World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[freeRadical]

It sort of interesting that we had a power outage Wed for the whole area. The news report came out last night (the outage killed the news on Wed) that it was due to lack of energy to meet our fast growing needs and that there would be more and more current cuts over the next few years until they could build more power lines to bring it in from Laredo, etc. Sort of reminds me of India where you get current cuts ALL the time; used to be nearly every day.

We just went on 43% solar power last year, and it is quite cost-effective, esp with several tax-breaks and subsidies. A person with at least somewhat south-sloping roofs would be crazy not to go for it.

The initial cost was $24,500; the $8,500 fed gov tax-break and a $7,500 payback from the grid-supplying company AEP brought the net cost down to about $8,500. I suppose for people who are strapped financially, they could get a low-interest loan for this. We are now saving over $1000 in electricity each year. For people going into retirement, that is a great boon.

If people here were to 1st become more energy efficient/conservative and 2nd go solar when feasible, we wouldn’t need those extra and expensive power lines from outside that will sky-rocket our electric rates.

I think I’m going to start something here to help people to do the needful…that would also save them $$.

What does that have to do with what I posted?

There is more to the cost of energy in general, and electricity in particular, than “expensive” power lines.

 

[lynnvinc]

Same with the vaunted Chevy Volt. In a previous thread, a poster demonstrated that it takes about $250,000 to build a $25,000 Chevy Volt. The buyer pays the $25,000 and the taxpayer pays the rest.

A person could heat his house with the heat generated by ten thousand beehives if the government paid him enough of other peoples’ money to do it.

That was the cost for the first 7,671 Volts built in 2011… not my 2012 Volt And BTW Chevy did eventually pay the gov back, so that cost R&D cost for taxpayers comes to much less than that poster calculated from outdated info.

However, you are right that eventually we will be using our EVs & hydrogen-powered cars to power our homes (and store energy for us), helping us get off the grid.

 

[estesbob]

This is from a 2001 interview with Bob Reiss, author of a book called “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future”:
Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life? While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.That conversation would have taken place in 1988 or 1989, which means Hansen was making predictions about what would happen by 2009.

online.wsj.com/articles/democratics-anonymous-1412971909?tesla=y&mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h&mg=reno64-wsj

 

[lynnvinc]

This is from a 2001 interview with Bob Reiss, author of a book called “The Coming Storm: Extreme Weather and Our Terrifying Future”:
Extreme weather means more terrifying hurricanes and tornadoes and fires than we usually see. But what can we expect such conditions to do to our daily life? While doing research 12 or 13 years ago, I met Jim Hansen, the scientist who in 1988 predicted the greenhouse effect before Congress. I went over to the window with him and looked out on Broadway in New York City and said, “If what you’re saying about the greenhouse effect is true, is anything going to look different down there in 20 years?” He looked for a while and was quiet and didn’t say anything for a couple seconds. Then he said, “Well, there will be more traffic.” I, of course, didn’t think he heard the question right. Then he explained, “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change.” Then he said, “There will be more police cars.” Why? “Well, you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”And so far, over the last 10 years, we’ve had 10 of the hottest years on record.That conversation would have taken place in 1988 or 1989, which means Hansen was making predictions about what would happen by 2009.

online.wsj.com/articles/democratics-anonymous-1412971909?tesla=y&mod=djemBestOfTheWeb_h&mg=reno64-wsj

Wow, that is so prescient. Thanks for the article (tho I can’t get into it).

I can’t remember what part of NYC was flooded during Superstorm Sandy, but Hansen wasn’t the only one predicting that. Right after the storm there was a disaster specialist on TV saying he had been warning NYC for decades that could happen, but no one listened to him. He at least had built his house in a way that survived the inundation and storm very well.

AGW is behind Superstorm Sandy in 3 ways (see here): (1) by increasing the risk of stronger hurricanes and storms, going farther afield than their usual paths (for instance Cyclone Catarina in 2004 was the first cyclone in history to hit Brazil); (2) increased negative arctic oscillations or Rossby waves bring storm from north to south rather than the usual west-east pattern (see here and here ); (3) a few inches of sea rise, higher on the east coast (see here) and here), which reduced friction and allowed inundation farther inland. These coupled with high tide created the perfect storm. Unfortunately this may not have been a fluke, but a sign of more to come. (I hope at least now they are preparing.)

RE higher crime, there is a lot of research and studies that do show crime increases with increasing heat. That’s nothing new, but it does show that Hansen is well-read.

 

[estesbob]

Wow, that is so prescient. Thanks for the article (tho I can’t get into it).

I can’t remember what part of NYC was flooded during Superstorm Sandy, but Hansen wasn’t the only one predicting that. Right after the storm there was a disaster specialist on TV saying he had been warning NYC for decades that could happen, but no one listened to him. He at least had built his house in a way that survived the inundation and storm very well.

AGW is behind Superstorm Sandy in 3 ways (see here): (1) by increasing the risk of stronger hurricanes and storms, going farther afield than their usual paths (for instance Cyclone Catarina in 2004 was the first cyclone in history to hit Brazil); (2) increased negative arctic oscillations or Rossby waves bring storm from north to south rather than the usual west-east pattern (see here and here ); (3) a few inches of sea rise, higher on the east coast (see here) and here), which reduced friction and allowed inundation farther inland. These coupled with high tide created the perfect storm. Unfortunately this may not have been a fluke, but a sign of more to come. (I hope at least now they are preparing.)

RE higher crime, there is a lot of research and studies that do show crime increases with increasing heat. That’s nothing new, but it does show that Hansen is well-read.

So Hansen predicted rising oceans would submerge part of Manhattan by 2009 and you say he was right because they had a big storm which caused flooding. As with preety much everything he ever predicted he was wrong.

 

[lynnvinc]

Wow, that is so prescient. Thanks for the article (tho I can’t get into it).

I can’t remember what part of NYC was flooded during Superstorm Sandy, but Hansen wasn’t the only one predicting that. Right after the storm there was a disaster specialist on TV saying he had been warning NYC for decades that could happen, but no one listened to him. He at least had built his house in a way that survived the inundation and storm very well.

AGW is behind Superstorm Sandy in 3 ways (see here): (1) by increasing the risk of stronger hurricanes and storms, going farther afield than their usual paths (for instance Cyclone Catarina in 2004 was the first cyclone in history to hit Brazil); (2) increased negative arctic oscillations or Rossby waves bring storm from north to south rather than the usual west-east pattern (see here and here ); (3) a few inches of sea rise, higher on the east coast (see here) and here), which reduced friction and allowed inundation farther inland. These coupled with high tide created the perfect storm. Unfortunately this may not have been a fluke, but a sign of more to come. (I hope at least now they are preparing.)

RE higher crime, there is a lot of research and studies that do show crime increases with increasing heat. That’s nothing new, but it does show that Hansen is well-read.

Just read this about Hansen’s conversational remarks (not a peer-reviewed study) about what the view outside his office would be like in 40 years (not 20) and with a doubling of CO2. See skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

It seems some other blog source gave the misinformation, which was then picked up by others.

Have you ever heard of the game “telephone”? We used to play it as kids. We’d sit in a circle and the 1st player would whisper something into someone’s ear, who’d whisper it to the next person, and so on…until is came out something completely different at the end.

My husband’s uncle, who was a parish priest in a small village in India, told me this (when I had passed on some gossip about a bishop):
There was a man vomiting, and his friend later reported to another person, “his vomit was as black as a crow,” and that person passed it on to other, who passed it on to other, until it became, “he vomited out crows.”

 

[estesbob]

Just read this about Hansen’s conversational remarks (not a peer-reviewed study) about what the view outside his office would be like in 40 years (not 20) and with a doubling of CO2. See skepticalscience.com/Hansen-West-Side-Highway.htm

It seems some other blog source gave the misinformation, which was then picked up by others.

Have you ever heard of the game “telephone”? We used to play it as kids. We’d sit in a circle and the 1st player would whisper something into someone’s ear, who’d whisper it to the next person, and so on…until is came out something completely different at the end.

My husband’s uncle, who was a parish priest in a small village in India, told me this (when I had passed on some gossip about a bishop):
There was a man vomiting, and his friend later reported to another person, “his vomit was as black as a crow,” and that person passed it on to other, who passed it on to other, until it became, “he vomited out crows.”

He was wrong then and he is wrong now.But then having been caught falsifying his infamous hockey Stick graph why would anyone trust him?