Why Isn't This Better Known Info?

Because only an idiot would claim that 10 years worth of data means anything at all when it comes to the climate! That's why.

This is just as ignorant as the statement by Ted Cruz (the Canadian born imbecile who admits to know nothing about science, but continues to spout his brand of climate propaganda) who claims that 18 years worth of "data" show that the earth isn't getting any warmer.

When Trump gets elected, Hell will freeze over and all our troubles will just be beginning.

I'm not sure how you can be hooked by this crap.

Close.

Maybe it has something to do with this organizations views?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Such as this tidbit from Wiki:"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.^[2] More recently, the Heartland Institute is the primary American supporter of climate change denial."

Like I'm going to believe any group who "lobby against smoking bans. Really??????

Sounds like a very smart group of paid shills. I wonder who pays their salaries?

Exactly!

In this relatively short, grossly biased hit piece the word "alarmist" was repeatedly used to describe the computer models and people who presented views opposite those of the paid literary assassin who wrote this trash.

Lyn, That was the first thing I noticed, and what caused me to do some research into this guy.

GA!

Like the ice core data, it doesn't fit the agenda.

That is called POLLUTION "Much easier handled than changing the patterns of an entire planet" [spelling edited]

The patterns of the entire planet are why we have pollution.

I have never said that the earth does not experience thermal cycles.

50 years is like one grain of sand in the deserts of the world in comparison to geologic history.

Virtually ever city on the planet has air pollution issues. Most major ones are due to temperature inversions; maybe we should be regulating the temperatures.

I grew up in rural Arkansas, where there were no city within 8 miles. The population was 30,000.

Air inversions were/are unheard of in that area, still.

So you suggest to regulate the temperature because of pollution?

Pollution still comes from ahhhh: pollution. Its sticks around due to certain weather patterns but it is not the root cause!

With logic applied to it, pollution should be reduces well lets say by reducing pollution.

Must have been to logical hence a OT. Yeah! I would like to see OT count on my profile so I can keep track of my social non-compliance! But I guess we do not discriminate here!

I have marked this comment OT, to help you with your count.

I'd be happy to mark the rest of your comments, as well, if you'd like.

Seems appropriate to me.

Honestly if you support the notion that we have to regulate the temperature to tackle pollution go ahead.

Want to see someone changing the outside temperature at will for an entire city.

Best is to cool it down but we could just keep it at cosy room temperature of 22 deg C.

This for sure will get rid of all the pollution.

Could not stop laughing this morning!

I trust it was a blissful laugh.

I support the notion that we ALL need to tackle pollution.

I'm just not sure where you got the notion that I "Want to see someone changing the outside temperature at will for an entire city."

Frankly, I'm not sure where you get lots of your notions.

Well must have been a while since you learned how to read.

I can spell it out for you but I am not very good at it:

1. I replied to the point from Aqua Doc #41

2. He clearly says: maybe we should be regulating the temperatures

3. I responded and said that this is not the way to tackle pollution. Now why you chipped in I have no idea. Maybe you thought I responded to you. But there you have to hold you head straight when reading.

.

Hope this explains it because I still don't understand why we are having this conversation while aqua doc is out there and has a real blissful laugh.

It is unclear why you have insulted me for responding to a post IN WHICH I WAS CLEARLY RESPONDING TO SOMEONE ELSE!!!!!!In reply to #9

Namely, Aqua Doc.

I wasn't aware that there was a prohibition against responding to a specific post, even though that post was a response to another member. I'll try to remember that in your case.

I'm going to follow the advice of Mark Twain, again and stop arguing with you, lest I be taken for the fool, which is clearly not the case here.

Gosh, you really did not hold your head straight when reading. I replied to Aqua Doc. Point over!

Nothing to do with you. No insult unless you are insulted by my question to Aqua Doc. But then it is your problem!

Now, the air is never clear where I grew up

Ask the same question to people who grew up in Pittsburgh or Philadelphia in the 1960's. Bet they don't agree with you.

I remember my first drive into Philly in July, 1969. Way out about Phoenixville, I entered the yellow cloud. It was like a wall. My eyes burned until I got back out of Philly. We just don't see that anymore.

Want clear air - come up to the shores of Lake Erie when a cold front has passed through and a big high has settled in over New England. We still have days with no clouds and gross radiational heating at night up here. I've seen frost in June.

People who are born 90% blind must think that the ability to see with 50% clarity is a miracle, like the air in Pittsburgh.

Your visit to Philly in July, 1969, is like my remembrance of my first trip to LA in 1960.

LA residents probably love their "clean" air too.

The air in central Arkansas is much dirtier today than in 1960, trust me.

Good post: I'm from Youngstown, OH. The east side was bad from the teens to the 70's.

The Mahoning River had rising steam in the summer.

As for pollution, you should see the Caribbean during off season.

It's a new religion, designed to bring the Republic to its knees. Good luck surviving in any way, in the cold, in the dark, without water, and without food, because the

EPA has banned everything you need to exist.

Smoking only affects those who inhale it? How come mankind exists at all when most of our history, we have been crouched near a very smoky fire, roasting meat of all sorts, some of which was most likely old carrion, wearing filthy animal furs not properly cured, and drinking from the stream where they just killed a Mammoth and gutted it not fifteen minutes ago. I think humans will outlast our present ills, we just need to educate people more about the evils of mass procreation out of season. Only those fit mentally and/or physically to make it in this world should reproduce. Less folks are needed if all they will ever do is sap on the resources of others.

Sounds sort of Bah-Humbug, but maybe it is at least partially true. Maybe we do need more compassionate conservatism, where the facile in society rise up and actually make the world a better place not just for themselves, but for the masses. The masses still need to get up off their collectivism and go to freaking work!

Not to dispute your experiences, but air is much clearer where I grew up (NYC) in 50's and 60's.

Some years were colder, others hotter, but little significant change overall.

Didn't have A/C until 70's, and the only room units.

No house I ever lived in was without heat, though.

You must surely be responding to someone else.

GA! I am relatively sure you are on to something.

That is pretty interesting.

One of my research mentors while I was University of Utah was actually in graduate school at Cambridge working with Rowland and Molena when they published on atmospheric reactions of chlorine containing species that undergo a cyclic catalytic reaction with ozone, hence depletion. This was based upon computer calculations, known reaction rates, and the recycling of the chlorine species by a series of known reactions where ozone is consumed. I suppose the model may not have been sufficient to compensate for physical mechanisms that would remove these chlorine containing species such as ClO• ,Cl• , ClO2 in the upper atmosphere, all of which would arise from reaction of ozone first with certain chlorofluorocarbons (refrigerants) that would have been carried aloft on updrafts, diffusion, etc.

One problem seems to have been finding a suitable scavenger molecule that would react with these, and allow them to be swept back down, then rained out as HCl, etc. The model also did not accurately predict the rates of production of new ozone in the upper atmosphere, as I recall, but the models do get very complicated when they include all the known chemical moieties present, and attempt to include all known reactions with suitable kinetics. Who knows how it runs on a newer bigger, better computer, with more accurate data on some of the reactions that were not included in model of the day?

At the time, based on the available data and research, it appeared to be serious problem. I still do not like being outdoors without shades and a good hat.

I just hope Yellowstone waits until I'm dead to blow again.

Yellowstone Caldera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agree with you on that one.

Add the Cascadia Fault, whatever fault caused the New Madrid earthquake. and a couple of other geologic time bombs.

It depends upon where you live. America is drifting over Jellystone, so in however many years the Jellystone hot spot may well be under Etherville. There's a bright side to everything.

More like a hot side to everything.

Given the current weather, I'd not be unhappy if Yellowstone got nearer a bit quicker.

Trust me, neither of us, or anyone else on here wants to be within 2000 miles of Yellowstone when the caldera erupts, and it will eventually. The devastation from it could set back civilization a few thousand years is all.

You have that right. A few years ago there was a Discovery Channel movie made by the BBC (not a documentary, but sticking close to the science) about what might happen if Yellowstone erupted. It's called Supervolcano.

Agreed. At that time, everything we worry about these days will be completely and totally irrelevant. It would be as though the Luftwaffe was resurrected x100, and was everywhere raining down hell on us all.

The big question is 'when'. Such things are notoriously hard/impossible to predict. My general reading on related matter is that Yellowstone is not considered as 'the big one' that could wipe us all out. The area is, in relative terms, fairly dormant (as awesome as it looks). For sure, we would be gonnas if it blew next week, but other areas of the world have more active zones that could at the least cause global mayhem. I'd bet money that Yellowstone will not end civilization, but it would be a bit hard for the winnner to colllect.

Well one thing is for sure, air pollution will decrease....and health will improve....

GA. Very good points, all of them. But one has to remember that all computer models are just that, models. I am not one that can say the model(s) are good or bad, but the old adage goes, "garbage in,,, garbage out". Data manipulation is common, and often used to support one's own opinion. All we can do is wait and see what happens.

Actually, for every disbeliever, there are over 4 believers, if you count the public. If you just poll scientists, (meteorologists, NOAA, oceanographers, NA of Physics, NA of Geology, US NA of Sciences, all the hack organizations that anyone can join) there are about 9.5 believers for every disbeliever. It is a tough call, I appreciate how complicated it is to make sense of those statistics. The margins a razor thin, and you have to be careful.

This is just a fine religious statistic. Counting believers is part of the population census.

The believe starts where the knowledge ends.

And I believe in money if I'd work in a bank.

I am very certain that every citizen in the world has in now way been polled for their opinion so your numbers are very suspect of being skewed and inaccurate.

The numbers being reported display whatever the author of the stated opinion wants them to.

When was the last time anyone called or emailed you or anyone in this forum for an opinion?

We really need to stop arguing about what is the root-cause of our current increasing temperature and/or cooling trends. (climate change)

What we should be focusing on is eliminating pollution as the effects on human health is the most pressing we have.

It really will not matter if the earth's temperature in 300 years rises a few degrees if the world population is decimated/poisoned by pollution of our air, land, and water.

Let's stop the pollution then see if it affects climate change.

I am in 100% agreement with you about the decision to abandon the clean air and water mantra in favor of climate change. It was a disastrous mistake, in that it obfusicated the issue. To get clean air and clean water, you will not be burning coal or petroleum. We will have to find alternatives. We will be protecting the environment, as the most cost effective water recycling option. Would half of the posters here still be repulsed by the idea of limiting thier rights? Probably, but people understand the need for clean air and water. Climate change is the fodder that keeps us from doing much enough about it, although it is true that it may be the straw that breaks our collective human back.

Why would I want to poll every citizen in the world and ask them about climate change. I guess I should also ask them what they think about fishing quota's? They are not qualified. I know what they think about clean air and water. They want it, and want to participate in finding solutions.

"I know what they think about clean air and water. They want it, and want to participate in finding solutions."

I really wish this was/is true.

Unfortunately there are many that believe the world is so large that nothing we do as humans can significantly impact it.

We only need visit or research the inherent threat to all animal and plant life as evidenced in many of the old abandoned lead, silver, gold, copper, iron, and other mine sites throughout the world.

Given that the regulations and methods were archaic when those mines were in production none the less these superfund sites clearly establish that we as humans can most certainly create changes to our environment that are catastrophic in nature and most certainly hazardous as well as lethal to the entire world.

I disagree in that we cannot burn coal or petroleum products without polluting the environment just as I disagree that we cannot mine the resources we need to sustain humankind.

We as humans and therefore the most intelligent animals in this world are certainly capable of identification and mitigation of any method, process, or behavior that is a threat to our world and it's inhabitants.

However, to be successful we must be willing to accept the added cost(s) associated with developing and applying the required technology to mitigate and negate environmental threats.

Good analysis ..I read an article from a retired Cal Trans (California Transportation agency), when the car pool lanes were being put in, and the electric cars and the hybrids were given special stickers to use them, even with one occupant…He mentioned that the original concept was to reduce pollution, but in effect, they were relegating the MOST polution emmiting vehicles , large diesel trucks, into low mph lanes where they did the most damage. He felt that the express lanes, with few stops, should be used by the heavier polluting trucks, so as not to be idling in traffic jams. He also felt that a lot of the money being spent on theser lanes were actually perks for the wealthy , who could afford such cars.

I am glad that worker is retired, but that is an absurd analysis with no logic whatsoever. WTF is happenning to you geezers. That is Donald Trumpian in it's stupidity.

"but in effect, they were relegating the MOST polution emmiting vehicles , large diesel trucks, into low mph lanes where they did the most damage. He felt that the express lanes, with few stops, should be used by the heavier polluting trucks, so as not to be idling in traffic jams. tim"

They added lanes with better flow and made it available to those who bought more efficient cars in order to take advantage of the decreased commute time. Net effect was to incentivize efficiency, not to incentivize truckers to go faster. A trucker going faster has lower efficiency. A trucker in a trafic jam got to that jam whether he was going fast or slow. That sucks for everyone, but opening lanes to high efficiency vehicles has nothing to do with the trafic jam.

I'm trying to imagine what that would look like if the author of that article got his way. Carpool lanes would be occupied by cars with two or more people and all the 18 wheelers.

First, all the potholes would be concentrated in the carpool lane:

http://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-industry-subsidy/

"Road damage rises with the fourth power of weight, and this means that a 40,000 pound truck does roughly 10,000 times more damage to roadways than the average car [1]!"

Second, trucks are limited to 55 mph. Would they be allowed to go faster in the carpool lanes?

Third, what voters would tolerate "carpool" lanes filled with 18 wheelers?

Fourth, is that author saying that encouraging hybrid and electric vehicles does not reduce pollution because the pollution it reduces is caused by wealthy people?

Finally, is he saying that 9.3 percent of Californians are wealthy?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-13/toyota-prius-keeps-top-california-sales-rank-as-tesla-moves-up

"Sales of hybrids, plug-in autos and battery cars in the most populous U.S. state are disproportionately higher than the U.S. average owing to emissions rules that are among the world's toughest. Autos powered partially or wholly by electricity accounted for 9.3 percent of California sales last year [2013], according to the report."

[Sorry, I couldn't find the figures for 2014, though I know it went down some.]

"I'm trying to imagine what that would look like"

Just go to the I-285 at I-85 interchange in Atlanta and you can see it. Not pretty.

I'd never considered using car pool lanes for truckers. Hey, most of them have a co-driver now days so, why not? I'm sure there are many reasons why not.

All those people in the HOV/carpool lanes would be driving something. Why not give them an incentive. I can drive my V-8 gas truck in the HOV lanes any time I want, if I have a buddy along. Same deal, only one of us is burning gas.

No..What was advocated was a system of two high speed lanes to get the heavy diesel trucks off to the side, out of major traffic lanes (passeneger lanes), and be able to move at their own speed, without stopping and being able move without the problems of commuter traffic. You would not need Diamond / car pool lanes if this was in effect.. This is already being done on the 5 Fwy in Los Angeles, at the 14 / 5 junction…If you do not live in Los Angeles, with the 2nd largest US shiping port, and numerous other high capacity shipping hubs, rail and truck, than you have no idea of the mishmash of freeway traffic and delays---From the 710 , from Long Beach/ LA Harbor, to the Interstate 5 , that runs north and south from San Diego to Oregon, or the 15 to Barstow, and on to Vegas. Cars have to share lanes with huge amounts of large trucks carrying the vital supplies of Interstate commerce. The net effects of the car pool lanes are negligible--Often they are empty, while the three lanes next to them are clogged. I know not where you posters live, but walk a mile in our shoes and see what we see...

You have overburdened my attention span with a sensible well written post.

Please break these synopses into even smaller tidbits for us older slower readers who occasionally nod off while reading.

GA.

Kerry said in the clip that if all the industrial countries in the world cut their emissions to zero, it wouldn't be enough, not that it wouldn't help, regardless of how the clip is labeled. He's right. The developing nations have to cut emissions too. But guess what? If the industrial nations don't cut emissions, the developing nations sure won't want to. We have to lead. In other words, as you say, we have to practice what we preach.

I have no idea why we have to be able to break the continents apart in order to do something about all the coal and oil we burn. Can you explain that a little more?

I have no idea why we have to break with oil and coal. Can you explain that a bit more?

For example where do you think the tyres will be coming from for your electric vehicles?

Where else besides the stone quarry? Got some nice lathes to work with, but damn it, no power to run all them at the same time

Mr. Flintstone a new tyre is hewn in about 3 weeks. 2 weeks if you take the octagonal shape!

We need to agressively develop alternatives to mining and combusting petro and minerals that produce vast quanties of environmental damage. We can't and won't stop all of that today, or next year, or even in the next 50 years. That is not the point. The planet is very robust and resilient, but we are over burdening it with pollutants. There are so many applications that could be replaced with far cleaner energy sources, particularly by using solar/wind/wave/nuclear electricity to displace coal or oil energy medium. Of course we will need high density energy to do a lot of things, like air transportaion, many materials, etc. It is not an all or nothing scenario. But, really, don't you think that the future of our planet is bleak unless we commit resources now? I can even debate goals and timelines, but denial of the critical importance of this issue is a little hard to stomach. For many people, burning gasoline to commute to work is an example of a poor use. Driving cross country, you need gas or diesel. Both of those could be easily 50% bio if we wanted them too, to the benefit of the American farmer and American technolgy/manufacturing. Would it be more expensive than gas? Yes. That is the price. Burning coal to make electricity is another option, and one in which we are making some progress in this country. Of course, we are exporting coal to China, where they burn with even more damage than here. The disdain shown on this forum to the idea of working with any country to solve these issues doesn't give me much hope. The 'me' generation! I think a better name is the FY generation.

You scare me!

Really statements like: unless we commit resources now?

Where do you think these resources are coming from? We dig up more to have resources so we do not need resources anymore? What dreamland are you in?

I am not supporting pollution. Where we can we need to make sure we minimise the impact. But we will not be able to shut down anything for a long time without an even greater impact on society.

50% bio ??? What are you going to eat? Land use for farming is one of the most destructive things we are doing on this planet. Support it and you destroy more than you save.

Nuclear??? Really? No waste? Easy to handle, no long term impact if it goes wrong? I agree a nuclear plant that blows up will make sure nature is at its own and can thrive without humans around. Is this what we want?

Burning coal to have electricity to drive cars? Now you really get in your own way.

I guess I stop here. There is no point arguing with a fool! (sorry very, blunt but this is how I see it).

The future of this planet is not bleek. Our future is what is at risk.

you are the fool. The resources come from the capital markets. Incentives, subsidies, regulations, these are all terms commonly used to direct capital for the benefit of society and to reward the owners of that capital. Occassionally, our government is responsible for great things, like interstates, NASA, Rural electrification. For the last 30 years, we have lacked leadership. No one industry has received more than oil. That was fine then. It is time for change.

I was pointing out that burning coal to make electricity is foolish. I should have been more descriptive, I would use pictures if I thought that would help you. No one is suggesting we have to shut anything down. That was the point of my post. Nor is status quo sufficient to initiate change. Agressive change is what's needed.

You are as ignorant of farming practice and policy as most other topics you comment on. There are plenty of opportunities to build farms that produce fuel crops that actually mitigate as well as provide fuel. We actually pay farmers not to grow things.

Many of us think that nuclear generation should continue to be developed. I have not heard of any nuclear that has no waste, so I am not aware of what you are referring to. Even solar, wind, hydro has environmental and material cost and impact.

The point of yours seems to be that everything is fine. What about your future do you sense is at risk?

... I was pointing out that burning coal to make electricity is foolish. ...
Where????
you talking of progress burning coal:
...Burning coal to make electricity is another option, and one in which we are making some progress in this country....
You have some contradiction in your statements that makes it impossible to continue the discussion.
Have a Merry Christmas!

Oh I guess I was off topic!

Ha! An anonymos coward! What you can stand or not does not concern me!

Display of behaviour that one dislikes of others is a know phenomenon for the human psyche.

we have refuced coal use in this country for each of the last 6 years, that is progress.

Do you really think that is progress? Or can progress have a completely different face, such as completely stopping the dumping of ash ponds by better ash management practices, improved mercury removal from stacks, improved removal of radioactive elements (yes, Mildred, all coal in the US averages around 1 ppm uranium), and to the vast advances made in carbon capture tech, the ability to vastly increase some types of agriculture (algae culture for example) by using elevated CO2 in a green-house (closed) system that accelerates production?

Are you aware of recent advances in molten-salt reactor design that will for the first time in the history of nuclear engineering, allow for the use of completely un-enriched fuel, and also allow the use of so-called "spent" nuclear fuel as direct breeder cycle fuel? These designs used 1950's molten salt reactors as a starting point, then made sweeping changes based on better knowledge, and a keen insight of two graduate students at MIT, and incorporates a reactor dump system that shuts down nuclear flux in the event of a catastrophe such as an earthquake.

yes.

we should quadruple our coal usage to provide jobs

No matter what causes it, the oceans will rise and we will have to pay more taxes to handle solutions such as moving people, building dikes etc.

It seems our ancestors were really burning the fuel some 15,000 years ago!

At rates too small to be meaningful, and which should not be compared with today's rates.

Maybe because it's neither better, nor known, nor info?

Dang it! I was hoping my global warming research grants would have been approved before the news broke Oh well, I guess I'll try for prediction research grants for the next global ice age

So, in 150 year span mankind knows all there is to know about global climate change? Yeah, right!

The sky is falling! ..... The sky is falling!!

No Chicken Little, that was a Seagull that just flew over your head