If global warming is man made then how do you explain that mars is also warming?

http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/malin_etal.html

All this hype about global warming is feeding a global warming industry. These folks are making money that could well be used elsewhere. Until we can get unbiased and unpoliticized info to the public I am against spending good money for something that appears to be caused by the suns every changing output. I am all for doing what we can to not waste natural resources. I am also for getting rid of politicians that juimp on bandwagons for reasons other than helping their constituents.

As for those studies on antartic ice - CO2 diffuses thru ice. I put no reliability on those studies especially the older ice. that is just another source put out without all the facts being stated. If it was up to me the people putting out all of these biased informations and half truths ought to serve time for the money they are causing to be wasted and for the people they hurt indirectly.

rbeadle@pcc.edu

No-one should be claiming that it is all man-made - but at least half of resent warming appears to be, and that is the bit that won't vanish when the sun's cycle reverses, and so will continue to accelerate.

It appears that you are very concerned about the politicians feeding the (at present) rather small non-fossil power industry - doesn't the massively larger feed to the fossil-fuel industry worry you at all?

Regarding the CO2 data: are you saying that the geologists who are interpreting the data are stupid or dishonest? If the former, please, would you explain why their interpretation of the -300k year geological cycles shows similar peakiness to the -100k year cycle.

Fyz

I don't claim that none of the global change is man made. I don't think any honest informed person can say what percentage is man made.

One problem I am aware of for the pacific ocean is definately man caused. Because of all the land coverage in california almost no iron dust makes it into the pacific ocean with the end result of greatly reducing plankton. Plankton are no longer taking up CO2 like they used to because they don't have the available nutrient to grow.

I am well aware that man is not the biggest producer of CO2 in our atmosphere. Over tha last 30 years volcanoes are the biggest producer. Not all volcanoes give out serious amounts of CO2. The eruption of Mount Pinatabo in the philipines was reported to have produced more CO2 than man has in his history. The next largest source is three underground burning coal field in china which produces more CO2 than all the cars on earth every year.

As to the geologists, I have no idea why or how they managed to put out poor information. I don't know it was purposeful mis-information, nor did I say that. How many geologist are also good phyical chemists? You call yourself Physicist, You should be able to calculate the diffusion of CO2 thru Ice at -50C for 500,000 years and see that meaningful data is not going to happen beyond that. Now considor the reality that over that time period the temp was not steady but actually cycled up and down. Correlation and causation are different things. Right now we have recent temp change evidence previous to CO2 change evidence, Perhaps the temp change in some way causes some of the CO2 change instead of the reverse. With diffusion of CO2 there is no way in historical records anyone could ever see a fast change from the past. There is no way a real scientist could honestly say what we are seeing today is something that has never happened before. The most effective "green house gas" is water. We as a people are injecting more water into the air than ever before. This is much more likly to be a souce of global warming yet what have you heard about this?

2000 years ago the romans wrote about easily growing grapes in Britan. Even as we have warmed we still can't grow grapes well in Briton today. This strongly inplies it was warmer 2000 year ago than it is today. There is a lot of other evidence, that does not make it into the media, that the earth was warmer in the recent geological past than it is today. If global change is not normal how do you explain it being warmer a mere 2000 years ago than it is today. How can you say than man is primarily responsable for global temp change when we as a people have no real knowledge of what a normal temp is?

Have you looked into the recent gulf steam changes and what it will mean to global temperatures when the stream collapses. This is now known to be cyclic. Search for "Woods Hole Oceanographic" sources. They have been a leader in the field for many years

Our media has a bias strongly related to "if it bleeds it leads". They have pushed fear tactics for years as a way of getting market share. Many politician have jumped on this bandwagon for all the wrong reasons. I feel certain that global warming is more hype than reality. I don't say this lightly. I have researched this for several years and continuously find that the most inflamatory reports have been edited by non experts with a bias before being put out for consumption. This actually applies to alot more than just global warming

Pinatubo released appreciable CO2, but SFIK it was the amount of SO2 released that exceeded man's output (and you will see below that the net effect of Pinatubo was a reduction in atmospheric CO2). If you know different, please provide the reference.
Regarding the burning Chinese coal-fields, these are certainly well worth extinguishing. However, once more I've no idea where your figures come from. SFIK the combined carbon burned is about 20-Million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to the carbon usage of an average European country - nowhere near "all the cars on earth" as you state.

I'm in no position to positively refute your assertion about the invisibility of fast changes from very the distant past, because I would need to know all sorts of details about the nature of the ice-pack. However, your view on serious geologists seems unduly jaundiced, particularly as they typically work in the same groups as physical chemists and physicists. However, I can compare with a situation that I do know - the diffusion of water vapour through old oak beams. The effective diffusivity here is between 3inch^2 and 10inch^2 per 100 years, and this includes a measure of movement due to thermal pumping. In half a million years, this would represent a diffusion distance of less than 20-metres. Packed ice is much less porous than oak, and CO2 much less mobile than water vapour, so I imagine that this would very much represent an upper bound. It corresponds to a period of about 40-years in the regions of Vostok with the slowest rate of ice accumulation - so this probable upper bound is similar to the spreads through firn in the early years. BTW, if I can do these types of sums off the back of my head, you can be certain that they will have been correctly checked by people closer to the work.

I believe that you are correct about the plankton, and also that investigations are underway as to how best it may be revived. BTW, my understanding is that the largest CO2 effect of Mt Pinatubo was via the release of iron into the oceans, and resulted in a reduction in the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase.

The effect of water on the earth's temperature is a great deal more complex than you imply. At low levels, increases undoubtedly serve to increase temperatures. But that is not typically the situation, and the effect of cloud cover completely alters the situation. Different cloud types have vastly different effects, and the large droplets that are directly created by most human activity would have a definite cooling effect. The jury is still out on the overall effect of man's additional contribution to the earth's moisture, but the last time I looked into it (some years ago) the overall effect appeared to be to reduce global temperatures. Whatever the situation, you may be assured that people continue to study this area, and if any serious group identified a significant long-term problem they would be only too keen to publish their results. The other feature of water, of course, is that it readily reverts to a liquid state, and so has a rather short half-life in the atmosphere.

Regarding the Romans, temperatures and grapes: many years go, when living in Hertfordshire, I grew grapes on my garage wall, which produced a perfectly palatable wine. More recently, I have drunk some excellent wine from grapes grown on open slopes some distance north of London. The major reason that wine is not a large-scale enterprise in Britain is been economic rather than capability - the yields are relatively low, so the wine is expensive compared with equivalent imports. That would not have been the case in Roman times, when transport across the channel was still a costly business, largely because of the poor upwind performance of the Roman boats. In any case, the UK is a very special case, whose temperature has been far more directly determined by the directions and origins of ocean currents than by the average global temperatures; it is more than possible that a warmer globe will result in a cooler Britain

Regarding global temperatures - we really don't (or shouldn't) care about what is "long term normality". What we are interested in is survivability, and we already know a great deal about the effect of temperature on existing global populations, both botanic and biological. You may be content to wait and see whether existing trends continue and cause large-scale flooding, desertification and consequent migrations. You may even feel that you would benefit from the warming. Personally, I would regard viewing this last as a benefit as profoundly immoral; however, you may rest assured that, if the mid-range forecasts (on the absence of very significant action on CO2) prove correct, the migrations and wars this will cause will affect everyone. I for one, would prefer that my extended family did not have to find out the hard way (on the basis that I shan't be here to experience the worst of it).

Fyz

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

Here is a link on co2 diffusion.

I actually had to do this the old fashion way - calculate it myself.

The CO2 output I made was comparing output of c02 to just cars- not all out puts from any source. I hope that clarifies this.

Hi Guest

I accidentally deleted a crucial phrase from my sentence about coal fields and cars, and failed to notice - it should have read

"SFIK the combined carbon burned (in these Chinese coal fields) is about 20-Million tonnes per year, which is equivalent to the carbon usage (derived purely from automotive fuels) of an average European country - nowhere near "all the cars on earth" as you state.

You can check these figures directly with published statistics, but I think it is instructive to back this up with some simple sums. Assume cars = 25-million, average annual mileage 16000-km, consumption = 9-l/100km => 256000 Million litres. Gasoline typically contains a minimum of 0.6-kg of carbon per litre, diesel somewhat more, so this corresponds to a minimum of 21 Million Tonnes of carbon per year. So you can easily see that your statement on the coalfields was incorrect.

I didn't find anything in the link about the diffusivity of CO2 in the deeper (compressed) - only material relating to the diffusion through firn. As you still appear to hold by your assertions that it will be impossible to infer reasonably short-range (100-year) data from material that is over 500k-years old, I'd be interested to see some specifics.

Fyz

Taking $75 billion out of our economy to apply to supposed cures for this 90% slam dunk would be a disaster. In the meantime China, India and the rest of the developing world are exempt.

"Taking $75 billion out of our economy to apply to supposed cures for this 90% slam dunk would be a disaster."

Throwing up unfounded and scary $$ estimates is a cheap attempt to close the discussion.

Apparently we can take out $100 billion (annual estimate and growing) to continue in a war without a honestly stated objective, an identified enemy(s), or a rational definition of victory.

If we had a modicum of confidence in our engineering creativity and a smidgen of imagination, we might conclude that if good ol' US engineering were turned loose on the problem of solving the consequential problems that we will face from global warming, including the technology involved in removing our foot from a primary accelerator, C02. And good ol' US engineering companies would probably lead the way and make considerable profits.

Or, we can pay the bills as they come in for the highly likely collateral damage of doing nothing. To wit: stronger storms, drought, flooding, uninhabitable coastal areas, ...

Some of these consequences are already unavoidable and the bills will probably come due within the 21st Century.

My economics are probably as flawed as yours, but they are also as plausible. The fact is that we don't know the details and we'll be mostly dead or senile by the time that the facts are known.

"Weather is not important until it's important, and then it's too late" -- Patton

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2001/08/14/warming.pdf

Guest,

Those are both interesting posts by Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg. I have read lots of Dr. Ball's articles and some of Dr. Lomborg's before. They are primarily why I still view the Man-Made Global Warming Catastophe Hype with a certain amount of skepticism. It is disturbing to me that the media and the current political climate has ignored, sidelined, and perhaps even villainized them for their views.

I still think that we can all have a part to play in reducing our impact on the environment, both in our personal lives and professionally. I hope that all the emphasis on CO2 doesn't sideline efforts to reduce other pollutants like those that cause smog. Growing up in Saskatchewan, I have always been priveledged with clean air, but in the last few years every summer there have been a more and more days with some sort of smog like conditions. I don't know if it is smoke from northern forest fires (from global warming perhaps?) or if it is smog settling in from China but I do find it a little disturbing.

And good ol' US engineering companies would probably lead the way and make considerable profits.

Your's is a very rational view I think, and appears to be backed up by history. In the mid-seventies the US auto makers spent all their time kicking and screaming about how difficult, if not impossible, it would be to meet proposed emission standards, and produced loads of cars with serious drivability issues. That gave Honda an entry into the market, and they showed that a car can meet the standards and still drive very well -- so well that the first Accords routinely sold for well over retail, when American cars sold for well below.

History repeats: 30 years later, Honda and Toyota step up to the plate, and produce hybrid vehicles with exceptional fuel efficiency and extraordinarily low emissions. By capitalizing on the opportunities, rather than whining, Honda and Toyota are rapidly growing and profitable, while the GM and Ford are struggling.

The opportunity is there to make phenomenal profits on the technology to reduce CO2 emissions. I hope that US firms are not left behind again.

I always said that Global Warming was good for the economy.

$75 bil spent is still $75 bil spent, the only difference is who gets the money, the affect to the economy is the same.

You cannot seriously be suggesting that this 75-billion would not be spent if it wasn't spent on non-fossil energy?

Im not, that money will have to come from somewhere, but money spent is money spent, the only affect on the economy is who the money goes to. Some people insist that spending money on alternative fuels will wreck the economy, it wont, it will just change the scope of it. Now don't get me wrong I believe that global warming exists yes, but one of the factors is that we are in a natural warming cycle and the greenhouse gases are that we have been releasing is just amplifying that effect.

I agree with everything you say in this post. But I still see a significant problem that, even without our contribution, the natural global warming could have severe economic effects - were it to persist. When combined with our contribution, the effects would at minimum be severe even for the relatively protected USA - even if/when the natural cycle reverses. Even below the maximum assessment of our effect, we could be looking at famines, displacements and global unrest that would dwarf anything known in written history. I, for one, would wish to avoid this - even though I shan't be there when it eventually happens.

I don't necessarily subscribe to all the doom and gloom forecasts, sure we will have problems to overcome but I doubt that they will be as extreme as the media has been playing them out.

I hope that you are right. I believe that best way to ensure this is by taking reasonable action (once we've agreed that, the question remains as to what is 'reasonable')

Fyz

Batsu,

I think you are mistaken about us being in a "natural warming cycle". There is a glacial cycle related to the precession of the earth, which is about 22,000 years long. The last glacial maximum was about 20,000 years ago, so as far as this effect goes, we are nearing another ice age. Instead, we have been staying about even for the last 5,000 years, and now suddenly in the last hundred years we are heating drastically more than the curves would predict.

There is an interesting theory that the farming practices initiated by the Chinese about 5000 years ago raised emissions of methane (from rice paddies) in ever increasing amounts. This had the effect of roughly balancing out the expected cooling due to the earth's precession. This was in an article in the March 2005 issue of Scientific American titled "How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate" by William F. Ruddiman.

As to all the talk about money in this blog, remember that MONEY is a renewable resource! It is basically a measure of effort. So a lot of the arguments come down to "how hard are we willing to work at this problem?"

Precession of the earth is not the only "natural" contributor. There are many shorter cycles due - for example - to the sun's activity. I think it is one of these shorter cycles that some people are citing as the reason no action is needed on our part. The problem in this case is that this seems to ignore that our contribution is additive, and is not (yet?) cyclic

Fyz

There has been no definitive evidence that the precession of the earth is in any way tied to warming/cooling periods and is still a theory (as far as I know).

What I am referring to is that the sun's output is increasing and is believed to have been increasing since about 1880 ("the little ice age"). A lot of people get stuck on what the media reports which isn't always the full truth, but sections of it intended to attract attention.

"the only difference is who gets the money, the affect to the economy is the same"

There is a huge difference as to where the money spent, and who gets it: In this country to our workers and companies or to foreigners for their oil or technology. Money spent here, on renewable energy or alternate energy sources is a capital investment. Money spent here to reduce emissions doesn't have as clear a financial definition, but it is the morally right thing to do. We can't make ourselves even more uncompetitive than we are, yet by developing and perfecting new "green" technologies, we can gain a competitive advantage over time. Therefore, we need a balanced approach. Unfortunately, my own opinion is that right now our approach is tilted too much to the side of doing too little or in some cases nothing.

As Ken said, we do not in any way help our domestic manufacturers by giving them a "pass" as on the present mileage requirements and on our absurdly low motor fuel taxes. I am not in favor of higher taxes overall or in general, quite the opposite, but when we are importing most of our oil, at the same time we are running huge trade deficits, we are burying our heads in the sand by not encouraging energy conservation by factoring in the "total" cost on motor fuels. This distorts the economy rather than helps it, as in our reduction of efficient rail freight in favor of long distance trucking. I would like to see motor fuel taxes increased by at least $2/gal, but phased in over a twelve year period. This would send a signal to manufacturers and consumers while giving them ample time to adjust and make their appropriate decisions. This money could be dedicated to a fund to subsidize the purchase of fuel efficient vehicles and technologies to achieve energy independence. Energy independence should be a national goal, for both our future well being and national security. For us to literally shed our blood to "protect" the world's source of "cheap" fossil fuel is not in our best interests. Even less so when we consider that some of the money we pay to the mid-east ends up in the hands of our present and future enemies (ie: madrassahs teaching a generation of children to hate us and that their way to salvation lies in our demise). The present demand push toward higher oil prices would be replaced by a production push toward lower prices. And if some other countries haven't weaned themselves from overconsumption of imported oil and gas, that will be their problem.

Again no easy answers when all things are considered, yet the path we should be on is well staked out by now in my opinion.

GORE HAS RECEIVED A NOMINATION FOR A NOBEL PEACE PRIZE FOR HIS DOCUMENTARY ON GLOBAL WARMING. A MAN THAT HAS DONE MORE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT THAN ANYONE ELSE BEFORE HIM, READ ON!

Environmental Trendiness (and Hypocrisy)

In the past, Al Gore has made his environmental positions a big part of his message, notably in his book "Earth in the Balance", which sold well. We don't critique candidates' policy positions, but some of that may come back to haunt him by making him look extreme, trendy or hypocritical.

Gore runs the risk of being shown up as a hypocrite, the way Mike Dukakis was in 1998 after Boston Harbor's pollution problem was exposed.

One example is the Pigeon River in North Carolina and east Tennesee. The Champion International paper mill has pumped tons of chemicals and byproducts into it for years, turning it the color of cofee and adding a sulfurish smell. Gore campaigned hard against this pollution and lobbied the EPA to crack down. But in 1987, as Gore started running for president the first time, he was pressured by 2 politicians whose support he craved for the North Carolina Super Tuesday primary. Terry Sanford (then a Senator) and Jamie Clarke (North Carolina congressmen) lobbied him hard to ease up on Champion. Gore did, writing to the EPA again and now asking for a more permissive water pollution standard. Sanford and Clarke endorsed him, and Gore won the state handily.

Another example is a Gore family property that has been mined for zinc and germanium for decades. The Vice-President and his dad, the late Senator Albert Gore, Sr., obtained the land in a very favorable deal with the late Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum. Gore, Sr. was heavily supported by Hammer financially, and carried his water in the U.S. Senate.

Back in 1972, when zinc was discovered across the river from the Gore family land in Carthage, TN, Hammer sent engineers out and offered $20,000 per year for a mineral rights lease on some property owned by a church that had been willed the land. Instead, they wanted to sell and Hammer won a bidding war to buy the land for $160,000. He then sold it to Gore Jr. and Sr. for the same amount, and immediately started leasing the land back from him for the same $20,000. Lynwood Burkhalter, who in the 70s was president of the company that assumed this lease from Occidental Petroleum, called the payments "extraordinarily large."

Mining is, of course, a very messy business environmentally. The mine itself hasn't been that bad. Republicans have claimed that it's polluting the local drinking water, but according to the Wall Street Journal those problems "are actually very minor." However, the Journal notes that the plant in Clarksville TN, which processes the Gore minerals, is a federal Superfund site contaminated with cadmium and mercury, posing "a threat to the human food chain."

There's also a damning quote about cutting down Yew trees to make a promising cancer treatment that we used to include in our Gore quotes section. Except that the really embarrassing part -- which we got from an editorial in the Austin, Texas American Statesman -- turns out to be distorted and out of context. The full quote, which is still a little odd, is:

"The Pacific Yew can be cut down and processed to produce a potent chemical, taxol, which offers some promise of curing certain forms of lung, breast and ovarian cancer in patients who would otherwise quickly die. It seems an easy choice -- sacrifice the tree for a human life -- until one learns that three trees must be destroyed for each patient treated, that only specimens more than a hundred years old contain the potent chemical in their bark, and that there are very few of these yews remaining on earth." - Gore, in "Earth in the Balance", p. 119

The distorted version puts a period after "for each patient treated," as if the ratio of trees to humans was what bothered Gore. In reality, his point is that treating all current cancer patients would destroy all of the trees, leaving none of the drug for future cancer patients.

"From Al to Zinc: Story of a Mine Shows How a Fatherly Favor Still Haunts Gore", by Glenn Simpson, Wall Street Journal, November 1, 2000 pA28
"Gore's Pollution Problem", Newsweek, November 24, 1997
"Earth in the Balance," by Al Gore (Houghton Mifflin, 1992) p119 (Yew tree) and generally. "How Would Gore fare if he were called on to serve?," by David Ridenour, Austin American-Statesman, August 16, 1998

I havn't had a chance to read all these yet but I thought I would post them and give others a chance to read them at the same time. They talk about the techniques and science behind the Antarctic ice cores that were used to calculate the prehistoric atmospheric CO₂ levels.

Historical CO₂ records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores

Ice Core Extends Climate Record Back 650,000 Years

There were some queries about the efficacy of the analysis of the gas trapped in the Antarctic ice sheet and their relevance to prehistoric atmospheric CO₂ levels. I have not been able to confirm this but I believe that by examining the levels of carbon 14 in the trapped gas they can ascertain whether the sample is a true sample of the prehistoric atmosphere or whether it has been contaminated. Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope of carbon which has a well understood and established decay rate. By looking at the levels of C¹⁴ it is possible to see if the gas has truly remained isolated or been contaminate by some external processes.

Hi masu,

Just been looking at the great link you gave:

Historical CO₂ records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores

This passage is from it:

"The enclosed air at any depth in the ice has a mean age, (a_a), that is younger than the age of the host ice layer (a_i), from which the air is extracted. The difference (δa) equals the time (T_s) for the ice layer to reach a depth (d_s), where air becomes sealed in the pore space, minus the mean time (T_d) for air to mix down the depth. The mean air age is thus

a_a = a_i + δa = a_i + T_s - T_d

where ages are dates A.D."

This suggests that recent deposits will have a different composition to older samples, as the mixing of layers known to occur has not had time to settle.

It is therefore conceivable that large concentrations of CO2 have previously occurred in short timespans - 50 years or less - and the mixing which occurs over a number of years after depositing will have a smoothing effect on the resulting samples.

Also, as this mixing occurs, some of the gases will escape from the layers entirely, this being dependent on the temperature and the rate of deposit of the ice - which will not be constant.

This escaping gas could be measured to give an indication of escape rates, but only at the current conditions - it could take many years to get enough data for a reasonable model.

Well, hey. It's a start. I hope that the research produces some conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Hi water buffalo,

I agree this research lets us find out a lot about the planet's evolution, but these methods are historical and vague in time - +/-1year in the last 40 would add significant error as the older sections are tested.

Also the levels reducing at the time (projected) of WW2 suggest that it may take a number of years for the layers to be deposited - much more likely that levels produced by humans reduced during the great depression. This leads me to believe that the more recent vast increases are still the results of the gulf war & burning of the oil wells in Kuwait.

Pollution made last week will float around for years before getting caught in the ice.

I just read an article from NASA listing the 181 best reasons for returning to the moon. Several of the reasons involve studying things that could shed light on the history of Earths climate and past catastrophic events. One of the things they hope will come from the studies is a history of the Sun's behavior and how it has effected the Earths climate. Another thing they plan is a catalogue of the craters in a attempt to see if there is any sort of patter to the bombardments. Such a pattern could be helpful in determining what sort of effect a bombardments from space may have had on the Earths climate.

Just some interesting asides that may help us to work out what is really happening.

We live in an imperfect world. There is no such thing as conclusive evidence, only stronger or weaker balance of probabilities. 90% scientific probability would be equivalent to a jury's safe conviction (beyond reasonable doubt), I think. But miscarriages of justice still occur. We can only do our best

Fyz

We have done our part globally, through engineering and technology to improve air quality issues linked to Global Warming.

We have improved the air quality tremendously over the last 100 years, but vehicle emmisions and other miscellaneous products of combustion are now at their highest levels ever worldwide. In 1989 China had 163 miles (262Km) of highway, now it has over 18,500 miles. (29,772Km). I would hope that other countries like China would have an equal air quality standard, and some type of legislation. A strict Clean air act like our own, to avoid global changes in weather over time. (It is forecasted that China's fuel demand will equal and exceed the daily output that OPEC can produce daily.) Weather patterns along the western border of the United States, brought here by the trade winds is an issue. El Nino type weather patterns that have caused the most unstable weather on record, even in the U.S. northeast, where temperatures have continued to be in the 50'F.-(10C.) 60'F (15.5C.) through December and January. This was also the same weather cycle in 1972, but didn't set the temperature record two years in a row. The Gulf Stream has been squashed, extending air temperatures north, causing New Jersey, New York, and New England to set temperature records two years in a row as the warmest December on record. Man made they said.

Those of you who think that wind power/hydrogen are technologies which are dangerous might like to read this link:

http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/edison/index.html

Dose anyone really know WTF is going on? I don't.

Weather global warming is caused by man or not I will most likely never know...how could I?

What I do know is that there are so many environmental crimes and disasters...that are still going on as I write this that I would be willing to go with the global warming theory if it will help clean up the big friggen mess that mankind has made of the planet earth. Either way common sense tells me that burning oil...and a lot if it might not have been the best idea we could come up with.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=Global+warming
(found this video...some interesting points indeed)

Love your mother Earth and you can have your planet back. JT

also...What comes to mind when I read your thoughts is a email I was sent last year that is a letter from 1854...I cannot verify the contents of this message but it sure hits home.

How Can You Buy or Sell The Earth?

The following beautiful and prophetic statement in behalf of the environment has been attributed to Chief Sealth (Seattle) and has caused him to become the folkloric hero of the environmental movement, speaking both the mind and the conscience of all concerned about the earth. It was said to have been Chief Sealth's (Seattle's) reply to ｎ in December of 1854, upon the United States Government's offer to buy two million acres of Native American Land in the Pacific Northwest.

The Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. The Great Chief also sends us words of friendship and food will. This is kind of him, since we know he has little need of our friendship in return. But we will consider your offer.

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of this earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clearing, and every humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man. So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us….

This we know: All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man did not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself. But we will consider your offer to go to the reservation you have for my people. We will live apart, and in peace.

One thing we know, which the white man may one day discover __ our God is the same God. You may think now that you own Him as you wish to own our land: but you cannot.

He is the God of man; and his compassion is equal for the red man and the white. This earth is precious to Him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its Creator. The whites too shall pass; perhaps sooner than all other tribes. Continue to contaminate your bed, and you will one night suffocate in your own waste.

But in your perishing you will shine brightly, fired by the strength of the God who brought you to this land and for some special purpose gave you dominion over this land and over the red man. That destiny is a mystery to us, for we do not understand when the buffalo are all slaughtered, the wild horses are tamed, and the view of the ripe hills blotted by talking wires. Where is the thicket? Gone. Where is the eagle? Gone. And what is it to say goodbye to the swift pony and the hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival. So we will consider your offer to buy the land. If we agree, it will be to secure the reservation you have promised. There, perhaps, we may live out our brief days as we wish. When the last red man has vanished from the earth, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, these shores and forests will still hold the spirits of my people. For they love this earth as a newborne loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell our land, love it as we've loved it. Care for it as we've cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you take it. And preserve it for your children, and love it…. As God loves us all. One thing we know. Our God is the same God. This earth is precious to Him. Even the white man cannot be exempt from the common destiny. We may be brothers after all.

We shall see….

Wonderful piece of writing, JT.

I'm not so sure that the use of fossil fuels has changed the planet as much as the continued deforestation, and the eneral attempts to convert this planet to a man-made object, rather than leaving the "garden" as it was.

See here for detailed map of the scale of the problem in Africa - nearly 50% of the landmass is verging on unusable.

Gee - this thread has been all over the map! And such a broad map ......!

Given the possibility that "Global Warming" is connected- not only with politics but with perceptions - may I please refer those among us who can get a "paper" edition of the 'National' Globe and Mail (Canada) of May 1-2007, to the Report on Business Section - page B-12 Under Innovation to an article about CO2 conversion - entitled "Mouthwash for a Smokestack". (If any of you can find this sucker in the online edition please post it - I come up empty in my searches).

Get ready for this all you engineer guys: the biologists have taken good old 'e-coli' and done some genetic "engineering" - to produce a practical method of sequestering CO2 in a solid. Maybe we don't even have to discuss whether CO2 is a problem or NOT. Maybe we can just MOVE ON.

The article describes how researchers at Laval University in Quebec City, Quebec Province, Canada - isolated CO2 gaseous emissions and immobilized them as solid calcium carbonate. It goes on to describe the team as 'molecular biologists' and describes a field trial in Quebec City, in which the process was demonstrably robust and the article goes on to note that their company, "CO2 Solution", is first directing their attentions toward the the producers of portland cement - because that industry can consume the calcium carbonate by-product in their production cycle.

Quoting the article:

"...Working backward from a final goal of extracting CO2, they found that a complex protein called human carbonic anhydrase II could do the work required. ..... .... In the carbon-conversion process, a CO2 - rich emission is sent from the smokestack through water, in which the gas dissolves. The gas dissolves. The gas-bearing liquid then reacts with the catalyst, which takes one molecule of carbon dioxide and one of water, rips them apart, and re-jigs them into ions of hydrogen and bicarbonate.

Each molecule of catalyst (catalyst??) can immobilize up to a million CO2 molecules as extractable bicarbonate. The bicarbonate can then be extracted and stored. The residue needn't be tossed away, because it is a good source of pure carbon dioxide for other industrial processes."

Jacques Raymond, president and CEO of CO2 Solutions says that his company has NO competition with a biological approach.

They signed a "licensing and co-development agreement" with Babcock and Wilcox 6 weeks ago - specific to the burning of coal.

IF this technology delivers: WE can keep our HUMMERS with no shame, apologies or dissembling! WOW - a magic bullet!

Snowboy

I found the link:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070501.SRCEMENT01/TPStory/?query=Mouthwash

Intereseting!

MIT has been working on another CO2 capture technology using super algae

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/nrg_energy_test.html

My thought is that after you capture the CO2 in the algae, they in turn might e converted to a synthetic fuel (biodiesel?)

If we get serious about this and provide some funding, there are lots of clever people and I am optimistic that solutions can be found.

The problem with this approach is that it might leave plants with insufficient CO₂. They grow best with ~ 1%, and while over 2% is hazardous to humans allowance must be made for food production.

We humans are becoming too powerful for our own good: we tamper with every symptom of change in the hope that time will stay still. Have we really got to the point where no further evolution is required?

Keep in mind that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which has come out with this confidence level is comprised only of members of the World Meteorlogical Organization and the UN Environment Program and membership is restricted to these two bodies. As such what real credibility do they truly have? Weathermen and UN political appointees. Where are all the other scientific bodies represented that can contribute to the discussion? Of course when we read about the IPCC in the media they simply call its members scientists with no mention that those scientists tend to represent only one segment of all science.

There is a great deal of evidence that there are natural causes for the climate warming we are experiencing today. For instance, the atmosphereic temperatures on other planets and moons of some of those planets have reportedly increased during the same period the earth has experienced its warming.

With respect to the melting of glaciers, this has been going on since the last continental glaciers stopped advancing. These glaciers we big and heavy enough to carve out the Great Lakes and by some estimates were several kilometers thick. Yet that ice has all melted without any contribution of CO2 from man.

In order to have any effect on CO2 reductions, places like China and India must be on board. They are not so to have other economies redirect funds towards CO2 reductions while those economies are allowed to spew CO2 unabatted into the atmosphere is counter productive to what is desired to be achieved.

On the long haul, reducing overall pollution is a good thing and to that, establishing policies which serve to achieve that is a good thing. What is wrong is to assign unreasonable and unequal targets on countries as such actions simply are a transfer of wealth from one economy to another.

Our funds are better spent towards developing technolgies that will allow us to adopt to climate change rather that focusing on reversing global warming. What if the end result is such that we then face global cooling? What next? Do we then encourage people to burn all their rubbish in an effort to build up CO2 into the atmosphere?

To quote from an old TV ad: "Mother Nature doesn't like to be fooled"

Hi Impact Cases,

"Keep in mind that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which has come out with this confidence level is comprised only of members of the World Meteorlogical(sic)Organization and the UN Environment Program and membership is restricted to these two bodies."

People that sit on scientific panels and boards need to be appropriately qualified and insisting that the people that are discussing the affects of climate change have a background in meteorology is something I would have thought a necessity. I would be considerably more concerned if the panel was open to anybody regardless of them being appropriately qualified.

"As such what real credibility do they truly have?"

A lot more than any group of inappropriately qualified pseudo scientists that are currently denying there is a problem.

"With respect to the melting of glaciers, this has been going on since the last continental glaciers stopped advancing. These glaciers we big and heavy enough to carve out the Great Lakes and by some estimates were several kilometers thick. Yet that ice has all melted without any contribution of CO2 from man."

Yes the glaciers were receding but at a considerably slower rate then they have been over the last decade.

This accelerated rate is of extreme concern as the melting process actually works as a stabilizing influence. The amount of energy that is required to melt a cubic meter of ice is around 334 Mj which is enough to heat around 300,000 m³ of air by 1° C.

While ice is available to melt it acts as a giant heat sink and stabilizes the temperature of the atmosphere. Once the ice is all melted the energy then goes to warming the atmosphere and you end up with a devastating rapid increase in atmospheric temperature.

Australia has already seen a continent wide 1° C increase in mean temperatures since the middle of the 20^th century. Interestingly Australia is unique in that it has no permanent ice and hence no heat sink that could sop up any extra energy, being trapped in the atmosphere by increased CO₂ levels. I can not confirm that the reason for the already seen increase is du to there being no ice to melt but it certainly seems to be in line with the concept.

"In order to have any effect on CO2 reductions, places like China and India must be on board. They are not so to have other economies redirect funds towards CO2 reductions while those economies are allowed to spew CO2 unabatted into the atmosphere is counter productive to what is desired to be achieved."

I agree with you that this is a global problem and needs to be tackled on a global scale but saying I don't care because the Chinese and Indians don't is the sort of attitude that never gets anybody anywhere.

By the way China are working in collaboration with Australian scientists and engineers to develop clean coal technology. It this technology is successfully developed it could reduce the amount of CO₂ going into the atmosphere by around 50%.

If China develops the clean coal technology first you will end up needing to buy it from them and I doubt that is something many people in the developed world would find palatable.

To ignore a problem just because somebody else is, is petty minded arrogance and we need to lead by example. If we develop clean and ecological energy sources then the world will need to come to us rather than the other way round.

Remember whoever develops the technology first gets to reap the greatest rewards.

Don't forget that in the late 60's and early 70's the forecast was that we were beginning a new ice age. Now the reason for that forecast is that the air was polluted and the heat was being reflected back to space. So the lack of pollution has permitted the CO2 to cause the heat up.

We can always scatter a few million lbs of reflective glass bubbles in to low orbit and lower the temperature?

Also Mars also has heated up in parallel with Earth. A little less but heat up it does.

It may be that most of the CO₂ produced in the late 60's and early 70's was absorbed by the oceans (which can take more CO₂ when colder). The latest surveys show that the Southern Ocean has reached capacity.

Is this why there is a sudden rise in both CO₂ levels and temperatures?

I keep hearing/reading that. But baldly stated like that it is simply not true - at least not amongst the people I heard from at the time (with the exception of the overly noisy Fred Hoyle, who was trying to create a reputation after having been walked all over by the "Big Bang" theorists*). The statements I heard were that the balance between heating due to CO2 versus cooling due to particulates would be moving decisively in favour of heating over the next few years, as the particulates reached equilibrium or even reduced due to improved combustion technologies, and the CO2 continued to accumulate. The risk with rapid heating of the oceans was that a change in oceanic circulation could trigger a switch into a deepened ice age - but this was stated as a possible side effect of oceanic heating - and it remains so to this day.

35 years on, it is clear that our first risk is the likelihood that, whether or not it could be followed by a further ice age, the anticipated level of warming in the coming century would cause historically unprecedented droughts, floods, and crop failures, with all the displacements of populations, wars and turmoil that accompany it. As this is now regarded as having high probability unless we take appropriate actions, warnings about the possibility the heating triggering a subsequent ice age are regarded as superfluous and almost certainly confusing.

In short, in regard to a forthcoming ice age, the position remains pretty much unchanged - that it is simply one of the possibilities. Unfortunately, I fear you have heard from this who would highlight one aspect of some of the work** from the 60s-70s to the exclusion of both the reasoning behind that work and the general background against which it came.

Fyz

*Not necessarily that they were right and he was wrong about this - although observations were easiest interpreted in this way at the time) were just better at arguing the case within scientific circles

**They say that if you can remember that period you weren't there - how sad am I?

I don't think whether or not global warming is man made is the issue and much time is wasted debating it. The fact is fossil fuel is going to run out one day in the near future and we've wasted most of it. I hardly dare think of all the products that could have been formed from what we've burned. I'm in no doubt as to the existance of Climate Change and I believe we should be doing all we can to moderate any influence we might be having.

I also believe that at current population levels, there is no practical sustainable existance possible. Forget all this crap about bio-fuels, where are they going to grow?

Hola Ken:

I am conservative but not stupid and 100% sure that global wanming is Man-made, no doubt.

Dont get mixup as all reporters of news, they are the childs, since there is not EL NIÑO effect nor the green house effect either, but the global warming is true and we all can help if we focus on the facts as follows:

WORLDISGREEN.COM...BUSSINESS STRATEGY & SUSTAINABILITY, SEPT 3, 2007

GREEN HOUSE EFFECT IS FALSE

IT IS A TRICKY SENTENCE THAT PETROLEUM GUYS WANT US TO BELIVE IN, TO CONFUSE EVERY BODY

- IT IS A CRAISY IDEA to send satelite MIRRORS to BLIND AND REDUCE incoming solar energy to avoid climate change -due to a mitic green house effect-.... Sun has never been harmfull to Earth....... Sun Radiation is in a perfect Thermal Equilibrium with Earth ever since. is`nt it so?............ we Humans are the danger to earth..

REAL CAUSES:

Real causes are down here, where HUGE amounts of waisted heat from more than 6 billions tons of hot gases -per year- are generated while burning fuels -in motor vehicles, water heaters, boilers, thermoelectric generators, driers, ranges, ovens, etc-. We dont have to be scientist to understand a math equation, showing that the problem results from the extra added heat to atmosphere:

IR sun energy + extra waisted heat from burning fuels = atmosphere overheating

= more evaporation = denser clouds = flooding storms = polar deice = actual kaoz

- Do you know what happen now that petroleum XX century is gone and Solar XXI century will replace fuels-WITH FREE AND CLEAN NATURAL ENERGY?- ......very simple.....the depleted AND EXPENSIVE petroleum will go down to 1 dollar per barrel and that will crack petroleum industry....... See? ...ENERGY will be free then, and peaple will save money to buy many thing else -as a free-maintance electric car ----and so on----- politically impossible?....IT SEEMS LIKE FICTION MOVIE….....but there are...

TWO SOLUTIONS:

1. Urge to replace all combustion devices, equipments and engines -WITH SOLAR AND ELECTRIC POWERED ONES-.

2. As well as urgent is to reforest the world with billions of trees – they are magic factories that will clean air from CO2, by:

Sucking CO2 + Absorbing solar UV and solar heat = to return us pure and fresh OXIGEN -instead-

Trees never heat the air -so- the craisy green house effect does not happen -that's a lie-

The true is that are cooking our self's in this global pot, due to PETRO-effect -nothing else-.

HOW YOU CAN HELP? :

- I urge any body who has responsability of enviromental care and have funds -you must support any projects where products (vehicles or equipments) pursue this change over -to a new solar and electric eco-culture-.

-I urge Presidents all -to issue compulsory regulations to stop using any apparatus, device or engines where combustion of fuels take place -of any hidrocarbons (liquid or gas) alcohols, biofuels, carbons or hidrogen too- because all react exothermicaly generating the hot gases that over-heat the air -depleting oxigen O2 and ozone O3 as well while they burn to CO2 -which ixcess is getting a letal concentration level, too-.

• Now, I hope you understand it better -the real global warming problem- & communicate it to all your friends -what is going on- to become more that GREEN peaple -but ECOLOGY ORIENTE PEAPLE, co-responsible- don't relay on heaven help, only. PLEASE STOP BURNIG FUELS guys.

jmjr, Senior Chem. Eng, MS from UMass,

Zapopan, jal. Mexico

I have responded to this post in the Improved External Combustion Engines thread, so rather than repeating myself please follow the links I have provided to read my response or view the entire thread.

Hola CHEMA:

Your viewpoint is interesting, albeit hard to support with science, at least as I know it. But your message of using less fossil fuel is a good one, although the timetable may need to be stretched a bit from what you envision.

Masu's response is pretty well-reasoned, I think, and I trust you'll find it interesting.

Peaple is all mix up with so many wrong news -given by non professional newsman and even from scientist- since even we have diferent point of view (on causes of Global Warming). But, what ever hypotesis you believe in:

1º the emision of co2 and other gases has green house effect that increase temp. This is a fancy gess but not a proben fact.

or

2º the huge wasted energy exhusted as heat -companion of CO2- from any combustion engine (device o equipment) in a rate of 85 million barrelas a day, and acummulated since a century, causes global warming. This is a fact, as real as we can feel it from the hot gases that exhaust our cars.

And -no matter what hipotesis you believe in- the fact is that, both, point that burnt fuel is the Evil that produces both -CO2 a the heat- in huge amounts that unbalanced atmosphere thermodynamic equilibrium, ence, the accion to be urgently taken is to reach CERO CO2 emitions, wich is the same as CERO fosil fuel combustion too.

So, from Copenhagen meeting, leaders should come out with the task to promote use of clean, enless, and free nature`s energy as solar, wind, tide and hidro, to stop global warming and its efffect on climate changes.

Although you might have your "fact" and "fancy guess" ideas reversed (for reasons explained in the two previous posts by Masu and Physicist?, and in hundreds of articles and papers that can be found on the web) your conclusion is nevertheless correct: we need to burn less fuel. This will have the corollary benefits, for many countries, of improving their security, reducing resource depletion, reducing other types of pollution, etc.

So you are right: whether one "believes" in the science behind global warming or not, the actions of reducing CO2 by reducing the use of carbon based fuels has numerous benefits for society, both direct (better environment, cleaner air, etc.) and secondary (huge opportunities for economic growth in developing new and improved infrastructures, new vehicles, etc).

Hi Blink:

It is good to know colegues that are not married with any of the explanations of global warning.

1º As I explain before, atmosphere is closed entity -and insulated more like an steam boiler- then any wasted heat -transfered to air- is acumulated and raises its temp, because it can not be disipated into the space, just like use to -down here-.

2º You mentioned that some -guys here- wrot a Masterbog explaining about green gouse effect on global warming, however, I am pioneer in the green house film business and constantly developing new products and designing for building better GH for costumers, BUT we haven found any relation of global warming to the process going on into a green house. So I do not buy that explanation.

We can formulate films to filter many especific range of radiation -going allways back and foward troughout it (UV, IR, a color of light, etc.)- but no way to do -only in one direction- as they say. So IR waves can go ant direction you want (in and out to the space).

But, no matter who has the true explanation, we both end up remarking that:

1º we must avoid continue burning fuels if we want to stop global warming.

2º we must reforest earth -as well as develop factible technology- to recapture -recycle- CO2, to restore our healty air -damaged by the abuse of keeping using fuels -as only sourse of energy- instead of harvesting endless natural clean and free energies -as solar, wind, tide & hidro-

Please make your contribution ton convince world leader to make this trnsition as son as possible -there is not much time left-

• "we must reforest earth"

Well, yes and no.

Keep in mind, if a plant or tree is growing and increasing in mass and volume then it's sucking in more carbon and other material than it is expelling. On the other hand a tree that is mature and has a fairly stable mass only needs to absorb the carbon and other material it needs to maintain itself.

The problem is that unless the forest is growing you end up with a system that is relatively neutral.

However, if you harvest the old and mature trees and replace them with young saplings you can lock up the carbon in the timber while the saplings which are steadily growing suck more carbon from the biosphere.

So yes, the more trees the better but with a properly controlled harvesting system we can do even better while supplying the world with timber products.

That is right Masu:

But it is better to reforest than not to do so.

well, THIS TIME WE ARE IN THE SAME CHANNEL, preaty good.

I like to send you an animated carton (in xxxx.pps format) about "what will happen do to the human wastes" but I can`nt insert in the blog page, only by your e-mail which I dont know..

Have a wonderfull chiritmas time.

The greenhouse "hypothesis" is of course not proved - proof is no longer regarded as a valid concept in experimental/theoretical science - we only have ascending levels of probability that a theory is correct.

Greenhouse warming is regarded as greater-than 90% probable as being the dominant cause of the current warming. That's pretty good. Accumulated heat-of-combustion is not in contention - the solar-input-output equilibrium time-scales are sufficiently short that it is a complete non-starter.

I agree the need for an agreement on significant reductions in emissions. You in particular should be happy if it includes bio-fuels; sensibly implemented they are as effective as anything in replacing fossil conversion - and they need your type of expertise if the level of use is to increase.

I have no intention to reheat atmosphere -but from now on with bio-fuels- va!!!!!!!!.

We must leave behinde trivial debates on this. No way, we must urge liders for a policy to stop burning fuels and producing more and more CO2 and heat.

I intend to be so congruent, I developed a very cheap solar heater for home use (but modularity alows its use as well as for hotels, hospitals, industry, etc.). but I am in the process to find US$2.6 million financial funds to start making only 100,000 pieces per year. Have you a idea which door to knock for such task?

Also, since wind blows intermitently -but arrond clock- I am developing a prototype to harverst wind power -as compressed air- (to power on demand 5kw to 50kw needed in a ranch, an smale town, a sky scraper, an small industries, a supermarkets, or so niches). time table could be for end of 2010.

We have to act rather that to debate, debate and debate, which helps none.

Merry christmas.