Renewable Revolution

Quote from: roamer on January 26, 2016, 11:11:21 pm

The industrial machine is far more powerful and far more resilient than I think you imagine.  Global warming may wreak havoc, but not in any near term scenario, similarly we may ecologically scorch the earth but not enough in any near term to stop the show.

You may be correct with all of the above Roamer, but that doesn't mean it's right, as in the right thing to do or even respond to.  By that I mean, our industrialization is destroying a human supporting biome on planet Earth.  I don't think anybody here would argue that (besides trolls at least).  That being true, the most important thing we could do would be to advocate for change via Permaculture.  There is no better alternative IMO.  It's not a pastoral fantasy, it's an intelligent way to proceed into the future.  I agree that BAU is all mighty and powerful and seemingly unstoppable, but that doesn't mean it can't be stopped.  It needs to be stopped.  We are going to destroy our planet if we continue BAU.  Nothing is more important than stopping that.  However, I'm thinking about seven generations from now.  Do you think if things continue unabated with BAU there will be seven generations from now?  I just read an article where some MIT scientist linked autism to Monsanto's glyphosphate and predicts 1 out of every 2 children will have autism by 2025...that's **** ridiculous.  So we'll all be autistic and have our automated industrial wasteland? 

Quote

  Yes credit to the periphery will be cut and that will include more and more serfs in the central countries but the lack of any other scaleable alternative and the ruthless ability of the machine to squash protests nearly guarantees that people will subsist off of whatever dole is thrown there way. 

Why is Permaculture not scaleable? 

Quote

i think the best hope is for people to subvert the industrial powers in a distributed way.  Localized automation, distributed solar power, networked currencies ect. But the key is that the productive capacity of industrialism must be utilized not avoided.  Permaculture is a pastoral fantasy.  It won't compete for land in any meaningful way. 

How is it that Permaculture won't compete for land in any meaningful way?  That's a large bomb to drop dude.  It's also not true IMO.  Maybe Mark Shepard is in debt, but that doesn't mean it can't be done.  Before I go on, why do you now consider it a pastoral fantasy? 

Quote

A far more plausible system would be one that integrates tech automation with a systems based ecological understanding in a way that is competitive.  Capitalism won't collapse in any near term way for that sort of thing to take hold.

Also, I think it's important to point out that Permaculture is not just about growing food, fiber, fuel, and medicine, it's also about the other 6 domains of the permaculture flower, and should be applied to all of those domains.  In other words, it should inform our thinking about how we organise that "tech automation with systems based ecological understanding," in fact, I'd argue that's exactly what Permaculture seeks to do. 

In short, explain yourself homey!  Why are you hating on Permaculture? 

Lucid,
As you said, for those who can add and subtract in the only math that counts for the perpetuation of our species (i.e. BIOSPHERE MATH), THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE to a low carbon economy.


Dr. Richard A. Houghton, acting president of the WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER says TINA to a Low Carbon Economy

Aglebert NOTE: A geoengineering technofix that, like all the aerosol spraying SUPPORTED by the fossil fuel industry, ISN'T working.
Posted on Jan 28, 2016
By Alex Kirby / Climate News Network

LONDON—One keenly-argued possible way of moderating the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may not work, scientists have concluded.
They say there is evidence that seeding the oceans with iron so that the algae that live there will multiply and devour more CO2—thus preventing it reaching the atmosphere and intensifying the human contribution to global warming—is not as promising a solution as its supporters hope.

The extra iron can certainly stimulate the algae to grow more vigorously, but at a cost. More algae in one part of the oceans may mean there will be fewer in other areas, the researchers say.

Temperature rise

They report in Nature journal that the depths of the central Pacific Ocean contain ancient sediments that cast doubt on iron’s ability to slow the Earth’s steady temperature rise.

In parts of the oceans that lack the iron that plants need, algae are scarce. Experiments have shown that dumping iron into these areas can encourage algal growth, so large-scale fertilization could theoretically reduce atmospheric CO2.

The seafloor sediments the team studied show that, during past ice ages, more iron-rich dust blew from cold and barren landmasses into the oceans, apparently producing more algae in these areas and, presumably, a creating natural cooling effect.

But the researchers say increased algal growth in one area can inhibit growth elsewhere, because ocean waters are always on the move, and algae also need other nutrients, such as nitrates and phosphates.

If you give them heavy doses of iron, the researchers say, the algae in one region may consume all those other nutrients, leaving the water with little to offer by the time it circulates elsewhere, so that adding iron achieves nothing.

The study’s lead author, Kassandra Costa, a doctoral student at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO), says: “There’s only a limited amount of total nutrients in the oceans. So if there’s greater use in one area, it seems you’d have lesser concentrations in other areas. The basic message is, if you add to one place, you may subtract from another.”

Much of the equatorial Pacific’s near-surface water comes from the Southern Ocean, where powerful winds circle Antarctica, helping to dredge large amounts of nitrates, phosphates and other nutrients from the depths where they tend to settle.

The nutrients are so abundant that the resident algae cannot use them all, and artificial fertilisation experiments have shown that adding iron there does cause more algae to grow.

Much of this nutrient-rich water eventually sinks and, in a century or two, reaches the mid-Pacific, where it meets opposing currents from the north and rises, making the nutrients available to near-surface algae. But most of these nutrients pass on by; the mid-Pacific is too far from iron-rich dust sources on land for algae to make much use of them.

Sediment analysed

In 2012, LDEO scientists took cores from the seabed in the region. Costa and her colleagues analysed sediments from the cores dating back to the last ice age, 17,000 to 26,000 years ago. They found two or three times more dust reaching the area compared with today, because of reduced plant cover in the cold, dry climate.

Marine plant growth might have been expected to have increased accordingly, but it didn’t. The sediments showed that productivity stayed the same, or even declined.

The team concluded that algae in the southerly latitudes, which were also dusted at the same time, snapped up the iron, along with most of the other nutrients, leaving the Pacific algae high and dry.

One of the study’s co-authors, Jerry McManus, LDEO professor of geochemistry, says: “This shows how different parts of the system are connected. If you push hard in one place, the system pushes back somewhere else.”

The study itself does not say so, but McManus adds that it suggests

“we should be very careful about thinking we can use artificial fertilization to combat climate change”.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/seeds_of_doubt_over_iron_boost_for_algae_20160128

Weather Prevents Salvors from Boarding Listing Car Carrier
January 28, 2016 by Mike Schuler

modern express listing


For Latest Updates: Modern Express Adrift in Bay of Biscay

Thursday: The Panamanian-flagged car carrier Modern Express continues to drift eastward in the Bay of Biscay as salvors assess options for saving the stricken ship.

On Thursday, the Modern Express was located approximately 168 nautical miles west of La Rochelle, France and drifting eastward at a rate of about 1.3 knots.

A salvage team from SMIT salvage arrived early Thursday along with the French Navy frigate Primauguet carrying a Lynx helicopter. Two Spanish tugs hired by the shipowner have also joined the frigate and the emergency tug Abeille Bourbon, which has been on scene since Wednesday, in the area.

According to France’s Maritime Prefect Atlantic, the vessel’s list has stabilized and the ship is now showing no signs of water ingress.

Weather has prevented salvors from boarding the car carrier to prepare it for possible towing. Salvors are still trying to determine the best course of action for saving the vessel.

gCaptain Full Coverage: Modern Express Adrift in Bay of Biscay

As gCaptain has reported, two Spanish search and rescue helicopters evacuated all 22 crew members from the Modern Express on Tuesday after the ship developed a severe list while underway in the Bay of Biscay on a voyage from the country of Gabon to Le Havre, France. The roll-on/roll-off car carrier is carrying 3,600 tons of timber and construction equipment, according to the Maritime Prefect Altantic.

VIDEO:


Several Dramatic Photos from Thursday:

https://gcaptain.com/weather-prevents-salvors-from-boarding-modern-express-car-carrier/

Quote from: agelbert on January 31, 2016, 06:50:42 pm

Are you willing to question your most basic assumptions bout enthalpy and energy density or not?

Of course I am.  Questioning "Accepted Wisdom" is what I DO.

Also by no means do I deny that burning Carbon has extreme deleterious effects on the overall biosphere.  My general opinion is the two issues are working in synergy.

In terms of "best approach" to dealing with the problems, promoting and subsidizing Renewable Energy is a worthwhile goal in and of itself.  How much of the population this can salvage and how much of the general biosphere it can improve is an open question, just as developing adaptive methods to survive under a higher AGT regime for the planet is an open question as well.  Many in the climate community contend NO Homo Saps can survive with an AGT 4C above current baseline. AKA Guy McPherson. I don't think that is true, considering especially that Ethiopians CURRENTLY survive at AGT above the global baseline.

The best effort IMHO is a combined effort to reduce carbon emissions and begin the process of moving the population from neighborhoods which clearly will not be viable habitat for Homo Sap in the not too distant future (like Miami) to places that might remain habitable, like say the Smokey Mountains of WV.  We also need to substitute water and energy intensive Ag with water and energy conservative food production methods like Hydroponics and Aquaculture.

I would ideally like to see a controlled descent in per capita energy consumption which maximizes the number of Homo Sap that can be supported at any given time while regenerating the rest of the biomass destroyed to date.  You can't turn this ship on a dime though, there is a LOT of inertia here. Pointing it in the right direction though is something that can be done.
RE

Neither you nor I will ever be in charge of turning this ship around, on a dime or any other way, so, beyond posting scientific studies that provide a step by step doable transition to 100% renewable energy from time to time, I don't wish to argue the rate of transition with you. I am sure you are not pleased with news like THIS:

http://gcaptain.com/amp-slams-erroneous-report-against-outdated-jones-act/#.Vq65DP9gnm4

The fossil fuelers ARE NOT transitioning to renewable energy, slowly or otherwise. A ship like the above is built to last AT LEAST three decades. AND they have SEVERAL MORE on order. 



Returning to the subject of enthalpy and energy density, and in the spirit of pointing things in the right direction (even if government corruption by the dirty energy industries is making that rather difficult),  I am preparing a post on enthalpy and Hess's Law for you.

If you think it is not too boring, I'll consider publishing it on the blog. But I think the math, though relatively simple, will bore people who don't know any better and cause the trolls for fossil fuels to launch into paroxysms of derision and disdain. Anything that shows what an unsustainable and poisonous construct their "real world" is triggers an attack from them. I'm tired of sparring with those ****. That's why I am generally keeping to my channel.

I'll have it ready in a couple of days. 

SustainableBusiness.com News

by Rona Fried

If you look at what's important to the environmental community, you can't help but notice this is exactly what Bernie Sanders proposes in his platform and legislation he's introduced throughout his career:

•a quick and complete shift to 100% renewable energy - no half measures

•massive investments in energy efficiency

•a carbon tax

•support states that want to ban fracking; bar the fossil fuel industry from public lands; no more dirty pipeline infrastructure

•ban offshore oil drilling and oil and gas exports; ban mountaintop coal mining and place a moratorium on nuclear energy

•an end to fossil fuel subsidies

•move our transportation sector beyond oil through electric vehicles and mass transit, including high-speed rail. Increase fuel economy standards to 65 miles per gallon by 2025, catching up to Europe and Japan.

•real protection and expansion of our public lands for wildlife and biodiversity

•ousting conventional agriculture (ie Monsanto) and fossil lobbyists

•a transition to sustainable agriculture and away from GMO and subsidies for big ag companies

•resources and attention to climate change that treat it as the emergency it is.

Sanders would provide tax incentives for renewable energy permanently and proposes $41 billion for programs that people in the fossil fuel industry transfer their skills to clean energy.

Sanders views climate change as the "single greatest threat facing our planet," at a time when it's still not viewed that way by most of the public. He's correct, of course, and has the nerve to state it.

 He's also correct when he says the reason the US hasn't taken the level of action necessary on climate change is: a "small subsection of the 1% are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to block action."

That's why reversing Citizen's United and getting big money out of politics is so important, he says.

Sanders views a transition to a green economy as we do: the opportunity for new industries to arise that will bring us the next "industrial" revolution, but this time creating tens of milions of well-paying jobs ... that do not foul our environment and peoples' health.

Bernie strongly favors organic agriculture. He co-sponsored legislation to nationally label foods that contain GMOs and wants Monsanto et. al. out of the way.

 And he would nominate Supreme Court justices that reinforce the direction our economy needs to go. 

Bernie says:

"Right now, we have an energy policy that is rigged to boost the profits of big oil companies like Exxon, BP, and Shell at the expense of average Americans. The wealthiest industry in the history of our planet has bribed politicians into complacency in the face of climate change." 

"Enough is enough. It's time to take on the fossil fuel billionaires, accelerate our transition to clean energy, and finally put people before the profits of polluters."

 "What the scientists tell us is that we have a relatively short window of opportunity to bring about the fundamental changes that we need in our global energy system. It is absolutely vital that we do what many economists tell us we must, and that is put a price on carbon. It is the simplest and most direct way to make the kind of cuts in carbon pollution we need to successfully transition away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy."


 Introduced in Congress last year, this bill sets enforceable targets to reduce emissions from 1990 levels: 40% by 2030, and over 80% by 2050.

 A tax on carbon on fossil fuel producers and importers starts at $15 per ton in 2017 and rises to $73 per ton by 2035, adding another 5% a year after that. 

 The proceeds would go to households making less than $100,000 a year (80% of US families) to offset any rate hikes by fossil fuels companies. They are significant - a rebate of about $900 in 2017, growing to $1900 in 2030.

 It also provides $20 billion a year to the most vulnerable communities for climate resiliency projects; implements a "green tariff" that funds improvements in industrial energy efficiency; and programs that helps farms move to sustainable practices and renewable energy.

 While Hillary Clinton strongly supports much of Bernie's platform, she would never go as far, and the Republicans are a joke. Trump, for example, says climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese to kill US manufacturing.

Bernie was there at the historic Peoples' Climate March, where was Hillary and Obama? 

Read, Ahead of Iowa Caucuses: Archie Bunker, Head versus Heart.

Read our article, One Senator Says: We Must Choose Renewables And Give Fossil Fuels the Boot and Bernie's climate bills introduced in 2013.

Here is Bernie's Climate Platform:
 
Website: berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/26536

February 8, 2016 by Mike Schuler

The 4,180 passenger cruise ship departed New York for Port Canaveral, Florida on Saturday and sailed directly into the path of rapidly deepening storm low off the Carolinas, which as of Saturday afternoon was forecasted to produce winds of 65 knots and seas to 11.5 meters (about 38 feet) by noon Sunday.

On Cruise Critic forums, one passenger described the ordeal in a post on Sunday night (the post below is unverified):

“
We are on the Anthem right now, left NY yesterday, we sailed in a storm that intensified very quickly, Captain tried to turn ship but waited too long. We have been stuck in 125+ mph winds 30+ foot waves for 4 hours. Captain said they are in communication with the coast guard, struggling to point ship into wind but can’t move forward. All passengers told to stay in cabins water entered ship on upper decks, large white structure broke off top of ship landed in pool. At the height of storm waves breaking above the top of life boats and ship listing almost 45 degrees, with wind looked like a total white out. Conditions are improving but damage all over ship, crew look concerned and sounded very concerned on intracom. Some passengers sitting in muster stations.

GRAPHICS, PICURES, VIDEO AND STORY:
 


https://gcaptain.com/anthem-of-the-seas-caught-in-extreme-storm-off-u-s-east-coast/

Agelbert Note: The ocean wave activity will continue to get more violent because of climate change, year after year.

Climate Change, Blue Water Cargo Shipping and Predicted Ocean Wave Activity: Three Part Article

February 2012: New footage of the Russian aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov towed by the tug Nikolay Chiker after the aircraft carrier lost propulsion in the Bay of Biscay.


http://gcaptain.com/incredible-footage-heavy-weather-tow-of-russian-aircraft-carrier-in-bay-of-biscay/

By Chris Mooney February 11

SNIPPET:

The study also found that most teachers are unaware of the strength of the scientific consensus about the human causes of climate change. The survey asked them “what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is caused mostly by human activities?” For middle school teachers, 30 percent chose the option “81 to 100%,” which the researchers identified as the correct answer. High school teachers were only a little better, at 45 percent.

In addition, many teachers seemed misinformed about the subject matter. When asked what they would include in their courses on climate change, almost half selected off-topic items like “pesticides, ozone layer, or impacts of rocket launches.”

Teachers themselves showed much skepticism in their personal beliefs, too — while just 2 percent were in total denial of climate change, around 30 percent either said they believed it came from natural causes or that natural and man-made causes were equal contributors. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/11/how-teachers-are-getting-it-wrong-on-climate-change/?wpisrc=nl_az_most