Rolling Stone does climate change 11 November 05

Kevin Trenberth has dared to suggest that Katrina may have been enhanced by GW, to the tune of 1” extra rain (contrarians are picking him apart in RealClimate as I speak). See slide 18 at:

http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/documents/October252005KevinTrenberth.pdf

My thinking is this: even that seems a bit mild (based on big regional averages, rather than the actual SST warming & precip due to GW in that exact area (which no one can really tell). What if in a “God only knows” scenario in which humans had never evolved & no AGW, the Gulf had been slated to be below normal in SST & precip at the time of Katrina, then in a “add in the humans” scenario (today’s reality) GW might have contributed nearly the whole Katrina.

You might like to read what the Alternative Energy Network has to say about Amory Lovins. http://www.altenergyaction.org/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=82&Itemid=27

I see your bullsh*t spreading is running rampant here and nobody’s stepping up to answer your crapitude, norb. Pity.

Lovins is concerned with efficiencies and the Smith article picks nits with some of Lovins’ numbers, but misses the big picture. It said, basically, nothing.

So, yes, folks should see what people say about Lovins. I’d pay to see a nitpicker in the same room with Lovins. Heck, I used to see Lovins fo’ free as a student, so I know that value.

Best,

D

Not that it revealed anything about the article on the Alternative Energy Network site; you merely plagiarized the comments from the response that someone else posted at the bottom of the article. Neither you nor the original commenter gave specific information that would speak to the criticisms that the author made of Lovins.

What your response revealed is your low opinion of the others who post here. You seem to think that no one else has the fortitude to step up to the plate so you have to protect them.

Furthermore, why is it always about you? You have sat through Lovins lectures. You were in Europe when Chernobyl blew. Lynn got a pat on her pretty little head because you already were lecturing your students about the concepts that she articulated independently of you. You have written articles about UHIE. You are an urban planner. Why do we have to know so much about you?

Your responses are rudely dismissive of anyone who disagrees with you and patronizing of those who agree, but are consistently condescending.

reduced to profanity….

Norb, you & I are in the older set. We’re going out at a good time, before the worst of GW can harm us (so we may never know what the full effects are). I don’t know about Jimbo’s age. I think Dano’s young. I can see why he’s hot under the collar. He has a long future ahead.

Our prudent move would be to reduce GHGs for the sake of Dano & his kids & grandkids. Even if it doesn’t do much good (just a few of us reducing GHGs), it may give Dano, as he or his kids suffer GW effects, some solace that at least we tried.

I think Dano’s young. I can see why he’s hot under the collar.

Nobody gets my age right, even when they look at me (few wrinkles).

I’m 40-something. More 40 than -something.

Maybe if I come down to San Antonio next year for a conference, we can swap stories, Lynn.

But to the point, the vague implications of character assassination weren’t borne out in the link; I subscribe to SciAm, and have had the article that the critique didn’t like for, oh, 2 months now. I’ve passed the article along for others to read. The critique was a typical nit-pick that is blown up to inflate the importance of the nit – I call it ‘ants finding a crumb and declaring a picnic’. Typical denialist tactic.

Best,

D

It’s sort of like 2 evolutionists arguing about whether to call the species Homo neandertalensis or Homo sapiens neandertalensis. The creationists pick it up as disproof of evolution.

The reply at the bottom of the page on that link Norb gave was to the point of the article being mere nit-picking.

My arguement would be (not having time to read all about it, but knowing much about Lovins’s ideas), when even if Lovins is half wrong (which I don’t think he is), then the U.S. would be able to reduce its GHGs 1/3 cost-effectively (rather than his 3/4). So let’s do so.

I also had a friend, an engineer/architect, who was a member of both an electrical vehicle assoc & the IL Solar Assoc. He was pretty much into Lovins’s ideas, but he didn’t care for the hydrogen car idea. He thought electrics were the way to go. Now I’m sort of eager to get a plug-in hybrid & hope they come out soon, so I can drive almost entirely on my wind-powered electricity. I think that will serve us fine, at least until the hydrogen industry can develop infrastructure, and make hydrogen by non-polluting means.

RE the age issue, the more important point is that there is a great inequity in older persons harming the earth & the younger generations suffering the consequences. (That’s why I added in about your kids & grandkids, in case you were older than I thought.)