See, that's exactly what I mean. The chances of me having enough spare time to read all that approach negative territory while the preponderance of citations listed are from sources I am inclined not to trust.
Briefly glancing at it they start with Penn State itself, of which it is an understatement to say it has covered up far, far worse scandals than this would be. They continue with EPA and other agency inaction, by which logic we would all be comforted there is no fraud or wrongdoing in the banking/financial sector because clearly the DOJ and SEC would be all over it if there were. Then they end with Mann himself, who I assume is not going to fall on the nearest sword that happens to be lying around.
I am not personally invested in the issue whatsoever beyond being instinctively inclined towards trusting those with biases and outlooks more similar to mine than less. Maybe though someday I'll read all that and agree with you 100% that my suspicion of Mann was misplaced, in which case I'll be the first to say so. Heck, with increasing murmurs of criminal and civil litigation over the climate change issue maybe I'll get paid to become expert on it before too much longer.
It is important to keep climate change and the end of the fossil fuel age as separate discussions in my view. Best to focus the discussion to just one variable. So lets just look at the end of the fossil fuel age in this comment.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource, therefore they will run out. Mathematically certain.
Without fossil fuels, Humanity returns to wood burning society (circa 1600's) and only able to feed a vastly reduced current world population.
All fossil fuels (that can be extracted at an energy profit) will be burnt by the end of THIS Century. ie. within the lifetime of those being born today.
THIS IS THE MESSAGE WE NEED TO HAMMER INTO GENERAL PUBLIC AT EVERY OPPORTUNITY.
Humanity might get serious then and we may be able to build out and sustain a long term 1800's standard of living and population size instead of a 1600's one that we are currently heading towards.
Ccwesq,
I have been down this path before in posted discussions. None of us can check up and do 'due diligence' on every element of every subject. The question for you and for all of us then becomes "who do you trust"?
I understand your cynicism. I feel it too about everything that I do not have personal knowledge of. The world has suffered a systematic destruction of trust in this era of fraud. Who are we going to believe, politicians (!), bankers (!!!), governments, journalists, churches, any organization, doctors, scientists? It seems that all have been tarnished by one scandal after another in this get rich quick, screw your brother, I've got mine-get yours free for all (but it isn't free for all is it?) period of greed is good and damn the costs.
Some portion of this is due to these freewheeling times, but a good portion of it is fabricated by those who profit from the corrupted parody of societies that we have today. If no entity is trustworthy then there is no group credible enough to question the powers that be and rally any sort of sentiment against them. There are no facts anymore, there are only political points of view.
You've been played as we all have. In destroying our trust in everything and everyone, those in power have left each of us isolated. If anyone or any group rises to some level of threat then they will be summarily demolished using smear campaigns or worse.
To counter this, we need to rebuild our own personal networks of trust and this site has been an excellent place to do so, in my opinion. People from all stripes post here and I have learned tremendous amounts from wide ranging discussions whether or not I agree with all expressed viewpoints or understand every technical nuance. Too much of society has been manipulated into a 'divide and conquer' situation these days wherein we fight each other instead of focusing on the real issues and common adversaries we face.
We talk a lot about the need for community on this site but the reality of any community is that there will be a multitude of outlooks and priorities. We do not need to agree on every point but we do need to respect each other enough to discuss matters civilly or agree to disagree on some matters without necessarily ostracizing each other from all further communications. Community means learning to live constructively together, warts and all.
You have captured in a nutshell with 100% accuracy not only where I am psychologically in the trust department but also why I have been here lurking around PP for a while as a way of finding some community beyond what you can have with those who do not share the general view of the site. So thanks for that, it was affirming.
Luke - I did not mean I wasn't invested in peak oil and the need for weaning off fossil fuels, just the A part of AGW. Internalizing the message of The Creature and discovering I'd been lied to my whole life and that everything we've ever worked for is likely to go down the drain, that was traumatizing. Finding out the A part of AGW has some validity? That would be a walk in the park.
Climber99,
I agree that it would be much simpler to let peak oil/coal/NG do the heavy lifting and avoid the albatross of discussing AGW. I certainly would like this thread's discussion to go back to practical approaches to energy efficiency (a no brainer) and possible alternatives to fossil fuels. I am amazed at just how much many of the people posting here have already accomplished!
The reason I provide this caution is that there is yet another fossil fuel of much greater energy potential and danger than any yet mined in commercial quantities. I am talking of methane hydrates (aka clathrates) which lie throughout many parts of the World's oceans. The only reason that they have not been actively exploited to date is that they are exceedingly unstable and hard to mine without setting off catastrophic events.
There are numerous efforts underway to profitably and 'perhaps' safely tap this new bounty of fossil energy. As you can see from the graphic, the carbon pools from these new resources are vastly larger than anything we've been able to tap so far from coal, natural gas and oil. Worse yet, each molecule of methane is over 20 times as powerful as a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide (over the next 100 years). If we think that we have climate problems now just imagine what happens if we try to keep the fossil fuel energy bonanza going for the next century by mining these fuels.
AGW should not be a political question, it is one of practical safety. The physics and math behind the subject don't care which way we vote but everyone and everything on the planet has to live with the consequences of our actions. The fact remains though that a lot of people stand to make a lot of money from extracting and distributing fossil fuels, and we all gain a lot of comfort from them. Myself included, as I sit here in my heated home having arrived in my gasoline powered car.
I can only aspire to making the many changes that have been discussed on this thread! I am truly inspired by the people here who have taken action on embodying the change that is needed to move forward.
In reading this thread, I was surfing to understand some concepts, and found this.
The site (http://www.freecriticalthinking.org/) talks also about the three E's.
I've read books, articles and reports on both sides of the fence. It can get frustrating.
Take aways. I am not a fan of the IPCC. AGW advocates are many and some of them are going to get over zealous with claims and possibly have trouble keeping their preconceptions from affecting their science.
But, the long and the short of it is this. The accuracy of AGW science has no bearing on whether the globe is warming, or whether causation is anthropogenic. AGW is either real or it's not, entirely independent of science.
I personally have a sample with one data point… The small neck of the woods I live in is noticeably warmer, relatively consistently and over an extended period of time. Long enough in fact that the USDA plant hardiness zone map has changed. The zones in my neck of the woods have shifted North 100-150 miles.
It's hard to completely discount AGW, when you can notice what appears to be a changing trend.
The really cool thing about believing completely and wholeheartedly in Peak Energy, is that I can change my lifestyle to minimize energy consumption to address Peak Energy. My carbon footprint is reduced as a consequence, so I don't have to fret over whether I need to make a change because of AGW.
Simplifies the equation, if not the decision. Either way, you still have to think of parting with your F150.
Overall, I think the points of the thread are great, especially those who mention that within our life times, fossil fuels will be a thing of the past. This point is pretty much undebatable, the math behind the use of a finite resource just doesn't add up.
My own personal experience with this has been somewhat painful. When we moved a year and a half ago, I was lucky enough to be 6 miles away from work. I somewhat arrogantly assumed that I would be able to bike to work a good amount of the time. Err…my 40 year old body rebelled against the idea pretty quickly. I was able to get in 4 straight days of riding to and from work each day, but after that…I had to acknowledge that I should have spent some time building up to the physical amount of work involved. I am slowly trying to increase my physical fitness as the spring gets warmer…so I can start biking again. Using less fossil fuels (and saving money) are important. Might as well start now. Nobody knows when the shocks will arrive.
I have said this on the climate change thread and will just mention it again here…I used to be rabidly in the camp of the deniers. In my 20s when I was politically involved in Vermont government, the idea of rapid climate change was offensive, and anyone who bought into the idea was naive. The press, scientists…it was all a plot.
I'm only speaking for myself, but thank god for life experience. Memory is delicate thing, but the torrential down pours that hit the north east now are much stronger than when I was a kid. And things based on memory, rainfall totals per storm, etc…FACTs…those all indicate weather is changing rapidly. Monthly averages are swinging and varying at an unexplainable rate. March was just the 11th warmest up here in Vermont, on top of the 7th warmest and 8th wettest February. Warmest December and September on record last year. October and November were well above average.
As Chris and others attempt to get the mainstream thinking about long term energy use/availability, I don't have a problem supporting education on climate change topics.
By definition…just look at the numbers…the climate is shifting. I am hoping for some "average" months soon. Crossing my fingers.
I used to be a critic of CM's on the grounds that he was avoiding the climate issue, but this article shows he is tackling it head on, so kudos for that.
I like the hopefulness in CM's approach. I saw a quote on the net today that shows how many people are starting to think, and it's dangerous:
And as far as reducing emissions now to reduce future climate change, that is an utter joke, we are way past doing anything to stop the planet going "Venus". The planet has set up the perfect storm, with 55 million years of stored carbon, CH4 etc, just below the current melt line, @ 406 ppm CO2 and 1840 ppb CH4 we have leapfrogged over any chance of reversing what is set in motion. The ice is guaranteed to go, that was locked in @ at least 350 ppm CO2, since then it has only been a matter of time …. TIMES UP, sorry. It's a bit like seeing the flash of a nuclear bomb, the only thing you can do is take your glasses off, bend over and place your head between your legs, and kiss your a*s goodbye
Ah, the topic near and dear to all our hearts. As has been said many times here before, mother nature bats last. The question is not, "will we get there?", but how.
Once practical pressures are brought to bear, lets hope it will drive rapid transformation. As thebrewer stated, 90% of people installing solar are doing so because of financial reasons, but that is OK. As resources of all types become scarce, as climate destabilization makes long range resource transport difficult, we will have a choice, eat local or don't eat at all. Put on a sweater if you're cold or just be cold.
Here is to hoping 7 billion busy human beings set off on the "right course" due to simple necessity will turn into a very good thing. If we continue to behave very badly, then perhaps it will be only 3.5 billion. Ideological debate will be left to cold winter evenings when there is little else to do. As we are sitting in the cold and dark with our teeth chattering, AGW debate will finally have some use, the hot air may keep us a little warmer on those cold winter evenings. Pity on those further south, in my twisted imagination, I can't come up with any rational.
I think that too many people had a taste of the good life due to the fossil fuel bonanza to go quietly into the night to become surfs for TPTB. Time will tell. Being flippant, of course is just a defense mechanism. As one of the guest speakers noted, survivalist are preparing themselves to fight armed and "evil" marauders, are they prepared to shoot starving women and children. And that of course begs another question. Are those bent on acquiring financial acuity, assuming they are successful, ready to directly or indirectly do the same.
And to my most fervent prayer, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. In our time of need, may we put all our enmity and conflict aside and learn to embrace one another, if not in love, at least with a goal of forgiveness and compassion. For alone we are truly lost. A world divided against itself will truly fall.
I am always dumbfounded to read comments which try so desperately to keep business as usual moving forward utilizing improbable means. It is difficult to near impossible to assess and address our predicament unless we shatter the cultural and personal narratives which mask our reality.
Fortunately, someone has assumed the distasteful task of cracking that shell by compiling and coalescing the interdisciplinary truths of evolution theory, biology, anthropology, archeology, economics, environmental science and history in one concise volume.
Do read, "Too Smart for our Own Good: The Ecological Predicament of Humankind" by Craig Dilworth with highlighter in hand. When done, read it again. (If the term 'vicious' in his proposed "Vicious Circle Principle" is too distasteful, substitute the word 'unfortunate').
At the moment there is no evidence that methane hydrates can be, or will ever be, exacted at an energy profit. Never say never of course but let us not deal with hypothetical situations just yet; we have more than enough on our plates as it is !
I wouldn't be so sanguine about the desire and potential of many industries and countries for mining methane hydrates. The rush is on to try to tap these massive fossil fuel energy stores. Desperation for energy, while hard to see in the current oil glut, is on the minds of many countries (link). As peak oil bites and should costs rise again, more and more will try to go after these unconventional energy sources.
Research into commercial development began in earnest around the year 2000 with programs in a number of countries. The US has been a leader in the research, but Asian countries, particularly Japan, China, India and South Korea have the most to gain because they lack conventional gas resources and pay the highest price for imported natural gas. Canada and the EU also have research programs.
Japan is probably at the forefront of those desperately in need of harvesting this dangerous resource.
The government has succeeded in extracting samples of a next-generation resource called methane hydrate from the bottom of the Sea of Japan, the Agency for Natural Resources and Energy said Thursday.
Researchers conducted drilling surveys and were able to obtain samples of the “fiery ice” under the ocean floor off Niigata, Akita and Yamagata prefectures. The samples collected were up to a meter thick.
The agency, an arm of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, will continue its three-year survey on methane hydrate — a frozen substance consisting of methane and water — through fiscal 2015 and aims to assess the amount extant in the Sea of Japan.
It is estimated that there is enough methane hydrate beneath coastal waters to meet the nation’s natural gas needs for 100 years.
I have personally met researchers actively engaged in trying to solve the access, safety and cost issues surrounding the commercial mining of methane hydrates. I remember one self describing her work as being a part of the 'dark side' which was in jest as we were at an environmental science conference. Here is what the Department of Energy in the United States is involved in:
The U.S. Department of Energy methane hydrate program aims to develop the tools and technologies to allow environmentally safe methane production from arctic and domestic offshore hydrates. The program includes R&D in:
Production Feasibility: Methane hydrates occur in large quantities beneath the permafrost and offshore, on and below the seafloor. DOE R&D is focused on determining the potential and environmental implications of production of natural gas from hydrates.
Research and Modeling: DOE is studying innovative ways to predict the location and concentration of subsurface methane hydrate before drilling. DOE is also conducting studies to understand the physical properties of gas hydrate-bearing strata and to model this understanding at reservoir scale to predict future behavior and production.
Climate Change: DOE is studying the role of methane hydrate formation and dissociation in the global carbon cycle. Another aspect of this research is incorporating GH science into climate models to understand the relationship between global warming and methane hydrates.
International Collaboration: International collaboration continues to be a vital part of the program since gas hydrates represent research challenges and resource potential that are important on a global scale.
The German gas hydrate initiative “SUGAR – Submarine Gas Hydrate Reservoirs” is a collaborative R&D project with 20 partners from SMEs, industry and research institutions. The project is coordinated by the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR). SUGAR was launched in 2008 and is now successfully continuing in its 2nd phase, running from 2011 to 2014.
For more information about the 1st SUGAR phase - click here.
The 2nd SUGAR phase is structured in the following sub-projects:
The SUGAR project has set out to develop marine methane hydrates as a new, unconventional resource of natural gas and to combine its production with the safe sequestration of carbon dioxide from power plants and other industrial sources in CO2 hydrates below the seafloor. This large-scale national project is funded by two federal ministries and the German industry.
So no, it is not commercial yet but there is a lot of effort going into bringing it into the market. Humanity will not go quietly into the night of peak-energy without doing everything possible to continue supporting the energy-intensive lifestyles we have become dependent upon. When have we, as a society, ever willingly learned to live with less of anything? As I see it, our best possibility would be for Gail Tverberg's Deflationary Collapse scenario to play out taking the economic possibility of supporting methane hydrate mining off the table with it until such time as we develop the ability to factor longer term concerns into our planning.
One of the few groups that has more liars, thieves, and charlatans than the US government. What a complete waste of time and money, both to prop up their existence, and to travel to one of their worthless meetings.
Hi Vilbas, if you and your girlfriend are planning on being in Virginia this summer and want to spend some time helping out on a small permaculture-oriented farm, contact us. We have a small cabin for use by interns/guests and live in a breath-takingly beautiful location in the mountains, near the WV border. Anaber99@aol.com.
Daniel, I grew up in the Harrisonburg area, and my family is still there. I delivered ice for Cassco in the late 80s, early 90s, so I know much of the region from DC to Covington, over to Charlottesville.
What town are you located in? Keezletown?
