[Blackshire]

It may or may not be happening. But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution. Neither is damming ever river in the world for "clean energy". Let's just go boating while we can...

 

[basil]

Wow,
if you think Colorado is over-crowded, you should see California;
if you think California is over-crowded, you should see Europe;
if you think Europe is over-crowded, you should see China.

 

[BmfnL]

That much of a CO2 increase in the atmosphere has to have a significant effect. The scale invites so much chaos that there will be difficulties quantifying and "labeling" the change. Our species would be wise to work toward eliminating our giant contribution to atmospheric carbon. That cannot be denied with even a glance at tha statz. Sorry if you own a petroleum company.

Back on the bright side (and on topic), snowpack is big in many parts of the rockies, and crappy April weather translates to days on the river in August. Also there is another snowpack factor that has not reared its ugly head this season but I won't mention it as I don't want to jinx us.

 

[jbolson]

Colorado boaters and skiers will likely see plusses due to global warming. As the average temperatures rise, there is increased humidity in the atmosphere. With Colorado's high elevation mountains, this moisture will get wrung out as rain and snow.

 

[gh]

Some damn funny stuff in this thread but Dumfukistan might win the prize and oh, most of us are going to die in a pandemic anyway so enjoy now.

 

[Riparian]

It may or may not be happening. But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution. Neither is damming ever river in the world for "clean energy". Let's just go boating while we can...

Seriously? Hell, even Senator James Inhofe admits that "it's happening." Of course, he and his minions claim it's just part of the natural cycle. "It" is clearly happening, and the overwhelming majority of credible climate scientists have concluded that "it" is the result of human activity since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Roy]

But Carbon taxes and the like is not the solution.

Says you (with no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion).

Yet Cap and Trade was a resounding success in getting acid rain under control, and it did so at much lower cost than originally forecast.

In the 1990s, the U.S. acid rain cap and trade program achieved 100 percent compliance in reducing sulfur dioxide emissions. In fact, power plants took advantage of the allowance banking provision to reduce SO2 emissions 22 percent (7.3 million tons) below mandated levels for the first phase of the program.

On the eve of legislation, the EPA estimated that the program would cost $6 billion annually once it was fully implemented (in 2000 dollars). The Office of Management and Budget has estimated actual costs to be $1.1 to $1.8 billion -- just 20 to 30 percent of the forecasts.

 

[earthNRG]

As an engineer working on carbon capture for coal combustion, I can tell you it isn't going to come cheap. The DOE target is 35% increase in cost of electricity (COE). The benchmark technology right now has a COE of around 80%. I think we are a ways off from significant reductions in that number, but we're working on it. Once carbon capture is mandated, renewables will be much more competitive with coal, but I don't see coal going away any time soon.

 

[mr. compassionate]

Sorry boys,

Get used to the hydrocarbons until the far left accepts nuclear...see below shale oil/gas numbers. You think our water is polluted now! Let's hope the toxic water is to deep to affect our supply as the industry claims.



Largest oil shale deposits (over 1 billion metric tons)[7]DepositCountryPeriodIn-place shale oil resources (million barrels)In-place oil shale resources (million metric tons)Green River FormationUSATertiary1,466,000213,000Phosphoria FormationUSAPermian250,00035,775Eastern DevonianUSADevonian189,00027,000Heath FormationUSAEarly Carboniferous180,00025,578Olenyok BasinRussiaCambrian167,71524,000CongoDemocratic Republic of Congo?100,00014,310Irati FormationBrazilPermian80,00011,448SicilyItaly?63,0009,015TarfayaMoroccoCretaceous42,1456,448Volga BasinRussia?31,4474,500St. Petersburg, Baltic Oil Shale BasinRussiaOrdovician25,1573,600Vychegodsk BasinRussiaJurassic19,5802,800Wadi MagharJordanCretaceous14,0092,149Dictyonema shaleEstoniaOrdovician12,3861,900TimahditMoroccoCretaceous11,2361,719Collingwood ShaleCanadaOrdovician12,3001,717ItalyItalyTriassic10,0001,431
Largest oil shale deposits (over 1 billion metric tons)[7]DepositCountryPeriodIn-place shale oil resources (million barrels)In-place oil shale resources (million metric tons)Green River FormationUSATertiary1,466,000213,000Phosphoria FormationUSAPermian250,00035,775Eastern DevonianUSADevonian189,00027,000Heath FormationUSAEarly Carboniferous180,00025,578Olenyok BasinRussiaCambrian167,71524,000CongoDemocratic Republic of Congo?100,00014,310Irati FormationBrazilPermian80,00011,448SicilyItaly?63,0009,015TarfayaMoroccoCretaceous42,1456,448Volga BasinRussia?31,4474,500St. Petersburg, Baltic Oil Shale BasinRussiaOrdovician25,1573,600Vychegodsk BasinRussiaJurassic19,5802,800Wadi MagharJordanCretaceous14,0092,149Dictyonema shaleEstoniaOrdovician12,3861,900TimahditMoroccoCretaceous11,2361,719Collingwood ShaleCanadaOrdovician12,3001,717ItalyItalyTriassic10,0001,431

 

[Riparian]

Jesus, Mr. Subprime, your posts give me a splitting headache. In every way.

 

[yakkeranna]

Says you (with no evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion).

Yet Cap and Trade was a resounding success in getting acid rain under control, and it did so at much lower cost than originally forecast.

Not that I don't think we need to get a international carbon cap and trade program going (I do), but the reason sulfur C&T worked so well was that nearly all sulfur oxide is released from industrial, point-source, smokestacks. A significant amount of carbon emissions comes from non-industrial, non-point sources (i.e. private vehicles).

=> Carbon cap and trade will not be as straight-forward as sulfur cap&trade was- but the sulfur C&T program does show that when monetary penalties are threatened against industry, the incentive for cheaper ways to clean up emissions becomes huge, which is a good thing all-around.

 

[melted_ice]

Sounds like most of you owe it to our globalness to just stay home. Polluting to "recreate" on a river is so rediculously unnecessary!

Besides I need an offset for my 1990's polluter and river beer drinking induced methane expulsion.

 

[mr. compassionate]

Jesus, Mr. Subprime, your posts give me a splitting headache. In every way.

Yes Rip, we already know you're a douche with nothing to add except for you left wing queef. No need for a reminder.

 

[Riparian]

Yes Rip, we already know you're a douche with nothing to add except for you left wing queef. No need for a reminder.

Benjy - I have come to the conclusion that you were a fratboy at Western Michigan University before you got into the subprime loan racket. So did you and your subprime mortgage pals sit around drinking beers on Friday nights and laugh about all people you knew were going to end up in foreclosure?

 

[gh]

Hey you two, leave your continued personal attacks on each other in the Eddy.

 

[glenn]

Hey you two, leave your continued personal attacks on each other in the Eddy.

What, like where this entire thread belongs?

 

[hnw2]

As an Earth Scientist I am ready and willing to answer any reasonable questions on this topic.

Caspermike, yes, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been a cause of global warming and cooling trends for millions of years. If the industrial revolution never existed, would Earth's global temperature be rising right now? The answer is yes... but at a much lower rate. To act as if burning fossil fuels at the rate we have for the past 250 years isn't having some control over the accelerated rate of global temperature is just naive.

Let's have a look at CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years:

That graph was taken from the International Panel on Climate Change 4 (2007). They have received some criticism recently but by and large their work is accepted globally as the standard right now.

And let me clear the air about something else: global warming does not mean increased temperatures everywhere... due to continental land masses, ocean currents, and atmospheric circulation, temperature and precipitation patterns are different based on geography (most importantly latitude, elevation, and proximity to an ocean, to name a few). Currently, all major deserts are expanding their footprint and ~95% of glaciers are diminishing (a few anomalous ones in Patagonia and Greenland are increasing). Don't believe me? Go visit Glacier National Park in 25 years. There won't be any "glaciers" left to walk on. But I'm getting off track...

High snowfall in one season does not contribute to the snowpack unless it remains through the warmer summer months without melting. Where do these situations exist? IN GLACIERS. Valley glaciers make up all of the glaciers in the continental US. Valley glaciers are the ones that are disappearing right now.

So let's recap:
1) CO2 levels are increasing many times faster than they typically do due to human fossil fuel consumption
2) Glaciers are disappearing
3) Snowfall only contributes to snowpack where glaciers exist

Conclusion: No glaciers = no snowpack. Even anomalously high snowfall will not reverse the trend of global warming. Using a few years of above average snowfall data to dismiss a trend that has been accelerating for centuries is just plain stupid.


Also: I agree with everyone mentioning the urbanization of deserts (US Southwest) is a ridiculous and unsustainable practice.

Bayou = hero.

 

[rivervibe]

It amazes me that the "if" of this is even still a point of discussion. And yes, before any of the antagonists out there yell at me about not contributing in a meaningful way, I'll freely admit that this point of view of bewilderment does not further the "debate." But damn, the more people I see still questioning the "if" of this argument the more I start to think that as population goes up, intelligence goes down...

 

[slamkal]

You mean as Fox viewership goes up ....

 

[Bayou]

Bayou = hero.

Just trying to add some facts to the discussion.