Chilean Earthquake, Day Two

World • Views: 4,581

More than a million and a half people are displaced in Chile after yesterday’s 8.8 earthquake, and at least 300 people have been reported killed — a terrible number, yet surprisingly low for such an enormous event. With a quake this size, the danger isn’t over; more than 90 aftershocks have been reported so far, some of them quite large.

The New York Times has an article on what scientists know about the geological forces that caused the quake.

The magnitude 8.8 earthquake that struck off the coast of Chile early Saturday morning occurred along the same fault responsible for the biggest quake ever measured, a 1960 tremor that killed nearly 2,000 people in Chile and hundreds more across the Pacific.

Both earthquakes took place along a fault zone where the Nazca tectonic plate, the section of the earth’s crust that lies under the Eastern Pacific Ocean south of the Equator, is sliding beneath another section, the South American plate. The two are converging at a rate of about three and a half inches a year.

Earthquake experts said the strains built up by that movement, plus the stresses added along the fault zone by the 1960 quake, led to the rupture on Saturday along what is estimated to be about 400 miles of the zone, at a depth of about 22 miles under the sea floor. The quake generated a tsunami, with small surges hitting the West Coast of the United States and slightly larger ones in Hawaii and other parts of the Pacific. A 7.7-foot surge was recorded in Talcahuano, Chile.

Jian Lin, a geophysicist with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, said the quake occurred just north of the site of the 1960 earthquake, with very little overlap. “Most of the rupture today picked up where the 1960 rupture stopped,” said Mr. Lin, who has studied the 1960 event, which occurred along about 600 miles of the fault zone and was measured at magnitude 9.5.

For more analysis, geologist Kim Hannula has a good blog post comparing the Haitian and Chilean earthquakes: How big was that EQ? Magnitude vs intensity in Chile and Haiti.

Jump to bottom

130 comments
1 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:27:55am

I got bounced.

2 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:29:31am

Mother Nature always has the last word ...

3 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:30:08am

test

4 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:30:42am

Mmmkay....

5 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:33:50am

Me hopey they are all right in Hawaii. Like it or not, we all play a part there.

6 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:39:22am

I'm sure Pat Robertson will presently be telling us what really caused it.

7 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:39:52am

re: #6 Cato the Elder

I'm sure Pat Robertson will presently be telling us what really caused it.

Or Al Gore. Touche'

8 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:41:53am

re: #7 Walter L. Newton

Yeah, that Al Gore! He'd probably blame it on plate tectonics or something. You know how he is.

9 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:43:13am

re: #8 Obdicut

As far as I know, atmospheric changes do not affect plate tectonics. Of course I have been known to be wrong, on occasion.

10 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:44:04am
11 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:44:33am

re: #8 Obdicut

Yeah, that Al Gore! He'd probably blame it on plate tectonics or something. You know how he is.

I'm glad you understand that possibility.

12 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:44:37am

re: #9 Cato the Elder

What does that have to do with anything?

13 Mad Al-Jaffee  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:44:58am

re: #8 Obdicut

Yeah, that Al Gore! He'd probably blame it on plate tectonics or something. You know how he is.

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I like: Stop Continental Drift!

14 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:45:19am

re: #13 Mad Al-Jaffee

Gravity sucks.

15 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:46:06am
16 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:47:58am
17 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:49:01am

re: #16 MikeySDCA

It's a shame what happened to Gondwanaland. Just torn apart from within, really.

And every country on earth has a part of it.

18 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:50:07am

Is this sudden eruption of love for Al Gore a result of his piece in the New York Times today?

19 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:50:40am

re: #12 Obdicut

What does that have to do with anything?

I assure there are people who blame mankind for earthquakes, too.

Gaia or God is angry. Take your pick.

20 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:51:26am

re: #18 Charles

Is this sudden eruption of love for Al Gore a result of his piece in the New York Times today?

I don't know... I posted a link to it in the last thread... I thought it was a good article.

21 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:51:29am

re: #18 Charles

Didn't read it but I find the Al Gore hatred kind of amusing, especially the core message. The right wing, completely free market people love to dismiss Al Gore because they say "He only does it for the money". Hilarious!

Looking up the article though...

22 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:51:33am

re: #19 Cato the Elder

There are extremely few people who blame mankind for earthquakes. Mostly conspiracy theorists. And they're not Al Gore.

23 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:52:36am
24 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:52:45am

re: #18 Charles

Is this sudden eruption of love for Al Gore a result of his piece in the New York Times today?

Algore is at the top of my Dbag list.

25 albusteve  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:54:08am

"keep the motor running...I'll be back in three hours!"

26 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:54:12am

re: #24 Cannadian Club Akbar

Algore is at the top of my Dbag list.

Well... you may want to read the opinion piece he wrote today... very insightful...

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

27 darthstar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:54:57am

35 times the amplitude, 500 times the energy released...wow.

28 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:55:02am

re: #21 Locker

Found the Al Gore article link on Walter's #521 in the last thread as follows:

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

29 Killgore Trout  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:55:49am

RAW: Tributary Quickly Reverses Direction After Hilo "Tsunami" Surge

Pretty interesting.

30 Mad Al-Jaffee  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:56:13am

re: #15 MikeySDCA

For the truly nerdy, there's Liberate Gondwanaland!

Blowing up the moon is a cause I'm really passionate about:

31 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:57:35am
32 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:58:21am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

How cool is that?!

33 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 9:59:34am

re: #26 Walter L. Newton

Well... you may want to read the opinion piece he wrote today... very insightful...

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Umm. sorry I I don't fit in. Algore can biteme.

34 Stanghazi  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:00:11am

re: #29 Killgore Trout

RAW: Tributary Quickly Reverses Direction After Hilo "Tsunami" Surge

[Video]Pretty interesting.

That was cool. Tks.

35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:00:16am

re: #30 Mad Al-Jaffee

Odenkirk's stand up is very odd. Verrry funny if you are willing to take the trip with him.

36 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:00:45am

re: #33 Cannadian Club Akbar

Umm. sorry I I don't fit in. Algore can biteme.

I wasn't talking about fit in, not fit in, whether I like Gore or not, whether anyone likes him, in all fairness, I was simply pointing out the link.

37 Sol Berdinowitz  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:03:09am

re: #21 Locker

Didn't read it but I find the Al Gore hatred kind of amusing, especially the core message. The right wing, completely free market people love to dismiss Al Gore because they say "He only does it for the money". Hilarious!

Looking up the article though...

If Al Gore made a bad mistake, it was thinking that by retiring from active politics, he could put his message above political squabbling and positioning.

But Al aside, Jian Lin from Woods Hole basically told us that in Geological time, this was more or less an aftershock from a quake that happened 50 years ago...
That has not been the case at all, I am sure a lot of people who would at most blithely ignore the problem have come out against it simply becasue he championed it.

38 Mad Al-Jaffee  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:03:10am

re: #35 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Odenkirk's stand up is very odd. Verrry funny if you are willing to take the trip with him.

I'm a big Mr. Show fan. Very funny stuff. David Cross is annoying but funny.

39 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:03:51am

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

I wasn't talking about fit in, not fit in, whether I like Gore or not, whether anyone likes him, in all fairness, I was simply pointing out the link.

K. My bad

40 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:04:12am

re: #13 Mad Al-Jaffee

Reminds me of a bumper sticker I like: Stop Continental Drift!

Reunite Pangaea!

Pangaea World Tour coming soon to a city near you!

41 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:04:19am

re: #39 Cannadian Club Akbar

K. My bad

Ok...

42 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:04:58am

Gore says that if we would've written some emission cutting laws, the Chinese would have joined us.

Sure Al... the entire Chinese nation'll turn a hundred and eighty degrees from their current CORPORATE CULTURE because we wrote some new laws.

Has it occurred to anyone that my problem with these guys might be their startling naivete?

I personally believe that the Chinese think he's cute. Ridiculous, but cute.

43 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:05:49am

re: #37 ralphieboy

I don't disagree.

Credibility remains an issue long after it is lost.

44 Mad Al-Jaffee  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:05:54am

re: #42 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

He deserved the Nobel prize for warning us about ManBearPig.

45 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:07:21am

re: #42 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Gore says that if we would've written some emission cutting laws, the Chinese would have joined us.

I've heard 85,000 people boo a football coach. I bet 1,000,000,000 people laughing at you is a little bit louder.

//

46 Walter L. Newton  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:08:21am

Another interesting article...

The IPCC, Consensus and Science

One of the more frequent criticisms made of the IPCC is that it works to create a scientific consensus about climate change. Critics claim that science doesn’t work by consensus, but rather by testing and refuting hypothesis on the basis of evidence. Just because 95 per cent of scientists agree about something doesn’t make it true.

On the other hand there are those who point to the IPCC consensus about climate change as being its central characteristic which gives validity and relevance to its conclusions. ‘The consensus of the world’s leading scientists is that it is very likely that most of the recent warming is due to greenhouse gas emissions’. This is just the sort of clear and considered judgement that politicians like to hear – and it was they after all who set up the IPCC in 1988 to deliver just this form of knowledge.

It seems that not only do we disagree about climate change, but we disagree about whether or not we should even be reaching a consensus about it.

The term consensus typically refers to a commonly agreed position, conclusion, or set of values. It is most commonly used with reference either to group dynamics or to broad agreement in public opinion. For example, over 20 years ago Denmark introduced the idea of Consensus Conferences into the national politics in that country as a way to strengthen democracy. But why should a process for reaching a common position in politics be adopted as a way of generating scientific knowledge? After all, politics is about opinions or beliefs; science surely is about facts and evidence.

The problem is that in areas of science which are seeking to understand the behaviour of large complex systems which can’t be replicated in the lab, it is very hard if not impossible to apply the scientific litmus test of falsification through experimentation. And climate change is one such area of science. We have scientific theory, we have empirical observations. What we haven’t got are lots of different Earths that can be experimented on in controlled conditions. Virtual climates created inside computer models are the best we’ve got.

All of this means that climate scientists frequently have to reach their conclusions on the basis of the partial, and sometimes poorly tested, evidence and models available to them. And when their paymasters - elected (or non-elected) politicians - ask them for advice, as in the case of the IPCC, opinion and belief become essential for interpreting facts and evidence. Or rather, incomplete evidence and models have to be worked on using opinions and beliefs to reach considered judgements about what may be true.

This approach is a well recognised for evaluating some forms of scientific evidence, and quite sophisticated procedures have been established to make it work. Bayesian statistics and expert elicitation are two such methods, and they both lend themselves to consensus-making.

But these ‘consensus methods’ don’t suit everyone. For some scientists, statements that commence with ‘We believe ...’ sound much too close to religious creeds or political manifestos to be accredited as reflecting scientific knowledge. I have heard scientists of many stripes – both those accepting the scientific orthodoxy about climate change and those disputing it – say “it’s not about belief, it’s about evidence”.

Reaching consensus about climate change, recognising that these statements emerge from processes of deliberation and discussion rather than from pure observation, experimentation and falsification, can therefore be an uncomfortable thing for scientists and public alike. Scientists need to be prepared to argue about their ‘considered opinions’, to embrace consensus but without closing down argument or suggesting that matters are settled.

(read it all [Link: mikehulme.org...] )

47 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:10:48am

I read Gore's op-ed last night. I'm going to post an entry about it in a few minutes.

I agree with almost everything he writes. But people who hate Gore are going to reject it out of hand. He's a very polarizing figure, partly because of his rather extreme attacks on George W. Bush during the Bush presidency. That makes him not a very good spokesman for climate change, which is unfortunate because he really does know the issues quite well and can argue effectively.

I had to check the comments on Twitter's conservative feed '#tcot' just to see how bad the Gore Derangement Syndrome is, and it's bad all right.

48 Feline Fearless Leader  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:11:49am

re: #19 Cato the Elder

Poseidon is pissed about the remake of _Clash of the Titans_.

49 recusancy  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:12:24am

re: #47 Charles

Extreme attacks?

50 Charles Johnson  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:13:57am

re: #49 recusancy

Such as the red-faced yelling speech in which he accused Bush of betraying the country. Over the top, no matter which side does it.

51 [deleted]  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:15:52am
52 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:16:52am

re: #47 Charles

I read Gore's op-ed last night. I'm going to post an entry about it in a few minutes.

I agree with almost everything he writes. But people who hate Gore are going to reject it out of hand. He's a very polarizing figure, partly because of his rather extreme attacks on George W. Bush during the Bush presidency. That makes him not a very good spokesman for climate change, which is unfortunate because he really does know the issues quite well and can argue effectively.

I had to check the comments on Twitter's conservative feed '#tcot' just to see how bad the Gore Derangement Syndrome is, and it's bad all right.


Al Gore can be 100% correct about the problem, but still be wrong about how to fix it. The political left considers hypocrisy a major crime when a conservative shows it. But Mr Gore appears to be something of an energy pig in his own life while lecturing others on their transgressions. So HIS credibility can also be made an issue.

53 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:17:13am

re: #50 Charles

Such as the red-faced yelling speech in which he accused Bush of betraying the country. Over the top, no matter which side does it.

So, ALgore isn't a bullshit farmer? I get that both sides does it.

54 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:17:34am

Al Gore's know-it-all, hectoring tone does not help any cause he espouses, no matter how "right" he may be.

And when he starts driving a Prius instead of fleets of limousines on his save-the-world tours, I'll think about cutting back my own teensy carbon footprint.

55 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:18:32am

re: #50 Charles

Like I've said... difficult to get back credibility once it is lost. Even with unrelated issues.

They need a new spokesperson.

56 Mad Al-Jaffee  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:18:35am

Time for laundry and lunch. Laterz.

57 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:19:07am

re: #49 recusancy

Gore suggested that Bush let the 9/11 attacks happen when he could have stopped them.

58 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:19:16am

re: #54 Cato the Elder

Why is your own behavior dependent on Al Gore's, though? That's what I never get about those kinds of arguments.

If an alcoholic points out that I'm drunk, I'm still drunk. If it's good to cut back on carbon usage, it's good no matter what others do.

59 reine.de.tout  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:20:31am

re: #26 Walter L. Newton

Well... you may want to read the opinion piece he wrote today... very insightful...

[Link: www.nytimes.com...]

Excellent opinion piece! It seems he took the time to get the right tone for that piece. Easier to do with a written piece than when speaking. Which is why I will reserve my right to be pissed off with Al Gore when he sounds like an asshole.

60 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:20:50am

re: #52 _RememberTonyC

Al Gore can be 100% correct about the problem, but still be wrong about how to fix it. The political left considers hypocrisy a major crime when a conservative shows it. But Mr Gore appears to be something of an energy pig in his own life while lecturing others on their transgressions. So HIS credibility can also be made an issue.

He has a very green mansion. But however efficient it is, in absolute terms it's forty times bigger than the average home. So he's still a hog.

61 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:21:44am

re: #58 Obdicut

Why is your own behavior dependent on Al Gore's, though? That's what I never get about those kinds of arguments.

If an alcoholic points out that I'm drunk, I'm still drunk. If it's good to cut back on carbon usage, it's good no matter what others do.

Gore wants to lead the way. Let him.

62 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:22:07am

re: #58 Obdicut

Why is your own behavior dependent on Al Gore's, though? That's what I never get about those kinds of arguments.

If an alcoholic points out that I'm drunk, I'm still drunk. If it's good to cut back on carbon usage, it's good no matter what others do.

My electric bill is 24 dollars. My water bill is 20. And I'm a drunk. Do you have a point?

63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:22:31am

re: #62 Cannadian Club Akbar

Have you considered crack?

64 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:22:56am

re: #61 Cato the Elder

That's not an answer. Why does Al Gore have to do anything before you do something? I generally find I'm capable of making decisions and taking actions without checking on what Al Gore is doing.

65 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:23:12am

re: #58 Obdicut

Why is your own behavior dependent on Al Gore's, though? That's what I never get about those kinds of arguments.

If an alcoholic points out that I'm drunk, I'm still drunk. If it's good to cut back on carbon usage, it's good no matter what others do.

I wear my seat belt because it is a good idea for me and my family, not because it is law. I conserve fuel (when I can) because it is good for me and my family.

None of the screeching from either side of this issue will change the way I live, I learned early in life to appreciate nature and to to all I can to not harm it. I do so in my own little ways, but surely not because Al Gore tells me to.re: #60 Cato the Elder

66 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:23:12am

re: #58 Obdicut

Why is your own behavior dependent on Al Gore's, though? That's what I never get about those kinds of arguments.

If an alcoholic points out that I'm drunk, I'm still drunk. If it's good to cut back on carbon usage, it's good no matter what others do.

Well, it's a judge the messenger rather than the message kind of thing. Makes me think of the Eleanor Roosevelt quote:

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

[Link: www.quotedb.com...]

67 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:23:15am

re: #62 Cannadian Club Akbar

My electric bill is 24 dollars. My water bill is 20. And I'm a drunk. Do you have a point?

You shouldn't drink so much water! Have another beer.

/// /// ///

68 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:23:27am

re: #63 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Have you considered crack?

Sorry, never been gay.
/

69 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:23:45am

re: #62 Cannadian Club Akbar

Yes-- people who make arguments that Al Gore should do something before they'll do something are oddly fixated on Gore's behavior, for no logical reason.

70 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:24:24am

Fuck Al Gore. I'd rather rag on Pat Robertson.

71 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:24:48am

re: #68 Cannadian Club Akbar

NTTAWWT!

72 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:24:50am

re: #65 Stonemason

That would be my point put pithily, thank you.

73 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:24:50am

re: #66 Locker

"It would be a lot easier to save humanity if it weren't for all these damned people getting in the way."

74 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:24:55am

re: #17 Obdicut

It's a shame what happened to Gondwanaland. Just torn apart from within, really.

And every country on earth has a part of it.

It's amazing to think, that the continents, the solid ground under our feet, are not fixed. Instead, they are sliding around on a surface of magma, like butter pats skittering around on a hot frying pan. Very counter-intuitive, so much so that the discoverer of this fact was never vindicated in his own lifetime, so far ahead of the available facts his theory was. But science eventually caught up with him.

75 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:25:15am

re: #69 Obdicut

Yes-- people who make arguments that Al Gore should do something before they'll do something are oddly fixated on Gore's behavior, for no logical reason.

Not at all. It's a little thing called "hypocrisy".

76 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:25:40am

re: #69 Obdicut

Yes-- people who make arguments that Al Gore should do something before they'll do something are oddly fixated on Gore's behavior, for no logical reason.

So, I already do some thing. Is Al Gore still a douchebag? Me says yes.

77 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:26:30am

re: #69 Obdicut

Yes-- people who make arguments that Al Gore should do something before they'll do something are oddly fixated on Gore's behavior, for no logical reason.

Actually it does make sense for those who feel that way. Al Gore is asking people to change their behavior when he is perceived to not have changed his own.

78 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:26:55am

re: #74 The Sanity Inspector

Yeah, it sucks when the empirical research for your discoveries isn't available until after you pass away. Happens less often these days, since we've gotten so good at data-gathering and analysis.

Darwin, of course, was able to explain evolution and natural selection while having absolutely no idea about genetics, so one could say he was only fully vindicated by the modern synthesis, which explained the mechanism by which natural selection actually functioned.

79 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:27:16am

re: #70 Cato the Elder

Fuck Al Gore.

He'd get mad and kick me out of bed when he finds out my "assistant" is electrically powered.

//

80 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:27:35am

re: #75 Cato the Elder

Not at all. It's a little thing called "hypocrisy".

Hypocrisy is tied to a person not an idea. If you wanna bag on Al Gore, fine. If you wanna bag on AGW ideas because Al Gore said them I think it's an error.

81 _RememberTonyC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:27:51am

I think Charles nailed it pretty well. Gore can be correct, but still be a poor spokesman because of his own credibility issues. And if Gore is making a TON of money off the issue, he should not be given a free pass on subsequent credibility issues that may affect the debate.

82 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:28:34am

re: #75 Cato the Elder

His hypocrisy doesn't affect the calculation of the action for yourself, though. If a thing is good to do, it's good to do regardless of whether Al Gore is a hypocrite on the subject.

There is no logical reason to base your own actions off of Al Gore's behavior.

83 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:28:46am

re: #77 Stonemason

Actually it does make sense for those who feel that way. Al Gore is asking people to change their behavior when he is perceived to not have changed his own.

This is in miniature an example of why it will be hard to convince undeveloped nations to go along with limits that developed nations set.

84 Cannadian Club Akbar  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:29:42am

ALgore is a hypocrite. Fuck him

85 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:29:42am

re: #83 jaunte

kin-a.

86 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:29:45am

re: #83 jaunte

We did it with CFCs. We can do it again. It's hard, but at least we have an established path: develop the green tech, and then export it cheaply to the developing world.

87 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:31:04am

re: #86 Obdicut

It's a worthy goal.

88 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:31:28am

re: #86 Obdicut

We did it with CFCs. We can do it again. It's hard, but at least we have an established path: develop the green tech, and then export it cheaply to the developing world.

Stop making sense!

///

89 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:31:59am

re: #83 jaunte

This is in miniature an example of why it will be hard to convince undeveloped nations to go along with limits that developed nations set.

and the reason it isn't fair to ask them to do so. Requiring developing nations to build factories that make the products too expensive for the world to purchase is simply another way to keep them from actually developing. Might not be purposeful, but it is what is happening.

And China is big enough to just do what they want anyway...

90 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:32:21am

re: #80 Locker

Hypocrisy is tied to a person not an idea. If you wanna bag on Al Gore, fine. If you wanna bag on AGW ideas because Al Gore said them I think it's an error.

Not what I said at all.

Al Gore has nothing to do with what I think of AGW.

His actions have everything to do with what I think of him.

On the other hand, it's too bad we'll never know how things would have turned out had he been elected in 2000. (I know, I know, some say he was.)

My suspicion is he would have droned enough to unman Saddam without firing a shot.

91 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:32:49am

TRAIN WRECK MOVIE!

"The Green Mile" is on.

I CAN'T LOOK AWAY!

92 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:33:37am

re: #87 jaunte

We've barely spent any time at all developing technology that is carbon-neutral, etc. The economic incentive to not use cheap energy-- coal and oil-- hasn't been there. A lot of the green tech probably looks pretty immature right now, but I do have great hope that great strides will be made with increased funding-- and hopefully by evaluating the true economic cost of oil and coal.

We just have to do it all fast enough.

93 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:33:38am

It's not 70s enough in here.

94 SteveC  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:33:53am

re: #91 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

TRAIN WRECK MOVIE!

"The Green Mile" is on.

I CAN'T LOOK AWAY!

"Ya'lls gonna leave the light on, boss?"

95 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:35:13am

re: #86 Obdicut

We did it with CFCs. We can do it again. It's hard, but at least we have an established path: develop the green tech, and then export it cheaply to the developing world.

CFC's were easy, they didn't fuel our lives. If the EPA had doe it's job and helped us become less reliant on foreign oil instead of becoming beholden to the green movement, things would be different now. We would have more nuclear plants in place, we would have drilled more here, refined more here, and those refineries would be more efficient.

The greens hurt themselves by making this political, and by screeching that the sky is falling for a different reason every generation or so.

96 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:36:01am

re: #93 The Sanity Inspector

It's not 70s enough in here.


[Video]

That's like MC Hammer trying to do Gangster rap.. and just as funny.

97 Cato the Elder  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:37:23am

re: #82 Obdicut

His hypocrisy doesn't affect the calculation of the action for yourself, though. If a thing is good to do, it's good to do regardless of whether Al Gore is a hypocrite on the subject.

There is no logical reason to base your own actions off of Al Gore's behavior.

Downding for the horrible locution "base off of".

re: #86 Obdicut

We did it with CFCs. We can do it again. It's hard, but at least we have an established path: develop the green tech, and then export it cheaply to the developing world.

CFCs were not essential to the economy. Oil, gas, and coal, for better or worse, are, and will remain so for decades.

98 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:38:15am

re: #95 Stonemason

CFCs were not 'easy' to do. It was an incredible achievement to cut down their use. And CO2 doesn't fuel our lives; it's just the current technology.

The greens hurt themselves by making this political, and by screeching that the sky is falling for a different reason every generation or so.

Even if true, why waste time dwelling on that? Why is the appropriate thing to place historical blame, instead of trying to fix the problem?

99 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:38:41am

re: #97 Cato the Elder

CFCs were not essential to the economy. Oil, gas, and coal, for better or worse, are, and will remain so for decades.

I like it when people smarter than me make the same point as I do!

100 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:40:25am

re: #97 Cato the Elder

CFCs were not essential to the economy. Oil, gas, and coal, for better or worse, are, and will remain so for decades.

Fuck that you know how hard it is to get the Fix-a-Flat out of the can now? Damn environment messing with my essential economy.

101 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:41:17am

re: #96 Locker

That's like MC Hammer trying to do Gangster rap.. and just as funny.

I never did understand why some rap acts were authentic and others were phony. Prolly because I need sensitive electronic testing equipment to tell one rap song from another...

102 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:42:19am

re: #97 Cato the Elder

Okay, I'm downdinging you for indulging in the horrible habit of not including the subject and copulative with your infinitive.

CFCs were not essential to the economy. Oil, gas, and coal, for better or worse, are, and will remain so for decades.

Energy is essential to the economy. We currently use oil, gas, and coal to produce this energy. We need to spend vast amounts of money pushing forwards green technology for energy generation, as well as adapt industries to be less energy intensive. It's a larger undertaking than CFCs, by an order of magnitude, but it's not fundamentally different.

103 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:42:32am

re: #98 Obdicut


Even if true, why waste time dwelling on that? Why is the appropriate thing to place historical blame, instead of trying to fix the problem?

In order to keep the people who exacerbated the problem in the past from passing themselves off as experts on fixing it now.

104 Locker  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:42:39am

re: #101 The Sanity Inspector

I never did understand why some rap acts were authentic and others were phony. Prolly because I need sensitive electronic testing equipment to tell one rap song from another...


[Video]

Hehe it's not phony or non-phony it's trying to cross over from bubblegum-pop to something harder. It's just funny.

105 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:43:05am

re: #92 Obdicut

We've barely spent any time at all developing technology that is carbon-neutral, etc. The economic incentive to not use cheap energy-- coal and oil-- hasn't been there. A lot of the green tech probably looks pretty immature right now, but I do have great hope that great strides will be made with increased funding-- and hopefully by evaluating the true economic cost of oil and coal.

We just have to do it all fast enough.

One issue with green energy sources (being more expensive) is the cost of making steel. Spain, which has concentrated on greening their energy supply, is losing steel manufacturing plants to France, whose electricity is cheaper. Spain still needs a lot of steel to build wind power; they've just shifted the carbon emissions to another country. We're doing the same by shifting our steel-making to China and India.

106 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:45:40am

re: #98 Obdicut

I am not dwelling on it at all, just pointed out how things went in the last 40 years or so.

The fixes were offered time and again by those not green enough, that is my point, remember "no nukes"? It wasn't big coal or oil that stopped nuclear, so yes, it is pertinent, and it is not big coal or oil stopping nukes right now. It is still the same tired rhetoric, repackaged.

Change the climate back? Back to what? And if I read the charts and graphs right, we can't change it, were in it now. What we need to to is focus on how to live with it, not whine and cry about it. How do we get people off those Islands that are going to flood, how are we going to deal with the rising levels.

You see, I understand that the climate is a freight train, it will not stop and reverse on a dime, many of the people meeting about this seem to not realize that, they seem to think that by charging me more to drive my truck the climate will reverse. If we did this to the climate, it has been happening for may decades, not months, and it will take centuries to reverse, much like all previous climate shifts have taken centuries to reverse.

No, I am not saying do nothing, I am asking that we look to the future and accept the changes.

107 jotalot  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:47:10am

Even if Al Gore is on the right track, I don't want his voice to represent mine. If you have a worthy mission, it is important to appear believable in your stated convictions. Actions which back up your convictions is a surer way to move forward.

108 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:49:01am

re: #106 Stonemason

You're painting with an enormous brush, by calling anyone who's ever expressed concern about the environment 'greens'. Yes, there was opposition by environmentalists to nuclear power. But not by all environmentalists, by any stretch of the imagination, and these days nuclear is in perfectly good favor with most environmental groups, though the enormous cost of construction and legal hassles with building them meant they are not in any way a silver bullet for AGW.

The rest of your post is kind of silly. You're simply saying we should give up and adapt to future conditions, because you understand that the climate won't stop on a dime. It's a false dichotomy; we can reduce the scope of change and effects from climate change, even if we've passed a tipping point. It's still worthwhile to do so, even if we also have to adapt.

109 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:49:24am

re: #93 The Sanity Inspector

Okay, you got me. I feel for Marie Osmond today, but, that sucks.

110 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:49:30am

re: #102 Obdicut

Okay, I'm downdinging you for indulging in the horrible habit of not including the subject and copulative with your infinitive.

Energy is essential to the economy. We currently use oil, gas, and coal to produce this energy. We need to spend vast amounts of money pushing forwards green technology for energy generation, as well as adapt industries to be less energy intensive. It's a larger undertaking than CFCs, by an order of magnitude, but it's not fundamentally different.

No we don't, not my money, I'm okay with my energy the way it is. If people are willing to do it, fine, build your own inefficient wind mills. Once the solar panels are affordable, I will put them on my house, but, do not use my taxes to subsidize them, that just passes the cost to me, again. When the oil is gone, we'll figure it out, if we are still around.

111 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:51:18am

Morning, doing laundry and stuff and thought I would do a Google search on "Pat Robertson Chile".

Seems like a lot of people are waiting for him to say something.

I wonder if he has gotten the message, or is it just that Chile wasn't on his sin radar. Strange, they are mostly Catholic aren't they?

112 Obdicut  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:51:33am

re: #110 Stonemason

I'm sorry, but purposeful obtuseness isn't really an argument.

113 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:54:33am

re: #108 Obdicut

You're painting with an enormous brush, by calling anyone who's ever expressed concern about the environment 'greens'. Yes, there was opposition by environmentalists to nuclear power. But not by all environmentalists, by any stretch of the imagination, and these days nuclear is in perfectly good favor with most environmental groups, though the enormous cost of construction and legal hassles with building them meant they are not in any way a silver bullet for AGW.


Actually I used 'greens' to limit the scope of my ire. I thought I was clear in that I was concerned for the environment but was not a 'green'.
It was the 'greens' that made the legalities of building the plants so hard to clear, by the way, so saying that environmentalists are okay with nukes now, as long as all those legalities are met.

I am also not saying do nothing, but don't destroy the economy to accomplish so very little. Look forward and embrace change.

114 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:57:15am

re: #113 Stonemason

in reading all that I have poorly written up thread, I have decided that I am maybe too selfish to deal with this. I just can't seem to care that deeply about something I have no power over.

115 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 10:57:39am

re: #97 Cato the Elder

CFCs were not essential to the economy. Oil, gas, and coal, for better or worse, are, and will remain so for decades.

You started something here.

Refrigerants are essential to the economy. CFCs were less expensive than the alternatives now in use (except in places where they don't give a damn).

Oil, gas and coal are also simply less expensive than the alternatives of nuclear, solar, wind and so on, but we could do without them and will have to eventually in the distant future.

116 Stonemason  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:03:17am

re: #115 Naso Tang

You started something here.

Refrigerants are essential to the economy. CFCs were less expensive than the alternatives now in use (except in places where they don't give a damn).

Oil, gas and coal are also simply less expensive than the alternatives of nuclear, solar, wind and so on, but we could do without them and will have to eventually in the distant future.

without the coal and oil to make the electric energy to compress the refrigerant...

117 The Sanity Inspector  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:03:18am

re: #109 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Okay, you got me. I feel for Marie Osmond today, but, that sucks.

It was a hit. But, it's out of its era, definitely.

118 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:12:58am

re: #116 Stonemason

without the coal and oil to make the electric energy to compress the refrigerant...

My point is that we can make electricity without coal and oil, it just costs more.

119 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:17:00am

re: #118 Naso Tang

We have to make a lot more steel to make the alternative electricity production, which will require a lot of coal and natural gas to be burned first, before enough wind power is built to power the steel making plants. Unless we build nuclear plants instead.

120 celticdragon  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 11:56:55am

re: #11 Walter L. Newton

I'm glad you understand that possibility.

Unbelievable.

121 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:42:28pm

re: #119 jaunte

We have to make a lot more steel to make the alternative electricity production, which will require a lot of coal and natural gas to be burned first, before enough wind power is built to power the steel making plants. Unless we build nuclear plants instead.

I'm not sure that steel production is relevant in this context being cost versus necessity, but since you bring up the raw material issue, the future of solar and wind actually has a very real bottleneck down the road because advanced generators, and the electric motors that they will drive, and batteries that they will charge, and the power lines to distribute it all, require rare metals that have a much more limited availability. By that I mean designs that have high enough efficiencies to be economical, yet they will possibly become uneconomical due to key material scarcities.

Then again, where there is a will there is a way...

122 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:46:27pm

re: #121 Naso Tang

I think it's relevant in that steel production is the current bottleneck in remaking our power-generation facilities. The new facilities require more steel, requiring more power generated by fossil fuels.

123 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:47:33pm

...Or more power generated by nuclear plants, which I think is the most efficient use of our current technology.

124 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:51:52pm

re: #122 jaunte

I think it's relevant in that steel production is the current bottleneck in remaking our power-generation facilities. The new facilities require more steel, requiring more power generated by fossil fuels.

I don't believe that is the case, but I am willing to be proven wrong...

125 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:54:09pm

re: #124 Naso Tang

I can give you a Bureau of Labor Statistics link:

As countries around the world attempt to reduce emissions and produce cleaner energy, the need for structural steel will increase. Steel will be needed for support towers as well as reinforcing rebar toward the construction of new power generation facilities. In addition, the transmission infrastructure needed to transport electricity also will result in greater demand for steel. The expansion of clean energy production is expected to result in demand for many types of steel products.


[Link: www.bls.gov...]

126 Cygnus  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 12:58:39pm

re: #8 Obdicut

Yeah, that Al Gore! He'd probably blame it on plate tectonics or something. You know how he is.

God dropped his set of tectonic plates. Oopsie-daisy!

127 Eclectic Infidel  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 1:27:43pm

re: #6 Cato the Elder

I'm sure Pat Robertson will presently be telling us what really caused it.

I was asking about this yesterday. Maybe G-d's Official Spokesman has finally learned the art of not being an *ssh*l* in the face of extreme suffering.

128 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 2:22:26pm

re: #125 jaunte

I can give you a Bureau of Labor Statistics link:


[Link: www.bls.gov...]

Yes, and to build cars and skyscrapers in China and India, but there is plenty of iron ore on the planet, what there is not so much of, and which is much more critical for advanced electronics and motors and batteries are materials like copper, cadmium, nickel and some others that I can't remember.

Iron/steel will certainly become more expensive due to demand, but the others will become unobtainable except through recycling (hence why they were mining for "unobtainium" in Avatar...)

129 jaunte  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 2:27:56pm

re: #128 Naso Tang

I agree with your point about the rare elements becoming a problem.
What I mean to say is that changing the power generating infrastructure will require a lot more carbon emissions, short term, than just continuing with business as usual. I'd like to see more effort put into nuclear power generation to get us through that short-term period, instead of simply burning more coal in order to produce components for wind and solar power.

130 Achilles Tang  Sun, Feb 28, 2010 2:43:28pm

re: #129 jaunte

In terms of the proportion of power required to manufacture the actual physical components of a less "carbon" dependent system, I believe that is a small percentage of the requirements for everything else, such as increasing population demands for everyday usage.

The problem is that it is usually cheaper, in the political life terms of the powers that be, to maximize the use of what one has; as you say, business as usual. The latter is the human condition is it not? If we lived to be 500 we might act differently.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 71 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
4 days ago
Views: 169 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1