# CA, Brown and climate change: Imperfect togther.



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Governor Brown would attack climate change like WW III. Is there a name for that type of idiocy?

He believes forest fires are linked to climate change when in reality it's poor management and homes that need attention to prevent loss of life and property. Instead of attacking the real problem, his soap box theatrics ignore the real issues which he as governor should be actively pursuing.

Somehow I think beating sense into him with a 2x4 would be a waste of a good 2x4.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html


----------



## Misty Petal (Apr 26, 2006)

Im in Ontario Canada, a hop skip and a jump away from the Rideau River. The weather here has been unreal. We went from scorching hot to winter in two weeks. The temps are back up to what should be fall like weather now. All of you that are having serious drought issues feel free to come here for some rain. We have more than enough to go around. I am more than willing to share lol


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Remember the old and true saying..... stick around the weather will change... it true today. Still. It's weather. And the government will have not power to control them so they do what the do best more controlling people cause... in the blame game blame what you can't do . . By blaming something or some group.. publicly controlled people seek to control other they find inferior...


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

AGCC is simply latest Booger man, concocted by government, in order to gain power. Climates change. It is a fact. The government can't do anything about that fact. That to, is a fact.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> AGCC is simply latest Booger man, concocted by government, in order to gain power. Climates change. It is a fact. The government can't do anything about that fact. That to, is a fact.



Yes, climate changes. It changes even faster when the CO2 level nearly doubles over pre-industrial levels.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Our governor Brown, I'm convinced, is senile, and maybe has alzhiemers. His speeches are embarrassing for him, yet he still spouts his religious environmental lies to scare the sheeple. He needs to go!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I don't baaa down.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Yes, climate changes. It changes even faster when the CO2 level nearly doubles over pre-industrial levels.


Think....water vapor, and the fact that our trees are scrubbing the Co2 faster than were producing it. I gave you links to the usda, and university studies, you refused to either read them or just flat out ignored them because the facts don't fit you religious environmental beliefs. If you want to be educated, you can do a search for my previous posts or the interweb. I don't think you will though, reality doesn't jive with your religion.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Yes, climate changes. It changes even faster when the CO2 level nearly doubles over pre-industrial levels.


 
So says government, and their lackeys. Higher CO2 levels also cause increased plant growth, which, in turn, reduces the level of CO2. The earth and climate are far more complicated than focusing on a single variable would lead one to believe.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> So says government, and their lackeys. Higher CO2 levels also cause increased plant growth, which, in turn, reduces the level of CO2. The earth and climate are far more complicated than focusing on a single variable would lead one to believe.


 No one said climate wasn't complicated by many variables, but CO2 and temp have a positive correlation, that is not 'government lackey' speak, that is what the scientific consensus is. Don't blame 'the government' because you don't agree with, or don't fully understand, the science.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Think....water vapor, and the fact that our trees are scrubbing the Co2 faster than were producing it. I gave you links to the usda, and university studies, you refused to either read them or just flat out ignored them because the facts don't fit you religious environmental beliefs. If you want to be educated, you can do a search for my previous posts or the interweb. I don't think you will though, reality doesn't jive with your religion.


 Jeffery, i recall the links you posted, and you obviously did NOT understand them. I tried to explain them to you, but YOU were the one who 'ignored them because they didn't fit your beliefs'. You misread them, numerous times, even when I pointed out the error in your understanding numerous times. 
Feel free to post them again, and we can go over them again.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Darren said:


> He believes forest fires are linked to climate change when in reality *it's poor management and homes that need attention to prevent loss of life and property.*


Forget about California for just a moment. Is the above comment your explanation for all the droughts and wildfires happening in all the sparsely inhabited and completely uninhabited places throughout the entire west?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well look I want Alaska to return to its natural state of palm trees and be the fertile bread basket of grassy plains.. we could feed you folks. Just don't move here.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Jeffery, i recall the links you posted, and you obviously did NOT understand them. I tried to explain them to you, but YOU were the one who 'ignored them because they didn't fit your beliefs'. You misread them, numerous times, even when I pointed out the error in your understanding numerous times.
> Feel free to post them again, and we can go over them again.


No Greg, that's NOT how it was. The information is very clear, YOU were the one who didn't understand the very simple data that was presented. I misread nothing. Do a search and you will find them. It only hard to understand when the data don't reflect your religious fanatical environmental beliefs.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> Forget about California for just a moment. Is the above comment your explanation for all the droughts and wildfires happening in all the sparsely inhabited and completely uninhabited places throughout the entire west?


It's very clear that mis-management by the usda and usdfs and the blm are responsible for the majority of the major fires we have been experiencing over the last few decades, and that building homes in these ares contribute to the cause.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> It's very clear that mis-management by the usda and usdfs and the blm are responsible for the majority of the major fires we have been experiencing over the last few decades, and that building homes in these ares contribute to the cause.


When you see the words "the entire west" what locations do you think it means?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Greenies block logging here. We are currently facing the return of the source bark beetle so we will have more fires in our future..... unless we log now remove the fuels and make money... or we can now to the greenies as spend tax dollars fighting fires that did not have to happen.

I protect my land some folks are barred due to lot size from removing trees. Agenda 21 wants a certain percentage and can't be use the brain God gave them.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> No Greg, that's NOT how it was. The information is very clear, YOU were the one who didn't understand the very simple data that was presented. I misread nothing. Do a search and you will find them. It only hard to understand when the data don't reflect your religious fanatical environmental beliefs.


 Jeff, the last time you posted something about forests and CO2, you completely misread and failed to understand what you were posting... If you did understand it, you wouldn't have posted it, because it totally undercut your argument. 
Feel free to dig up the old archives, and again, we can go over them. It wouln't be the first time you've failed to grasp the science involved.
Not trying to be rude here, but the fact is you have shown time and again you are far more interested in making 'climate change' a political issue than a scientific one.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> When you see the words "the entire west" what locations do you think it means?


The entire west. What does it mean to you? But, the entire west is not burning.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> The entire west. What does it mean to you? But, the entire west is not burning.


You are dodging answering the question. What locations are the entire west?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> It's very clear that mis-management by the usda and usdfs and the blm are responsible for the majority of the major fires we have been experiencing over the last few decades, and that building homes in these ares contribute to the cause.


It's not all that clear to me, perhaps you can show some unbiased evidence.

This is from the BC Wildfire Service

"How does the weather influence the fire season? 

During forest fire season, weather is the controlling factor in the severity and frequency of fires. Dry, hot weather rapidly increases the danger of wildfires."

So if there is global warming, it goes to say wildfires will be bigger and more severe.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Jeff, the last time you posted something about forests and CO2, you completely misread and failed to understand what you were posting... If you did understand it, you wouldn't have posted it, because it totally undercut your argument.
> Feel free to dig up the old archives, and again, we can go over them. It wouln't be the first time you've failed to grasp the science involved.
> Not trying to be rude here, but the fact is you have shown time and again you are far more interested in making 'climate change' a political issue than a scientific one.


Again Greg, it was you who didn't understand, that much was very clear. It's about the science Greg, the science. It's not political. That fact is that the information provided proved that your facts were completely wrong. Except that, and you will be taken seriously. 

A simple search is all you need to do. 

How much Co2 does an average tree consume in a year?
How many average trees are there?
How much Co2 does the America produce? Co2, not all greenhouse gasses.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> You are dodging answering the question. What locations are the entire west?


Why don't you tell us? The entire west, to me, is the area west of the Mississippi.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> Greenies block logging here. We are currently facing the return of the source bark beetle so we will have more fires in our future..... unless we log now remove the fuels and make money... or we can now to the greenies as spend tax dollars fighting fires that did not have to happen.
> 
> I protect my land some folks are barred due to lot size from removing trees. Agenda 21 wants a certain percentage and can't be use the brain God gave them.


As far as spruce beetle goes you may want to read this from* Spruce Beetles, Budworms, and Climate Warming

by Glenn P. Juday, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks*

" In the far north, the spruce bark beetle is a heat-limited organism. It normally requires 2 years to complete its life cycle. In exceptionally warm summers, it can complete reproduction in one year (Holsten et al. 1985). Two successive cold winters will reduce survival of the overwintering population to the point that it has little outbreak potential (Holsten and Burnside 1997). Recent (since 1977) climate warming in Alaska has removed those limitations; winters especially have been milder and a few summers (e.g. 1989, 1991, 1993) have been exceptionally warm."

Isn't science wonderful? Especially when we use the brains we were born with.

So if there is global warming it will be increasing the spruce beetle attack, which will kill the trees and produce more fuel for fires. And since it is hotter and drier, well you can guess the rest.

This has been well known information in much of the west with the unprecedented attack from the mountain pine beetle as winters have not been cold enough to kill the overwintering insects.

ANd before anyone gets all upset, please not I have said nothing either for against or for man caused climate change. I have just stated some facts.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> It's not all that clear to me, perhaps you can show some unbiased evidence.
> 
> This is from the BC Wildfire Service
> 
> ...


Well, perhaps you can show evidence that your opinion is in fact truthful. The government has refused to allow fires to go uncontrolled, the underbrush and dead trees are great fuel. It's just common sense really.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Again Greg, it was you who didn't understand, that much was very clear. It's about the science Greg, the science. It's not political. That fact is that the information provided proved that your facts were completely wrong. Except that, and you will be taken seriously.
> 
> A simple search is all you need to do.
> 
> ...


Well again some facts. I much of the area west of the Rockies, there are many fewer living trees as a result of the mountain pine beetle epidemic cause by warmer winters which has caused widespread mortality and the aggressive harvesting of pine trees while they still have value.

As of 2013 in BC we have suffered over 18 million hectares of mortality from this critter. When you estimate 400 trees/ha that is a lot of trees. Then you factor in losses from Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado and Wyoming. I would guess there are hundreds of millions less living trees now than what would be expected.

You may guess what industry I work in.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> It's not all that clear to me, perhaps you can show some unbiased evidence.
> 
> This is from the BC Wildfire Service
> 
> ...


Not exactly unbiased, the LA Times is very liberal.

http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html

Gov. Brown's link between climate change and wildfires is unsupported, fire experts say

The ash of the Rocky fire was still hot when Gov. Jerry Brown strode to a bank of television cameras beside a blackened ridge and, flanked by firefighters, delivered a battle cry against climate change.

The wilderness fire was "a real wake-up call" to reduce the carbon pollution "that is in many respects driving all of this," he said.

"The fires are changing.... The way this fire performed, it's not the way it usually has been. Going in lots of directions, moving fast, even without hot winds."

"It's a new normal," he said in August. "California is burning."

Brown had political reasons for his declaration.

*University of Colorado climate change specialist Roger Pielke* said Brown is engaging in* "noble-cause corruption."*

Pielke said it is easier to make a political case for change using immediate and local threats, rather than those on a global scale, especially given the subtleties of climate change research, which features probabilities subject to wide margins of error and contradiction by other findings.

*Other experts say there is, in fact, a more immediate threat: a landscape altered by a century of fire suppression, timber cutting and development.*

"That is the nature of politics," Pielke said, *"but sometimes the science really has to matter."*


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Well, perhaps you can show evidence that your opinion is in fact truthful. The government has refused to allow fires to go uncontrolled, the underbrush and dead trees are great fuel. It's just common sense really.


This is from the Canadian Forest Service Publication :

*Predictability of biomass burning in response to climate changes. 2012.*

" Abstract

Climate is an important control on biomass burning, but the sensitivity of fire to changes in temperature and moisture balance has not been quantified. We analyze sedimentary charcoal records to show that the changes in fire regime over the past 21,000 yrs are predictable from changes in regional climates. Analyses of paleo- fire data show that fire increases monotonically with changes in temperature and peaks at intermediate moisture levels, and that temperature is quantitatively the most important driver of changes in biomass burning over the past 21,000 yrs. Given that a similar relationship between climate drivers and fire emerges from analyses of the interannual variability in biomass burning shown by remote-sensing observations of month-by-month burnt area between 1996 and 2008, *our results signal a serious cause for concern in the face of continuing global warming*."

But you are correct on the underbrush and dead, down trees. But one major reason for that is we manage our forests primarily for economic reasons. And if government were to let merchantable timber burn the CEOs of major logging companies would be crying and demanding compensation for the loss of logging opportunities. 

For many years some of us have been less aggressive fire fighting and focusing on the community interface ones.

Now I have many more facts about fore and climate at my finger tips if you wish to continue, as you can probably guess what field I work in. BUT again I am not stating what the causes of climate change are, only that it is occurring and the impacts.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Not exactly unbiased, the LA Times is very liberal.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-ca-brown-wildfires-20151019-story.html
> 
> ...



I am not bringing politics into this discussion at all. Simply facts, for some reason we are going through a period of climate change. One result of this climate change has been warmer, dryer weather in some areas. Warmer, dryer weather increases the risk of forest fires and can result in larger, severe fires.

If people can't agree on that simple science I really have to give up.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> Why don't you tell us? The entire west, to me, is the area west of the Mississippi.


How far north and how far south do you think the entire west extends to?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Again Greg, it was you who didn't understand, that much was very clear. It's about the science Greg, the science. It's not political. That fact is that the information provided proved that your facts were completely wrong. Except that, and you will be taken seriously.
> 
> A simple search is all you need to do.
> 
> ...


 This should clear things up for you Jeffery. 



> Earth's forests, it turns out, play a dominant role in absorbing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, acting like a giant sponge and *soaking up on average about 8.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, the new study led by the US Forest Service shows â or about one-third of fossil fuel emissions annually*during the 1990-2007 study period


http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...uch-more-greenhouse-gas-than-previously-known

So yes, forests continue to play a role in carbon sequestration, that is not in dispute. But contrary to your misunderstanding of the facts, they do NOT absorb all, or even most CO2 emissions. The fact that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise steadily year after year should tell you that.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Fennick said:


> How far north and how far south do you think the entire west extends to?


The entire earth! No matter where you are or who you are west is west!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> This should clear things up for you Jeffery.
> 
> 
> http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...uch-more-greenhouse-gas-than-previously-known
> ...


Now your talking world wide, i'm talking about the USA.

eta: So, how many trees in the USA?
And, how much does an average tree absorb?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I am not bringing politics into this discussion at all. Simply facts, for some reason we are going through a period of climate change. One result of this climate change has been warmer, dryer weather in some areas. Warmer, dryer weather increases the risk of forest fires and can result in larger, severe fires.
> 
> If people can't agree on that simple science I really have to give up.


Oh, i understand the climate is changing, it always has and always will, don't you agree? Just how much of an effect humans have is the sticking point.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> Oh, i understand the climate is changing, it always has and always will, don't you agree? Just how much of an effect humans have is the sticking point.


My goodness we agree.

But in turning the words a bit-climate change does affect humans.

My personal non-professional opinion is that it is incredibly complex and we will never know the whole actual causes.

Of course I am still wondering where acid rain went


----------



## Win07_351 (Dec 7, 2008)

Government always needs a crisis. Climate change is an easy sell.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Now your talking world wide, i'm talking about the USA.
> 
> eta: So, how many trees in the USA?
> And, how much does an average tree absorb?












http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/us-ghg-emissions.html


The USA, as a whole, is a net emitter of greenhouse gasses and CO2, by a wide margin.



> In 2013, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions totaled 6,673 million metric tons (14.7 trillion pounds) of carbon dioxide equivalents





> Emissions sinks, the opposite of emissions sources, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.* In 2013, 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were offset *by sinks resulting from land use and forestry practices (see Figure 2). One major sink is the net growth of forests, which remove carbon from the atmosphere.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Perth electrical engineerâs discovery will change climate change debate*



> âThe model architecture was wrong,â he says. âCarbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.â
> 
> There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
> 
> ...



http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/opinion/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-discovery-will-change-climate-change-debate/news-story/d1fe0f22a737e8d67e75a5014d0519c6


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/ghg/us-ghg-emissions.html
> 
> 
> The USA, as a whole, is a net emitter of greenhouse gasses and CO2, by a wide margin.


Cute, but inaccurate chart.

How many trees are in the USA.
How much Co2 does an average tree consume?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> The entire earth! No matter where you are or who you are west is west!


Now you have it half right. West is west from the Arctic Ocean to the Antarctic Ocean. So if I say there are drought conditions and unprecedented wildfires in the entire west I'm referring to the entire western regions of the western hemisphere from the Arctic Ocean to the Antarctic Ocean. That means all of western North America and all of western South America. It's actually more than that in South America because Brazil and its Amazon region is also now effected by drought, as are all of the Caribbean islands now.

You have that much of the western hemisphere, all those many countries, effected now by drought and increasingly worse and more numerous wildfires. Then it is ingenuous for anyone to say that the reason for it is because of poor management and homes that need attention to prevent loss of life and property or to say that mis-management by the USDA and USDFS and the BLM are responsible for the majority of the major fires we have been experiencing. 

Maybe in another universe somewhere the USDA and USDFS and the BLM have management influence on the entire western hemisphere and management of homes and properties in other countries, but they do not have that influence in this universe. Climate change is the cause and anyone who is denying it is sticking their head in the sand.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> Now your talking world wide, i'm talking about the USA.
> 
> eta: So, how many trees in the USA?
> And, how much does an average tree absorb?


 I know all these tree huggers want all humans to quit breathing. That would stop a heck of a lot of this CO2 from getting into the air of they think that is so bad. CA has had droughts upon droughts this is no way any different then has happened hundreds of years ago only made worse by the way the tree hugging folks have persuaded the epa and dnr and blm those folks to not let people cut down and manage the forests like they should be.
California drought:* Past dry periods *have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say. And as CA gets dry so does the entire Southwest.
Oh my goodness where was man then? Where were ALL those cars? Where did all that CO2 come from that did THAT to CA that long ago?
Yes this global climate shift is the biggest scam to ever hit the planet and so many are wrapped up in this new religion it is laughable for sure, that so many uninformed think man has caused all this when it has been going on for eons.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Cute, but inaccurate chart.


 Lol!! You have nothing to offer, so you dismiss the facts. Its ok to admit you were wrong...you read somewhere that forests are a net sink of carbon, and somehow thought that meant the whole USA was a net sink of carbon. Nope. Not by a long shot.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Temp is on its way DOWN, not up


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Lol!! You have nothing to offer, so you dismiss the facts. Its ok to admit you were wrong...you read somewhere that forests are a net sink of carbon, and somehow thought that meant the whole USA was a net sink of carbon. Nope. Not by a long shot.


Greg, do you believe the Sun has no effect on the Earth's climate? Before you answer, consider the relative size of the Sun and that of the Earth as shown below.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Lol!! You have nothing to offer, so you dismiss the facts. Its ok to admit you were wrong...you read somewhere that forests are a net sink of carbon, and somehow thought that meant the whole USA was a net sink of carbon. Nope. Not by a long shot.


Roflmao!!!! You still haven't answered my two questions, affraid?
It's ok to admit your affraid to post those answers because you know where they lead. So are you telling me what read and how I interpret those government and university statistics....no you can't possibly know, but you post that you do! Interesting. ....

So, lets see those answers Greg!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

keenataz said:


> As far as spruce beetle goes you may want to read this from* Spruce Beetles, Budworms, and Climate Warming
> 
> by Glenn P. Juday, Department of Forest Sciences, University of Alaska Fairbanks*
> 
> ...


Kinda like know about as of my involvement in the issue.... they regretted taking the action I have stated, last time total waste of a raw resource. But it did create a justification for folks to switch from electric heat and natural gas to wood burners .. so much cheaper to gather free wood ...which just three years prior where fine timber.

Some just don't learn... last time people got paid instead of billed for heat... so much was there that 17 million dollars went to cleaning up the wood and decking it out for free fire wood.. 17 million...spent...to hire government workers to clear it up.... oh well using the wood for high dollar return in the private sector paying the government timber leases or spend ... and hiring government worker.... what do they choose?.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> our trees are scrubbing the Co2 faster than were producing it.


 I just showed you the numbers for how much CO2 is produced, versus how much of that is absorbed, and you still don't get it. Your statement above, is completely wrong. By a wide margin, yet you want to argue about 'how many trees there are', as if that would change your statement into a true one. Sorry Jeff, it doesn't , and your wishful thinking doesn't equate to the facts.

As to 'how many trees there are', that is irrelevant. There is NOT enough to soak up all the excess 'plant food' we keep releasing by burning fossil fuels. Go ahead, post some credible numbers and lets discuss it, otherwise, you're just blowing smoke about a subject you're obviously not well versed in.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, do you believe the Sun has no effect on the Earth's climate? Before you answer, consider the relative size of the Sun and that of the Earth as shown below.
> 
> http://neekly.t2b.click/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/enhanced-buzz-17964-1415979652-6.jpg


 Of course the sun affects climate. That still has nothing to do with mankinds rampant burning of fossil fuels and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere. 
The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling... that is natural...and that in NO WAY means humans cannot be a factor, especially considering we are burning 100+million years worth of buried sunlight in a few short generations time. That is not an insignificant amount, and all indications are it will have a significant effect on our climate system. 
The very fact that the earth has gone through theses changes over time should be a clue that the climate system is indeed finely balanced... and seemingly small changes can have large impacts over time.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well if it is so it is what it is not not one thing man can do will have such a minuscule, Maybe and that is a BIG MAYBE by 2100 temps MAY go down a FRACTION of a degree.
And all this hoodoo voodoo about how much the earth is warming and how much man has put in the air is so tiny tiny amount it is barely measurable. And That is WAY Within the amount of ERROR that has ALWAYS been going on with mans temperature taking equipment.
And that goes for C02 as well~!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Darren said:


> Governor Brown would attack climate change like WW III. Is there a name for that type of idiocy?
> 
> He believes forest fires are linked to climate change when in reality it's poor management and homes that need attention to prevent loss of life and property. Instead of attacking the real problem, his soap box theatrics ignore the real issues which he as governor should be actively pursuing.
> 
> ...


WHAT LOL?

Its funny being a FF hearing that. Cali has so many fires because they don't allow control burning. Even the seeds of the Sequoia need fire to reproduce.http://www.nps.gov/seki/learn/nature/fic_firerole.htm (weird link) When will these people learn that you cant circumvent nature? 

Texas has their own forest service that works individual of the US forest service but together. Because Cali sets the most rules of the US forest service and they are wrong. I heard that Cali bought a million goats to clear the underbrush and even that didn't work even though it helped. 

But they are the wrong rules lol.

Lets diminish the sequoia forest for our own conscience........forget that our grandkids will suffer.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

And a 2x4 is much too pricey for the likes of him.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Of course the sun affects climate. That still has nothing to do with mankinds rampant burning of fossil fuels and changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
> The earth has gone through many cycles of warming and cooling... that is natural...and that in NO WAY means humans cannot be a factor, especially considering we are burning 100+million years worth of buried sunlight in a few short generations time. That is not an insignificant amount, and all indications are it will have a significant effect on our climate system.
> The very fact that the earth has gone through theses changes over time should be a clue that the climate system is indeed finely balanced... and seemingly small changes can have large impacts over time.


Greg, how do you account for the effect of water vapor, which as a green house gas greatly exceeds the effect of CO2? Between the Sun, water vapor and several other factors, CO2 doesn't come close to sucking hind tit in the process.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And all this doom and gloom about more hurricanes more powerful ones etc. etc. etc.
Well it isa now 10 YEARS since a major hurricane hit the US. Yes THAT long. As the cooling continues it will be even longer. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, how do you account for the effect of water vapor, which as a green house gas greatly exceeds the effect of CO2? Between the Sun, water vapor and several other factors, CO2 doesn't come close to sucking hind tit in the process.


 Of course the sun is the main driver for earths climate, no one has denied or disputed that...
Even a prolonged 'Maunder Minimum' type event is projected to only SLOW the increase in temps caused by increased CO2 levels. Solar irradiance has actually been LOW for the past 30 years, yet temps continued to rise. 

H20 accounts for the bulk of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 coming in a distant second. That does not mean CO2 is meaningless. Estimates are that CO2 accounts for anywhere from 10-25% of that effect, so doubling the levels of that gas in the atmosphere will certainly have a definite effect on climate.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Co2... is needed... organic ....carbon based..


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Co2... is needed... organic ....carbon based..


 Don't worry, there is no shortage of carbon, nor carbon dioxide on this planet.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Don't worry, there is no shortage of carbon, nor carbon dioxide on this planet.


I learned something interesting this week on the Discovery Channel about how more CO2 in the air is causing so many more sink holes to occur. 

The higher concentrations of CO2 in the air and the earth gets dissolved by rain water into carbonic acid and the rain water causes the carbonic acid to percolate down through the earth. That causes more CO2 deeper down in the earth to also dissolve into carbonic acid and then all the carbonic acid dissolves other minerals in the earth which then collapses in on itself and causes huge cavities in the earth. 

It's like the way acids and carbonated beverages will rot cavities into a tooth and cause the tooth to dissolve from the outside in to the interior. Only in this case the cavities are called sinkholes because of the way they rot from within the interior instead of the exterior and then collapse in on themselves. Apparently 90% of the sinkholes in just Florida alone are caused by dissolving CO2 turned into carbonic acid.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Of course the sun is the main driver for earths climate, no one has denied or disputed that...
> Even a prolonged 'Maunder Minimum' type event is projected to only SLOW the increase in temps caused by increased CO2 levels. Solar irradiance has actually been LOW for the past 30 years, yet temps continued to rise.
> 
> H20 accounts for the bulk of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 coming in a distant second. That does not mean CO2 is meaningless. Estimates are that CO2 accounts for anywhere from 10-25% of that effect, so doubling the levels of that gas in the atmosphere will certainly have a definite effect on climate.


I don't see how CO2 can approach anywhere near 10-25% when water vapor is present in quantities that are about 60 times that of CO2. You correctly identified water vapor as accounting for the bulk of the greenhouse effect. Looks to me like CO2 is insignificant or more likely not significant.

CO2 comes nowhere near 1% of the atmosphere and is actually nearer 1% of 1%. That's beyond minimal. We've already identified water vapor as being more effective as a greenhouse gas. Add the vastly greater percentage in the atmosphere and you have to wonder why CO2 rates a mention. Other than the emissions by mankind and the focus by TPTB on gaining more power, it's not even in the game.

* "The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%*"

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> I learned something interesting this week on the Discovery Channel about how more CO2 in the air is causing so many more sink holes to occur.
> 
> The higher concentrations of CO2 in the air and the earth gets dissolved by rain water into carbonic acid and the rain water causes the carbonic acid to percolate down through the earth. That causes more CO2 deeper down in the earth to also dissolve into carbonic acid and then all the carbonic acid dissolves other minerals in the earth which then collapses in on itself and causes huge cavities in the earth.
> 
> It's like the way acids and carbonated beverages will rot cavities into a tooth and cause the tooth to dissolve from the outside in to the interior. Only in this case the cavities are called sinkholes because of the way they rot from within the interior instead of the exterior and then collapse in on themselves. Apparently 90% of the sinkholes in just Florida alone are caused by dissolving CO2 turned into carbonic acid.


 That sounds an awful lot like the Earth is scrubbing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> That sounds an awful lot like the Earth is scrubbing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.


CO2 is constantly being emitted and scrubbed in more ways than we know. The recent discovery that we vastly underestimated the number of trees on the planet underscores how incomplete our knowledge is. The potential for those trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere increases as they grow. More CO2 should support more growth. 

The Oceans absorb CO2. Can you imagine the amount of carbon that is contained in all life forms? How much carbon is contained in bacteria? I suspect that is not in the climate models. There are reasons the outcomes predicted by the models have not occurred.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Darren said:


> CO2 is constantly being emitted and scrubbed in more ways than we know. The recent discovery that we vastly underestimated the number of trees on the planet underscores how incomplete our knowledge is. The potential for those trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere increases as they grow. More CO2 should support more growth.
> 
> The Oceans absorb CO2. Can you imagine the amount of carbon that is contained in all life forms? How much carbon is contained in bacteria? I suspect that is not in the climate models. There are reasons the outcomes predicted by the models have not occurred.


 
If we were really concerned about atmospheric carbon, wouldn't it be wise to make more plastic and bury it in landfills?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> That sounds an awful lot like the Earth is scrubbing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.





Darren said:


> CO2 is constantly being emitted and scrubbed in more ways than we know. The recent discovery that we vastly underestimated the number of trees on the planet underscores how incomplete our knowledge is. The potential for those trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere increases as they grow. More CO2 should support more growth.
> 
> The Oceans absorb CO2. Can you imagine the amount of carbon that is contained in all life forms? .


 Yes, this is called the 'carbon cycle'. And yes, trees and other plants use carbon dioxide, then give it right back up when they die. If the trees and rocks and the ocean absorbed* all *the excess CO2 we've been releasing into the atmosphere, the levels of CO2 wouldn't be going up, up, and up. 
There is a VAST amount of carbon and CO2 in the environment, its called the natural flux, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about going above and beyond that, by burning MILLIONS of years worth of fossil fuels in a relatively short amount of time.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*Environmental Protection Agency, Big Lie about CO2*


> The threat facing Americans is posed by the Environmental Protection Agency that clings to the Big Lie about CO2 and uses it as the basis for a flood of regulations that are doing great harm to economic recovery and development.
> 
> The same holds true for the Departments of Energy and the Interior that deny access to the nationâs huge reserves of energy resources and, in the case of coal, act to destroy its mining industry and plants using it for the generation of electricity.
> 
> ...


http://canadafreepress.com/article/55939


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Yes, this is called the 'carbon cycle'. And yes, trees and other plants use carbon dioxide, then give it right back up when they die. If the trees and rocks and the ocean absorbed* all *the excess CO2 we've been releasing into the atmosphere, the levels of CO2 wouldn't be going up, up, and up.
> There is a VAST amount of carbon and CO2 in the environment, its called the natural flux, but we're not talking about that. * We're talking about going above and beyond that, by burning MILLIONS of years worth of fossil fuels in a relatively short amount of time.*


Greg, I don't understand where the big uptick in burning fossil fuels is coming from. With all we've burned we're talking a minuscule amount in the atmosphere that's enormously over shadowed by water vapor. Remember it's less than around 1% of 1% of the amount of water vapor.

In school as a problem solving check. We were taught to look at things on an order of magnitude basis. Is the answer reasonable in size, amount, etc. That was a quick check to see if there was a gross error.

When you consider how small the amount of CO2 is in the atmosphere after centuries of burning coal it should be obvious, it's never going to come close to having a smidgen of the effect of water vapor. Water vapor is so predominate, CO2 would have to rise to previously unseen levels during mankind's tenure on Earth. Nothing in any analysis I've seen gives any indication that is happening.

If the percentages reversed with CO2 assuming equal levels with water vapor, I might be concerned. I haven't seen any studies that claim that.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Farmerga said:


> That sounds an awful lot like the Earth is scrubbing excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.


I guess that's one way of looking at it.

To me it seems much more like an infection where a disease or some kind of bacteria (or acid) is rotting living tissue away from the inside out and leaving big gaping, weeping ulcerous wounds at the surface. Like flesh eating disease, or cancer, small pox or the bubonic plague for example.

Yes, that's exactly what it seems like to me, because that's exactly what it is..... acid rot.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Fennick said:


> I guess that's one way of looking at it.
> 
> To me it seems much more like an infection where a disease or some kind of bacteria (or acid) is rotting living tissue away from the inside out and leaving big gaping, weeping ulcerous wounds at the surface. Like flesh eating disease, or cancer, small pox or the bubonic plague for example.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what it seems like to me, because that's exactly what it is..... acid rot.



Or, now imagine this. It could be because sink holes and caves are natural and have always occurred and will always occur. 

If you will look, government claims that just about EVERYTHING that happens is linked to climate change, from anal leakage, to zebra mating and the only way to fix it is to give government more money and power.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, I don't understand where the big uptick in burning fossil fuels is coming from. With all we've burned we're talking a minuscule amount in the atmosphere that's enormously over shadowed by water vapor. Remember it's less than around 1% of 1% of the amount of water vapor.
> .


 How can you not understand 'where the big uptick in burning fossil fuels is coming from'?? Look around you. 









And CO2, according to those who study this stuff, accounts for somewhere between 9%-20% of the 'greenhouse effect' on earth. Of course it is less than the effect water vapor has, but why would doubling the amount of a known greenhouse gas not have an effect?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, if CO2 concentration was being directly driven by the fossil fuels man has been burning, the CO2 concentration should be much higher based on the graph you've posted.

Based on the graph since 1950 on our burning of fossil fuels, namely coal, natural gas and oil, have increased somewhere between 400% and 500% yet the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased that much, nor has the temperature increased in a direct relationship.










From the graph below it looks like the CO2 concentration has increased about 20% during that time. Obviously there's something going on that is scrubbing huge quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere without mankind's involvement. It doesn't look like curtailed usage of fossil fuels will make much difference. This is what I was writing about a sanity check or comparing order of magnitude expected vs. derived.

What it implies is mankinds' effects are inconsequential to something occurring naturally. I would say the Sun's energy input being so much larger than our burning of fossil fuels is the reason. Otherwise the CO2 concentration would demonstrate some sensitivity to the burning of fossil fuels. That isn't shown in the graphs.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, if CO2 concentration was being directly driven by the fossil fuels man has been burning, the CO2 concentration should be much higher based on the graph you've posted.
> 
> Based on the graph since 1950 on our burning of fossil fuels, namely coal, natural gas and oil, have increased somewhere between 400% and 500% yet the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased that much, nor has the temperature increased in a direct relationship.
> 
> ...


 Just because our fossil fuel usage rates went up '500%', that does not mean atmospheric CO2 goes up that much, or temp goes up that much.

Yes, some of the CO2 produced by humans gets absorbed or scrubbed...but much of it remains in the atmosphere, where it contributes to the greenhouse effect. 

Pre-industrial CO2 levels remained around 250-300ppm for the past few hundred thousand years. Mankinds fossil fuel use has helped push those numbers up near 400ppm. 

Not really sure of your contention here Darren, are you saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Or the well documented rising levels are NOT from billions of people burning billions of barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and billons of cubic feet of natural gas?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> What it implies is mankinds' effects are inconsequential to something occurring naturally. I would say the Sun's energy input being so much larger than our burning of fossil fuels is the reason._ Otherwise the CO2 concentration would demonstrate some sensitivity to the burning of fossil fuels. That isn't shown in the graphs.
> 
> _


 That most certainly* is *shown in the graphs. CO2 has only gone *up* since we started burning mass quantities of fossil fuels.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

The thing that has been "scrubbing" the CO2 from our atmosphere is our oceans. But that's not going to last much longer.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/07/03/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/

As the article points out, absorption has slowed significantly due to saturation of the surface waters of the oceans. So look for an increase in CO2 going directly into the atmosphere soon.

Here is a more complete explanation of what's coming:

https://skepticalscience.com/ocean-acidification-global-warming-intermediate.htm

The rapid acidification of the oceans from absorbing all this CO2 is having lots of adverse effects on marine life as well. We're already having fun with it up here in the PNW:

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/oysters-hit-hard/

And wait till it starts killing off the plankton. No worries; it only produces 50% of the oxygen in our atmosphere. But you're right, Darren. All that CO2 hasn't been going into the atmosphere. Yet.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If the oceans are in trouble now why weren't they in trouble when CO2 concentrations were five times higher without mankind's meager input? We've found fossils from that era of animals that greatly exceed those of related ones today. Can you imagine how rich in life the ocean had to be during that period to support those sizes? 

How was that CO2 level reduced to what it is now? Again we're looking at an order of magnitude check. The imagined runaway heating of our atmosphere is obviously limited by processes yet to be fully understood even if we're aware of them now.

*The graphs show that despite that magnitude of man's contribution the corresponding increase in CO2 was minimal.* That is in your face obvious for anyone that understands high school math.

*Now we have an example of a CO2 increase that dwarfed anything that man could do, yet the CO2 level was moderated to the levels seen today. 

*The point being mankind's contribution and its effect have been over exaggerated. When you consider the cast of characters involved in the scam and the potential payoff in money and power, there are obvious reasons to push the scam. They are literally trying to extort money through a mischaracterization of mankind's burning of fossil fuels and potential effect on the climate. *The graphs prove that mischaracterization.*

Here's the info on those much higher levels of CO2 before mankind.

"Scientists have known for some time that a large amount of volcanic activity results in more CO2 than is present on Earth today, but with previous methods, it had been tricky to come up with a reliable estimate."

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Ok, lets quit the silly dance. Say it is all true. Burning carbon based fuel is causing a dangerous rise in temperature. What, on a world wide scale, can be done about it?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> Ok, lets quit the silly dance. Say it is all true. Burning carbon based fuel is causing a dangerous rise in temperature. What, on a world wide scale, can be done about it?


What you have is the ultimate "Trust me!" just sign on the dotted line sales pitch. Only instead of the vacuum cleaner or super concentrated cleaner the salesman is peddling, you'll get financial exchanges that will make the rich richer and a transfer of wealth and power that has never been seen before. 

Someone will have to pay though the nose. That will be families that are already hard pressed to make ends means. They'll face much higher utility bills. For some it will come down to a eat or heat decision. They won't be able to afford both.

In the end the Earth and Sun will continue to moderate climate. The runaway heating will never appear and the proponents of the added layer of regulations and money extraction will say their efforts saved the day. It's a win win for them and a loss for the work a day family who will have to finance the fraud.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Gosh, Darren, you forgot to read the last sentence in your own cited article:

*"We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation."

*And you did notice that while yes, the article demonstrates that CO2 levels were 4-5 times higher in past eras (nothing new there), *we* weren't around then? It's not the planet that needs saving. It will do fine. It's our own species.

Over time, the oceans will absorb most of the CO2 and moderate the levels in the atmosphere. But that is the key phrase: *Over time.* Millions of years. Extinct dinosaurs had time. We don't. You need to stop looking at this from the perspective of "saving the planet." The planet will be fine with us or without us. *It's about understanding and supporting a climate that we as a species can survive.*

How is it that you believe in the science that contributes to what you want to believe, such as the science that shows CO2 levels were once much higher, but not to the science you don't? And the scare-mongering tactics you used in your answer to Farmerga are just ridiculous. You've offered nothing in support of all your "ooga-booga!" claims of a transfer of wealth and power. In fact, I hate be the one to tell you this, but that already happened. Boy, howdy, has it ever happened. And it wasn't the climate scientists who got rich. Any guesses as to who did?

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM[/ame]

As to your assertion that "The runaway heating will never appear..." *It's already here.*

I could cite dozens of links, but why bother? I've done that so many times in the past. You can do your own research if you can ever stop cherry-picking for your very obvious confirmation bias. But since you do like Live Science, here's one to get you started.

http://www.livescience.com/topics/global-warming/

Farmerga, a lot is already being done on a worldwide scale to ameliorate the effects. The US is being left in the dust on this. The rest of the world just shakes their collective heads and are already outstripping us in technology that will reduce the effects of climate change -- which is not in doubt anywhere else on the planet except here. They'll profit immensely by it, too -- and more power to them.

Unfortunately, a lot of the effects are already baked into the cake, because much of the CO2/methane and other greenhouse gases have already been released but have not yet reached the atmosphere to do their dirty work. If CO2 emissions ceased entirely tomorrow, we would still see significant effects for the next 200 years.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing everything we can. And by can, I mean *already* can. Become informed about this subject. Read everything with a critical eye. Be open to the idea that your preconceived notions might be wrong. If you do that, you will soon learn you are not being 'hoaxed,' as a small number of very, very wealthy people (and Darren) want you to believe you are. The science is painfully clear.

A lot of little things done by many people adds up to a big change. Recycle relentlessly. Be mindful of your consumption of fossil fuels. Make one trip to run errands instead of two -- you'll save money, too. Turn down your thermostat a couple of degrees. Replace worn out items with energy efficient things, such as appliances and windows. Insulate as well as you can afford to. Stop using those nasty little slips of petroleum every market hands out when you do your shopping. Use reusable bags instead. Reduce waste, recycle, re-purpose. Avoid using products with palm oil. I'll bet you're already doing a lot of this stuff.

Most important? Become an informed voter. Pay attention to who is pandering to big fossil fuel interests, who are the entities at the heart of this shameful campaign of doubt, and who is actually trying to protect our environment. *Your* environment. Your children's environment. You don't have to vote for liberals, but you need to hold the politicians your favor accountable for what they are doing/not doing. As much as some want you to believe it is, climate change is not a political issue. The changes are going to affect liberals, conservatives and all their children alike.

So learn as much as you can. Then get loud. Because we're already far behind other nations in the steps we are taking to fix this problem. Even India and China.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> What you have is the ultimate "Trust me!" just sign on the dotted line sales pitch. Only instead of the vacuum cleaner or super concentrated cleaner the salesman is peddling, you'll get financial exchanges that will make the rich richer and a transfer of wealth and power that has never been seen before.
> 
> Someone will have to pay though the nose. That will be families that are already hard pressed to make ends means. They'll face much higher utility bills. For some it will come down to a eat or heat decision. They won't be able to afford both.
> 
> In the end the Earth and Sun will continue to moderate climate. The runaway heating will never appear and the proponents of the added layer of regulations and money extraction will say their efforts saved the day. It's a win win for them and a loss for the work a day family who will have to finance the fraud.


I wonder when those on the GW bandwagon will come to realize it is all a huge scam? I bet some even genuflect in front of a Al Bore, I mean Al gore's picture. LOL


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Gosh, Darren, you forgot to read the last sentence in your own cited article:
> 
> *"We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation."
> 
> ...


Question. If GW is caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. What does using re-usable bags have to do with stopping it? Those plastic bags are nearly immortal, are they not? They are made largely of carbon, are they not? Would it not be better, from a atmospheric standpoint to sequester MORE carbon, in plastic, and bury it? 

The truth of the matter is that the only reason we have a population of 7 billion people, on this planet, is because of fossil fuels and "Green energy tech" is not anywhere close to being ready for prime time. Not to say that it is not an interesting avenue for development, but, to advocate for the silly and stupid government to mandate such changes is dangerous and unwise.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Who stands to get rich from Global warming? The government, of course. Rich in money and power. That is what governments do. They find a scary "Booger man" and whip the population into a frenzy about it until they are willing to give up money and freedom so that the Government can slay the dragon. Be it over hyped terrorism scares, or, AGW, the story is the same.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Who stands to get rich from Global warming? The government, of course. Rich in money and power. That is what governments do. They find a scary "Booger man" and whip the population into a frenzy about it until they are willing to give up money and freedom so that the Government can slay the dragon. Be it over hyped terrorism scares, or, AGW, the story is the same.


 How awesome that we have you here to tell us whatâs really happening, against all the actual scientific evidence presented by scientists who have dedicated their lives and professional integrity to showing us what is true, *based on actual, painstakingly gathered evidence*. And of course the governments and scientists of all the other nations in the world who have reached the same climate change conclusions are all in cahoots to fool Americans so the American government can pull off this enormous hoax. Those oysters up here in the PNW must be in on it, too.


Thank you for presenting your thoughtful, well-researched opinion so my eyes could be opened!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Raeven said:


> How awesome that we have you here to tell us whatâs really happening, against all the actual scientific evidence presented by scientists who have dedicated their lives and professional integrity to showing us what is true, *based on actual, painstakingly gathered evidence*. And of course the governments and scientists of all the other nations in the world who have reached the same climate change conclusions are all in cahoots to fool Americans so the American government can pull off this enormous hoax. Those oysters up here in the PNW must be in on it, too.
> 
> 
> Thank you for presenting your thoughtful, well-researched opinion so my eyes could be opened!


 Who said it was only the American government. All government strives to grow in wealth and power. Scientists go where the money is. The money is in fear. How much grant money is there in saying that "the climate is stable, nothing to see here"? 

Again, other than begging the Government to save us from ourselves, filling up those green totes once a week, and carpooling, what can be done, on a global scale, that will stop the use of Fossil fuels enough to really change anything? China is building bunches of coal powered plants on a weekly basis. The 2nd world is itching for 1st world status and the goodies that go along with it. Will we keep those billions in poverty? Without fossil fuels the Earth can carry only about 2 billion people, who is going to decide who lives and who dies. Who can have children and who cannot? 

If the problem is truly as large as the "Climatologists" say, carpooling and recycling aint gonna do it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> Who said it was only the American government. All government strives to grow in wealth and power. Scientists go where the money is. The money is in fear. How much grant money is there in saying that "the climate is stable, nothing to see here"?
> 
> Again, other than begging the Government to save us from ourselves, filling up those green totes once a week, and carpooling, what can be done, on a global scale, that will stop the use of Fossil fuels enough to really change anything? China is building bunches of coal powered plants on a weekly basis. The 2nd world is itching for 1st world status and the goodies that go along with it. Will we keep those billions in poverty? Without fossil fuels the Earth can carry only about 2 billion people, who is going to decide who lives and who dies. Who can have children and who cannot?
> 
> If the problem is truly as large as the "Climatologists" say, carpooling and recycling aint gonna do it.


Wow, you're the only one who sees this, huh?

Sorry, but I don't see governments the world over making mad power grabs. Some do. Some don't. And if you want to control people, there are lots of ways to do it and scare them in a far more immediate way than a slow-rolling crisis like climate change. And gosh, I've yet to see the evidence for all those ultra-rich climate scientists. If I was a scientist looking to get rich on grant money, I'd probably go into a field where getting money out of people would be easier for a more immediate, more personal crisis. Say... medicine.

And of course those fossil fuel companies and their investors, who might -- I mean maybe, just might -- have some actual reason to mislead you... have you done any research into their profits? And what might happen to those profits if you actually understood climate change and how dire an issue it is? Surely they have no reason to mislead you. Do they?

Of course recycling and car pooling isn't going to do it. I said that. You need to re-read what I posted. I said that the most important thing you could do is become an informed voter. Every little thing done by every single person collectively will make the difference we need to make.

Yes, we need to address issues of population control. No one is talking about killing anyone off except you. Why do you go for the hysterical solution instead of looking for a reasonable one? By attrition, this issue could be addressed.

You seem to have gone from utter disbelief straight to oh, noez, nothing can be done! There's a lot of ground in between that's worth exploring.

China is building lots of coal plants. And we're sending them the coal to burn in them. We could fix that pretty easily, don't you think? 

And please stop with the "they're doing it so it's ok for us to do it!" stuff. As a nation, we will never lead from behind. Pretty tough to chastise China for what they're doing if we're doing even less.  Did you know their standards for allowable emissions from vehicles is far above ours? They're so far ahead of us on that one, we can't even sell our cars there. Our cars don't meet the Chinese emissions standards. Embarrassing, no?

Still waiting for an explanation about those oysters. And the ice melt. And the droughts. And the increasingly unstable weather. And the increasing insect populations. And the precipitous migration of species both on land and in water. And the alarming extinction rates. I'm sure that's all a conspiracy, too.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Wow, you're the only one who sees this, huh?
> 
> Sorry, but I don't see governments the world over making mad power grabs. Some do. Some don't. And if you want to control people, there are lots of ways to do it and scare them in a far more immediate way than a slow-rolling crisis like climate change. And gosh, I've yet to see the evidence for all those ultra-rich climate scientists. If I was a scientist looking to get rich on grant money, I'd probably go into a field where getting money out of people would be easier for a more immediate, more personal crisis. Say... medicine.
> 
> ...


 So, to boil it down, we are to beg government to save us from ourselves. Also, I gave the other option in population control, I will ask that question again: Who is going to be able to have kids and who is not? 

Climate changes. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I went fishing 50 miles off of the coast of Georgia, 18,000 years ago, it was the beach. There have been very sudden catastrophic climate changes that have caused much mayhem without our SUV's. Extinction rates come from habitat loss from urban sprawl. Over hunting, over fishing, etc, etc. Again Climate changes can be natural, I am not denying that they are happening, I just question man's role in it. I find it too convenient that most, who buy the man made part, are so quick to give up freedom to the Government.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> So, to boil it down, we are to beg government to save us from ourselves. Also, I gave the other option in population control, I will ask that question again: Who is going to be able to have kids and who is not?
> 
> Climate changes. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I went fishing 50 miles off of the coast of Georgia, 18,000 years ago, it was the beach. There have been very sudden catastrophic climate changes that have caused much mayhem without our SUV's. Extinction rates come from habitat loss from urban sprawl. Over hunting, over fishing, etc, etc. Again Climate changes can be natural, I am not denying that they are happening, I just question man's role in it. I find it too convenient that most, who buy the man made part, are so quick to give up freedom to the Government.


I don't see where I have begged the government to do anything, so your "boiled down" interpretation is wholly incorrect. I have suggested *nothing* that involves begging the government. That came out of your own head.

The government is *us*. If you don't like what it's doing, change it. You keep acting like it's some kind of Godzilla that can't be reckoned with and can never be changed. I've seen governments make a lot of changes when people pull together and make it work for them. If the majority wants something, they can make it happen. Just ask anyone on HT who opposes gay marriage. That didn't happen in a vacuum. Enough people rallied their government for a change.

Here in the PNW, we citizens have fought tooth and nail to stop coal trains from shipping coal to China. We've succeeded so far. We'll continue to succeed, because we won't stop fighting it.

No one is saying that catastrophic climate changes can't or won't occur without human activities. Why do you always go for the either/or scenario? These things are not mutually exclusive. I really don't get that. Yes, there are many things that can cause precipitous climate change without human activities -- and *simultaneously*, there are human activities that are pushing climate change in truly jaw-dropping directions. The either/or argument is such a red herring. Why do you buy it?

You might be interested to learn that the single most influential way of decreasing population is to educate women. The more educated a woman is, the less likely she is to have children she can't support, and she will be more mindful of how many new consumers of non-renewable resources she's putting into the world. So no need for any government to "tell" people how many kids they can have. Again with the extremes. Just offer a good education to women the world over. 

What freedoms have you given up? I haven't given up any. I'm delighted to have changed my consuming habits to the point that I now produce exactly 4 regular trash cans-full of actual garbage per year. Everything else is recycled or composted. I don't burn, either. I haven't been stopped from saying what I like, doing what I like, eating what I like, growing what I like... so again, please tell me: What freedoms have you been asked to give up?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Raeven said:


> I don't see where I have begged the government to do anything, so your "boiled down" interpretation is wholly incorrect. I have suggested *nothing* that involves begging the government. That came out of your own head.
> 
> The government is *us*. If you don't like what it's doing, change it. You keep acting like it's some kind of Godzilla that can't be reckoned with and can never be changed. I've seen governments make a lot of changes when people pull together and make it work for them. If the majority wants something, they can make it happen. Just ask anyone on HT who opposes gay marriage. That didn't happen in a vacuum. Enough people rallied their government for a change.
> 
> ...


 You make some good points and I have no problem with most of them. If YOU want to recycle that is great. I am all for the freedom to recycle. I like the idea of living on less. I believe that is a common thread among the Homesteading crowd. I support using less fuel. That is a wise thing to do from an economic and resource management standpoint. All good. I even like the idea of solar, wind, micro-hydro power as well from a self sufficiency standpoint. What I don't like and will fight with my last breath is making any of those items mandatory. That is where freedom is lost. Policy, that burdens me with regulation, is freedom lost. Many in the AGW crowd are screaming about cattle and how much methane they produce. If they are able to parley that into government policy, my economic freedom will be endangered. 

The environmental and government wary crowds tend to talk past each other. There is some common ground. The environmental crowd should forget the government centric approach and try the self sufficient approach. I believe that their goals would be better served and they may find a whole new group of allies.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> You make some good points and I have no problem with most of them. If YOU want to recycle that is great. I am all for the freedom to recycle. I like the idea of living on less. I believe that is a common thread among the Homesteading crowd. I support using less fuel. That is a wise thing to do from an economic and resource management standpoint. All good. I even like the idea of solar, wind, micro-hydro power as well from a self sufficiency standpoint. What I don't like and will fight with my last breath is making any of those items mandatory. That is where freedom is lost. Policy, that burdens me with regulation, is freedom lost. Many in the AGW crowd are screaming about cattle and how much methane they produce. If they are able to parley that into government policy, my economic freedom will be endangered.
> 
> The environmental and government wary crowds tend to talk past each other. There is some common ground. The environmental crowd should forget the government centric approach and try the self sufficient approach. I believe that their goals would be better served and they may find a whole new group of allies.


I agree with you. In fact, I support the efforts made by states working together as well as those of independent businesses striving to make changes. That's always where change occurs. Someone is going to make money solving these problems. It may as well be Americans. I want it to be Americans!

Believe me, I understand distrust in government. That's healthy and again, I bring a critical eye to all things I'm being told by them -- and anyone else. Facts are facts. You obviously get that. They are all I care about.

I have simply found no credible evidence that shows there is some giant conspiracy among the governments of the world to control the global population through the "boogieman" of climate change. There are so many easier ways to do it if in fact that was their goal. I have, however, found an enormous amount of evidence that the collective American perspective has been shaped by a very proactive campaign by a small, extremely wealthy number of American interests in the fossil fuels industry. It's so reliably the case that it's become laughable to me. I know what arguments are going to be advanced by those who bought into those arguments before they even say a word: The so-called "14-Year Hiatus"; "Climate Has Changed Before"; "Models are Unreliable"; you name it. All those "doubts" have come about as a result of a carefully orchestrated campaign by fossil fuel interests who have plenty of incentive to create a perception of uncertainty that simply doesn't exist. And every one of those false premises has been thoroughly debunked.

Here's the thing: We've been aware of climate change evidence since the 70s. No one has mandated much of anything to fix it, other than some frankly rather feeble emissions standards. 

I think change comes about because people change their thinking. Nothing else. I like beef, too. But if eating it becomes like farting in public similar to how public smoking is now, I'm probably going to eat less beef. And I know some people will eat the biggest steak they can find in front of as many people as they can. That's ok. Eventually, a lot fewer people will choose to eat beef, just as a lot of people have chosen to quit smoking. When presented with factual evidence not clouded by spin, people will mostly choose to do the right thing. Even politicians, when forced.

We can find some common ground. I hope we can work together to find solutions we can both live with. And our children, too.

Thank you for considering the points I made. I really appreciate it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Raeven said:


> I agree with you. In fact, I support the efforts made by states working together as well as those of independent businesses striving to make changes. That's always where change occurs. Someone is going to make money solving these problems. It may as well be Americans. I want it to be Americans!
> 
> Believe me, I understand distrust in government. That's healthy and again, I bring a critical eye to all things I'm being told by them -- and anyone else. Facts are facts. You obviously get that. They are all I care about.
> 
> ...


 The only problem I have with the beef being like smoking is that the government didn't stay out of smoking and allow "peer pressure" alone to cause change. There has been a steady march of more restrictions and higher taxes on tobacco. I simply have a real problem with government restrictions and taxes meant to change behavior.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Climate changes. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I went fishing 50 miles off of the coast of Georgia, 18,000 years ago, it was the beach. There have been very sudden catastrophic climate changes that have caused much mayhem without our SUV's..


 Yes, climate changes, and change is the only constant. But it changes even faster when one species digs up and burns millions of years worth of buried hydrocarbons in a few short generations time. Personally I do NOT believe it is a 'catastrophe', but to deny we are having an effect implies our actions are immune to consequences.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Raeven said:


> Gosh, Darren, you forgot to read the last sentence in your own cited article:
> 
> *"We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation."
> 
> ...


*"We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. ..."*

That is the crux of the argument. It's a trust me I know what I'm talking about sales pitch. The massive amounts of input from volcanoes far surpassed anything that man can do with the possible exception of a nuclear winter.

We're fooling ourselves if we think we can control the climate. We can't at this point although the potential does exist in the future to trigger a reaction that could terminate our existence. As much as some believe we understand the process, I'm reading about new discoveries on a regular basis that underscores the fact we do not fully comprehend what drives climate on Earth other than the primary role of the Sun. Even that has lead to surprising discoveries.

The two graphs should have made it obvious our effect on climate is insignificant. The other factor that seems to be obscured is the atmosphere is not homogeneous. Neither the water vapor content nor the CO2 content, nor that of any other gas is constant all over the Earth. Weather is ample demonstration of changes in the atmosphere.

I'm amused when someone writes an article about something that should call AGW into question and ends the article essentially saying*, "But we all know anthropocentric warming exists." NO WE DON'T.

*Mother nature came close to wiping us out about 5,000 years ago. We ignore that at our peril. Mankind's stupidity demonstrated by the constant manipulation of the masses will end up causing our extinction. It won't won't be by global warming unless we can manage to survive until the Sun's expansion fries the planet. Trust me. We won't be around that long.

Our focus on self-importance will end with our extinction when Mother Nature rolls over on us.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The massive amounts of input from volcanoes far surpassed anything that man can do with the possible exception of a nuclear winter.



This usually gets brought up every discussion, so why not....lets go over it yet again...



> globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.





> Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global *fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.*


 http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Even if the estimate for global volcanic CO2 is 3 times that,600million tons, which some scientists are speculating, it is still just a tiny fraction of fossil fuel emissions. 
This is not about mankind being arrogant thinking they are 'controlling' the climate... far from controlling anything we are simply changing it. Its actually far MORE arrrogant to think our actions have no consequences.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, I was referring to prehistoric times when so-called green house gases caused mass extinction.

http://news.mit.edu/2014/ancient-whodunit-may-be-solved-microbes-did-it


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, I was referring to prehistoric times when so-called green house gases caused mass extinction.
> 
> http://news.mit.edu/2014/ancient-whodunit-may-be-solved-microbes-did-it


 Nothing in your post indicated you were referring to 'prehistoric times', and besides that, what does that have to do with the present day situation? I am still trying to figure out your contentions here, I guess 'CO2 is meaningless' is your main contention... although that is strange since you just posted an article where an increase in greenhouse gasses potentially caused a worldwide climate shift and mass die-off. 
Put the politics of this whole issue aside, and look at the facts as agreed upon by hundreds of years of painstaking research and discovery. Historically, the worldwide temperature and CO2 levels have shown a positive correlation. Why would that suddenly cease to be the case? Whether the CO2 has historically lagged or led the temp increase is irrelevant to our present situation, where CO2 is clearly rising at a rapid rate.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Well, there's this:

NASA study: Net gains for Antarctic ice sheets

According to a new NASA study, ice sheet gains outweigh losses on the Antarctic continent. The findings conflict with those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which in 2013 suggested gains were not keeping up with losses.

The new findings may force scientists to rethink models that attempt to account for sea level rise.

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. *If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."*

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/201...gains-for-Antarctic-ice-sheets/9711446321864/

Those ipcc supporters have what to say now?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Another inconvenient study far believers in AGW was recently released. Finding indicate *sea level rise *IS NOT* something to be concerned about.

"*Even if we're on the burn-it-all road, we're looking at a not-so-terrifying 8cm of sea level rise over the next 85 years. You, and your children, and your children's children, can pretty much relax. Your many-times-great grandchildren - assuming they haven't gone off and colonised Mars or something - may have had to move house. But America builds more than half a million new homes every year, enough to rehouse every American threatened by an entire _metre_ of sea rise in just four years, and a metre isn't coming sooner than 2200AD according to Dr Caldeira and his colleagues."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/0...this_century_even_if_all_coal_and_oil_burned/


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Darren, all you have demonstrated is how easily taken in you are when you seize on something you believe supports your confirmation bias.

Did you read the actual paper on which the sensational Register UK article was based? It does not in any way stand for what you or the sensational article says. Here is the actual, full, total article:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589.full

_Abstract

__The Antarctic Ice Sheet stores water equivalent to 58 m in global sea-level rise. We show in simulations using the Parallel Ice Sheet Model that burning the currently attainable fossil fuel resources is sufficient to eliminate the ice sheet. With cumulative fossil fuel emissions of 10,000 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC), Antarctica is projected to become almost ice-free with an average contribution to sea-level rise exceeding 3 m per century during the first millennium. Consistent with recent observations and simulations, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet becomes unstable with 600 to 800 GtC of additional carbon emissions. Beyond this additional carbon release, the destabilization of ice basins in both West and East Antarctica results in a threshold increase in global sea level. Unabated carbon emissions thus threaten the Antarctic Ice Sheet in its entirety with associated sea-level rise that far exceeds that of all other possible sources.

_So your sensational article is enormously misleading from what the actual paper says.

Further: Did you notice the careful wording of the sensational headline of your sensational article? Here it is:

_Burn ALL the Coal, OIL - NO danger of SEA LEVEL rise this century *from Antarctic ice melt*_. (emphasis mine)

Talk about twisting and cherry-picking.

We both know that ice melt is occurring *in lots of places other than the Antarctic*. So if you lose a portion of the Antarctic along with a portion of the Arctic and a portion of Greenland, well... that's an entirely different scenario than just losing the Antarctic, isn't it? But technically, they're right. From* just the Antarctic ice melt*, it's not so scary. * If only that is all that was happening.*

You really need to learn to dig into the actual work and not settle for the sensational garbage that appears to support your wishful thinking. Please find some better sources for your science. The ones you present are too easy to take apart.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Well, there's this:
> 
> NASA study: Net gains for Antarctic ice sheets
> 
> ...


Does this finding in your mind seriously invalidate the entire body of work by the IPCC scientists? And of course you do know there is a new 2015 IPCC report, right? Or do you just prefer cherry-picking from 2013 because they've learned some more since then?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

*Did you take notice of the fact the study used a higher rate of burning carbon fuels than currently happening?* Even with that there's no appreciable sea level rise. One of the factors that affects apparent sea level is the rebound of land masses. That's still going on.

Since Antarctica is the biggest mass of ice, with ice in places up to three miles thick and holding over 60% of the Earth's freshwater, it's not going to melt soon. The latest studies indicate it's gaining ice.

When you consider the rest of the ice on Earth I doubt you're going to see sea level rises like the "O'mgod we're going to die" increases put out in the past.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Raeven said:


> Does this finding in your mind seriously invalidate the entire body of work by the IPCC scientists? And of course you do know there is a new 2015 IPCC report, right? Or do you just prefer cherry-picking from 2013 because they've learned some more since then?



Yes.

Not just this. The emails, false graphics, lies, deceit, 30,000 other scientists including some that developed the satellite systems that don't agree with the ippc's extremely poor computer models, that fact that we're actually not warming, is also part of it?

Why do you believe them after all the deceit and lies? Did you read the report? Why do you think it's wrong? What was cherry picked? That the ice thickness increased?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes.
> 
> Not just this. The emails, false graphics, lies, deceit, 30,000 other scientists including some that developed the satellite systems that don't agree with the ippc's extremely poor computer models, that fact that we're actually not warming, is also part of it?


 Regardless of your opinion of 'Algore' or of the IPCC with your overblown accusations, we are indeed warming, 90% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat,and the sea level is rising, along with CO2 levels. 

*



Statistics says the long-term global warming trend continues

Click to expand...

*


> A new study has just been prepared for an upcoming climate meeting of the US Climate Variability and Predictability Program. This group has an annual summit and this year will have a special science session with papers and presentations devoted to the so-called &#8220;hiatus&#8221;. The &#8220;hiatus&#8221; has taken many meanings. In the popular press, it is often used to falsely claim that global warming stopped. As I&#8217;ve written many times,* global warming has not stopped*; the Earth has been continuing to gain energy because of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
> In other cases, the &#8220;hiatus&#8221; refers to a reported slowdown in temperature increases. This too is not seen in the ocean data or in sea level rise. It is only seen in surface temperatures (temperatures of the surface of land and ocean regions).


http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-the-long-term-global-warming-trend-continues


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm sure enough myself that human-generated CO2 levels have been, and continue to be, a triggering mechanism for accelerating global warming that I'll not waste my time trying to debate these posters who conveniently ignore the data, or are incapable of looking at it rationally. Gee, didn't one of the most lengthy-spoken posters in this thread assure us that he had a background in nuclear power engineering during the heyday of discussions of the immediate Fukushima disaster and that there was no way the reactor piles could breach containment and melt down and out into the environment? Anyone think that didn't happen and that the effects aren't still snowballing over there? I also note none of these supposed "debaters" have ever had a word to say discussing the way a few years ago that Berkeley physics prof ran a study with a large fraction paid by the Koch Brothers and found that his intellectual honesty required he withdraw several of the questions he'd raised earlier about the whole CO2-forced, human-caused, climate change model and state that it WAS happening and WAS due to humans. Nope, we're just going to ignore facts like that and go on blathering like so many ad men in the 50s writing copy about how many doctors prefer to smoke Camels.

Anyway, I'm edging into that time-waste thing there so enough. What I *do* think might be an actual useful discussion for those of us who take it seriously that there's a real problem here would center on just what we *personally* ... relating to family prepping, planning for self-sustaining homestead locations... just might have to REthink.

I propose the following: if there's NOT to be, fairly soon, a serious cascading series of positive feedback effects impacting human society functionality, well, there's not much immediacy to this debate, is there? So, what exactly do we watch for as tremendous red flags of global disaster brewing? (I mean, in a span of a decade or so, clearly there's a mess upcoming looking out a century or so.) And if we see such, what do we do about it, personally? I see the biggest risk as that of methane blowing off out of Arctic permafrost and continental shelf deposits of hydrates, bubbling up serious amounts of CH4, it being something like 100X as potent a greenhouse gas as is CO2. If that is a real threat, there wouldn't be anything subtle once it started rolling along feeding on itself; there'd also be zippo to be done in the way of limiting CO2 to halt or reverse the process. Some bloggers writing about this threat right now have ideas of funding massive banks of lasers to zap arctic columns of methane before it gets dispersed but me, I think that's truly into woo-woo land, even if practical, nobody'd fund it in time. 

So, do "we" make sure to buy some little homestead that's too cold for practical agriculture right now? Do we hunker down with preps where we are and accept humanity's done itself in and wait for the emp/ nuke attack and marauding warlord-guided gangs to show up? Are there particular crops that would be more practical than most for extremely variable conditions, drought alternating with floods, generally warmer but occasional record-breaking cold blasts appearing also? How to deal with surrounding ecosystems... plant communities especially... not able to grow or reproduce as everyone's crop zones shift around? What domesticated animals are the most adaptable? Goats, chickens a better bet than pigs and cattle?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Regardless of your opinion of 'Algore' or of the IPCC with your overblown accusations, we are indeed warming, 90% of the worlds glaciers are in retreat,and the sea level is rising, along with CO2 levels.
> 
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-the-long-term-global-warming-trend-continues


First, i never mentioned "Al Gore", you did. Yeah, the 97% thing, again. :hysterical:ound: Who, exactly, are those 97%? 
What, exactly are those "overblown accusations"? 
Do you not believe NASA, when they say that there's been virtually no warming for the last 2 decades? 
What about the article i posted, what do you not believe, and why do you not believe it?
Do you think that Clivar is biased in any way?
So what if the earth is really warming, no one can do a thing about it, so suck it up, stop freaking out, use what the earth has to offer to make our live better and enjoy life!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

DryHeat said:


> I'm sure enough myself that human-generated CO2 levels have been, and continue to be, a triggering mechanism for accelerating global warming that I'll not waste my time trying to debate these posters who conveniently ignore the data, or are incapable of looking at it rationally. Gee, didn't one of the most lengthy-spoken posters in this thread assure us that he had a background in nuclear power engineering during the heyday of discussions of the immediate Fukushima disaster and that there was no way the reactor piles could breach containment and melt down and out into the environment? Anyone think that didn't happen and that the effects aren't still snowballing over there? I also note none of these supposed "debaters" have ever had a word to say discussing the way a few years ago that Berkeley physics prof ran a study with a large fraction paid by the Koch Brothers and found that his intellectual honesty required he withdraw several of the questions he'd raised earlier about the whole CO2-forced, human-caused, climate change model and state that it WAS happening and WAS due to humans. Nope, we're just going to ignore facts like that and go on blathering like so many ad men in the 50s writing copy about how many doctors prefer to smoke Camels.
> 
> Anyway, I'm edging into that time-waste thing there so enough. What I *do* think might be an actual useful discussion for those of us who take it seriously that there's a real problem here would center on just what we *personally* ... relating to family prepping, planning for self-sustaining homestead locations... just might have to REthink.
> 
> ...


We don't do anything! Live life and enjoy it! 
We always make the best of our situation. So we don't listen to those environmental religious zealots and move along. Ive heard my fill of the shrill screams of the fanatics that the world was going to freeze, then global warming, then climate change. Since that's been dis-proven a bazillion times over, the fanatic cults have decided to change the term to "climate change". Yup, it does at that! Hard to say it doesn't.

I WAS an early member of earth first, the wilderness society(Noby is still a friend), California wilderness coalition(Paul is not), and a few others. I learned a lot, more than i wanted too. They lie to get gullible folks to believe their spin and get them on board with the agenda. I don't deny that the climate is changing, it always has, and always will. Just what extent WE have is whats up for debate, and folks like the ipcc, and their supporters keep getting caught lying. How do you trust them then? Leading climate scientists don't agree with them, why should i believe them?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Do you not believe NASA, when they say that there's been virtually no warming for the last 2 decades?
> !


 That is NOT what NASA is saying. You have to look past the headlines.




> Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While *the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued*, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.


 http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

To emphasize just how wrong and silly it is to characterize NASA as saying "virtually no warming" here're a couple more snips from that NASA article linked above:



> "Observations are showing us the planet is still taking up heat, but it is just showing up in a different place," he said.
> That different place is the ocean.





> the oceans are where the real heating is happening. "If you add extra heat to the Earth system, approximately 93 percent of that extra heat ends up stored in the ocean, and the ocean is very deep," Loeb said. "When we look at air temperature, we are just looking at the surface.





> Loeb and the overwhelming majority of his fellow climate scientists argue that as humans continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates &#8212; atmospheric carbon dioxide measurements hit 400 parts per million in May 2013 &#8212; climate change will continue. Current estimates have global average surface air temperatures rising anywhere from approximately 3 to 8.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100


It boggles the mind that anyone can read source material like that from NASA then say that NASA says there's been little warming for the last two decades. Are the big money interests like the Kochs *paying* a Chinese style "50-cent army" of public opinion-"guiding" bloggers and posters to spout such nonsense?

Oh, and regarding "We don't do anything! Live life and enjoy it!" as an approach, isn't that pretty much the same as "After us, the flood!"? (Pre-French Revolution aristocracy thinking, perfect example of vacuous irresponsibility by those who've already got theirs. )


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, there has been lots of information published in articles that contradicts global warming. As I mentioned earlier, One of the checks in problem solving involves examining a result to see if it's reasonable. Is it off by an order of magnitude from what is expected? If so, why? That could be an indication of an issue with the placement of a decimal point.

I think we can both agree that the Sun is the largest single contributor of energy to the Earth. Obviously the Earth with it's hot liquid core also contributes energy to the atmosphere.

Can we also agree that the atmosphere is not homogeneous?

Once you take that into consideration, it becomes more obvious why some notable people can go record as saying global warming is hogwash. Freeman Dyson and a French expert on modeling are two such individuals. Their credentials are such that their statements can't be blindly ignored.

"to the prestigious SociÃ©tÃ© de Calcul MathÃ©matique (Society for Mathematical Calculation), which recently issued a detailed 195-page White Paper that presents a blistering point-by-point critique of the key dogmas of the global warming? The SociÃ©tÃ© de Calcul MathÃ©matique (SCM) study, entitled, âThe battle against global warming: (which is)sic an absurd, costly and pointless crusade,â* relentlessly exposes the flaws in the so-called science of the UNâs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)* and other institutional members of the AGW alarmist choir. The SCM, founded by renowned mathematician and professor Bernard Beauzamy, does mathematical modeling for companies and governments (including the French government), as well as providing âmathematical tools for fraud detection.â The SCM white paper also exposes the devastating economic, social, and environmental costs of continued implementation of the alarmist agenda, referring to it as a âmad obsession.â"

Add that Indur Goklany, *one of the founders of the IPCC* and Frederick Dyson, a Nobel prize winner, have also *put the lie to global warming*.

"âIndur Goklany has done a careful job, collecting and documenting the evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does far more good than harm,â Dyson wrote in the forward. âTo any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage.â"

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-expert-throw-wrenches-into-un-climate-summit

The evidence of the scam is plentiful. All of it points to the fact that* we do not understand the Earth's climate enough to model it much less predict the future.* Typically at least once a month something is published about a new discovery that contradicts global warming while illuminating something previously unknown that was not included in the model. 

Cherry picking is not considering the new information or accepting the "trust me" I'm with the UN and I'm here to help mantra.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

DryHeat said:


> IGee, didn't one of the most lengthy-spoken posters in this thread assure us that he had a background in nuclear power engineering during the heyday of discussions of the immediate Fukushima disaster and that there was no way the reactor piles could breach containment and melt down and out into the environment?


Let's talk about Fukushima and what is known to date. For starters *my background is not nuclear power engineering. It is in nuclear power plant construction and maintenance.* As such I worked at Fukushima's sister plant and the first of that GE design which is located in New Jersey. 

If you wish, I'll start a new thread about Fukushima.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Regarding the source of that article discussing Dyson and Goklany:From Wikipedia: _



The New American (TNA) is a print magazine published twice a month by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society (JBS).

Click to expand...

_The individual statements of information within it may be accurate enough (or not, that takes more effort than I care to focus at the moment) but seeing it's a Bircher source, I'm *very* sure the organizing interpretations, editorializing commentary, and pejorative asides contained within should make it something to read with extreme caution.

Edit add, here's a quick result on Goklany:


> According to leaked documents, Indur Goklany receives *$1,000 per month from the Heartland Institute*, an organization at the forefront of climate change skepticism.


 http://www.desmogblog.com/indur-m-goklany (That's clearly an anti-"climate change skeptic" site.) Goklany's professional background is in electrical engineering with nothing direct in climatology or meteorology, apparently.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> Let's talk about Fukushima and what is known to date. For starters *my background is not nuclear power engineering. It is in nuclear power plant construction and maintenance.* As such I worked at Fukushima's sister plant and the first of that GE design which is located in New Jersey.
> 
> If you wish, I'll start a new thread about Fukushima.


 We need to built as many nuclear plants as possible with todays technology they sure can be safe. Would you not agree?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> We need to built as many nuclear plants as possible with todays technology they sure can be safe. Would you not agree?


Yep! :thumb:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> I think we can both agree that the Sun is the largest single contributor of energy to the Earth. Obviously the Earth with it's hot liquid core also contributes energy to the atmosphere..


 Yep, the sun is the largest contributor of energy to the earth, I think everyone agrees on that basic fact. The issue is when the composition of the atmosphere changes, the amount of heat retained by the earth changes. 

As far as 'new studies that contradict global warming', lets see them. And not just papers that call into question small aspects of numbers or quibble over obscure data points or methods, let see something that COMPLETELY contradicts the very simple theory that adding greenhouse gasses to a system increases temperature. 
And please don't try and tell us all that the vast majority of chemists, physicists, and meteorologists now and throughout history are wrong, and some mathematician or dentist with the John Birch society knows more than they do about climate. 

For someone who claims we 'don't know enough' about this subject, you seem awfully sure about your claims. Based on what, I do not know, so far you haven't shown anything even remotely convincing.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Yep, the sun is the largest contributor of energy to the earth, I think everyone agrees on that basic fact. The issue is when the composition of the atmosphere changes, the amount of heat retained by the earth changes.
> 
> As far as 'new studies that contradict global warming', lets see them. And not just papers that call into question small aspects of numbers or quibble over obscure data points or methods, let see something that COMPLETELY contradicts the very simple theory that adding greenhouse gasses to a system increases temperature.
> And please don't try and tell us all that the vast majority of chemists, physicists, and meteorologists now and throughout history are wrong, and some mathematician or dentist with the John Birch society knows more than they do about climate.
> ...


Greg, what I see is a general avoidance of anything that refutes AGW. 

Have you or Dry Heat found an anti-AGW funding connection for Bernard Beauzamy, the French modeler or Freeman Dyson, the Nobel laureate?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> That is NOT what NASA is saying. You have to look past the headlines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still wont/cant answer those questions i see, why not?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Than dang sun allows nature to store energy in carbon based supplies.

Oil, coal, gas, methane we need I guess get real d of the source of our problems... the sun


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

kasilofhome said:


> Than dang sun allows nature to store energy in carbon based supplies.
> 
> Oil, coal, gas, methane we need I guess get real d of the source of our problems... the sun


I think the fact that one of our elected officials was concerned about an island tipping over says it all. On another site I'm flabbergasted that many think the Earth is larger than the Sun. That fusion furnace out in space is what drives life on Earth. Without it life on this planet dies.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Amen... nature has seasons... and ice ages come and go. Having stored fuels a good science we aid us during extremes.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Another ice age would be a real bummer. Mucking about when the climate models can't predict the future isn't our smartest move. When it ain't broke, don't fix it makes sense to me.

Did anyone else catch the mention of lag with regard to CO2 like it was meaningless?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Missed it


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Still wont/cant answer those questions i see, why not?



The 'how many trees are there' thing again Jeffery?? After you've been shown link after link showing global CO2 emissions vs sequestration?? Whatever the number is, its obviously not enough to use up all the gigatons of CO2 we're putting into the air on a daily basis, that much we know for sure.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Another ice age would be a real bummer. Mucking about when the climate models can't predict the future isn't our smartest move. When it ain't broke, don't fix it makes sense to me.
> 
> Did anyone else catch the mention of lag with regard to CO2 like it was meaningless?


 See, 'Lag', there is another 'anti-AGW' buzzword that people like to bring up, thinking it means more than it does. 
Whether CO2 has historically LED or LAGGED warming is COMPLETELY, and 100% IRRELEVANT to the present situation, where CO2 is LEADING. 
Many things can lead to a warmer climate.... the sun, orbital eccentricies, and an *increase in greenhouse gasses.* This is what the science and the observations have shown, time and again.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> The 'how many trees are there' thing again Jeffery?? After you've been shown link after link showing global CO2 emissions vs sequestration?? Whatever the number is, its obviously not enough to use up all the gigatons of CO2 we're putting into the air on a daily basis, that much we know for sure.


Yes, those and the ones in this thread. Why are you so affraid to answer them, might through your agenda out the window? Come on Greg, get with it and give up some answers.

Gigatons, really? Proof please of "gigatons".


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, the graphs clearly show the gigatons of CO2 you claim we're emitting aren't reflected in the percentage of CO2 being measured. *There is no direct relationship between the increase in the burning of fossil fuels since mid last century and the increase in CO2.*


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Have you or Dry Heat found an anti-AGW funding connection for Bernard Beauzamy, the French modeler or Freeman Dyson, the Nobel laureate?


 In a word, yes, easily for Beauzamy:
http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/Consortium/SCM


> The "SociÃ©tÃ© de Calcul MathÃ©matique" or SCM  is a French private company founded in 1995 by Prof. Bernard Beauzamy. Composed by 8 full time people and located in Paris, this company works for several French industries related to transports, energy and environment issues.


 In other words, sounds to me like the energy industries pay him and his little vanity society.

Regarding Dyson, I'll cite from "The Atlantic" here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/


> In the range of his genius, Freeman Dyson is heir to Einsteinâa visionary who has reshaped thinking in fields from math to astrophysics to medicine, and who has conceived nuclear-propelled spaceships designed to transport human colonists to distant planets. And yet on the matter of global warming he is, as an outspoken skeptic, dead wrong: wrong on the facts, wrong on the science. How could someone as smart as Dyson be so dumb about the environment? The answer lies in his almost religious faith in the power of man and science to bring nature to heel.


 He's 90 years old. He's addled, perhaps, somewhat. Riiiiight, solve our gross overpopulation by flying to the stars on his nuke-powered spaceships. That'll justify your technology empowering brainless procreation and be the next step in human intellect *always* moving a step ahead of oncoming collapse due to our hubris, not to mention technocrats' huge paychecks. Not.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

DryHeat said:


> In a word, yes, easily for Beauzamy:
> http://sia.eionet.europa.eu/Consortium/SCM In other words, sounds to me like the energy industries pay him and his little vanity society.
> 
> Regarding Dyson, I'll cite from "The Atlantic" here: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/the-danger-of-cosmic-genius/308306/ He's 90 years old. He's addled, perhaps, somewhat. Riiiiight, solve our gross overpopulation by flying to the stars on his nuke-powered spaceships. That'll justify your technology empowering brainless procreation and be the next step in human intellect *always* moving a step ahead of oncoming collapse due to our hubris, not to mention technocrats' huge paychecks. Not.


You might be surprised that Westinghouse developed a nuclear rocket engine back in the 60's that was a success. 

The Atlantic bought into the environment association too. That's the big hook. Once you've swallowed that one, it's impossible not to swallow AGW hook, line and sinker. After all who isn't for clean water and clean air? It's marketing at its most sublime. 

Dyson is right on the money about getting off the planet. Our ego which makes us believe we matter ignores that it's Mother Nature that controls the shots. I find it interesting that in our galactic orbit, Earth is in the same location it was during the Permian Triassic extinction. Is that a coincidence? Are we about to go though another mass extinction?

I find it illuminating that you dismiss Dyson so easily along with Beauzamy who has the modeling credentials. Aparrently AGW has become the equivalent of a religion. Ego plus faith, strength of convictions, has been a bad combination before. It's going to be destructive again if the agenda is implemented.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Yes, those and the ones in this thread. Why are you so affraid to answer them, might through your agenda out the window? Come on Greg, get with it and give up some answers.
> 
> Gigatons, really? Proof please of "gigatons".


 I have no idea what questions you think I am 'affraid' to answer.

And yes JefferyD, GIGATONS. 


> Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, humans have transformed about 40 percent of Earth's land surface and have increased carbon dioxide levels by about 25 percent. Scientists estimate that from 1850 to 1980, between 90 and 120 billion metric tons (90-120 trillion kilograms) of carbon dioxide were released into the atmosphere from tropical forest fires. Comparatively, during that same time period, an estimated 165 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide were added to the atmosphere by industrial nations through the burning of coal, oil, and gas. *Today, an estimated 5.6 gigatons of carbon are released into the atmosphere each year due to fossil fuel burning.*


 http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalFire/fire_3.php


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, the graphs clearly show the gigatons of CO2 you claim we're emitting aren't reflected in the percentage of CO2 being measured. *There is no direct relationship between the increase in the burning of fossil fuels since mid last century and the increase in CO2.*


 * Yes, there absolutely IS a direct relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and the rise of CO2. * This has been shown from both the ice core records and direct measurements of the atmosphere. 











> *When CO2 emissions are compared directly to CO2 levels*,* there is a strong correlation in the long term trends.* This is independently confirmed by carbon isotopes which find the falling ratio of C13/C12 correlates well with fossil fuel emissions.


 https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=45


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Thanks for posting the graph, Greg. As best as I can determine the graph proves that temperature is not sensitive or determined by the CO2 concentration. It looks like CO2 increased by 75% between 1950 and today. The temperature, if it has increased, has not increased by 75%. Therefore there's no correlation between the two.

If you look at the graphs I posted, you showed the same thing. Given the big increase in the use of fossil fuels since 1950, you'd expect a big increase in CO2. BUT we have not seen a corresponding dramatic increase in temperature. Nor have we seen huge increases in the level of the oceans.

If you consider the recent growth in Antarctic ice which contains an estimated 61% of the Earth's freshwater, I would expect sea levels to increase minimally or possible start to drop as more water is converted to ice in Antarctica.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Let's look at all three graphs together. It's revealing that with the huge release of CO2 we haven't seen a direct relationship with rising temperatures. That has to mean the climate is not sensitive to CO2 levels. That makes sense when you consider the Sun is the largest single factor affecting the weather and climate. It also underscores that CO2 is insignificant when compared to the vastly greater amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Consider the latest recent findings that we greatly underestimated the number of tree on the planet, Antarctica is gaining ice and oceanic levels of CO2 were much greater in prehistoric times when the sizes of the animal life indicate a more abundant population in the food chain.

Now it makes sense why the predictions people have made from the IPCC models haven't occurred.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

A recent article discusses the fact that Antarctica is gaining ice. That's the good news. The bad news shows how looney tunes the whole AGW concept is. Apparently they don't know where the .27 mm annual rise in sea level is coming from. Maybe their "science" writer got confused. FWIW, .27 mm is about one hundredth of an inch. 

Given the huge amount of CO2 we've released into the atmosphere since 1950, I'd expect much more than that since we've had fifty years for CO2 to do its damage if CO2 affected climate. At this point it should be obvious to all that the CO2 boogy man was, like the fairy tale boogy man, a figment of peoples' imagination.

http://www.newsweek.com/antarctica-gaining-ice-heres-why-thats-not-actually-good-news-389904

OTOH I'm thrilled they think we can predict sea level rise that accurately. If Bravo Sierra was real physical stuff, we'd have lots of it covering the planet.

From the article:

"âThe good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,â Zwally said. âBut this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.â

In other words, the scientific community now has a mystery on their hands. Where is that .27 millimeters of annual rise coming from?

*Does anyone else think someone, based on the article, flunked math?*


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Thanks for posting the graph, Greg. As best as I can determine the graph proves that temperature is not sensitive or determined by the CO2 concentration.* It looks like CO2 increased by 75% between 1950 and today. The temperature, if it has increased, has not increased by 75%.* Therefore there's no correlation between the two.


 Wow, someone flunked math alright. You're not even in the ballpark of what the scientists are saying.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Greg, are you saying there's a direct correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the proposed effects such as an increase in temperature or sea level rise?


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> You might be surprised that Westinghouse developed a nuclear rocket engine back in the 60's that was a success.


What I would find surprising would be if there were any chance such technology were within the expense... resource usage.. grasp of allowing migration of sufficient humans elsewhere to save the planet. IF brilliant technocrats calculated, say, that the planet's carrying capacity could allow a population of a few hundred million humans to allocate presently vanishing resources to 1) educate everyone to their potential, 2) maintain a comfortable NON-conspicuous consumption driven economy, and 3) focus on a centuries-long program of space exploration and colonization goals, I'd be with you totally. What I do see, though, is a self-justifying program pretending nuke energy can sustain both a massive (5-10 billion total) population, provide developed country living standards for all, and pursue far-future goals like space colonization. I see no way that can happen, not even in a world of realized jr high science fair projects like feeding everyone on algae cookies let alone Solylent Green. I see no way such energy flows are applied to idiotic human purposes without continuing planetary biotic impacts including the presently developing extinction event. My background is in biological sciences; "we" pretty much see engineering and math technocrats as the "religious" ones, blind to technological impacts, or else simply on the payroll to be so. 

Nuclear starship drives can't do enough, soon enough. What was the "Dune" premise, that weird human "pilots" could interact with technology to produce a warp drive technology allowing teleport-level instantaneous stellar travel? Take practical, usable space travel to that level, bypassing Kaku's contention we can't have the energy production for such manipulations for another millennium, stabilize humanity somewhere far below present population levels, and start colonizing elsewhere like in "Interstellar," and I'll applaud engineering and math, but keep in mind such results involve theoretical physics which presently loops over into parapsychology if not mysticism. I don't even think it's impossible to find that route, just vanishingly unlikely given how rapidly our stupidity is closing in on us.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You've touched on quite a few issues with civilization as we know it. Birth rates and carrying capacity is obviously a big one. That brings up education. For the most part educated people have less kids. They get it. The uneducated who rely on kids as insurance for their old age don't have that choice. I'm counting those irrespective of religion or culture that leads them to believe large families are necessary and good.

To include them in the decision is foolhardy. Nothing guarantees we're not an endangered species right now. Getting off the planet is the only option. We need to make that a priority so that some remnant of mankind survives an extinction event with the knowledge we've accrued.

Getting side tracked with PC bravo sierra and imaginary stuff like AGW to aggregate power and wealth is inane. We seem to be good at being foolhardy. Our education system that fails nowadays to replicate the educational success of, say fifty years ago, ensures future generations that can be lead around by their collective nose.

We've subverted our knowledge of human nature to use it to enslave consumers to making uneducated choices. Whether you're buying AGW or a new car, it's the same. Someone wants what's yours until you give it up. With a new car you can always sell it or trade if it turns out to be a lemon.

AGW is on track to firmly establish energy poverty for many. There will be no going back once the scam is exposed by the reality of passing time. It will be too late.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

DryHeat said:


> I'm sure enough myself that human-generated CO2 levels have been, and continue to be, a triggering mechanism for accelerating global warming that I'll not waste my time trying to debate these posters who conveniently ignore the data, or are incapable of looking at it rationally. Gee, didn't one of the most lengthy-spoken posters in this thread assure us that he had a background in nuclear power engineering during the heyday of discussions of the immediate Fukushima disaster and that there was no way the reactor piles could breach containment and melt down and out into the environment? Anyone think that didn't happen and that the effects aren't still snowballing over there? I also note none of these supposed "debaters" have ever had a word to say discussing the way a few years ago that Berkeley physics prof ran a study with a large fraction paid by the Koch Brothers and found that his intellectual honesty required he withdraw several of the questions he'd raised earlier about the whole CO2-forced, human-caused, climate change model and state that it WAS happening and WAS due to humans. Nope, we're just going to ignore facts like that and go on blathering like so many ad men in the 50s writing copy about how many doctors prefer to smoke Camels.
> 
> Anyway, I'm edging into that time-waste thing there so enough. What I *do* think might be an actual useful discussion for those of us who take it seriously that there's a real problem here would center on just what we *personally* ... relating to family prepping, planning for self-sustaining homestead locations... just might have to REthink.
> 
> ...


Dryheat, my apologies for not getting back to this excellent post sooner. It's a busy time in my work world, so I fit things in as I can. I agree with every word of your post.

With respect to the questions you posed, I'm firmly in "I don't know," land. It depends so much on what (if anything) is done to address the changes. I see the tide turning, but I'm not sure it will happen in time. So I refuse to give up on what might be done going forward, but given the stubborn idiocy of those in this country who refuse to accept what's so patently apparent, it's hard not to sometimes. I do believe solutions can be found because I know they already exist in today's world. What is needed is the will to implement them. Even as I write this, the French and Chinese are hammering out an agreement for addressing climate change in advance of the summit being held in Paris in December. We can see who, conspicuously, is not at the table. How embarrassing.

As a practical matter, it doesn't much matter to me on a personal level. I live in a spot that will remain relatively sweet for the next 30 years and that's likely about all I'm going to need. I can reliably produce food here now and for the foreseeable future, even with rather dramatic changes to our local climate as they continue to occur.

Like you, I find the methane seeps in the Arctic, particularly at the East Siberian ice shelf, the most disturbing. That, along with the effects we're already seeing in our oceans from continuing acidification. I've read credible studies that show current rates of acidification will kill off plankton -- which produces about 50% of the oxygen for our planet -- by the late 2050s, give or take. If those projections come to fruition -- and there is no reason to think they will not as the changes are easily measured -- then sea rise and all the rest won't matter much. If plankton and other small sea life such as krill collapse, nothing else can survive.

But assuming we somehow manage to pull our collective thumb out of our collective eye and the worst is somehow held in abeyance... chickens, pigs and goats are far more resourceful in converting vegetation into usable human food than cattle, so yes, focus on those. Crops with more drought tolerance are already around with more to come. There are already some fascinating advances being made in food engineering in response to climate change and those will continue, I'm sure.

(If you haven't already, do read the book, Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming, by McKenzie Funk. It's eye opening to learn how much money is already being invested to capitalize on the changes to climate -- which are not in any doubt whatsoever by the companies doing the investing.)

I think it's already a good idea to try and grow at least twice as much food as you need each year and preserve it for those years when things don't go so well. Food prices are definitely going to continue their rise as unstable climate influence causes crop failures year after year in all parts of the world.

Like all things, I think you have to balance the urgency of humanity's problems against the point of having a life in the first place -- which in my view is to enjoy it. No matter what, at least 200 years' worth of unpleasant after-effects are already baked into the CO2/methane cake, even if we were to shut off the CO2/methane faucet completely by this evening. (I'm full of metaphors today.) So for us, meaning people who are alive today, we're already going to suffer a lot within the next 50 years or so. How much remains to be seen. If it goes all zombie apocalypse, then my best and highest use is probably to simply step aside and allow my resources to be used by someone younger and more capable. That's just reality.

I've already done pretty much all I am capable of or willing to do to forestall the worst effects on me and mine. Other than trying to educate others to the extent they're willing to learn, my feet are figuratively up and I try to appreciate the beautiful, wondrous world around me. I may very well be living at the exact pinnacle of what humanity was able to accomplish. Even if we go extinct, that's kind of cool.

I would love to continue having this discussion with you and among others who already understand the implications of the totality of the science. Like you, I'm pretty much done trying to convince people of what is blindingly obvious on so many different levels and prefer to move on to discussing actual potential solutions.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Getting side tracked with PC bravo sierra and imaginary stuff like AGW


 Here is a major crux for the issue. Exactly *what* events, which thresholds, passed within what time span, would force the anti-AGW movement to acknowledge increasing probabilities that they're wrong as of right now? Over three years ago, Richard Muller of Berkeley, partly on Koch money, came to that turning point (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...-and-essentially-all-due-to-carbon-pollution/) 


> *CALL me a converted skeptic*. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. Iâm now going a step further: *Humans are almost entirely the cause. *


 So don't call AGW "imaginary" and pretend technocrats' favorite support sources are just so overwhelming that everyone else becomes a superstitious dupe. Science is about probabilistic predictions AND theories whose validity can be *refuted* by stated observations and outcomes.




​


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Darren said:


> If you look at the graphs I posted, you showed the same thing. Given the big increase in the use of fossil fuels since 1950, you'd expect a big increase in CO2.* BUT we have not seen a corresponding dramatic increase in temperature. Nor have we seen huge increases in the level of the oceans.*


God, what an irresponsible and ignorant thing to say.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-last-time-co2-was-this-high-humans-didnt-exist-15938

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/k...ature-trends-match-atmospheric-co2-increases/

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

http://www.livescience.com/38219-oceans-acidifying-with-rising-co2.html

http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

By the way, the nearest planet that offers an environment maybe habitable for human life is "only" 13 light years away. Light years. Get it? We aren't even close to mastering space travel at the speed of light and won't be for the foreseeable future. We're going to need this planet for quite awhile longer before we biff off to our future in the universe.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> I have no idea what questions you think I am 'affraid' to answer.
> 
> And yes JefferyD, GIGATONS.
> 
> ...


The questions on this very thread! Those questions! You saw them and yet, you Fer use to answer them....why? Do they interfere or poke holes in your religious global warming agenda?

Come on Greg, you can do it!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, are you saying there's a direct correlation between the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere and the proposed effects such as an increase in temperature or sea level rise?


 There is NOT a 'direct correlation' between CO2 and temperature, there is a POSITIVE correlation over the long term. I don't know where you got the laughable idea that because CO2 went up (~30% since 1950, NOT '75%' like you erroneously claimed), temp would go up the same percentage. Where do you come up with these extremely weak strawman arguments?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> A recent article discusses the fact that Antarctica is gaining ice. That's the good news. The bad news shows how looney tunes the whole AGW concept is.


 Lol!! From the FIRST SENTENCE of the article you posted that supposedly shows how 'crazy' the idea of AGW is...



> A new NASA study found that Antarctica is gaining more ice than it&#8217;s losing. *But that isn&#8217;t a sign that climate change is slowing down.*


 The article also goes on to say the rate of increase is slowing down, and at this rate, in 20 years, will be LOSING more than gaining. Oh, and it also says sea level continues to rise, at a rising pace. 
Really Darren you need to read entire articles, apparently more than once, and not just headlines, because NOTHING you offered up so far has done anything to bolster your erroneous conclusions.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> If you look at the graphs I posted, you showed the same thing. Given the big increase in the use of fossil fuels since 1950, you'd expect a big increase in CO2..


 Best check the numbers and the charts again. A 'big increase' is EXACTLY what they show. Coincidentally,this increase shows up around the same time mankind started burning massive amounts of fossil fuels. Funny how that works, huh?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The fact remains we do not understand all of the factors that affect climate. We're not seeing a dramatic temperature rise that corresponds to the rise in CO2 which is still insignificant given that water vapor absolutely dwarfs CO2 both in percentage and effect. That is undeniable.

The predicted plethora of hurricanes and tornadoes failed to appear. Warming is in a hiatus. The fact that Antarctica is gaining ice which means the percentage of Earth's freshwater tied up, currently at 61%, is increasing is extremely significant. Is that in the IPCC model. Nope! Scientists are constantly discovering things that are not included in the IPCC model. 

Did the IPCC model take into account the recent discovery of the order of magnitude increase in the number of trees on the planet? Nope!

The models are bogus. The predictions haven't happened and new discoveries are being made that point to factors that potentially affect climate that were never considered. The IPCC BS isn't even a WAG much less a SWAG. The UN has constantly sought more power. Global warming requiring effort and sacrifice on the part of all nations must have looked like a sure thing to those trying to move to a one world government. ** them!

Wake up folks. It's the medicine man in modern dress selling snake oil. It's marketing at it's most insidious playing on human emotion and weakness. You're being duped.

If you want to get your panties in a twist, click on the link below. We're running out of time and it isn't because of global warming. We need to get off the planet. That should be mankind's priority. Dyson was 1,000% correct.

" a pair of researchers have new evidence to support a link between cyclical comet showers and mass extinctions, including the one that they believe wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. Michael Rampino, a geologist at New York University, and Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist at the Carnegie Institution for Science, traced 260 million years of mass extinctions and found a familiar pattern: Every 26 million years, there were huge impacts and major die-offs. "

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/the-next-mass-extinction/413884/


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Wake up folks. It's the medicine man in modern dress selling snake oil. It's marketing at it's (sic) most insidious playing on human emotion and weakness. You're being duped.


Precisely what *I* say about the *anti*-AGW, fossil-fuel industry-funded arguments. Precisely. Only difference is that my assertion would use "its" for that second "it's" up there.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The fact remains we do not understand all of the factors that affect climate. We're not seeing a dramatic temperature rise that corresponds to the rise in CO2 which is still insignificant given that water vapor absolutely dwarfs CO2 both in percentage and effect. That is undeniable./


 You're right, no one denies water vapor 'dwarfs' CO2 in its greenhouse effect. Not really relevant to the discussion, which is the increase in CO2 and methane. Actually, a warmer atmosphere leads to more water vapor, so rising CO2 or methane would act as a feedback loop in conjunction with water vapor.
And no, we don't fully understand 'all the factors', but the signs, and the hard won knowledge, says increasing total CO2 in the atmosphere leads to higher temperatures, provided of course the solar flux doesn't vary by more than a percent or so...
and the research shows solar flux has NOT been enough to cause the uptick in global temperatures over the last 130 years. The most likely culprit is the nice extra blanket of CO2 we've been steadily pumping into the atmosphere. 
Maybe you can try and explain how raising greenhouse gasses would lower temperatures. If you have a good theory on that, I am sure many would like to know about it. 
Personally, the only thing I can see being a counterbalance is if temp goes up, and more water vapor gets into the air, and clouds end up reflecting more sunlight... but that is not likely, as water vapor is considered a net greenhouse gas. 
Interesting times.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Here's a link to an interesting professionally-done segment revolving around Bill Nye by National Geographic. The blogger, Guy McPherson, suspects he'll have to take the link down pretty soon but right now, it's there and I'm watching it.
http://guymcpherson.com/2015/11/bill-nyes-global-meltdown-on-national-geographic/


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

DryHeat said:


> Here's a link to an interesting professionally-done segment revolving around Bill Nye by National Geographic. The blogger, Guy McPherson, suspects he'll have to take the link down pretty soon but right now, it's there and I'm watching it.
> http://guymcpherson.com/2015/11/bill-nyes-global-meltdown-on-national-geographic/


LOL, I watched a couple of minutes of it and I wish I could watch the whole thing, but I'm on a metered connection. I love Guy; have been well acquainted with him since LATOC days. He's done a lot of important work.

In case you missed it, you might appreciate this primer on global warming, also. It so perfectly explains the difference between weather and climate change, a distinction that I know confuses many.


[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBdxDFpDp_k[/ame]


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Let's look at temperatures over the millennia. Here's 450,000 years of history. We're lucky to be in an interglacial period. Note the periodicy of the climate. Looks to me like man wasn't involved. Whatever triggered the ice ages seems to be on track for a repeat regardless of us pissants. BTW, that's another reason to get off the planet.

"On the longest time periods â the scales of hundreds of thousands of years, we see long âice agesâ with major glacial advances that last 80,000 to over 100,000 years followed by relatively brief (10-12,000 year) warmer interglacials. 

We are fortunate to have lived for the last 10,000 plus years in one of those interglacials with temperatures 10C (18F) warmer globally than during the major ice ages. The cycles likely relate to cycles of earth-sun orbital parameters like orbital eccentricity, obliquity, and precession."










http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?a=194


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Let's look at temperatures over the millennia. Here's 450,000 years of history. We're lucky to be in an interglacial period. Note the periodicy of the climate. Looks to me like man wasn't involved. Whatever triggered the ice ages seems to be on track for a repeat regardless of us pissants. BTW, that's another reason to get off the planet.
> 
> "On the longest time periods â the scales of hundreds of thousands of years, we see long âice agesâ with major glacial advances that last 80,000 to over 100,000 years followed by relatively brief (10-12,000 year) warmer interglacials.
> 
> ...


 Nope, can't argue with anything there. It is well known that orbital eccentricities have been the trigger for numerous cycles of ice ages and then back to warmer times. However, this still has nothing to do with whether or not mankinds altering of the atmosphere by increasing greenhouse gasses will have an effect. The science, and the observations says it will, and whatever comes, we will deal with it. Most folks I know can outrun a few millimeters of sea level rise per year. 
You're doing pretty good Darren, you're going right down the list of largely discredited 'anti-global warming' excuses, one by one. And being shown why each excuse is either flat out wrong, irrelevant, or mischaracterized.
So again, nothing you've shown so far lends any credence to the idea that mankinds rampant burning of fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate.
And for the record, I am all for exploring and colonizing other planets, and the sooner we start, the better. I only hope we can achieve this before our warlike nature leads to a mass die-off of our species.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Nope, can't argue with anything there. It is well known that orbital eccentricities have been the trigger for numerous cycles of ice ages and then back to warmer times. However, this still has nothing to do with whether or not mankinds altering of the atmosphere by increasing greenhouse gasses will have an effect. The science, and the observations says it will, and whatever comes, we will deal with it. Most folks I know can outrun a few millimeters of sea level rise per year.
> You're doing pretty good Darren, you're going right down the list of largely discredited 'anti-global warming' excuses, one by one. And being shown why each excuse is either flat out wrong, irrelevant, or mischaracterized.
> So again, nothing you've shown so far lends any credence to the idea that mankinds rampant burning of fossil fuels will have no effect on the climate.
> And for the record, I am all for exploring and colonizing other planets, and the sooner we start, the better. I only hope we can achieve this before our warlike nature leads to a mass die-off of our species.


Greg, tell me how what we're doing will stave off the next ice age and change the pattern that's existed for eons. Maybe global warming is a good thing. Does it have anything to do with the Antarctic ice increasing?

I'm still waiting for those super storms that were predicted.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> Greg, tell me how what we're doing will stave off the next ice age and change the pattern that's existed for eons. Maybe global warming is a good thing. Does it have anything to do with the Antarctic ice increasing?


 You seem to have a lot of faith that the SLIGHT rise in Anarctic sea ice somehow means AGW is a hoax, yet ignore the fact that the Arctic and Greenland have, over the same period of time, lost significant amounts of ice, much more than Antarctica has gained. 


> . A satellite-based data record starting in late 1978 shows that indeed rapid changes have been occurring in the Arctic, where the perennial ice cover has been declining at the rate of about 13% per decade and the ice cover as a whole has been declining at the lesser rate of about 5% per decade. In the Antarctic, the trend is opposite to that in the Arctic, with the sea ice cover increasing at about 1 to 2 % per decade. This is despite unusual warming in the Antarctic Peninsula region and declines in the sea ice cover in the Amundsen/Bellingshausen Seas of about 6% per decade


 http://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/index.php?section=234
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

As far as the next ice age, I wouldn't worry too much, there is no sign of that 10,000 year process starting anytime soon. And yes, all the extra CO2 generated by fossil fuel use will help stave it off. So go burn some tires and celebrate!


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Darren said:


> Greg, tell me how what we're doing will stave off the next ice age and change the pattern that's existed for eons. Maybe global warming is a good thing. Does it have anything to do with the Antarctic ice increasing?
> 
> *I'm still waiting for those super storms that were predicted.*


Yeah, I guess if it doesn't happen in the US, it doesn't happen.

Super Typhoon Haiyan:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/11/07/philippines-typhoon/3465779/

Super Typhoon Mayak:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/asia/super-typhoon-maysak/

Super Typhoon Nangka:

http://www.weather.com/storms/typhoon/news/chan-hom-typhoon-threat-guam-japan-korea

Super Typhoon Genevieve:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/rare-name-change-for-oncehurri-1/31781971

Hurricane Rick:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40822

Hurricane Celia:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=44439

Hurricane Marie:

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/marie-on-track-to-become-a-maj/32774209

Hurricane Patricia:

http://www.weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/hurricane-patricia-mexico-coast

Nope, no super storms.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

And some more news relating to the bogus information sometimes being leaned on by anti-AGW posters here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/...l-over-its-alleged-climate-change-shenanigans


> According to people with knowledge of the investigation, Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a subpoena Wednesday evening to Exxon Mobil, demanding extensive financial records, emails and other documents. The focus includes the company&#8217;s activities dating to the late 1970s, including a period of at least a decade when Exxon Mobil funded groups that sought to undermine climate science.


 Issues nicely explored in a six-part series over the last month and a half by Puitzer-winning "InsideClimate News" http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken The articles describe how


> Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed.


Various points from that series: 


> "In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.
> It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.





> Steve Knisely was an intern at Exxon Research and Engineering in the summer of 1979 when a vice president asked him to analyze how global warming might affect fuel use. <snip> unless fossil fuel use was constrained, there would be "noticeable temperature changes" and 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air by 2010, up from about 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution. The summer intern's predictions turned out to be very close to the mark.





> As he wrapped up nine years as the federal government's chief scientist for global warming research, Michael MacCracken lashed out at ExxonMobil for opposing the advance of climate science.
> His own great-grandfather, he told the Exxon board, had been John D. Rockefeller's legal counsel a century earlier. "What I rather imagine he would say is that you are on the wrong side of history, and you need to find a way to change your position," he wrote.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm curious why Exxon bought heavily into natural gas resources after that. Did they predict the latest EPA edicts.

It still comes down to the solar system and the cycle that started after the material that now forms the Earth coalesced. We've been heating up and cooling ever since. Even with the volcanic eruptions that kicked off mass extinctions, the world still cycled between warm and cold periods.

We could set the world on fire and not match the output of the volcanic eruptions recently verified in the strata. If nothing of that order of magnitude disrupted the cycle set by the solar system, our CO2 contribution is laughable.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

What's laughable to me is constantly comparing CO2 levels, volcanic emission amounts, whatever, that have been measured over spans of tens of millions of years and not being willing to acknowledge that releasing, yes, a small fraction of those amounts burning fossil fuels over a couple of centuries can have an incredible, intense, impact. Simple math, 200 years is what fraction of ten million? 20% of ten thousand = one fifty thousandth. The planet's biological systems have had 50,000X the time then to adapt to lower CO2 levels and temperatures than we'll see them having to adjust to humanity's release of, yes, a lower amount of CO2 than was involved HUNDREDS of millions of years ago during a quite different geological situation. 

What was then, was then, and that was LONG ago and has very little relevance to what we can do, and are doing, clearly, within this flash-mob time span of a few centuries.

Again, what results over the next ten or fifteen years, what *predictions of measurements* can the anti-AGW crowd present to substantiate their positions? If you can't present predictions, you aren't debating science, you're just trying to assuage your guilt for building nukes and burning fuels for frivolous reasons, trying to prop up monetary value for corporate interests and investments, or been duped by the big-money interests' utterly bogus linkages of evangelical sorts of religious beliefs to their propaganda, or claims that the actual evil is government regulation.

They can't and they won't try. This is all exactly what the tobacco interests did, buy time blathering moving targets of pseudo-polite uncertainty claims.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

If we can't predict the weather accurately for more than a few days, how are we going to predict climate other than following the historic record of the millennia showing cycles set in motion when the solar system was formed? Do you really understand the concept of orders of magnitude? That doesn't appear to be the case.

Recently we learned that China has been emitting 17% more CO2 than previously known and that Antarctica is adding ice meaning it's locking up more water than the 61% of all freshwater previously calculated. How's that for uncertainty? In one case it was ballyhooed that the biggest mass of ice on Earth was shrinking. Now it's growing. Forget about Chinese data. Based on their manipulations I doubt they know what's going on. But you can bet on the uncertainty in any Chinese proclamation. 

The following from the New York Times "_is" _instructive.

"NOAA is one of four agencies around the world that attempts to produce a complete record of global temperatures dating to 1880. They all get similar results, showing a long-term warming of the planet that scientists have linked primarily to the burning of fossil fuels and *the destruction of forests.* (I guess they didn't get the info about the trillions of trees that were recently "found.") A huge body of physical evidence &#8212; notably, that * practically every large piece of land ice on the planet has started to melt* (apparently they missed the fact that The biggest chunk of ice on Earth located in Antarctica is growing and that's the land based ice.) &#8212; suggests the temperature finding is correct."

What I see is poor research and supposition presented as absolute fact. To the credit of the American people a recent AP poll shows that fewer believe the malarkey. Again, as mentioned previously, you can bet on the wisdom of the crowds. And that wisdom says it's a scam.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> What I see is poor research and supposition presented as absolute fact.


 What I see is someone who posts links that say the opposite of what he thinks they do.
How many times do you have to post something before you actually read it? Antarctica is gaining a LITTLE BIT of ice, the Artic/Greenland is LOSING FAR MORE. For every ONE unit of ice gained by Antarctica, the Arctic and Greenland lose THREE.
Doesn't sound like that ice age is gonna start anytime soon.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

So if Antarctica is locking up 61% of the world's fresh water, and increasing, how much do you think glaciers below the Arctic Circle, the thin Arctic ice and the Greenland ice pack hold? Obviously it's not 39%. You still have to consider all of the other freshwater on Earth.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> So if Antarctica is locking up 61% of the world's fresh water, and increasing, how much do you think glaciers below the Arctic Circle, the thin Arctic ice and the Greenland ice pack hold? Obviously it's not 39%. You still have to consider all of the other freshwater on Earth.


 I'd heard '90%' of the earths freshwater is in Antarctica, so that would leave 10% for the rest of the world. Best hope Antarctica doesn't melt, as all that water would raise sea level by 200ft. The fact that it is slightly gaining ice means the current sea level rise is slower than it would be otherwise. 
And all the data indicates Antarctica as a whole is showing signs of warming.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

You are correct about the 90%. Obviously Greenland and the Arctic Sea ice and all of the glaciers have to be less than 10%. All of that is irrelevant. This graph shows you all you need to know.










We're on schedule for the next ice age. There's nothing we can do about it except take the long view and try to figure out if some remnant of humanity can survive the 100,000 year long cold spell. In a sense we should be partying like there's no tomorrow because at some point the coming ice age ensures there won't be any for the vast majority of the population. 

Of course trying to persuade politicians that they need to plan thousands of years ahead when they can't exercise enough fiduciary responsibility to assure pensions will be fully funded for the near future is proof enough of our collective stupidity. But, tomorrows always another day. Right?

At some point ... no. Meanwhile short sighted AGW scamsters and their hangers on are going merrily along wondering why most people don't have a clue ... in their words. 

I have an explanation for why some know beyond a shadow of a doubt that that AGW is a scam. Unfortunately neither you nor I have time to write a book here.

Of all the information on the internet, the graph beats anything else hands down. It's the light at the end of the tunnel that turns out to be a train. It's oncoming and it's unstoppable.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nice try Darren, now superimpose the CO2 chart on top of that one and tell me what you see. The next ice age you seem so worried about may be held off for quite some time. A few thousand years perhaps? And if you're really that worried about it, instead of 'partying like theres no tomorrow' you could support efforts to save some fossil fuels for those future generations.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

That's curious. The article linked below say's the CO2 concentration during the Jurassic period was five times that of today. It doesn't specify the concentration. So by your graph the CO2 concentration was possibly from 1,200 to 1,300 ppmv. The other issue is assuming the CO2 level determined from the ice cores was uniform throughout the atmosphere.

http://www.livescience.com/44330-jurassic-dinosaur-carbon-dioxide.html

What strikes me about your graph is that CO2 has a lower and upper boundary over time ignoring the extrapolation. That indicates a feedback process which makes sense.

From the link: "Scientists have known for some time that *a large amount of volcanic activity results in more CO2 than is present on Earth today*, but with previous methods, it had been tricky to come up with a reliable estimate."

Later the article say's: "*We are now producing more CO2 than all volcanoes on Earth*," van der Meer added. "We will affect climate in ways that are unprecedented and unnatural. The question is how much climate will change. We can now answer this for the past and apply [it] to the future by extrapolation."

The only way that makes sense is that volcanoes were more active during the Jurassic period which matches another recent study that supposedly proves an alternative theory of why the dinosaurs died off.

"The other issue with the graph you posted is there's no obvious correlation with cyclic changes in temperatures associated with the ice ages. The approx. 100,000 year cycle is not visible. That probably means CO2 is not a factor which affects the ice age cycle.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> "The other issue with the graph you posted is there's no obvious correlation with cyclic changes in temperatures associated with the ice ages. The approx. 100,000 year cycle is not visible. That probably means CO2 is not a factor which affects the ice age cycle.


The ice ages are clearly identifiable on the chart. And they coincide well with known orbital eccentricities. 
No one said CO2 was a driving factor for the ice-ages.

And yes, volcanic activity was greater during the Jurassic and the CO2 level was much higher. It was warmer, more humid, and the oceans were higher. The great coal deposits formed in Australia and Antarctica (of course those continents were closer to the equator then), and gigantic, 80 ton dinosaurs roamed the lush forests and swamps.


----------

