Sun Causes Climate Change Shock

I have said it before, there is something we can do about it. The root cause of non-biological CO2 production (i.e. living breathing life forms, adding Co2 to the atmosphere,) is Carbon based fuels being burnt. Stop using Hydrocarbon fuels and the CO2 level will drop, drastically.

We can use Hydrogen as a fuel. Storing it in high strength polymer containers lined with Mylar will lessen leakage. Using renewable energy sources, (Solar, wind, tidal, etc.) will allow constant production of Hydrogen from sea water.

HE3 can be mined on the Moon, or gathered directly from the Solar wind, using collectors outside of Earth's magnetosphere, and will produce SUSTAINABLE, safe, controlled Fusion reactions.

Discovery of room temperature super-conductors, arrayed in a world-wide grid, will allow capture and storage of the lightning of atmospheric storms.

Will any of this happen in our lifetimes, or our children's or their children's lifetimes?

Not likely, not as long as politicians can use it to trumpet their causes, (or add to their wallets.) Not as long as there is money to be made bilking gullible, panicked people. Not as long as those in power have little knowledge and no vision. Not as long as we the people allow them to CON us into believing that if we "give a little more" of our freedoms, money or control of our lives over to "them" they will take care of it.

It's a lie. folks. Throughout history, the only time a large organization (company, government, civilization, etc.) changes, is when they are FORCED to change the way they do business.

I personally think it is way past time.

Just my opinion. Dragon

You wrote, "Only positive votes accepted (or none)"

Huh? Would you advocate that everyone only vote for one political party (pick your poison) for their representatives, too?

Didn't I suggest: "No politics, blaming, insults and sh*t fights or religion"?

The proposal would not be about opinions or parties, but about posting plans and achievements to encourage and uplift.

The politics could go to another thread to consume their arguments.

My idea would be to give us all some breathing space from argumentative propensities by eliminating the mechanisms that supports them, and to show what could and is being actually done in a positive, constructive space, regardless of ideological associations, without the personal powers to undermine such postings. Of course we could end up with some trolls and petty tyrants full of their self-importance, sadly they cannot help themselves and they probably have bigger problems eating them than we can see; but this is inevitable in an open forum. It would be up to the moderators to remove the comments.

I just wonder if this is at all possible, or if mine is just another ideological polarization which will quickly attract it's polar counterpart into another sh*t contest just for the fun of it. I guess that it would be sufficiently revealing in any case.

I like your idea. Unfortunately it seems most people would rather sit in a burning house arguing over who set the fire.

GA

Thank you for your support of the idea. Let's wait and count heads. I wonder how many would rather extinguish the fire: it will give us an idea of the dominant thinking here.

An interesting concept is that ideas have a polar nature, and as such release energy creating e-motions (this spelling tells a lot about energy). This energy can be used constructively or destructively. Some people don't know that they can "aim" this energy and choose how they use it, others have figured this out and create intentionally. Those who blast powerful e-motion around in an uncoordinated way are usually individuals who destroy before they build, or just enjoy destroying because they become addicted to the high of those e-motions. This theory has validity in the understanding of drug addiction, abuse, finger pointing, tyranny, murder, war warmongering and self-harm, as well as the creative arts and all "positive" human achievements, which are obtained by skilfully aimed, highly charged ideas and emotions. Depending on the dominant ideology an individual, family or nation will either build or destroy. The destroyer has characteristically an overdeveloped sense of blame: this arises because their ideas, which create emotions, which turn into actions (words or deeds) are highly polarised towards justifying and imposing self-interest. We all have observed "wasted energy" in industry and homes on a planetary scale: I believe it is simply a manifestation of the "waste" we also produce at an emotional personal level . We then translate this energy into actions creating effects which reflect the original thoughts. Of course there is no "waste" because energy is never lost, but the outcome maybe disasters, or bliss at the opposite ends of the spectrum.

"Why not start with some self-adaptation? I would like to offer the suggestion to all participants in this forum to find and post with some detail, how they can or have changed climate factors in either their workplace, office or home, in their corporate boss or client minds, to change the way things are done to reduce energy consumption, pollutants, or environmental damage."

Paul -- GA based on the above. I don't think it will be easy to enforce your suggested rules via the operating scheme of CR-4. Within the framework of CR-4 the best a member can do is start a new topic. Changing moderation guidelines here is not easy due to the nature of CR-4 and the objectives of its sponsors.

But an OP posting an original problem statement and acting as a de facto moderator always has some capital to expend in that direction. In that direction it's best to stay on top of the thread and exercise some leadership whenever a replier tends to drift.

So do you want to start the new topic, or me, or someone else? Let's call it "BRAGBOOK: xxxxxxxxxxx " I purposely capitalized the word "Bragbook" since we all deep down want to shout our achievements even if such a delivery isn't considered "cool".

Perhaps the first topic as follows: "BRAGBOOK: How you've adapted to climate change"

Ed Weldon

I understand and I would be happy if you or anyone would start it, as I am likely to be looking into it sporadicly because of other commitments. I go along with the capitalization and sub. I'd love to see what people have done and dreamt up! Any volunteers?

So what is the downside to this planet warming up again?

I do mean again being that geologic evidence clearly shows that ocean levels have been far higher multiple times before so its not like waring up and having oceanic levels rise is a new thing that the planet has never experienced before.

The thing is everyone who is against climate change is from a place that has been experiencing what they see as negative changes in their local environment. However all of us who have seen what we could plausibly see as positive changes don't get to have a say or opinion in this debate. Whats the deal with that?

From all of the plausible scientific data I have read and understood over the years I have went from being a solid believer to highly sceptical. To even further it the evidence I have seen to be plausible has given me strong reasons to think that global warming regardless of its source is a good thing and that I fully intend to push along in my own way despite the fact that I have strong reservations that we humans have Jack Squat worth of power to influence any of it enough to matter.

To be fair to my attempts to look at the science as unbiased as I can I do try and take the man made related theories just seriously enough to implement my own counter measures against the people trying to undo what I see as a good thing. That is I have actively and willingly made efforts to increase my greenhouse gas emissions substantially not lessen them!

Why are believers allowed to be called believers but sceptics are automatically deniers because we just want real tangible and plausible scientific evidence that cant be viewed in either direction due to its present inherent ambiguity?

(Just tossing my tires on the fire.)

To be fair to my attempts to look at the science as unbiased as I can I do try and take the man made related theories just seriously enough to implement my own counter measures against the people trying to undo what I see as a good thing. That is I have actively and willingly made efforts to increase my greenhouse gas emissions substantially not lessen them!
Methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases

Well I have always enjoyed letting out a good fart now and then!

And I breath easier knowing that I am upwind by a long distance.

Methane has no odor. It is the sulphur compounds that accompany the biological processes which produce methane that you smell and cause you to avoid breathing. I do suppose there is some variation in the mix of methane and sulphur compounds depending on diet and recent history of intake of strong antibiotics.

Ironically sulphur may be one of the few tools that we can employ to hold the line against global warming. Research on the effect of large volcanic eruptions has shown that in addition to other emissions the sulphur put into the upper atmosphere has an effect of reducing the heat input to our atmosphere. We pretty much already have the technology to produce and deliver sulphur to the upper atmosphere although the most effective distribution and quantity remains to be determined as does the details of the delivery system (flying container ships? or giant hydrogen filled balloons?)

Ed Weldon

Rah! Rah! Let's hear it for wind power!

Well said!

Actually the major source of new CO2 has been identified.

AL GORE......between his incessant gum flapping and the huge amounts of energy consumed between all his huge mansions....his fleet of huge vehicles.....and his incessant travel via private jet.

Between all of those he alone produces 20% of global CO2 emissions.

I think the man who makes his living preaching propaganda....should be required to practice what he preaches.

It's been a busy week for me and, although I have been reading the thread, I have not had time to make comments.

With regards to larger over-arching policy, I can't shake the feeling that there is an agenda on one side or the other. There seems to be little science going on that is not connected directly or indirectly to organizations with policy agendas. And now all the data is suspect.

I can't link a reference, but I recall a study on a tree farm some years back where they pumped CO2 into an area of trees and studied their reaction. As I recall they found that in the first 4 or 5 years the trees grew significantly faster than the test group, but after that they slowed down dramatically because the CO2 trees outstripped the available nutrients in the ground.

So, without a doubt, humans have increased the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere. From there the waters are very muddy. I suspect that CO2 levels are actually of minimal concern and the dumping of other pollutants have a far more significant impact than our exhalations. Look at the 'dead zones' at the mouth of the Mississippi River and other major rivers. These are obvious impacts due to nitrogen run-off from massive agricultural operations (livestock and fertilizer), but their seems to be little done with this.

I'll reiterate from my other post: people need to be aware of where their sh!t goes after they are done with it. STOP buying crap from China.

My sentiments 100%

CO2 diverts our attention from far more pressing problem pollutants: this aids industries which dump them. The world can deal with CO2 far better than other chemicals. CO2 offsets are not a problem to large corporations; just another tax workaround. The average population doesn't even understand the whole CO2 debate, and politicians have never explained much: I believe that they too don't understand it.

This is not to say that dumping great amounts of CO2 is great.

It is to say that we must not become blinkered by it and continue research into other factors involved in planetary pollution. CO2 emissions is an indicator of other pollutants being released.

It is also true that consumers are where the buck eventually stops, and if the consumers don't understand pollution, maybe they will understand taxation a bit better.

I couldn't have put it better myself. There are those "purist" scientific minds out there that espouse the scientific method, but they don't take into account (or just ignore, biographically and autobiographically) human nature.

GA

Well whatever the cause (or who, maybe it is the green men) , using more ecology safe products and being more aware of electricity usage, waste and such, is always better then not i think.

If it turns out that the human involvement in global warming is minuscule, at least the whole Global warming scare may have had some positive effect on peoples mentality towards being more green (no not those green men).

And the companies are happy put an Eco sticker on a product and tree huggers will buy it!

Here's a thought;

Use something like a credit card. Hold between thumb and index finger, and compress until it is bent out to one side. Using other hand, slowly push until it flips to be bent out on the other side. Initially the force applied to 'flip' the bend is high, but at the last minute little force is needed.

My thought is thus; Climate 'flips' due to a number of cyclic natural phenomena, and we are due (in geological age terms) for a flip. Could human activity have some part that might act as that final little push that flips the system, bringing it's 'due date' (as if anybody could specify that) to some time this century rather than a few million years ?

The banks are gonna hate me for having people bust their credit cards .

The tripping factor might be vastly increased use of natural gas (mostly methane) and the resulting small percentage of leakage attendant to extraction, transport and consumption. Sounds like a relatively small amount in global terms. But how much do we know about the effects of the various fracking processes and their ability to allow additional natural gas leakage to the surface. There are anecdotes surrounding water well contamination by drilling fluids. The energy companies like to keep such bad news under wraps.

Natural gas is odorless; so the seeps are hard to detect, unlike bad tasting water from a well. They exist everywhere in the natural world (there is one that is well known by the oldtimers in my neighborhood just a few hundred yards from my house. You could walk right up to it and not even know it's there until you set it off with a lighter. It burns with a low flame that can be easily blown out.

Does anyone have any numbers or even anecdotes on the leakage of gas in the ground surrounding gas wells created by this new fracking process? It seems that a deeper well and the presence of impervious rock above the gas deposit would mean less leakage. Maybe these questions still await relevant scholarly research. Sounds like a good thesis subject for a geology graduate student who would rather drive a taxicab than work in his field of study.

Ed Weldon

Wow! So much discussion. Warms the heart. I'm in the camp of "proceed with caution."

I have a crude analogy in my head about "our" impact on the planet. I don't think anyone would argue that Twinkies are nutritious food. And having one occasionally will have little effect on one's health. But a steady diet of them, while satisfying the sweet tooth in us, will, most likely lead to an unpleasant outcome.

The planet will survive, but we may not. We don't know if the changes we are seeing/experiencing in climate are caused solely by us, but it defies common sense to think our activities have no impact at all. So much of what we have introduced into the world is synthetic and not naturally occurring. And I don't think there are any accurate "models" of life on earth to allow testing the impact of what we do. I think DDT is just one example of the arrogance of our "perceived" level of knowledge of the world. Asbestos another. There are many species whose environment has shrunken due to our annexation of their land for our ever increasing population. It has eliminated some and to the rest it has caused much suffering and stress.

To me, we are spending so much time and energy in trying to address many problems we ourselves have created. Disease is one such area of human suffering. Degenerative diseases are mostly of our own make, via our forks and the environment, our lifestyle and it's accompanying stresses, which we have created for ourselves. Life is struggle. But I think we have made it more of a struggle than it should be, in some ways. (Population control, in general, would have been good, for starters.)

Many of us may not live long enough to see who was more right on the subject of climate change or how we have impacted natural processes on the planet. Based on my gut feeling, though, of where we're headed, I'm glad that I, likely won't be around to see the verdict.

If we're the tiny, tiny little speck of dust in the universe that we appear to be, why are we so intent on our full speed ahead, consequences be damned attitude? And if each of us is here only for the equivalent of a nanosecond in time, who are we trying to impress? I, for one, would be willing to turn back the clock to a time when this continent was as the first "settlers" found it... the way Lewis and Clark experienced nature on their expedition. I, and many others are so thankful that T.R. and others realized the value of nature and saw fit to preserve at least some of it, in national parks, as it was before "explorers" came along. Even with a shorter life expectancy, which was part of the deal, I think it could be argued that enjoying life on the planet rather than seeing it as a vault of so many resources to be unearthed and utilized for transitory pleasures (hoola hoops comes to mind), would be much more satisfying than pursuing the goals we have become mostly driven by -- "earning" a living, etc.

I know this perspective will be perceived by many as romanticizing the past, when there were harsh realities then, too, that did make life hard. Lfe is struggle. I just think there is something deep inside us that doesn't get fed by accumulating wealth, titillating the palate with all sorts of enticing but, ultimately, bad food, and inventing technological toys to play with. I think a snapshot of life in any of the developed and developing countries (like India and China) would make it look like this is what we are pursuing above all else.

(These comments probably seem too general and OT. But if we lived less for these types of pleasures in life, we might not have gotten to where we seem to be. As a species, we are in a pickle in more than just a couple of ways. Having enough water is one big question on the horizon.)

Your point about DDT reminded me about what my own personal research on that substance turned up.

Here is just one dissenting scientific voice on that topic.

http://starphoenixbase.com/?p=45

I choose to believe what is written at that website. By your statement I can only assume that you will not (should you read it). The same goes for most of the, things which have been brought up in this thread, and this same difference of opinion underscores the basic problems, that I have with PopScience driving policy; and, this particular instance that policy forced the end of a product, which was saving lives, and multiplied millions of lives have been lost from malaria since the world has stopped using DDT. (Not to change the topic toward DDT, just to use it as a means of mirroring and highlighting the ideological differences, which have been brought up on the topic of climate change.)

Well, I don't have an emotional attachment to any one viewpoint. I am partial to working with nature (i.e., using naturally occurring substances when possible) to overcome problems related to human exisitence. And I do look for truth and the common sense application of it. The article you cite does make points that should alter the average "popular" view, as you've termed it, concerning DDT, or at least give pause for reflection. Pest control is not only for human disease prevention, but also of importance in food production. On that subject, there is the question, can similar results be achieved with biological controls and other measures? I do have concerns about the persistence in the environment of a substance that isn't purely benign. Steve Milloy describes DDT as "relatively benign."

I appreciate your referring me to the article you cited. It led me to look further into DDT use related to the malaria question. I found another article which also expresses a similar view to the article you cited and clearly demarcates the use for malarial control vs. general use. Also, this appears to be a good "fact sheet" for DDT. But in the interest of providing an article that is not so pro-DDT, this one might provide helpful information, for readers, also. I think it is pretty even-handed, as it endorses the use of DDT in certain countries until better measures are found, yet doesn't give a carte blanche, blank check, to the use of DDT as the only way to effectively fight malaria.

I certainly didn't have time to read the whole chapter in this online book. (I apologize to readers who may not be able to access the link -- I am at a university and some articles, etc. are available to employees, because the library subscribes to these type of services, and I never know which ones are also available to the general public. The title of the book is, "Ecological Knowledge and Environmental Problem-Solving:Concepts and Case Studies." The link is for Ch. 24, "Environmental Effects of DDT.") But it looks to have a pretty thorough overview / assessment of DDT, albeit, published in 1986.

In the end, it isn't a perfect world and so often we are left with only harmful choices in trying to correct or treat problems, such as malaria. We have to decide which is "least harmful". But we should always have as the highest goal, to always be open to altering our view of what is effective, but least harmful. Unfortunately, I'm not sure this is always the case in higher quarters.

Gavilan -- I have to believe that the dynamics of our Solar system as you describe have been fairly well computer modeled although I can see from your comment about Jupiter that some of the constants in the model may still have a significant margin of error due to inadequete data. Still I have trouble accepting that these unknowns are of sufficient magnitude to affect the accuracy of overall predictions of climate change.

Asteroid impact are low probability events compared with volcanic eruptions large enough to affect global weather. I suspect geologists and climatologists have already gotten their heads together and worked out the probability predictions to do with cooling effects of various size and chemistry volcanic emissions and their persistance in the atmosphere. That like solar system dynamics generally doesn't make its way into the general media reporting. But it does show just how complex the general subject of climate change really is.

Ed Weldon

Hey Gavilan,

Interesting post - and lots to agree with in it.

The issue though is that this is exactly the sort of data climate scientists weigh up before publishing their work.

I suppose it's a bit like a non-engineer mulling over some question about the grid and saying...

"hang on - but do the electrical engineers in charge of the electricity grid realise that transmission losses in the same diameter aluminium and copper cables are not the same, and that AC has different characteristics to DC?"

Uh, yes of course they do - that's what they spend their life studying and doing!

The science (not the politics) that now says unequivocally that humans are causing climate change looks at the inputs from every conceivable source - it's not as if reading through a bunch of engineers discussing their field of expertise might suddenly open climate scientists' eyes to 50 variables that they had forgotten to factor in.

Of course they would be interested in the debate, and may pick up an interesting new angle from a non-expert, but seriously, I've had lecturers in atmospheric chemistry who have spent 40 years studying this one issue.

Wouldn't float my boat, but they really really know their stuff. They're not politicians - they are full-on, real-deal, hard-core research scientists.

The voices; the voices. They are plotting and scheming to get you. They tell you the government wants you to take your carbon pills to fight off the cosmic rays. Their number is legion; but you must fight back.

Ed Weldon (The hook is baited. Let's see who strikes first. ......... Not you, Kramarat. We know about you already. You concentrate on blue crabs. And I hereby lift the choking curse.)

Wliat we have right now is an accumulation of contributing factors to atmospheric warming, including a lot of hot air coming from different cerebral sources. :)

Solar flares are about to peak in 2012, rain forests are being cut down to the tune of hundreds of acres a day, China in starting to drive cars and still open a coal fired power plant a day, glaciers are a thing of the past, Antarctia is breaking up and exposing new areas of water to the sun, list goes on and on and everything contributes a bit to the ambient atmospheric temperature of the planet to the tune of 1 degree F in the last two decades.

It's a surge but where it will peak no one know for sure but we are definetly on the rising side...

GA and thanks for bringing the thread back to topic.

"I am confident the faith in the Atmospheric Chemists that have lectured on climate science is well founded; but I question whether such specialization would be conducive to thorough examination of all possible variables."

I agree. There is no doubt the atmospheric chemists know their stuff, but the equation is so large that, perhaps, they can't see the forest for the trees. Perhaps the atmospheric experts and the solar experts need to get together and cross disciplines. I can imagine being so specialized in a field one can become myopic.

hmmmmm.... well - maybe, but I'm not sure we're in the scientific realm anymore once we get to the stage where we assume the people who know the most about a subject must therefore be too specialised to understand it ... really I don't know where you go from there. For me, I'll stick with the scientific method.

The scientific method is a great tool, but it is limited by the people putting it to use and the data that is available to them.

I don't assume that the experts are too specialized to understand their field; it is the fact that the data set is so small against the myriad of variables and the attempt to extrapolate that data against millions of years.

I think that the more interdisciplinary the approach is to such a massive subject the better the scientific method can be used to with the aggregate of data.

GA. Nice find...

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y2DCHlHO

Yup. The debate is over, so researchers just have to resign instead.

GA

Thanks for bringing facts forward, ED

of course all this does is give some perspective to the relative value of the good doctors opinion...

Which, in no way, address's his point:

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period'"

...

is there a source for that claim?

even if that were true as an average across the planet

the localized extremes are inconvenient

This shows +1.2°C in the past 150 years.

Garthh -- Here's a link :

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming

The bottom of this link contains Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS which includes the passage cited by lighthasmass.

With respect to Lhm's point in #448 that I didn't address the statement cited in #445:

I saw no point in addressing an assertion by one (Dr. Giaever) who to my knowledge at the moment has no more credible qualifications to comment than you or me. Indeed my purpose was to expose him as a member of a group of famous people who have chosen their fame as a source of unwarranted credibility. And in researching his bio I discovered a genuine conflict of interest.

With respect to future comments on the merits of Dr. Giaever's statement about degrees of global temperature rise I think I will pass. It would take a good bit of study of the subject, well beyond the limits of my personal bandwidth, to intelligently comment. It is for this reason I make no personal attempt to critique or argue the existing science on global warming/climate change but rather accept the overwhelming legitimate scientific consensus.

Ed Weldon

Here are some other names:

Khabibullo Abdusamatov

Hendrik Tennekes

Sallie Baliunas

Don Easterbrook

David Douglass

William Kininmonth

David Legates

Tad Murty

Garth Paltridge

Tim Patterson

Antonino Zichichi

George Chilingar

Freeman Dyson

Richard Lindzen

Ian Clark

William M. Gray

Fred Singer

Chris de Freitas

William Happer

All of these names are persons who are actual climatologists or work in a related field. All agree that we are seeing the planet warm approximately 0.8°C. However, all believe that the bulk of this warming is not anthropogenic.

I have read their arguments and they are all reasonable arguments and scholarly.

I can also produce a list of proponents of anthropogenic warming that outnumber the dissenters, but my point is that there are dissenters who have educated opinions on the subject and their numbers are starting to grow.

To me it means the debate is alive (and growing) and we know we have a lot more to know about the subject.

AH -- Good Answer from me too. The developing line of science is always a good thing because regardless of where it takes us we are better prepared to deal with what comes.

Given the current state of science (which includes other subtopics such as deforestation and acidification of oceans) governmental action including taxes is a wise course to encourage reductions in carbon releases. But however it is done it should be logically scaled and any proceeds go to closely related programs rather than frivolous excessive consumption or paying for debts which such activity has incurred.

Ed Weldon

As an engineer, you would understand that a turbine will do more work if more heat is put into it. I.e. more "mass flow" is not necessarily 'hotter running'

There are many scientists out there who seem to think the Earth is a static mass. To them there is no 'engine' - no ocean currents - no polar 'exhaust' - no 'latent heat storage', no atmosphere circulation.

Thus, they think more heat in, aught to equate to a rise in temperature.

This is true if one is heating a locked rotor turbine.

But how F***ing dumb do you have to be to think that relates in any way, when all you have to do is look out your window to see it all moves?

Sir Issac would be rolling in his grave at this level of 'grasping' of "dynamic".

There is nothing to answer here - except the blithering tosser hasn't noticed, or can't comprehend the other guys have measured it 'speeding up'.

$5 says they are delighted that the 'petro-hobbit' has self-ejected.

Lemmings learning to swim in Swan Lake?

On a more recent note: I've been going up to the arctic for some 30 yrs now. Four immediate observations are evident

1) on many days the winter atmosphere becomes opaque (used to be clear)

2) the colour of the ice has changed

3) certain areas stink of rotting flesh

4) there is a bizarre lower atmospheric glow at night

I won't speculate as to what's causing this. I will state that many of these phenomena have become pronounced within the last ten years.

I have come to believe the division in opinion falls into 3 categories.

A. The "It is happening" cat. is heavily populated by those with a history of field work.

B. The "It's not" cat. is populated by those who operate out of cloistered or sponsored offices.

C. & those who will say anything for "celebrity".

I think there is pretty good evidence to support a warming of .8°C over the last 100 years.

I am not convinced that:

1. there is undeniable evidence that it is anthropogenic,

2. that we really know what will happen and when.

So, I see it has thee possible camps:

1. Don't believe it is getting warmer,

2. don't believe it is man made,

3. don't believe the cause it natural climatic shift.

Well there we have it;

I am convinced that:

1. there is sufficient undeniable evidence that it is anthropogenic.

2. that we have a working knowledge of what will happen and when links directly to sea ice depletion. That is the 'clock'.

But I do agree there is scope for and reason behind your "thee possible camps":

1. Don't believe it is getting warmer" - as said 'dynamics' unaware and/or using a misleading name.

2. don't believe it is man made - means they have not done the true scale. Think the biosphere is 'huge', don't understand the fragility of thermal balance. Or just it would mean "admitting it's their fault'

3. don't believe the cause it natural climatic shift. - a reasonable argument and possibly an additional 'under-cycle'. But again the 'scale' is being compared to only the CO₂ based predictions of ~30 years ago, which are recognised as radically under in explaining the loss rate of ice.

An interesting take on this piece of propaganda.

"Is Al Gore now a help or hindrance to the global warming cause?

Al Gore's Climate Reality Project is broadcasting its message to 24 time zones across 24 hours.

Death by Powerpoint. I have suffered this torture too many times over the years. We all probably have.

So I was a little nervous this morning logging into Climate Reality - Al Gore's 24-hour global-warming warning - as to what I might discover. And, I have to say, my heart immediately sank."

from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/sep/15/al-gore-climate-change-reality

From that link, "A no-doubt sincere presenter from the Solomon Islands was showing slide after slide of extreme weather events around the world that have occurred over the past year and linking everyone, it seemed, to the rise in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions."

Obviously, making an appeal of belief. Slide after slide of advert weather is simply making an emotional argument out of a topic that should be propelled by fact based observation.

These kinds of arguments do nothing to add credibility to the subject. In fact, they distract.

This has been Al Gore's presentation style as well, along with his blatant factual gaffs. He is the village idiot of the scientific community and when that community showers him with accolades and the Nobel Prize it is no wonder people stop taking scientists seriously.

Yup. GA.

For the second time in four months the Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that they will again delay the release of their much anticipated global warming regulations.

An EPA spokeswoman told National Journal Thursday that the EPA will not issue caps on greenhouse gas emissions pursuant to the Clean Air Act by their latest September 30th deadline. The EPA had originally promised the environmental activist groups suing the federal government that they would issue global warming regulations by July 26th.

The EPA's latest retreat on climate change regulation comes almost two weeks after President Obama ordered EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to rescind her ozone rules. According to the EPA's own estimates, the ozone rule would have inflicted $90 billion in costs on the U.S. economy every year. Analysts expect the EPA's global warming regulations to cost more than $100 billion annually.

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/epa-delays-global-warming-rules-again

"Analysts expect the EPA's global warming regulations to cost more than $100 billion annually."

That's 0.7% of the US GDP. About $330 per person. Very roughly $1000 per tax payer. I'm not sure that is an outrageous amount compared with some of our other government expenditures. But I do not think that kind of money can be invested (which is where it should go) efficiently in related projects in the first few years. I feel we should ramp it up based on a practical growth model.

I also feel that the US has lost the ability to be a leader in the effort to slow global warming. Better we scale up on the basis of what other nations do. Because doing it by ourselves will hurt us more than it will help.

Ed Weldon

Despite the tangents, the discussion, as a whole, as been a healthy debate. If I had seen the link Garthh posted before this post, I never would have started this thread. My position on the subject is stated in post #42, and, for the most part, all my other posts were for the sake of playing the Devil's Advocate.

To reiterate my opinion, We the People need to take care of our home Earth. The attempts by the politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats, and big money to 'create' a solution through taxing what we exhale is a boondoggle of epic proportions. It seems to be more of a resource grab (carbon sinks) and justification for pollution ("so what if the coal plant is dumping sh!t into the atmosphere we own 10,000 acres of amazon rainforest which off-sets it") than a real solution to me. Again, We the People are the engine which drives this economic train and We need to steer it, not leave it in the hands of those whose interests are, ultimately, self-serving.

what do you suggest?

Boondoggle is in the eye of the beholder

depends on if you are a winner or loser

Hey everybody,

I'm back. Had a real nice little getaway.

I avoid television while on vacation, for the most part. But I did get a little History Channel fix. The show reminded me of this thread.

I'm sure it's not new information, but it was to me. The show was about scientists that were studying the Sahara desert. The one thing that stuck in my mind, was that they had determined, that, due to the wobble of the earth, that, just like clockwork, the Sahara switched from very dry to very wet and tropical exactly every 20,000 years.

I thought to myself................that's amazing. If the earth is going through drastic climate changes on it's own, on a precise 20,000 cycle that's been shown to be true through core samples..........

A) How many larger or smaller cycles could be going on that we have no clue about?

B) As much as we know....................I don't think we know much. This planet is going to continue experiencing severe shifts in climate, with or without human input. Either way, humans will have no choice but to adapt, if we're still here. The planet is simply not going to enter a period of static climate because we like things the way they are. I suspect that all kinds of nasty things are up the road.............including more ice ages.

That program sounds a bit bogus. I don't see how the axial precession ("wobble") is enough to engender major climate shifts. Even weirder is the claim of precision or exactness in some 20,000-year cycle, although there may be some sort of cycle of about that length.

Whether increasing CO₂ in the atmosphere is anthropogenic or not is largely irrelevant. If it is a problem, it will need to be fixed regardless of who/what caused it.

I know. But these people are university research scientists. I expect them to be telling the truth about what their research reveals, or doesn't.

I hold scientists in high regard. I expect them to objectively report their findings. I don't think that is too much for the layman to ask. If they are bending reality to meet a certain agenda, why, I think we've finally come to the core of the antiscience.

As far as I'm concerned, a scientist telling an untruth is akin to a priest taking sexual liberties with a kid................................it is wrong on a level that most of us can't comprehend.........................in both cases, it's despicable behavior.

The scientists may be scientists, but the TV programmers are TV programmers. Maybe something is lost (or improperly gained?) in the translation.

Agreed. Ignorant bliss is looking better all the time.

The whole "clean coal sequestration" idiocy is down to "a documentary interpretation" of two pieces of legitimate research - that don't say that at all.

It's also well established that the wobble has been steadily decaying.

However: There is a theory that, when significant, it may have been synchronous with the orbital period and caused/contributed to, the ice ages.

But todays 40, or so, miles is fairly unlikely to do much.

_{(and no, I haven't bothered to look it all up, check numbers and link to names, again)}

That 20k year cycle is from studies of the past (I am not providing any credibility to the existance of such a cycle as I have seen anything supporting it). It doesn't include what humans have been pumping into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory

I'm not saying that CO2 levels play no role in climate, but I do think we lack the data to call it a global emergency. I also think that we lack the technology to lower global CO2 levels if we wanted to.

There is a massive amount of water under the Sahara. I wonder why it isn't being pumped to the surface and being utilized to grow food and other vegetation..........................which would help to curb CO2 levels.

Completely true. If you want to put 200 years of CO2 back in the ground you need 100%+ of the total energy it yielded. Not just the 20odd % that became electricity.

Meaning even if you found a 60% efficient means to do it - you are 2/3rds behind - even if you could magically recall all the energy ever harvested.

It's about time you and a few others, researched how many tons of coal are burned per second - then see if you tell me this has nothing to do with anything, with a straight face.

I can't tell you that with a straight face. I'm sure it has effects.

I would like for someone to tell me with a straight face, that cutting coal use in the US, where it is burned cleaner than most other places, and exporting tons of coal to China and elsewhere, is going to stop global warming or CO2 levels. It's all a bunch of "feel good" political BS.

This gives a good indication of the net effect of shutting down US coal plants. See figure 10. I think Australia can be included here. They're doing the same.

We will all be able to feel good knowing that we are no longer burning coal. The only problem is, the coal will still be being burned, in dirtier plants, half a planet away. All we have to do is figure in the fuel that's being burned on the ships to get it there.

Talk about not being able to keep a straight face. It's a joke.

I suspect the trouble is people (on both sides) trying to apply one label to all power plants. I've been in coal-fired plants where you couldn't hardly see 10 feet in front of you from just the leaking dust and smokes. In others, you could wear your white shirt to work. Now, I know that's just the working conditions, but I usually have seen a connection between the interior and what comes out of the stack.

On the other hand, I was at a natural gas/oil cogen plant where stainless 316 would pit in the storage yard outside! Every one is different. Coal produces a lot more CO₂ than some other fuels, but, in the short term, it makes a lot more sense to burn it as cleanly as we can, using low sulfur coal and good burner controls/stack monitoring while working on next generation plants. The thing that doesn't make any sense to me is that we deny permits to new coal plants while patching up all those kluges from the 1930s that got grandfathered in.

If it was up to engineers instead of politicians (that includes the left, the right, and those in the middle), we could probably cut pollution 5 or 6 % a year without too much trouble.

Rant over.

Would you consider running for office? ;-)

That wasn't a rant.

I don't know one person, left or right, that wants to see everything polluted beyond repair................or polluted at all, for that matter.

No one wants pollution. Unfortunately, pollution is part of the human equation. It's about balance.

I don't have the knowledge to argue about climate change, man made or otherwise. What I do hate to see, is politicians blowing "green" puffs of smoke up everyone's a$$es, when the end result equals 0 in regard to the global atmosphere.

You're right on target. We're patching up old coal plants, denying permits for new, (cleaner), ones, and shipping tons of coal to Asia to burn.

It's all a pack of politically motivated lies. Why? Because the environmentalists and global warming crowd believe whatever they are told. They are the easiest votes to get on the market. It's all about how the lies are packaged.

Heck, some of these votes can be bought with a free bumper sticker.

Both sides hire high priced marketing people, psychologists, sociologists, etc........................that's the problem. It's about power. The message no longer matters, or at least the truth doesn't. They realize that telling us what we want to hear is the best approach to get the votes........................and we go for it every time............at least since I can remember.

That was a little closer to a rant.

You wrote, "It's about time you and a few others, researched how many tons of coal are burned per second - then see if you tell me this has nothing to do with anything, with a straight face."

I think that tactic is simply an emotional argument.

The quantitate number will obviously have a wow factor, but that is because there is no context behind it to put it into any form of perspective.

However, if you put data on the table that describes the total aggregate of CO2 produced annually and data that correlates to surface temperature, then you have something meaningful.

The problem is establishing that CO2 correlation. Many people feel that it is absolute, but there are a growing number that either do not accept that correlation outright or believe that it is incorrect or incomplete.

The frustrating part is that there seems to be a vocal minority that wants the US to go cold turkey on CO2 emission by shutting down all coal plants followed by every other power generating plant for on reason or another. Then they will go after the methane from animal feedstock.

This mindset, in my opinion, has kept us in an energy stranglehold by preventing us from tapping resources that would at least be a step in the right direction such as natural gas. The same mindset keeps us tethered to Mid East oil.

The end result is we keep burning coal because there is no environmental magic wand that is 100% clean.

I finished reading 'Cape Wind' a month ago. It is about a Wind Power developer who has been trying to put some wind turbines out in a shallow, unnavigable (at low tide) part of Nantucket Sound, 28 miles off shore. The book was published in 2008 I think and cover their efforts for the 3 years before that fighting NIMBYism from groups who would never even be able to see the towers or had boats for that matter.

http://www.capewind.org/

He is still a couple years out from final permitting! Basically from all the lawsuits challenging the permits he already had and he won every appeal case.

I went through the same thing for a couple years from civic groups who challenged my permits for Diamondhead Convention Center on Fort Myers Beach. It got built and now they all use the convention hall for meetings, lol.

Anyway, we ain't gonna get off OIL DEPENDENCY until Big Oil starts investing in other alternative forms of renewable energy because right now they have all the money! And they use it to put their lobbyists in positions where they can influence not only the Federal Agencies and the Legislature, but local groups to stop the building of wind farms, solar farms, and hydro powered power plants.

Actually, there are ways. This link (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/7-geoengineering-solutions-which-promise-save-humanity-climate-change.php) has some examples. There is just no one to fund these projects since cap and trade is dead.

As for China which is mentioned by others, we will see a temporary cooling from the sulfur emissions from those power plants, just like what has been seen over the past until the US started regulating the sulfur emissions. Once China catches up to us (and it won't take long) on environmental regulations, they will be in the same challenge that we are facing now. Only difference is the US and Europe will already have the solutions' research paid for through money borrowed from them. They really are smart the smart ones! Of course, they also know that once they put in regulations, manufacturers will go elsewhere. Just like they did to the US and Europe.

Most of those ideas sound very risky. I think mass tree plantings would be the way to go.

That, and nuclear power................with a strong emphasis on finding ways to reuse the fuel rods rather than stock piling them for thousands of years. I believe that the technology will come along to suck the energy out of nuclear fuel to the point that it is nearly harmless.

Unfortunately, the same people that are screaming about climate change, are also screaming about nuclear power. If the threat from CO2 levels proves to be greater than the threat from storing spent fuel rods, we won't have much choice but to go nuclear.

I wouldn't look for China to become concerned about global CO2 levels for decades, or until they start having a hard time breathing............which is when they started dealing with sooty pollutants.

There are also some pretty smart people out there working on other solutions.

Deja vous.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/66389/Spent-Nuclear-Rods-for-Power-Production

I remember that one. We really should be putting some of our windmill and solar money into this technology.................if not all of it.

Because it does absolutely nothing in terms of reducing atmospheric carbon load if you burn the 'fuel' _{^{< return on 'investment'.}}

These schemes are a "dime a dozen" and have zip to do with sequestration - the word shouldn't be in the article. More "Totally Misleading" tripe.

& CO would be even stupider to bury than CO2

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed?

I'd like to think that Sandia National Laboratories isn't working on dime a dozen schemes. If they are, you have driven my point home, that government needs to get out of the way, and the labs should be shut down.

You also responded to my post regarding the reuse of spent nuclear fuel rods......................those aren't burned.

"You also responded to my post regarding the reuse of spent nuclear fuel rods......................those aren't burned".

Did I?