutely do not for the life of me understand how you folks up north deal with the cold weather. This week has been very unusual and frigid for us here in south Florida, the upper 20s and lower 30's for the lows and mid to upper 50s for the highs all week, a warming trend tomorrow (upper 60s) and then, according to the weatherman, back for another several days of this very non-typical weather. (We're 15 to 20 degrees below normal!)

I can't imagine another 20 degrees colder than this with snow and ice, what do you guys do in the mid winter .... hibernate?

I post on the Axiom forum.

Yeah, I don't know how people up north do it. In the mild zones like here, -40C is sligthly chilly, but up north it can go down to -60C! Now, THAT's cold!

Right now we have around 6 inches on the ground with a few more expected. The temps have been below average here as well. We haven't been out of the teens in a while with today's high at 20.

Eric I worked in Grand Forks, North Dakota for a summer and remember the summer mornings being as cold as most of our mid winter days here, while I was bundled and complaining about the cold the local folks were relishing the warm summer ... "COLD?! Come back in January whenever it's -50F out and we'll show you 'Cold'"

I don't think so.

I guess it is all relative. In the mountains of Maryland, we'll see at worst a few days that drop to 0°F; that's pretty unbearable. I couldn't imagine -40°. I've heard at that temp if you spit you can hear it crackle in the air, as it freezes before hitting the ground.

Here in NC, We have not been above freezing for about 5 days. We still have snow on the ground (in shaded locations) from the pre Christmas snow. This is the longest that any snow has stayed around for over 50 years. I think it is Global Warming!

We are having an another unusually warm winter her in the Maritimes. It has, with very little exception, been bordering just above or below zero degrees Celsius (32 f).

It's all relative to what you are used to and how smartly you dress. Layers are the key to adapting to our quickly changing weather. That way you can adjust quickly when the day starts out sunny and calm +2 but then a cold front moves in and by the day's end it's -15 with a wind chill factor taking it to -30 or more.

Most here start to talk about the weather when it hits -20 to -25 and start to really grumble when it hits -30. It won't make the news until it hits -35 to -40 and that's usually to due to the added wind chill.

When it's not windy, I prefer to strap on a headlight and go for a ski at night verses complaining. If you dress sensibly, the only thing unpleasant are the coyote tracks. Fleece is your friend. Cotton is your enemy.

Right now the weather is my enemy. It's been too warm to build up any decent snow for skiing (horizontal or vertical) and that makes me more grumpy than the cold.

Believe it or not, but you do get used to it. The hardest part is getting through the transition between 20F and -50F. Once you are there, you just prepare for it and worry about other things that you can control. I wear shorts to the gym in the mornings down to about 0, and then I wear sweat pants. It does make riding the sleds a bit more challenging when the needle dips under 0F. You need to take more time ensuring that you don’t have any skin exposed or you will get frost bit adn won't even know it till you get somewhere warm. One strange benefit is that tires stick to the icy roads better when it gets about -30F or cooler when you’re clipping down the highway. You know it’s cold when you need to take a weed burner to your home heating propane tank to get it to vaporize and while you are heating the home propane tank, you need to occasionally heat up the weed burner propane tank with the weed burner….. Tires do a clunk-clunk-clunk for a while at around -50 or so until they warm up and get rid of the flat spot...... I have a video that a co-worker made for one of the grade schools. It’s about -40 and he is holding a steaming hot cup of coffee. He throws it straight up in the air above his head and it vaporizes. Not a drop hits the snow. Pretty cool trick we do for the southern newbie’s that come to work up here.

Hey Mike, how about recalling all this arctic air we have been in for the past 3 weeks We are currently at -6F and went to -20F last night, even for us this long of a cold spell is unusual. We get very used to our chinooks blowing in and bring us temps much closer to, if not above freezing. It is our environmental snow removal process, but this winter the snow is just building up and up.

Heh, I have performance tires on my car which do the "clunk-clunk-clunk" thing when is starts to get near freezing. On hot days you can squish the tread with your fingers. Stick like crazy though.

Jay, that's the problem we're having right now ... usually a day or two and then the temps resume back to normal but this has been going on all week and is forecasted to do so for several more days.

Mike ... I'm at a loss for words!

Bundle up Rick, it will come to an end soon enough. For us northerners we won't really get out of the cold for several more months

What did you say about "burning weed"?

We just got another 6-8" on top of the already 20+ we've got over the last few weeks. Right now we have -18F windchills with reg temp about +5F right now. Usually at night it gets down to -10 to -15 below temp with -30 to -40 windchills.

This last snow is very light and fluffy, the wind is making it hard to see across the street. I'm sure I will have to plow out the drifted in drive when I get home..

As others have already said, it's all relative. I wouldn't do well with your summer heat and humidity, nor Mikes' -50!

All of a sudden, NH seems "moderate"!

It's supposed to hit -27 here in Missouri by Saturday.

Just rechecked and it has changed to -11 instead by Saturday morning as the low.

Unusually cold in Oklahoma as well. We still have snow on the ground from DEC 24, which is highly unusual. THe low friday night is supposed to be -3 degrees F. We usually only get down to the mid teens at the worst.

Heh. Just like all the other midwestern folks, it's been really cold here too the past two weeks. Lows below zero, highs struggling to get into the teens.

Where I live, we do often get 3,4,5,6+ inches of snow during a storm, but it'll usually melt within a week. And just like David, yeah, we've still got snow on the ground from Christmas.

Yesterday, with the impending snow storm, the temps rallied to the mid 20's. I went back to just a windbreaker for a coat. I could take out the garbage again in just a t-shirt and jeans.

Next week it's supposed to hit 32 by Wednesday. Might have to put the top down on the convertible. And no, I'm not really kidding.

Everyone adapts. You get used to the climate where you live. My northwoods-Wisconsin-living in-laws think anything above 80F is "really hot".

After stretches of unusually cold weather and the temps get back to the freezing mark it really does feel warm enough to put the convertible top down and go for a cruise, till you get splashed by the melting snow

I like heading up north up around the Huntsville area or over towards Algonquin Park in the early spring when you get a couple of very warm days. It's crazy when you're walking around in a T-shirt and jeans where there's a foot or two of hard packed(melting) snow. I luvs the springtime, looonnnng days, hardly any bugs, warm weather but not uncomfortable like June-August....

It's not the heat and humidity so much as the dam deerflies!

tomorrow we are supposed to have a high of -5 and -30 wind chills, can't wait....this light fluffy snow will be blowing all the way to Wid's house, lol

Awe c'mon, they only take a small chunk out of you when they bite.

We're in for the same stuff. The wind is already picking up here.

Wow, I'm glad I live up here in the Great White North rather than somewhere really cold like Iowa...

You have to wonder if the Great Lakes have a moderating effect on the weather here.

....those darn Canadian clippers think they have the right to dip down to Iowa. Hey John, at least we have high speed internet down here, lol

You're just in the wrong part of it. We are colder but luckily less snow falls here

That was a low blow, Randy.

I am in St Petersburg, Florida right now. Got here yesterday, leaving for home (Iowa) tomorrow. People are acting like I am crazy because I'm not wearing a coat. The local TV forcast on the news last night stated "We had really cold temperatures today across the region, with a slight warm up tomorrow, but still cold..." it was like 58F today! That is NOT cold...

It's all relative to what you are familiar with (not used to). I sure don't enjoy below freezing temps in Iowa, but I am "familiar" with them (like a nasty relative that comes to visit for a while) and just deal...

Another 6 inches of snow here today with major blowing and drifting, along with the beloved below zero windchills. I think I'm tired of winter already.

Expecting a little snow tonight in Northern Virginia.

Getting a little snow right now in Western Maryland.

No snow here at the moment, but there was some motherboard on my porch tonight.

Did you tell her to get off your porch?

So the build continues, what's left on the grocery list?

The only things left are the memory and video card, and potentially CPU cooler. I'll still buy random pieces afterward, but those are the only pieces that matter for having it work.

Then you might enjoy a couple of pics from last year's "Annual New Years Day Topless Run." Sadly, I had no Jeep to participate with this year, although there was no snow anyways.

We got about an inch of nearly weightless fluff. If I had a leaf blower, it would have cleared my car off beautifully.

Dude, I know you loved your Jeep, but I really thought this was going to be something different!

All these years, we're been hearing from Mark'S Johnson. When do we get to hear from the man himself?

Hey, I'M the brains in this organization. He ain't got nuthin' to say!

Don't upset him, he might give you a beating.

Or vice versa.

It's soooo cold....



Our warm weather fish are so lethargic that they are being netted right out of the water. This nice size snook was belly up and netted out of the river earlier today by my son and his friend ... said they grabbed him by the tail and guided him to the net, under normal circumstances this guy wouldn't have been easily caught. They caught several of them along with a couple of tarpon like this, they were all released back into the water.

Our high was around 37 today, unbelievably cold for us.

Rick. That doesn't sound very good. I hope you don't see mass die offs.

37, wow. Heatwave.

Here's the day (as of 5:30 pm) as experienced by my garage...

Fred that is a huge concern for us right now, these fish cannot sustain cold water temperatures for any length of time and with the past week of record lows the fear is that our fisheries will be greatly effected. The snook my son is holding is a southern Florida fish and cannot tolerate the cold winters just to the north of us in central Florida, I'm afraid we're going to see die offs all the way down near Miami. Word is the big bend area of the state (north of Tampa) is already seeing huge die offs of mullet ... this ain't looking good.

Rick, are these fish not able to get to somewhat deeper water where the temp is more stable?

I'm guessing their lakes and waterways are all pretty shallow down there.

... this ain't looking good.

These are actually salt water coastal fish that live around shallow structure and couldn't get to deeper water soon enough. The areas that have a good deep inlet will probably suffice but our inlet is only 14ft deep and there isn't any offshore structure around here. They can tolerate a day or two of this cold but not the constant barrage we've experienced in the past 7 days.

We finally made it up to 0° with a windchill of -11°. When I put the ribs on the smoker this morning it was -5° and the windchill was -15°.

Smoking frozen ribs?

Rib-sicles!!

Oh no, the smoker's running fine. It's me that is freezing

Rick-sicles!


On a side note ... I can see where this can go devastatingly wrong.

A thread that goes wrong? here?

Oh yeah.....just 'test'ing.

Come to think of it Adrian, you do have a point ... have we ever had an Axiom thread go devastatingly right?

Yes, but they never go beyond a few posts

having seen a few fish kills for the opposite reason around here the last few years, I do feel badly about this news.

However, maybe this will make you feel better. Here is the result of the most recent storm on a remote repeating station in Newfoundland.

Global warming?

On average, yes.

I'll have to play less Sade then.

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

Notice the CO2 levels in this graph and the lack of association with global temperature. Also note the existence of life for millions of years despite CO2 levels and temperatures that vary wildly.

Interesting, thanks for posting.

Mark, I wouldn't trust anything on junkscience.com that relates to climate or the environment, given the person behind it.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com

Check this out:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

And for the people who don't like white-on-black:

http://infobeautiful.s3.amazonaws.com/climate_skeptics_960w.gif

That article supports either argument, it depends where your bias lies.

Not really if you read it closely.

I read it as presenting both sides of a debate, with the answer likely in the middle somewhere. There is likely a combination of natural as well as man-made effects where the environment is concerned. As with all debates, numbers can be skewed to support one side's beliefs(or not).

OK. Throw out the source. I've seen the same info elsewhere, though. I can find some other sites for you if you don't feel like doing it yourself.

The actual communicative intent of my post remains: historically, CO2 levels and temperatures have been dramatically higher and lower than present time. Repeatedly. Nevertheless, life continues to thrive. The sky is not falling.

It's taking a lot of effort to undo the brainwashing of our younger generation.

Climate change is a normal thing. It has been since the dawn of time. Why so many people beieve we should spend billions of $$$ in a futile effort to make things stay the same while costing the lives countless people from hunger and disease is totally beyond me. One world government based on a carbon-credit economy I guess!
My solution . . . tshirt for warm days, sweater for colder and a jacket cold days. And if it gets REALLY hot . . . lots of beer.

Not to feel left out, I'll throw in another website address . . . Climate Depot

You might be laughing now. . . .

It's all about power and control.

Figures don't lie, but liar's sure can figure.

wow, this place has changed...






...or, has public opinion changed?

Well, I'm still convinced that the weather patterns are definitely changing and not in a healthy way. Is it caused by man, just a passing natural phase or a result of both? I'm not sure we have the technology and knowledge to say for certain but when I try to build a mental picture of how many cars are driving around the world right now (including mine) and how many other sources on gasses that are not 'natural' to the history of the eco-system because they never existed at all or in these quantities before we started producing them..... I have a hard time believing from a totally subjective view, that we are not having some sort of effect.

Ironically, one of the worst contributors to this problem is from livestock, mainly cows.

We could have a huge BBQ.

B-O-C!!!


(bring your own cow!!)

"Honey, I want steak tonight. You know, to help save the environment!"

I accept these as science fact:

1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. Largely due to the burning of fossil fuels, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are rising.

To me, it logically follows that as a result, the Earth's surface temperature will rise, and therefore, I have some concern about global warming. Of course, I don't know how much the temperature will go up, or what effect it will have. I think that it's reasonable to continue to scientifically try to predict that, and in the meantime, it's understandable that our elected officials and policymakers will debate what is exactly going on and what we should do about it.

The best starting point I have found for people who don't seem to appreciate the CO2 issue is this info-cartoon from National Geographic: Carbon Bathtub. I suggest reading the brief article first and then checking out the graphic.

Even this abbreviated (in terms of the earth's history) and truncated graph shows, to me, a normal recurring pattern.

If the graph extended back millions of years the little fluctuations that are made to appear huge here would look pretty trivial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Ah, a politics thread. No, wait, science. No, that's not it, either. Hmmm...

Humans and yeast emit CO2, right? So, our very existence is contributing to our ultimate demise? I am polluting! Aaaahhhhh!

I don't kneel at the altar of science. The hand-wringing over Global Warming - no, wait, now it's Climate Change - is predicated upon accepting certain hypotheses as fact.

• The earth's climate is warming at an abnormal rate
• Mankind's behaviour is contributing to this warming
• This warming will lead to widespread human suffering
• No current or future humans will be able to mitigate the impending disaster

On a really basic level, I'm just not sure that I believe any of those things.

People who are dear to me have rightly asked "so, what's the harm in being more efficient? In burning fewer fossil fuels?"

Of course, there is no inherent harm in Mankind changing its behaviour to that end, but solutions are not so simple.

The current quality of Mankind's way of life depends upon energy consumption. Unless you are willing to abandon the current nation/state principle established over the last 500 years - and, I would contend, the entire concept of Democracy - there is no way to ensure that vast populations on other continents won't simply take the place of the USA as the world's primary polluter.

Look, I'm hopeful and I'm prudent. I'm just not willing to sacrifice the American Way of Life so that wealth can be transferred to other parts of the globe. Honestly, for me, it really does come down to not only national sovereignty, but also what our ancestors worked and fought for. I don't share the opinion that Americans need to be punished economically to save the world.

Very well put Tom. I must agree my beliefs align pretty much in line with yours.

Careful, Rick. Unless you want to get burned at the stake along with me.

Fortunetly this is not a political, religious debate or even worse just a position based on belief though that is where these discussions usually go...however if one was so inclined they can read peer reviewed research articles from credible scholarly sources from all over the world and I am not talking about information from governments, political officials or special interest groups. That is the best way to get informed on this topic.

If that's what it takes Tom, I'm with ya.

There's always time to repent, Brother Tom.

Global warming....drink more cold ones.

Global cooling....turn off fridge to save energy, put beers in snowbank.

But what about the hot tub??? ...easy way to get a girl naked . I'll sacrifice the earth just this one time ...

Your all Heart, Doc!!

I just want to be one of the schmucks who dies of natural causes on the same day the planet explodes.

Global warming is *finally* coming back to south Florida after a twelve day deep freeze ... 70s tomorrow and 80 by Saturday!

Tom, I'll also burn at the stake with you.

You guys have got top stop burning your steaks, medium rare is much better

Great comments Tom! Far to many people on all political sides don’t think through the consequences of pursuing there beliefs to the Nth degree.

In a grad course on the sociology of science I remember reading many peer reviewed articles which clearly established that continents don’t drift.

In a graduate seminar on the sociology of science and technology I walked in late as 7 of the 8 other members were sitting around a table debating the meaning of the brief peer reviewed journal article the professor just handed out. I skimmed it quickly. I then read it a little more closely because I didn‘t understand it despite actually have a fairly good vocabulary. Then I reread it trying to figure out what the hell it really said all the while the debate had erupted into a full blown argument.

When I finally got a chance to talk I said something like “This thing is a joke, it reads like ‘Jabberwocky.’” Well nothing like a common enemy to unite people. They jumped all over me. Then Bruce, the class hippy, chimed in and said “Dean right this is a load of crap.” He and I spent the next 10 minutes or so defending our heretical statements against an onslaught from the previously warring factions, until the professor handed out a follow up article by the same author in which he explains the original article was completely devoid of any meaning and that he only wrote it to prove he could get anything published in a peer reviewed journal if he wanted.

The idea of the “dispassionate scientist” sifting through “facts” to discover some “truths” about the world is a complete myth. While I believe “science” does quite well dealing with many things the minute power and influence come into play “scientists” tend to fall pray to human nature no differently than the high priests of a religion or the leaders of political parties. Human nature being what it may is seldom stifled by the trappings of a profession. So once the issue becomes a media darling and power/politics become involved IMO the good “science” goes out the window.

I agree with every point you made there Tom.

As for there being consensus on the matter within the "Scientific community" (whatever that is), I would say that getting good scientists to agree on anything is much like trying to get a bunch of good engineers to come up with the same solution to a problem - doable with something reasonably simple, almost impossible with something complex. Just look at the various debates around audio systems for a great example.

No offence intended for scientists or engineers here, it's just human nature.

BTW - could any of you guys send some snow down here to Victoria, we just had 3 days above 40 degrees Celcius. I can't wait for some of that global cooling to come down our way.

Disgustingly rational, as usual, Tom.

I believe we humans do have an effect on the environment. The question is my mind is, what, and how serious, is the result of that effect.

Regardless, I am in favor of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels if for no other reason than we don't have a native supply sufficient for our needs and must rely on the resources of others, some of whom would prefer we would just disappear in a puff of smoke and are likely supporting efforts to achieve that very end.

I long for the day (and, regrettably will never see it in my lifetime) when we say "thanks, but no thanks. You can drink your oil for all we care." If reducing our dependence on others has a salubrious effect on the environment, so much the better.

salubrious...."promoting health or welfare. healthful, wholesome, salutary"
uhhh, just for uhhh, those who weren't sure what the word meant.

The "Green Movement" has almost become cult-like in some circles where if you don't agree with it, or ask questions you are labelled a non-believer. I've seen and heard people like David Suzuki stating their case on the Business Network here and when asked the tough questions by the host, who was a realist and respectful of his opinion, he became noticably irritated and angry and offered NO meaningful solutions. In fact, I understand that Suzuki walked off the air when radio host John Oakley respectfully asked him some tough questions. People are looking for answers, that is why they ask questions, and don't like to be "shut-up" with rebuttals like..."well, you don't understand because you're not a climatologist"...akin to playing "the race card" designed to minimize ones opinion or make it irrelevant. I have to say it quite irritates me when these guys who are out to "save the world", don't consider the millions of people just trying to make ends meet while they charge hundreds of thousands of dollars for speeches and fly around the world in jets or wave their flags from their ships which are constantly burning up thousands of gallons of diesel fuel.

How much of this is politically motivated or is it just the latest "cause-du-jour"?

Thanks, Dean. Great story.

Excellent point, Jack. "National Security" remains a valid concept for me, and I would absolutely agree that energy independence is a huge and growing problem in that regard.

Adrian, I don't mind being labeled a "non-believer". And, though it is standard party political procedure, I do resent it when Greens (or other extremists) dismiss detractors as stupid or evil. It's "better" to be a teacher or at least a participant than simply be intellectually arrogant.

Perhaps it would be more fun - more constructive - for us to brainstorm ways in which our families could make positive changes in this area without continuing to strive for consensus over the bigger picture.

For my own part, I am trying very hard to avoid buying new stuff. I recognize that consumerism (and especially the related manufacturing) takes an enormous amount of energy. We drive our cars a LONG time, for instance.

My Momma told me never to discuss politics or religion unless I wanted to fight.......having said that, to Tom I would say.....Right ON!

Jack & Tom when I attended university at UW Madison I got into countless debates with “greens” and always brought up the question of why they didn’t try harder to enlist the help of the ‘hawks” (also posed the opposite question to the hawks) seeing as their goals could be complementary if we reduced out dependence on imported energy. No one could ever give a rational answer.

My experience there supports Adrian’s assertion of the cult like nature of many of these people. For anyone interested in this version of groupthink I highly recommend reading Thomas Sowell’s book:

The Vision of the Anointed: Self-Congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy

Thomas Sowell is an easy interesting read. I even went to see him speak at U.W. Madison. However, a group of freedom loving open minded lefties attended just so they could shout him down when he tried to speak. The university didn’t stop them because they were exercising their right to free speech. I guess Mr. Sowell and the group sponsoring him weren’t.

Don’t read me incorrectly. I despise the far right as much as the far left as IMO they are exactly the same in their thinking due to similar social psychological motivations. I read a paper done by some researchers at a Mid Western university (can’t remember were) in the 1980s in which they ostensibly re-conducted a psychological survey from the 1930 to gauge how responses changed from one era to another . In reality they were looking at how political affiliation effected the scoring of the respondents. They found that as with most things people fell along a standard curve with the left and right political extremes scoring equally high. What they didn’t tell the respondents was the that the test they took was a screening examination for officer candidates in the Schutzstaffel

Please note that I am not suggesting that everyone who believes/supports a particular cause fits into the above categories. Just that a significant enough number of people do to scare the hell out of me.

Jeez, Dean, I didn't know they admitted your ilk at Madison.

Thanks for the tip on the Sowell book! I completely agree with you about being scared spitless by the extreme left AND the extreme right.

I agree with your Momma, Argon. It was with no small amount of trepidation that I chose to participate in this discussion. But, we are largely a civil bunch, and I do enjoy learning from everyone.

Who wants to be LEADAH of the EXTREME MIDDLE?

Dean,

Thanks for the book tip. Personally I avoid talking about the left or the right, as I find it too constrictive doing so. What I can't tolerate is totalitarianism (from either end of the scale).

RE: Cult like impressions of the green movement. Without sounding too much like a nutter, I do think the environmental movement of old has been hijacked by some totalitarian type forces (left or right, I can't tell). When we have political figures talking about the need to suspend democracy and so forth, my BS meter goes berserk.

Tom, I agree completely. The one good thing I have seen come out of what I consider to be a fraud has been that people are actually giving more thought into what actually goes into producing what they buy. The end of the disposable society? I hope so.

Here's a neat psuedo science experiment for you all. Get a glass of water and put some ice cubes in it. Let the ice melt. Did the water level rise? Nope. Why? because ice has more volume than the water used to create it (talk to geologists and they'll explain how this effect actually breaks rocks apart over time).

So the melting ice caps will result in a 60 metre rise in sea levels? Huh?

I seem to recall it isn't the ice already floating in the water they are concerned with, I would hope as scientists they are aware of the effect of volume displacment. IIRC, it is the Antarctic ice cap and the Glaciers not in the water, this is where some scientists say the rise in sea levels will come from.

I don't think I have ever heard anything about a 60M rise in sea levels though, more like 5M, just enough to wipe out most of the coastal regions and islands we know now.

Socialists like my money even more than capitalists.

Besides it’s a land grant institution so it doesn’t give them much of a choice. They must even allow ROTC on campus.

I rather enjoyed attending that school after the initial shock of how narrow minded and egotistical academia had become in the years since I’d been gone. I loved eviscerating the lefties’ reasoning every chance I got. Most of their arguments were based on emotion rather than reason plus they always made the mistake of underestimating my knowledge and “real world” experience because I was just a “beach storming blockhead” or “baby killer” in their eyes. Add to that I’d been debating politics with people far older than me and winning since I was about 8 years old and those poor under-educated U.S. saps didn’t stand a chance.

I think the stupidest thing I ever saw there had to do with dwarves and parking meters. The city council, in response to complaints from 3 little people spent $150,000 to lop a couple feet off every down town parking meter because these three people complained they couldn’t reach high enough to use them. When some people complained and asked why they didn’t just issue them parking passes and allow them to pay on an honour system the response was “that treating them like that would make them feel different from other people.”



When I use to discuss politics with people, mistakenly thinking most people were receptive to others’ ideas and reasoned arguments, I often used a piece of paper to illustrate your point of left/right totalitarianism. I’d draw a standard curve on the paper with the horizontal axis representing the left to right political spectrum. I’d then roll it so the left/right edges were touching and explain that the real political divide in this country is not between the left and right but rather between the totalitarians at the extremes and the majority in the middle who just want to be left alone.

It’s interesting how group dynamics effect organizing for collective action and how it often favors these small radical minorities allowing them to wield far more political power than there numbers should indicate. Mancur Olson covers this topic well in his book The Logic of Collective Action. "The logic" is a rather dry read so if interested in his theories his book The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities is more accessible.

Grunt, Jakewash,

Yep, the piece of paper demo illustrates my thoughts entirely. When people believe the end justifies the means, we get in all sorts of trouble.

The concern I have these days is now that the whole AGW thing is coming undone, that Joe sixpack won't believe anything from any scientists for a long time. This is my biggest concern. Maybe he will have a short memory?

Here's a link you may find interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/mar/08/climate-change-flooding

Quoting the IPCC (which is a political body, not a scientific one, IMHO).

I am more than happy to be proven wrong as I am more interested in getting facts than being right or wrong.

I think anyone who volanteers should automatically be disqualified. Let's conscript someone instead.

Yep.

The ice-in-the-glass observation is indeed true for north-pole ice. Arctic ice floats on top of the Arctic ocean. It could all melt and sea levels wouldn't change.

But the same doesn't hold true for Greenland and Antarctica. Both of which consist of vast ice sheets on top of land. That ice isn't floating. If all that ice were to melt, global sea levels would rise significantly. No, it wouldn't be Water World but it would certainly suck for the majority of the Earth's population that just so happens to live in coastal areas.

Peter,

Understood, but the antarctic isn't melting anywhere near like the north pole was/is/whatever.

It's interesting to note that some of the early explorers to the antarctic (early 1900s) recorded seeing land down there which is not visible today (due to ice).

It's also interesting to hear about villages in Greenland being uncovered under the retreating ice.

I just read through this whole thing assuming that every post by madjak was written by Adrian.

You guys have to use dissimilar avatars.





Because I said so, that's why.

You better re-read the whole thread again, Mark, now that you know.

You have to send Mark a pm to get him to do anything, Adrian.

Hmmm, does that mean he needs a pm with instructions to read his pm's?

Actually, the avatar thing is a secret ploy between me and madjack to confuse the crap out of Mark...it seems to be working so far....

WTF?!

Thanks for bringing that up Mark, I would have never noticed ... must be the climate change giving me brain dysfunction.

Yea, that's what it is.

Uh oh! another one....OK!....preferences....


How's that? since we are on a global warming thread I've blocked out the sun....can you feel it cooling down again Rick?

I wasn't going to mention it BUT I did the same as Mark and Rick. One of you fellows got to change.

I really hurt my eyes looking at your new avatar!

New? You must be getting old Tom.

I just noticed Adrians new avatar...........duh.

Nobody is going to attack The Guardian as a biased source? LOL You can't believe anything you read there.

Some portion of the worlds ice will melt in a period of warming. In the subsequent cooling period, more moisture will again be captive in glaciers. So it goes.

The pernicious idea that earth will become like Venus unless we halt all economic activity and become vegans is enough for me to dismiss those loons. "Greenhouse gasses" is still part of the official vocabulary, right?

Adrian,

You were probably here first, so I've changed to something else.

This time

I'm glad this thread has come back to some middle ground. I left it for a while as it was swinging dangerously close to the far edges of political views. Not that that is a bad thing, unless civility is lost, just that I agree that not much gets accomplished on either side of that swing.

Speaking of fuels only for a second, and leaving world weather out of it, I'd be interested to hear more on what people think would happen if a new 100% green, 100% renewable energy source was announced as being invented tomorrow.

Personally, I would love to see a clean, self sustaining replacement for fossil fuels. It's hard to argue that pollution is not a bad thing and that our reliance on a diminishing (yes, the rate can be debated but lets leave that aside for a sec.) fuel source can and will continue to, cause issues.

I do not think that has to mean the end of a particular way of life but I can definitely see where the fears lie and depending on where and who invents it, it could be justified. In a world of trademarks and patents and where control over technology is equal to wealth and power, it's easy to envision a power-shift or a struggle that gets out of hand if such a technology is perfected.

The first big effect.
While I have no desire to see jobs lost, I'd have no problem seeing oil conglomerates lose their market over time. They have way too much control over the worldwide pricing of their own product and I'm certain that at the high levels, enough money has been made that they can still live out their lives a lot more comfortable than the rest of us.

However, I think that even if the invention is an instant 'eureka moment' the shift won't happen in a day and they will have time to adapt or even take control of the greener technologies (although I'd personally rather see it reside elsewhere.)

Even if a totally green, cost effective power was invented tomorrow, it would take forever to implement nation wide, much less world wide. While it might be cost effective in relation to energy production, the new technology will be most certainly expensive. These questions and points remain.

- Despite many energy advances, many nations are still relying on coal. Could they afford to go green even if it was there?

- Even in a Utopia where the government offers consumer incentives, govs can not risk bankrupting themselves. So how long will it take before anyone but the upper class can afford the new technology. Then eventually the upper middle, middle and so on. What happens to the poor family who can't afford to fill their oil tank in the winter, much less replace it while the fuel delivery businesses convert to the new tech or go out of business because it is no longer lucrative. A total switchover is hopefully coming someday, but it must be done at a pace that allows for gov. aid and incentives so that the little guys do not get left behind.

- Will the energy transmission infrastructure have to be completely changed or can electric companies adapt or will every car & household be able to provide their own energy? Again, I bet the transformation will be agonizingly slow. Too fast, the fears of economic issues come true, but at an acceptable pace, the economy simply shifts from the old to the new.

- How would the ownership of the new tech be shared worldwide? Question, would the US (or any nation) be willing to go to Haiti tomorrow and build a new power plant from this newly invented magic tech. (pretending for a moment it existed) or would it be keeping it within it's borders, citing legal issues and such, in order to gain edge in power over their enemies or competing trade nations.

- What happens in the middle east if oil becomes instantly worthless. Again, the "instantly" part is simply not going to happen. I don't pretend to be able to guess how many years a total transformation to a new green energy would take, but I'd again suggest it will take a long time. However, the vision of it becoming worthless would start to take hold.

-- How will the economy shift. Does it have to crash? I don't think it 'has' to. If my less than expertise guess that a transition would be very slow is true, then I suspect that there would be some initial unrest but that eventually jobs would shift into the production of the new tech, equipement and it's delivery. Eventually, competing versions will be developed that get around the initial 'super-patent' and that will divert more industry, spending, jobs etc.

Car factories are already revamping for the slow market for electric cars. So, we know they can adapt slowly but how quickly could they adapt to new super fuel invention? Again, it could mean some don't survive but an optimistic view is that others will divert or create new jobs as new factories are build or revamped. Impossible to predict for sure.

- What happens to the pricing of goods?
Take the auto industry again for example. What happens when the immense costs of energy are removed from their budgets? Big corporations will likely be the first to adopt a new efficient but initially expensive technology, simply because they can afford it. After implementation costs are removes, I'd hazard that the net cost to produce a car will be reduced by an amazing amount of money.

However, will that savings eventually be passed on to the consumer? We certainly know that traditionally, it's very rare to see a company say, "Oh hey, we are lowering our prices because oil went down this month and we wan't to pass the savings on to you." Increasing prices due to oil price increases however are commonplace. The currency exchange rates are another example. We certainly didn't see any savings here in Canada for local prices when products could be bought much cheaper in the US when our dollar was doing well.

Competition will drive savings to the consumer eventually but again, I'd say it will take it's sweet old time.


OK, my totally boring conference call is over so it's back to real work. If you are actually silly enough to still be reading this over sized post. Remember, I'm posing questions, not arguing for either side you might see as radical.

To summarize: Green, renewable tech will be an important achievement for mankind. I think, even hope, that it will not be an instant transformation. Experts will never agree on what the short term effects will be at a society level. There are simply too many questions and it's based on way to many variables. Two of the largest being 'time to implement' and how much of a commodity it becomes vs. the pleasant but unlikely "overnight savior of the world" theory.

Environment aside (as I promised I'd do,) I'm guessing the best social eventuality lies somewhere in the middle.

Emily Latella:: I don't know what all the fuss is about CLIMAX Change!?! It is a perfectly normal thing.....

Right now there are huge incentives 50% of purchase price or more, potential selling back of extra energy produced and potential tax breaks, though home equity loans, for buying solar power here in Arizona making the price very affordable. I could mount the system on my back fence and make it so it tracks the sun for optimal electrical generation. And we do tend to get a lot of sun here in Phoenix, “The Valley of the Sun.”

However, from an investment standpoint it’s a bad one right now. Going solar was one of the first things I looked into when I bought my house because I hate the idea of being slaved to huge monopoly owned government regulated (worst of both worlds) electrical grid. But, best case scenario for me (no equity in my home to borrow against) the most likely return on investment I could achieve over the life of a system is about 2%. While the worst (safest) investment instrument I’m presently using has and ROI of 4 % the best was over 30% last year because of the depressed state of the stock market. So for me it’s not a matter of costing to much up front but rather it just being a bad investment unless something changes. As for solar water heating, natural gas is so cheap here I wouldn’t even consider it.

I would still love to have my own solar power and heat capability just for peace of mind, but for now it’d be a waste of my money.

My biggest reason for alternative energy sources still based on national security. Imagine if the 911 terrorists hadn’t been stuck in their typical narrow-minded headline grabbing doctrine. What if instead they had crashed the planes into 4 of the 5 major oil refineries serving the U.S. Even if the actual damage had not been crippling the ensuing economic panic would have been massive. I assure you that many areas of the U.S. would have declared martial law.

Grunt,

I like the idea of home based wind turbines. The area we live can get pretty windy, and I understand some of the 1KW wind turbines available now are extremely quiet and they'll run 24X7. The only problem is that local councils would give me a hard time for installing them.

I too like the idea of not being reliant on the big end of town for the basics. Here in Australia, with the amount of sun we get, I really like the idea of solar panels on every home roof. I understand some of the new techs coming out are in fact roof tiles which act as PV units. If this can be manufactured cheaply enough, then we're looking at a great way to prevent having to build a large number of new power stations.

Murph,

I am assuming by 100% green and cheap you mean green from both a manufacturing perspective as well as a maintenance perspective. If there was such a thing, it would be fantastic, however, I think the best bet is finding the most efficient option to what is in use currently.
As for coal use, even though it's a controversial thing to say, Nuclear power has got to be a well considered option for replacing coal stations, IMHO.
I think you will find the oil companies would be some for the first to jump on board with a new tech like that - after all, all businesses must evolve right?

I think it's only controversial amongst certain "groups". In fact Nuclear Power would already have weened the free world off of foreign oil had these "groups" not set the industry back, what, a couple of decades. There is a lot of misinformation about the Nuclear industry imo, praying on people's fears. The initial cost and time to build a Nuclear plant is quite great, but fuelling them is very cheap and efficient beyond the initial cost. The waste materials must obviously, be dealt with in a responsible manner. China seems to be forward thinking and is currently building some 20 or so plants with more to come where other nations twiddle their thumbs and spend millions, if not billions, on feasablity studies wasting time and money.

There are a number of possibilities out there, but when the majority of people learn how much extra they will end up paying, above what they are accustomed to, more than likely they will balk and most of the alternatives.

While nuclear power is certainly a viable option for many purposes I don’t like it as a general replacement for fossil fuel for a reason not generally associated with the hysteria of the anti-nuclear movement. The centralized nature of it’s production and high startup costs which invariably mean it’s going to be big companies (read monopolies) and heavily government regulated both of which are completely at odds with personal liberties bothers me. I could see it being used for supporting large industrial parks and even large built up cities where other options may not be viable but I’d rather see more localized even individualized power generation especially in the wide open places like Arizona.

Thorium reactors seem to be an interesting alternative to traditional uranium reactors. I'd be interested in seeing more research towards those. Unfortunately, Grunt's issues still remain.

I'm feeling guilty for speeding yesterday. I'm going to buy some carbon credits from Gore to make up for it. - sorry, pointles jab. I need to refrain from this thread. Having a career tied to power generation, and the oil and gas industry makes me too biased…..

I will say that Tom summed up my feelings to a T.

I knew this was coming, looks like the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is going to impose some fisheries closures due to the massive fish kills from the recent cold weather ... FWC responds to widespread cold-weather saltwater fish kills. Word around the rumor mill is that the current snook closure 'til September of this year may extend upwards of three to five years, that's a hit for us.

Good news is that I'm hearing the sailfish are hot and heavy at the moment, if we can only get some decent seas offshore.

Here's an interesting link

It looks like NASA and GISS have joined the University of East Anglia with "climate gate".

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/01/climategate-arrives-in-the-us/

wow, lots of cool links off of the one provided. thanks.

Alright. I have resisted posting so far, but...

If a baby once drowned in a bathtub does that make all bathtubs murderous devices that should be banned from the planet? Not likely.

I think that describes the current 'climate gate' scandal quite well.

We now have more than 50 years of research and data and it all points in the same direction. Humans have had a direct impact on the global climate making it warmer.

Some of the theories on the mechanisms behind the warming have pr oven wrong, but the basic premise has not.

The 'debate' over global warming is more like a war. There is a winner and a looser. Nobody gets points for playing nice and over the last 30 years, the scientific community has learned how to play the same hardball private interests have been playing for years.

Take a look at big pharma. The have been fudging the data for less promising drugs for a long time. The tobacco industry is another fine example of the rules of engagement for this sort of debate/war.

What does this mean? It means that you can pretty much throw out the stuff crap from the mainstream media that passes for news these days, switch on your brain really read what is published.

The current climate gate is just another front in the war.

An interesting report I heard last night, which describes the probable cause of the cold weather. Despite what I had been thinking, it's not related to climate change--it's the Arctic oscillation. The Arctic is up by some 10-15 degrees this winter.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122649916

BTW, discarding anomalous data points and drawing graphs is standard practice in just about ever science out there.

Fred, I agree totally. The Lamestream media are utterly useless down here anyways. The news is really just entertainment and gossip now.

I am on the other side of the fence, but on that point I agree with you 100%.