On the news tonight, a spokesman from the Dept of Meteorology claimed that for the last 70 years, each decade has been warmer than the last.

This is rubbish, because in the 1970's, academic circles were worried about the probability of a new ice age coming because of falling world temperatures!

It appears the AGW proponents are quite happy to "stretch the truth" and manipulate figures as long as it supports their case.

There also seems to be a growing number of scientists who disagree with AGW, so perhaps the tide is turning, just as the politicians have started to trust the scientists and act on their advice (which will probably change shortly)!

As I remember this, in the 1970's two scientists, one of the from Stanford, published a paper on the cooling of the earth. The news media ran with the 'new ice age' story because it was sensational. When a short time later the scientists found mistakes in their data, they admitted the mistake publicly at serious cost to their professional standing, and abandoned their theory. The news media wasn't interested in the retraction because it wasn't 'sexy' enough. The global warming denial industry (a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry) still brings this blooper up to inflame public opinion, against the idea of global warming, and against the scientific community in general.

Awesome - GA!

emc_c

GA to guest and BLING. I do believe the oceans are the biggest dynamic regulator of CO2. The saturation point of CO2 is lowered as the temperature of the water rises. As the oceans warm the CO2 sequestered by the ocean is released to the atmosphere. What then is causing the ocean's to warm and release CO2? Your remarks on the underwater volcanic activity is often a source of CO2 in the oceans that is overlooked in models on climate. Submerged volcanic tectonic activity is very dynamic and is difficult to apply a numeric value at any given time. ( I read somewhere that the all of the earth's ocean water is recycled by subduction into the earth's crust every million years, ergo salty ocean water). The complication is exacerbated by the possible warming of the oceans. Is the ocean warming man made or part of a cyclical act of nature? Either way the AGW side needs to do more work to convince me that we should be panicked into any drastic action. They need to better define the effects of mans input to greenhouse gases and if they are small then they ought to slow the hype (propaganda).

Sorry I meant GA to BWIRE not BLING

Thanks...

Good points many are the ways man has acted without regard and contributed to effects which all taken together may seem to restrict natures remedies from producing a cure.

Example:

Construction projects and wanton irrigation causing a plume in the oceans which may cause harm to ecosystems by attrition. Destruction of rain forests and wetlands; colonial America had it's share in that too.

Vincit, it seems many times you forget to login. Take care.

Guest, GA

Indeed, the earths core is surely slowly cooling, and would we not end up like Mars with a cooled solid core and loss of atmosphere, Ice ages should come more frequently and severely.

I think global warming sounds like a good idea, but is that whats really happening?

Looking forward to the oceans rising so I can have beach front property.

Spacecannon

I haven't done much research on this and I really hate saying this because I believe that most global warming talk IS propaganda but http://nov55.com/gbwm.html looks like it is a proganada website too. I really don't think they are very credible after skimming through some of their external links.

Now, I could be wrong because I didn't read much of the text on the site but I pulled this quote from the end.

Cold Fusion: Carbon dioxide is heating the oceans through cold fusion. Half the CO2 humans produce goes into the oceans. This means the oceans are heating by half the global average temperature of 288°K, which is 144°K temperature increase of the oceans caused by humans.

I thought cold fusion was more science fiction than science fact.

Again, I could be wrong about this site having not read it in as much detail as you have but it just seems like propaganda to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMFvzohuVew

I give a 3 cause you can't dance to it

I did like the dimming of the lights & sound effects for dramatic effect

GGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAA!

I think I'll mostly keep my 'mouth' shut because this is a really well though out and well presented piece of work. Whether you are right or wrong, this is probably the most thought provoking theory I've seen in a while. Having said that:

• It is clear from the NOAA maps that the sea surface temperature, at least in the northern hemisphere is several degrees higher than 'normal'. On the other hand I have recently read an article reporting that the subsurface temperatures are actually declining. (I will provide the link when I locate it) This isn't necessarily surprising, since the sea ice at the poles does seem to be melting, and the phase change energy to covert ice at 32 F into water at 32 F means that heat energy from the surrounding water must be absorbed by the ice, lowering the average water temperature in the area. But if as you say the oceans are heated by hot spots in the mantle (like the one that forms the Hawaiian islands?) heating the sea bed, you would expect to see subsurface temperatures increasing, at least in the volume above the hot spot. I would imagine that you could find evidence of this heated plume of water reaching the surface. Here is a link to the NOAA map:

http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.7.2.2009.gif

• When the greenhouse gasses (CO2, methane, water vapor, and a number of others) absorb some of the IR black body radiation from the land and sea surface, this heats the atmosphere. As the air heats up, the conductive heat transfer from the sea/land surface to the air should become less efficient, and the ground would become even warmer. I would think that the result would be that the amount of energy gained each day by the earth would then be greater than the amount lost to space.

In < www.thefreelibrary.com> you will find an article: "New Type Of Hydrothermal Vent Looms Large" Unfortunately I cannot copy the web directly due to copy rules. Interesting article on subduction of ocean water forming large vents but also carrying ocean waters with an estimated complete ocean water recycle time of 500,000 to 1,000,000 years. This ocean water recycling was known when I studied physical geography 20+ years ago. The recycling provides significant green house gases in the form of CH4 and CO2. It may be that the ocean movement in/out of the mantle is uneven with time. There must be some oceanographers and geo-chemists that could help to clarify this action as an input to global greenhouse gases.

Here's a proper link

"that the sea surface temperature, at least in the northern hemisphere is several degrees higher than 'normal'. "

How do we know what normal is regarding surface sea temperatures? For instance how long has data on sea surface temperatures been recorded? At least on land we can attempt to estimate past temperatures based on tree rings or other artifacts found that were around 1000 years ago or more. But the sea surface is constantly changing.

For most of recorded history people have sailed the oceans. I'd guess that since the time when Italian inventors began building 'thermoscopes', we have been measuring water temperatures. There has to be a pile of captain's log books filled with notes on temperatures in most old sea ports. Most navies also have records going back centuries. I believe NOAA's data is good enough that navigators rely on it, but I'm not vouching for this chart; that's why 'normal' is in quotes. I'm pretty firmly in the anthropogenic wing of the climate debate, but of all the 'denier' stuff I've seen on the net, this seems to be the most rational and fact based discussion yet. Maybe it will stay that way for a while.

Granted humans have been sailing about for thousands of years, but only regularly into the open seas (Middle of Atlantic and middle of Pacific) for 500 or so years. Are you telling me that their is sufficient temperature data on sea surface temperatures for the vast majority of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to be able to make reasonable comparisons to temperatures today? Are there enough samples per site to make the data meaningful? How accurate were the thermoscopes, Since climate alarmists are complaining about a few degrees were they accurate to within less than a degree?

I look at how technicians and engineers use measurement equipment these days and most people seem to fall into two camps....those who believe in and understand the need to calibrate equipment and those who don't. My employer has a calibration lab where all of our test equipment is stored. Each piece of equipment has a cal sticker on it and generally has to be calibrated every year (sometimes more frequently depending on the type of equipment it is). My observation of coworkers indicates that a vast majority of them either are too lazy to pay attention, don't care about the quality of their measurements or are just plain ignorant. If supposedly educated engineers and technicians can't be bothered, I am not sure how confident I am in a bunch of sailors using equipment that's been down dragged around open seas in a harsh environment (temperature swings, salt water, etc.). I have to admit to not knowing about thermoscopes or their use by sailors of the past...so I will try to educate myself on the topic.....and feel free to educate me further if you know more.

I totally agree with you comments on calibration and accuracy. The very limits of calibration and accuracy have throughout history been the greatest stumbling point of scientific progress. We quote and make simulations based on parametric values from the past that are at the very best "WAGs" . . . Wild Assed Guesses. We automatically take for granted the values used in historical calculations to be within OUR modern calibration capabilities. It took several hundred years before Megellans loss of 24 hours was finally discovered to be that the earth rotates . . . what is a few degrees in temperature . . .

The thermoscope was an uncalibrated precursor to Fahrenheit's thermometer, which was developed a century or so later.

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blthermometer.htm

I was unclear in this statement, and did not mean that 16th century ship's captains carried thermoscopes to record sea temperatures. But the Italian inventors who developed the thermoscope were apparently curious people, and in my fevered imagination I pictured them using their new inventions to check the temperature of the air, water, and maybe even their soup. Since there was no temperature scale at the time, their data set would be something like: soup is hotter than air, which is warmer than open water. No doubt they already knew that. But it was the necessary first step.

The thermometer is a different story, and became standard equipment along with the telescope, sextant, anemometer, barometer, etc., once they were available. Mariners then as now were seriously interested in the weather, since it was often a matter of life or death, and would have a strong incentive to make the most accurate measurements possible with the equipment at hand. Recording these 'measurements' in the captains log was standard practice. It still is, and with improvements in the equipment, the reliability of these measurements has increased.

Sailors may be comparable in their fastidiousness about using, handling and calibrating equipment to those folks in your workplace that you mention, but these tasks were too important to leave to illiterates. The officers and captains were usually much better educated, and they would be the ones who made or supervised these tasks. I doubt that they had written procedures for calibrating their thermometers, so their accuracy is a legitimate question. On the other hand, I have a mercury thermometer that my grandfather made and calibrated in the 30's. He calibrated it the old fashioned way: ice water and boiling water (at sea level). Last time I checked it it was dead on at freezing, and ~0.5 deg C low at boiling. At 35 deg C it is ~0.6 deg C low. I really have no idea how accurate it is between these points.

So in response to your questioning of the accuracy of the volumes of 'data' in these old log books:

• I don't think we can possibly answer that question. Common sense suggests that the errors in these old temperature measurements would be random, but that is speculation, not science.
• I seriously doubt that NOAA relied exclusively or even heavily on old log books to establish a base line. I did find a NOAA page with a bibliography of such things, which suggests that log books may have played some part.
• I run an independent calibration laboratory, and take calibration very seriously. I don't think this job has existed for more than a couple hundred years. But that doesn't mean that all measurements or scientific discoveries made before then are meaningless. I trust that our ancestors were serious people, involved in a serious business, making the best measurements they could. So I wouldn't bet the farm on their accuracy, I wouldn't want to speculate about their measurement uncertainty, but I don't reject them as worthless.

For a sense of how accurate these old thermometers could be:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/thermometer-0924.html

One of the major issues that I and apparently many others have, is the very, very short period of history being used to define "normal". Even if "for most of recorded history" we had accurate sea temperature measurements, these would still only represent a very, very small portion of the history of the climate of earth. The last ice age ended prior to recorded history. What was "normal" between the last two ice ages? We can not say. What can be said is that when one compares the recent "trends" that have so many people alarmed with extended historical trends, there is nothing unique about the current situation. Temperatures have been warmer, CO2 has been much, much higher, and life still goes on.

The earth is supposedly 4.8 billion years old, or thereabouts. Life has apparently existed on earth for about 3.75 billion years. There have been at least 5 major extinction events, and life goes on. I don't remember exactly how many ice ages there have been, but we know that the earth gets hot, then it gets cold again, then it gets hot again. It has been a long, long time since the earth has been as hot as Venus (if it ever was that hot, in the early days while being formed). The earth has never been as cold as Mars (and it will likely be many, many years before the core cools down enough to allow the surface to reach that temperature)...

Modern humans have been around for something like 200,000 years, maybe dominant in certain environments for 14,000 to 18,000 years, more so on a world-wide scale for something like 12,000 years (with the advent of agriculture). We did not start recording things (as far as we have been able to determine) until 6,000 or 7,000 years ago. Even if we had been accurately recording the sea surface temperature "for all of recorded history", this would only represent something like less than 1/100 percent of the time since the dinosaurs supposedly went extinct.

So, how valid are ANY of these "climate records", no matter how accurate they may be, when one is trying to define "normal".

Correct insufficient data is the cogent answer on all points.

GA!

As other said, this looks like an objective interpretation of what is happening. I believe that the truth is close to what you have presented.

You present a commanding argument, but unfortunately you are incorrect. It is true that CO2 absorbs in certain bands of infrared and that mostly the atmosphere is transparent to visible light. This is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect. It is blackbody radiation. The solar radiation mostly passes through our atmosphere heating the mass of the earth (land and sea). The earth in turn radiates back in proportion to its own temperature. This is in the infrared spectrum and precisely why water vapour and CO2 are so effective at changing the transparency of the atmosphere to the infrared.

Don't forget the albedo of the polar caps. These are diminishing pretty rapidly and once they are gone the extra heating due to the absorbtion of additional heat will cause a runaway heating of the planet. The arctic tundra contains a lot of locked up organic matter that will decompose to methane and carbon dioxide. This is going to be an interesting few decades and won't be helped by the ostriches who can't see the elephant in the corner.

You present an argument but it is without focus.

This is in the infrared spectrum and precisely why water vapour and CO2 are so effective at changing the transparency of the atmosphere to the infrared.

Do provide values of your points and present them in context of actual distribution.

Don't forget the albedo of the polar caps.

Bravo! quite pertinent, as the land based ice accumulation is increasing a balance of cooling will occur.

polar caps. These are diminishing pretty rapidly and once they are gone the extra heating due to the absorption of additional heat will cause a runaway heating of the planet.

This is a contradiction of your previous truth.

The arctic tundra contains a lot of locked up organic matter that will decompose to methane and carbon dioxide.

Of course this is out of context due the increasing ice accumulation over land.

BWIRE,

Based on the website information posting, you could have done some editing or condensing work. The post seems to be too lengthy ,a probable record for the most lengthiest single post in any forum.Could it be so? Based on your prime reading what is your precise conception?

* What I could conceive is that, the so called Global Warming due to green house gases released may not contribute much to effective global warming by fossil fuel burnings. The current version of scientists seems more of an exaggeration.

*Having no simulated or realistic proof findings ,mere prediction based on theoritical modellings may not provide a clear guidance to the issue. That also does not mean that all sayings are irrelevant.

My points in fair support of global warming with no quantification data is based on the following phenomenon.

*There is a constant exchange of heat from air to sea water or land surface water on a daily basis. Hot air when passing over pure or saline water exchanges heat with moisture.

*Solar radiations are absorbed by sea water and the day time heat is more on air and as absorbed heat on water body. There is an equilibrium or alternate heat take up release cycle between air and sea water. That reflects as cool air in night and hot air in day time mainly caused by sunlight.

*The latent heat from sea water develops vapour pressure and all vapour are lifted up in day time leading to the formation of clouds, the saturation levels leads to condensation and rain falls.

*When everything is based on the natural cycle like sunlight based transactions , not much adversities are expected.

*Apart from this part of the heat hitting sea water surface is also reflected back onto space a major solace for all of us.

*Keeping the climate or temperature balance, just apart from the exchange between air and sea water, there is another major contributer which I would like to add are THE ICE MOUNTAINS ON LAND SURFACE AS WELL AS GLACIERS FLOATING ON THE SEA WATER. To me these ice layers give a buffer role in temperature control of the climate..

*Apart from solar heat, man made or natural forest fires, volcanic heats are additions .

*More the carbon into the atmosphere, the particulate matters of carbon absorb IR radiations and add to undissipated heat as is being blocked as smogs or the water vapour present in clouds could also add to heat in the atmosphere. All heat adding dissipations are fossil fuel burnings from transports, thermal power plants , nuclear power plant water discharges, plant heats, domestic heat, air conditioning heat outlets[buildings and transports], Industrial heatings and exhausts, domestic heatings,Heat absorbed and retained by building walls and roofings, black surfaced bitumen/ tar roads and so on. A thermodynamic expert can give better heat data of the above activities which confirms that HUMAN ACTIVITIES ADD MASSIVE HEAT INTO ATMOSPHERE.

*One important point I would like to add is the limitation due to air volume and effective seawater surface area which are almost constant values on the planet.

*That adds to the fact that the carrying capacity of air water heat exchange is disturbed by extra heat additions all other than solar.

*The acidity caused as acid rain is another consolidating point as well as complex catalytic green house gases reactions.

*Green cover by way of massive vegetation is another major absorber and converter of carbon emissions as worth food to all of us.They also absorb heat from air and effectively reduces atmospheric heat. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT AS DEFORESTATION AND GREEN COVER IS LAST PROPORTINATELY HEAT IS SEQUESTERED OVER THE PLANET.

All that adds to the relevance of global warming.

*As regard to sea level rise my points are;

*Floating ice bergs are under buoyancy on sea water, won't add much to level rise. What could be bothering is the ice melting from land based mountains.

GLOBAL WARMING IS DIRECTLY PROPORTINAL TO NON SOLAR HEAT AND DEFORESTATION INCLUDING DESERT REGIONS IN WHICH THE SAND ALSO RETAINS LATENT HEAT LIKE SALINE SEA WATER.

Bwire, GA

is there any way to copy your easys to a file on my desk top?

Spacecannon

Cut "n" paste onto a blank document.

Garthh, thx,

I hadn't tried putting it into a new doc. pg.

Spacecannon

Very interesting debate on gen-unity of justification of global warming.

*I have a stronger point to argue that the net air volume[ heat exchanger fluid absorber of heat and dissipation to water]and the sea water effective contact surfaces are of constant value. There is a limitation on carrying capacity of this exchange added by human activities.

*The added heat/ temperature is a detrimental fact to plants, plant's photo synthesis[ as seen in deserts],humans and all other life forms. Counter measures like artificial localized climate controls like Air conditioning can only add fuel to the fire, because at the point of use they reduce temperature and emit heat out elsewhere.

*CO2 emissions as pointed out by climatologists can not be the sole reason for global warming.But greenery and deforestation do have a definite bearing on CO2 utilization/ conversion.

*just leaving aside the aspect of CO2, can it be understood that we add to the average temperature/ Heat content of the atmosphere? As per your view, all possible heat radiations can be easily dissipated out to space as IR radiation. To me these IR radiations are the deadliest heat waves a major bothering.

*If the above said justification is true, is there any rate of dissipation by radiation out into space? whether night times and day times make any difference on the rate of dissipation out of these radiations into space? Is the IR radiation out phenomenon is instantaneous and bears a constant value at any given moment?

*According to me the over emphasis on CO2 alone and global warming issue won't suffice for the CLIMATIC ISSUES.

It should also account and have a complex index about-Air toxicity[Co2,Co, NOx,SOx, Hydro carbons, Toxic ants], increased air temperature, acid rain,particulate matter, loss of green cover, ill effects to consumers[ human, plants and animals], need for alternate green energies, our consumption habits having side reactions, non renew ability and so on.

*A strong scientific inter disciplinary discussion and conclusion is a major need of the hour. Till then the issue remains as an unsolved puzzle.

Any way it a worthy debate in CR4 forum. Thank you for the initiation. Regards.

Leaving apart from the fact that you have a record GA [10+2...]admirers behind your support, I just silence down, since my views are just based on common sense and not much into in depth science. I just happened to be an environmentalist and green volunteer.

You forget the fundamental that the greater the difference, the greater the rate of exchange.

You also fail to account for the scales involved: Krakatau launched a few cubic miles of solid materials into low orbit, and many thousands of tons of SO, SO2, and later methane and CO2 as ruined vegetation rotted. The atmosphere didn't heat to incandescence even though very dirty coal was the common fuel of the day, and the forced draft fan was not yet in common usage. And that has hardly been an isolated incident given that volcanoes seem to still be an active player on the environmental scene, still behaving badly.

Yes, I've been an environmentalist since before the term was coined because I hunted and fish and enjoy the outdoors just for the sake of it. I don't believe in wasting resources just because I can afford it. I also don't believe in the science of panic, where these doomsday scenarios are presented as a means of furthering some group's social utopian agenda.

As I have stated before, if your compare average temperatures with solar activity, you will find much closer correlations than can be demonstrated by the current batch of alarmists with emissions.

Thank you Jerry for the corrective information.It is worth learning.

Thank you for kind words and participation in discussion.

*I have a stronger point to argue that the net air volume[ heat exchanger fluid absorber of heat and dissipation to water]and the sea water effective contact surfaces are of constant value. There is a limitation on carrying capacity of this exchange added by human activities.

I have a conflicting view or interpretation. The heat exchanger is that super cooled area outside of the planets atmosphere.

* Counter measures like artificial localized climate controls like Air conditioning can only add fuel to the fire, because at the point of use they reduce temperature and emit heat out elsewhere

A/C units emit heat, at face value may a detriment but when viewed with the understanding the frequency is not trapped by greenhouse gases should allay all confusion of the matter.

*just leaving aside the aspect of CO2, can it be understood that we add to the average temperature/ Heat content of the atmosphere? As per your view, all possible heat radiations can be easily dissipated out to space as IR radiation. To me these IR radiations are the deadliest heat waves a major bothering.

It's not merely my view it is fact, in past millennia we have evidence of greenhouse gas levels ten times that of today.

*If the above said justification is true, is there any rate of dissipation by radiation out into space?

By dissipation you mean cooling; yes.

whether night times and day times make any difference on the rate of dissipation out of these radiations into space?

Negligible.

Is the IR radiation out phenomenon is instantaneous and bears a constant value at any given moment?

It is not phenomenon it is an inherent vehicle of global cooling. The remainder of the question logically answers itself.

It should also account and have a complex index about-Air toxicity[Co2,Co, NOx,SOx, Hydro carbons, Toxic ants], increased air temperature, acid rain,particulate matter, loss of green cover, ill effects to consumers[ human, plants and animals], need for alternate green energies, our consumption habits having side reactions, non renew ability and so on.

Absolutely. It is however erroneous in light of the rectification method chosen albeit cap'n trade being a fools errand.

Thanks

So, your saying that creating a market for pollution credits won't work?

Do you think humans civilization is having any effect on the climate[climate change]?

Climate change has and will continue to occur at intervals regardless of presence of mankind or his activity. Sure we can salt the atmosphere creating an iridescence which may shield the firma and as a by-product cause diminished winds in the plains states confounding the green wind folks

Or we can manipulate energies and disrupt or cause weather patterns, cause clouds to moderate the temperature of a region but what the consequence is? Do we know? No.

Consider that a change state is disruptive or tumultuous but what could a true greenhouse effect produce after stabilization?

That's fine & dandy

but didn't actually answer the question(s)

creating a market for pollution credits won't work?

It doesn't effect consumption but it will incur additional costs passed to the consumer so overall is impractical.

Do you think humans civilization is having any effect on the climate[climate change]?

Yes but not in the perceived politically correct manner.

It doesn't effect consumption

I have to disagree. Most every economics books I've read indicate that raising the price of something will reduce demand (consumption). By the way, I am not in favor of cap and trade at all.

Is there another method you would support, for reducing harmful [so2 for example] emissions?

From the 1960's forward the EPA has used regulation [stick]

What market driven tool would you support.

expecting profit driven businesses to do the right thing in opposition to their bottom line isn't realistic.

Calling bullshit on the discussion of industrial carbon releases into the atmosphere, stops the bigger discussion of humans impact on our planet & how to mitigate the effect(s).

For better or worse there is an opportunity to have that discussion in a meaningful way, not just in the scientific community, but a much larger audience.

It's been 40 years since the last time these sorts of issues were anywhere near the forefront of public consciousness...

LOW COST,INFINITELY AUGMENTABLE, GREEN ELCTRICITY GENERATION TECHNOLOGY is the sole solution to the issue. It also has no relevance to the non conventional energies of present choice.

Is there another method you would support, for reducing harmful [so2 for example] emissions?

Sure starting with; stop kicking the can.

For national security and economic stability, placing area specific restrictions upon use of IC engines, metro, light industrial and urban areas for example. Require the rail industry to comply with emission standards. Replace coal burning power generation with nuclear reactors and micro reactors where feasible.

Haven't any suggestion curbing volcanic releases in fact all mans attempts of reducing SO2 may be frustrated due volcanic release.

From the 1960's forward the EPA has used regulation [stick]

The EPA is no more than a political kick ball... administrators believe they can bypass congress but history shows CIA tried and failed.

What market driven tool would you support.

Bill and Ted had the concept, "be excellent to each other". Does that seem simplistic? It should principles generally are, complex issues are best regulated by simple principles and multifaceted objectives.

Bottom lines don't justify lack of social responsibilities, everyone's accountable to everyone else. Although social responsibility has been pushed aside in the past, it wasn't profitable because the bill is yet to be paid, not paying fines but paying for the clean up, paying for damages to persons and property be it public or private.

I don't espouse socialism...

For better or worse there is an opportunity to have that discussion in a meaningful way, not just in the scientific community, but a much larger audience.

It's been 40 years since the last time these sorts of issues were anywhere near the forefront of public consciousness...

Correct to 60 years...your catalog of Roger Pinks rants ranks a bullseye here

The era of cheap oil is gone and Nuclear is back to the front burner... when all the associated conditions which arise from the use of petroleum or coal are tabled the idea of cheap oil/clean coal will be forever scorned. Green energies can compete together when the major imposter is removed.

I applaud President Obama for actions taken to minimize the influence of lobbyist. Our leaders need to be present, cognizant of the issues and approachable.

Do remind if I've neglected a question

So2 was just an example that popped into my head

We in the same neighborhood, judging by your opinion of coal...

Then you have to go the extra mile

Nukes are non starters, no real resolution of the issues of mining/refining the ore, plant safety, waste.

A simple question would you send your daughter work in a plant maintaining the equipment?

Bill and Ted had the concept, "be excellent to each other". Does that seem simplistic? It should principles generally are, complex issues are best regulated by simple principles and multifaceted objectives.

Bottom lines don't justify lack of social responsibilities, everyone's accountable to everyone else. Although social responsibility has been pushed aside in the past, it wasn't profitable because the bill is yet to be paid, not paying fines but paying for the clean up, paying for damages to persons and property be it public or private.

How are you going to quantify the cost of social irresponsibility?

having corporations & other non human entities enjoy the same rights as people, makes it impossible. Corporations are only responsible to increase the value of the stock. your tannery ruins the water shed, go bankrupt [WR grace I think]!

Nukes are non starters, no real resolution of the issues of mining/refining the ore, plant safety, waste.

The processes have changed, I'd like a micro reactor in my yard and the daughter can play with it if she wishes

How are you going to quantify the cost of social irresponsibility?

Whatever it takes, if shtf clean it up...if the incentive is appropriate the matter will be handled appropriately...Companies will not bankrupt themselves.

Corporations are non-entities but the managing directors should be liable...if SH on your watch — clean it up or go to jail, don't pass go.

& how is that different than regulation?

A micro reactor may be as safe as you claim

Still haven't accounted for the other 2/3rds of the process

sidebar:

shouldn't yuval be on sp3?

shouldn't yuval be on sp3?

yuval should be on Vista

how is that different than regulation?

eh? Deregulation was the beginning of this debacle, everything in moderation is key

well you know how I feel about vista, like linux the more I use it... I'm on mr XP at the moment, which had some strangeness when sp3 1st came out. I was using Ms vista earlier, still don't see any advantage that isn't hardware related, tryed the security tool you suggested, didn't find any problems.

Which deregulation? I don't see either a carrot or a stick without EPA

Vista was designed for me deal with it

I don't see either a carrot or a stick without EPA

Repercussions of a society without personal responsibility.

Oh you're the one you on 7 yet?

Personal responsibility is great

I believe [preaching to the choir]

money talks, retoric walks

How do we even get to the point of having that discussion as a society.....

No 7 for me I haven't a need for it's advantages yet. Several customers want it now! I oblige them, some will use 95, 98, XP or Vista forever however long that is. I'll get 7 eventually, maybe I'll inherit it.

How do we even get to the point of having that discussion as a society.....

Instilling the ideals start when we are very young, pre-school or there abouts. It's a value the cultural revolution removed from the underpinnings of our society.

Cultural revolution?

last I checked, that was a chinese phenomenon

I am assuming that your post was really meant as a reply to someone else's other than mine as mine was primarily about economics regarding the effects of raising prices on something.

However, since I did mention cap and trade and my lack of enthusiasm for it here is one reason I don't like the idea of cap and trade: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6778003/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html

Note this quote from the article:

"It is estimated that in some countries, up to 90pc of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities," a Europol spokesman said, after Britain, France, Spain and the Netherlands brought in emergency VAT suspensions on carbon allowances to limit the fraud this year.

In any system of regulation there is bound to be some fraud or cheaters. If it was 10%, I wouldn't be surprised and would expect something like that. However, when it gets to 90%, it's not just the regulating system that is at fault it those running, those who are supposed to monitor it. It should never have gotten to 90% fraud to begin with.

I missed, I meant to reply to #58 [Bwire]

We're on the same page...

I'd expect little else since the basis is fraudulent. At other times cap'n trade would be considered corruption which of course it is.

Perceived in a simplistic manner though not meaningful due the trickle down vehicle of costs passed to the consumer. It's a thinly guised theft from society with progressive intent.

Science/Engineering has produced evidence and methods to change the way we use resources, adoption of advanced technology and return to others abandoned in the past is the way strong intelligent beings react to conditions; not a spurious money grab.

So how is cap n trade any different than any other IPO?

Rich people love to gamble a bit of it will trickle down to reducing toxic emissions.

I completely agree that reforestation is a very good thing. In these parts logging & replanting with almost exclusively ponderosa pine, has reduced biodiversity. which is yet a different discussion.

I don't think copenhagen, will bring about any substantive agreements.

invented "crises" that are politically motivated by wealthy societies as a means to maintain their superior position in the world economy at the expense of poorer nations.

I don't understand what you mean?

The whole climate brouhaha appears to me to be a scheme to keep poorer nations (i.e., China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc.) from catching up with the richer nations by limiting their access to the tools of development formerly used by the rich countries, but now considered unacceptable (among these tools, heavy use of fossil fuels to provide cheap energy, and deforestation to open land for development, agriculture, and the like)- "We did it when it was our turn, but now we think it is a bad idea. So you have to find a new road to riches rather than copy our example."

Something like the so called free trade agreements?

which appears to have consolidated the power of the largest corporations...

Exactly...

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed
4. Agreed
5. Agreed
6. Agreed - oops...got carried away.

Thank you BWIRE for the caring and educative reply. I could rethink about my conceptions.

*I have a notion that the heat present in air is being exchanged with saline sea water[ which is a good absorber and retainer of heat], like a natural AIR CONDITIONER. The flow of air being restricted to natural forces, the rate of contact and exchange rate having a limitation value.Cool breeze after sunshine actually originates from sea water surface in view of the moisture content?

* The extra energy required for the operation of AIR CONDITIONING equipments can add to heat energy by way of thermal power generation requirement.

* Some amount of serious exaggerations are inevitable ,towards changing consumption habits of public and this seems one among that. Smart customers question values based on true scientific realities.

BWIRE can spearhead the discussions and bring forth solid conclusions. Best wishes.

*I have a notion that the heat present in air is being exchanged with saline sea water[ which is a good absorber and retainer of heat], like a natural AIR CONDITIONER. The flow of air being restricted to natural forces, the rate of contact and exchange rate having a limitation value

Water is significant in heating/cooling effect to air but air isn't significantly effective in heating water.

* The extra energy required for the operation of AIR CONDITIONING equipments can add to heat energy by way of thermal power generation requirement.

* Some amount of serious exaggerations are inevitable ,towards changing consumption habits of public and this seems one among that.

I haven't apprehension of this statement.

Smart customers question values based on true Smart customers question values based on true scientific realities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_T7FTIFyAA

Looked up your article reference, Gary Novak is a microbiologist not a meterologist. It might be a good idea to stick with people trained in the field unless you would like a auto mechanic to do your surgery!!

Meteorologists have intense study of the 10 meter altitudes do they??

There are those of us who would prefer a warmer world...Such is a whole lot more attractive than a colder world.

If one looks at a globe, one notes a significant imbalance in land mass between the northern and southern hemispheres; more importantly, a great deal of the land in the northern hemisphere (especially at the centers of the major land masses) is too cold for conventional agriculture. The human population continues to grow, meaning we need more land to feed all these extra people. It seems a good idea that we warm up some of these northern lands to the point where we can grow more food...

The Artic Ocean is rapidly opening up to ocean traffic- bad for those of us who live in Panama, but a boon to the rest of the world, in that it will take a significantly shorter time (read $$$) to move manufactured goods from Southeast Asia to the North Atlantic region- price savings for all you Europeans out there.

So here are three reasons off the top of my head why global warming sounds like a pretty good idea (I'm not sure I am ready to say it is a GREAT idea, but at least it is a pretty good idea)...

Assuming that the base energy is from fossil organics, the crops or plants consume major carbon emissions[CO2] and convert into useful food. What best humanity can contribute is to permit and promote green cover over the planet. We are going the reverse way. Augment ability of food crops is the gift of nature for all beings on this planet and may not count much for carbon garbage ,since plants ensure positive convertibility.

So the question becomes . . . does it really matter? If the place gets colder . . . or hotter . . . technology adapts and we as engineers benefit. Should I care that the cesspool that a person in Bangladesh lives in gets washed in to some ocean . . . should I care that some island in the ocean is alluviating away . . . or that penguins in the Arctic have to climb up a steeper ice wall . . . the results will ultimately benefit man . . . the sales, marketing and finance say it will happen . . . why fight the money? Cold money . . . hot money . . . it's still money for someone to steal.

I mostly agree with your points nukesub

It does matter if we are like Wiley coyote & have run off the side of a mountain & realize the bottom of The Grand Canyon is 1000 feet below

There are gonna be winners & losers.

You can stick your fingers in your ears & go LA LA LA all you want, things are gonna change.

The chinese & Indians are moving towards a lifestyle more like the western world's

& that requires more energy.

We can be part of the solution or ignore it & hope everything works out for the best

Regulating emissions isn't bad

or is there someone who will advocate for pollution?

Increasing efficiency isn't bad

or would someone like to argue for wasting resources?

There's gonna be winners & losers

There's gonna be corporate welfare

Taking the chance that there is a component of climate change related to humans & that we can do something to mitigate the effects, is not going to ruin the economy.

Don't like government regulation, what is the market driven plan?

We can just wait until the chinese & oil barons try to forclose

If you do a search or two you'll find a long history of "discussion" on the subject of Climate Change [ for instance ]

Welcome to CR4

Enjoy

The problem lies with bureaucrats and politicians who have no technical expertise, but are motivated by the need to justify their existence by creating more rules for the rest of us to follow.

A place where I had lived originally had an open air dump, quite common. In the 1970s, a new dump / recycling center was opened that was EPA state of the art. Due to changes in the rules, it is now a Superfund site that has bankrupted several businesses whose only crime was to follow the rules in good faith.

Charlie do you really think any of the wilder schemes will actually get out of the testing phase?

Rich people always gamble, is investing in say carbon capture or extraterrestrial microwave transmission worse than betting on the stock market? [ok I wouldn't personally invest in either]

We agree that focusing on goals that are actually possible will have the most positive effect.

Climate change is a better talking point than energy efficiency, pollution or deforestation & has gotten more traction on both sides...

I am not so sure that the politico or academian is very much aware of the real world . . . I am not sure at all that from the persecptive that they function that they truly can be . . . the politico is perhaps aware of the desires of his constituents . . . and academia aware of the need to emphasize education . . . being that both of these create. Both in their endeavors to remain on the edge of sociological demands, one because changing tradition, the other because of the ever increased pressure to expand the scope of human knowledge, thus neither find themselves in the midst of reality. The politico must ever strive to prove worth to the people he serves, the academian to prove worth to his peers. Thus comes the symbiotic relationship of the technological world. Nothing can be more fulfilling to a poltico than to find a scientist that will stand up beside them and espouse to his perspectives. Thus to the scientists comes the needed support to be politically in vogue.

The engineer on the other hand is in the world of reality. So now we are faced with making our projects poltically correct. Amazing now that industry that was once all technology, will now include the "landscape engineer", the botanist, biologist . . . is there any reason that a power plant (my area of expertise) can not look like or ACTUALLY be a golf course, a nature preserve, a lake becomes partially dedicated to algae production . . . Do we have to do it UGLY . . . maybe in the past . . . efficient expenditure demanded it . . . the concept of efficiency is changing. Who really cares about the cost to consumer anyway . . . the consumer is the one who controls their own costs . . . the consumer when living outside their means . . . must take the necessary action to "escape from affluence" . . . as we see millions of mortgages being simply walked away from . . . so will come the day when some will have to walk away from the traditional electric power utility (solar, fuel cells, wind . . . the alternatives are not coming . . . they are HERE!!!) The momentum of change is CHANGING!!!

I agree generally with your first paragraph. The only thing I would add is that there is an increasing number of academians that are more interested in indoctrination to their convoluted way of thinking than in education. (Don't bother me with facts, my mind is already made up!) They are the hybrid politicians. The politicians are just hypocrites in general; do as I say and not as I do. So now they have discovered this symbiotic relationship and they're exploiting it for all it's worth.

Your second paragraph I don't foresee in the immediate future. Look how long it took to fully electrify the country, put a telephone in 'every' home, and we still don't have cable or wireless everywhere. Yes the new technology is here, but it is beyond the reach of those who most need to drop off the grid.

Everyone I know who has installed solar, windmills, gensets, et-all, has done so to spite the utilities and try to save their money; not out of any concern for the environment, or as a matter of survival. They're just fed up with a self-serving system that respects no one and abuses everyone in general.

And again, for what it's worth, a better case can be made for global cooling than warming, and none of it from mankind's activities given the relative scales involved.

Dear Sir(s)

Some , in fact most , of the discussions are, indubitably : sound. All merit deep reflection. They vary from : natural observations to the methaphysical . In many ways and by their immense complexities they illustrate that humanity does not require a President as a Nobel recipient . What it deserves , in fact , needs, is : a new Einstein to synthesise the myriad of varied and divergent thoughts. Am I to say for my fellow Engineers that we, as a whole ,have reached the point where giving a single direction is beyond our : ability or training ? Are we to admit that when so many have sworn that super computers could solve the vast expanse of conflicting data same could be done in a few hours , these same experts are now silent on : warming ?

Whether we are believers or disbelievers in the surface warming and prove or disprove the changes. Whether or not we prove or disprove that : Cook, Magellan,Quiros, Mendana or Vasco de Gama erred in their interpretation of archaic or : pre-historic means of temperature observations are , in reality : esoteric , and perhaps, futile discussions.

Without the intentions of causing or creating diversion, I remain deeply perplexed by the lack of educated thought or predictions based on the realities of the past in the mining sectors that have depleted our planet irreversibly. I refer here to :

1.The huge extraction of: oil

2.All ores including iron ores

3.All fossil fuels other than oil i.e mainly :coal.

Where are such quantities as recorded in : mining records. These , more than likely , will be more credible than surface water temperature recorded 3 or 4 centuries ago. Are we to blithely consider that the loss of the weight is compensated by greater human numbers ?

Who will then say , publicly, whether this continuing change in the mass of the earth will not : far more, and indeed : far more quickly, modify ( by eventual eccentricity of : its mass ) the trajectory of the earth ? Either towards the : Sun or away from it ? Can any one say that this, in itself , may well become much more irreversible than whether or not we sequestrate CO2 ?

Let not the quagmire of diatribe swallow up thoughtfull discussion . Instead be the alert signal of action and concern : for our descendants.

Labor Omnia Vincit.

Are you serious or is this a little joke? mass can neither be created nor destroyed, all the stuff we dug up (with the exception of the odd spacecraft) is still here. We are also accreting mass due to incoming space debris.

Dear Sir,

Magnetite, ilmenite or any other form of iron ore has to be melted. Kindly consider whether one tonne of such ore still weighs 1000 kilos after it has been melted ? Point one. That same kilo of steel or iron that has been produced , if left in the atmosphere : corrodes. ( where it loses less of its weight is where air does not corrode it .i.e under water) The process of : corrosion ,admitedly much slower, is inevitable.

In the above process please consider that the amount of coal that has been consumed to smelter the above has been burnt . Whilst that needs to be checked with the residuals of coal i.e. bottom ash and fly ash, which do retain their weight ,please note that: 1000 kilos of raw coal does not equate 1000 kilos of residues after : burning. Results may vary, but mass has been forever lost in the main as : emission and propagation of heat.

The above loss of mass of : oil (wherever or however it is consumed) is even more telling. It goes to the core of this link and, all combined , contributes to the warming of the atmosphere .

In conclusion could I say that the heat of the arguments generated which have and are : gracing these pages should , in my view , add to the unfortunate but undeniable warming of this planet.

Labort Omnia Vincit

It appears to me that your perception of the laws of chemistry and physics is very distorted...

Combustion does not result in the destruction of mass. When you "burn" something, a major part of the mass is oxidized (i.e., combined with oxygen) to form another product, such as carbon dioxide.

Similarly, corrosion is just another form of oxidation- i.e., iron is converted to iron oxide.

The energy derived from such reactions is the result of the breaking of chemical bonds...

Just melting something is not going to change it's mass. One may separate some mass from other materials (i.e., iron from slag when melting impure iron), but the sum of all the masses at the end of the process will equal the sum of all the masses at the beginning of the process.

Unless, of course, one is considering nuclear reactions, in which case a small amount of the original mass is converted into energy...