Roger's Equations

Just don't forget a couple of key things in the back of your mind when discussions of Global Warming come up:

First, ONE volcano and a few million acres of forest fires put out more "greenhouse" gases than all the human activity on the planet, combined. If "big oil" or any other industry tries to drive up prices to drive profits in a FREE MARKET economy, the market itself drives innovation toward better use of all resources, including fuels and alternatives.

So IF you REALLY care about the planet: encourage technology, capitalism, individual control of both private property and all income. If NOT, then support large, inefficient and wasteful central government control of the world economy, high taxation, "communal/nationalized" control of resources, industry, pricing, and agency decisions about what developments to fund or reward with tax incentives or subsidies.

Second, CO2 in the atmosphere, combined with slightly warmer temperatures, results in previously marginal zones springing into green vegetation, resulting in...more absorption of CO2, more shaded regions of the planet, greener rain-forests, etc... CO2 is not toxic, and water-vapor is a MUCH more heat-trapping "greenhouse gas"...CO2 is just a natural part of the carbon cycle.

Third, the major source of Warming for this Globe is NOT based on the miniscule amount of heat that gets "trapped," but rather the IMMENSE amount of heat that gets released by the furnace at the center of the solar system known as the SUN. A very small percentage trend of increased output results in a direct-causation trend of increased heating of the earth's surface, regardless of greenhouse gases.

Fourth, we've already found evidence that the planet has cycled through a great flood, a couple of ice-ages, and major movement of the portions of surface crust that we live on - before SUV's. Somehow some have concluded we have a "crisis" due to a 100-year increase of, what, 1-degree F on average during this period of explosive human activity growth?

Obviously, environmental factors of this massive system completely dwarf any influence even conceivable by the tiny human input, which would be "assumed-away" as insignificant if not blown up by our own tendency to blame (or give credit to) mankind first for anything we observe in nature.

Now, as to controlling our release of TOXINS into the environment, THAT is a completely different story. THAT issue is easy to test, document, regulate, and punish and affects the health (not the "temperature") of every life form on the planet.

So, "environmentalists" out there...let's "follow the money" and
determine just how and why this Global Warming bandwagon has somehow been given the position of Engine instead of Caboose on the train of responsible management of the earth and it's resources.

You wrote:

"First, ONE volcano and a few million acres of forest fires put out more "greenhouse" gases than all the human activity on the planet, combined."

Worldwide volcanic activity puts out less than 1 percent of manmade greenhouse contributions. Forest fires are rare as compared to slash and burn farming in South America, Africa, and Asia.

You wrote:

So IF you REALLY care about the planet: encourage technology, capitalism, individual control of both private property and all income. If NOT, then support large, inefficient and wasteful central government control of the world economy, high taxation, "communal/nationalized" control of resources, industry, pricing, and agency decisions about what developments to fund or reward with tax incentives or subsidies.

I say:

I support fusion funding and research. That is my solution, I don't believe either of your solutions solve anything.

You wrote:

Second, CO2 in the atmosphere, combined with slightly warmer temperatures, results in previously marginal zones springing into green vegetation, resulting in...more absorption of CO2, more shaded regions of the planet, greener rain-forests, etc... CO2 is not toxic, and water-vapor is a MUCH more heat-trapping "greenhouse gas"...CO2 is just a natural part of the carbon cycle.

I Say:

A few extra plants is not going to make up for pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, when tundra melts, all the plant matter that has been frozen for thousands of years is free to decompose and release CO2 into the atmosphere.

You Said:

Third, the major source of Warming for this Globe is NOT based on the miniscule amount of heat that gets "trapped," but rather the IMMENSE amount of heat that gets released by the furnace at the center of the solar system known as the SUN. A very small percentage trend of increased output results in a direct-causation trend of increased heating of the earth's surface, regardless of greenhouse gases.

I Say:

Then we should move to the moon. I'm sure the temperature there is perfect since it's the same distance as us from the sun.

You Said:

Fourth, we've already found evidence that the planet has cycled through a great flood, a couple of ice-ages, and major movement of the portions of surface crust that we live on - before SUV's. Somehow some have concluded we have a "crisis" due to a 100-year increase of, what, 1-degree F on average during this period of explosive human activity growth?

I Say:

Please read the part II section on how the oceans are soaking up the excess heat and warming.

You Said:

Obviously, environmental factors of this massive system completely dwarf any influence even conceivable by the tiny human input, which would be "assumed-away" as insignificant if not blown up by our own tendency to blame (or give credit to) mankind first for anything we observe in nature.

I Say:

Warming is only occuring within the area of the Earth we live in, which is rather small as compared to the Earth as a whole. Please read my Part II.

You Said:

So, "environmentalists" out there...let's "follow the money" and
determine just how and why this Global Warming bandwagon has somehow been given the position of Engine instead of Caboose on the train of responsible management of the earth and it's resources.

I Say:

I'm not an environmentalist. I'm not pushing for regulations or changes. I just want us to invest in fusion which provides a ton of energy for cheap.

Please people, turn off the talk radio, turn off the discovery channel. Go to google scholar and read scientific articles on these subjects. This is not a political issue, this is not an opinion, Global Warming is a fact.

Methane: Indeed the Oceans are warming. Not only is the surface warming, the depths are also warming (at a slower rate). Marine scientists are surprised at the rate of warming in the very deep waters. Of great interest to me is the vast quantities of methane ices 'sequestered' in the deeper ocean levels.

The point on the temperature/pressure curve where methanes become stable is starting to shift deeper into the sea as the oceans warm. Oceans getting warmer, pressure remaining the same, means the point where the methane ices revert to gas is moving deeper into the ocean.

We can expect an increase of methane release which will accellerate the rate of warming, which.......

If we were to harvest the methane just below the freezing point, we could use it via existing pipelines to fire our existing gas fired power plants. The CO₂ released is the lesser evil if is allowed into the atmosphere or it could be sequestered underground or in the greater depths of the ocean where the pressure/temperature keeps it a liquid.

Plants:The largest mass of plants reside in the oceans, seas, lakes. There was an experiment (~15 to 20 years ago) where a patch of the Antartic Ocean was 'fertilized' with a water solution containing Iron (Chelated Fe) which produced an explosion of plant growth which lasted as long as the Fe was present. I do not remember the mass of CO₂ that was taken up but it was very significant and very rapid. Quick, simple, fast, just takes some people to it moving, could start reducing CO₂ next year. Lots of Fe around and an old tanker of some type.

Energy: We should shift to any practical form of 'Green" energy ASAP. The most bangs per cubic meter of facility would be Nuclear Fission (Generation III and the new Gen IV machines (put them underground for security), when they come on line.), Nuclear Fusion (cleaner but far in the future), Hydro (ocean currents, tides, Ocean thermal deltas), Wind in some areas.

Check out the General Atomics web site (www.ga.com or www.gat.com for fission and fusion information)

The railroads should be electrified and restored to their previous road beds. This alone would reduce the production of CO₂ by a vast amount by getting long haul trucks off the roads (would greatly reduce smog and traffic congestion). High speed rail would become more practicle, check out Europe. I lived there for 15 years, in the shadows of the Alps, I traveled often and extensively and much prefered the trains.

Check out the Idaho National Lab web site at www.inl.gov for information on the GEN-IV progran plus links to other evergy web sites.... ie National wind lab. in Colorado.

What ever the answer is, time is of the essence, so beat up on your Senators and Congress persons. They will listen if they think someone might vote for them.

Your assumptions that greenhouse gases directly affect climbing change is at best a theory. The Kyoto protocol maybe more useful in cleaning our environment than has been suggested. You also forgot to realize that we are in the middle of an interstadial event, climate change may not be so unprecedented as you have suggested. If the Milankovich cycles depict ice is going to melt, it is going to melt and certain greenhouse gases will be elevated. Some of these trace gases have previously been recorded as to depict paleoclimatology. It is with no great calculations by choosing a more represnative tracer for climate change, such as stable isotopes, that you can suggest Earth has been warmer in the past with less ice in existance. I often agree with people that try to fix man's burden but at the same time love to depict false data and conculsion as mere opions as you have offered.

Have you cared to look at historical patterns of water vapor in the sky? Do you have any idea if recent climate change mirros any historical events over the past several thousand years? If we outlawed the combustion engine do you really think it would take decades to see a decrease in atmosphere carbon dioxide concentrations? Do you believe that ENSO cycles represent trends in climate change? Would you be willing to identigy a negative feedback to the global warming cycle? Your series of blogs would invoke a response from anyone taking any undergraduate paleoclimatology course with many questions that have yet to be answered. Each of these question if understood may give you some ground to stand on, but between certainties of calculated data and predictions that mans burden will invoke unprecedented global warming I would like to see more time spent to prove an accurate conclusion.

When I was a math major i learned with statistics you can prove anything. Kind of how people use ethanol production as a means to get a greenhouse reduction credit. If people who believed in the Kyoto protocol could burden every industrialized nation to decrease combustable fluids I do believe greenhouse gases would be swallowed up by the oceans and we could see the climax of CO2 concentration breach. Maybe at that point we could better the human race by understanding true negatiove feedbacks to climate change. Or maybe the Milankovich cycles would take over we would see further warming and natural process take over. The realy question is, is climate change at a dynamic equilibrium or is it a steady state process.

Shawn,

That was more of a barrage than an argument. Lets focus on one point at a time and we can proceed. I'll start with the very first thing you said:

"Your assumptions that greenhouse gases directly affect climbing change is at best a theory."

I disagree. If you add salt to water, you know the freezing point of that water goes down. In the same way, when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, it's ability to trap heat increases. Neither are theories, they are facts.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, based on Anatarctic ice core samples, is the highest they've been in over 1 million years, by a lot. See graph below:

Basically you believe you can simply add 50% more CO2 than ever before into the atmosphere and expect no effect. I disagree.

Your unprecedented CO2 levels does not correlate with unprecedented ice volume or mean global temperature... This must prove that green houses gases don't dictate climate change, but more or less just the opposite. With anthropogenic input we may have lost the significance of using CO2 as a climate indicator. Wouldn't you agree? Does this trace amount of 400ppm displace any water moisture?

Shawn,

The reason why CO2 peaks trail the mean global temperature peak is because in the past, CO2 was only a feedback mechanism. The cause of global warming and cooling cycles were the result of cyclic changes in the Earth's tilt and orbit. Warming released locked up CO2 which made the warming linger longer than it should have based on orbit and tilt considerations alone. It created a climatic hysteresis with the orbital cycles.

The point is that now the feedback mechanism (CO2) has become the primary catalyst, thanks to humans who have been dumping CO2 in ever increasing amounts into the atmosphere for the last 100 years. We are far from a CO2 peak. Levels of 500ppm could be reached by 2020! All this extra CO2 traps heat near the Earth's surface, which in turn warms the oceans and melts glaciers.

In most climate studies that I have reviewed the feedback mechanism for global warming has been methane. Which hand by hand with other greenhouse gases is near an all time high. Methane hydrates could become unstable with rising ocean levels and in turn catapult us into a catastrophic future where our caustic atmosphere could be analogous to Venus. But this is no more than speculation.

CO2 alone does not seem to have enough influential force to induce climate change. I stand by my stance that it will not drive climate change. 500ppm or not, I will wager there will be more ice on the planet in 2020 then has been in our past. These theories of positive feedbacks for climate change are as unbalanced as the missing carbon problem. Everyone can see a correlation for disaster but there is no stead fast proof nor understanding of what negative feedbacks cause us to re-enter glacial periods.

We are only far from a CO2 peak because the industrialized world has not found a way without the combustion engine. If us environmentalist could turn the switch to off and force an energy revolution there would be no anthropogenic source of CO2 and the seemingly rapid rate of exchange with the oceans could bring down atmospheric concentrations. With an unbalanced carbon budget, as we continue to burn the earth, yes CO2 concentrations will rise. The question is have we met the tipping point where anthropogenic force will drive future climate patterns or will natural processes less understood take over. That hypothesis alone is the base for all climate debates. As you have stated CO2 has always been a feedback not a driving force. Why are you so sure that we have past the tipping point?