Earthquakes and Climate Change:
Earthquakes and Climate Change: Risks (1)
On March 11, 2011 there was a great earthquake in Tohoku, Japan. This earthquake caused large loss of life and property, and for the focus of this article large parts of the Fukushima nuclear power plant were destroyed. Therein is the link to climate change.
Figure 1: Poster describing 2011 Tohoku, Japan earthquake. (link to a LARGE version of this poster)
Global warming due to carbon dioxide increases is caused primarily by emissions from burning fossil fuels. Hence, there is the, now familiar, link of carbon dioxide to energy use to prosperity to population. Hence, our path to addressing climate change is finding sources of energy that do not emit carbon.
Nuclear power is a controversial issue, which I will discuss more below. But in the minds of many people, nuclear power is part of the paths to solution of the climate change problem. There is no doubt that nuclear power is low carbon, and it is a proven source of energy at societal scale. Below is a comparison of carbon emissions from different sources of energy.
Figure 2: Emissions of carbon dioxide from different sources of energy. This is from The World Nuclear Association.
The World Nuclear Association is an organization that supports the nuclear industry, and they make prominent points about the importance of nuclear energy in addressing climate change. The figure above is from a report that they generated, and it is based on a review of literature. I have looked through the report, and as a non expert, they have done a credible accumulation and reporting of information. The story that is definitive is that carbon dioxide emissions from nuclear power plants is far smaller than from fossil fuel burning, and comparable to the emissions from renewable sources of energy. Given that carbon dioxide, once emitted, is around for many thousands of years, there is an urgency to address our emission levels, and increased use of nuclear energy would benefit the reduction of global warming.
In Japan, the loss of the Fukushima power plant was a loss of a major source of electrical generation. This led to a reduction of manufacturing that had direct effects on the world’s industries and economies. It also fueled and refueled opposition to the development of nuclear power plants. In Japan there have been massive protests opposing building nuclear power plants as well as calling for closing existing plants. There was a time not long ago where Japan, a country dependent on imports for most fossil fuels, was on a path to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels with the use of nuclear power. Japan has subsequently developed a policy to deemphasize nuclear power with a gradual fade out. Even with a focus on renewable energy, this decision in Japan will inevitably lead to more carbon dioxide emissions in the short term.
What I have thought was most interesting was the response in Germany. Germany decided to close its nuclear power plants by 2022. The Washington Post’s Editorial Board called this reaction to Fukushima a blunder, and there were wide spread comments that Germany’s demand for energy would inevitably lead to more coal use and an increase in both carbon dioxide emissions and public health risks. Germany’s position, however, is that they would accelerate their already aggressive programs in renewable energy. This is an interesting gamble. The challenges of meeting Germany’s energy demands with renewable energy are formidable, but if that challenge is met, then it is likely to provide Germany with technological developments and energy security that gives it huge economic advantage. Here is a nice summary story of Germany’s decision in the Christian Science Monitor.
In the earlier part of the Obama administration there was a renewed interest on nuclear energy in the U.S. Immediately after the 2011 earthquake there was significant decline in the U.S. public interest in nuclear power. This decrease came at a time when public support was at a near peak. Now a few months out, polling by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is a “policy organization” for the nuclear energy industry, shows modest declines, but with a majority in the U.S. still supporting more nuclear energy.
Looking worldwide, there is no doubt that there will be some countries developing more nuclear energy and there will be some countries where the political environment will reduce the use of nuclear power. With regard to climate, most energy decisions are made with regard to energy needs, energy security and cost. All energy systems have their proponents. All energy systems have environmental impact; therefore, they all have opponents. The net result of this is that we continue to rely on fossil fuels, with increasing stress on energy systems and the environment. There is no doubt that the earthquake in March 2011 in Japan has influenced how we think about nuclear power. Therefore, the earthquake has an influence on how we address the energy issues that are at the root of carbon dioxide emissions and global warming.
There are two points I want to bring forward to carry to the next blog. The first is to reiterate that our world exists in many systems with fragile balance. Our energy systems are vulnerable to relatively small disruptions. Our economy is fragile. Our climate is in a balance where carbon dioxide emissions can drastically alter the balance of water between liquid and ice. The second is that all of these systems are connected. Global risks follow from an earthquake that is localized on the coast of a single island in Japan. It is this sort of systems impacts where the great risks are exposed, where climate change can have near-term impacts.
r
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
Now, I do find that humorous. Have you ever read a EULA (End User License Agreement) or a ToA (Terms of Agreement)? The sites are not legally bound should their information on you gets hacked. They provide security only to the extent that you trust your information will be safe with them and you will use them. Once they are hacked, they are not legally accountable for your information getting out. (How many financial institutions do you remember getting hacked and user information was taken?) I believe that the VA was hacked not too long ago.
Do you own a house? Your tax records are a part of the public domain. Anyone can find out how many square feet your house is, your address and your appraised tax value on the house, with very little information on you beforehand.
The only way to fly below the radar is to live as if Interpol was trying to track you down. Strictly cash and never buy anything that has to be registered in your name. Either you live in a hole, or you are at a potential risk of someone getting your personal information. ... As I said, the technology is neither good nor bad. The ones that use the technology are able to do so for good or for bad.
May you have a good night as well, nymore. Always a pleasure.
I am not a hacker, at least not in that sense. I have no desire to know more information on you than what you give me knowingly. I am not the one you have to worry about.
All I am saying is that what Ossqss did was wrong. This is a blog. What purpose did Ossqss serve by giving out personal information on a fellow blogger? Was it to heighten our ability to communicate with each other, on this blog? No. So what purpose did it serve?
Added
Stay safe and well. I am out, for the night.
I have no problem with Camille. Maybe she had the strongest winds but her winds have not been measured during the time she hit land. They are still only approximate winds and Al Gore is talking about measured winds.
Al Gore says in the video that Typhoon Megi had the strongest winds ever measured when a storm hit land. That's the difference.
Case closed.
Thousands of land and ocean temperature measurements are recorded each day around the globe. This includes measurements from climate reference stations, weather stations, ships, buoys and autonomous gliders in the oceans.
These surface measurements are also supplemented with satellite measurements. These measurements are processed, examined for random and systematic errors, and then finally combined to produce a time series of global average temperature change.
A number of agencies around the world have produced datasets of global-scale changes in surface temperature using different techniques to process the data and remove measurement errors that could lead to false interpretations of temperature trends.
The warming trend that is apparent in all of the independent methods of calculating global temperature change is also confirmed by other independent observations, such as the melting of mountain glaciers on every continent, reductions in the extent of snow cover, earlier blooming of plants in spring, a shorter ice season on lakes and rivers, ocean heat content, reduced arctic sea ice, and rising sea levels.
theshepherd, see post# 295.
I did not catch what Ossqss was referring to when he made his post concerning "ex-lamb IT receptionist". I even said as much, in one of my posts. This does not indicate that others had not caught the meaning of this. Nymore, for example, seemed to have caught its meaning.
I have been coming to this blog for a period of time. What this blog use to be was an attack board. Many would ignore Professor Rood's topic of discussion and proceed to lay down attacks on those that have differing opinions from their own. Both sides of the "debate" would use less than reasonable approaches to defend their point of views. Ossqss, to me, was a special blogger, in the sense that he would post many links that lead nowhere, in any true discussion of the topic. His reason for doing this was to discover how a person would respond and attempt to profile the person making the response. Why would he do this? Why profile anyone, on this blog? I know the obvious answers to this question. One reason to do this is to begin placing labels on the person and to place them into pre-tagged pigeon holes. Ossqss was interested in gaining the advantage to attack the person and not the content of their message. Knowing how a person thinks will give you an advantage towards using their own thoughts against them. Ossqss soon discovered that I do not think, at least in its appearance, and I lost him in his process of his using forensic linguistics to profile me. He would even question me as to who else was logging into my account to post statements for me.
JBastardi use to be notorious in his use of attacks and threats against bloggers on here. JBastardi has "calmed down" in his threats and now does a much better job of putting forth his viewpoints of the debate topic. I respect JBastardi, for being able to do this. He has become a much more reasoned person with his defense of his stance on the debates. JBastardi has helped us to understand that our message is better received when we do not attach threats with the message. He still has the same passion for his viewpoints, as before but, now he does a much better job of delivering his viewpoints. ... I still think his viewpoints are wrong but, he has the right to express his viewpoints.
Neapolitan has not been a saint when it comes to discarding the tags placed on people. However, I have never seen Neapolitan make threats or to disclose personal information about others. We would all fair much better when we realize that we are here to promote our viewpoints, supported by the available science we have, and to refrain from "a game of one upmanship". I believe that we are all capable of showing some civility as we discuss the topics.
Professor Rood was kind enough to take the time and effort to put up this blog for us to use. Thank you, Professor Rood. I believe that it is far past the time that we showed him the respect he deserves for us to be able to express ourselves here. What better way to do this than to be civil towards each other while making our posts? Bring your passion but, leave behind the less than honorable ways to represent yourselves. And, yes, I will do a better job of heeding this advice myself.
Well, these are my thoughts. We all have our own thoughts.
Good day to you, overwash12!
I am not certain if this is the case, or not, concerning the 1935 hurricane. I do know that one has a tendency to compare disasters according to their previous disasters. Hurricane Alicia was not a bad storm, by comparison, but, Hurricane Ike was a monster, in terms of size. This, at least, is my viewpoint from experiencing both them first hand. Hurricane Rita destroyed my home so, for me, that was one terrible storm.
You could be right but, I think the discussion was concerning highest measured winds at landfall. Cat5's, at sea, rarely make landfall with measured winds of a Cat5.
Your oh-so-coy-and-clever capitalization of "LAMB" and "ROOF" indicates that you yourself have become so obsessed with me that you've actually spent time huddled over your lonely keyboard in the dark engaged in some twisted search for information on my private life, doubtless cackling with glee over each morsel unearthed. Gee, congratulations: both you and Ossqss have uncovered the name of a past employer and current sometime client of mine. So tell us if you would, what purpose does its revelation here serve? If you're under the impression that doing so makes you appear smart or powerful or clever or funny, you're mistaken. It only makes you look petty, stalkerish, and creepy--and more than a little sociopathic. And I personally interpret it as a threat: "We know who you are, Neapolitan, and we know where you work. And we can find out where you live, if we want. And maybe we already do." And while I don't particularly care whether "the State Dept takes a dim view of such actions by their contractors", I can tell you that admin sure as hell does. Or should; if I had my way, the two of you--and your sycophant--would be bounced from here permanently, like, yesterday.
Finding yourself on the losing side of the climate change argument must be frustrating, particularly when the science behind it is diametrically opposed to your carefully constructed political ideology. I get that. But that's no cause to stoop to such low levels. Is it?
On a side note: my personal apologies to the other members of this forum, and particularly Dr. Rood, for my latest series of OT comments. I generally don't engage trolls--even the most sophist ones, or those with such deep levels of affected profundity. I choose instead to let them simmer in their own self-loathing. But when the trollism goes beyond the online world and begins to implicitly threaten my IRL self, my occupation, and my family, sitting idly by doesn't seem like an option.
This certainly extends into the real world - where's the extreme action?
But its nice to know you think anyone with a different opinion opposite of your own is considered a mook, and should be vanquished from this small piece of cyberspace.
I understand that some here aren't capable of recognizing the difference between my calling someone a denialist on an internet forum, and that person making IRL threats. But there is nevertheless a difference.
Misanthrope's position here is a curious one, especially in light of the following prior posts:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/commen t.html?entrynum=161&page=18
At first glance №s 884-894 are interesting.
Anyway, not that my opinion will matter much, but I think it would be best for everyone to avoid all of the personal stuff.
Well, there is some history there that I won't go into but, you're right, my comments on that day were indeed inappropriate. My apologies.
Very commendable...and in your defense the posts were over a year old. Maybe others will be inspired to confine the personal stuff to WU-mail and keep the discussion on topic here.
Yes, that makes sense. I would imagine that is also possible in the west Caribbean and along the Bahamas. S. Florida and the Keys are the most likely candidates for this happen. I would hate to be on the westerly Keys, in this event.
Yes, I had to take a peek prior to deleting my cookies and presence on this site.
Let me get this right, I post a retaliatory jab to someone that has absolutely no discernible related personal info and it gets the innuendo, embellishment and inference treatment and I am now some kinda criminal. LOL
Did I post a full name as was done and responded to (then completely edited by the responder) in the first 30 posts (26) of the past blog? No!
How pitiful, the way some think and twist things. I am certain you are a pleasure to be around. Hence why you spend your whole day on a PC>
On par with how you treat your science!
Pfffft, and you wonder what is wrong this this country !
Oh no...now I'm the culprit.
Seems to be a moving target...eh???
Hang on, let me get my hat.
You're leaving the site?
Yes, you seem to be correct. You are the person that Ossqss is referring to about posting another blogger's name on here. Ossqss, at least, did not name any names. You, however, are not so innocent when it comes to this. Why would anyone post any personal information concerning another blogger on here? What is to be gained from this? Perhaps you relayed this person's other personal information to Ossqss as well, or did Ossqss just use the information you made public to do his own research? Either way, there is no excuse for posting another blogger's personal information on here. Why do you use a handle instead of your real name when post on this blog?
Theshepherd, I have never seen you post another blogger's personal information on here. You may have but, I am not aware of your doing so. You biggest mistake is in trying to defend the indefensible actions of another. That is your choice to do so and I do not blame you for your attempt to do so. I would imagine that, for people of our age, you would have learned to pick your battles a little better than this.
That is fair enough of a statement. I still wonder if your posting of his name was the right thing to do when he himself had not directly done so. Many that come here are not members and do not see all of the posts. Your posts may show when Nea's do not. I guess that it is just spitting hairs.
I see that post# 308 and post# 309 are both removed. I do not recall what was in either post but, I will imagine that post# 309 was a quote of post# 308 and both were removed.
I wish that you, Ossqss and theshepherd would continue to post here. I say this with respect to our ability to learn and move past our mistakes. We are capable of having debate topics without the attacks against each other and without divulging personal information. Our own or that of someone else. I hope that this is something that you will consider. When JBastardi has shown that he can use a civil dialogue, then he has set an example that we all can follow. The reality of the situation is that I believe it was CAT5hurricane that could not adjust to having a civil conversation. He no longer posts here so this is a moot point.
Rules of the Road
1.Please do not carry on personal disputes in the blogs.
Threats, intimidation, especially that which extends into the real world will be dealt with by extreme action.
2.Foul language is not allowed.
3.Please avoid topics that would be considered adults only. Many children come to this site looking for information about the weather.
4.Do not circumvent administrative action by creating new users, etc.
5.No spam.
Link
Briggs is just another darling of, and paid speaker for, the Big Energy-funded Heartland Institute. Though I'm sure he's completely objective in his approach; one can ascertain his utter lack of ideology-driven scientific bias by tweets of his such as "Biden's hair plugs interfering with his statistical reasoning."
Ho-hum. Do you have anyone else?
“The BEST press release states:”
“Four scientific papers setting out these conditions have been submitted for peer review and will form part of the literature for the next IPCC report on Climate Change.”
“How is it that BEST can know and state that these papers, as yet peer reviewed, will be part of the IPCC report?
Seems to imply that the peer review and acceptance into the IPCC report are already decided. “
Quote climate de-crocker Peter Sinclair October 20, 2011:
"I am continually humbled by the calm, measured, and authoritative way in which Dr. Schmidt, in the face of constant distortions, slander, abuse and ignorance on the part of the professional anti-science crowd, continues to provide a still center in the midst of a rancorous debate, at this most critical time in history.
A well deserved award for an extraordinary human being"
The Way it Ought to Be – Gavin Schmidt on Communicating Science
nymore, I know your previous posts have shown a far greater degree of maturity and intelligence than what you displayed in those posts. You have not shown me to be an unreasonable person and that is why I believe you serve yourself a grave injustice when you make such posts. Most will find that any attempts to belittle others only serves to belittle themselves.
When you claim that a fellow blogger had posted a link that contained their personal information, I have no reason to doubt you. The links, that you have posted, may have contained less than honest information but, I have never seen your words to be less than honest. When you do see someone produce a self inflicted wound, then your intellect should tell you that it is not a reasoned approach to open a new container of salt. The honorable approach would to be privately contact the person and warn them of the danger they have presented to themselves. I have done such, in the past, myself.
I also believe that I did not miss the point concerning - Thermometer "A" - in our previous discussions. My analogy of using aquarium thermometers was a very good analogy, as it turns out:
"Again, our statistical methods allowed us to analyze the U.S. temperature record separately for stations with good or acceptable rankings, and those with poor rankings (the U.S. is the only place in the world that ranks its temperature stations). Remarkably, the poorly ranked stations showed no greater temperature increases than the better ones. The mostly likely explanation is that while low-quality stations may give incorrect absolute temperatures, they still accurately track temperature changes." - This a quote from the following link:
UC Berkeley Study: Global Warming is Real - One must remember that this study was partially funded by both The Gates Foundation and The Charles Koch Foundation. Both of these foundations are better known for contributing to much more conservative studies. As we know, Charles Koch represents his on interests towards keeping the status quo, concerning environmental policies. He would have been better served had this study debunked the data and the way it was applied to the models. Instead, this study showed that the IPCC data and the way it was used probably under reported the temperature rise.
The temperature thing has or had nothing to do with BEST or the U.S. temperature record but with thermometers in Antarctica. Here is the link again Link
Here is the link posted by Neo: (iwantsomeproof.com) the name bottom right
I guess my point is this person since they write blogs and post them on many internet sites is not private no more but public, just like any other public person. Such a Joe B. or Tom Cruise or Stephen King. No one hacked his computers or anything else he is public and so is the info.He made himself public and when that happened you have to take the good with the bad
Uploaded by TutorVista on May 3, 2010
Check us out at http://www.tutorvista.com//videos
Different Types of Pollution
There are nine basic types of environmental pollution, and each one has detrimental affects on wildlife, human habitation, and the quality of life in the affected area.
I can understand what the link is saying. However, the abstract does not state if the thermometers are completely invalid for use. Rather, the abstract seems to be more be directed towards there are better thermometers that could be used in this location. I would venture to guess that, if you doubted the accuracy of the thermometer readings, you could simply analyze the local environment and determine if there are physical indications of temperature deviations from prior observations of the environment. Granted, these changes will probably be quite subtle but, also, probably detectable. You also seem to focus on the thermometers of one particular geographical location and show a tendency to ignore what the data shows from other geographical locations. Once again, I fail to see how my analogy would be an invalid analogy. My analogy does not depend on BEST but, it seems to be supported by BEST.
It’s a research about calibrating and validating meteorological models.
This conversation is tiring. You're clearly not getting it, so this will be my last correspondence with you. Period.
First, your knowledge of the law is severely lacking. Simply posting in a public internet forum does not make one a "public figure"; if that were the case, everyone who commented on facebook, twitter, or any web forum anywhere would be considered a "public figure", and that's clearly not the case. So there's that.
Second, posting my real name is bad enough; if I wanted to do that, I would have made that my handle, just as you would have. But it's the posting of personal information that can only be gleaned from doing an obsessive search of the internet that gets me, and strikes me as intentionally threatening. If you and your friends care to sit hunched over your keyboards web-stalking people with whom you disagree so you have data on them, I suppose you're entitled. But posting the stuff you find in this forum serves no purpose whatsoever other than, as I've been saying, to let your target(s) know that you know things about them. That's creepy, it's sociopathic, and it needs to stop.
Now, I don't care whether you understand this, or whether you're even capable of understanding it. What I do care about is that I have to make a living, and I have a family, and anyone threatening either will be dealt with appropriately.
For the good of the blog, I'll respond no further here to you, Ossqss, or Shepherd.
I doubt that any credible or reasonable person would come to the conclusion that all of the warming is due strictly to AGW.
There are many natural factors that contribute towards a warming/cooling/neutral global climate. However, we cannot account for all of the more recent global warming based purely on natural causes. The only way we have been able to account for the degree and speed of the warming is when we factor our own contributions beyond the natural influences. There are, by far, too many examples of our own contributions to determine that our activities have not had a neutral or positive effect on our global climate. This is, of course, unless you subscribe to the theory that a rapidly, geologically speaking, warming is good for our continued survival.
We must proceed based on our current knowledge:
1. CO2 is a GHG - We emit huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.
2. Trees are one of natures natural carbon sinks. - We destroy vast quantities of trees annually. This can be done through deforestation, harvesting, strip mining, mountain top removal and arson.
3. The oceans are a huge natural carbon sink - Warming oceans will release CO2 as opposed to sequestering CO2.
4. Methane is trapped on the cold ocean bottoms and in frozen tundras - Our landfills produce methane. As the ocean currents warm they will also warm the ocean bottom and begin to release the frozen methane stored there. The same applies to our frozen tundras.
5. Once the methane begins hitting the atmosphere there is no turning back. Methane is a by far more potent GHG than is CO2. The effects would be irreversible, by any attempts would should make.
We, today, control the fate of the survivability of our future generations. How we respond today will have a direct impact on our future generations. We cannot escape this reality.
Will be dealt with appropriately is that a threat if it is you better hope your mouth isn't writing checks your back side can't cash.
BTW if i never talk to you again big deal life goes on tough guy.
Viewing: 301 - 351
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index