Global Warming - What Can We Do or Should We Do?

I suspect this is a bit like the famed hockey stick that managed to ignore the ground temperature data from earlier times in order to exaggerate recent rises in temperature which, by the way, have now paused and may even be in decline.

Here is a graph taken from https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14845/figures/4 which shows the earth's CO2 levels over millions of years on what looks like a logarithmic scale.

You can see from this that there have been times in the history of the earth when CO2 was in far higher concentration in the earth's atmosphere. These concentrations were long before mankind started to emit large amounts of CO2. Even at the beginning of the most recent rise, this rise started before full-scale industrialisation took root.

You should also note that over the last 30 or so years the earth has become greener by about 6% in its area. See https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

In other words, the biosphere has developed a greater capacity than mankind's contribution to absorb CO2 yet the concentration is still rising. The source of this rise is therefore most unlikely to be mankind. An increase in CO2 is helping plants survive in arid conditions and so deserts are receding.

As a final observation, CO2's effect as a green house gas, because of its tiny concentration in the atmosphere, is negligible when compared to the effect of water vapour. I find it worrying that people with degrees in engineering, particularly mechanical engineering where there is often a strong emphasis on thermodynamics, would not immediately and intuitively appreciate that the posit CO2 is causing warming of the earth's atmosphere borders on the fantastic.

What kind of aliens? Are they green? Do they breathe from gills? And do they travel in flying saucers?

I've read about this stuff in The National Enquirer!

Do you not understand jest sir? It is an understatement. Green aliens are more believable than GW dangers of destroying the planet. But you can pick any color you like. I like green with purple polka dots? Can we agree that this would be more believable than the dangers of world wide government control of everything man uses in nature to prevent a vague and unprovable possibility of GW? Was chicken little right too? :)

I don't see anything wrong with GW. Heck, I like longer summers, longer growing seasons, more vegetation, vineyards in England, low heating bills. If the sea rises a foot or two because of it, so be it. It's not like it will happen overnight, its not a flood. It would take at least 100 years or more. It's called planet evolution. It does it all the time

It is the GW alarmists that worry me. This is not political, it is the nature of man being misused by the deceitful and greedy for control. Using the dreams of man by distorting his historical belief in a utopia, the original meaning being " no where" into something, once used as a philosophical argument, as being possible. As Sam Adams once said, "It does not It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." Just look at today's headlines for examples.

This may be off topic but for more on the misuse of utopia see Irving Kristol's 1973 article at:

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/utopianism-ancient-and-modern-april-1973/

It's a long read but very rewarding. Draw you own conclusions.

"Another day, another chance to excel."

I think an alien laser gun is the biggest threat to our planet. Nah nu nah nu!

There is a saying in science that correlation is not causation. Yes, the CO2 is rising sharply in the atmosphere. No doubt about that. It is the cause for this that is in question. I feel it is unlikely that mankind is responsible for this. And yes, since the 1800's mankind's output of CO2 has increased markedly but, over the last 70 years, this planet has become greener by around 6% of its total land area. (Prochlorococcus and other ocean phytoplankton are responsible for 70 percent of Earth's oxygen production. However, some scientists believe that phytoplankton levels have declined by 40 percent since 1950 due to the warming of the ocean.) So we have a situation where the ability of the earth to absorb CO2 has risen markedly compared to the increase by humans and yet the CO2 levels are still increasing. Something does not compute.

The warming of the oceans, if it is happening at all, (and I think there is good evidence to suggest it may be) might be more the result of increased solar activity rather than CO2 which has a minor effect when compared to other gases and vapours such as methane and water vapour.

So it is all a bit confusing and complex! I think I agree with Professor Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology, Western WA University. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofXQdl1FDGk

Hope you find this interesting.

By the way, I do think you're an intelligent man and I like hearing your side of the argument. Please don't take my comments the wrong way - I'm just trying to make a point that as an individual, neither YOU, nor I, nor anyone here on this site can make a difference, so why use our personal energy on something that we can't do anything about? Instead, we can and should focus our energy on solving things that we can do something about.

I hope this makes sense.

And thank you for presenting your side. I appreciate it.

In an indirect way, you got the idea of my post.

If GW exists, what can be done? And for those who believe it's a problem, if you (personally) cen't solve the problem, why argue and make enemies?

Instead, use your knowledge and influence to solve problems that you can do something about.

I think overpopulation is a huge problem, however what can I do to solve it? Unfortunately, nothing, so taking my own advice, I need to put my energy toward other problems.

Regarding: "...what can I do to solve it? Unfortunately, nothing".

You under-rate yourself. Please read https://www.nvtech.com.au/Projects/Nicaea.html

It has a lot to do with changing the environment in which we as a global community exist. Through access to information and education we gain the ability to hear all sides of an argument and to have the knowledge to properly form our own opinion on matters such as man-kind driven climate change.

If it resonates with you, please pass it onto your friends and colleagues and ask them to do likewise.

You and I and everyone else can change this world to make it a better place by making it affordable to gain unfettered access to information, education and commercial opportunities. Technology can provide this capability but it has to be affordable for everyone and readily available.

Mankind owes its progress to the sharing of information. Open Source Software is a perfect example of this and it could be one of a number of things that could be the saviour of the human race.

I don't think YOU or I can do much. Why? Let's say there are four camps regarding GW.

1. Believe it's caused by burning fossil fuels

2. Not sure - don't believe either way.

3. Are sure it's not caused by fossil fuels.

4. Don't care. It's not important to them.

For group #1, they believe it's we humans that are causing the problem, but what are they doing about it. Driving EV's? Using Solar power? Working for a "green" company? Some are doing a lot, some are doing a fair amount and some are doing very little or nothing. Just facts here.

For group#2, the don't know, so why should they alter their lifestyle for something they're not sure about. They may do a little, but the commitment isn't there.

For group #3, they don't believe it, so most aren't going to do much.

For group #4, they don't care, so they're not going to do much.

If YOU want to change things, then you're going to have to get a large number of group #1 people, and nearly all the people in groups 2-4 to make a change. People don't like change and they don't want to be bothered, so you can do your best and try to make a difference, but with over 7.5 billion people in this world, you're not going to have much success. It's just the facts.

If YOU want to change things, then you're going to have to get a large number of group #1 people, and nearly all the people in groups 2-4 to make a change. People don't like change and they don't want to be bothered, so you can do your best and try to make a difference, but with over 7.5 billion people in this world, you're not going to have much success. It's just the facts.

And that's why we should start the educational process in the elementary schools. It will be quite difficult to convince adults, but kids will carry the new concepts as they age. Trouble is, effective change will take decades.

Teaching our kids is absolutely necessary for any change to take place, IF one believes that we're the cause of GW.

My own personal belief is that we humans are doing things to cause GW, but I have no proof and it's just based on things I've read and my own thoughts. There are many very, very smart scientists who say it's not us that's causing GW, or that it doesn't exist. Those scientists have made an impact on my thoughts on GW and even though I still have my belief, it's not as strong as in the past. I also understand that there is a political agenda involved, which keeps the true facts hidden (or harder to find).

I realize that I, as ONE person, cannot make even the smallest dent in the planet reducing it's use of fossil fuels.

There are many smart scientists who say it is not us who are causing GW, but those scientists are not climatologists. The overwhelming majority of people who actually study it are convinced it is real, it is caused by humans, and it is a great danger.

You might have heard about that letter signed by 30,000 scientists disputing GW. What most people have not heard is that most of those people have a little bit of training in some kind of science, and some of them are actually working as scientists, but almost none of them are actually working on climate.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/sep/08/blog-posting/no-30000-scientists-have-not-said-climate-change-h/

If we take your side and say it's true, then what can YOU as an individual do? Can you make even the tiniest dent in the melting of ice caps or the strange weather patterns we've seen?

I do what I can personally, though all my myself I don't make much difference to the climate. I drive a hybrid. My home is so well insulated that I hardly ever need to use air conditioning, and even in the car I use air conditioning as little as I can. I reduced the amount of beef I eat. I moved closer to work to reduce my commute. I grow a lot of my own food. When I am going with friends to any kind of event, and my friends own SUV's or minivans, I volunteer to drive everyone in my hybrid instead. I vote. I live in a house that gets all its energy from solar panels.

There are things only governments can do. I have contacted my representatives to Congress and to my state government to support all efforts to reduce emissions. Letters go a long way in blue states. Governments can do a lot to influence people's behavior without being heavy-handed about it. There are several cities locally who have opted to stop buying energy from the regional power company and start buying the energy from renewable sources only, and even installing local microgrids with distributed solar.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04122017/microgrid-emergency-power-backup-renewable-energy-cities-electric-grid

We cannot each do anything by ourselves to reduce global warming, but on the other hand we cannot by ourselves do anything to cause it either. It takes millions of people to either cause or reduce it. We have collectively caused it. We can collectively reduce it too.

"We cannot each do anything by ourselves to reduce global warming," Why do you say that, when you have just given a significant list of thing you have done and are doing?

The items you have listed are all good, and should be done, whether or not humans have made a significant contribution to global warming, simply to preserve as much resources as possible for future generations.

Unfortunately, even "millions of people" is a tiny fraction of the world's population. As long as the world's population continues to grow, there can only be mitigation of the problem; there can't be a solution.

When I got married, over 50 years ago, I believed that the world was overpopulated (at ≈3.3 billion), and of course it has considerably more than doubled since then. I believe my(our) greatest contribution to limiting everything that might contribute to global warming was our decision not to have children!

EDIT: I forgot that I had mentioned that back in post 161...

Unless humans can find an acceptable way to limit population, sooner or later nature will do it for us, and that won't be a pleasant occurrence!

I agree DK! This world is already overpopulated and it's growing at an alarming rate - over 80 M/year. To put this into perspective, every year our planet is growing by an amount slightly below the population of California + Texas + New York. That absolutely mind boggling!

I think that nature has been trying to limit our population, but our smarts keep it from happening, that is until something comes around that we can't figure out. I believe that it will happen in my lifetime and there's nothing that we can do. Will it be GW that causes too much climate change? Or a new plague? Starvation? Or a wild card that nobody is expecting?

I think it could well be a combination of global warming causing droughts and floods, displacing millions of people, and causing wars. New plagues are always a possibility, especially as people push into jungles where exotic viruses hide. And refugees are far more vulnerable to all the old standard plagues like cholera.

Or some new bug that our antibiotics won't kill!

I meant that I could completely eliminate my emissions, and by itself that would not help. The effect would not be zero, because it is possible to actually calculate the very tiny effect, but that tiny effect would not help. It is only when everybody is doing it that combined effects add up and start making a real difference.

You are right that millions of people is only a tiny fraction of the world's population, but that fraction accounts for a higher amount of emissions per person. That is a good place to start and to set a good example for the rest of the world, and by the way make a lot of money exporting the technology to the rest of the world.

I'm glad we're in agreement that as an individual, you nor I can't do anything.

However, I differ in your thought about what we can do as a nation. Here's why; We could be the most "green" nation in the world, yet the rest of the world is polluting much more than we are. How do we force other nations to be better stewards to our planet? Can the POTUS force China to reduce emissions? How about India? Indonesia? Maybe a tiny bit of influence, but they're growing countries and pollution isn't a big concern to them. Plus, their citizens haven't been taught to be good to Mother Earth, so without the education, their belief system is based on getting ahead financially, not worrying about their pollution.

I suggest we should not try to "force" any country to do anything. We can enter into agreements with them, but even then the best thing is to develop technologies that other countries can use to leapfrog the high-emission technologies that the West used in the industrial revolution, directly into clean technologies. That is happening in many, many places. If we make them efficient and cheap, everybody benefits. Lifestyles improve without the need for CO2 emissions. People cooking with solar energy instead of wood fires have less lung cancer, and women who once needed to gather firewood are safer from wild animals and human rapists. There are many plans for making a solar cooker, and I have built them and used them myself. There are often competitions for the best solar cooker designs in sunny areas.

https://www.solarcookers.org/

Even a simple improvement such as "rocket stoves" can reduce emissions and improve lifestyles.

https://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-a-Rocket-Stove-from-a-10-Can-and-4-So/

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/17/efficient-wood-burning-rocket-stoves-masonry-heaters-dakota-fire-pits/

I don't believe nations like China will do anything without coercion from us. They have a much different set of morals and values. They've been stealing our technology, copying our trademarked goods and dumping cheap products on us. I do business with the Chinese and in general they are the most difficult to work with. Everything must be in writing and described PERFECTLY. If not, they'll dump some junk on you. For instance, a good friend just tried to buy auto parts from a manufacturer. The contract was very vague, something like 300 cases of automobile headlights to be delivered FOB to the port by 10/1/18 - price $12,000. He felt okay about it, since they agreed on the specifics, each case has 500 HID bulbs, color temp xxx and so many H7, H11, etc. He didn't push them to put all the specifics on the he believed that Asian people had honor and wouldn't cheat him. Months later, what he got was not what was promised. 300 cases of light bulbs that were freshly produced, but not what was agreed. He told me it was a complete waste of money and time. He complained to the Chinese trade board and they told him that the seller met the contract, so there was nothing that could be done.

All you have to do is look at the pollution in Shanghi! It's worse than Beijing. They have a bigger problem than air pollution - their corporate bond market is a complete disaster and they're experiencing a slowdown in their economy. Not to mention, we're putting pressure on them to be "fair" about their business polcy - fair trade is only one part.

The Chinese have the advantage that they can just order things done and they happen. They are leading the world both in installed base and in the rate of increase, but because they are so large the percentage of their power from solar and wind is still lower than the US.

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

They don't need incentives from us. Here's a quote from an analyst from 2015, and they have gone much farther since then:

As the nation with the largest population and carbon footprint, China’s clear commitment to renewable energy is encouraging. As of 2015, China is the largest producer and buyer of solar panels. The vast majority of photovoltaic products, or solar panels, is being installed in remote areas by giant solar farms that sell the energy to utilities. Satellite imagery shows the incredible growth of these enormous solar farms that continue to pop up all over China.

China’s drastic increase in solar power stems from the nation’s desperate need for electricity and its severe air pollution crisis. While Germany and other nations have curbed incentives to install solar panels, China’s government is aggressively encouraging financial institutions to give incentives for solar installations.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/092815/5-countries-produce-most-solar-energy.asp#ixzz5WOb26dmi

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/06/china-worlds-largest-floating-solar-power/

And then India is also getting into the act:

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/countries-behind-global-renewable-energy-growth/

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/this-indian-state-produces-more-wind-power-than-sweden-or-denmark/

That is good to hear. I know they've been using a lot of coal. I don't think they have pollution standards to uphold.

Its already being done in our government run schools. It's current form is indoctrination as only one side of the argument is being taught. The one that promotes more government control, of course. (Google Report from Iron Mountain. Some say it's a hoax but its never been debunked, you decide).

Let's teach them how to think, not what to think.

Personally I have been following this ship since the 70's when as an Art Student I watched the civil engineering department at Umass Amherst build one of the first net zero demonstration homes, super insulation, solar, and a three bladed airfoil windmill the has become the standard design for large scale wind. A light went on in my head, we live on a small ball of dirt and rock and only can live on the surface in a very fragile film of gas held in place with gravity and magnets!

Things that I have been doing won't make me a saint, but I reclaimed an abandoned building for home and work (no commute) and insulated/improved it to the point that the net energy is about 20% of what it was. I need a truck to do my work but have never bought 4wd, ride a bike more days than drive. The big one is doing education projects with children in schools and science museums. Think Curious George.

Today I am realy starting to think it may be too late. All the people who have made an effort to open peoples eyes were too slow. The circulation of the Atlantic thermocline is starting to slow rapidly, down 15% in the last ten years. Some of you may have noticed the strange Spring we have had because the jet stream is weakening because the temperature at the North Pole for part of the winter (when it is dark 24 hrs) has been above or close to freezing, not minus 60 degrees as it should be. I think that the human made impact has triggered a transformation and we all had better get ready for it. We are going to live on a planet with very different weather, deserts in new places, all large wild animals will be gone (elephants, lions, no boney fish at all just jellies) much of the variety and richness of our ecosystem will be gone.

The main thing that will survive is stupidity, just because there is so much of it.

I've also been following this ship for awhile.. late 80's-early 90's was the time that I joined with others to try to raise public awareness of concerns about the environment including climate change. Even then we were treated as "lunatic fringe" and most of our efforts to push for environmental responsibility could be classed as complete failures. At the time just using a cloth shopping bag was considered a civil disobedience and caused an uproar at the checkout. In other venues we were ignored or treated to insults.. yes, you had to be willing to suffer personally for publicly espousing such views.

After some valuable life lessons I came to the conclusion that the only way that change could occur, is if viable alternatives were made available and on a sound economic footing. I felt that the best way to bring about change was to create positive economic alternatives. While I personally failed in my attempts to reach that goal, it is a fact that many others succeeded. I am simply amazed at how much the world has changed since then, and most of all the extent to which the ideal of environmental stewardship has been embraced by the general public, so that alternative products are the fast growing sectors of the economy. The deniers who claim that 'climate change' was fabricated to line somebody's pockets - are evidently suffering from some serious sour grapes. Consumer preference for more sustainable alternatives is simply a fact now. Major enterprises that want to retain market share are making changes, and those who don't will ultimately be left with their losses.

As regards the question of climate change itself, I tend to agree with you that the time for preventing it has passed. That is not to say that efforts to reduce the human contribution are worthless, but only that we also need to go further, and develop what is necessary to survive the impacts which cannot be prevented.

I was a 'solatic' (Like Lunatic) for quite some time and continue to do so.

I bought a solar panel, when it cost INR225/- per watt. Subsequently, the prices started coming down, and presently stand around INR35/- per watt.

My small installation is having two 10 watt LED tube lights, and one 18 watt pedestal fan, all running on 12 VDC. I have a 70 watt thin film panel (Bought when it was INR 75/- per watt, an electronic charge controller, that cost INR1250/-, and a 100 AH sealed battery (Not tubular), and I used copper conductor of 4sq.mm. I am working this system for the last 4 years, and had to change the charge controller once. May be, I need to change the battery after an year or so.

I produce around 450 watts a day and my maximum consumption is around 400 watts. Since the storage capacity of the battery is 1.2 KW, even if there is total blackout of sun(Which seldom happens) my system keeps on working at least for three days.

I try to tell people that this could be a good alternative to grid, especially when it is not available, and even if available, outages could be dealt with without any issue. Now that, our southern Telugu states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana in India started to purchase power at higher rates to give continuous power, no one is interested in this alternative.

I am happy, and since we use this system for normal regular use in the kitchen and dining area, we do not even care when the grid power fails, unless while watching TV. I could not come round to having sufficient Solar power to work a TV, since it is very capital intensive and not worth the trouble at the moment.

All the governments do is to encourage Solar parks of multimega watt range, which are totally supported by politicians, who invest in them, but do not care to offer any incentives for home use.

We have to live with the shortsightedness.

If every house has at east illumination with 12VDC LED, good savings could be effected. Unfortunately, all appliances, including TVs, motors need much more investment and is not economic at all, compared to the price, the governments are giving at.

Small drops make an ocean. If every one has their own solar power station, the grid would be that much less loaded, and most grids have fossil fulled power stations, some CO2 emission could be reduced.

Where is the battery room? Can they be used in a winter climate?

Success is defined as the situation described by the phrase "I am doing all I can."

In short, if it gets warmer, enjoy!

If you want to drive a Tesla, buy one.

I agree we should focus on problems that we can solve!

Getting on top of waste would be far more beneficial for the environment than crippling the very foundation of the civilisation.

Rant on!

Only one example, the rift that goes through the society created by the climate belief system is bound to be long-lasting, its heavily imprinted in society, its thought on schools as part of indoctrination and not education, it splits scientist, engineers, left of right, young and old, every country, every passion even families in parts, destroys friendships, the scientific method and politic culture simultaneously, this is a dictatorship: CO2 the bad thing, any positive about it Cannot Be Named,

Isn't this the stuff great wars are made from?

I hope not!

When analyzed and distilled to its fundamental one can’t deny that the root cause of climate change today is humanity itself. From deforestation, large scale commercial agriculture, urban sprawl, hydrocarbon fuel burning and the destruction of oceanic ecosystems, just about everything humanity does as its population grows is detrimental to this planet. Yet all the focus seems to be solely on the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, when in actuality it is truly just the tip of the melting iceberg.

As I see it this planet we live on has ample feedback mechanisms to maintain itself and ensure biologic diversity. What humanity is doing today from an environmental standpoint is providing their own specific negative feedback, and given time it will lead to a correction and the human function stabilized to something sustainable. Any effort humanity makes to reduce the amplitude of that negative feedback will only delay the inevitable.

So if , as an individual you want to make a difference, amp up the feedback and get on with the only real fix.

The root cause of climate change is man Natural variation!

In fact natural variation is what we see not "Climate change" but no one wants to say this word" Natural Variation".

Its is widely accepted that it does not rain every day, the sun does not shine brightly without clouds every day, there is wind but not yesterday, and there was snow that we have not seen since 5 years as high as this, and there is another temperature record never seen for over 10 years...

and yet climate in the official definition is measured minimum over 30 years, its has all sorts of weather in there, with all the little highs and lows, each a variation of the other, and a natural variation at that!

And we insist that climate has to be constant, unmovable, yes we even favour the cold over the warm and because of what???

I agree that there is other pressing matters. But why on Earth can we not put our finger on the topic of deforestation without even naming climate change. Its not the climate that is making the forests disappear so quick. Its partially even the use of the land for energy plants - what a self-fulfilling prophecy!

Overfishing has nothing to do with Climate change! The fish would not care less about one degree more or less in atmospheric temperature. The fun old story of "Ocean acidification" has no merrits. If all the CO2 would go in solution, there was none left to warm the Earth right? Now we have too much CO2 in the Atmosphere, but it also manages to "pollute" the oceans? Its a bit of a double booking, which makes famous bankers looking lame.

What are those feedbacks you are talking about?

Do you mean similar things like bringing people out of poverty, reduces child hood death and then reduces average family size, with impact on population growth, which some people are concerned about? But if it is the same people that do not want "fossil" fuels to lift people out of poverty they make things at least not better, which will hang up in a cycle or provide for a negative feed back.

Is it such things you are talking about?

I am totally onboard with the concept of learning from history - including geological history and climate history. What really blows me away when I look at the geological/climate past, is the fact that our present culture, population, and knowledge of what the heck is going on, could never have occurred without the wierd climate anomaly in which we enjoyed ten thousand years of relative stability.

Without our huge population and economy we would never have the engine to drive new technology, and the science that makes it possible to understand what we are a part of.

Setting aside the preoccupation with our own role in climate change, one could easily say it is inevitable that our period of climate stability would end. However it would be foolish to deny that the opportunity existed for us to survive as a species, prolong to a small extent the benefits of climate stability, and develop technologies that are adaptive to extreme climate variation, with the knowledge and science benefits that have accrued to us in the time of stability.

[FYI: Deforestation is a cause, not an effect, of climate change. Fish do in fact care about degrees of difference in ocean temperature (why even bother to mention atmospheric temp?).]

I am not sure what you are trying to say. If this a precursor to advocate for geo- or climate engineering - then NO - we do not need this.

Humans have a proven track record of adapting to the worst climates on this planet cold and hot. There is no need to change. Technology even enables us to support our own little micro climates in our houses, which makes us even more independent from weather or climate.

I bothered mentioning atmospheric temperature because that where the climate change is perceived to happen.

Ideasmith, your comments miss a lot of the science related to the ocean. For example, 1 degree temperature rise if sustained in the Pacific is an El Nino event, and that is enough to kill off the majority of the coral reefs. Also, 1 degree temperature rise allows the oceand to absorb more CO2 which in turn changes the ph of the water. It is enough to prevent animals like clams and other crusty things from being able to form their shells. The food chain does not refer to the trucks that bring the white bread and ground beef to your grocery store from the bakery and feedlot. The intricate web that millions of years of evolution have woven between the animals and plants on our small planet is finely tuned to a particular steady state of weather and average temperature.

Do you know how average historic average temperature was recorded? Only recently, maybe 20 or so years ago, someone realized that ship navigators since Columbus have been sailing all over the globe and recording the time, position, and temperature! Scientists have combed historic shipping records for that information, so thare is a pretty good record from the start of the Industrial Revolution, the cause is clear to all but two or three scientists.

The problem is that too many people think that their political opinion changes the truth regardless of how much information is brought to them. Fish probably don't care if the water is one degree warmer even if it kills off their food supply. People do not seem to be much smarter.

A one degree temperature change wii kill the ocean?

Interesting you should say that. Only next time you eat mussels from fresh water sources check if the shells are weak and almost dissolved.

If we are talking about science, did you know that the pH value is temperature dependent?

Did you also know that the old sea farers hardly ever recorded pH value and that even the IPCC in one of their reports acknowledges that there not enough measurements available to even make an educated guess? They still did. But there ya go with "smart people".

Ideasmith, nice try changing the topic to freshwater mussels, an entirely different topic, but I don't fall for that kind of tactic any more.

Here is a good explaination of what is being observed by people actually going out and looking at the ocean ( http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification) it explains the facts, like the ph has only been studied for the past 30 years as it was once assumed to be constant and nobody bothered to look at it. The ph has changed from 8.2 and now is 8.1 (30%, that is a logrithmic scale so the percentage is much more, ph4 is 100 times ph5, 10 x 10 for example) and is probably going to go another .3-.4 points lower (more acidic).

One degree C in the Pacific last year killed off 70% of the coral reefs, 30% may not ever recover. This is a keystone ocean habitat that underpins much of the living things in the ocean.

Here on the East coast we are getting "toxic" algea blooms because of the warmer waters, these pretty much kill all the fish in the water. These algea tixins can areosol and affect people on shore. Maybe nature will "cleanse itself" of the harmful organisms dirtying the water and air.

You can stay home in your airconditioned home, and humans may still be able to find food, but the rest of the planet will turn brown around you and when you leave your house there will not be any birds singing or fish in the sea.

That is a lot of nonsense you throw at us.

You are fully engulfed in the alarmist propaganda. The coral reefs are a favored topic by the alarmists. Does CO2 cause them harm or warmer waters? You are aware that climates have been very much warmer in the past but sea life has not died form it. Likely sea life flourished.

Oceans acidity is another favored topic. Ocean may become a little less alkaline but for sure not acidic. They have never been and will never be. An acidic ocean would mean the end of life. That has never happened and never will. All just intended to scare people.

Have a look at possible alternative causes for coral reef's stress. Could it be the pesticides neonicotinoids that enter the oceans eventually? It is a chemical. The plastic material certainly will not be helpful. Why do we (the politicians and leaders of the world) not tackle such issues. Bees are dying a mass, not from CO2 or warming but from pesticides.

You are just repeating the leftist political agenda. Either you get paid for saying so or you are just ignorant, part of the sheep and just repeat the blabber what the alarmists say without any scientific foundation.

Please vote this message OT, it shows me that I am right. I will see how many I can get.

Floram, I'm sorry for you if the little bit of information that I shared with you is too much. When you start labeling the people who have been spending years actually on the ocean "leftist" and "alarmist" you point out why I personally am not optomistic that this problem will be solved in time. I shared with you a link to one of the many science/education sites that have been collecting this information, I didn't express it as my opinion. If you can leave your political sites behind and go to sites that are the definition of "scientific foundation" and read for a while you might understand the problem, maybe.

And yes, the geologic record shows, the oceans have become more acidic in the past, and great extinctions happened during those times.

Science is not about Left vs Right, it is about collecting the facts. I am not a researcher, but have worked with them a both New England Aquarium and Woods Hole (yes I did get paid for my work). Grungy kind of boat shoe wearing folks who spend a lot of time on and under the water trying to understand it. Good people.

Unfortunatly the power to react to the facts being collected is often in the hands of people who flunked science in school but are realy good at cowing people with dispariging name calling like "sheep" "blabber" and "alarmist".

If you want to stick to the fact why do you not measure the pH in fresh water? then you go and think about how the mussels survive.

You do think this has nothing to do with your claim that a slight decrease in pH, which is not even acidic, has such a devastating effect on sea life?

You are wrong, and the claim that a slight decrease in pH kills off reefs is bogus, sea shells survive daily changes in pH values due to temperature changes. I already said that pH is dependent on temperature. Did you ignore this fact?

What I really do not understand is that you know that the pH is logarithmic. Its something to do with concentration. So where do you think all the CO2 will be coming from that will get seawater (a very heavy buffered solution too) into the acidic state?

The top level of the oceans hold about 1000 Giga tons worth of dissolved carbon already. How much was added to change from 8.2 to 8.1? I thought we need all the CO2 to make the world warmer. And now you tell me we need it in the oceans to make it more acidic.

I am using a chemistry book from my school to access this. No need to look at any web site.

And mind you I do not say there is no coral bleeching. I am saying the cause is nothing to do with the pH value.

Fresh water is realy important, but 97% of the water on earth is oceans (71% of the surface) so a much bigger impact on the average temperature and life in general.

Coral bleaching happens ( this comes from scientists studying the problem, not my opinion) because of temperature rise of the water. The rise in ph, from 8.2-8.1 happened in a short period of time, that is why it is so dangerous. Sea animals are constantly imersed in the ocean, kind of like your organs in your body. What would happen if somone injected acid into your veins in order to change the ph? Your organs might not like it. As for the ph rise on the animals, that has been tested, and the shells do disolve faster than the animals can produce them at some point, over time.

How much carbon is in a supertanker load of oil? We are burning hundreds of them every day. 100 car freight train full of coal? Some power plants burn one per day. How much air is available? Athmospheric pressure is 14.7 psi, about. So a column of air from ground all the way up to vacuum is 14.7 lbs, that is not a lot of air compared to the mass if you took the same inch downward, maybe a few feet to get 14.7 lbs of dirt. But we live in the air, not the dirt. And can only live in the first two miles of it.

CO2 has risen from 300 to 400 ppm because of the carbon being burned. That is a big change. More CO2 causes fruit trees to grow faster but develop less fruit (yes somonne built a greenhouse and actually tested what would happen, science, not my opinion) .

Just the 1.5 billion cows we eat every year are producing 150 billion kg of methane which is 80 time better at trapping heat than CO2.

You truly seem to believe what you are writing there. So lets keep to the facts:

Mussels do survive in fresh water which has a much lesser pH value.

It is correct that our oceans are mainly responsible for the climate.

Coral bleaching attributed to temperature changes is short sighted and misses a lot of other impacts. Tell me how is it possible that the Great Barrier Reef which stretches over 2300 km and thrives in temperature differences of over 5 Degree C on its Northern and Southern part and daily temperature changes of 3-4 degree C, how can they survive?

This temperature change induces daily change of the pH value similar of what you tell us is lethal for the corals. How does this work?

A pH of 8.2 and a pH of 8.1 is not acidic. And as I say the corals are well adapted to temperature and pH changes.

Shells do not dissolve in Seawater and more so they do not dissolve in fresh water either, which is much closer to being acidic than sea water ever will be.

If you worry about CO2 then just imagine that your breath has a hundred times higher concentration of CO2 than whats in the atmosphere.

You are kidding yourself when you compare a ton of oil to the calculated weight of air above you. But if you are really worried then think about all the HydroTwoOxygen that is produced when burning oil and gas.

You know that ppm is parts per million. I would not call this a big change. Its like having three of four cents in 10000 Dollars. You call that a lot? Sounds like cracking a Jackpot.

For your information CO2 is added to greenhouses not to get less fruit out but more. Whoever told you its less fruit, has told you a lie!

This CO2 business is well beyond the testing phase.

About the Methane, should we not go and burn all Methane if it is that potent? What do you think?

Just for the record, freshwater mussels and marine mussels are not only different species, but different subclasses. In general marine mussels don't live in fresh water at all.

And your point is?

Fresh water mussels live in fresh water, who would have thought! Do they have a diamond shell? Something different?

Or just plain good old CaCO3?

It seemed to me that there might have been some confusion about whether the mussels were able to live in both salt water and fresh water, and were tolerating the change from one to the other. I was just clarifying that they are not able to tolerate both kinds of water. Just for the record, as I said.

The misunderstanding that you pretend you had is well understood!

IdeaSmith! THANK YOU!

You got my message! And you added something beneficial - the damage that all this GW talk does and the indoctrination of our kids. It splits our country, our scientists, destroys friendships! You GET IT! If we can't do anything about it, why get so worked up. To the point we go to war???

Instead, why not be great leaders and focus our energy on things we can change? That's my message.

Thanks for sharing!

Autobroker, in post #48 Ideasmith spell out the problems.

Why do you suggest that we cannot do anything? Your second last sentence is meaningless. You are giving up by offering doing things we can control. We all must fight the present dictatorship. This is the essence here.

This forum and many other forums and web sites are a good beginning. Thanks for starting it. We can do the following and much more:

We should strive for an open discussion as any scientific theses is approached. It must be on a courteous level without character assassination as is common practice by the alarmists. We must expose the dictatorial nature of GW / CC and must argue on every occasion and opportunity against the overpowering by the globalists, also on the municipal level of government. We should ask to get rid of the smart electricity meters that emit harmful microwaves.

We must get our school curriculum back from indoctrination to teaching what is true.

We must fight a one world global government as it will be nothing more than a socialist dictatorship with dire consequences as shown by history in China and Russia. Perhaps arguing on that front will make the people better understand the danger on hand?

We must also fight that CO2 is not a pollutant but is beneficial all around. It is actually helping greening the planet and to increase food crops to feed the people. There is no 'carbon pollution' possible in a carbon based environment.

Another major point is overpopulation. First of all there is none and secondly, do we all agree that half of us (or more) should be killed for the claimed benefit of future generation who will not have the technology anymore as it has been destroyed?? What nonsense is that? Again we must point to the millions that were killed in the past by the socialist states in China, Russia and other places where socialism was rearing its ugly head.

The present political climate is way beyond GW/CC.

I think we can do a lot. I see lately that articles for CC do not allow comments anymore. That also must be fought. At times there is a comment section but any comment that is written is not being published. That too is fraud. I know because I experienced it.

We all must understand, speak up and realize what is at stake. Do we all agree on elimination of free enterprise, private property and private ownership? That is the issue here. GW/CC is only a tool towards that end to force people into submission and agree for the sake of a better future climate. For me the climate is fine as it is.

I appreciate your honesty. I wish there is something I can do, but I have to be honest with myself. It does me no good to tell myself that I can make a difference one way or another. Having a civilized discussion is a great thing, but unless something new and groundbreaking comes up, this topic has been beaten to death.

The problem with this topic is that both sides jump at the chance to show their knowledge off and to beat up the other side for not agreeing with them. While we should be using our knowledge to help others solve their problems - one of the tenets of this site and of being an engineer/scientist - we're instead finding ways to put others down.

My goal of this post is to get everyone off the GW argument and have us all agree that there's nothing any one of us can do (personally), so let's forgive each other for the past comments and work together to solve new problems. I'm a very busy man and I don't get to this site as often as I'd like, but when I do, I find the dialog to be not only interesting, but well thought out and the intelligence here is phenomenal. I've said it before and I'll repeat it here; these are some of the smartest people I come in contact with.

I've come here looking to solve problems and have received helpful answers. I've also come here to help and hope my posts have been useful - or at least entertaining.

I think you get my reasoning and I ask that you support what I'm trying to accomplish.

I wish I could give you 100 GA's! You get it!

It's very sad to see brilliant minds working against each other to prove or disprove that a problem exists - a problem where the solution can't be found.

Keep up the good work and spread the news! And let's hope others stop focusing on GW and work on solving solvable problems!

IdeaSmith, as far as I can see the only people who are trying to discredit the scientific method are the deniers. All over the planet scientists are collecting information on the health of our environment, and have been for years. How many deniers are getting up off of their podiums and spending a season in the Arctic? Or diving in the Great Barrier Reef? These folks are the ones bringing science to classroms, not the ones who think that the collection of data is a political opinion.

Gallaleo was the original Left Wing scientist, executed by the Conservatives of his time because the truth that he presented was inconvenient and threated their way of life. Conservatives have always blocked the solution to any long term problem that society faces. Over time they are always wrong.

Every once in a while the "foundation of civilization" needs to be reset. Do we need heated homes , or do we need homes heated with coal and oil? Do we need transportation, or do we need ICE powered SUVs? Engineers and scientists can solve this problem, we just need to set them free.

Scientists are not split, humans are the cause of the warming, stop trying to insist otherwise. The same individuals and family that promoted the Red Scare and McArthisim that split our country in the 1950's with their propaganda, the Koch family are spreading the same bad news today, look it up, it should be taught in school. They have mastered the art of puppetry and seem to be pulling strings and making some loose their family and friends, according to you. What is positive about that?

Let's free the those Lefty scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who want to cripple our broken carbon stained civilization and build one that can sing and dance.

Using the word "denier" puts you well in the class of gullible, media parroting, sensitive people that think with their heart and not with their brain. You seem to judge presented facts by your feelings about the offered consequences rather than by scientific methods to evaluate the real consequences.

Not every diver at the reefs is a green activist, and not every green activist that dives is exempt from impact on the reef from diving activities.

How much money has been diverted to the GW scam which could have helped the real problems. Deforestation was named, garbage piles in the oceans are another one. How much more could we achieve if we were not trying to fix a problem that does not exist and then even in a way that would not fix it at all?

The scientific method has been trampled on by the ones crying wolf and global warming, which now only is climate change, because they can fit in the cold spells and any other unforeseen climate variations that dilute the lie of global warming.

More snow and ice does fit into climate change and the pause of the warming had to be explained. They fit the data to the cause, because data does not fit the original mantra. They call scientists deniers if they come up with alternate interpretations, they destroy people for opposing the scam. The puppetry is in the words: The science is settled. This is quenching the debate not opening for scientific discussions.

If it was me I would send all warmists into the arctic for a prolonged period of time. They will surely find out why we need heated homes.

Claiming we need to reset the foundation of civilisation unmasks the whole GW exercise as a thread to mankind. Do you realise how damaging this is?

I cant fathom what you mean by " to set them free". But the alarm bells are ringing like hundreds cathedral bells. Is your last line a call to get rid of engineers and scientists? But then you can not cripple something that is already broken. You make no sense and my interpretation is a generous one!

You are, as your name also suggest, an artist, a dream dancer, who I would not trust with his judgment on who has lost the scientific method.

Singing and dancing does not warm the houses and keeps our society alive.

-

Global Warming what we really should do is to enjoy it.

Don't worry about it. I finally saw a report the other day that I have been expecting for about 20 years - the Gulf Stream is slowing down. I have been waiting for this, considering what is happening in the Arctic regions.The last time the Gulf Stream slowed way down, the Earth had an ice age. The Gulf Stream is why Paris France at almost 49º latitude is so warm. Compare the French winters to the northern fringes of Wisconsin, Minnesota and so on. This source of heat stops flowing, and bingo - Europe drops to where it should be in temperatures for north of the 45th parallel. Hans Brinker will be skating on the canals again in winter. They will be looking for more carbon footprint in Europe when the Gulf Stream starts shutting down.

partly to do with the fresh water influx of fresh water from the melt water from the polar regions that mixes with the heavier salt water. It messes with the oceanic conveyor belt.... that spells bad news for the U.K.

There is hope as long as the driving mechanism in the gulf is not giving up. There is two ends to the stream and if one engine keeps running it will provide to somewhere...

(And I hear ice ages never last. The next summer will be coming.)

Are we afraid of the cold? Should we be afraid of it? But only if we unlearned how to mine coal, drill for oil and how to best burn gas.

Hi All, I'll just throw in a bit of controversy with this one from the British Antarctic Survey. Scroll toward the bottom of the article to the heading "Abrupt Climate Changes". https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/ice-cores-and-climate-change/

The summary:

"Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analog for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century."

It's a fine example how a science report makes it sound like climate change might have anything to do with CO2, yet the one sentence that contains both buzzwords has two independent conclusions, and one has nothing to do with the other.

Remarkably they admit that sudden change is rather the norm and not unusual. Also CO2 content can change. Who would have thought?

The circumstances leading to the sudden changes are connected to the ocean heat transfer.

They say there is no analog to any climate predictions, and why would there be - CO2 was apparently never as high as is predicted in the future.

Well, maybe it will not be as warm in the future either. Comparing something that was never there with something that has not happened yet leaves reality behind.

In this conclusion it reads like an excuse for making the first statement of variable climate, so the climate science inquisition can wave through the paper for at least goodwill in upholding the picture of a dangerous future.

BRAVO!!

Just a note from one of your moderators: Several participants in this discussion aren't part of the regular group, and I am very happy to see you joining in. Good initial post, Autobroker, and good, respectful, interesting discussion, everyone.

I love coming to this site, because some of the brightest people I know are here. There's so much that can be shared and using the synergistic power of collective intelligence helps solve problems that are considered impossible.

These guys here are great and I'm glad to be a part of it.

And thank you for your hard work to for keeping things civil. I know it can be a hard thing.

Thank you.

"From an engineering perspective the GW issue is never going to have a solution since, in its current form, it is not a scientific issue but rather a political one."

To me, it is a scientific issue. I promise not to support any solutions that lead to tyranny, confiscation of private property, loss of freedom, and servitude. I just want to see the CO2 concentration start going down. If you were to separate the two issues, perhaps you could humor the people who really believe GW is a danger to humanity, without falling in line with any agenda to enslave humanity. I'm sure you could go along with some technical solutions that preserve freedom, such as helping homeowners become energy independent and save money. That seems like an empowering step that benefits individuals, not a step toward tyranny.

Why would you want CO2 to be going down?

CO2 does not add to Global Warming or Climate Change, it is harmless and very beneficial for plant and living things including humans.

There can never be 'carbon pollution' in a carbon based environment as exists on earth. CO2 is the good stuff, more is better.

To believe that CO2 is a pollutant I first would need to see proof. Newspaper articles and propaganda by the globalist is not proof. In fact I often ask for the scientific basis for CO2 to cause harm. I have not seen any. If you have, please let us know.

You believe that carbon does not add to Global Warming, and I believe it does. I go by the thousands of scientists who really understand the topic. I understand that you don't believe them, and I will not try to change your mind. There is nothing I could say that you would find convincing. But I can lay out why I believe it is causing the Global Warming we see today.

Like any other substance, whether it is harmless depends on where it is and how much of it there is, and what kind of effect it is having. Water is usually harmless and all life on Earth depends on it, but put too much in one person's lungs and it is harmful to that person. If I said I want to reduce flooding, you would understand that I am not against water, just against having too much of it in the wrong place. Fertilizer is beneficial in small quantities on farms, but when it is washed off into rivers, lakes and oceans it causes poisonous algae blooms. I am not against CO2, but I think we have too much of it in the wrong place.

CO2 is the "good stuff" only in very low quantities. "More is better" in some cases, like some plants grow faster, but they may have more carbon and less nutrients so that animals have to eat more to survive.

The current concentration in the atmosphere is 0.04%. I'm sure you know that in high enough percentages, like 7- 10%, it becomes lethal. Farmers using greenhouses use 1% CO2 to kill pests. It causes confusion and sleep disruption at 0.5% in the International Space Station. It has detectable negative cognitive effects starting as low as 0.1%. Note that this concentration is only about 3 times as high as the current concentration in the atmosphere.

Just for the record, the reason scientists think CO2 is the main cause of Global Warming is that it absorbs infrared radiation in a narrow range of wavelengths that water doesn't absorb. Most of its absorption in the relevant wavelengths overlaps with water, but by blocking this particular range, it blocks the little bit of infrared radiation that water was letting through. That means that when CO2 is added to the water vapor in the atmosphere, more heat is retained by the Earth, and it gets a little warmer. You can prove this much just by looking at the absorption spectrums of water and CO2. Arhennius realized this in 1896.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius#Greenhouse_effect

Then the question becomes, how much warmer is that "little bit"? It's not going to be zero, and it's not going to be huge, but the climate really is getting "a little bit" warmer, and the calculations by climatologists show that yes, the increase in CO2 really do account for a lot of that "little bit."

But the real problem is that that little bit of extra warmth can cause the climate to behave in strange new ways. As one example it makes the jet stream to move in big loops, allowing waves of heat to go to the Arctic and melt ice there, and waves of Arctic air to descend to the US causing bitter winters in places. It also means that the atmosphere holds more water vapor, so when it rains, it might rain far more, like in Houston with Hurricane Harvey. The oceans get warmer, which means that when a hurricane forms, it might be bigger and more destructive, like the hurricanes last year. It melts glaciers and ice sheets, which means that the oceans rise a little, or a lot, depending on how much melts. A little might be 2 or 3 feet. A lot might be anything from 15 feet (if the Greenland Ice Sheet melted completely) to 190 feet (if Antarctica completely melted). Those would take a very long time to happen, perhaps thousands of years.

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

Anyway, this is what I think is happening, as simply as I can put it. In my opinion, the fact that some people might exploit Globe Warming to advance some kind of political agenda does not make any of this less true.

Sorry about the length.

From you, Quote: “ I go by the thousands of scientists who really understand the topic”.

Hmm, who are these thousands? Name some prominent ones, please. In fact there are ~ 30,500 ‘real’ scientists who all signed a petition opposing the CW, considering it a swindle. The often quoted 97% of scientists you likely refer to are in fact only ~ 0.3%.

Thanks for being objective, I am the same. It makes no sense to accuse each other.

Your comparison of CO2 to water is a false one though. CO2 is an equally distributed atmospheric gas that cannot ‘flood’ a region or a place like water just like air or oxygen cannot cause a flood of itself.

The concentration of CO2 is presently at its low end. It can easily go to 2000 ppm as in a room full of people without any harm. CO2 in Submarines is allowed to go to that level for very long periods of time. Environmental CO2 has been much higher in the past. I trust you know that. As to what comes first, CO2 then warming or the other way around. History clearly shows warmer periods are followed by higher CO2 concentration. CO2 is a result not a cause of warming. BTW, below 200 ppm survival also becomes critical just as with too high levels that have never been in excess to cause death of living creatures. I think that argument is also invalid.

I read the Wiki article and was not impressed as you may guess. These heat absorption rates of CO2 are all theory. As far as I am aware attempts have been made to proof that theory without success.

The sites I am visiting show a reduction in number and strength of Hurricanes not and increase as you suggest.

The last wiki link on Warming is such a typical presentation of lies put out by NASA, NOAA, Al Gore, Michael Mann and the like. When I saw that I realized that you are looking at the mainstream media propaganda which has an agenda and nothing can change your mind. I should dig out some of the site I am looking at and post them here (again?) I’ll when time permits. The medieval temperature was warmer than now but the graph show it distorted and higher now which is a blatant lie. Of course, if you believe that you must argue the way you do. Let’s agree to disagree?

I am looking forward to warmer times that in the past always resulted in highly flourishing societies. Since earth temperature (not the false surface temperature at hot spots) have not increased since 1998 I am a bit worried if the warming really will continue. Remember the ‘pause’ which was the reason Global Warming was renamed to Climate Change. Nothing is above board or honest coming from the scaremongers / globalists.

You should also look at sea levels over time. Rises or 2-3 feet or 15 feet are totally out of the question even in 100 years or more and are bogus. These are Al Gore number. He predicted in the 90’s that in 10 years to polar caps will be totally free of ice among other impossible predictions such as the Himalayas would also be free of ice. Again the sea rise statements by you put you squarely in the grip of the leftist propaganda. Are you an engineer or scientist? Do you analyze things or do you just go by what is the political climate is. Many have said that it is political, not a scientific debate. I trust most would agree with that assessment.

Thank you.

I know you are right. I had one good answer but not for long when it moved down to 'almost good' where then I had two of those. By now both are gone.

Some people go through the list and look for my name and vote it down, likely unread. It is the plight of rightness. As per the bible, god said ‘forgive them as they do not know what they do’.

But not to worry, I switched. It now makes me proud rather than angry. I can tell who does it just by the various posts I responded to. I truly feel sorry for them.

It is crucial however to point out how it really is. The first problem is the mass media that Trump calls the fake news that publish incorrect information to further a political agenda. The second problem are the many uneducated who have no sense of technology / science and believe anything that is in the main stream news. These people cannot judge and believe low level unproven talk. They do not need proof they just believe = religion? Their proof is Wikipedia written by the public, likely their peers.

An example is how Al Gore used a fluctuating temperature graph and at its high point (before in-flexion) he continued the graph upwards and with ever steeper angle. How silly is that? If you are an investor and follow such advice you would lose your shirt. It is total nonsense, yet his followers take that as proof that temperature will go up further, Al Gore’s ‘inconvenient truth’. The followers cannot see that it is an outlandish and surely false claim. ‘Forgive them as they do not know what they do’ is all I can say. Going back to Al Gore’s graph, sure enough, the temperature reversed from his uptake point going down again, 1998.

I am just disappointed that at this forum of supposedly higher educated people, engineers and the science oriented are so many who believe the hogwash and believe people like Al Gore or Michael Mann with his Hockey stick scenario. All lies.

Where is the analysis?

As you might expect, I disagree with everything you say here, except for saying this is a political discussion. One side is presenting vast amounts of scientific evidence that global warming is happening and is a danger, and the other side is claiming it is all political and some kind of conspiracy, and will not believe any of the data. So yes, I agree that the "debate" is purely political.

I am mostly interested in the part where you say there is a danger in the GW that has been proven.

Can you point me to some links?

Sure.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has a page that lists them, with additional links for each one:

https://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts

Russia had an intense heat wave in 2011, that led to them banning exports of wheat:

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world/europe/06russia.html

South Florida is already having problems with flooding of streets and salt water displacing fresh water. Is falling real estate prices a danger or an inconvenience? Look here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-04-19/the-nightmare-scenario-for-florida-s-coastal-homeowners

There's a lot more.

Thanks.

So all these weather related issues are coming from the addition of less than one degree Celsius to the air temperature, which is a 3 hundreds (0.03) increase in energy content? This is massive.

How did heat waves and floods ever occur before that? They did, didn't they?

I read in the end that it is very unlikely that we get an abrupt climate change.

So we should be fine!

It is more accurate to say that these massive changes are accompanied by a about 1 degree change in air temperature, but that the big changes are due to the increase in temperature of the oceans and the melting of ice, both floating ice and glaciers.

For example, it is not only the air temperature that is heating up the Arctic, but the absorption of sunlight by open water that used to be covered by ice. The ocean is carrying the vast majority of the energy, and that also contributes to warmer air temperatures. Also, the distribution of the energy in the ocean, as in El Nino/La Nina years, causes fluctuations in the temperature of the atmosphere. That's why there have been several pauses in the increase of air temperature, while the temperature of the oceans has risen uniformly.

Climatologists used to be mystified as to where the heat was going on Earth. They could measure how much energy was entering the atmosphere, and they could measure albedo, air and water temperature, and infrared emissions, and they found a deficit. More energy was entering than leaving or being absorbed, and they couldn't find the energy. It turned out that the energy was being absorbed by the oceans and being mixed far deeper than they had assumed. Once they started measuring the top 1000 meters of the ocean instead of the top 100 or so, the deficit disappeared.

It is easy to dismiss the small change in energy content as being too small the make a difference. The problem is that the change is occurring within the phase change range of water, which magnifies the effect on the climate enormously. If you were talking about Mars, a degree of change, or even a much larger change, would not have much effect. Things would simply be slightly hotter or cooler. But on Earth it means enormously complicated feedback loops get altered, and the results are very difficult to calculate. More energy means more water evaporates, which means more greenhouse effect and more clouds and more precipitation as both rain and snow.

Dream on with your theoretical hogwash.

In the past nature has regulated earth's temperature on its own without the now 'intelligent scientists' who take it all apart and tell the world the little part they think they understand. They tell the world: 'look, there is a problem, we need to fix it'.

The underlying reason why the GW and CC exists is that the 'alarming scientists' claim that the fundamental Carbon Oxygen combination is the root case and we must eliminate it to 'save' the world. What arrogance, thinking we must interfere with nature so we can change nature and safe the world. What if more CO2 is for the better of the world. Warmer climates produce more crops and in the past has resulted in flourishing societies.

Do you know why the Roman society collapsed? Rome worked well when foreigners crossed through its borders to become Romans. It failed when newcomers flooded into the empire and adhered to their own cultures.

That is also part of agenda 21 and that is already being implemented. Getting rid of CO2 is part of it as well. It has nothing to do with earth's climate by the UN's own admission. All that is wanted is that the public 'believes' that there is a problem in order to agree to curtail fossil fuels that will bring the Western societies down, which is the aim. Massive amounts of bombardment based on false information is needed to convince the public. That is exactly what is being done, no more, no less.

The scientific know-all's, including you, are nothing more but pawns in the overall scheme of things. It works because you think you know when in reality you know very little. Lots of half knowledge.

You said that the one side (alarmists) has massive amount of scientific data. Properly identified, the one side has fallen to the massive propaganda, not scientific data. Nasa spelled out that massive data by the main stream media is needed to change the mind of the population at large. That is the reason for the overwhelming and excessive bombardment by the mayor News media, likely being paid for doing so. The real scientific data and information rests with the Skeptics' side.

This comment is not a reply to any, but a general observation.

This thread is soon getting woven into a rope. Unfortunately, the rope does not seem to offer sufficient strength, for any one to climb to a solution, to bring out our globe from sinking into the morass of GW !

Whether CO2, water vapour, Methane, or whateveris the cause, GW is palpable, and cannot be wished away. Finding out a method to bring it down is the need of the hour.

I am for creating an artificial cloud over densely populated towns, as an umbrella, should be a possible, economical and quick solution, just like opening an umbrella, during a sudden shower, or getting out in a hot sunny day. It would be comfort, though not a solution.

I like your second paragraph. Seems like there are passionate arguments on both sides, leaving me unsure what to believe is correct.

You regurgitating some well known mantras without scientific backing.

Your feed back loops should have overheated the tropics massively since eons. And yet, they are not the hottest parts on Earth.

Water in fact is a cooling agent on land and you will find that dry climates are hotter than wet climates.

It is correct that the Oceans are the driver of our climate, but to say that El Nino and LaNina can both exist in a warming Ocean is incorrect.

The missing heat is not missing at all, because we are getting told that the sun has not delivered much more or much less. So where is extra heat coming from?

Climatologists are still mystified since temperatures are not soaring up. They cannot explain why Antarctica has remained resilient against warming. The West Antarctic Ice shelf, this small part that seems to melt due to volcanic activity rather than air temperature change, is where they point the finger. They cry wolf once more for the wrong reasons.

You try to tell me that in a system that undergoes daily, seasonal and other periodic changes of over 40 degrees Celsius, one degree is a killer.

And because you are so out of touch with reality you do not realise that we are getting told that the glaciers are retreating. They usually grow if there is more new snow on top than what comes out one water on the bottom.

So you are telling me that warm means more precipitation, this means we are cooling since glaciers are retreating?

Think again!

Climatologists did not understand the apparent pause in the warming of the atmosphere until they realized the oceans were absorbing the heat.

So there is a pause? And you are saying they did not understand it until they measured in the deep see?

You actually dismiss with one stroke all the climate alarm by yourself. When did they find "heat" in the oceans again? Oh and up until then they had no clue.

Which is about 20 Years of climate alarm and you say they had it wrong.

Can I use this as a citation?

I would think the OT was not warranted. It explains exactly what we can do about GW - NOTHING.

Did you know that the first 8 m of the oceans have the same heat content that the whole atmosphere has?

Guess what, any blurb (we might call them El Nino) could give us some extra heat in the atmosphere.

So heat is stored in the oceans is nothing new.

That the oceans are the main climatic drivers is also nothing new.

What seems to be missing is how CO2 was supposed put the heat into the oceans. Did it have to be dissolved making it more acidic and heating the oceans at the same time?

How comes that with ever rising CO2 content all of the sudden heat goes into the oceans, hiding there, baffling the "climate scientist" for but only for one reason - They can not explain the discrepancy.

Think about it. CO2 up up up but temperature pause.

You pick a nice example to highlight the inconsistencies in their theory and modeling.

What they had wrong was that they expected temperature to go up up up. And now they have to make excuses of heat hiding in the deep oceans.

It is so unfair isnt it?

I mark mine not OT to give others the chance to do it.

Your belief that GW is a political farce may be true, but do you believe your post will change anyone's mind? For those who believe GW is a real problem, they won't believe a word you say. So, since the problem can't be solved by anyone here, why waste time and energy on it?

Instead, we can use our intelligence and wisdom helping others solve solvable problems.

What is really needed to permanently eliminate global warming is an inexpensive, pollution-free power source. Ideally, it would use the most common element in the universe, Hydrogen. It would have no moving parts. It would provide direct conversion of the most common element in the Universe, Hydrogen into AC power. It would be "smaller than a breadbox" (if anyone recalls what that is!) It would not require an interconnected network in order to function. Living "off the grid" will be a reality. It would have a continuous-duty MTBF of dozens of years. It's only failure mode would be to stop working. IOW no "dramatic" or "catastrophic" failures. The only "pollutant" is some waste heat and small amounts of water vapor. As an added benefit, a modified version of the basic unit would provide anti-gravity performance sufficient to easily get us 90% of the way to anywhere in the solar system. After some 20 years of incremental improvements, Brilliant Light Power (brilliantlightpower.com) has moved from "promising but feeble" lab models to compact, incredibly powerful prototyping devices. The technology begins where Maxwell left off and completely obsoletes the nonsense of quantum mechanics. The operating theory is *parameter-free* and completely describes all known physical phenomena from quarks to the universe. Disclosure: No. I don't own any stock. (I wish I did!) All the best, Bill

So we can skip any of your suggestions if we do not want to eliminate global warming?

And if it for some seemingly unknown reasons GW has natural causes, where does that leave us? Do we not get the wonderful antigravity/brilliant power?

Do not expect a warm welcome with this blunder. I doubt there will be much clicks on that website either.

Bill, as a friendly advice, if you do not own any stock yet then keep it that way.

"The technology begins where Maxwell left off and completely obsoletes the nonsense of quantum mechanics."

Although I have great difficulty understanding quantum mechanics, it is clearly NOT nonsense.

"The operating theory is *parameter-free* and completely describes all known physical phenomena from quarks to the universe."

Where can I study this marvelous theory? Converting Hydrogen to dark matter, or was it dark energy???

I'm extremely skeptical...

QM has no physical basis. Among its many wonders, it teaches that nothing is where you think it is until you look.

Please visit the website, brilliantlightpower.com. There is a link to the master theory: the Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics aka GUTCP. Not an easy read. You need at least a BS in EE or Physics to sort through the differential equations.

Also on website are links to videos of various experiments and info on the multiple patents that have been granted.

BTW anti-grav is NOT on the immediate horizon. But non-polluting power generation is in prototype stages now. Zero carbon footprint.

Your theory has no merits if the general public has to sort through differential equations, that have nothing to do with Physics.

If it is not based on Physics, once more we have to deal with a believe system?

This is well situated in a post about Global Warming.

Here is a recommendation. Why don't you open your own topic, start a discussion where you first explain, for all those that will as you say not be able to sort through the differential equations, what it is all about and how the zero carbon foot print energy production works.

With or Without GW we can do with clean energy. Nature has proven to be able to create its own Carbon foot print (Much higher than humans!) so the focus should be on getting on in this world and why not with functional alternative energy production systems.

Bring it on. Explain and introduce us.

Thanks!

Thanks for your reply.

I agree that the topic I introduced (Brilliant Light Power’s discovery of the true relationships between matter, energy and space) is worthy of a separate thread. I intend to do so at a future time. But my full recovery from a pair of near-death medical events has a little higher priority. :)

But I could not disagree more with your contention that it will not be accepted until/unless it (the highly complex GUTCP equations) is understandable by the general public.

When James Watt arrived on the scene, the general public did not know or care that PV=nRT. All they cared about was that a Steam Powered Engine provided a faster more efficient way of going someplace.

When Maxwell postulated “Displacement Current” (a misnomer also worthy of a separate thread) as the “secret sauce” that made EM come together, the public ignored it. But both Marconi and Tesla realized that a mathematical solution for Maxwell’s equations was a Transverse Wave. And that meant Radio, TV and much more.

All the General Public cares about is that their TVs, cell fones and iPads work.

The same is true of BrLP’s work. The first phase in *product* development is nearing field prototype stage. Pre-prototype devices are currently generating MW of power from Hydrogen dissociated from ounces/mg of water.

Conversion to this power source will ultimately eliminate the need for carbon-based fuel and (any) associated anthropomorphic “Global Warming.” (or "Climate Change.")

It will also eliminate the need for nuclear power plants.

Just as Watt could not have foreseen Steam-to-Electrical conversion technology. we can only dimly imagine what the BrLP technology will mean to humanity.

Brilliantlightpower.com is the main website. It has many layman-oriented pages and a link to the 3,000 page theory. (Good luck in understanding the theory at first reading!)

Bill