Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

BLOGSTREAM GOING COMPLETELY OFFLINE JANUARY 31, 2012 -- PLEASE READ FRONT PAGE FOR FINAL NOTICE

 
cosmic painter


 Greenhouse Effect
 

How does the greenhouse effect work?
  • Visible light from the sun passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the Earth's surface - some of that energy is then emitted back to the atmosphere as heat.  Greenhouse gases trap that heat, which would otherwise be released into space, raising the temperature of the atmosphere and, subsequently, the Earth's surface.  Increases in greenhouse gases from human activities  increase the amount of heat trapped by the atmposhere causing global warming and climate change.


What are the most important greenhouse gases and their sources?

  • Water vapor - Water vapor contributes the most to the greenhouse effect and occurs in the atmosphere as a result of the natural cycle of water  

  • Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Carbon dioxide also cycles naturally between the atmosphere and living organisms.  Plants and algae remove CO2 from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, while all living things release CO2 via respiration (i.e., breathing).  Carbon dioxide also cycles back and forth between water on the Earth's surface (freshwater and the oceans) and the atmosphere.  In addition to these natural processes, humans release large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and other industrial processes.    

  • Methane (CH4) - Methane is a natural byproduct of decomposition, but significant quantities are also produced via agriculture and animal husbandry as well as by fossil fuel production.

  • Nitrous oxide (N2O) - Nitrous oxide is released naturally from terrestrial soils and oceans, but substantial quantities are also generated from the use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture and through some industrial processes.

  • Other gases - A number of other natural and man-made gases also contribute to the greenhouse effect, including tropospheric ozone, and industrial gases such as halocarbons.

  • Aerosols - Aerosols are airborne particles within the atmosphere.  Some aerosols, such as sulfate aerosols and black carbon aerosols are also produced by fossil fuel combustion.  Sulfate aerosols tend to reflect incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth's surface.  Black carbon aerosols absorb, rather than reflect, solar radiation, which shades the Earth's surface, but warms the atmosphere.


Is Climate Change a Natural or Human-Caused Phenomenon?

  • Climate varies naturally over both short and long time-scales, but natural climate variability can be distinguished from human-caused climate change.

  • Scientists have conducted a number of attribution studies that compare observed changes in the global climate with those factors that are known to influence climate.  These studies indicate that the climate change observed over the 20th century is due to a combination of changes in solar radiation, volcanic activity, land-use change, and increases in atmospheric greenhouse gases.  Of these, greenhouse gases appear to be the dominant driver of climate change over the past few decades.


How Do We Know that Atmosphere Increases in Greenhouse Gases are Due to Human Activity?

  • Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.

  • Naturally occurring gases such as CO2 and CH4 are generated by natural processes such as plant and animal respiration and decomposition.  However, scientists can quantify the various sources (both natural and human) of such gases and measure their contribution to atmospheric concentrations.  Current concentrations of the primary greenhouse gases (see above) cannot be accounted for without considering human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels.   Furthermore, global warming may increase the release of greenhouse gases from natural resources.


Is There Any Connection Between Global Warming and the Ozone Layer?

  • Ozone is a greenhouse gas, and ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere is believed to have had a slight cooling effect on the global climate.  Thus, ozone depletion in the upper atmosphere has not contributed significantly to global warming, although ozone depletion remains a concern because of its ability to block harmful ultraviolet radiation from reaching humans and wildlife.

  • Ozone in the lower atmosphere is an air pollutant and a health risk, and ozone in the lower atmosphere has increased over the past century contributing to global warming.

  • Therefore, though there is a relationship between ozone and climate change, ozone depletion is a concern largely due to its effects on UV-radiation rather than on climate.


How Much Climate Change Has Been Observed to Date?

  • Globally, surface air temperatures increased by approximately 1oF during the 20th century.  Some regions of the world have experienced much greater warming; Alaska and the Antarctic peninsula, for example, have warmed by approximately 4oF over the same time period.  Other regions of the world, such as the oceans of the Southern Hemisphere and the interior of Antarctica, have not experienced warming.

  • The observed warming over the 20th century was accompanied by a 10% increase in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere and an increase in global sea-level of 4-8 inches. 


What Accounts for the Differences in Temperatures From Measurements at the Earth's surface and satellite measurements of the atmosphere?

  • Satellites are capable of measuring temperatures in the lower atmosphere (less than 6 miles in altitude), whereas surface temperature measurements are made just a few feet from the Earth's surface.

  • Surface temperature records show roughly twice as much warming since 1979 than satellite records (although surface temperature records date back to the mid 19th century, satellite measurements began only in 1979).

  • A report by the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 stated that both the surface temperature records and the satellite temperature records possessed systematic errors that may bias the data, which account for some of the differences between the two data records.  Nevertheless, "the warming of surface temperature that has taken place during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real. . .

  • However, the National Academy of Sciences also concluded that there are real discrepancies between the surface and satellite records, which have yet to be sufficiently explained.  It is often argued that urbanization has increased surface temperatures at the Earth's surface causing the surface to warm faster than the atmosphere, but surface and satellite trends for the world's most urbanized regions (e.g., North America and Europe) are nearly identical, indicating urbanization cannot account for the disparity.  In addition, a recent analysis suggests that the difference between surface and satellite trends may not be as large as previously thought, but these results remain controversial. 


How Do Scientists Estimate the Climate of the Future and How Reliable are Their Projections?

  • Projections of future changes in climate are typically based on three sources of information:
    -  Knowledge of historical climate variability and change
    -  Scientific understanding of the climate system
    -  Computer models of the climate system that generate projections of future climate based upon a number of variables

  • Of these three, climate models have received considerable attention.  A number of different models exist and each represents the climate in a different way, resulting in large differences among models in projections of future climate change.

  • A number of current models do a reasonable job of simulating past climate variability (decades to centuries), but all such models perform poorly at modeling short-term climate variability (days-years) and regional climate variability.

  • The projections of climate models are also highly dependent upon the assumptions used regarding future trends in greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations.


What are the current estimates for 21st century climate change?

  • The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for 21st century average global temperature increase is 2.5-10.4oF, based upon multiple climate models and multiple assumptions regarding future greenhouse gas emissions.

  • Regional warming may be greater or less than the global average.  For example, temperature increases in the United States are projected to be approximately 30% higher than the global average.  The Arctic is likely to experience the greatest warming. 

  • Associated with this warming will be an increase in global average sea level of 4-35 inches, depending on the magnitude of warming.

  • Global precipitation patterns will also be altered by temperature increases.  Generally, the hydrological cycle is expected to accelerate leading to increases in precipitation at the global level.  However, these global increases may not necessarily balance the increased evaporation under warmer conditions, and some regions may experience a decrease in precipitation. 


What are the Projected Impacts of Climate Change?

  • Species in natural ecosystems will attempt to migrate with the changing climate, but will differ in their degree of success.  Ecosystem productivity may decrease or increase, at least over the short-term. 

  • Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation will have significant impacts on water resources, either reducing or increasing water availability along with increasing the risk of floods or droughts.

  • Coastal developments will experience additional sea-level rise that will interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures.

  • U.S. agriculture and forestry will likely experience mixed results with moderate warming, with increases in productivity likely in northern states and possible declines in southern states.  However, at higher magnitudes of warming, the risk of more uniform adverse effects across the nation increases.

  • Human health may be affected by climate change through a number of mechanisms including extreme temperatures (i.e., heat waves), exacerbation of air pollution, severe weather, and increased spread of infectious diseases. 


Will There Be Any Benefits Associated with Climate Change?

  • Climate change may offer a number of benefits, depending primarily on the rate at which climate change occurs and the magnitude of temperature and precipitation changes in particular regions.

  • Current assessments indicate that agriculture and forestry in the United States are likely to benefit from low to moderate climate change, although these benefits will not be evenly distributed geographically, and some regions will experience damages. 

  • With continued warming, however, benefits will likely peak and subsequently decline, and the effects of climate change for the nation as a whole in these sectors will turn negative.

  • Other benefits such as increased water availability, reduced energy demands, and greater ecosystem productivity may also occur in specific regions over the short or long-term.  However, such benefits will likely be balanced by opposite effects in other regions.   


To What Extent Can Humans Adapt To Climate Change?

  • Some degree of adaptation will undoubtedly be necessary to respond to the coming climate change that is unavoidable.

  • Depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change, humans can invest in infrastructure and other societal systems to ameliorate its consequences.

  • However, different regions and sectors will differ in their ability to adapt.  Natural ecosystems have inherent, but limited capability to adapt to climate change, which is further impeded by other human impacts to the environment such as development and habitat fragmentation.  Even human societies, particularly developing countries, have limited resources to respond to the challenge of climate change. 

  • Some climate related impacts are difficult to adapt to.  For example, extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, are not easily ameliorated by adaptation measures.

  • Thus, investing in the reduction of greenhouse gases will offset necessary investments in adaptation in addition to protecting against those adverse effects of climate change for which adaptation is particularly difficult.      


How Much Do Greenhouse Gas Emissions Have to Be Reduced to Stop Climate Change?

  • Current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are projected to increase global temperatures by an additional 1oF in coming decades.  Thus some degree of continued climate change is inevitable, despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but emissions reductions will aid in reducing the magnitude of that change and stopping human-induced increases in global temperatures.

  • In order to stop temperature increases, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilized, meaning emissions of these gases must be reduced to such a level that they do not cause any additional increase in atmospheric concentrations.

  • The magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to achieve such stabilization depends on a number of factors including the level at which greenhouse gases should be stabilized and future patterns of fossil fuel use and emissions.

  • In its latest assessment report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated the magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a doubling of the preindustrial by the end of the century level for a broad range of scenarios for future greenhouse gas emissions. Given mid-range baseline projections for CO2 emissions, IPCC estimated that global CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by the end of the 21st century to 40-75% below baselines.


What are carbon "sinks?"

  • "Sinks" are reservoirs that remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and store it, sometimes by converting it to another compound.  The two largest natural sinks for CO2 are the oceans and terrestrial vegetation, including forests.  For example, forests remove CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, storing that carbon in their tissues.  Keeping forests intact instead of cutting them down can prevent CO2 from being released and expanding forests can enhance removal of CO2 from the atmosphere.  The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the preservation and enhancement of certain kinds of sinks and allows these to be counted as part of a country's efforts to meet its target.


Is Planting More Trees a Way of Solving Global Warming?

  • Increasing the world's forest cover is uniformly considered to be a useful mechanism for mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, because of the ability for plants to remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.

  • However, even a vigorous global reforestation program would not be sufficient to offset anthropogenic CO2 emissions from human sources.

  • Thus, reforestation may assist in reducing the rate at which atmospheric CO2 increases (and provide additional ecological benefits as well), but the stabilization of CO2 will still require direct reductions in CO2 emissions.


What role do black carbon aerosols (also known as soot) play in global climate change?

  • Black carbon aerosols or soot are small, carbon-based particles that are emitted to that atmosphere as a by-product of incomplete/inefficient fossil fuel combustion (see glossary).  Although not gases per se, these aerosols have similar warming effects on the global climate as traditional greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, etc.  Black carbon contributes directly to warming of the Earth’s atmosphere due to the ability of the particles to absorb incoming solar radiation, which is then reemitted to the atmosphere.  Interestingly this also contributes to cooling at the Earth’s surface, because the absorption of solar radiation in the atmosphere contributes to a shading effect on the surface.  However, the warming effect is estimated to be considerably larger than the cooling effect, and some estimates indicate that compared to the various greenhouse gases, the direct warming caused by black carbon is second only to carbon dioxide.  Black carbon aerosols also influence the climate indirectly, by changing the reflectivity of ice and snow.  Black carbon aerosols in the atmosphere eventually return to Earth, and when they occur on the surface of ice and snow, their dark color causes ice to absorb more solar energy than it otherwise would (i.e., black carbon reduces the Earth’s “albedo” - see glossary).  This causes the Earth as a whole to reflect less solar energy in addition to promoting the melting of glaciers and other ice formations, particularly in the Arctic.  Both of these effects contribute to global warming.  Collectively, these direct and indirect effects make black carbon a major contributor to global climate change, yet carbon dioxide remains the dominant historical and future human influence on the global climate.


Who is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions and climate change?

  • Once emitted, GHGs can remain in the atmosphere for many years, from approximately 10 years to thousands of years, depending on the gas.  This means that emissions from a long time ago are still in the atmosphere and still affecting the Earth's climate system.  Countries in the developed world have been emitting substantial quantities of GHGs since the start of the industrial revolution in the mid-18th Century. The United States, for example, is responsible for approximately 25 percent of the world's emissions of GHGs to date.  However, although industrialization in other parts of the world has been delayed, emissions of GHGs from developing countries are rapidly catching up with those of the developed world, and some estimates indicate that emissions from developing countries, particularly those from China and India, will exceed those of the United States and Europe in coming decades.  Determining responsibility for climate change necessitates consideration of these complex patterns of development, past, present, and future.   
Posted by illumination guy's at 1:49 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 THE CAN NOT BE ANY CLEARER
 

January 26, 2011

RIO DE JANEIRO, BrazilIn the past year, every continent except Antarctica has seen record-breaking floods. Rains submerged one-fifth of Pakistan, a thousand-year deluge swamped Nashville and storms just north of Rio caused the deadliest landslides Brazil has ever seen.

Southern France and northern Australia had floods, too. Sri Lanka, South Africa, the list goes on.

And while no single weather event can be linked definitively to global climate change, a growing number of scientists say these extreme events represent the face of a warming world.

“Any one of these events is remarkable,” said Jay Gulledge, senior scientist for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. “But all of this taken together could not happen without the extra heat that’s in the ocean. It defies common sense to overlook that link.”

When even the national media starts to explain the link to human-caused global warming, you know the weather has become extreme (see Munich Re: “The only plausible explanation for the rise in weather-related catastrophes is climate change”).  ABC News coverage has been outstanding.  And now CBS News story publishes a crystal clear explanation of the link:

That link works more or less like this. Concentrations of greenhouse gases are the highest the earth has seen in 15 million years. These gases trap heat, warming both the air and the oceans. Warmer oceans give off more moisture, and a warmer atmosphere can hold more of it in suspension. The more moisture in the air, the more powerful storms tend to grow. When these supercharged weather systems hit land, they don’t just turn into rain or snow, they become cyclones, blizzards and floods.

“There is a lot of tropical moisture in the atmosphere that is getting transported over very long distances and is dropping out in various places around the world in dramatic fashion,” Gulledge said.

Last year tied with 2005 as the warmest on record, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And floods in 2010 weren’t the only extremes.

In Russia, 15,000 people died during a record heat wave. Australia suffered its warmest summer on record. Pakistan witnessed its hottest day in history, as did Los Angeles. The U.S. East Coast has struggled under unusually heavy snows for two winters running. The Brazilian Amazon suffered one of the worst droughts in its history. And even as the Brazilian government recovered the bodies of those killed by record storms in the state of Rio de Janeiro, it trucked drinking water to cities in the north blighted by drought.

Weather like this matches the predictions of numerous recent climate studies. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted that severe droughts and heavy rains were already on the rise in many parts of the world, and linked them to the surge in greenhouse gases. A study published last year by the National Academy of Sciences predicted an increase in heavy rainfall of somewhere between 3 and 10 percent for every Celsius degree of warming. Each additional degree would also cause the amount of area burned by wildfires in North America to double or quadruple, according to the same report.

“If you think it’s bad now — when we’ve had about 0.7 degrees Celsius of warming — wait until we’ve had 3 or 4,” Gulledge said. “There’s absolutely no reason to think it will not continue getting worse and worse and worse.”

The only unscientific thing in this story, really, is that it ends with an online poll.

But otherwise it has quite a thoughtful explanation of what may be happening.

Some scientists are starting to worry that natural weather patterns, which played a role in some of the biggest recent flooding, are also showing effects of human-driven climate change. This year’s rainy season in Australia is linked to a phenomenon called a La Nina, which occurs when water in the equatorial region of the Pacific is cooler than normal.

La Nina and its warm-water counterpart, El Nino, are part of a natural pattern of ocean currents and atmospheric winds that redistribute heat by moving it from one part of the world to another. Even as La Nina and El Nino influence the overall climate, much like organs in a body, they may remain vulnerable to system-wide shocks, said Paul Mayewski, director of the Climate Change Institute at The University of Maine.

So far scientists have found no definitive link between rising greenhouse gases and changes to El Nino and La Nina events. But Mayewski thinks that might be changing.

“This is a naturally occurring phenomenon,” Mayewski said. “That doesn’t mean it can’t be impacted by humans.”

He is investigating whether greenhouse gases may have so disturbed the balance of heat that natural patterns, like El Nino and La Nina, may begin to speed up and intensify.

“We may very well be changing this El Nino-La Nina system much faster and more radically,” Mayewski said. “It’s a naturally occurring system that we may be giving a lot more push to.”

And, if he’s right, that could mean even less stable, more extreme weather in the foreseeable future.

For some agencies working to help countries prevent and recover from natural disasters, there’s no question that they’re getting worse.

“There was never any doubt in our mind that, in reality, the frequency and severity and number of people that were affected kept increasing,” said Margareta Wahlstrom, the United Nations’ assistant secretary general for disaster risk reduction.

In an increasingly urbanized world, people, goods and infrastructure are concentrated, meaning that each natural disaster has the potential to cause an unprecedented amount of damage.

“The losses are increasing very rapidly,” Wahlstrom said. “Today is decision time. We know what the risks are. We can see the trends.”

… While natural disasters tend to be more deadly in developing countries, this last year has shown extreme weather can strike planet-wide.

“The attitude that many of us probably have lived with for decades, because we’ve lived in fairly safe countries, is that disasters are something that happens to others,” Wahlstrom said. “That is no longer viable.”

Posted by illumination guy's at 6:41 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 ITEOTWAWKI
 

Media, public, governments unprepared for the End of the World (As We Know It)

May 15, 2010

Source: Sweetnam, DOE, April 2009

The BP oil disaster reminds us once again of the many large costs of oil use not included in its price.  But because conservatives have blocked or rolled back all serious efforts to move us off of oil in the last three decades, peak oil will soon change that (see Deutsche Bank: Oil to hit $175 a barrel by 2016 and World’s top energy economist warns peak oil threatens recovery: “We have to leave oil before oil leaves us”).

Energy economics expert and long-time guest blogger Craig Severance, has a review of recent research in this important area, which is largely ignored by the status quo media.

Craig Severance is co-author of “The Economics of Nuclear and Coal Power” (Praeger 1976) and a former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission.  This piece, “It’s the End of the World (As We Know It),” is reposted from his blog.  Bonus R.E.M. video at the end.

A storm is quickly approaching, and the world is not ready for it.

The permanent end of the era of cheap oil is coming as soon as next year, according to a raft of official reports that have made their way into energy media over the last few months.  Governments are now beginning to acknowledge the looming crisis. Yet, perhaps because they waited too long to prevent it, leaders are not yet alerting the public.

The entire world economy is built on cheap oil,  A permanent oil production shortage will thus lead to The End of The World (As We Know It).  What will come on the other side of this — will it be good or bad?

Public Unaware. Except for a few stories in financial pages such as London’s Financial Times, this earth-shaking news has yet to reach the Mainstream Media.  While “Peak Oil” researchers have long warned of approaching oil shortages, the difference now is these dire warnings are being validated by the highest government and oil company officials.  Yet, no political leader has had the courage to make a major announcement to prepare the public for what lies ahead.

This public blindness is tantamount to the isolationism that gripped the U.S. in the years preceding WWII.  While the highest government leaders did their best to prepare for inevitable war, they were hamstrung by the resistance of a public unable to accept what really lay ahead.  Similar to today, some politicians advanced their own careers by feeding on the public’s desire to believe no coming storm could ever reach them.  Yet, the storm came anyway.

The Limits of Oil. The looming crisis we now face is often referred to as “Peak Oil” — a status where global oil production will reach a plateau, then begin its irreversible decline.


Source: Peak Oil Primer

Oil fields follow a production curve where output increases at first, then reaches a plateau or “peak”, after which a steep decline occurs.   Because existing oil fields decline, oil companies must continually develop major new finds just to maintain existing production.  If these new projects do not exceed the decline of existing fields, it becomes impossible to maintain oil production, let alone grow oil output to fuel economic growth.

The problem in recent years is that new oil finds have been smaller, deeper, and in more difficult to reach places.  Cheap oil prices simply won’t support the investment needed to develop them, so oil companies have not invested heavily enough to keep up with demand.  Lester Brown of Worldwatch Institute notes that major oil companies, awash in cash, have instead spent billions buying up their own stock, aware their existing reserves will soon increase greatly in value.

Did Global Oil Production Permanently Peak in 2008? Until 2008, world energy forecasters had always assumed global oil production would keep up with economic growth.  According to classic economic theory, as world economies grew they would demand more oil, and oil companies would respond by investing in more exploration and development.  ”Peak Oil” was considered decades away.

Beginning around 2005, however, world oil production began to hit a brick wall, and by 2008 global oil demand actually exceeded supply.  With only a 2% shortfall of supply compared to demand, oil spiked to $147/barrel, and U.S. gasoline prices soared to over $4/gallon.

That same year, the International Energy Agency for the first time published a “bottom-up” oil analysis, evaluating each of the world’s major oil fields to see if production actually could continue to increase.

After looking at the oil field data, the IEA revised its forecasts of future oil production downward, yet still took a very optimistic official view, by using rosy projections of as-yet-undiscovered oil fields.

Independent researchers, however, using IEA’s same “bottom-up” data, have now stated the IEA was wildly optimistic.  The Global Energy Systems Group has concluded the world actually reached Peak Oil in 2008, and global oil production will now begin to decline.   Investment alone cannot fix the problem as the decline rates of existing fields are accelerating.

Significantly, though IEA’s official forecasts remained rosy, IEA’s Chief Economist Dr. Fatih Birol began urgently telling anyone who would listen the era of cheap oil is over, and “we have to leave oil before oil leaves us“.  If we do not “leave oil” behind us fast enough, economic growth may be choked off as oil prices rise to unaffordable levels.

From “Tin Hat” Theory to “Crikey!” In the last few months, there has been a sea change in attitudes about global oil supply among top officials.  The UK government, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Joint Forces Command, among others, have begun to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation.

On March 25th, the French publication LeMonde reported on a semi-private U.S. Department of Energy Roundtable held in April 2009, where top U.S. DOE energy analyst Glen Sweetnam presented the graph below summarizing prospects for world liquid fuel production vs. demand:


Source: Sweetnam, DOE, April 2009

The chart includes all known sources of supply, including undeveloped projects and “unconventional” sources such as tar sands.  It politely labels the expected gap as “unidentified projects”. The gap occurs very soon (beginning in 2011) and is very large — roughly 10 million barrels/day by 2016.  To put this in perspective, 10 mbd is roughly equivalent to the entire output of Saudi Arabia, and is well over 10% of total world demand. (Recall $147/barrel in 2008 occurred with only a 2% shortfall.)

DOE still avoids any use of the words “Peak Oil”, instead talking of an “undulating plateau” of oil prices & production.  Shortages will lead to higher prices and more investment, spurring more production and lower prices.  However, oil price volatility discourages new investment, so production plateaus.  Richard Heinberg of Post Carbon Institute asks “What’s the difference?”  in  ”Quacks Like a Duck…”.

Whatever you call it, there is now a growing official consensus the world faces serious oil supply shortages beginning in the 2011-2015 time frame and continuing.  Rick Monroe of the staff of Energy Bulletin has provided links to the growing list of official warnings here.

Peak oil analyst Jeremy Leggett, who participated in a closed-door UK government summit on oil supply March 22, summarized the recent awakening of official realization: “Government has gone from the BP position – ‘40 years of supply left, the price mechanism works, no need to worry’ – to ‘crikey’.”

The End of “As We Know It”. The coming oil descent can be seen as both a crisis and an opportunity.

The end of cheap oil will be the end of living life ”As We Know It”.  Those who try to continue doing things in the old ways that depend on cheap oil will experience severe hardships.

Yet, there will be opportunities.  Those who prepare now will be better able to weather the storm, to see the rainbow on the other side.

The End of … Gas Guzzlers

To win WWII, Americans had to give up buying new cars, as auto factories were converted to weapons production.  The opposite will now be true — we will need to buy different vehicles that use little or no gasoline or diesel.

Think back to 2008.  When gas prices hit $4/gallon, families with gas guzzlers suddenly found they were paying $400/month for fuel.  Prices for very nice SUV’s and heavy trucks plummeted — you couldn’t give them away.  Meanwhile, buyers lined up to buy hybrids.  The time to unload your gas guzzlers and buy something else is now.


80 mpg motorcycle, 50+ mpg Prius

The End of … Cheap Food?

I love my big burgers, but this too may come to an end if corn-fed beef gets too pricey.  To replace a paltry 6% of U.S. gasoline, we already feed 1/3 of the entire U.S. corn crop to the corn ethanol industry, with impacts worldwide on crop prices, conversion of rain forest to cropland, and ocean dead zones from fertilizers. Ethanol corn use is projected to increase to 1/2 of the entire U.S. corn crop by 2015 under Congressional mandates.

If you actually had to raid your refrigerator to fuel your car, you would see the obscenity of feeding food to machines. Yet this is exactly what we are doing.  One of the worst decisions ever made was to build the infrastructure to convert food crops to fuel, because we have now directly tied the price of food to the price of fuel. As oil prices rise so will the price of food.

Even if we were not directly feeding our food supply to our machines, our very production of food is heavily dependent on petroleum. There may be hope — a study just released by Iowa State University shows farmers could be just as productive using half their present fuel use. Yet, lower fuel use depends on crop-rotation away from fuel-intensive corn, a move unlikely to happen if corn prices are tied to skyrocketing oil prices.

It is unlikely Congress will find the sanity to eliminate taxpayer subsidies of ethanol.  Therefore, a switch away from gasoline to electric vehicles may be the only way to keep food prices affordable.

My big burger days may soon end — but at least my waistline could be better for it.  Those whose waistlines are already too thin — the billions of hungry people in the world – will feel the impact of higher grain prices much more.  In 2008, food price riots broke out worldwide the last time oil prices skyrocketed.  We must stop feeding food to cars.

The End of … Globalization?

Higher oil prices mean the world is about to get a lot smaller, as the cost of transporting goods halfway around the world will no longer be cheap.  Jeff Rubin, former chief economist at CIBC World Markets, argues “a lot of long-lost jobs are going to be coming home”.

Rubin has written a book Why Your World Is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller: Oil and the End of Globalization. He notes that already in 2008 high oil prices began to make U.S. steel and furniture producers competitive again.  Rubin expects China’s economic growth to be fueled more by growth in their own consumption.

Walmart may once again carry products labeled “Made in USA”.

The End of … Pristine Wilderness?

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (FWS) Avatar promo clip

Millions of us are now viewing once again the movie Avatar  — James Cameron’s wonderously beautiful tale of a pristine world.  This time, however, we are not magically transported to Pandora in a theater by the magic of 3D.  Instead, we may notice ourselves driving a small DVD home from the store in a 3,000 lb. vehicle, to view it on our big-screen TV.

If we truly look at ourselves, we will see that we are the voracious society in search of our own “unobtanium “. Our unobtanium is oil, and shouts of  ”Drill, Baby, Drill!” have shown there are those among us who are willing to do anything, and destroy anything, to acquire it.

As oil becomes scarce and prices skyrocket, these shouts will grow louder, coupled with skapegoating tactics to lay blame for the oil crisis at the feet of those who wish to preserve our most precious natural areas.

There will once again be pressures to open to drilling Alaska’s pristine wilderness, the Arctic National WIldlife Refuge.  If this is done, it will not solve the crisis, as EIA projected ANWR would likely reduce oil prices only 30-50 cents per barrel (about a penny per gallon of gasoline).  Yet, hunters take note, a wildlife area critical to scores of species of North American migratory birds would be violated.

Despite the British Petroleum oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico, expanded offshore oil development in all U.S. coastal waters will likely be approved.   Whether another Deepwater Horizon event occurs may be determined by whom we elect – those most beholden to the oil companies, or those willing to strictly regulate them.

Canada has already begun the rape of its northern forests to exploit tar sands, the surface mining of which results in a landscape of complete devastation.  SImilarly, there will be calls to utterly devastate the forests and water resources of Western Colorado to exploit oil shales.


Alberta Tar Sands Project

Only a move away from oil as quickly as possible can save these pristine areas from the destructive forces of a desperate society.


Image: We Can Do It

We Can Do It. Though Americans resisted the recognition that WWII was coming, once it came they rose valiantly to the call to action. A similar can-do spirit is needed now for the transition to a post-oil world.

This crisis is coming soon.  It is too late to prevent it, so we simply need to get used to it.  Peak Oil is happening.

We will need to adapt – but we can do that.

Craig Severance

Posted by illumination guy's at 7:13 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 Ice Cap Disappearing
 

January 2011 had the lowest ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records.

Surface temperature anomalies for the period December 2010 to January 2011 show impressive warmth across the Canadian Arctic….

The question:

While the Arctic has been warm, cold and stormy weather has affected much of the Northeast U.S. and Europe. Last winter also paired an anomalously warm Arctic with cold and snowy weather for the eastern U.S. and northern Europe. Is there a connection?

          The answer:

Warm conditions in the Arctic and cold conditions in northern Europe and the U.S. are linked to the strong negative mode of the Arctic oscillation. Cold air is denser than warmer air, so it sits closer to the surface. Around the North Pole, this dense cold air causes a circular wind pattern called the polar vortex , which helps keep cold air trapped near the poles. When sea ice has not formed during autumn and winter, heat from the ocean escapes and warms the atmosphere. This may weaken the polar vortex and allow air to spill out of the Arctic and into mid-latitude regions in some years, bringing potentially cold winter weather to lower latitudes.

Some scientists have speculated that more frequent episodes of a negative Arctic Oscillation, and the stormy winters that result, are linked to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Dr. James Overland of NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL) recently noted a link between low sea ice and a weak polar vortex in 2005, 2008, and the past two winters, all years with very low September sea ice extent. Earlier work by Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University and colleagues also suggested a relationship between autumn sea ice levels and mid-latitude winter conditions. Judah Cohen, at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc., and his colleagues propose another idea—a potential relationship between early snowfall in northern Siberia, a negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation, and more extreme winters elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. More research on these ideas may shed light on the connections and have the potential to improve seasonal weather forecasting.

Posted by illumination guy's at 4:15 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 14,000 Times Faster
 

 feedbacks.jpgThe good news: The earth’s carbon cycle has natural negative feedbacks that reverse natural surges in carbon dioxide.

The bad news: We are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere 14,000 times faster than nature has over the past 600,000 years, far too quickly for those feedbacks to respond.

Posted by illumination guy's at 5:41 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
   
  About Me
Author: illumination guy's
From There are three blogs here go to profile, USA
 
This blog is about...
The science of climate change.
 
My: Profile  Gallery  Bio  Guestbook  100 Things 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors

Find anything & everything at Amazon.com
 
15% OFF all Board Games & Baby Items at
Board Games Plus and Everything Mommy
for Blogstream members. Enter coupon code:
BSTREAM08 at checkout.
 
Send Free
Just Saying Hi
Greeting Cards
at

Greeting Cards.com


Good Morning


  Recent Posts

  Blogs I Like

  Sites I Like

  Archives

8953 Visitors