Not sure this made it through: I was thinking you might like the movie "Chicken Run." It's a kids film
but it does have cowering chickens an neat claymation like "Wallace and Gromit."
It is true that we're in for some effects of warming no matter what. But, there is a model
to reduce our GHG emissions quickly because renewables are competative with fossil fuels now.
It is true that there is a lot of FUD. I submitted a story on the Union of Concerned Scinetists report
on ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign on global warming. You can see it here http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/journal/160250.
But, boy, this sure looks like it could be abused. I wonder if this is a catagory problem. Should
disclosure be required through lobbying laws or by some other means, say through SEC filings?
Actually, in some places in CA, one can get away with a system that produces less power than 100% (averaged over the year) because the day time power is more valuable than the night time power. The engineer who designs your system will take that into account. The company wants to be sure that you are not loosing anything by converting to solar.
Microhydro is really really good. I'd encourage you to go with that. On the other hand,
the grid is there and it does not hurt to use it in this way upto about 20% of the total
generating capacity. After that you've got some engineering to do I think. Utilites still
charge a connection fee no matter what. So long as that connection fee covers grid maintainance,
then we're pretty much neutral on that side. Our systems are set up to provide 100% of your
power usage. This is because the utilities don't have to pay you retail for excess power.
You do OK as long as you're working with kWh credits, but once you go over, you pay retail to us,
but the utility pays you a lower avoided cost and you could loose a little on that.
Where I live, I actually save a little money from the getgo because my solar rate does not
include the utility distribution charge which is proprtional to usage. I've discussed this with my
co-op and there is a potential problem there. But, the cap on net metering in Maryland is
so low that it can't be a real problem yet. If this really takes off, a somewhat differnt
rate structure will be needed.
This means early adopters save money, at least in my case. That is a bit different from the
situation in the main article.
The difference between CO2 and aerosols is that the CO2 persists while the aerosols fall out.
The forests, aside from permanent deforestation are not so important because they grow back and
on average hold the same amount of carbon. What we've done is bring geological cycle carbon into
the biological cycle at a rate faster than the biological cycle can handle.
It does not cost the economy anything to start changing. Try my home page. In fact, since this
all happens in the US, it helps our economy since we'll stop hemoraging money to the Middle East.
Unfortunately though, all that high grade electric energy still becomes heat when it is used. That's a law
of thermodynamics. But, it does not hurt anything, we'd get the heat no matter what. What really counts is that
there is no need to burn coal when you use solar. This means that the IR opacity of the atmosphere is not
increased by the avoided CO2 emissions. Take a look at the calculator on my web site to see how much CO2
you can avoid emitting!
Well, I think there is some rethinking to do if we go to renewables. I mentioned William McDonough's
thinking in an earlier post. The main thing there is that everthing is done on current accounts. You
use energy as it arrives at the planet rather than exhausting reseviors built up over geological time.
In many ways, this removes scarcity considerations because we are never competing for sunlight that
illuminates China or India. You don't really compete for renewable resources because they are not
centralized.
I've been trying to think about these issues a little at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/. See what
you think.
-----
Disclosure: I sell solar power (see my home page).
Yes, the rate lock in is very atractive, and there is no installation fee, no permit hassles, and the
system is monitored and adjusted to you're usage at not cost. They'll take off panels if you start
using less, add them if you start using more. This is going to change the way we generate power in
amazing ways. Go to http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar to sign up today.
You've hit an important point here. William McDonough http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/extravagant_gest ure.htm
argues that renewables allow us to live abundantly. I find his critisism of the eco-efficiency movement as lacking
anything that can motivate people quite interesting. Run you christmas lights and your neighbor's too.
But, be sure they're aimed down please. I don't like light pollution: http://www.darksky.org/
Disclosure: I sell solar power (reserve a system at my home page).
You can get solar for no more than you're paying now for electricity, no installation fee,
no permit hassles, and no rate increases for up to 25 years.
I love what Mr. Strizki has done but I wish he'd heard of this opportunity first.
My Electric Coop keeps me informed through new letters included with my bill
about legislative developments that affect rates and such. I'm a member of the coop
so I guess that would be excluded.
My cable company tries to get me to write congress so they can take over the
land line market. This might be included because I am a customer not a memeber.
My cell phone company has had some gripes too and again I'm a customer not a member.
Now, the solar power company I sell for has a definite agenda when it comes to net metering
laws: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-am way-way.html. I'm not
an employee, I'm an associate. I might however initiate a company-wide announcement
that makes it to most of the customers that supports the agenda to increase access to
net metering. Am I retained? Maybe. Am I communicating with more that 500 people? Yes, sales
are growing incredibly. Am I a lobbyist in the way the bill intended? Very hard to say but I'd guess yes.
I feel pretty good that this was removed from the bill just because it was so vauge that
many many activities might come under its scope.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
You are correct, weather rides on climate but abberations may not always be directly related to climate. The envelope of weather
extremes can be affects and obviously, with warming, the averages shift. Here is a cool video of the rapid change in hardiness zones
that is climate related: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
My point is about the cumulative effect of climate change that runs faster than evolutionary adaptation can manage. Should
ecosystems cease to function, our time here is limited.
I think the question you're posing is "Is the human effect measurable against the background?"
The answer is almost certainly yes. This is a different question from "Is the Earth warmer than it
would be if we had not increased the CO2 concentration?" The answer to that is definately yes.
The reason that this is definite is owing to basic conservation principles. Solar energy is
retained by the atmosphere because it is more opaque at infrared wavelengths than at optical
wavelengths. The Earth would be much colder if it did not have an atmosphere. The lunar surface (on average)
is colder than the Earth's surface. The Moon (on average) is the same distance from the Sun as the
Earth. The difference in temperature is mainly owing the the greenhouse effect provided by the
Earth's atmosphere. Changing the composition of the atmosphere as we have changes the infrared
opacity, increasing it, and thus boosts the greenhouse effect. There can't really be reasonable
doubt about this.
The increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is something we did. The Earth IS warmer than
it would be otherwise. It is possible that the "otherwise" temperature would also be higher for other
reasons, but for a part of the temperature increase, we are responsible.
I don't think this is anything to feel egotistical about. We're the dominant megafauna. Buffalo remade
the plains. It's not so suprising that we're remaking the Earth. We're just not being smart about
how we're doing it. I think there is a better way. Take a look at the video on http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar
and see what you think.
I think she is urging education rather than some kind of forced agreement. Her example is
a statements that long term cycles might be responsible. This is not at all likely and should
be caveated. Since there is a definite tactic to "teach the controversy" out there, one
ought to be able to say that portions of what we know are not cotroversial at all. In this
case, some portion of the recent warming is very likely to be caused by humans. I agree
with you that N(landings)=N(takeoffs) is just right, but giving very unlikely possibilities
equal weight with very likely things is a rhetorical trope. It is kind of OK if you are taking
uniform priors for calculations, but it is misleading when doing public communication.
I was working on supernovae, which, at a stretch, could drive climate change. My interest in the atmosphere comes
from trying to look through it. For ten micron spectroscopy, ozone is bad and so are CO2 and H2O. Ten microns is
where the heat is trapped and conversely where celestial signals are blocked by green house gasses.
I don't see Gore using strawman arguments, so I have less reason to doubt his sincerity. However, you're assesment
of Inhofe's motives could be correct and if so it would be very sad since he seems so confused in that light. I've read
a lot of what he's written and I get a very different impression and have formed a different opinion. Surely you'll
concede that there is a well funded campaign going on to misinform the public supported by Inhofe's political contributors.
Well, I'm not sure she has such a bad idea. What she is asking for is that meteorologists
know what they are talking about. She wants them to be informed. So, what is wrong with
professional standards in a professional society?
Hum... It is true that the National Academies fund research, they've funded some of mine. But, they do this at a very low level in service to the National Labs.
I think you want NSF, NASA, NOAA and DOD for funding agency that have budgets.
The problem with Sen. Inhofe is that he is a shill. He isn't presenting evidence, he's presenting talking points with a flair
for invective.
-----
Disclosure: I have a finacial interest in ending global warming (see my home page).
There is a range in predictions of the consequences of global warming and one should look at the high end
in assesing risk. Even the high end may not be an adequate guide in some cases. For example, the risk of
more powerful storms is predicted generally to come late in the game yet there is some evidence that an
incease in the number of catagory 4 and 5 storms is already occuring. Could be a problem with the models.
I think your second point is quite interesting. We are now adapting to global warming, and we a pretty good
at it. Just as crop planting decisions are sometimes based on El Nino forecasts, we are in pretty good shape
when it comes to making plans to adapt. The market is a help. Insurance companies are beginging to abandon
coastal customers for example.
While we may adapt in our activites (we're the best species in that game), other species may not have the time
to adapt becuase they rely on evolutionary timescales and we are running the environmental change much faster
than that. Species that are adapted to polar or upland habitats will simply run out of room and face extinction.
Now, here's the rub, we actually depend on functioning ecosystems for our survival. If we change the conditions
so rapidly that ecosystems can no longer function, we could be in very deep trouble, of the sort where our ability
to adapt ourselves does not really matter anymore.
Where I live, cherry trees were blooming in December. They usually do this in April. There were not a lot of bees
out because they are a bit more sensible. So, the blooms were not pollenated. No matter, it is cold enough now that
those blooms would not have born fruit anyway. But, will those trees bloom again in season? If they do, will the
trees become diseased because they've expended too much energy and have become weakened. What about if this happens
again next year?
The webs of ecosystems are very resiliant, but they are not unbreakable. One needs to think about the broader implications
of adaptation to gloabal warming when discussing the merits of adaptation vrs. prevention.
----
Disclosure: I have a personal finacial interest in ending global warming (see my home page).
Slashdot Mirror
Not sure this made it through: I was thinking you might like the movie "Chicken Run." It's a kids film but it does have cowering chickens an neat claymation like "Wallace and Gromit."
It is true that we're in for some effects of warming no matter what. But, there is a model to reduce our GHG emissions quickly because renewables are competative with fossil fuels now.
I thought you might like this link about interesting times: http://www.noblenet.org/reference/inter.htm
-----
Ending global warming one home at a time: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar
It is true that there is a lot of FUD. I submitted a story on the Union of Concerned Scinetists report on ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign on global warming. You can see it here http://slashdot.org/~mdsolar/journal/160250. But, boy, this sure looks like it could be abused. I wonder if this is a catagory problem. Should disclosure be required through lobbying laws or by some other means, say through SEC filings?
Actually, in some places in CA, one can get away with a system that produces less power than 100% (averaged over the year)
because the day time power is more valuable than the night time power. The engineer who designs your system will take that
into account. The company wants to be sure that you are not loosing anything by converting to solar.
Microhydro is really really good. I'd encourage you to go with that. On the other hand, the grid is there and it does not hurt to use it in this way upto about 20% of the total generating capacity. After that you've got some engineering to do I think. Utilites still charge a connection fee no matter what. So long as that connection fee covers grid maintainance, then we're pretty much neutral on that side. Our systems are set up to provide 100% of your power usage. This is because the utilities don't have to pay you retail for excess power. You do OK as long as you're working with kWh credits, but once you go over, you pay retail to us, but the utility pays you a lower avoided cost and you could loose a little on that.
Where I live, I actually save a little money from the getgo because my solar rate does not include the utility distribution charge which is proprtional to usage. I've discussed this with my co-op and there is a potential problem there. But, the cap on net metering in Maryland is so low that it can't be a real problem yet. If this really takes off, a somewhat differnt rate structure will be needed.
This means early adopters save money, at least in my case. That is a bit different from the situation in the main article.
The difference between CO2 and aerosols is that the CO2 persists while the aerosols fall out. The forests, aside from permanent deforestation are not so important because they grow back and on average hold the same amount of carbon. What we've done is bring geological cycle carbon into the biological cycle at a rate faster than the biological cycle can handle.
It does not cost the economy anything to start changing. Try my home page. In fact, since this all happens in the US, it helps our economy since we'll stop hemoraging money to the Middle East.
I think that this might be pedalogical. It is very hard to do that kind of thing well in a drama type setting.
You can see them in a different light in the clip at my web site: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar
Glad you're watching though, he's our spokesperson.
Maybe I should write co-op. My folks when to school in Berkeley so I read it without the hyphen. I Cambridge, they say it the way you read it.
The solution you're proposing is already available: http//www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar. Reserve now!
Unfortunately though, all that high grade electric energy still becomes heat when it is used. That's a law of thermodynamics. But, it does not hurt anything, we'd get the heat no matter what. What really counts is that there is no need to burn coal when you use solar. This means that the IR opacity of the atmosphere is not increased by the avoided CO2 emissions. Take a look at the calculator on my web site to see how much CO2 you can avoid emitting!
Well, I think there is some rethinking to do if we go to renewables. I mentioned William McDonough's thinking in an earlier post. The main thing there is that everthing is done on current accounts. You use energy as it arrives at the planet rather than exhausting reseviors built up over geological time. In many ways, this removes scarcity considerations because we are never competing for sunlight that illuminates China or India. You don't really compete for renewable resources because they are not centralized.
I've been trying to think about these issues a little at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/. See what you think.
-----
Disclosure: I sell solar power (see my home page).
Yes, the rate lock in is very atractive, and there is no installation fee, no permit hassles, and the system is monitored and adjusted to you're usage at not cost. They'll take off panels if you start using less, add them if you start using more. This is going to change the way we generate power in amazing ways. Go to http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar to sign up today.
I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about this.
My sales site is http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar
You've hit an important point here. William McDonough http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/extravagant_gest ure.htm
argues that renewables allow us to live abundantly. I find his critisism of the eco-efficiency movement as lacking
anything that can motivate people quite interesting. Run you christmas lights and your neighbor's too.
But, be sure they're aimed down please. I don't like light pollution: http://www.darksky.org/
Disclosure: I sell solar power (reserve a system at my home page).
"Don't sever your connection. If you have any surplus energy, the supplier will pay you for it."
This is true in states with net metering laws. You can see a good summary of state by state net metering rules at http://www.dsireusa.org/.
Ten states have not yet got with program though I hear West Virginia is coming around.
----
Disclosure: I sell solar power (see my home page)
Yes, I'm a green and I act like an entrepeneur, not a terroist. From the article:
"You need to make the financing within reach of real people," Wentworth said.
That part is done as you'll see at my home page: http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar
You can get solar for no more than you're paying now for electricity, no installation fee, no permit hassles, and no rate increases for up to 25 years.
I love what Mr. Strizki has done but I wish he'd heard of this opportunity first.
My Electric Coop keeps me informed through new letters included with my bill about legislative developments that affect rates and such. I'm a member of the coop so I guess that would be excluded.
m way-way.html. I'm not
an employee, I'm an associate. I might however initiate a company-wide announcement
that makes it to most of the customers that supports the agenda to increase access to
net metering. Am I retained? Maybe. Am I communicating with more that 500 people? Yes, sales
are growing incredibly. Am I a lobbyist in the way the bill intended? Very hard to say but I'd guess yes.
My cable company tries to get me to write congress so they can take over the land line market. This might be included because I am a customer not a memeber.
My cell phone company has had some gripes too and again I'm a customer not a member.
Now, the solar power company I sell for has a definite agenda when it comes to net metering laws: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/solar-power-a
I feel pretty good that this was removed from the bill just because it was so vauge that many many activities might come under its scope.
Until we find what waits on Europa, how can we know?
I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that. http://www.palantir.net/2001/tma1/wav/cantdo.wav
"All together now:
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
You are correct, weather rides on climate but abberations may not always be directly related to climate. The envelope of weather extremes can be affects and obviously, with warming, the averages shift. Here is a cool video of the rapid change in hardiness zones that is climate related: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
My point is about the cumulative effect of climate change that runs faster than evolutionary adaptation can manage. Should ecosystems cease to function, our time here is limited.
In any case, it is easy to do something about it. Check out another video on http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar to get an idea.
I think the question you're posing is "Is the human effect measurable against the background?"
The answer is almost certainly yes. This is a different question from "Is the Earth warmer than it would be if we had not increased the CO2 concentration?" The answer to that is definately yes.
The reason that this is definite is owing to basic conservation principles. Solar energy is retained by the atmosphere because it is more opaque at infrared wavelengths than at optical wavelengths. The Earth would be much colder if it did not have an atmosphere. The lunar surface (on average) is colder than the Earth's surface. The Moon (on average) is the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. The difference in temperature is mainly owing the the greenhouse effect provided by the Earth's atmosphere. Changing the composition of the atmosphere as we have changes the infrared opacity, increasing it, and thus boosts the greenhouse effect. There can't really be reasonable doubt about this.
The increase in the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is something we did. The Earth IS warmer than it would be otherwise. It is possible that the "otherwise" temperature would also be higher for other reasons, but for a part of the temperature increase, we are responsible.
I don't think this is anything to feel egotistical about. We're the dominant megafauna. Buffalo remade the plains. It's not so suprising that we're remaking the Earth. We're just not being smart about how we're doing it. I think there is a better way. Take a look at the video on http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar and see what you think.
I think she is urging education rather than some kind of forced agreement. Her example is a statements that long term cycles might be responsible. This is not at all likely and should be caveated. Since there is a definite tactic to "teach the controversy" out there, one ought to be able to say that portions of what we know are not cotroversial at all. In this case, some portion of the recent warming is very likely to be caused by humans. I agree with you that N(landings)=N(takeoffs) is just right, but giving very unlikely possibilities equal weight with very likely things is a rhetorical trope. It is kind of OK if you are taking uniform priors for calculations, but it is misleading when doing public communication.
I was working on supernovae, which, at a stretch, could drive climate change. My interest in the atmosphere comes from trying to look through it. For ten micron spectroscopy, ozone is bad and so are CO2 and H2O. Ten microns is where the heat is trapped and conversely where celestial signals are blocked by green house gasses.
I don't see Gore using strawman arguments, so I have less reason to doubt his sincerity. However, you're assesment of Inhofe's motives could be correct and if so it would be very sad since he seems so confused in that light. I've read a lot of what he's written and I get a very different impression and have formed a different opinion. Surely you'll concede that there is a well funded campaign going on to misinform the public supported by Inhofe's political contributors.
Well, I'm not sure she has such a bad idea. What she is asking for is that meteorologists know what they are talking about. She wants them to be informed. So, what is wrong with professional standards in a professional society?
Happy landings.
Yes, and it seems to me that it's been mischaracterized.
Nice airplane! Are you a pilot too?
Hum... It is true that the National Academies fund research, they've funded some of mine. But, they do this at a very low level in service to the National Labs. I think you want NSF, NASA, NOAA and DOD for funding agency that have budgets.
The problem with Sen. Inhofe is that he is a shill. He isn't presenting evidence, he's presenting talking points with a flair for invective.
-----
Disclosure: I have a finacial interest in ending global warming (see my home page).
There is a range in predictions of the consequences of global warming and one should look at the high end in assesing risk. Even the high end may not be an adequate guide in some cases. For example, the risk of more powerful storms is predicted generally to come late in the game yet there is some evidence that an incease in the number of catagory 4 and 5 storms is already occuring. Could be a problem with the models.
I think your second point is quite interesting. We are now adapting to global warming, and we a pretty good at it. Just as crop planting decisions are sometimes based on El Nino forecasts, we are in pretty good shape when it comes to making plans to adapt. The market is a help. Insurance companies are beginging to abandon coastal customers for example.
While we may adapt in our activites (we're the best species in that game), other species may not have the time to adapt becuase they rely on evolutionary timescales and we are running the environmental change much faster than that. Species that are adapted to polar or upland habitats will simply run out of room and face extinction. Now, here's the rub, we actually depend on functioning ecosystems for our survival. If we change the conditions so rapidly that ecosystems can no longer function, we could be in very deep trouble, of the sort where our ability to adapt ourselves does not really matter anymore.
Where I live, cherry trees were blooming in December. They usually do this in April. There were not a lot of bees out because they are a bit more sensible. So, the blooms were not pollenated. No matter, it is cold enough now that those blooms would not have born fruit anyway. But, will those trees bloom again in season? If they do, will the trees become diseased because they've expended too much energy and have become weakened. What about if this happens again next year?
The webs of ecosystems are very resiliant, but they are not unbreakable. One needs to think about the broader implications of adaptation to gloabal warming when discussing the merits of adaptation vrs. prevention.
----
Disclosure: I have a personal finacial interest in ending global warming (see my home page).