2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

Do you agree that burning wood and biofuel is not really a renewable source of energy?  If our society burned wood instead of oil, would it still overload the biosphere with CO2?  I suggest if every house was warmed by wood, we would burn the forest faster than it could grow (even without the New York Times being printed on wood based paper). 

I have decided to keep my thermostat down to 60 degrees this winter.  Humans lived for thousands of years with winter and felt warm in caves that kept a constant temperature of 52 degrees.  During the winter when we have a warm day of 52 degrees, many people go out without their coats.  Humans are delightfully adaptable.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

In James Lovelock's latest book, The Revenge of Gaia, he states on page 11 that the threat of dealing with the waste from nuclear energy is "insignificant compared with the real threat of intolerable and lethal heatwaves and sea levels rising to threaten every coastal city of the world" by 2046.

He does not see nuclear energy as a cure, but a way to buy time to make a global switch away from oil and coal.  He implys that science needs electricity to solve problems, even if it comes from nuclear energy.  He states that wind turbines will be useless when the wind currents change.  The most reliable source of alternative power will come from geothermal and wave energy but that still needs extensive time to develop.  I am willing to resort to nuclear energy, would you?

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

NASA and NOAA have a "global database of surface seawater Dimethylsulfide (DMS) concentrations."  Have you heard of the CLAW hypothesis (1987) presented in June 2009 by Benjamin Hillman of the University of Washington? [CLAW stands for C = Charlson, L = Lovelock, A = Andreae and W = Warren]   

Can humans contribute to the sulfur cycle by enriching the phytoplankton with nutrient concentration of iron?  Are there other ways to increase cloud cover to create a cooling effect? 

It is obvious the science footnotes stop in 1999.  Thankfully the DMS database has continued to gather data from "Ships of opportunity" even with the political silencing of climate data.  

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context

My participation on October 24 is to wear White all day as a demonstration of grief for the melting Arctic ice.  I have a white car and if I had a house I would paint it white and put a white roof on it.  If 6 billion people all wore white and had white houses and if all the roads were white instead of black, would heat be reflected back like the arctic white cap?  Even if not, it would be a visual act of solidarity to identify people who care.

posted 3 years, 8 months ago
view in context