Out-of-season storm could become a hurricane 03 January 06

“It seems likely that there will be disagreements in Montreal over whether new targets for reducing emissions should be set beyond the first period of the Kyoto Protocol …. Of course, it is difficult to take costly action today on behalf of a seemingly distant future. The Prime Minister said, “the blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge”. The blunter truth about the politics of climate change is that countries are not doing enough to sever the link between economic growth and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.”

Response by Lord Lawson of Blaby

“The noble Lord, Lord May, speaks with great passion and, indeed, with great charm – it is a potent combination. However, it has to be said in the kindest possible way that he is a serial alarmist. When some 30-odd years ago the Club of Rome produced its report on the limits to growth-many of your Lordships will recall it-which stated that there would be such a shortage of resources that growth would more or less grind to a halt within a reasonably short space of time, this fallacious forecast, which received a great deal of media attention at the time, was warmly endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord May, as he now is. He said that he thought growth would come to an end even sooner as a result of the second law of thermodynamics. Now he is sending out a new alarm which is the exact opposite; that is, he refers to the alleged rise in carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore global warming, as a result of very rapid continuing growth for a long time to come. So he has backed both horses in the race.”

Lord Lawson, of course, was the guy who presented a report on climate change in which he and all the other writers stressed that they had no scientific knowledge of the issue, and who then proposed that the International Panel of Climate Change should be abolished and that their work should in future be done by the World Bank and the IMF.

Which is almost a funny idea – I just imagine all those economists sitting down for the next couple of years and reading every published paper on climate change to try and edit the next Assessment Report… (mind you, that could be a good eye-opener for them, but I doubt they would be grateful for this novel task).

Here, by the way, is the UK Government’s response to Lord Lawson’s report:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf

Almuth

would disagree with a report that was critical of its reaction to the AGW issue.

However, my point was not about Lord Blaby but about Lord May. I found it amusing that he finds himself having to admit he was wrong about the Club of Rome conclusions in order to shout warnings about his latest infatuation, AGW.

The following is a brief excerpt. You can read the entire speech at http://www.michaelcrichton.com/speeches/complexity/complexity.html.

“Some of you know I have written a book that many people find controversial. It is called State of Fear, and I want to tell you how I came to write it. Because up until five years ago, I had very conventional ideas about the environment and the success of the environmental movement.

“The book really began in 1998, when I set out to write a novel about a global disaster. In the course of my preparation, I rather casually reviewed what had happened in Chernobyl, since that was the worst manmade disaster in recent times that I knew about.

“What I discovered stunned me. Chernobyl was a tragic event, but nothing remotely close to the global catastrophe I imagined. About 50 people had died in Chernobyl, roughly the number of Americans that die every day in traffic accidents. I don’t mean to be gruesome, but it was a setback for me. You can’t write a novel about a global disaster in which only 50 people die.

“Undaunted, I began to research other kinds of disasters that might fulfill my novelistic requirements. That’s when I began to realize how big our planet really is, and how resilient its systems seem to be. Even though I wanted to create a fictional catastrophe of global proportions, I found it hard to come up with a credible example. In the end, I set the book aside, and wrote Prey instead.”

And, this very telling paragraph.

“But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that ‘the largest public health problem created by the accident’ is the ‘damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state.’ “

Most of the talk is about management of complex systems and the temptation that humans have to simplify their conceptualizations of them.

I suppose it is likely that there have been no winter hurricanes since we began using satellites to watch them, but how can we know what may have happened before 1980?

Would a ship encountering a strong storm a couple of centuries have had any way of knowing that the storm was a hurricane. Would a 200-year old ship have survived a hurricane?

This is similar to debating the number of angels that can dance on a pin head.

more specifically “peak oil.” It seems (I have to check it out further) there is a tremendous “dome” of oil under the Arctic Ocean, maybe greater than all the oil in the Middle East (I can’t remember what the person told me). They haven’t been able to get at it due to difficulties & dangers with ice floes.

So now with GW melting everything, I would project that within a few decades or so, 100 years tops, we’ll be swimming in oil again.

The Devoils in Oil Hell will be dancing the victory dance to hear about this!

Maybe Lord May didn’t know about that arctic oil dome, or knew about it 30 years ago when Limits to Growth came out, but didn’t know that GW would make it available…

Of course, eventually we will reach the limits of growth if we continue to rely on organic fuels. Have you seen SOYLENT GREEN. I guess another take would be OILENT SPLEEN, where human bodies are reduced to oil for rich people’s cars…because everyone was too stubborn & evil to shift to alt energy.

I just attended an anthro conference where a team did research on the people lving near Chernobyl, in the still contaminated area, and found that despite their much higher cancer rates and cancer death rates, they sort of shrug it off & downplay it.

And everyone & their dog knows that the real danger from such accidents is the long term medical problems, not the immediate deaths.

Now what they also found is that people in non-contaminated areas were more concerned about the accident & its effects than those actually affected. Go figure.

As for Crichton, I thought he’d be totally recanting by now. He said Greenland glaciers were not melting, but getting bigger, but it is melting more rapidly than anyone expected; and that the sea level was falling at Vanuatu, but it’s rising & people are moving inland.

He should be sorely ashamed of himself for writing SOF & causing millions of people to become or remain devoils.

We really can’t know (at 95% certainty) if Zeta is due to GW, because we can only know GW for the most part through stats. (In fact, on RealClimate.org someone pointed out there was an out-of-season hurricane in 1954.) On the other hand we cannot say Zeta is not due to GW either…and it is anomalous for “normal” conditions, the null hypothesis, but perhaps not for GW. I understand there was also a hurricane that hit Spain within recent years—and there’s no record of that ever happening before.

Two science articles did come out this past summer showing that overall hurricane intensity has increased dramatically over the past several decades (Emmanuel, Curry—see RealClimate.org for a fuller discussion of these). Granted 2 science reports do not science make, so not all legitimate climate scientists are convinced GW is contributing to hurricane intensity or frequency….yet. However, the physics of GW does indicate GW will likely have these impacts at least in the future. Remember, higher SST do play a contributing role in hurricanes.

So, if GW is not impacting hurricanes yet, we can only expect worse in the future. Move over Katrina.

And, Zeta, you’re just a stat like the rest of us.

Since Lord May had a right of reply in the House of Lords, here is what he said:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldhansrd/pdvn/lds05/text/51110-19.htm

As for the remark about the Club of Rome – he just can’t remember what he said in the 1960s (perhaps he didn’t even say it, who knows). Lord May is a physicist and ecologist/biologist, so whatever he might have said about a completely unrelated subject he has never studied seems pretty irrelevant to me.

If you read this carefully, you will see what Lord May has really called for. Here it is (though from a press release he issued rather than from the above link):

“We need countries [at the Montreal meeting] to initiate a study into the consequences of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at, below, or above twice pre-industrial levels, so that the international community can assess the potential costs of their actions or lack of them. Such an analysis could focus the minds of political leaders, currently worried more about the costs to them of acting now than they are by the consequences for the planet of acting too little, too late.” This is what the G8 Science Academies also called for.

As far as I know, Montreal failed to deliver on this (please anyone correct me if I am wrong).

What he aks for is, quite simply, a proper study to say what will it cost to take strong action, some action or none at all. Right now, there are several good and interesting studies, but nothing comprehensive.

Whatever your believes about the economic advantages of allowing rapid and (for humans) unprecedented global warming might be – surely it would be nice if we knew the facts?

What do others think: Having read Lord May’s last speech as president of the Royal Society, I wonder whether his demand is not one which anyone concerned about climate change should endorse? If a study which combined climate science with a full economic analysis was produced by a widely respected independent body, then this would produce an incredibly powerful argument. It might really move some governments and businesses into doing the right thing. Think about a study which proved to the Chinese government that, for example, the cost of stabilising the atmosphere at a safe level might be that their economic growth would be halved for the next twenty years, but the cost of not doing so would be an absolute deficit of grain and water and a collapse of the national economy in, say 30 years (just making it up, since we don’t know). Wouldn’t that be more powerful about all the Kyoto negotiations, and all the nice talk about China not having to compromise their economy?

Should this be something climate change campaigners should push to be on the agenda of the next climate change conference, later this year?

Almuth

The information that Crichton supplied came from latest UN report on the effects of Chernobyl accident. I do not know what source supplied the contradictory information that you cited, but would like to investigate if you could provide reference information. Insofar as I know, Mr. Crichton’s data are correct.

The Chernobyl reactor exploded in 1986. That was nearly 20 years ago, long enough to have begun seeing increasing cancer incidences if they are to occur.

The Greenland ice sheet is growing. The rate of ice accumulation in the center far offsets the rate of melting around the edges. If Mr. Crichton said that the Greenland ice sheet is growing, he was correct.

I do not know where or when Mr. Crichton said that sea level is rising at Vanuatu, most of the islands in the South Pacific east of Australia are sinking. They are on the edge of an active plate rift and many are subducting. The sea level appears to rise because the islands are falling.

I do not know what either “SOF” or “devoils” means. Please define these for me.

in the learned sceptics and their argumaents that this is all normal weather variability. All the more so as the normal weather variability is saving me a fortune on natural gas heating costs. You see in the past, it would normally be around -20 to -34 F around here this time of year. But since it is above freezing and raining right know, I feel sure I will again save a bundle of money again this winter. So isn’t that what some so called gang of Greening Earthers or what ever they call themselves say is one of the benefits of non-existant global warming. Cold in Europe this winter though, and I feel sure a 30% reduction is the warming atlantic currents has nothing to do with it. In fact, I’m sure the science was wrong on that study as any self respecting sceptic knows. Hurricans , wild fires and tornados in January? All explainable if we just read some book written by a well know author whose scientific knowledge is undeniable.

and the effects of the jet stream and less because of the warm waters of the Gulf Stream. Perhaps, you could do some reading and let us know what you find.

However, it seems that cold weather kills more folks than warm weather. Humans die of hypothermia but death by hyperthermia is rare.

Dear Norbert,

please go and do some reading yourself! Such as the realclimate articles about the Gulf Stream (yes, it’s not simple, there is the jet stream, there are the Rocky Mountains, and there is the thermohaline circulation, too, and on that website you will find some great articles explaining all the basics so that most people can understand it).

About cold deaths – please do some research and tell all of us why excess winter deaths are higher in Spain and Portugal than they are in Siberia or Scandinavia – I don’t quite know the reason myself (google will give you the references for this if you try).

And if you dispute the 30,000 t0 35,000 death figure for the European heatwave of 2003, please write to the editor of Nature.

Above all – please at least do a modicum of research, rather than starting three different threads at once (including on how a science-fiction writer imagines the atmosphere to work) – there are plenty of studies out there on how ocean currents work and why they matter. Just remember: If they didn’t matter, then sea surface temperatures would not matter either, and then no seasonal weather forecast, no seasonal hurricane forecast, etc would be worth a penny, there would be no El Nino droughts or floods… No, you didn’t mean that, you perhaps just meant that they matter in the Pacific but not in the North Atlantic, or not very much there – or perhaps you just didn’t think it through at all before posting?

Best wishes,

Almuth

Shorter version of Robert’s parody character:

My mind’s made up, and I’ll believe what sounds good to me.

Best,

D

Actually there have been ‘hurricanes’ at this time of year – http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/084/mwr-084-01-0001.pdf (which you’ll leap as some kind of proof no doubt?). Whether Zeta is/was a tropical storm or something rather different (the sea is well below 27C ATM for starters, perhaps was for the above ‘hurricane’ as well?) remains to be seen. It has, however, been a remarkably active hurricane/tropical storm season in the N. Atlantic.

On another point (that someone else made) I’m not sure it can be stated the gulf stream has declined by 30%. There is evidence of change, but confirmation is needed I think.

What is pretty clear is that 2005 was a very warm year globally, close to, perhaps warmer, than 1998 (and despite there being no pronounced El Nino like in ‘98). Makes you think?

I might contact that person & get it. She did say the reports on health effects were controversial, but I remember her mentioning thyroid cancer & other health problems typically related to radiation. She showed a map of an area in the southeast of Belarus (that former Soviet republic got 70% of the radiation) that is still contaminated.

One thing I’ve learned, however, is that governments often/sometimes try to cover up or downplay effects of such disasters - sometimes by diluting the affected population with the more healthy, unaffected population. Another example is the PBB case in Michigan (which I consider “structural violence,” due to a mistake, as the Bhopal disaster was). Since the PBB got into the cattle (& bioaccummulates) & Michigan is a dairy state, Michigan stonewalled, until a dairy man had the Federal gov come & do tests & find it. My impression of that was they caught it in time before a whole lot of damage was done - but only because that dairy man had vigorously pursued the matter.

Quite frankly, I don’t completely trust the government to tell us the truth or do the right thing, if it means some business or industry might suffer. There are many ways to do “creative statistics” and all sorts of other ways to downplay the problems. If you want to trust the gov, go ahead…

OTOH, effects of environmental harm are probably not alarming enough for a Crichton novel…most don’t happen fast enough or on a large enough (& concentrated enough) scale or in an open & obvious enough way to cause alarm, and the attribution of harms back to anthropogenic environmental causes is often hard to establish at 95% certainty (sometimes due to small numbers). Env problems are not good meat for sci fi, unless the fiction aspect is played up well beyond anything probable (or even possible). So I can see why Crichton didn’t find juicy stuff for his type of work. More character driven novels could focus on one or a few individuals who are affected by a problem, and the problems they have in getting official recognition & action, & that might work.

That doesn’t, however, mean Crichton should throw the whole GW baby out with the bathwater of its humdrum, slowly creeping (for the most part) problems that are not blockbuster novel-worthy, or its possible dramatic effects that don’t meet scientific certainty (such as Katrina). It just means he should step aside & let other types of authors take on the issue, those who can find some human drama angle as it affects individuals (perhaps like Mark Lynas’s HIGH TIDE put to some fictional account).

SOF is “State of Fear.”

“Devoils” is a word I made up (tongue-in-cheek) in an earlier post to refer to the demons who’ll be pitchforking the GW contrarians in Oil Hell for an eternity in a much hotter place than a globally warmed world. That’s totally fictional, of course, but repentence can go along way in avoid such, if it happens to be true.

The Catholic Church HAS come out with several statements in the past 15 years about GW being everyone’s responsibility to solve, and how prudence requires that we do so, even if we are unsatified with its level of scientific certainty. So, who knows…

I commend you, Peter, on your wading into that dogpile/amen chorus/adoration society over at CA, BTW. Gawd.

Best,

D

At least we wouldn’t be able to go around emitting GHGs as much…

are over in India & other places that don’t register on our radar.

...and also due, Lynn, to the fact that denialist websites don’t take down their arguments when events make them moot.

That’s the only reason why this argument is in play.

Best,

D

it is much like the contribution of carbon dioxide to the ongoing warming of the climate.

Just to add to the mood of despondency (428 e-mails and a desk full of stress when I got back to work) I read in the Indy today that the head of the British Antarctic Survey thinks that we might also have a global population problem.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article336849.ece

where did I put the hemlock?

Colin

Malthus said that wars, disease, and famine would halt the population explosion. Might add massive extinction level event as in the end-Permian when 95% of life on earth died. So over population is really only a temporary problem.

OTOH, we might try abstinence (which Malthus thought unrealistic).

HAPPY NEW YEAR … it might be one of our last happy ones.

Is he for real, or has he been asleep for a real long time. “Global population growth is a possible threat to the battle to reduce global warming”? I just read on this very blog that “Everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds”. Or in other words, “It’s the Rocky Mountains, stupid”. I feel better having learned Mountains have something to do with the jet stream. I learn something new everyday! Still, I am saving a bundle of money on my heating bills, only problem is, the rattlesnakes are moving north and it may be only a few years before I need to look out for them when I’m in the woods up here.

The page linked above has this to say:

ZETA SURPASSED 1954 ALICE #2 AS THE LONGEST-LIVED TROPICAL CYCLONE TO FORM IN DECEMBER AND CROSS OVER INTO THE NEXT YEAR. ZETA WAS ALSO THE LONGEST-LIVED JANUARY TROPICAL CYCLONE. IN ADDITION…ZETA RESULTED IN THE 2005 SEASON HAVING THE LARGEST ACCUMULATED CYCLONE ENERGY…OR ACE… SURPASSING THE 1950 SEASON. SO… UNTIL THE 2006 SEASON BEGINS… UNLESS ZETA SOMEHOW MAKES AN UNLIKELY MIRACLE COMEBACK… THIS IS THE NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER SIGNING OFF FOR 2005… FINALLY.

Denialists, please note above: The 2005 season had the largest “accumulated cyclone energy” (ACE), surpassing the 1950 season.

Just another stat to add to the GW mill. How about it, denialist, shall we see how bad we can make it, if we really try releasing as many GHGs as possible….maybe hurricanes in the Arctic in December (is that what you’re expecting as the standard before you finally believe). Course those, too, individually would just be stats.

Thanks for the links. It is sort of interesting to see how the Lords debate, from an anacdotal point-of-view – but that Lord Lawson just doesn’t get it! An idiot, in my opinion.

More and more I am getting frustrated by the same sceptic arguments that are so close minded to all the new evidence about the world and how the fundamental life support systems are under threat. It is willful blindness, I think. We know so much more than we did even 5 years ago, and yet we seem to be getting stuck at square 1.

The debates I think we should be discussing are what strategies we should adopt to live in a more sustainable way – particularly with regard to global warming. There are many vibrant debates I would like to discuss – and I am currently really enjoying Jonathan Porritt’s book – backed up by robust scientific studies in the manner you are discussing. From his book, it is clear that many such studies are being conducted.

Best,

Peter

Norbert,

Unless you happen to be interested in Michael Crichton, I really fail to see anything scientifically interesting about how he came to write State of Fear.

It reminds me a bit about the book called “Complicated Lives” which talks about how people can be worried about something and seems to make the assumption, with regard to Global Warming, that because people are worried about it, it isn’t true.

Best,

Peter

Yes, it is a problem and the number one problem we have. In fact, the more we solve any of our resource problems, then the more people we are able to create which creates another resource problem.

I remember when comparing the USA to UK’s emissions a while back, that each year we add 16 more Americans to every Brit and for populous countries, even a small positive birth rate means a larger number of people on the earth.

Population aspects must be included in the solution process.

If we can ever solve this one, then the rest of the problems may not be as difficult.

Best,

Dan

It is time to get back to work and to get away from despairing thoughts. It’s a waste of our time and we do need to use our time wisely.

We know we have a problem. What else is new?

Let’s see what we can do in 2006 and look back next year in 2007 and be happy with what we were able to accomplish.

Let us just do our very best each and every day without creating more anxiety. This is not denial but a better way to cope than merely venting our own anxieties too much.

It may be better for us to take decisive action to improve our ability to live comfortably while using less energy and producing less greenhouse gases. It may be better for us to help others learn to do the same. We each have a creative mind to find new ideas which can help everyone.

Let us at least focus on opportunities for decisive action. We all have anxieties and fears. Decisive action can cure despondency and now I am offering a blog challenge.

Blog Challenge:

I want to read something by February were each regular here did something to improve the situation no matter how small it may seem. I would rather see people brag here instead of vent. I will do the same. Let’s see who wins “bragger’s rights” by February 6th. That gives everyone a month.

Our problems are not going away so we will all be dealing with them at some level sooner or later. Even deniers like Norbert will be dealing with it at some point as well.

I hope my idea is received in good spirits. Even our time on this blog uses energy and produces greenhouse gases. The Internet is very energy intensive requiring much electricity. This is another good reason to make this forum more solution oriented.

All the best,

Dan

I’m writing a screenplay about runaway global warming. I started it last winter, after the elections. I figure it’s kept me from going berserk, even if it doesn’t get produced.

Several people have read various versions of it (some who were not into GW), so I suppose that has helped raise awareness.

It still needs a thorough rewriting, especially to put in more suspense. That’s because I’ve kept it as close to the science as possible, and the problem with the GW problem is that it’s too slow-creeping to grab people’s attention, except for things like Hurricane Katrina (which most on this blog page, except Norb & Jimbo, think deep down in the hearts was enhanced to some extent by GW).

So that’s what I’m doing. I just need a good agent (& most of them require referrals).

Strictly speaking, how Mr. Crichton came to write “State of Fear” is of little scientific interest. What is of interest is why he did not write a book about the Chernobyl incident. This interest too is not scientific unless you agree that sociology is a science (I happen to think that it is.).

Then, what Mr. Crichton has written is of interest because when he began he was convinced that the Chernobyl incident was a huge disaster with hundreds of thousands, even millions of victims. What he found was that the press greatly exaggerated the entire episode and that he could not write a book about it, unless he did not care if anyone bought a copy of the book.

Mr. Crichton has an excellent technical education. The following is from his web site http://www.crichton-official.com/aboutmc/biography.html.

“Educated at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, A.B. (summa cum laude) 1964 (Phi Beta Kappa). Visiting Lecturer in Anthropology at Cambridge University, England, 1965. Henry Russell Shaw Travelling Fellow, 1964-65. Entered Harvard Medical School, M.D. 1969; spent one year as a post-doctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences, La Jolla, California 1969-1970. Visiting Writer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1988.”

He clearly is capable of understanding complex scientific ideas. He does thorough research before each book and generally describes the existing science accurately. He then extrapolates existing technology to a logical extreme and writes thrillers about the result.

His education in anthropology lends credence to his descriptions of human society and its behaviors.

Mr. Crichton has not assumed, about AGW, as you posited, “that because people are worried about it, it isn’t true”. I think that something along the lines of “people believe it is true because they fear it” is a bit closer to Mr. Crichton’s message.

Thank you for this positive approach. I was feeling rather despondent about the future. Last night, I went to a meeting of a local climate campaign group which I helped to set up just three months ago, and it made me a lot more optimistic! After just three months, we have over a dozen really committed and active members (none of whom has ever been involved in an environmental NGO before) – everybody committed several hours or days of their time over the next few weeks to campaign against proposed airport expansion (probably the most important climate change issue for us locally right now), and there was such enthusiasm! Now, in a city which sees itself as Britains ‘oil capital’ and where all the local papers want more runways and roads, this is really encouraging!

Almuth

I like your focus and I think this film is very important.

In fact, I will share my thoughts on what I think is wrong with the current climate-disaster films. The message is always doom and gloom and we can do nothing about it so the message is hopelessness. Another aspect which you have already solved is not to make it appear “unrealistic”. In order to gain “suspense”, the film makers resort to ridiculous scenarios which do not mimic our current scientific understanding.

Still, the “doom and gloom” outcome is very counter productive in my opinion. In order for the screen-play to be an effective educational and motivational tool, it requires the following elements:

1. It should clearly show 2 contrasting future worlds. One would be the world of success and the other would be the world of failure and that the world of failure happened because average people did not care enough in the “current present” to insure that the future was there for their own children.

2. The film should indicate definite ideas and clear plans on what people can do to create this future world of success and also the consequences if we choose the world of failure.

3. Since you fully understand the spiritual aspects and how they relate to our changing circumstances, a focus on a change from resource wars, rampant materialism and greed, and pessimism, to one of cooperation, creativity, and altruistic values would be useful.

4. People should leave the theater with an emotional feeling of resolution, hope, defiance in the face of discouragement, compassion, and an intense desire for action. Compact fluorescent light bulbs should be no where to be found with huge back orders in the first 24 hours after this film is viewed.

How can this be achieved? One method may be to employ the fictional aspect of the time traveler which has been used successfully in many films. What if the time traveler went back to communicate to ordinary people and shared the ideas that you have been doing all along. If by chance this could relate to the ordinary person watching the film, then this would place the ordinary person in the audience to be the true “hero”.

The film must not merely entertain with suspense but to inspire with a clear message of what we can do, how to do it, and to instill an intense burning desire to actually do it!

The idea of using 2 different worlds based on the actions of one person has been successfully used in classics like “It is a wonderful life” where an angel was sent to save a unique and caring man played by “Jimmy Stewart”. The angel’s mission was to save this person from committing suicide by sharing what happened if he was never born. Similar ideas could be used in a dramatic and suspenseful climate film.

We need this film Lynn and I think elements used in the movie Apollo 13 could be useful. Another sci-fi film I enjoyed from the past was “Frequency” and if you never saw it then I suggest you watch it. It is about a ham radio operator who mysteriously became connected to the past through a radio frequency and was able to communicate the future back to the past so necessary changes could be made so that a better future could emerged. This film was loaded with suspense but it was the suspense of constant prevention versus the “sky is falling” approach. What if the time traveler communicated with average people and directed these people to the actions they needed to take and then the next scene was the changed future.

I do believe that the there are people in the movie industry who are concerned about GW/CC and this aspect is likely to increase. I truly hope you can develop something of very high value and if it contains the correct elements then I believe the rest will follow for you.

Currently, I am working on many ideas. With regard to referrals, I plan on being one of them for you if you can demonstrate some of the elements I articulated in this post. If you could write a novel on these lines and have a screen play outline in mind, then I envision your idea becoming a reality.

Maybe, some of my cherished ideas which are technical in nature could be some of the added elements to your film. I could never develop all my thoughts and ideas with my own effort. Of course, anything I would provide would be viable calculated solutions based on reality.

I will share one of them now. I measure my own energy use and the factors which influence it. I observed last month that we use more energy to heat hot water in the winter than in the summer because the inlet cold temperature is much lower dropping from 68 F to 45 F (20 C to 7 C) and this can require 30 percent more fossil fuel in the winter than in the summer. What if the water utility used a ground source heat exchanger to simply raise the inlet cold water supply temperature a few degrees? What if solar energy were used? What if the waste heat of a power plant were dumped in the cold water supply to increase the cold water supply temperature 10 degrees or higher?

Coupling the inlet cold water supply to power plant waste heat requires the use of two existing infrastructures and delivery systems already established. Quite often, power plants are located near a body of water so the water can be used in a cooling tower and quite often, this body of water is also used as the source of water for a city. The water is cold being exposed to ambient winter conditions. So, why not use a little plumbing and couple the wasted heat with the cold water supply employing the concept of cogeneration in a unique and creative way reducing the energy needs to heat hot water in double digits for an entire city? If there is separation, then an insulated pipeline could be built to transfer some of the heat and offset the need for a cooling tower!

If the cold water were less cold, then less heat is required by the end user and this would require less solar panels if the end user used a renewable system. This helps when solar energy is less available in the winter and when the hot-water heating load is higher from a colder water-supply temperature. The ground would also store and retain residual heat where the cold-water supply pipes have been buried. This is also using the earth as a heat sink rather than the power plant’s waste heat going directly into the atmosphere. What if residual heat were used to heat the house as well and then use a ground loop to cool an overheated supply line so cold water is still available.

We do have more heat energy wasted by existing power plants than all the electricity they produce. This is simply a fact from the inefficiencies of the Carnot Cycle and existing power-plant waste heat is a vast untapped resource of wasted heat energy simply waiting to be used.

Then, there is reflective pavement. Reflective pavement can lower urban heat island temperatures to reduce cooling loads, reduce energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reflect excess heat back into space plus be a useful sequestration storage site if the reflective pavement were made from artificially-produced calcium carbonate made from sequestered carbon dioxide from the power plant I described above! What a deal!

Then there is the available ocean thermal-gradient which if utilized could supply fresh water to arid areas and placing excess surface heat directly into the deep ocean which can be used as a temporary heat sink until the atmospheric greenhouse gasses had a chance to reduce.

The thermal capacity of the deep ocean is very high. With our current heat imbalance, it would require 6 centuries to raise the entire ocean 1 degree C. So, the ocean can be used to store some of our excess surface heat in the near term since our atmosphere simply does not have the required heat capacity that the oceans can provide. We have a carbon buildup which will take time to reduce.

This is the systems approach which requires creative multi-dimensional thinking as opposes to linear one-dimensional thinking. Nature uses the systems approach. We call them “ecosystems”. It is a good idea to mimic the creativity in nature and since our brains are a product of nature, then we are already endowed through our own DNA with everything we need to be successful.

And we all need to be successful since the weight of the world has been laid partially on our own shoulders. In the end, it is still up to us and no matter what the future holds for mankind, we should strive to give our very best each and every day.

We are alive in the present moment and the power is in the present moment. We have an opportunity now in this present moment and a decision to make of what we intend to do about the problems we face. Doing nothing or sitting on a good idea is not an option!

We need that screen play Lynn and it will be produced! Never give up on your best ideas and I hope some of my thoughts have been helpful. It is OK to take time off the blog (if necessary) to work on your projects. I do that.

I also have many other ideas than the ones I have shared which I think are within my grasp and I hope to share progress with them in about a month.

I think all of us will feel better if we make just a little more progress over the next 30 days which may set the tone for the rest of our year in our own efforts. I hope you move your ideas forward during this time and share any progress you have made at a later date on this blog.

All the very best,

Dan

And, I always enjoy reading your comments.

Creativity flourishes in an atmosphere of optimism and enthusiasm. The positive emotions lend to better ideas and more effective and inspired actions.

Passion is required as much as our intellect. Maybe more!

All the best,

Dan

And, I always enjoy reading your comments.

Creativity flourishes in an atmosphere of optimism and enthusiasm. The positive emotions lend to better ideas and more effective and inspired actions.

Passion is required as much as our intellect. Maybe more!

All the best,

Dan

Actually, I think that is a very interesting point. Understanding what is scientifcally robust from what is nonsense & distortion is becoming one of the great challenges of our times.

As part of my job I can see that it is evidently true that there is a mass perception of things which may or may not accord with reality. (I am doing a very interesting study in the UK on food this week with some astonishing findings.) Yet with Michael Crichton, and this book called “Complicated Lives”, with respect to Global Warming – my opinion is that his scepticism of mass opinion has impacted on his view of the evidence.

As a quick analogy, people (such as Richard Dawkins) who are sceptical of (a) religious belief can explain it in terms of humans need for religion etc, how it brings society together etc.. However, that says nothing about whether religion is actually, also, true.

VENUS EFFECT does not have a time travel theme in it, but I think that would make an excellent movie. My wheels are already cranking on it. But since I don’t have a lot of time to write another one, I’ll share it with some folks I know. We need lots of fictional works on GW, lots of poetry, factual works, fictional & factual stories about how its affecting people, etc. Hollywood’s into it, but could get a lot more into it. It’s the problem of our time (perhaps of all human time), and it’s the story of our time.

I had originally just wanted to give for free my ideas about VENUS EFFECT to a movie studio. They said it had to come through an agent. I found agents only take well-polished, completed works from novices. So last year I set out learning screenwriting. It’s been fun & interesting. The script’s evolving into something exciting. Several people have given me lots of good ideas, so I consider it a community project. Our Mark Lynas has been very helpful. I’d like to thank everyone.

Perhaps if it doesn’t get produced (it’s a one in a thousand chance), I write it up as a novel (which I consider a lot harder to do, requiring more research for all the details), but easier to publish (one in a hundred chance).

I’ll keep you posted re its progress.