Do Natural Disasters benefit the midwest?

[bobbyhawks]

Convenience always wins out, though

Yeah, there's a difference with what 'should' be done and what will realistically happen. It will be very surprising if all the coal repositories directly available to us go unused indefinitely even if we develop alternative sources. Conservation efforts you describe might help delay the use but the coal repositories will likely be used anyway.

It's default human nature to use what is practical, convenient, easily available than to do what is strategically best for the planet, and strategy is typically not an act by default. It's even more difficult to pull off strategy if it costs more to pull off than the existing convenient method that already has a system in place to easily deploy.

I am reminded of a quote:

He should act like a prudent archer who, knowing the limitations of his bow and judging the target to be too far off, sets his aim still farther off, not to strike so distant a mark, but rather to strike the desired through the more ambitious aim.

-The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli

I worry that an acceptance of what seems inevitable will ruin us for what is still possible.

[phuqueue]

"Just keep pumping shit into the atmosphere and try to cope with what may come" is, at best, a reckless strategy.

Now you're putting words in my mouth that I didn't even imply.

"Methinks we are better off trying to spend resources to prepare for changes rather than stop it." Your actual wording is far less cavalier than my distillation of it but I don't think there is a meaningful difference there.

"well, what's done is done, may as well just keep doing more of it and deal with whatever results."

And more 'quotes' that I never said. We appear to agree that we can't ignore that climate change is a threat and shouldn't be ignored. We both agree that CO2 has an impact and should be reduced where there is an opportunity. But there isn't any significant opportunity in the near term to make a major difference, there are other factors at play other than CO2 and the snowball is already rolling that will take decades to hundreds of years to recover from even if we could put a near stop to CO2, which is not likely soon.

We need to focus resources to prepare for the changes - adapt to the reality of changes. It would help to reduce burning fossil fuels to keep from things getting worse (and keep rivers/air clean) but my point is that it likely won't make the global climate changes already rolling go away in the near future and it's unrealistic to think it will. Alternatives may help more than hurt, at least with CO2. But converting anything into energy en masse often has some negative byproduct, especially when making enough to meet demands of billions of people. Solar/Wind power are good supplements but has a long way to go as a primary source and are not able to predictably produce 24x7. It's going to be tough to realistically reduce human impact on environment even with alternatives, which is why I have the position on the 'prepare for the changes' rather than try to unrealistically keep the planet in a static state when it changes naturally anyway.

As I told akp above, this is not an either/or proposition. You can prepare for the changes while simultaneously taking advantage of all possible options to mitigate those changes as well. Your argument appears to be that there are no possible options, which is plainly not true, and this is why I characterize your position the way I have.

[earthling]

^yeah, not exactly how I was positioning it. The original point was that there are other sources that impact climate change, reducing CO2 production (enough to reduce impact) isn't realistically likely as long as there are 8B+ people and even if we somehow could, the ball is rolling with warm oceans and other effects that will take decades to hundreds of years to recover. We are pretty much on the same page actually except that I've been commenting that many think reducing CO2 output will be some magical pill to stop this. I don't think we'll be able to slow output enough and it wouldn't stop the momentum anyway, but doesn't hurt to do it for clean air/rivers. To me it's about setting realistic expectations to what we can do. You disagree and that's cool. That's pretty much it.

[aknowledgeableperson]

As I told akp above, this is not an either/or proposition. You can prepare for the changes while simultaneously taking advantage of all possible options to mitigate those changes as well.

I will go back to my original question but rephase it. Let's say the overall average temp has raised 5 degrees. How much of that is due to human activity and how much of it is nature? Are 2 of the 5 from human activity and the other 3 can be blamed on nature? What are the numbers? If most of the increase can be blamed on nature then shouldn't we be putting more efforts into mitigating the possible changes and less efforts into changing human activity?

Yes, we can do both but we can't cmpletely do both with a finite amount of time and money.

[FangKC]

Hurricane Sandy has shown what can happen to urban areas when the nation is so dependent on the grid and commodities shipped in (like gasoline).

We might not be able to control climate change significantly enough, or soon enough to mitigate the impact.

However, Sandy has demonstrated that we need to do things differently. Total dependence on the Grid and transportation networks puts people at risk during disasters.

If our technology can produce better and longer-lasting battery storage, where citizens can have solar energy panels on their roof, and store the energy for use at night and on long winter days, or after storms, then we become less vulnerable when the Grid goes down. We are less in need of energy transmitted from long distances, an inefficient transmission of energy that produces carbon, and situations where 30 percent of more of electricity transmitted is lost. So there is no efficiency rendered from the burning of that carbon, but detrimental effects remain.

If people can store their own energy, they are less at risk when gasoline transport is disrupted or refineries close down.

Since most of our carbon consumption and C0 gases come from heating and cooling buildings, and operating vehicles, the more clean energy we can get to power these things the better. Thus, battery storage technology is probably the best investment we can make, because it allows people to store their own energy for homes and cars. There is less vulnerability when power lines, or gas lines are disrupted. People don't have to freeze when disasters hit them. At least not millions.

We have the technology now to power homes and cars from solar power that the homeowner has on-site. We just need the battery storage capacity to make it a reliable and sustaining alternative. Newer solar panels look like roof shingles, and can absorb energy even on cloudy, cold days.

Storms of these types show how vulnerable our power grid system is now. Literally millions can be affected, and towns and cities thrown into chaos.

Any enemy or terrorist has seen this, and could take advantage of it.

If our government officials want Americans to be self-sufficient and self-reliant, the best thing they can do is to encourage this alternative technology that ends our dependence on fossil fuels, and the grid system of utilities. Then Americans aren't at the mercy of fluctuating gasoline and utility prices. Americans have more stability and are able to predict their budget costs for electricity and powering their cars.

We will always need oil and natural gas. But that supply is not endless. We should save them for other uses, and future generations. Many products are made using them (fertilizers, plastics, asphalt, chemicals, etc.).

Those resources will someday become very scarce. The sun and wind will always be there, and there's an endless supply if we capture that energy.

Alternative energy also makes it possible that a few countries don't have a stranglehold on the global economy. Who cares what factions of radical Islam do if we don't need oil from their countries? Who cares who the leader of Venezuela or Nigeria is if we don't need their oil?

Commodity traders on Wall Street won't be able to manipulate the utility prices of entire states from their offices.

If energy costs become stable, then a whole host of other prices stabilize.

[phuqueue]

As I told akp above, this is not an either/or proposition. You can prepare for the changes while simultaneously taking advantage of all possible options to mitigate those changes as well.

I will go back to my original question but rephase it. Let's say the overall average temp has raised 5 degrees. How much of that is due to human activity and how much of it is nature? Are 2 of the 5 from human activity and the other 3 can be blamed on nature? What are the numbers? If most of the increase can be blamed on nature then shouldn't we be putting more efforts into mitigating the possible changes and less efforts into changing human activity?

I will go back to my original answer: we don't know. It is not possible to tease out the individual shares of each cause, particularly with the precision you're asking for. I don't know what difference that should make, though. If 40% of climate change was manmade and 60% was natural, is that below your personal threshold at which we should do something about our part? Where is that threshold for you? With what proportions of manmade vs. natural would you be satisfied that we should start doing something to minimize our footprint? One thing I will say is that your hypothetical "five degrees" shows just how out of touch with this issue you are: the temperature so far has risen just less than one degree, with two degrees as the consensus absolute limit (although if you read the RS article I linked earlier in the thread, you'll see that even two degrees may be far too generous). Five degrees would be catastrophic. Hopefully that isn't your threshold.

Yes, we can do both but we can't cmpletely do both with a finite amount of time and money.

To make that statement you would have to know how much it will cost and how long it will take to do either one, and I'm betting that you don't. It is true that we don't have enough time to completely reverse what we've already done and stave off global warming in its entirety -- this is true in part because it's already happening and you can't very well prevent things that have already occurred, and in part because climate change already has considerable momentum as has been discussed upthread and won't cease just because we stop emitting GHG (on the other hand, our long-run prognosis would probably be considerably better if we cut off all GHG emissions tomorrow than if we didn't, even if the climate is going to continue to change to at least some degree in either case; obviously complete cessation of GHG emissions is impossible but the extreme example only serves to more starkly highlight the benefits that stand to be gained even from smaller, more realistic reductions).

Your position here seems to be "we can't stop it completely so we shouldn't try to stop it at all," which seems something like a doctor telling his patient "well, you're already fat -- I guess just keep doing what you're doing and we'll deal with all of the obesity-related ailments as they start to hit you." Maybe the guy's never going to be an Olympic swimmer but surely he should still do something, right? You can balance the costs and benefits of prevention vs. reaction to determine the best mix of both with the resources at your disposal, but can you point to anything where the cost/benefit analysis favors tipping the scales 100% to reaction? This storm alone presents an excellent example: $6 billion for a flood wall in New York harbor (actually in the context of climate change this would qualify as "reaction," but in the context of the individual storm it's a preventative measure) vs. estimated $18 billion in economic losses in New York caused by the storm. If absolutely preventing something is off the table, a mixed basket of available preventative measures and necessary reactive measures is certainly going to ultimately leave you better off than your devil may care, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it attitude. Can we afford to do it with "finite money"? Well, if reaction costs 3x more than prevention (as in Sandy's case here), it seems like we actually can't afford not to do it.

[Highlander]

Hurricane Sandy has shown what can happen to urban areas when the nation is so dependent on the grid and commodities shipped in (like gasoline).

Gasoline is probably the least vulnerable commodity. It's easily shipped and transportable as long as the production and refining locales stay out of harms way. Solar and wind installations are fixed and could have easily been destroyed in any such storm.

Another dynamic folks don't consider is coastal population growth. This is where people want to live and the demographics heighten the impact of coastal storms.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/02/us/coasta ... ?hpt=hp_t2

[aknowledgeableperson]

we don't know

With what proportions of manmade vs. natural would you be satisfied that we should start doing something to minimize our footprint?

One thing I will say is that your hypothetical "five degrees" shows just how out of touch with this issue you are:

To make that statement you would have to know how much it will cost and how long it will take to do either one, and I'm betting that you don't.

Your position here seems to be "we can't stop it completely so we shouldn't try to stop it at all,"

OK, we don't know. All my point was it climate was mostly the result of natural causes then shouldn't we spend more of our time and effort mitigating those potential damages. If mostly man-made then we should spend more on both in reducing those causes. That is all. It isn't a matter of when to start it is a matter of where we put our efforts.
Yes, 5 degrees, 40%, 60%, 2 degrees, 3 degrees were just numbers thrown out there, they were just used to try to get whether it is mostly man-made or natural, it is in dispute, or we really don't know.
Your example of NY is fine but what about the rest of the coastline? Is there the same cost/benefit analysis? What areas do we save? Let go? But we do have a finite amount of time and money? Do you believe in just running the printing presses for funds? With regards to time you have proved we do have a finite amount of time.
Do nothing? NO. It is just a question of what to do? What are the priorities?

[earthling]

Good article on the factors behind Sandy storm and challenges ahead given rising levels, warming oceans and the downside especially to NYC/Jersey having the v-shaped funnel...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... orm-surges

In New York Harbor, the surrounding coastline acted as a funnel, channeling more and more of the incoming water into a narrower and narrower region. When a massive volume of water gets confined in that way, "it has no choice but to spill out and flood the surrounding land," Rhome notes. And, in places where the shore gently slopes out to sea, rather than precipitously drops off, an even larger storm surge results. New York City, with some 305 square miles of area, is particularly vulnerable to storm surge because of its more than 500 miles of coastline feature small bays, inlets and other potential funnels that can channel rising seawaters far inland.

Will be interesting to see how they prepare. If building a flood wall, the channeled water would have to find some place to go, so probably somewhere else along the coast - Jersey and Long Island may get it even worse with a wall in NY harbor. And will the wall even work with 2 rivers coming in from the other direction? The Dutch just assume flooding will occur in some areas and have developments that float or on stilts, like houses on stilts in some areas of Florida. Don't see lower Manhattan being able to retrofit to something like that.

If Jersey redevelops the shore and another hits every year or 3 (which now seems plausible), insurance won't cover them and the Feds may pick up the tab - not many will be thrilled with that. If another hits next year or so, will be interesting to see what Jersey coast becomes long term.

The next few years will be interesting if hurricanes fall on land every year, and maybe even 2 a year. Was looking at history over decades and it looks like about 4-10 make landfall in US per decade, but with less intensity in past and with less development on coastline further back. Even if the number of landfalls don't increase, it's expected the intensity will increase. Larger storms last longer so increases chances for more to last long enough to reach NY/JY area. Wish it were FUD but sure doesn't look like it. NY/NJ got hit two years in a row now, which may not be coincidence but the start of a trend.

[phuqueue]

we don't know

With what proportions of manmade vs. natural would you be satisfied that we should start doing something to minimize our footprint?

One thing I will say is that your hypothetical "five degrees" shows just how out of touch with this issue you are:

To make that statement you would have to know how much it will cost and how long it will take to do either one, and I'm betting that you don't.

Your position here seems to be "we can't stop it completely so we shouldn't try to stop it at all,"

OK, we don't know. All my point was it climate was mostly the result of natural causes then shouldn't we spend more of our time and effort mitigating those potential damages. If mostly man-made then we should spend more on both in reducing those causes. That is all. It isn't a matter of when to start it is a matter of where we put our efforts.
Yes, 5 degrees, 40%, 60%, 2 degrees, 3 degrees were just numbers thrown out there, they were just used to try to get whether it is mostly man-made or natural, it is in dispute, or we really don't know.
Your example of NY is fine but what about the rest of the coastline? Is there the same cost/benefit analysis? What areas do we save? Let go? But we do have a finite amount of time and money? Do you believe in just running the printing presses for funds? With regards to time you have proved we do have a finite amount of time.
Do nothing? NO. It is just a question of what to do? What are the priorities?

You keep talking about money, we can't afford to do both, "just running the printing presses for funds," etc, but simply repeating your original point that we have a finite amount of money doesn't refute my response that prevention is always cheaper than reaction and that we should therefore pursue preventative strategies to the fullest extent possible. It's as though you think reactionary expenses are fixed, and to take preventative action simply heaps on more expense -- but the reality is that if we spend x amount on prevention, we can subtract 1.5x or 2x or 3x from the amount we'll ultimately have to spend to deal with the effects of climate change ex post. If we reach a point where the costs we're incurring on prevention substantially outstrip our actual ability to prevent, then your arguments might have a little bit of merit, but I'm not sure that's an especially valid concern right now when the data shows that our contribution to climate change is significant and we're currently doing only slightly more than nothing to address it.

[Highlander]

If Jersey redevelops the shore and another hits every year or 3 (which now seems plausible), insurance won't cover them and the Feds may pick up the tab - not many will be thrilled with that. If another hits next year or so, will be interesting to see what Jersey coast becomes long term.

I believe only two hurricanes hit the US this year. They were both category 1 storms at the time of landfall. Sandy just had the audicity to be the first hurricane in 74 years to make landfall as an extratropical hurricane and in an extremely populated area. Regardless of what you read, any attempt to say this type of hurricane will become increasingly more frequent is incredibly premature and in my opinion irresponsible of the scientific community which just does not know. A bit of historical perspective might help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ne ... hurricanes

If Sandy is the harbringer of things to come - what was the 1938 hurricane?

[earthling]

^Yeah, I mentioned another list that showed landfall of about 4-10 per decade in US. So two in a year is at top end of the norm. And given they are expected to be more powerful in the future, as well as more development along coast than 50-100 years ago, the impact is likely to be more significant. Not rocket science here. Two years in a row for NY/NJ raises eyebrows. If another hits same area next year or two, that could probably be called a trend that is abnormal.

BTW, I said 'if' they increase, not that they will with any certainty. Not sure how you read 'certainty' into that.

[earthling]

I'm not sure that's an especially valid concern right now when the data shows that our contribution to climate change is significant and we're currently doing only slightly more than nothing to address it.

The irony is that throughout history since we've gone from hunter/gatherers to altering nature to sustain larger societies, our innovation to manipulate nature seems to exceed our ability to control our impact on it. We've made some strides in keeping rivers/air clean since the 70s and we should continue to focus on that. But as we continue to make more products and more people to use products, we stir up earths resources more and more and require more energy in some form to make them. Converting nature from one form to another usually takes energy and has other negative byproducts in many cases.

I have a potato peeler that I rarely use. Did a search and found there are over 1000 types of potato peelers. That implies there may be nearly that many manufacturing places. Every time somewhat innovates another potato peeler or makes a Homer Simpson version or whatever, it's more manipulation of earth's resources. Think of every product that has multiple versions and that every product we have will continue to innovate into more products (if not exponentially). That's more stirring up natural resources and more energy needed to make them. Even if conversation minded people use knives to peel potatoes instead of a dedicated device, a bunch of variations will continue to be made anyway and people will buy them for rare uses. That's just one product. There are hundreds of millions if not billions out there. Innovation to manipulate nature to create more products (and other ways we manipulate nature to our "needs") seems to outgrow innovation to maintain our impact to nature.

There are so many ways we will need more energy and will continue to consume more, that it will be surprising if we can come up with alternatives that ultimately prevent us from burning fossil fuels or other ways that have no negative byproduct. IE, natural gas may emit about half CO2 than coal but if energy need grow faster than 50%, may still need to burn coal to keep up. And natural gas 'mining' has the apparent negative byproduct of fracking. Nuclear power is cleaner up front but supposedly warms up the oceans in other ways as well as creates dirty byproduct in other ways. Even if we come up with alternatives, the growing need for energy to create more products and support more consumers is growing faster than alternatives, so we may end up burning up fossil fuels in the end, just maybe more slowly at best. And then there is India and China that while may be slowing in growth, has a growing % of people adapting to the modern world, becoming modern consumers to buy more crap.

There's an interesting book that gives a unique description of humans as in itself a product of innovation... "Artificial Ape". Pretty interesting anthro perspective about human nature for innovation and how we stir up natural resources faster than we can manage the impact.

[Highlander]

I'm not sure that's an especially valid concern right now when the data shows that our contribution to climate change is significant and we're currently doing only slightly more than nothing to address it.

There are so many ways we will need more energy and will continue to consume more, that it will be surprising if we can come up with alternatives that ultimately prevent us from burning fossil fuels or other ways that have no negative byproduct. IE, natural gas may emit about half CO2 than coal but if energy need grow faster than 50%, may still need to burn coal to keep up. And natural gas 'mining' has the apparent negative byproduct of fracking.

You should really not think aloud. I don't want a standardized life with 1 kind of potato peeler. Maybe we should only have McDonald's too, no BK or Wendy's and one kind of car. Most humans don't want Soviet style standardizations and there would be far, far fewer jobs in that world.

As for fracking, it's not a byproduct, it is a process. And if people were to obtain real information rather than watch absurd non-scientific "documentaries" like Gasland, they might have a better understanding of the issue. First of all, unless the "reservoir" and aquifer are in very close proximity (and they usually are not), fracking is not a threat to groundwater quality - it just isn't and it's silly to make the argument that it is. There are issues like water use and water disposal but the focus on groundwater quality has been an enormous red herring. Natural gas is available in enormous quantities. Not only from shale gas which requires fracking (which is a technique used since the 1950's), but from stranded fields around the world that are not being developed due to lack of market. We could cut our CO2 emissions by a huge amount if we simply converted vehicles to natural gas and we could cut deep into our dependency on foriegn oil. It makes much much more sense than electric cars which are not suceeding in the market place.

[earthling]

You should really not think aloud. I don't want a standardized life with 1 kind of potato peeler. Maybe we should only have McDonald's too. Most humans don't want Soviet style standardizations.

You might have scanned that too quickly. I'm speaking as an observer that it's happening whether we like it or not, not that we can or should stop it. Am hoping for conversation here, not argue any case.

As for fracking, it's not a byproduct, it is a process. And if people were to obtain real information rather than watch absurd non-scientific "documentaries" like Gasland, they might have a better understanding of the issue. First of all, unless the "reservoir" and aquifer are in very close proximity (and they usually are not), fracking is not a threat to groundwater quality - it just isn't and it's silly to make the argument that it is. There are issues like water use and water disposal but the focus on groundwater quality has been an enormous red herring. Natural gas is available in enormous quantities. Not only from shale gas which requires fracking (which is a technique used since the 1950's), but from stranded fields around the world that are not being developed due to lack of market. We could cut our CO2 emissions by a huge amount if we simply converted vehicles to natural gas and we could cut deep into our dependency on foriegn oil. It makes much much more sense than electric cars which are not suceeding in the market place.

Good points and that's why I said fracking 'apparently' has negative impact. Also consider that those in the industry will more likely try to prove it doesn't. But even if natural gas emits 50% less CO2 than coal and energy needs grow more than natural gas can offset, you still have a problem and coal/oil is too convenient/cheap to pass up. The clean coal thing is nice on paper and Obama and past GOPrs talks about it but it's exceedingly expensive to pull off and last I checked we don't have any in use yet. I'm not supporting the use of coal and burning fossil fuels, just saying it's human nature for us to use what is easily available and it will be surprising if we can develop alternative faster than using what is more convenient. History of mankind so far says we haven't.

The gist of my last post was that throughout history we seem to stir up nature in some form faster than we can control our impact on nature.

[pash]

.

[earthling]

Yeah, the potato peeler was an example of manufacturing, which is also a major contributor to using energy and stirring up nature in other forms. That's just one product of maybe hundreds of millions/billions. Data centers eat lots of energy too. The point is that we stir up nature in many many many ways, faster than we can control the impact on nature. And BTW, nature changes nature too.

[pash]

.

[Highlander]

Yes, and my point was that industrial emissions are a small part of the problem, way behind "lifestyle" emissions.

My point is we could probably half lifestyle emissions by half by converting vehicles to natural gas. People are not going to voluntarily change their lifestyles unless compelled by cost or convenience so the NG option works in the near term.

In the longterm, much much better public transportation in the core will eventually be paramount to bringing people back. KC will always lag behind the rest of the country because commutes here are so very easy.

[earthling]

pash, I'm referring to how manufacturing stirs up nature in many ways, not just CO2 directly (direct emissions) or indirectly (using power). And those products have to be transported. And most products are made from other products made somewhere else that needs to be transported. The entire ecosystem impact for one product is greater than just the assembling of it.

And then you have India/China that has a growing % of population becoming modern consumers.