Interesting Weather Record Set Today

[Jerry Rapp]

good answer Mr. Smith. Have a good day.

[Wayne SW/MO]

armed forces, social security, NASA, NOAA

I think that's a stretch to include development of renewable energy in there.

Virtually every effort that is seen as viable has serious problems. Electric cars, expensive and few will be built, electricity generation is #1 and transportation #2, what am I missing here?

Wind farms are wiping out bats and birds at alarming rates, how long will that last?

They build solar farms wiping out vegetation and incur transmission losses, but can't seem to find a way to put them on rooftops that are already deserts and heat producers. Why is that?

I think that government intervention is progressing about as expected, with most of the money going somewhere else.

You have to love science. I read this yesterday about the decline of the Wooly Mammoths

Northern mammoth populations grew after the Last Glacial Maximum, but then dipped again during the Younger Dryas period about 12,900 years ago. Although there is controversy as to what happened at that time, "there was certainly a very rapid and profound cooling of many regions then, followed by rapid warming," MacDonald said. "Did this cause the extinction of the mammoth?

And we just came out of a mini ice age??

[Ultralance12]

There is absolutely no refuting that people are having an impact on the climate. In a finite system, in which we are a part of, we must have an impact (same as algea, squirrels, and bass). The main argument of proponents of global warming is that we are releasing huge amounts of CO2 into the air that would otherwise not be there and that CO2 has the effect of trapping more of the suns energy in our atmosphere, thus warming it. With all of the plant life on earth releasing CO2 there is some level of CO2 in the atmosphere that the earth has, thusfar, balanced out to create an incredibly steady climate. There are arguments that could be made against man made climate change such as:

The earth will find a way to balance this extra CO2 such as increased number of plants

The rate which people are putting CO2 in the atmosphere is not high enough to overcome the planets ability to regulate it

The rate which people are putting CO2 in the atmosphere will not cause any detrimental effects for XX years

My biggest issue is that the argument played out by pundits and deniers is just a diversion or scare tactic and usually doesn't follow the scientific method. If you are going to refute science you better do it with science or it will fall on deaf ears (and occasionally gullible ones). Personally I'm not that concerned about the planet and high CO2 because I think that the earth will be fine in the long run as the higher temperatures make life easier for plants which in turn scrubs out all that CO2 and returns to normal. The problem is that if the warming happens to fast, the entire global economy crashes and mass famine and drought kills billions (just a hypothesis). People cannot hurt the planet. No matter what we do a few million years after we are gone the planet will be getting by just fine.

As for the renewable energy discussion, it is important to remember back at the turn of the century when a new form of energy became accessible it was the government that stepped in and subsidized it to make it compete more with the ruling energy of the day. I am talking of course about oil and how it was subsidized by the government to compete with coal. It is good to remind people that if the government had not done this, we would have continued to make steam powered cars that run off coal and not been at the forefront of the oil boom that put this country in an enviable position for much of the next century (not to mention what might have happened during the two world wars). Government subsidy of an emerging technology is not in itself a bad thing even if parts of it are mismanaged and some bad decisions are made.

With all of that being said, we should not be heavily subsidizing renewable energy at this point. We should be switching everything and anything we can to natural gas. That is the only short term solution to help us transition to more renewable energy. We have to think not only about the climate, but also national security, and our economy. Converting to natural gas, while still dirty, is much cleaner than oil, has a similiar cost to convert to energy, would increase our national security, and should not harm our economy (it would probably help). That will help in all areas that we should be focusing on when it comes to energy policy and give all of the other emerging technologies some time to catch up (not to mention create a boat load of jobs). Then when the time is right we will have much better, cleaner, and cheaper options.

Just my 2 cents.

[Jerry Rapp]

Ultralance12 very good post! Lots of thought went into it. In 3 or 4 hundred years we will all sit on a cloud and look down and see a world none of us had ever thought was possible. Then we will go fishing in the greatest place in the world. Now, "beam me up Scotty!"

[Tim Smith]

Personally I'm not that concerned about the planet and high CO2 because I think that the earth will be fine in the long run as the higher temperatures make life easier for plants which in turn scrubs out all that CO2 and returns to normal. The problem is that if the warming happens to fast, the entire global economy crashes and mass famine and drought kills billions (just a hypothesis).

The economic issue is the one that will confront us most heavily, yes.

The extinctions and loss of habitat are not a minor thing but it does seem likely there will be something left...hopefully not stripped entirely of its diversity...once the planet warms.

Natural gas may be an inevitable next step but it is a temporary one, lasting a few decades at best before we have to reboot.

There's no reason not to keep working on alternative sources in the meantime.

The complaints against wind chopping up birds are highly sight dependent. Some of those installations rarely kill anything. With proper siting away from flyways, the impacts are almost non-existent.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Natural gas may be an inevitable next step but it is a temporary one, lasting a few decades at best before we have to reboot.

I agree, but because the change over is not only possible, but economically sound, what's the hold up? Government?

There's no reason not to keep working on alternative sources in the meantime.

Absolutely, but it should be done in a way that guarantees long term success and I don't see that happening. What's being done as far as alternative energy isn't even drop in the bucket qualified.

The complaints against wind chopping up birds are highly sight dependent. Some of those installations rarely kill anything. With proper siting away from flyways, the impacts are almost non-existent.

I'm not sure what you mean by sight dependent, but it happens at all sites. I was privy to a study done by MSU on some northern MO sites and while the target was endangered bats, the information I got was that the overall slaughter was eye opening. I've read other studies since and I'm sure it puts the environmentalist in a spot. I'm sure they're not anxious to go after wind farms, so the creatures will have to remain collateral for now.I

[Outside Bend]

I'm not sure what you mean by sight dependent, but it happens at all sites. I was privy to a study done by MSU on some northern MO sites and while the target was endangered bats, the information I got was that the overall slaughter was eye opening. I've read other studies since and I'm sure it puts the environmentalist in a spot. I'm sure they're not anxious to go after wind farms, so the creatures will have to remain collateral for now.

If you think that's eye opening, wait till you hear about all the species imperiled by oil spills, gas fracking, mountaintop removal, acid rain, and strip mining.

Not to mention climate change.

[ozark trout fisher]

I must say I'm very leery about a large scale changeover to natural gas...Look at the damages that are already being caused by hydrofracking in mid-atlantic states. It's a very environmentally unsound and potentially quite dangerous process that is going to rapidly become more common if it becomes our main source of energy. And I know some of you may not care about what's happening in New York and Pennsylvania, but the Ozarks are being considered as a possible area for that industry to expand to. Say goodbye to our word-class smallie fishing in many of the watersheds that would be affected. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that one.

[Mitch f]

I must say I'm very leery about a large scale changeover to natural gas...Look at the damages that are already being caused by hydrofracking in mid-atlantic states. It's a very environmentally unsound and potentially quite dangerous process that is going to rapidly become more common if it becomes our main source of energy. And I know some of you may not care about what's happening in New York and Pennsylvania, but the Ozarks are being considered as a possible area for that industry to expand to. Say goodbye to our word-class smallie fishing in many of the watersheds that would be affected. And that's just the tip of the iceberg on that one.

Gotta agree with you on that, They're just not sure of the long term impact...can't be good.

[Al Agnew]

Here's why I think the government should subsidize...and LEAD...in the development of alternative energy. This is not just an environmental problem. This is an energy problem that affects not only the environment (in many different ways, not just probable climate change), it affects our economy, jobs, national security, in fact every facet of our lives. And there are entrenched power bases that are dependent upon the status quo and will always be working against anything that diminishes their power, influence, and profits. The free market will work within industries, but in this case I don't think that expecting the free market, without government influence, to produce viable alternative energy in the time frame we need it to happen is realistic.

Yes, there are problems right now with every alternative energy source being developed. Would you expect anything else? These are developing technologies that are attempting to compete with long established technologies with very powerful interests behind them. You can't wave a magic wand and expect wind, solar, or any other alternative energy source to spring upon the scene full blown and ready for prime time. That's why they are DEVELOPING. And the choice is between letting them develop on their own, in constant competition with fossil fuel energy that, because it is so entrenched in our entire economy, will have the upper hand until it finally becomes so scarce and expensive that the alternatives will be able to compete. Or else help the alternatives along to speed up the development process.

Natural gas DOES have its own problems. It would take about the same amount of infrastructure development to make natural gas the "fuel of choice" in areas where it isn't being used much now as it would to make any of the alternative energy sources that "fuel of choice". If you agree that natural gas is a short term solution, then does it make sense to invest the resources to switch a lot of stuff over to natural gas when we'll be putting in those same amounts of resources in a few decades to switch over again to something better? Yes, gas is part of the equation, and where we can easily switch over to using it, we should. But it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to, for instance, make our entire automobile fleet run on natural gas. And getting the gas out isn't cheap. It looks cheap right now because companies have cut all kinds of corners, thanks to lax or non-existent government regulations, in developing fracking sites. It's quite possible that fracking can be done safely, but doing it safely will cost money.

There's no free lunch. You'd be amazed at how many birds are being killed right now at many power line towers. Anything that sticks up into a zone where migrating birds fly at night kills birds. I used to go to a big relay tower atop a hill close to home early in the morning during the spring and fall to find dead birds I could photograph and use as reference in my paintings. It was almost a sure thing to find some cool warblers and other birds you don't ordinarily see. Alternative energy sources won't automatically be perfectly "green", and the companies selling the energy won't automatically be perfect, either. Siting and operating them will require government regulations to minimize the damage they might cause.