Photo by Melody
Are you ready? It's time for our 14th annual photo contest! Enter your best pictures of the year, for a chance to win a calendar and annual subscription here. Hurry! Deadline for entries is October 21.

Vegetable Gardening: Climate Change

Communities > Forums > Vegetable Gardening
bookmark
Forum: Vegetable GardeningReplies: 408, Views: 2,096
Add to Bookmarks
-
AuthorContent
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 19, 2014
4:26 PM

Post #9772568

We've come here from the second GMO thread (http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1349529/. The climate change topic sort of veered off the GMO discussion). Anyway, let me start off with a comment and a question: I am unaware of any claims or reports that suggest sea level changes of the magnitude expressed by greenhouse_gal, yet she is obviously reporting something real that she is seeing. Any ideas?

CountryGardens

CountryGardens
Lewisville, MN
(Zone 4a)

February 19, 2014
4:48 PM

Post #9772576

We have a little place not far from here. It is called Devil's Lake, North Dakota.
It rises & falls at will.
It is now on the upswing. It has devoured farmland, houses, roads for many years. Some roads have been rerouted half a dozen times.
Scientists studying this thing said it has a long history of doing this. These are like hundred year cycles. Rising water, then receding water.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 19, 2014
6:28 PM

Post #9772637

Willy,

GG could well have been right about the water reaching the dock, but it would not have been from the sea level rising. Subsidence is a very common thing along shore lines or many other areas. On the NW side of Long Beach CA, where oil was pumped out for many years, the ground surface around the oil wells are several feet below sea level and are protected by high Berms and dewatering systems.

If the dock piling had not been driven to bedrock, the dock would have settled along with the soil.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 20, 2014
5:43 PM

Post #9773319


>> We just pick what sounds best to us, what fits our core beliefs.

I mostly agree with Kirk- what we think about climate change seems to correlate 90-99% with our political philosophy, and I think that our ideologies mostly control which "facts" we accept.

Those who believe in minimum governmental intervention don't think we should do anything about anthropogenic climate change until the tropics dry up and catch fire and Kansas has been a desert for enough years to rule out random fluctuations (I apologize for exaggerating).

Those who believe in trying to fix national or global problems with governmental intervention think we should reduce CO2 production, industry and population until we have a return to am imagined pastoral Golden Age, no matter how much it costs anyone, by government fiat, because we "might" be facing a planetary crisis as bad as the dinosaur extinctions. (This is also an exaggeration, but that seems fair).

Personally, I think that comparing short term random weather fluctuations to glacial / interglacial changes supports the "Warmie" position much more than it supports the "Denier" position.

Patterns of crop growth and how many people the arable land in a region can support is sensitive to what, 0.5% of the climate change represented by the Ice Ages? As the climate flip-flops and seeks a new stability, agricultural regions will have to adapt (perhaps every year) to changes like that between the "Little Ice Age" and today. Even if we could have grown tropical crops in Kansas one year, or SHOULD have planted cool-weather crops in FL the next year, what it will really mean is terribly low yields until climate stabilizes again.

- - -

We are already in an interglacial, on the "warm" side of mega-climate variations. Going as much farther over the TOP of interglacial warming as that interglacial is already hotter than "Canada covered by mile thick glaciers" will put us into a climate region truly unprecedented on this planet. Even if that is only a "might", it seems worthy of preventive action.

The "Warmies" are concerned about exploring what the planet does when it gets even hotter than interglacial periods have ever been in the past.

Jumping into that climate regime and THEN finding out how many humans it can support seems overly risky. I wonder why conservatives seem willing to risk that much change?

I read that the DoD came up with threat assessments for scenarios where climate change made various regions unable to feed their populations. Some of them have modern weapons, and widespread famine seems like an essential national interest: "accept a few million immigrants or else" ... "ship us wheat or else" ... divert fresh water back to us or else" ).

- - -

The change in CO2 concentration from 200 to 300 ppm correlates with the change from the deepest Ice Age to hottest interglacial (whichever way the causation goes!) That is only 100 ppm.

We already broke that record by ANOTHER 100 ppm - we're up to 400 ppm!

And we're aimed straight for 500 ppm by simple extrapolation without any upward inflection in another 50 years. TWICE the change that correlates with ice ages, from humans, in 100 years or so.

That's why I think the burden of proof ("don't worry") is on anyone who can imagine that it might not be an unprecedented disaster in process.

That's what I mean by hitting a delicate, poorly understood machine with a BIG brick. Considering that our crops and our lives depend on that machine, I don't get warm fuzzies from the argument that we have not PROVEN yet that hitting a grandfather clock with a brick MIGHT not make it run faster or slower or do something unprecedented.

- - -

I do have some sympathy for the desire to avoid throwing bricks into every aspect of industry and the economy! Or spending giga-bucks of tax money on "maybes". That is a big problem and a huge cost. But the alternative is likely to be worse for our children and almost certain to be extremely worse for our grandchildren.

I guess "Deniers" believe that it will be relatively easy to set the clock back to 100 years ago, 50 years from now, so deferring the decision until glaciers are melting and oceans are rising makes sense.

Umm, wait. Glaciers ARE retreating at unprecedented rates and the ocean IS up 6" already.

Until 3-4 years ago, I was puzzled that the climate was so slow to respond to the "400 ppm brick". Now I've seen it responding, but deniers are still denying.

- - - -

Part of the "Warmie" concern is that climate change might be like weather (chaotic) and that it is hard to predict correctly what effect small changes will have. "Chaotic" also means that it might not be easily reversible. (True, it "might" not. But I wouldn't play Russian Roulette with your children's lives, whether there were 1, 2 or 4 bullets in the cylinder.)

In this case, since reversing the change would probably have to START with getting global CO2 from 400 or more ppm down to around 200 ppm to force the chnage, it would surely mean even greater changes to the global economy than we contemplate now, to decrease the rate of getting worse.

So there would be a built-in delay of what? 50 - 200 years to START the climate turnaround?

And I expect there to be crop failure, famine and extreme weather to stress the economy in the near future. So it will be many times harder to REVERSE climate change than to prevent it.

And if the idea of "tipping points" is true, and there are thresholds of resistance for flipping from one climate regime to another (like "climactic inertia") then the problem of recovery from climate change is even worse.

The "Warmies" won't be able to PROVE it to the "Deniers" until we've dropped into the unknown territory on the other side of this tipping point. And then changing back to an endurable climate might be even harder than "just" reducing the global CO2 from 450 or 500 ppm to 200 ppm (pre-industrial levels).

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

February 20, 2014
5:59 PM

Post #9773331

Rick, I agree with you completely about the concerns you raise. I have grandchildren and I am really worried about the world we are leaving them.

However, you write "Jumping into that climate regime and THEN finding out how many humans it can support seems overly risky. I wonder why conservatives seem willing to risk that much change?"

The answer is that conservatives don't feel that there is any risk at all. They are convinced that climate change is simply a bugaboo created by liberal interests.

And Ernie, I'm not just talking about a dock. I'm talking about my own property which now floods routinely when it never flooded before, and towns that have gradually returned to the bay and now have left no signs that they ever existed.


back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

February 20, 2014
6:18 PM

Post #9773348

I'm not a scientist, and I would say there are folks posting on this and the GMO thread who know a lot more about this than I do and I appreciate hearing everyone's offerings. Two things that jump out at me in the links below are first, that the CO2 level is much higher now than at any previous time in the earth's history. And second, that, while sea levels changed little from AD 0 to 1900 they have climbed since about the beginning of the 20th century and that the rate of increase in sea level rise has increased since 1990.


http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 20, 2014
6:19 PM

Post #9773349

Setting aside for the moment which side is more likely to be right, and ignoring what level of proof is appropriate before damaging an economy to prevent possible global disaster, there is still one interesting thing that we seem to agree on.

Our ideologies color - or determine - what we will accept as facts, even when they seem to be as documented as glaciers retreating and "smallest amount of summer ice in recorded history".

Maybe from the other perspective it sounds like I'm confusing science fiction with fact.

But I bet you could find a REALLY high correlation between political party / ideology and opinion about how proven climate change is. If true, that almost proves that one or both sides are almost immune to evidence.

Even if part of the divide is what you habitually read and believe, I don't think anyone fails to hear the faithful on both sides singing their own hymns: "We're all gonna DROWN" and "Nonsense, the fact that I have seawater up to my knees doesn't PROVE anything! I've had wet knees before and will again, that isn't CLIMATE change."
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
6:33 PM

Post #9773353

GG,

Have you or anyone in your area contacted the US Geodetic Survey, i believe that is the agency that sets Benchmarks with absolute elevations in different parts of the Country? They might be able to tell you whether or not the land in your area is subsiding, and it can do that.

There may be other explanations, but if Nasa is correct, and that has not been disputed, that the sea level has not risen but a fraction of an inch since 1995, there has to be some explanation of why you see the apparent rise in the sea water level there. I believe you are sincere in what you say, but the reason for it is not clear. If this has taken place in the last few years, there are probably the remains or stumps of Freshwater plants that would still be visible at low tide that were growing there before the change. That would confirm what you are saying.

While that would not settle the question of whether the ground sank or the water level rose, it would certainly prove that the change you describe has happened exactly the way you believe.

I think if i lived there i would ask the Corp of Engineers to explain to me why it happened.

If your property is back some distance from the ocean, and not in the tidal zone, the drainage for the fresh water at your place may be obstructed to keep it from reaching sea level fast enough.

We are all interested in whether the Sea Level is actually rising or not. as that will be a serious problem, IF it happens in large amounts.

And on your other comment, I for one certainly believe there are lots of risks in all parts of our lives, and since we do not know which ones are coming for sure we have to have a clear target before we shoot all our bullets at it.

Ernie.
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

February 20, 2014
6:38 PM

Post #9773355

My background is in the sciences and I'd consider my beliefs pretty liberal...that being said...I have been lucky enough to have done a lot of traveling both in the USA and abroad...I am a firm believer in Climate Change not Global Warming...the earth has been changing for ions, there is too much evidence to even begin to site this. Just look at the Roman Aquaducts in Spain...after this winter of freezing my buns off the term "global warming" makes me laugh...I have plants that have been killed by this winter's cold...some got cooked to death in the summer of 2010 or 2011 i can't remember which. IMHO that's just the way things work...nothing is stagnant.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 20, 2014
6:45 PM

Post #9773363

Back40bean,

Thanks for those links.

"Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry ... indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years. "

Ouch.

>> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. *8

*8 - - Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems,"
- - - Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).


Bummer. That would explain where the heat is going. Specific heat of seawater vs. air ... density of seawater vs air ...

"The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year." *14, *15


*14 C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371


*15 I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11 p. 36.


Oh, #@^#*!!

So the extra 200 ppm in the air is only part of what we'll have to work off? There's another 200 billion tons PER YEAR that the Keeling Curve doesn't even SHOW?

Gee, did I thank you for those links? Let me reconsider my words! (Just kidding - while I would rather know that I was being too alarmist, I would even more rather know the facts. The second link had the best "mega-Keeling Curve" I ever saw. That says it all.

(Expand to see the punchline.)

Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA
Click the image for an enlarged view.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 20, 2014
7:00 PM

Post #9773375

BTW, during a period of chaotic change, it is totally likely that "opposites" will occur. for example, suppose that the thermo-haline circulation slowed down as an early effect of warming seawater and melting Arctic floating ice. I don't know that that IS happening, but suppose.

Then it would carry less heat from the tropics up to the Arctic where it usually leaves behind some heat and some fresh water then "takes a dive" into the abyssal depths and circulates back to the tropics.

IF all that happened, then less heat would be provided to North America and we would have some cold winters.

My only point here is that the warming effect is sure to happen over centuries, and weird stuff is likely to happen as the climate flounders around, seeking a new equilibrium.

The long-term signals are unfortunately present: melting glaciers, warming sea surface and rising global sea level.

One guy just walked by my desk and reassured me that "natural processes will surely balance out" the warming effect of CO2.

"Starving nations will trigger nuclear wars, and then nuclear winter plus devastated economies and nine-times-decimated world population will cure the CO2-driven warming effect.

Problem solved."

He was joking, but I wish that were an unrealistic scenario following widespread crop failures.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
7:02 PM

Post #9773379

Rick,

I am going to let Drobarr or someone else discuss the Carbon question with you, but i agree our beliefs are rooted in our own philosphy and that in turn influences our political leanings.

I am a firm believer in the old Aphorism that "The Boy is the Father of the Man", and i assume you were of the same philosphy when you were a boy as you are now, and i know i was, so that predates our choosing whether to be a liberal or a conservative.

I would never consider asking my neighbors to pay to have my teeth pulled now just because I am worried , if i live long enough, they will cause big problems later. But the Warmies are trying to have everyone else pay to ease those worries that only they have.

And another big reason i am not in favor of it ,. I grew up during the big depression, and saw far too much of real poverty, so i never grew away from a real concern for poor people. And the regulations that are being proposed to slow down Global Warming are going to destroy thousands of jobs in the coal mines, make it more difficult for other working people to pay for electricity, etc. that i just do not think if is worth it unitl we see real signs it is going to happen.

I was watching a Congressional hearing a few days ago, and a big shot from the Administration testified that the estimated costs of eliminating the coal fired Power plants will increase the wholesale cost of electricity 80 or 90%. That was not a rabid conserative that said that, He was from the Administration.

And, large parts of Kansas was a desert for several years during the mid 1930's, but the Climate Changed back, and it is no longer the desert that it was for a few years.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
7:26 PM

Post #9773393

Rick

>> The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969. *8

Read more: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1350831/#ixzz2tvGD0LbE

I am sure the ocean does not warm all over at the same rate. The current reason for the CA and Southwestern drought we are currenly enduring is caused by the tropical Pacific Ocean being much cooler than normal. [Less evaporation, so less moisture in the air]

Measured by the Satellite telemetry, the Ocean is rising by 1/8" a year, 1" every 8 years,1' every 96 years. How does that compare with what Al Gore was warning us about a few years ago, when he was talking about Major Cities being unlivable soon. Could he have been wrong then? If he was, could he be wrong again?

I have not confirmed it, but i did read in a Wall Street Journal column, that so far, the Farmer's Almanac predictions have been more accurate than the Global Warming Scientists.

Ernie


This message was edited Feb 20, 2014 8:24 PM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 20, 2014
7:43 PM

Post #9773430

I like the irony of many people from various parts of the world flying to Kyoto to meet at a conference to discuss how to get everybody else to use less carbon. I think it actually speaks volumes about human nature- "My wants are valid, your are negotiable" Oh by the way, just how big is Al Gore's house? How much personal climate controlled living space does he command?
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

February 20, 2014
8:28 PM

Post #9773454

I know that Al Gore has said a lot about climate change and irritated a lot of people, but why are we discussing him here? The climate will not be influenced by him, nor by what any of us has to say. I am thinking that there may be other ways of interpreting the data from the noaa and nasa links above. At least I hope there is. I believe it's data, not Al Gore, that should concern us.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
8:31 PM

Post #9773456

Lisa,

I agree with you, and everyone i talk to that does not believe in Global Warming does believe in Climate Change. I have not met any of the people that Rick describes.as being cavalier about the whole problem. We all believe it is possible, but not more than a fifty fifty chance as it can go either way, just as the world has been doing for countless years.

Sally, i agree with you, too.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 20, 2014
8:41 PM

Post #9773466

There is no doubt the oceans have risen some. And temperatures have risen some.

What hasn't scientifically been established yet is the cause. There are many theories. But it is too soon in my opinion to come to a conclusion based on what little we know.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
8:53 PM

Post #9773473

Bean,

Al Gore, like him or laugh at him, will always be a part of the Global Warming debate.

Dependable data should be, as you say, what concerns us. but being sure it is not biased before believing it is the big problem.

My Daddy told me many years ago, to always remember: "Figures don't Lie, But Liars can Figure." So after all the reports of cooked books on the data, I need to see more than just the data that has been interpreted by True Believers..

I have no problem believing the figures on the Ocean rising, as given by Satellite Telemetry or Nasa,, but i am very skeptical of biased predictions base on that data.

Ernie
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

February 20, 2014
9:12 PM

Post #9773484

I'm not making any predictions and I am also skeptical of anyone, Al Gore included, telling me what is going to happen. I also believe that establishing a cause is a complicated task, certainly beyond me. Still I can't get myself to believe that we humans are not having a big effect on the process. I also don't claim to know what it is that we should do or if it even matters. Well, I guess I think that it matters, but what would it take and is it even feasible?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 20, 2014
9:44 PM

Post #9773490

Bean,

That is just about how I feel about it. But the history of the world tells us that every species either adapts to the changes as they happen, or they go extinct. But until now, no one has had any success trying to guess what the next change will be, so it does not make any sense bankrupting our country trying to make major changes before we have identified what is going to happen and what it will take to prevent it.

The short term predictions for Global Warming have been so far off the mark, and so overhyped, that the majority of the people simply are not ready to make that sacrifice yet.

The figures Rick gave above on the rise of the Oceans that I extrapolated showing an increase of one foot in 96 years does not present much danger as our main cities waterfronts are several feet above sea level now, and will need rebuilding any way before the sea level becomes a problem,

If it does warm up, that will cause more evaporation from the oceans which will cause more rain, but slow down the oceans rise, and each one of those new problems will be handled as they occur, just like mankind has handled all the problems in the past.

So, i think this is something we all need to be aware of, but certainly nothing to panic over yet.

Ernie
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 20, 2014
10:09 PM

Post #9773499

It's complicated.

http://www.usc.edu/org/cosee-west/glaciers/Issealevelrising.pdf
Seedfork
Enterprise, AL
(Zone 8b)

February 21, 2014
5:34 AM

Post #9773574

With out knowing the cause or the cure, with the political systems we have in place, with countries not being able to solve even simple world wide problems, I think our world being destroyed my a meteor is more likely than us solving the climate change problem. Under the current system, it looks like to me any money spent on solving climate change is just going into some special interest groups pockets.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 21, 2014
5:38 AM

Post #9773579

ditto Seedfork
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

February 21, 2014
7:53 AM

Post #9773661

I really have no idea what should be done or if it really matters if anything is done about climate change. That would be an issue too complex for me to comprehend. I only wanted to know whether or not the data support the idea that the climate is indeed changing more or faster than at previous times in the earth's history and in terms of atmospheric CO2 and sea level the answers seem to be yes. I don't know nearly enough to say that those changes will not in the end make this a better world although my guess is that it will get pretty rough for a lot of people. To the extent that smog is a factor I would say that our government has done a good job with policy decisions at least compared to cities I've visited in Latin America and Asia. I expect to pass the remainder of my years happy in the garden.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 21, 2014
8:26 AM

Post #9773676

Bean,

None of us know what is going to happen in the far distant future, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Life is going to be awfully rough for the Coal Miners that have their jobs destroyed in the next few years as our Coal fired power plants are forced to shut down while India and China are opening new Coal fired plants every few weeks.

I think the difference between the Warmies and the Coolies is simply a matter of confidence, in themselves and in the Human Race. Warmies do not believe they are smart enough and strong enough to meet the problems as they occur, While the Coolies look back and see that our ancestors have always been able to cope with whatever life drops on them,, and that we will most likely be able to do the same thing in the future.

It is just nonsense that the Warmies say the Coolies do not care about the future or are too dumb to worry. Everyone is scared of what the future may hold, but some people can control those fears better than others.

Or so it seems to me,
Ernie
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 21, 2014
9:13 AM

Post #9773694

I will introduce a third element here. I believe in God. I believe He made all things for His good pleasure. I believe that He knows ALL things from the beginning to the end . I believe that He is in total control. I also believe that He has given mankind a free will to choose right and wrong. Behind it all, I believe that His secret will is being done. Yes, mankind has caused a lot of suffering. God did not want puppets on strings though. Through it all He will have a redeemed people that have chosen Him rather than Satan and his flashy, speedy, evil, and corner cutting ways.

I believe that God knew all about the current topic being discussed here and is more than able to care for His children who trust in Him. I believe the end is at hand for this dispensation. I believe that God made man in His image with an intelligence to commune with Him...if we so choose. No, I am not a young earther. The first verse of the Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It does not give the year of that beginning. It appears at the present time to be about 14.4 billion yeas ago. The second verse in the Bible shows God custimizing the earth..from . material which was created "in the beginning." This could be 10 billion years after the universe was created. After that He is forming life out of the material created 'in the beginning.'

So I realize that mankind does cause problems, but I believe that God is more than man enough to handle it in His way. Yes, I expect to be here long after unbelievers are long gone.

This message was edited Feb 21, 2014 5:51 PM
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 21, 2014
9:45 AM

Post #9773705

Here's a link to an article written by two UAH professors of atmospheric science: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266.

It makes me very uncomfortable to see them make the assertion that funding for climate research is based on the researchers view of the problem, in other words, funding goes to those who accept the idea of anthropogenic warming. It echoes something my a friend of mine--a PhD chemist at several major universities, has claimed for years.

My personal position has been as a skeptic (NOT denier) for a long time, recently deciding that AGW is likely and, even if it isn't a problem, it seems unwise to me for us to be altering the composition of the atmosphere.

The bigger issue, in my mind, is the global economic picture. IF we cease, or cut way back on, the use of fossil fuels, what happens to the world's poor. Is it OK for us to deprive them of energy? I don't see a cost effective alternative source for energy.

This leads me to another issue that has been tinged (an understatement)with political overtones--the use of nuclear energy. Tell me where you stand on this issue and I can, to a good first approximation, tell you what your political view is. The science of this issue is clear--nuclear is safe, clean, and available. It can help us bridge the gap between fossil fuels and future technologies like solar and maybe even fusion. France gets over 80% of its electricity from nuclear. For a factual discussion of all energy technologies, I recommend "Energy for Future Presidents", written by Cal professor Richard Muller, a physicist.

I know some of you are very skeptical of large corporations, and with many good reasons. I tend to view large government as at least an equally bad actor, mainly based on its inefficiency, its tendency to be influenced by $$$ and voter opinion (which is often ignorant). For instance, we've had an energy department at the federal level for over thirty years, but we still have no coherent energy policy. Our young men and women are still dying in the Middle East over, at the bottom line, oil. No, I don't believe we are there at the behest of Exxon to steal the oil. We're there because that oil is our life blood. If it doesn't flow, we are in trouble. If they didn't have oil, we wouldn't care what they did.

I wish our politicians could get past labeling their opponents as evil, that just spills down to all of us. We never see Coke describing Pepsi as evil. But virtually every politician refers to his/her opponent as a "baby-killer" "socialist", "wants to push granny off the cliff", whatever. There are objective answers to many problems, but the pols would rather be elected by supporting whatever group(s) will get them elected than try to lead us by presenting facts. Too many of us join in their lunatic methods, believing we're white knights and the other side is Satan.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 21, 2014
9:46 AM

Post #9773706

Indy,

Courage to face the future unafraid is good, regardless of where it cones from..

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 21, 2014
9:59 AM

Post #9773724

Willy,

Very well said and i am sorry i do not have time to digest it now, and discuss in detail the points you make.

I too am not a denier that the climate is changing. I am just skeptical of the warming hype.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
11:33 AM

Post #9773800

>> i assume you were of the same philosphy when you were a boy as you are now

Actually, no. As a kid, I bought into a lot of conservative/libertarian ideas and still beleived that "laissez-faire capitalism" described the US economy, and that elections were decided by thoguthful people reasoning about the issues.

I still have a libertarian philosophy but I no longer beleive that it's a viable way to run a country. Many utopian visions "would" work if people were angels, or at least were exactly what the utopian authors thought that they were. But people are people, swayed by stupid and obviously decietful 30-second TV ads, unreasoned prejudices, ego, "me-too-ism" and devotion to panering political parties.

Cliches from childhood come back to haunt me: like de Toquville's critiques of democracy, us being the pot calling the kettle black and saying that some OTHER countries 'are not ready for democracy" when we aren't either (or we no longer are).

The outstanding cliche that seems true is that democracy may be very flawed (given the electorate we have to work with), but it is still probably the best system known. I hope that we keep trying for campaign financing reform and pulling our own heads "ex posteriori" to give democracy another try.

>> But the Warmies are trying to have everyone else pay to ease those worries that only they have.

My understanding of what I read is that the group that you think is a small, dleuded minority includes most climate scientists, NOAA, NASA, people with not much poolitical agenda, etc. I understand that we disagree about that.

Which reminds me - you said:

>> i agree our beliefs are rooted in our own philosphy and that in turn influences our political leanings.

I said something different, and I stand by what I said, that our ideologies very strongly affect what we believe is true.

That is to say, I see many people with strong conservative, anti-taxation and anti-regulatory ideologies denying what seem to me pretty clearly established facts that point very clearly to climate change already being underway and extremely plauibly pointing to severe consequences in the near future - a few decades to 50 or 100 years.

If I thought it was likely to be easy to fix AFTER the fact, I might accepot the idea of "do nothing until it is totally undeniable, even by Republicans, that we have already fallen off the climate cliff and have global famines".

Of course I don't think that. CO2 levels and climate are already extremely hard and expenisve to reverse and will get harder every year that we delay.

Two billion tons per year going into the oceans alone!
Another 1.6 ppm per year excess accumulating in the atmosphere!

I see that more like a house on fire, and I'm not moved by the counterargument that I haven't PROVEN that this fire will burn the WHOLE house down, and that we should not get out of the house or spend tax dollars on water to put the fire out, since we can always wait until later to start extinguishing the flames.

The poor will be hurt by anything we do, but they will be hurt most when crop failures make food unaffordable.
I agree that the changes needed to slow down or reverse climate chnage will be expensive and difficult. More so the longer we wait!

The Dust Bowl is a good example of climate change, so early in the anthropogenic CO2 era that it might have been a normal fulctuation. Trying to extrapolate the keling curve backwards to 1930, the CO2 level was maybe around 265 ppm. Comparing that to the mega-Keeling Curve, at least 265 ppm was a level the Earth had sxeen in the last 125,000 years.

The climate change "theory" is that things like the Dust Bowl will fairly soon become common, interspresed with monsoons where they never occured before and hurricanes more frequent and violent than usual. Then, as the warming trend continues, more unusally hot days, followed by higher average temps.

The article in Tech Review referred to one crop study / historical analysis that looked a at grain yields as a function of temp-extreme days and concluded that from 1980 to 2008, the yields from wheat and corn were depressed by 2-3% from what they would have been without the weather change. (Yields are still generally going up, but not as much as they would have in steadier weather). And yes, that could be fluctutaion and it does sound speculative. But if we trust a Stanford professor of earth science about crop crop yileds as much as we would trust a Stanford professor of GMOs, maybe he's telling the truth.

It seems that you're lumping anyone who thinks the evidence of climate change IS convincing must be a "Warmie", perhaps hopelessly liberal , and certainly deluded.

I'm with NASA, NOAA, most other countries, climatologists who aren't paid by conservative think tanks and authors in Tech Review

If our idieologies prevent us from agreeing on what constitutes scientific proof, we will have little success discussiong climate climate.

>> How does that compare with what Al Gore was warning us about a few years ago,

Argument ad hominem. That's as valid an argument as "one anti-GMO nut also believes in Yoga Flying, therefore GMOs are safe". NO ONE knew much about climate warming back then, and the ealiest models were excactly what you would expect from a young science (climate modeling). Why, back then we knew so little about global warming from CO2 that even some academices were not convicned yet!

>> I believe it's data, not Al Gore, that should concern us.

I agree with that. Interpreting the data is hard enoguh without denying the facts as Step One,

Ernie, when you say "climate change", do you mean natural fluctuations such as we have historical experience with, not much affected by CO2 changes, or do you mean climate CHANGE to unusual extremes of weather such as are NOT historically normal (which some people think are caused by man-made greenhouse gases).

I'm glad to find one thing to agree on. Sea level rise won't be as signifcant as crop loss and proerty dmaage due to extreme weather, unless you live on a low-lying island. I suspect that Gore and stuopid newspapers hyped that becuase it was dramatic and easy to demonise. Dumb stuff, but simple to print. Monsoons and hurricanes have alrewady killed many people.

I guess we could keep debating the statistics until the body count is PROVABLY UNDENIABLE. Let the problem get worse by many billions of tons before even starting to try to reverse it? That's a plan?

>> I think our world being destroyed my a meteor is more likely than us solving the climate change problem.

Yes, but having famines and thousnads of deaths from extreme storms is thousands of times more likely than a large meteor strike. Like, in my opinion, 60% likely in 30 years, 80% likely in 60 years and 90% likely i 100 years.

>> I believe the end is at hand for this dispensation.

I thoguht you were going to say that we had over-stayed our welcome and abused his patience too much, and he was going to allow the Flood in hopes that the survivors would find more wisdom and less greed.

>> nuclear is safe, clean, and available.

It can be, if the companies pay more attention to safety than increasing their profit margin.,

>> I tend to view large government as at least an equally bad actor, mainly based on its inefficiency, its tendency to be influenced by $$$ and voter opinion (which is often ignorant).


Yeah. Sigh!

>> warming hype

True, there is a lunatic fringe in the "Warmie" camp. And I admit that a few of those extremists want to compel something like a turning away from all technology and industry. That crazier than the Unabomber, who at least knew that eliminating industry would also require 8 or 9 out of every 10 people to volunteer to die ... and he knew there would not be enough volunteers!

But the fact that one "side" or another has some amazing Bozos is not what makes one side or the other right or wrong.

And it's true that everyone will suffer hugely if we try to eliminate or reduce fossil fuel use without replacing it with something besides "more efficiency".

Once again, Bean has the best summary: yeah, SOMEthing is happening, what what should we DO about it? What CAN we do?

Ernie, I hope that the change is "merely" as severe as Dust Bowls all over, half the time, and that we can stumble through those hardships without triggering major wars. AND then find a way to climb back up the cliff we are already falling down.

My pessimism comes partly from the fact that right now, we aren't even TRYING yet, and that it will get harder every year.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 21, 2014
11:52 AM

Post #9773813

Rick,

I am leaving for the weekend in a few minutes, and very frustrated that i cannot take the time now to counter most of the points you make that, for the sake of truth, need to be balanced.

I will look forward to doing so Sunday or Monday..

And thanks again, for doing your part to help keep this discussion so lively.

Ernie



WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 21, 2014
1:06 PM

Post #9773890

Zounds, Rick. I believe you might be even more skeptical and pessimistic than I am!

Regarding your thoughts on the direction of the country and the mediocre success of democracy, I'll suggest one thought we both can agree on (I hope). We need better education--in science and in the liberal arts. This (here's my pessimism and skepticism showing) is another instance where federal government intervention has been a failure as well. Thirty plus years of the DoE and our schools continue to decline.

A true story: My son came home from either a physics or chemistry class in the late 80s and announced that hot water freezes faster than cold water. I called his teacher, who insisted this was true. He explained to me that, since hot water molecules are more 'mobile/energetic" than cold water molecules, they are more easily able to "snap into" the lattice structure that is ice. This is certainly not proof of bad schools, but it's a good story.

Yep, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

February 21, 2014
1:21 PM

Post #9773904

According to the Department of Physics at the University of California, the teacher was correct.
It does sound incredible, but I remember hearing the same thing from a friend who was a graduate student at Georgia Tech years ago.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/hot_water.html

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
1:43 PM

Post #9773928

Ernie

I look forward to our discussion! Have a good weeekend.

Willy said:
>> Zounds, Rick. I believe you might be even more skeptical and pessimistic than I am!

Sad to say, yes.

>> We need better education

I think you're probably right, but I think that what is even more lacking is wisdom and willingness to make several kinds of effort. One effort is to do hard reading and hard thinking. Education can probably help develope those muscles and the habit of expecting to work for it if you wnatto understand anything more complicated than celbrity scandals or political party slogans.

i think the hardest and rarest kind of mental or psychological effort is hard to define. Something like honesty with self and wisdom - the ability to know when we're "just cranky" or "opinionated" or swayed by our biases (especially fears, ego and ideology).

If I knew ALL my own motives, maybe I would even question my skepticism and pessimism. I have read that the the most cynical skeptics are frustrated idealists.

Something like "Know thyself", or "to thine own self be truthful" But it's not hard. It's easy to think that we are ruthlessly honest with ourselves.

>> hot water freezes faster than cold water

Robert Heinlein said "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity." There was a clever episode of (I think) Voyager where they visited some planet of Vulcan-like people, very logical, but with per-mechanical industry and science. They were "logical" enough to know that things should make sense, especially scientific theories. A teacher was screamingly hilarious as she threw out simplistic, "logical-sounding" but silly theories to children exactly as if any thought that crossed her mind and could be made to sound scientific was proven knowledge.

"There but for the grace of God go all of us."

The version I like better is "cold water boils faster than hot water". You might even be able to win a bet in a bar with that one, if you define "boil" as "when the first bubble appears".

Warm up some water and cool down other water.

Have a beer.

During that time, more air will dissolve into the cold water and some dissolved air will escape from the warm water, since (most) gases are more soluble in (most) cold liquids than in warm liquids.

Now heat both slowly.


(Side Note 1: If you place both on a hot plate of the same temperature, the cold one will heat at a faster RATE than the warm one (in degrees per minute) because heat flows faster when the delta-T is greater. Thermodynamics!)

(Side Note 2: The warm one will always be hotter than the cold one because of its head start. Both would be obvious from a graph, sorry I said it uncleanly. But it doesn't matter.)


Very soon, the warming cold water will not be able to hold as much air in solution. Since it is warming pretty fast, the air won't have time to diffuse to the surface and all escape from the surface. It will form a few tiny AIR bubbles wherever the water is warmest.

Collect on your bet QUICKLY and leave fast, because obviously the other water will BOIL first.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
2:00 PM

Post #9773931

Well, the stupidity was mine. I guess there are multiple circumstances under which that can happen, but they are still arguing about how and why.

I will stand by my theory that THIS is a stupid explanation ... until someone shows that it's the correct explanation:

"hot water molecules are more 'mobile/energetic" than cold water molecules, they are more easily able to "snap into" the lattice structure that is ice."

P.S. The Wikipedia article said in an ambiguous place that "In all cases the water supercools, reaching a temperature of typically -6°C to -18°C before spontaneously freezing." maybe they only meant in all of David Auerbach's experiments.

And it needs to be phrased as "can freeze sooner, under SOME initial conditions".

But that high school teacher [b]got me[/b] and my preconceived know-it-all notions.

Hope I'm wrong about AGW too! (Human-caused global climate change)
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 21, 2014
2:19 PM

Post #9773939

>> I believe the end is at hand for this dispensation.

>>>I thoguht you were going to say that we had over-stayed our welcome and abused his patience too much, and he was going to allow the Flood in hopes that the survivors would find more wisdom and less greed.

Rick, You apparently believe that life would just continue on indefinitely on this planet unless something or things ended it. I have a different outlook. I believe in a plan for this mind boggling sized universe. I believe this little planet earth has a very specific purpose and that the initial phase is closing and that we will enter another phase soon. Scripture points to that.

I believe in good steward ship in what we have been entrusted with. I don't think that man's plans will come to any "salvation" for the topic at hand...climate change. As you said, perfect people with a perfect government could deal with so many of our problems, but we have neither.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
2:26 PM

Post #9773943

>> I believe this little planet earth has a very specific purpose and that the initial phase is closing and that we will enter another phase soon.

Respectfully, I hope that turns out not to be the case! I would rather see humankind evolve into an intelligent form of life, and demonstrate some basic stewardship skills and a higher percentage of virtues over vices then we demonstrate now, at least in large groups and large organizations.

Despite my cynicism, I do think that individual people have the potential to be pretty good and often are decent except under temptation (and sometimes even then).

We don't seem to have found the right way to nurture individuals' potential to bring out their best nature in large groups like political parties.

leewilliam68
emerson, arkansas
United States

February 21, 2014
2:49 PM

Post #9773949

i remember in the in the early 70's that we would be in the next ice age if we didnt change. tornados, storms, ect. was blamed on global cooling. then 25 years later it was global warming. then the temp stopped rising for 15 years all of a sudden its climate change just like the earth has done from the beginning of time
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 21, 2014
2:59 PM

Post #9773955

>>>Respectfully, I hope that turns out not to be the case! I would rather see humankind evolve into an intelligent form of life, and demonstrate some basic stewardship skills and a higher percentage of virtues over vices then we demonstrate now, at least in large groups and large organizations.

Rick, you have more faith in evolving and perhaps genetically modifying them, and perhaps selective breeding than I do. With all of the nuclear and bacterial potential dangers already developed by science, we don't stand a chance by our own "good" selves. Man by his fallen nature is selfish and needs a change...not a new leaf turn over.
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
3:37 PM

Post #9773979

It is kind of difficult keeping up with all this "information", when part of it is posted on the "GMO" and part of it is posted on "Climate Change". Both threads are under "The Vegetable Gardening" forum. It would be far simpler IF all these posts were under the Climate Change thread, don't you think?

Ken, confused in Mississippi

P. S. The area where I live in Mississippi averages about 300' above sea level, with our hills averaging around 500' above sea level. Huge areas of sea shells are located in my county, both in the "low-lands" and the hills. Frequently, fossilized sea life is found in these areas. At one time we were under the sea. You think the oceans might have covered a little bit more of the earth back then? This was 10,000-100,000 years before man.

P. S. S. I am also posting this on the Climate Change thread.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 21, 2014
4:04 PM

Post #9773994

I think that was more like continental drift than rising and falling oceans.

Or in some areas it might have been due to rising and falling oceans due to ice ages. I'm not sure.

Climate changes THAT drastic would be even worse than what has been projected or speculated upon for the next 100 years or so. I recall reading about tropical plants frozen in glaciers at one of the poles.

That's one thing that puzzles me when people say "there have always been changes in climate and always will". Such changes (if you include meteor-induced climate change) wiped out dinosaurs and replaced them with mammals, or reduced the human population in "temperate" latitudes down to tiny numbers during ice ages.

Is that supposed to be re-assuring?
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 21, 2014
4:22 PM

Post #9774009

Notice that the site says "can freeze" faster. Aside from the goofy "snap" argument offered by the high school teacher--clearly ridiculous--the freezing of hot water faster than cold water generally involves a "trick" of some kind. Hot water has less dissolved air, therefore it has less mass or evaporation leads to less water mass, convection currents in hot water lead to faster cooling, etc. I've heard others. Apparently, some of this phenomena is poorly understood--my education on that one. Nonetheless, the fact is we all SHOULD have learned in high school that water can't begin to freeze unless it is at 32°F (at normal pressures). In order for hot water to freeze, it needs to cool to 32°F first. A claim that hot water freezes faster than cold water should be met with derision first, based on basic science. After that, we can investigate and learn about exceptions, fine details, or whatever. Also, even if tricks can be done to make the hot water cool faster, in every case--and always--it will take consume more energy to cool hot water than it will cold water. Your freezer WILL consume more energy if you use hot water.

Y'all are welcome to first heat the water that you intend for ice--I'm starting with cold water.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 22, 2014
8:27 AM

Post #9774314

Ken,

Elevations of land can change over time as well. Land can both rise in elevation or subside...as we know very well from GreenhouseGals observations. What is at 300' now could have been lower at one point.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 22, 2014
8:57 AM

Post #9774336

Willy I agree with everything you say in your last post! I just did an experiment in my freezer and the cold water froze first.

Focus should not be on the exceptions.

Perhaps the teacher wanted to get the students attention or to make them think. Science has a lot of bias and challenging the status quo often leads to new ideas.

Science by the way is always changing. It changes more rapidly than our climate. Which is why I have a hard time putting much faith in it. This is especially true about things that cant be experimented and replicated...the whole idea of theories.

And I am a scientist! I realize there is so much we don't know. Not only about what has happened...what is happening and even less than what will happen let alone what to do about it.

Whether burning fossil fuel affects climate change or not it makes sense to use what we have wisely. Be more efficient and when cost effective use alternate forms of energy.

But even the alternative forms will have unintended consequences...wind mills are decimating eagles...
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 22, 2014
9:16 AM

Post #9774349

True, land masses change elevations over eons, particularly where tectonic plates are involved. As far as I know, the southeastern US has no tectonic plate movement and never has. I could be wrong about this, since I know little of the science of land movement.

Ken
evelyn_inthegarden
Sierra Foothills, CA
(Zone 8a)

February 22, 2014
11:02 AM

Post #9774454

[quote="RickCorey_WA"]I would rather see humankind evolve into an intelligent form of life, and demonstrate some basic stewardship skills and a higher percentage of virtues over vices then we demonstrate now, at least in large groups and large organizations.

We don't seem to have found the right way to nurture individuals' potential to bring out their best nature in large groups like political parties.[/quote]

Wow! If those two statement were true...the problems might be solved...or not. well at least if people would agree to take care of the planet since it is our home.

Politicians cannot agree and scientists many times do not agree. Still the ice is melting at the South Pole and California is getting closer to drying out completely if we do not get enough rain. There is an obvious change in weather patterns. Even going to any weather site or NOAA will will tell you this. But can they tell you the future of the weather? They are constantly updating weather forecasts.

We were "destined" to be in the biggest drought in history, and still it may come to pass. A late night radio host (who has over a million listeners) conducted an experiment, and asked the listeners to pray or visualize for California to get rain. The next day we had a "gully washer"! Surely it was not enough to solve any long term problems, but is it possible for many like-minded people to meditate on these problems and have a lot of people bring our climate into balance.

It seems as the earth seems to be reflecting the state of humankind right now. There are cruel dictators and there are people rioting in the streets...many people are being murdered senselessly and of course, wars everywhere. An also corporate greed, companies wanting to dominate all the people and keeping the people dependant on them, while the CEO's make millions and the peons make minimum wage. Oh, yes, raising the minimum wage will sacrifice jobs.

I have to agree with Corey on this one aspect...if our race would develop into an intelligent species, many of the problems would be solved. I do not have the answer. Still, we DO have to wake up, and not be a part of the status quo.

Yes ~ "...to find the right way to nuture individuals' potential to bring out the BEST NATURE in large groups...like political partes..."

This message was edited Feb 22, 2014 7:27 PM
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 22, 2014
3:20 PM

Post #9774599

We're doing well. We've debated on politics AND religion and I've yet to see a single profanity...though I suppose some may have been muttered under someone's breath!

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 22, 2014
3:57 PM

Post #9774622

[quote="WillyFromAZ"]We're doing well. We've debated on politics AND religion and I've yet to see a single profanity...though I suppose some may have been muttered under someone's breath![/quote]

ditto- kudos everybody

I just completely resist making any statements about trends- look at the Dust Bowl in the US; surely those people thought it would never get better, many times.. Nor did they imagine it ever getting that bad, before hand…..

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 22, 2014
4:44 PM

Post #9774645

Humans are complex and diverse. I can understand a desire for them to develop into an intelligent life form to solve all the worlds problems. But what one person thinks is intelligent isnt the same as another. Some think GMO crops is a miracle...a God send to improve our lives. Others think it is immoral and a threat to our health.

Because of these differences in thinking there is always going to be disagreements in politics and everywhere else. There always have been disagreements and there always will be.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 22, 2014
6:13 PM

Post #9774704

I think it begs the question, "What is truth or what is real or how can we know anything? We have only our perception with which to grapple with those questions. Our perceptions are shaped by the sum total of our experiences plus the condition of the perceiving senses. Science to me is our attempt to grapple with the question of "how can we know?" It is a SYSTEM developed to try to get outside our biases, to get outside our perhaps flawed perception. We say in science, "I think this is what is happening". Then we test that with the most rigorous experiment we are able to design, controlling for all the variables we can imagine, hoping to find out, "Does my hypothesis appear to be correct? Then we attempt also to quantify what the probability is that it is correct. Then we invite other scientists and students to replicate our experiment and see if they get similar results or they find we made an error or we failed to control for some important variable. It is very difficult, as we can all observe., to get around our own biases. The only way we know to get at the truth, to get outside our biased perceptions is some kind of system with rules that must be obeyed, that makes us "test" what we think, in the most rigorous way we know, and then to say cautiously, the probability of our being correct is about 95% or 99%. It is very difficult to get at the truth in some instances.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
3:29 PM

Post #9775185

Rick, The thread has moved ahead so far in the last three days that I am only going to respond to two or three of your comments where we left off last week.

>>>>My understanding of what I read is that the group that you think is a small, dleuded minority includes most climate scientists, NOAA, NASA, people with not much poolitical agenda, etc. I understand that we disagree about that.

eeee I would add to that the fact that all of our Scientists that have attended college the last forty years have been taught and indoctrinated very liberal faculty. Most students buy whatever their Professor is selling, and as some Professions like the Media are heavily biased towards Liberal thinking, it is reasonable to assume most of the Climatologists will also be liberal, as it is well documented that most Professors are decidedly so..

>>>, …….. but I think that what is even more lacking is wisdom and willingness to make several kinds of effort. One effort is to do hard reading and hard thinking. Education can proba help develope those muscles and the habit of expecting to work for it if you wnatto understand anything more complicated than celbrity scandals or political party slogans.

eeee The way I have been phrasing my thoughts on this matter for a long time is this: “Knowledge can be taught and learned,and bought and sold, but Wisdom must be acquired by thinking and digesting that Knowledge and Experience.”So we now have many highly educated people in positions of power that have not acquired Wisdom commensurate with their Power. And that can lead us into very expensive mistake.

>>>>>Ernie, when you say "climate change", do you mean natural fluctuations such as we have historical experience with, not much affected by CO2 changes, or do you mean climate CHANGE to unusual extremes of weather such as are NOT historically normal (which some people think are caused by man-made greenhouse gases

eeeee Yes, Historical, as that is the time honored definition of Climate Change, and the term Global Warming, which was the proper term for what this is about, was only changed when the Warmies found out their product was not selling with that name, so they changed the label.

Rick, somewhere you asked me what I think is a reasonable time frame for comparing the Climate Changes, and I believe, since your main concern is the problem of humans adapting to the new climate as it undergoes changes, I think the basis for comparison should logically be set during the Ice Age, maybe 20 or 30,000 years ago when the Siberians walked to Alaska on the Bering Sea floor to the present time. So much water was tied up in ice back then, that the ocean levels had dropped that much.
It is pretty well accepted that some of the Siberians, after crossing, adapted to the Ice, and evolved into Eskimos, some moved to where you live, and evolved in to the Coastal Indians. Some went East, some went South to the Deserts, adapting to whatever they found. And some went on to South America, with the Mayans adapting to the Jungle and the Inca adapting to the high altitudes, And they did all this with just Stones and Sticks for tools. So I just do not have any doubt that humans can continue to adapt to whatever is required for survival.

Another of your worries that I do not believe will happen is sudden massive deaths. If the climate reduces the crops, it will be gradual, and as the food base shrinks, Pregnancy rates of all mammals will decline, so fewer babies will be born, and weaker older people will die first, leaving the stronger ones to adapt and survive. That is the way it has always been and will always be.

I have not addressed the Carbon factor, because we have no historical basis yet of lasting damage. So until it is proven or disproven, no one can be sure. But we do know that what I have said above has happened so it can well happen again.

And the term you use sometimes of “Deniers” no longer has any validity. Many of us did, and do, deny that Global Warming is, at this time, a reasonable threat, but I, nor no one I know, has ever denied that the Climate will Change.

I became frustrated trying to make this response within the confines of the DG program as I could not keep my ducks lined up, so switched to Office Word. If I can enter this, it is sure a much easier way to do it.
Ernie










This message was edited Feb 23, 2014 5:15 PM

This message was edited Feb 23, 2014 6:03 PM
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 23, 2014
4:07 PM

Post #9775193

drobarr--I wish I could assume that the teacher was trying to get the students to think, but my conversation with him regarding energetic molecules more easily "snapping" into place dispelled me of that notion. We are a woefully ignorant society when it comes to science.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
5:20 PM

Post #9775238

Ernie, have you ever asked yourself, "Why" all the professions seem to be more liberal? (as you stated above). If it is the case, then surely it is worth asking why this could be this way.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 23, 2014
5:37 PM

Post #9775247

Steadycam3...why the professors are more liberal?

http://rosemeadcenter.blogspot.com/2006/01/why-are-college-professors-liberal.html?m=1
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
5:57 PM

Post #9775264

Steady,

Actually, i mispoke and will go back and edit my post tp say... some professions like the ones listed below...

I believe some professions are decidedly Liberal, with Educators and Media predominately. But many doctors and Civil Engineers that i have had as friends are conservative. I also think the majority of the Professionnal people that choose to work for Government, rather than private enterprise, are more likely to be liberal, as there seems to be a pretty clear line between the type of person that seeks the security of the Civil Service and the ones that choose the less secure but possibly more lucrative private enterprise.

I have long recognized our opinions and beliefs are based on our experiences and observations. And of course, we sometimes accept those experiences and sometimes we rebel against them.

I grew up during the depression, and my Father ruined his health working to raise us six kids, and refused to accept Relief, as Welfare was known then. He and his friends disdained both the relief and the people that accepted it. I understood and absorbed that culture for better or worse.

Those are just two examples of hundreds of different things that influence us.

We probably subconsciously choose our Role Models, and then follow there examples. I know my role models were all men i respected for their intellect and their independence, but i have strived to never be too dependent on others.

But, if I had been raised in a family that accepted the relief, or been educated by a teacher i liked that convinced me dependncy, and demanding other people should pay for what i want, was better, i undoubtedly would have a different feeling about it.

Ernie

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
6:10 PM

Post #9775275

Steady,

Thank you for your comment. My statement was poorly worded, and i would not have wanted any of my conservative Professional friends to have seen that. Most of them are dead of old age now, but one never knows.

Drobarr,
Thanks for the link,, as that help clarify what i was saying about the Liberall Bias our College Students are exposed to.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 23, 2014
6:26 PM

Post #9775285

Ernie,

I am only 39 but I was raised like you. I come from a family of 8 kids. My parents were born during the depression so that event impacted them. I have always been taught to be self sufficient. And not to depend on anyone including government.

I will admit some government welfare programs help...most also cause harm. They take away from the producer and give to those not producing with nothing expected in exchange. To me this takes away a persons dignity...not only the producers...but also the receivers.

It also creates an entitlement mentality and a whole class of people that expect something for nothing.

Now I understand people need help...but our government expenses with these programs are way out of line. But most disturbing are the lost opportunities that will never materialize for this growing underclass of dependents. They will choose dependency over hard work and education and risk taking or coming up with ideas.

I think most people that are in the real world in business for a number of years and understand what it takes to make a dollar...to make a payroll etc they tend to lean conservative. Those in education or government tend to be more liberal because they are not in that reality. They arent worried about production, or regulations, and the practicalities of the real world.

steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
6:47 PM

Post #9775295

Ernie, I dont think any teacher anywhere would ever teach a child that dependency is better or that other people should pay for what I want. Ive never heard of it if one did. That of course does not mean it hasn't happened but I would be surprised to hear that it did.

You make an interesting point tho when you say that our childhoods really do influence our values. Ive heard it said that by age 5 we have already internalized our parents values and by age 10, we probably wont change our belief system very much. During adolescence we tend to re-examine our beliefs and may refine them but we usually dont change them much. The child is the father of the man does have some meaning.

As for the wisdom thing, there appear to be stages of moral development, just as there are stages of physical or mental development. (Kohlberg, Loevinger, etc). Some people reach higher levels of this in their lifetime than others. Sometimes horrible things happen to children during their younger years and this can cause disruption in the progress toward moral development such that they never develop beyond the "If I want it, I'll just take it" stage and you would find those folks in prison usually. At the other end of the spectrum, Mother Theresa is offered as an example of very high moral development but perhaps not the highest.

I have lived a long time now and I realize that many of the choices that people make were not entirely free choices. Some people were so programmed as a child that some choices never occur to them. If a certain choice does occur to them, they have already been programmed to believe that choice is not one they can make. Like the young Hispanic teen who told me, Mexicans dont go to college! They certainly do but he was not aware of it. We make only the choices our awareness permits. As our awareness expands, we have a larger array of choices. Ignorance means to not know or to not be aware. Education is meant to dispel ignorance or to increase awareness so more choices become visible and better choices possible. For me, the only choice when I look at the world and my brothers and sisters all over the planet, is compassion because I have no idea their level of awareness and therefore what choices they see for themselves. My job is to increase my awareness so that I have a chance to make better choices.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
6:55 PM

Post #9775307

Drobarr, If professors are the link to liberalism, why is it do you think that so many professors are liberal? This is kinda the same question I asked Ernie but drilled down a bit further.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 23, 2014
7:21 PM

Post #9775325

Steady,

These are all generalities. There are many conservatives at Universities...if you look at Agriculture programs, ROTC, business schools, medicine and engineering and some of the sciences you will find many of them.

However in the humanities and social sciences they lean very heavily on the liberal spectrum. I am not sure professors are the link to liberalism...but I think many liberals go in to teaching because they want to influence others with their philosophy. They tend to be folks who because of their educational attainment enjoy the prestige of being a university professor...having an audience to listen to their great wisdom... and being able to spread their way of thinking to as many people as possible. Whether it is in the classroom or through publishing they tend to have an agenda that they would not likely be able to pursue or promote in the private sector.

Of course I really have no clue. I only got three degrees at three different institutions over 10 years so I probably don't know what I am talking about lol.

When I completed my doctorate I had two job offers...professor or industry. I chose industry...but for me it was specifics of the job...location, pay, etc. Plus I hated publishing and the thought of not getting tenure.

Why do you think university professors lean liberal?
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
8:19 PM

Post #9775358

So you dont necessarily agree with the article (link) that you posted? In your reply to me you seem to make the case for there being a mix of conservative and liberal college professors, depending on which branch of study. Ive not seen any stats on the subject but I do remember some stats after the last presidential election. If I remember correctly, they sliced and diced the data on who voted for whom and the data showed that people with a high school education or less voted Republican and those with a college degree or higher voted Democrat. (In general). Now I suppose you could interpret that a lot of ways. Conservatives generally vote Republican and liberals usually vote Democrat. I dont know if that means that college people have been liberalized by attending college or that people with higher education tend to vote liberal or that most Republicans dont attend college and therefore have not been liberalized by education. I would love to know how we became so polarized, what is it exactly that separates the two groups.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
8:25 PM

Post #9775361

Steady,
I cannot directly address what Professors actually say, as i only attended the College of Hard Knocks, but i follow the news closely, and i have seen countless occasions where Professors and Teachers are in favor of Big Government, bigger School budgets, with fewer absolute goals or criteria to measure what the students have to actually knoow to graduate, and one thing for sure, whether we know exactly whether a teacher is liberal or not, they and their Unions do support Liberal Politicians.

And the only ones that support the larger, liberal type of government are those that are dependent, directly or indirectly, on the largesse of the Government. So it becomes a symbiotic system that mutually supports each other. But since it is obviously destroying the country, it might be compared to a a circular firing squad, because once the country goes broke, it will no longer be able to support all of its dependents.

There is a moral component to Wisdom, but that is only a small part of it, and Wisdom is really the only way to get much good out of the knowledge we accumulate, however we gather it.

And it seems apparent to me that what is most missing in the plans, and implementation of the Liberal Governing policies is the lack of Wisdom, whether it is in getting improved results from Education, Spending the Stimulus Money wisely, Choosing Alternative Energy Systems, or even the Environmental Movement, All were started with the best of intentions, but directed with the worst of management styles, so the resutls have been dismall failures when actual results are compared to the plans or goals.

I think Drobarr is in a better place to discuss higher education than i am, just as Rick Corey is better qualified to discuss Research methods and practices, and both of them are better suited to discuss the finer points of Science.

I am impressed by what you posted, and i hope you continue to engage in the discussions.
And, since i have tried to answer two of your questions, i would like to ask you one.

If the parents and the teachers are not the source of the Dependency Culture in so many people to day, where does that Dependencty Culture come from?

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
8:50 PM

Post #9775374


Steady,

Assuming the study you quoted in your response to Drobarr is accurate, have you, in your experience, found Democrats to be smarter and more successful than Republicans?

Or could it be that people educated by the beforementioned Liberal Professors have been influenced by them, as i suggested before.

Ernie
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
8:56 PM

Post #9775382

I believe that for one to grow up with a dependent mindset, the family is the most powerful influence. In addition, families often associate with those that are most like them so no "different" mindset is introduced until very late when character and mindset and worldview are already hardened. Once a person has "solidified" in a mindset, they tend to seek information that confirms what they believe rather than to challenge it. So it becomes a self satisfying loop with no new strange input. Once in a great while I see someone who doesn't follow the path laid out for them by circumstance. They defy it all and listen for different views and open their mind to new ideas, new experiences from which they can learn to be different from all those around them. It's a wonderful thing to see but it does not happen often. I wish I knew what the secret is. Ive thought sometimes it could be that special teacher who cared or that coach who took the time or that professor who said, "you could do that". I would bottle it and sell it if I knew the secret.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 23, 2014
9:10 PM

Post #9775387

Ernie, I would venture to guess that there is the full range of intelligence on both sides, the liberal and the conservative, the Democrats and Republicans. I have nothing to base that upon except common sense. When we get to the idea that education (particularly higher education like college) liberalizes people then maybe it would make sense that the more educated, the more liberal. That would explain the data I mentioned from the election. I dont think you could extrapolate that liberals are smarter than conservatives from that data, just that liberals are more educated. (at least the ones who voted).

Think about this: That all those liberal professors got that way by higher education so higher education liberalized the professors and they in turn liberalize their students. Would that explain it?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 23, 2014
9:45 PM

Post #9775401

Steady,

I do not think the Liberals became liberal from the Education. I have been led to believe that it comes from the Educators. In other words, the students are there to learn more factual information about their future profession, but that information can certainly be presented to them either straight or slanted to to the left or right. And since it is clear that more than half of the professors are self identified as being liberal, it stands to reason that being human, they will present those fact with a liberal bias.

I have been a businessman for 60 years this June, and i learned early on, that in order to lead and inspire my employees to help me achieve my goals, i had to understand them, and to teach and influence them to follow my beliefs. I could not tell some one to just go do something, i had to inspire him to do it the way i believed it should be done. So, it is reasonable for me to believe if i was a Liberal Professor, i would be teaching my students to implement what i was teaching them in a Liberal way. Since there are more liberal professors, that means more students will be indoctrinated to believe the liberal way.

I am certaint that i could not teach someone in a convincing way to do things the opposite of how i think it should be done.

Two more questions.for you. What field has your career or business been in, and how old are you?.

The Biggest generational difference i have seen has been between the generations that grew up by 1940, and the generation that grew up after 1960. The generation between those dates was making the transition, and each generation since has trended the same way with incremental differences each year. I am hopeful the trend has reversed in recent years, and maybe accelerated since the recession.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
4:38 AM

Post #9775471




http://www.usmessageboard.com/education/168013-republicans-are-better-educated-then-democrats.html

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
4:43 AM

Post #9775474

http://www.cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/54-state-of-affairs/1357-pew-research-republicans-more-knowledgeable-than-democrats

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
4:54 AM

Post #9775481

Though many may leave college with a liberal skew after a lifetime of liberal indoctrination...

But most college grads go into private enterprise...not government or University jobs. Once they get into the real world the real education begins...the education of reality...not of the idealist theories they had been taught.
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 24, 2014
5:20 AM

Post #9775490

I think the brains of liberals and those of conservatives simply have different wiring, and that wiring is present at birth. LOL

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
6:11 AM

Post #9775533

I think liberals decisions and beliefs stem more from the heart. Where as conservattives come more from the mind. I agree they are wired differently.

I am however glad we dont all think the same...I think each perspective has its merits and pitfalls.

There has always been these differences political and otherwise and I do not think we are as devided as we were say during the revolutionary or civil war.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 24, 2014
6:32 AM

Post #9775556

Congrats to all here for keeping this thread respectful and civil, for it is in danger of falling into the previously forbidden category of politics. Keep it polite, no one complains, I think it will go unnoticed.

more stats (or fuel for the fire? LOL)
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071020081551AAu0Izm
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
10:02 AM

Post #9775711

Drobarr,
Your comment on the value of ...education of reality... is the first mention i have seen of that, after a life time of myself being a prime example.

It is hard to describe how chaotic our Country was, back in the Spring of1941. We knew we were on the brink of war, jobs were beginning to open up in So. CA. because of defense work and Lend Lease material to send to Europe. Patriotism was at fever pitch, my older brothers and my friends were leaving for the Military or good jobs. Every one was tired of being poor after ten years of Depression and up to 25% unemployment rates. College Educated people had been digging ditches alongside illiterate laborers, and all at once we could see a change.

I was 14 years old, part way through the tenth grade, and i dropped out of school and started working, first as a a laborer in Warehouses, and then, after December 7, 1941, i left home amicably and started working on building Military bases. My goal was to become a heavy equipment operator, but the ensuing overall experience and Education in Reality that i received over the seven years gave me a tremendous advantage over the new College Graduates of my age, that were coming into the work force as the world returned to normal.

That advantage allowed me to start my own Highway Contracting Company much sooner than i could have from spending those seven years in more schooling.

I could surely have used more schooling in higher mathematics and accounting, but such knowledge as i needed was easily purchased simply by hiring Engineers or Accountants.

I am not disparaging the value of College Education, as we all need that knowledge brought down from generation to generation.. But so much of that education acquired by such high cost and effort goes to waste from not being used properly.

One of the biggest hoaxes i see played on young people is the often repeated, but misleading statement that a college degree is a guarantee or at least a requisite of higher income. It is not the degree that leads to success, it is the person, and the type of young person that gets excellent grades, and diligently pursues the education is also the type of person that is most likely to succeed without the college education. It is the work ethic and responsibilty of the person that produces the higher income. Without that basic work ethic, a college education leaves the person with more debt and not more income.

Ernie

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 24, 2014
12:03 PM

Post #9775781

I just found an interesting video dealing with the broader issues that are being touched on in the organic, GMO, and climate warming threads. Specifically, it's about politics clouding your objective lens. I've only watched a few minutes so far (it's about an hour long), but I think most of the contributors here might find it very interesting.

It's here: http://theprogressivecontrarian.com/.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
2:44 PM

Post #9775921

Willy,

I watched the entire video, and my primary comments is the first speaker would have been much more impressive if he had put his hands in his pockets.

And my feelings about Science is: I trust Science but do not think all Scientists should be trusted.

Same thing for religious folk. It is fine to Trust in God, but they should not trust all the Preachers.

The video was fairly well balanced, and worth the time it took to watch it, but that was about all it was worth to me. I really did not see or learn anything that was new or captivating.

Thanks for posting the link.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
3:16 PM

Post #9775938

Ernie,
Thanks for sharing your experiences. I think people who are successful have certain traits and they will be successful whether they have an opportunity to get Higher education or not. I think that is evident in your case.

You are right that many people need to look at opportunity costs before considering college. One has to evaluate the particular degree one is getting and if that will make that person more marketable or not. In most cases an education will provide additional job opportunities and earning potential. But depends on the field and how much college will cost.

I made it through college debt free. I worked my way with 2 and 3 jobs at a time and riding my bike and eating on 25 dollars a week. I shared a room too. For my masters and phd I had assistantships that paid for my schooling and gave me a stipend.

But the real education began as I took a job. I had to work and produce and learn many many things. And I am still learning. For what I do I had to get the education. And im glad I did. It doesnt make me any smarter or better than anyone. Makes me realize I really dont know very much even about my own field and even less about others.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
4:26 PM

Post #9775986

Drobarr,
Your path is the way it should be, and since you are working in your chosen field that will all pay off. You researched the field, before you wasted years acquiring knowldedge you could not sell.

But what saddens me, is to see cases like the children of friends, one that spent years studying Oceanoraphy because he loved the ocean, but never found a job in that field, and another one that was fascinated with reptiles and spent years getting his doctorate in Herpetology, and the last i heard he had never found a job using that hard won knowledge. Education is valuable when it is used, but like anything else, should not be wasted.

With so much information now, I do not believe any one person can master every thing in their field. I have two Medical Doctor friends, a Neurosurgeon and a Dermatologist, and both had to spend so much time keeping up with new information in their Specialties they had no time to learn how to manage their own financial affairs, or to learn about anything outside their own narrow fields.

Ernie

steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 24, 2014
5:49 PM

Post #9776049

I just finished reading all the links provided. It was interesting and at first I was confused by it but then I realized that if Republicans are the party of business interests then it would make sense that they are the wealthiest people in the country. If they are the party of capital, then it stands to reason they are the party of the top .1% and the top 1%. People who work for wages, employees, might be more likely to be Democrats. I think it bears thinking about that the gap between the top earners in our country and the lowest earners in the country has been widening since the days of Reagan's presidency. This might also explain why there are more Democrats than Republicans. There are probably more employees in the country than business owners. Most of the things I read say that the gap between the rich and the poor is at the widest it has been since the robber barons of the "gilded age". The middle class has diminished to the point that some see it in danger of disappearing altogether.

I was reading recently about the level of business investment tracking business taxation. The idea seemed to be that when taxes are low on business, it discourages investment and encourages businesses to buy back their own stock and sit on high levels of cash. Taxation on business makes investment a better choice because there is possibly a better return on the capital than having it taxed. There was a graph showing the relationship. I will try to find it and post the link. This is an important concern now as taxes on business are at an all time low and investment is also at an all time low.

What I say next is simply my opinion. If the business community, the 1% has most of the money or wealth or capital, they have the most power to influence government and why would they not try to influence government to make things better for themselves? If things get better and better for those with capital, and they decide to not invest the capital but just to roll it making money off the interest on the capital, there is no way for the 99% to gain anything. As the saying goes, "Them that's got the gold, makes the rules" The rising tide that floats all boats does not exist without investment by those with capital. The engine of the economy has always been the consumer who buys what businesses sell. We seem to be in a situation now where consumers do not have anything to spend so businesses are suffering for lack of sales.
It has developed into a catch 22 where businesses dont invest or hire because sales are down and sales are down because employees must work 3 minimum wage jobs just to support a family of 4. They barely make ends meet and if they had any money, they have no time to spend it. I think that is what happened to the middle class. When we had the strongest middle class, in the 50's, we had powerful unions who lobbied businesses for wages that supported a middle class lifestyle. Without a way for employees to have some leverage on big businesses, big businesses have stopped paying good wages and let the government pay for employees' food with food stamps and medical care with medicaid. There have never been so many working people who cannot support a family on their waged as we have now. Capitalism does not have a mechanism to stop it from becoming vulture capitalism, winner take all.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
6:15 PM

Post #9776070

Ernie...I agree. Many do waste a lot of time and money in school instead of actually preparing for a career. Sorry to hear about those who spent so much effort only to not find a position in their desired field. For my field I researched it out beforehand and saw there was a need and a growing need as baby boomers reached retirement age. Its not one of the highest paying fields for the amount of education but I cant complain. Most important I enjoy what I do...I enjoy the people I work with...something special about farmers and people who work with the land. I also dont have to work myself to death like some of my lawyer and doctor friends who have very little life outside the 65 and 80 hour weeks they put in.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
6:41 PM

Post #9776089

Drobarr,
Enjoying your work is the key to a long and happy life. I enjoyed the Contracting, and then when my children were old enough to take over my job, i wound up starting a Ball and Burlap Ornamental Tree Nursery in Idaho, and that was a wonderful job. Then, when i got too old to do that anymore, i came back to the crushing company and ran a Caterpillar Excavator working with our Crushing crews again. It had an air conditioned cab, finger tip controls and was just a big toy to play with. I did that until i was well into my 80's, loving every minute of it. I only gave it up when the recession slowed our work down and the employees needed the work i was doing.

I hope you always enjoy the work you are doing.

Ernie

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
8:03 PM

Post #9776142

Steady, I would like to offer some comments or corrections on the subject of where the wealth is.

Small businesses [Fifty employees or less] often have less wealth than career employees with secure pension plans and benefits. I had friends that were Engineers for the Los Angeles County Road department that retired with lifetime pensions yielding as much as
the then interest rates were yielding on $3 million dollars. Very few small business men retire with that much cash. During the years I was contracting, I knew more contractors that went broke, even losing their houses, than retired wealthy.

I have no figures on how many were Democrats or Republicans, but I think there were some of both.

Ownership of wealth is not stable. The young people that sold WhatApp to Facebook for 19 billion last week, were on food stamps five years ago, and if you recall the Tech crash about ten years ago, you will recall that many rich people went broke overnight. I also had several friends that lost all they had in the recent recession and housing bubble. The point I am making is that wealth constantly moves back and forth. It is not stable at all.

The people that have money saved and are collecting interest are receiving less return on their money than is being eroded by inflation, so they are getting poorer every day.

What is actually making everyone poorer is taxation, because all taxes are passed on to the consumers, eroding the wealth of both workers and businesses, transferring the money to the Government to pay the high salaries and pensions and entitlements.

Businessmen are not surprised when they get their tax bills. They knew when they set their prices that if they made $100.000.00 profit in CA, that between half and 60% would go to taxes, so they set their prices to cover their taxes and leave some for their profit. So the consumers are paying those taxes too.

have written before about the tremendous amounts of money it is costing all consumers which of course covers rich and poor alike, to pay for the unnecessary environmental rules and regulations. I will repeat, I want clean air and water and am willing to pay whatever that costs. But those rules and regulations are so far beyond what it would take to just provide what we need, it is part of what is bankrupting our country.

What you read about business investment, and the buyback of stock is not correct. Investments are made simply to make a profit commensurate with the risk. The higher the risk the more profit is expected. With so much uncertainty at this time, it is difficult to accurately calculate the risk, so people are holding money in reserve, until they can be sure the investments are worthwhile. This attitude is affecting not only funds owned by businesses, but also your Pension and IRA and other retirement funds. It is very difficult to find good investments now. So people are leaving their money idle, losing whatever the inflation rate is rather than to risk losing even more.

The reason Corporations buy back their own stock, is to benefit the stockholders. If a Corporation pays dividends, that money is double taxed by the Government. If they use the money to buy back the stock, that reduces the number of shares outstanding and thus increases the value of the stock each stockholder owns by the same amount the dividends would have been, but without the double tax.

Investment is at an all time low simply because there are not profitable investments to be made.

While it does seem logical that the 1% should be able to influence the Government, it has not been able to do so in recent years, as the regulations and taxes are certainly not good for businesses.

Vulture Capitalists, as unlikable as they are, eventually die like everyone else, and the money they have when they die is not taken with them. It is taxed, and spent by heirs and is quickly back in circulation. Very few rich people have piles of gold they sit and polish all day to watch it shine. They buy big houses and provide work for carpenters and interior decorators, or they spend it on other things. There is no such thing as a perpetual winner. We all lose it back sooner or later.

I clearly recall when Housing Developers were making all the money, then there was a time when Doctors were overcharging Insurance companies and the Doctors were raking it in. Then the Insurance companies took over and made the money, then the Government took over paying the Insurance companies and the Government raked in the money, and now the young guys inventing Facebook and Google are raking it in. But so far, it has all eventually gone back into circulation and someone else had the chance to grab some of it. But one reason most people never make it is they are afraid to risk everything they own on a chance to make a lot of it. That is not to disparage any one, that is just a simple fact of human nature. Some people are risk averse.

I hope this clarifies some of the things that many people just do not understand.
Ernie


drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
8:40 PM

Post #9776151

Ernie,

It must be satisfying to know you built a business up that has been successful and blessed your life and met the needs of your family and those of your employees while providing an important service to your customers.

I grew up in University City which is right in between La Jolla and Miramar.

I will be in San Diego this weekend to celebrate my moms 80th birthday.

Look forward to many more discussions.
John

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 24, 2014
8:49 PM

Post #9776154

drobarr said:

>> Whether burning fossil fuel affects climate change or not it makes sense to use what we have wisely. Be more efficient and when cost effective use alternate forms of energy.

I can agree with that 100%! We should try to save SOME oil for petrochemical uses, not be burning it all up because it's relatively easy to pump..

>> But what one person thinks is intelligent isn't the same as another.

Agreed!

(I hope to go back and read from 7 pm Feb 22 to present, but need to reply to something in another thread:

>> RickCorey_WA wrote: "More violent storms will cause such coastal problems more often."

drobarr said: "Rick...Do you have a source?"

No, and that is a good catch. Thank you! I did say "will cause", not "have already caused", so historical data doesn't prove or disprove such a belief.

The only source I COULD have for that is climate models, and those are still struggling to describe the present accurately, let alone predict the future accurately and reliably.

I've tried to distinguish between "what I think" about climate change, and what seems proven (what seems TO ME to be fairly well proven) . Late last week I got impassioned and probably blurred that distinction. As the evidence accumulates, well-intentioned people can disagree about "how proven" any given degree of climate is. Or whether "it is upon us now", "seems likely to occur over the next decade or five" or "is still purely speculative".

Many different climatologists expect weather extremes and more violent storms as more heat collects in the atmosphere and ocean surface. That seems more than plausible - likely or very probable - because the mechanism is direct and simple. As with toxicology studies, usually the correlations are not clear until you get a big enough dose for the effect to be obvious. The climate models predict more storms as the air and ocean warm further.

(I ought to go hunting for reports about those climate models, but do we already agree that "Warmie Alarmists" have been guessing that for some years now?)

Ignoring the models of the future for the moment and switching to recent trends (last few 100 years), I didn't have any statistical proof, but the link you provided has some evidence for both sides.

The link you provided only counts cyclonic storms and "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" in the Atlantic basin so it is limited, whichever of us is using to support whatever claim.

Looking at the graphs by clicking on the table headers, it looks to my eye like an uptick in "Atlantic Basin Major Hurricanes" , "Atlantic Basin Hurricanes" and "named Storms" in the last 5-10 years.

Also, for a long-term trend, the left-most column ("Named Storms") lists double-digits for the last 15 years (except for a "9" in 2009). There were very few double digits before 1878. In-between those time periods, there are an intermediate number of double-digit-counts of named storms.

If you did a moving average to smooth out the rapid high-and-lows, I would eye-ball fit a shallowly rising line to fit that data from 1850 to around 1975, then a steeper rising line. That horse-back curve-fit would support my claim, not yours ... but I admit, what are "named storms"? Observer bias is likely. Or better monitoring could account for those.

Most of the other graphs look like most climate data, or toxicology data: chicken pox, proving nothing but hinting "not much change yet".

If your point is that the Atlantic cyclone data does not (yet) give any clear indication of markedly rising cyclonic Atlantic storms, certainly not as clear as the Keeling curve is, you are right.

Maybe the climatologists are right and the effect will become visible as heating progresses.

Maybe the models will get closer to reality as more and more factors are taken into account (like the three-factor combo of CFCs, Ozone, cosmic rays and the sunspot cycle ... no, our FOUR main factors are ...)

Or maybe Warmie Alarmists just change their story from year to year from nefarious motives.


Some things that make me think we have reached the tipping point already:

Unusual droughts, unseasonal rains, and unseasonal winters are medium-strength indicators. For a few years, I bought "random weather variation", but now we've had several more years of "the worst X in Y years".

Melting glaciers are a dead give-away - what I would call incontrovertible proof.

The warming ocean surface is a hard fact.

The slight rise in ocean height is a hard fact.

Whether we are in the tipping point already, or it is still10-20 (or 50) years away is subject to debate.

Indeed, the whole idea of "tipping point" (delayed change followed by accelerated change and difficulty in reversing climate change after new regimes are settled into) is only a set of theories derived from models. I bought into that concept for an illogical reason: ice ages seem to occur that way. There are several lines of evidence pointing to ice age onset being very sudden - like some years, not some centuries for a big part of the temperature change to occur. All that proves is that some climate changes are very non-liear and can have a "gotcha" aspect.

Anthropogenic climate change in the long-term warming direction is quite different from ice ages.


It may give some perspective into my thinking (and fear) if I comment that it seems to me as if we are debating about "proving" how many bullets are in the gun with which we are playing "global Russian roulette".

The unarguable Keeling Curve where you can see atmospheric CO2 shooting up like a rocket convinced me back in the 1980s or 1990s that there are at least 2-3 bullets in the gun. Seeing glaciers retreat convinced me that there are 3-5 bullets, or perhaps that the loaded chamber is getting closer to the hammer. Admittedly, the time scale of climate change is so long that each pulling of the trigger might take 20-50 years.

But that doesn't seem like a reason for complacency to me, when the remedial efforts will take so long, and since there are almost no international mechanisms to deal with long-term, hard-to-prove serious risks, and hugely EXPENSIVE changes.

I would rather take measures to slow or hopefully reverse the process before unusual weather variability cause crop failures leading to famines. Hopefully, coast-devastating, island-drowning violent cyclonic storms and sea level changes will come later than mere crop-failure-weather variability.

For a while, I hoped that increased rainfall would make more deserts arable than increased heat would make mid-western states into dust bowls. Then I read about the (obvious) effect of increased weather variability and had to agree that would cause more crop failures sooner than the long-term changes. How can you plan a crop if one year has a record-breaking drought, the next year later frosts than ever seen, and the year after that multiple exceptionally hot days?


drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
9:01 PM

Post #9776161

Ernie...very well said your reply to steadycam...I am in total agreement. Taxes reduce investment because they reduce capital. They also reduce a persons take home pay which then has a ripple affect on the rest of the economy. As my taxes have increased I am unable to invest as much of my income.

Unions artificially raise the cost of an employee above what the market value of the employee is. This makes consumers foot the bill and many union jobs are the reason many jobs moved overseas or many industries simply went bankrupt or closed all together.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 24, 2014
9:18 PM

Post #9776169

John,
You are certainly correct in that i have surely been blessed. I am not religious but i am spiritual and i have understood for forty years that whatever power is up there somewhere, has certainly blessed me. I appreciate that every day.

You would not recognize the weather this year for where you grew up. We have had less than an inch and a half of rain since last May, and you will not be seeing the Emerald colored hillls you might expect for this time of year when you fly into San Diego.

As to my reply to Steady, I do not think there would be so much distrust and antagonism towards business if people understood how closelly intermingled and similar our interests are. It should be People and Business versus Big Government, as Government takes money from both of us by Taxes, without returning equal value.

Rick,
While i do not always see things exactly like you do, I always enjoy what you write and i never doubt your sincerity.

Ernie

This message was edited Feb 24, 2014 9:31 PM

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 24, 2014
9:21 PM

Post #9776171

RickCorey...
Did you know its actually the deserts that cool the earth. Deserts reflect large amounts of light and heat back into the atmosphere. Increasing rainfall and irrigating deserts and growing crops will warm the earth because less light and heat will be reflected back in space. Look up albedo.

The largest desert in the world is not the Sahara...but actually in Antarctica.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 25, 2014
8:50 AM

Post #9776448

Rick,
During the night i was thinking about what you said concerning 2 Billion tons of Carbon being deposited in the Ocean annually, and realized I do not know much about how that happens. I have known that it is measure by tons, and is a gas, but have never seen any thing about how it is calcuated, nor how many cubic yards or meters is required to hold a ton of it.

Other questions I have, is the Carbon dispersed evenly before it settles into the ocean, or does it have a limited carry distance from where it was released.

And the third thing i wondered about, has there been any effect yet on the Sea life, or change in the water?.

You do a good job o describing things like this so we can understand them, and i hope you do that, as i am sure other readers of this thread are also curious about this.

Anyone else that does know is welcome to chime in, and any Links to info, would also be useful'

thanks,
Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
11:17 AM

Post #9776525

http://news.yahoo.com/geoengineering-ineffective-against-climate-change-could-worse-164200912.html

"One strategy, known as afforestation, would irrigate deserts, such as those in Australia and North Africa, to promote the growth of vegetation that can absorb carbon dioxide. However, this vegetation would also absorb sunlight the deserts currently reflect back into space, thus actually contributing to global warming. That finding supports the results of previous studies."

How many deserts around the world have been turned into irrigated farmland? Obviously that in and of itself is contributing to "global warming" according to scientists...and has nothing to do with CO2, rather, sunlight and heat absorbed by plants instead of reflected back to space. In fact, plants no matter where they are on earth, absorb sunlight and heat...so do solar panels...and when they do the earth warms up. Plants are causing global warming folks. We need more deserts and less vegetation to cool the earth. If we really care about global warming or climate change we should actually convert our forests into deserts...support deforestation.

All you selfish gardeners growing your fresh vegetables are causing climate change!

This message was edited Feb 25, 2014 5:21 PM
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
12:30 PM

Post #9776558

I plead guilty-as-charged. I just wish this "warming-tread" would hurry up and get to us in Mississippi. It feels here like we are slipping back into another ice-age. We are back into the mid to lower 20's mid-week. Enough already!

Ken

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
1:41 PM

Post #9776594

Ken,

As we see more and more hybrid cars on the road I think we will really see a turnaround in global warming. I think we have seen some of the results with this winters chill.

John

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
3:59 PM

Post #9776661

Ernie said:
>> 2 Billion tons of Carbon being deposited in the Ocean annually,
>> You do a good job o describing things like this so we can understand them, and i hope you do that

Darn! Flattery will get you everywhere. I'll try. P.S. That is the kind of detailed enquiry that good science attempts to pursue. Not just plugging new numbers into old models, but asking "reality" questions like "where does it go next" and "you might expect to see something like X, but what do you actually see?"

... how many cubic yards or meters is required to hold a ton of it.

... is the Carbon dispersed evenly before it settles into the ocean, or does it have a limited carry distance from where it was released.

>> has there been any effect yet on the Sea life, or change in the water?.

But please allow me to come back to this as I find time, All I can say off the top of my head is that some surface ocean pH change has been alleged to be due to increased atmospheric CO2. I don't know enough about that to have an opinion other than "OMIGOD, PLEASE don't let the deep ocean pH go down enough to make CO2 less soluble THERE!"

... aaaaand spinning of in a background direction first ... looking at the Carbon cycle and scientists trying to "balance the books" and figure it all out ...

The idea of trapping CO2 in vegetation or in soil (instead of desert sand) might have some promise for reducing CO2 slightly (even if it does reduce the albedo of deserts).

Even more promising would be convincing the deep ocean to capture (AND HOLD) a little more carbon than it already does.

That kind of "geoengineering" REALLY makes climate-conservative liberals terrified and climate-adventuresome conservatives eager! The scientists in the field are split between "social conscience pants-wetters" and "boys-just-want-to-have-fun meddlers". When politicians start getting advice like "this geoengineering scheme might cure our droughts but incinerate the tropics", I start trying to remember which tropical countries have nuclear weapons and which only have biological and chemical weapons (i.e. "any who want them"). But then, I do tend to panic when a situation could go very badly if politicians make bad decisions.

The following numbers are just one pot-shot from one site, cross-checked with Wikipedia for ball-park-plausibility. Now I see it may be a biased website - but which numbers would they tweak which way to exacerbate the issue? Human emission rates, for one. But the actual size of each 'reservoir" might be "just science" and not yet a highly-tweaked number by one side, or a "denied" number by the other side. As far as my memory goes, the numbers are mostly within ballparks of what i recall from a less-partisan era.

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/effig11_full.html
(or any diagram of the carbon cycle or biogeochemical cycles.)

The thing is, SOIL plus duff holds around TWICE as much carbon as the atmosphere!
Say maybe around 1,400 GigaTons soil and 745 Gt in the air.

That may surprise gardeners who have to feed a couple of inches depth of compost every year - we think that hungry soil microbes digest that carbon as fast as we feed it! However, the (???) 0.5% to 5% organic content of soil, multiplied by the huge number of tons of fertile soil, translates into much more carbon than is in the atmosphere at any one time.

As with many geoengineering schemes, the problem is not to CAPTURE more CO2. It's to HOLD it for several centuries.

Let's not let fertile areas desertify. Besides cutting our food supply, it could triple the amount of CO2 in the air.

Even the near-surface ocean holds a little more carbon than the air. Maybe 960 GT ocean surface vs 745 air.

Intermediate ocean depths plus deep ocean is where almost ALL the carbon is: , maybe 36,000 GT . That is 48 TIMES as much as the atmosphere holds! That's why I pray that we don't have any "whoopsies" that affect the deep ocean. Are you listening, British Petroleum?!?

Deep ocean sediments, allegedly only hold 150 GT of carbon. (I thought that carbonate sediments were HUGE. Maybe that was terrestrial sediments? Acid rain, rain, go away. Come again some other eon.)

If the pH of the total ocean and some ocean sediments climbed to the point where that dissolved and suspended CO2 came bubbling out like a warm bottle of soda, that might in theory add 37,000 Gt of carbon to the atmosphere, multiplying the CO2 level by FIFTY-fold. The Keeling Curve would have to be viewed on logarithmic graph paper!

The good news is that I saw a phrase somewhere that hinted that every greenhouse spectral band can be "saturated" to the point that ALL re-radiated IR heat in that one band is already being absorbed and more greenhouse gas won't make it worse. So we would not need to worry about FURTHER global warning, (only about dead fish and mammals all gasping due to high CO2 levels, hopefully being facetious).

(I'm sorry, now I see that web site is all about climate change, so they might be slanting numbers to bias them "pro Warmie". Probably the most contentious numbers would be rates of human production of CO2 from fossil fuels and deforestation.)
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/carbon/efcarbon.html

The Wiki page uses a DOE diagram that isn't TOO different, though it puts 2,300 Gt in soil and 800 Gt in air and 37,000 + 6,000 in deep ocean plus "reactive sediments". All higher numbers...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_cycle.jpg

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

Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA   Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA         
Click an image for an enlarged view.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
4:31 PM

Post #9776676

steadycam said:
>> so no "different" mindset is introduced until very late when character and mindset and worldview are already hardened. Once a person has "solidified" in a mindset, they tend to seek information that confirms what they believe

That is a big problem. One "side" mostly believes Fox "News" and the other side mostly believes the Huffing Post. Neither of them learn anything or change at all.

>> Once in a great while I see someone who ... listen for different views and open their mind to new ideas, new experiences from which they can learn to be different from all those around them. It's a wonderful thing to see but it does not happen often. I wish I knew what the secret is.

If I have any openness of mind, it came from three or four main sources.

1. Robert Heinlein, who usually preaches that the majority is wrong more often than they are right

2. Heinlein, a few Jr. High School teachers, and Jr. High school textbooks that convinced me that textbooks are often wrong and never have the WHOLE story.

3. A nightmare that I had as a kid, maybe after reading an adaptation of the Shirley Jackson short story "The Lottery". I "went along with everyone else" and The Bad Thing Happened to the nice little girl. I woke up sweating and filled with shame that I hadn't stopped it, and swore never to "go along to get along".

4. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, and the flavor of the "counter-culture" was appealing until it turned into heavy-handed liberal PC conformism in the late 70s and 80s.

"It's no longer politically correct to say ""politically correct".
Now we say "politically sensitive."

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
4:32 PM

Post #9776677

drobarr / John said:

>> Did you know its actually the deserts that cool the earth. Deserts reflect ...

Clouds, ice, snow and clouds reflect much better than deserts. Of course, sand-deserts tend to exist in hot latitudes, while snow and ice are more often found in cold latitudes with low sun angles. You're right that the very dry Antarctic reflects a lot of the low-intensity or low-angle sunlight that falls on it!


A very quick web search reinforces my prior impression that albedo is surface reflectance .

"Surface Reflectance" (not re-emission of absorbed heat)

"Surface Reflectance" (not addressing atmospheric reflection, absorption, and re-emission)

That narrow definition of albedo ignores absorbed heat re-radiated from the surface and later absorbed by the atmosphere ("on its way back to space"). Hence it also also ignores the greenhouse effect. (But I'm not at all sure how the term is used in studies that DO address the difference between surface absorption/reflection/re-emission and atmospheric ab/reflect/re-imm).

It wouldn't surprise me if climatologists used the word to mean 'reflection from land and ocean surfaces", treating the atmosphere as a different compartment. Maybe astronomers use it to mean reflectance from the planet-as-a-whole, modeling the planet as a billiard ball they are not especially interested in the internals of. After all, astronomers coined the term to describe mostly airless rocks, and mostly surface-less gas giants.

Anyway, either way, light-colored surfaces like dry sand, ice and snow do reflect more than dark surfaces (forest, grassland, cultivated land, lakes, rivers, seas and oceans, roads, cities etc).

My impression is that deserts (traditionally) reflected AND re-radiated heat to space faster than most other regions because the air above them was clear (no clouds) and dry. Now that it is clear and dry and has 50% to 100% more CO2 than it ever had in the past , going back through many ice ages and interglacial eras, much more of the re-radiated heat from deserts tends to transfer to the atmosphere above a desert instead of radiating away to space.

My guess is that sunlight REFLECTED from desert sands has much the same spectrum as the incoming solar radiation (minus UV caught by ozone and some water and CO2 absorption). Hence that energy (non-UV, non-greenhouse wavelengths) probably still escapes faster from deserts to space than from most places.

I'm not sure what % of total incoming solar energy gets absorbed by deserts (becoming atmospheric greenhouse heat after re-radiation) and what % is reflected. Presumably 60-70% is reflected without changing spectrum, so it escapes despite greenhouse gases. Of the 30-40% absorbed energy, I think almost all of that re-radiates as IR, and then it depends on how many "greenhouse windows" are closed by different greenhouse gases.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
This Wiki page suggests that deserts reflect around 28%, far below "dry sand" at 40%. I wonder what parts of deserts are not dry sand? Anyway, ice, snow and clouds reflect much more than deserts OR dry sand.


RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
4:33 PM

Post #9776679

steadycam said:
>> Then we invite other scientists and students to replicate our experiment

I think that's the part of science that makes it self-correcting. Any one team or group of researchers who think they know what's what is constantly being sniped at by other teams and up-and-comers who need to make a reputation by discovering something themselves (really, really hard and rare), or at least shooting down someone else's mistake (really easy and common), or extending someone else's work a little by applying it more widely than the original authors did), or narrowing it down by showing somewhere it does NOT hold true, that people had started to think that it did.

If it was all one team relying on their own super-human ability to transcend bias, ego and preconception, we would still believe in phlogiston and "humors". Instead scientific progress depends on their human need to say "naah naah nye naah naah" to the other kids, and publish papers that let them keep their jobs.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
4:43 PM

Post #9776690

Ernie said:
>> It is pretty well accepted that some of the Siberians, after crossing, adapted to the Ice, ... Coastal Indians. Some went East, some went South to the Deserts, adapting to whatever they found. ... Mayans adapting to the Jungle and Inca adapting to the high altitudes, And they did all this with just Stones and Sticks for tools. So I just do not have any doubt that humans can continue to adapt to whatever is required for survival.

By that standard, sure, OK, I can agree with you there will be some human survivors of any conceivable climate change including the planet being covered with ice everywhere but near the equator, or 80% of the land surface becomes sandy desert and the rest arid plains.

Nomadic hunter-gatherers have a relatively easy civilization to support, and they would probably withstand huge changes sufficient to destroy industrial civilization and make agriculture difficult and only erratically productive. Even if climate change becomes so severe that world population crashes and we revert to savagery and hunter-gatherer tribes or just a few small patches of subsistence farming, the species would survive and come back in a few or 5 or 10 centuries.

But just because humans COULD re-populate a continent even if reduced to a few small tribes of hunter-gatherers, doesn't mean that is a desirable outcome, or preferable to some international cooperation and reducing carbon emissions. I guess the upsides would be solving the over-population problem, and pushing Justin Beiber out of the news.

>> Another of your worries that I do not believe will happen is sudden massive deaths. If the climate reduces the crops, it will be gradual, and as the food base shrinks, Pregnancy rates of all mammals will decline, so fewer babies will be born,

Here, I disagree with you strongly.

If climate change or even rapid variability of extreme weather becomes sudden, like on a scale of years or decades, regional famines will certainly occur faster than possible drops in birth rates can affect population levels. World population is projected to do the same thing it has done for centuries: rise steadily. Until we run out of food, suddenly or slowly.

Fast or slow, years, decades or even over a century, if agriculture falters or the population grows beyond its capacity, the population will decrease through starvation (famines), not through the pregnancy rates of all mammals declining. I never heard of that ecological theory but I'm willing to read some links if you have them.

Anyway, even if agricultural productivity yields stop increasing, and then decline GRADUALLY due to increased CO2 and weather variability, and famines occur GRADUALLY, global famines are still bad things and well worth avoiding.

Someone just sent me a link about someone shooting himself in the head while demonstrating that all three of his guns were unloaded. That's about how I see the climate change debate. One side says that we have not yet PROVEN that any of the guns ARE loaded, so it's an OK idea to put the guns to our collective heads and pull the triggers.

That does treat the harm of certain, serious, economic dislocations as much less harmful than possible global famines. But I don't think the climate disaster is speculative, only the time of onset and the severity of the first 30-90 years is arguable. YMMV.

(I guess I am already "globally overheated" on this subject. I can only repeat that one glance at the curve of growing CO2 concentrations instantly convinced me that, unless God or Nature deals us a royal flush, global climate is BOUND to have conniption fits as soon as the inertia of the atmosphere and ocean let it. If I were God, I don't think I would give a second chance to a society so short-sighted that it would ignore the Keeling Curve or think "it can't happen to us". Or pay attention to Justin Beiber OR Molly Cyrus.)

Again, YMMV.

drunk man shoots self while demonstrating that
"the guns are all unloaded":

http://www.theoaklandpress.com/general-news/20140224/independence-township-man-shoots-kills-himself-while-demonstrating-gun-safety-deputies-say

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 25, 2014
5:07 PM

Post #9776701

Hey! Wait a minute. Phlogiston is definitely real. Every time I get a cold I cough up a lot of it. You $^@(*)^%@^ non-scientific people!

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
5:35 PM

Post #9776737

Good point. "Medical Phlogiston". I wonder if we could get that legalized.

Reminds me of a billboard I saw (for an Italian restaurant):

"Legalize Marinara!"

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
5:49 PM

Post #9776756

Who is Molly Cyrus?

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
6:03 PM

Post #9776778

Seriously? A child star who transitioned directly to a slutty star. She caused millions of people to look up the word "twerking" and may have even managed to stretch its definition.

If you're interested, Goggle "wrecking ball video", but I would summarize it as "so very incompletely dressed".

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 25, 2014
6:04 PM

Post #9776779

Rick.

I am learning a lot from what you have fouund working on the inside, so the only comment i have now is i will give you a chance to learn something from me working on the outside. The only link i have showing how food shortages reduce mammalian pregnancy rates is to my personal past experience as a hunter, farmer, and sheep breeder.

When a drought hits an area and food is scarce all summer, the breeding Does will be thin in October and November when they normally breed. If they are real thin they do not get pregnant and the followiing Spring the Fawn count is way down. If food for rabbits becomes scarce there are few babies born, and that in turn causes Coyotes to not have large litters so the Coyote population drops. That is well known to hunters, as it is often mentioned as the reason for drops in the deer population.

And for a more detailed example. I bred and improved Coopworth Sheep. On cheap heavily grazed pasture in New Zealand, the ewe lambs would not breed until they were 19 months old. Gestation period for sheep is 5 months, so they would lamb as two years old.

In Idaho, where there is no pasture in the winters, feeding ewe lambs 2 years was not feasible, so by increasing their feed my ewe lambs would breed at 7 months. That shows the difference between ample feed and just enough to survive. The basic marker was that the ewe lambs would not breed unless they weighed close to 66% of their mature body weight, and the amount they weighed had a big influence on whether they twinned or had singles.

I am sure there are many links that will confirm what i have said about Deer, but i do not happen to have any at hand.

And as the population drops from the low birthrate, it will also drop on the other end because with food shortages there will be very few people live into their 70s and 80s, as only the strongest humans will survive.

I assume, since you are a scientist too, you respect Charles Darwin, and the work he did, so the idea that every human, even the very weakest, should live forever goes completely against what he documented about the birds and animals that adapted to changes in their environment were the strongest and fittest.

I agree as climate changes to either hotter or colder, there will be changes severe enough that not everyone will survive, but every one is going to die sooner or later anyway.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
6:21 PM

Post #9776808

Oh Rick!, you mean Miley Cyrus!

Other than her name you got incorrect you seem to know a lot about her...even her songs lol

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
6:34 PM

Post #9776823

With humans the more affluent a society becomes, birthrates decrease.

Developing nations tend to have higher birthrates.

Even within an industrialized nation the more affluent families have lower the birth rates.

Seems we are opposite animals...
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 25, 2014
6:46 PM

Post #9776834

Perhaps on the surface, but i was continually amazed at the similarities between the sheep and humans in many ways.

But perhaps rich people are different as the richer the women are the thinner they seem to be, too. but i do not think being hungry is the reason rich women stop having babies,


Ernie
1lisac
Liberty Hill, TX
(Zone 8a)

February 25, 2014
6:56 PM

Post #9776843

Birth Control is expensive and in many countries it is only widely avaliable to the rich...or those that live in cities...religion and cultural differences also play a role. I still believe that no matter how much food is produced human population will always grow to #s that are higher. Another words, we will never catch up...if we do it will only be temporary.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 25, 2014
7:05 PM

Post #9776853

Lisa, I agree as long as there is food and the living is easy the population will expand to consume it, just like the animals i referenced.

But when the food supply declines, so will the population. Seems simple enough to me.
And when food supplies decrease or there is a famine, the strongest will be the ones that eat.

It bothers me to see the starving babies in the ads asking for donations for African Famines when the starving babies are being held by well fed mothers. But that is the way humans are.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
7:30 PM

Post #9776877

In countries like Japan and Italy the death rate is higher than the birth rate. This is detrimental to society...particularly ones with strong social programs in place that require some growth to remain sustainable.

They have delt with the issue two ways...goverment payments for 2nd and 3rd children to promote more births ...and immigration...mostly from middle eastern nations. This has happened all over Europe.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 25, 2014
7:33 PM

Post #9776884

Babies are much more expensive than birth control. Which makes me think there are other reasons.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 25, 2014
9:13 PM

Post #9776934

This thread , reminds me of everything from Human Ant Farms , to making plans for living on Mars or Waterworld ,,
Wild isn't it ?
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 25, 2014
10:25 PM

Post #9776949

I have also read that when food is scarce, birthrates go up with humans and as food supplies increase and more of the children live as opposed to dying before age 4, the birthrate goes down. It has to do with survival rates of children. The logic? is that if only a few of your children make it, you must give birth to more. If you want two children and your can get two children who live, no need to have any more. If you want 4 children (to help farm) and only half survive, you have to produce 8 to balance the death rate due to bad conditions (not totally because of low food supply but also sanitation, contagious diseases, etc.)

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
4:57 AM

Post #9777029

Steadycam...I have read the same thing. I believe that one of the reasons it is so essential that you have some children survive in many poor or developing nations is because that is where your social security comes from...your kids...not the government. So if survivability is low...one would need to have many kids to ensure that some of them survived to adulthood. People are different than animals. Well some of the time. ;)
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
8:09 AM

Post #9777135

You are both talking about functioning societies, Not starvation situations. When entire societies run out of food, as Rick forecasts, and it becomes a matter of individual survival, the strongest survive, not the weakest.

You both need to get out in the woods more and see how nature handles things. lol,

People just do not worry about having more babies when they are all starving.

Ernie

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
9:10 AM

Post #9777182

John,
There is really not much difference between People and other animals when it comes to survival.
Read about the Donner Party, when they were starving they were thinking about helping their friends and relatives die first so they could eat them for dinner. They were not sitting around thinking about how many children they were going to have to help them run their farm,

I do agree mostly with what you and Steady read, as it pertains to normal times. My comments were directly in reference to Rick's sincere concern that our population will be rapidly decimated, or entirely wiped out, by widespread floods and famines

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
9:17 AM

Post #9777186

Ernie,

I understand nature pretty welll...spend plenty of time in the woods and understand what you are saying. Makes sense with deer and rabbits etc. I dont have any problems with that. Of course you are also talking about animals that may be predators or predated on which can influence populations differently than humans. And I can see that if a woman is mal nourished enough she wont be able to get pregnant. I understand your point strictly from a biological perspective.

But historically...in places where food is often scarce or in short supply or famine is a regular ocurrance...women are still having numerous births.There may be some declines when times are tough.

I can think of many reasons why humans react one way and animals another.

One is that animals rarely care for their aged parents.

Also famines or food in short supply tends to be temporary for humans...generally they can migrate or find food or something changes where they can produce food or get aid. Animals have a harder time doing this. Many women may have already been pregnant prior to the scarcity of food. In animals gestation periods are much shorter so lack of food more quickly affects births.

So I understand what you are saying...that you want to extrapolate what animals are doing and say the same thing would happen to people...But I only think it would occur except under very intense starvation over a very prolonged period.




Seedfork
Enterprise, AL
(Zone 8b)

February 26, 2014
9:27 AM

Post #9777194

One reason I am a little doubtful about the science solving the climate problem. I know this really doesn't apply to climate change, but you can see the need for some constraint in jumping to solutions.
http://ksn.com/2014/02/25/great-wall-of-kansas-professor-proposes-tornado-walls/
I am a little surprised it has not been suggested to just pass a law against them.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
9:34 AM

Post #9777199

Donner party was a short event...relatively. I don't think short term events change much how many babies a woman has...are you saying that the women who survived went on to have fewer babies once they made it to California?

Though there are some similarities I think there is a huge difference between animals and people. Think of the Titanic...it was women and children (and few wealthy men) that had priority on the rescue boats. People can think and make concious decisions that animals cant. People can make decisions that arent in their best self interest...like keep having kids when food is scarce...because they are thinking about their long term survival more than their short term.
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
9:41 AM

Post #9777203

Now there is a study out, well more like a theory, that wind turbines can greatly reduce the velocity and surge of hurricanes. I'm talking about those huge turbines, sitting on 50' platforms. Just build enough of them, and IF they happen to be in the path of an incoming hurricane, voila', little or no damage. Of course you would need perhaps 100,000 of those wind turbines to do the job and in the right area. I wonder if we build a million wind turbines (conservative number) to handle some the hurricanes, would that alter our overall global weather? Generally speaking, for every positive there will be a negative. We know how the (few) land-based wind turbine "communities" have killed thousands of birds including the eagle. Would be lose all the pelicans, sea gulls, and other water-based birds?

Ken

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
9:43 AM

Post #9777206

Seedfork,

A law against tornados?That would get the tornado lovers and the people for the ethical treatment of tornados upset. Why don't we just tax them.

I agree with the article that though the walls could hinder the locations of the tornados I think it might just alter their locations or cause other problems. It is true they tend to form in areas that are more "rural". Downtown areas have too many obstacles and buildings for very many to form there.

I think the best bet would be to use better construction techniques than using toothpicks and foam to build houses in those areas.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
9:50 AM

Post #9777210

John,

What you are saying in your context is correct, but as with your use of the "Historically", the situation that RIck is describing and i am res[ponding to, has never happened historically on a big scale. Women that are pregnant when a one year famine strikes may well carry to term, but with no food for her, there will be no milk for the baby, so visualize what Rich believes will happen at the same time over most of the world, so there will be no disaster relief, not a matter of things getting better next year or the next few years, and we will all revert to our basic instincts tryiing to survive. And some will survive longer than others and a few will find a way to adapt.

If you consider Eskimos and Early American Indians as humans which they are, both cultures, because of lack of abundant food and other reasons, allowed their parents to fall behind when they could no longer keep up on their own, just like herd animals do when on migration. Eskimos also left their older people to die peacefully in a snowbank. Taking care of our parents is only done by a funtioning society with ample resources.

As i answer down your post, i see your final sentence puts us into complete agreement. >>>>
>>>>"But i onlythink it would occur under very intense starvation over a very prolonged period."

Those are exactly the conditions Rick foresees and to which i was basing my comments on.

Ernie


This message was edited Feb 26, 2014 9:58 AM
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
9:52 AM

Post #9777211

I just thought of something about the wind turbine idea. Hurricane Camille came ashore with 200+ mph winds. I say 200+ because all the wind velocity instruments, including those of NSAA, were blown away. Apparently these instruments were built to withstand 200 mph winds, but not stronger ones. We really can only guess at Camille's strength. How strong would a wind turbine have to be to withstand that kind of wind?

Another thought. Hurricane Camille was a very compact storm, perhaps only about 100 miles in diameter. Hurricane Katrina was four times that size. Thus not only would we have to build much stronger wind turbines but a lot more of them. The problems just go on and on.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
9:56 AM

Post #9777213

Diverting the Tornadoes from your property to your neighbors is the good old American way.

That is what some people do with nuisance wild animals and problem pets, so why not Tornados.
lol.

I have to go plant some potatoes. Sorry to go off subject and mention potatoes but i guess i am just a rule breaker.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
10:12 AM

Post #9777226

Ernie,
Have fun planting. Looks like rain is on the way. I dont see the large scale death and starvation Rick envisions. The earth is too big and variable to have crop failure everywhere at once.

John
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
12:07 PM

Post #9777289

John,

I agree exactly, and i think temperatures will continue to fluctuate as it has in the past. Lots of things may happen, even the Magnetic poles shifting again, but worrying about it does not help, and bankrupting the country to forestall one potential disaster does not guarantee other catastrophes will not happen. That is why i have been debating him on it, but he sincerely believes it.

It is very humid this morning, already, so I hope this rain forecast is true.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

February 26, 2014
12:13 PM

Post #9777293

Rain? What is rain?
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
12:22 PM

Post #9777298

Tears of the gods. Down here, the gods cry a lot!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
12:39 PM

Post #9777310

Rain is hard to describe, but if you do not believe in God, it also resembles the Tears of a good Liberal crying about Coal mines killing the Earth.

But now, we have another reason to worry. I have never supported bankrupting our economy to slow down the temperature fluctuations, because of the comparable danger of Earth being struck by another Dinosaur killing Asteroid.

This morning on TV, as they were discussing the recent unexpected asteroid that struck the moon, the Scientist said that while they previously thought they knew where most of the Asteroids are, they have recently discovered there may be ten times as many of them flying around as previously believed.

So today we are in ten times as much danger of being struck by an Asteroid as we were a month ago. Earth is becoming more dangerous every year, and we will be very lucky to ever get out of here alive.

Ernie
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
1:21 PM

Post #9777353

Funny, Ernie

Ken

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 26, 2014
1:55 PM

Post #9777377

Hey ya Ernie; Nobody ever gets past here (this planet called Earth) Alive ..

Don't forget; Extra terrestrial invasion , the Yellowstone Caldera , California sliding into (or under the ocean) because of the great pacific ring Volcanic faults ,(the most likely). or the New Madrid fault breaking the continent in half , flooding the western half of the continent , during plant flip or tumble , while North America , takes the Place of South America ..
Does that mean business should no longer be allowed at Yellowstone area Lets all introduce a Bill .. California should unpopulated , and the fault ring makes all the Harbors Unsafe for commerce ,, lets introduce a Bill
About being silly , Lets introduce a Bill.

You all know who is paying for this .. in the end ,, and the outcome , don't you ..
I think I get the Economic re-verb ,, pew this is B-A-D

Global Warming ,, caused it all to happen previously though , you know it to be true also don't you , lol
Had to edit ,, Ernie ,, I will bet that makes you feel really safe , doesn't it ? lol


This message was edited Feb 26, 2014 6:03 PM
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

February 26, 2014
2:01 PM

Post #9777382

I think maybe we are all like the blind men trying to describe an elephant. One had the tail and said the elephant was a long leathery thing with hair on one end. One was feeling of the leg and said that an elephant is like a tree with rough bark. One said the elephant was a wide thin flat thing possibly used to fly. Someone earlier mentioned how impossible it is now to know everything. Many professions are realizing this weakness and promoting more communication and collaboration in order to get better solutions to problems. I think we all know a little bit and none of us know the whole picture. A college student remarked to me once that each piece of information we get, just helps us have another piece of the puzzle adding to our "whole" picture. It is very difficult or impossible for any one of us to have the whole picture. I think that makes it very hard for us to dicuss these things.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 26, 2014
2:11 PM

Post #9777388

Steady ; One true seriousness , this entire thread ,
Climate does change , Everything here can be replied to with
UNPREDICTABLE !!!
I believe you said that as have a few others ,
Agreed ,?

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
2:20 PM

Post #9777397

Ernie,

Thanks for mentioning the Moon-hitting asteroid! I used to be pretty worried about "Near Earth Objects" but I thought that SkyWatch was well on its way to spotting most of the biggies.

"NO" you say? "They didn't even see the recent one coming until after it hit"? Now I can go back to worrying about another dinosaur-killer. At least that won;'t be our own fault if it happens. And the odds are pretty clearly against it, whereas we just don't know about the effect of all this CO2.

- - -

Thanks for making the points about serious malnutrition decreasing general health, even to the point of suppressing the ability to reproduce. I had forgotten that, and I'm certain you are right about how it works in deer herds and even farming.

I tended (incorrectly) to lump that together in my mind with "famine" and "starving to death". You are right, they are different. I should have been saying all along, not "starving to death", but "starving, becoming malnourished, having much worse or slightly worse health due to malnutrition, and becoming unable to conceive or bear a child to term due to malnutrition or starvation".

Those are ALL bad things in my mind, things that we should seek to avoid as far as possible as matters of public policy.

I'm not sure whether "ribs sticking out" and "increased childhood deaths through weakness and illness" occur before or after reproductive rate suppression as food supply shrinks gradually.

I do lump those together in my mind as valid reasons for trying to reverse (or prevent, if melting glaciers, sea level rise and sea surface warning are not convincing that we are already doing it to ourselves) human-caused unprecedented climate change.

I mostly stand by my doubt that famine-induced reproductive suppression in humans would act fast enough to change the outcome during rapid climate change. If the die-off would have occurred over 50 years or more, maybe SOME of the population decline would be from rail-thin mothers unable to conceive, instead of the expected mega-deaths.

>>>>"But i only think it would occur under very intense starvation over a very prolonged period."

>> Those are exactly the conditions Rick foresees and to which i was basing my comments on.

A little quibble: people being what they are, and countries, and politicians, I don't actually expect a lot of countries to starve to death peacefully and slowly.

First, they will attempt to migrate, demand diversion of water sources and relief shipments of grain, and blame developed countries for the climate change.

Then they'll find ways to stumble into big wars (if they have the weapons), or smaller wars with their neighbors, or seriously-state-sponsored, large-scale terrorism to enforce their demands related to wide-scale famines caused by CO2 emissions.

Remember that chemical weapons are cheap and ideal for terrorists, Biological weapons are ever-easier to make more dangerous. You can now buy genetic engineering toolkits for a few hundred dollars, and they work on plants, animals, humans and presumably human pathogens equally well. There is no regulatory expense related to releasing bio-weapons.

Or, if there is a large disparity in which developed regions suffer soonest from climate change, the worst-hurt major nations will want to put teeth and RAPID deadlines into treaties much more burdensome than the Kyoto Protocols. Suppose the USA had a huge dust bowl where we used to have wheat and corn and soybeans, but China wants to keep burning more and more coal?

I know this sounds like pulling another boogey-man out of the closet, and feel free to ignore it if you disagree. It might be more of my cynicism that many people (or governments) would rather fight than see everyone around them starve slowly or rapidly when "the indudtrialized world" is an easy and obvious scapegoat.


(P.S. I hope to write something soon along the lines of devil's-advocating my more alarmist speculations. That may reconcile our opinions enough that we don't need to debate issues like directly-starving-to-death vs. miscarriages and amenorrhea.)

(I would rather speculate about global bio-geo-chemical cycles, geoengineering, GMOs, and ways in which we might "get lucky" as a species if nature has a trick up her sleeve where the "tipping point" is actually something like a previously-unknown algae that appears out of nowhere and turns all the excess CO2 in the ocean and air into powdered diamonds. I wish!)

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
2:28 PM

Post #9777401

Steady, Maybe the most concise way to say what you said, which is somthing i agree with, is this: We each live in our own reallities, and what we take away frow whatever we see is truth to us.

But i think our expressing our different opinions and beleifs helps everyone learn new angles and insights whether anyone totally converts or not.

Juhur says it all with one word, Unpredictable, so all we have really been doing here is discussing all the different detailsof things that are unpredictable. Whichever Catastrophe gets here first will settle it, and no one knows when, or even if, any of them are ever going to happen.

But it has been a very good discussion, and i have enjoyed reading everyone's posts.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
2:28 PM

Post #9777402

Rick,

Maybe some of that previous chemical exposure did take a toll on you.

John

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 26, 2014
2:29 PM

Post #9777403

Well to all that , and before , I only understand one Scientific fact , (realizing no one was asking for my opinion , which this is not , it is fact )
The MOON is moving away from the Earth , causing gravity fluctuations , That control Everything !!!

I did read enough previously possibly , if any of you mentioned that , I miss things , still it is .
The Stromatolites Win !!! With Cycads , They were here when the Moon was the only visible object in the sky ,,
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
2:42 PM

Post #9777413

Rick

I did not see the full segment about the Asteroid striking the moon. I did see the title, and heard the Scientist say what i quoted but i missed the first part of the segment.

I read your post and generally concur, especially with the idea that when food becomes scarce or a country lacks enough resources they will try to take from weaker countries, But that has happened, and was the reason both Japan attacked China in the 1930s and that Hitler started WW2.

If you are proven right, it may well be even worse than you say, but Juhur is correct in that it is all Unpredictable.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 26, 2014
2:58 PM

Post #9777423

There are many so-called Sci -Fi answers to many questions that could be used .That are not ,
There is history of grain , being grown as crops near the great Pyramids ,
The lake was gone by that time , the description was documented ,
They probably used that 5th grade experiment from science class to grow water , Remember the water jar that would fill and then stop after say 72 hrs ,
If you put that in a dark place , that is warm, add a few gemstones , the water goes on replicating forever , There was a large temple , with large hollow squares for a mile or so with pillars ,that existed at that time , from that; reed and bamboo pipe traces have , only rarely , been found there ,
We can't drink the water that way (like replicating cave water )But plants and animals can ,
I have seen remnants in dry land Texas , where the same had been done ..
Starvation happens for many reasons , but lost ideas , and demand are prominent , While looking for more ways to grow food , (begins with water) and peace to do so ,
It's only a thought..

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
3:24 PM

Post #9777431

John said:
>> Oh Rick!, you mean Miley Cyrus!

>> Other than her name you got incorrect you seem to know a lot about her...even her songs lol

You got me. I plead guilty. After I saw part of her infamous "twerking" video I felt I had to do some research ... ummm ... in the interests of science!

(And feminists may well scold me for watching her "wrecking ball' video all the way through but not remembering her name afterwards. Either she, or I, or both of us objectified her.)

===================

Great Wall of Kansas ...
Tornado Tax ...
PETT ...

Hilarious.

But you are opening the door to "geoengineering" schemes with their own dedicated armies pro and con.

(And I have seen, in some of those debates, BS like "but even if it worked, you would just make it possible for people to continue driving big cars instead of curtailing their emissions and other things I don't want them to do!")

I did take some liberties with how they expressed their opposition.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
3:27 PM

Post #9777434

Ernie said:

>> I assume, since you are a scientist too, you respect Charles Darwin, and the work he did, so the idea that every human, even the very weakest, should live forever goes completely against what he documented about the birds and animals that adapted to changes in their environment were the strongest and fittest.


I think Darwin described "survival of the fittest" and theorized on how that affected evolution, and also collected some evidence supporting his theory about how things work out in nature.

I don't know of any way to deduce "should", which is a moral or value judgment from scientific observation. Darwin did not, and could not have, "proved scientifically" that we "should" let poor people die unnecessarily, or proven any significant correlation between "fitness" and wealth or poverty.

People who made the mistake of abusing scientific theories to support perverse moral judgments came up with charming ideas like "Social Darwinism", where the poor "should" be allowed to die young, and "Master Race" eugenics schemes.

I like to keep science separate from that kind of justification for inhumane social engineering.

I also don’t want to read more into what you've said than you want to say - are you saying that allowing climate to change in ways that would cause widespread famine is "OK" or even "desirable" because you would expect "the weakest" to die off faster than "fit" people and that would be "a good thing"?

I assume you are not saying that, exactly, but I can't really comment on those paragraphs unless you clarify how you want to apply them to the climate change discussion.

But I will mention that it is not "the weak" or "the unfit" that will die first. It will be people in poor countries where the climate destroys the most crops the soonest.

Richer countries with early rapid climate change will just become less obese and spend a higher proportion of their wealth on food. The very poorest people in those countries will become more malnourished and perhaps revolt before they starve or become too weak to bear children.

Thus it won't be like Darwinism where "the most fit individuals tend to survive", it will be like Social Darwinism, where callous well-to-do people don't care how many poor people starve as long as they keep their comforts, privilege and power.

>> I agree as climate changes to either hotter or colder, there will be changes severe enough that not everyone will survive, but every one is going to die sooner or later anyway.

Again, I'm not sure what your intended line of argument is, but I would not agree with "it doesn't matter how many people are killed by XYZ because everyone dies sooner or later anyway".

That line of argument would support stopping all medical research, letting blind people drive airplanes, removing all regulations about pollution or product safety, storing nuclear waste on street corners and selling hydrogen bombs to terrorists "because everyone dies eventually anyway".

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
3:52 PM

Post #9777443

If climate change will reduce obesity maybe its not such a bad thing after all.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
4:44 PM

Post #9777487

Rick,
I just wrote two full pages on Word, correcting your misunderstanding of what i wrote, clarifying, counterpointing etc., but i then decided to dump it,

You have a right to your fears, beliefs, and feelings just as i have a right to mine, and pinpointing the differences are not worth the risk of straining our friendship over something as unlikely to happen as what we are debating.

I look forward to more debates with you on down the road.

Highest regards,
Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
4:49 PM

Post #9777492

John.

If it really worked that way, it would be good for sure, but the Climate has been changeing all my life and i have been gaining weight all that time.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
5:37 PM

Post #9777512

Hi Ernie
I already assume you aren't indifferent to human suffering, and I'll focus on your not wanting to spend other peoples' money on risks that only some people believe are severe and probable.

And that most of what you meant is that "the species will survive no matter what", and that "people adapt to hard times" and "sometimes hard times cause death and hardship".

>> pinpointing the differences

Certainly you won't strain our friendship, and it is tough to convey exact tones and intentions in print when the burden of typing is already taking hours per day!

And the political aspect probably has less place in DG than the climate and crop yield aspects.

I wish you had saved it, though! Maybe for a private email discussion when we both have more time. I think that some of our most interesting discussions are where we disagree a lot (but not 180 degrees).

Part of what I hope to get on paper soon as part of my "on the other hand" or "devil's advocate" comments might be more interesting. Like, "how would THIS climate change scenario affect regional crop yields" and "if climate changed THIS slowly, could breeders and farmers adapt fast enough to mitigate the yield loss"?

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
5:45 PM

Post #9777518

Rick,


As i read and replied, it seemed that both of us were becoming contentious, we had covered most of that ground in other ways before, we neither one had anythiing real new, so i just did not feel good about sending it.

I will look forward to some of the other subjects you bring up.

Ernie.,

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

February 26, 2014
5:53 PM

Post #9777520

Smart!

I wish I had anything interesting to say about the carbon cycle diagrams, because they really are "where the rubber meets the road", even more than the (speculative, evolving) academic climate models.

It did give me a chill when is aw how much carbon is in our fragile soil, that I disrupt every time I stick a fork into the ground or double-dig a bed. And now I realize that I'm adding pounds of carbon to the air every time I buy compost or even aged manure for my beds.

And oceans! A 2% change in ocean CO2 is like a 100% change in atmospheric CO2. Maybe that's good, if we can coax the ocean into holding 2% more, without "unintended consequences".
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 26, 2014
6:14 PM

Post #9777537

Rick,

How about explaining to me and maybe others that do not know, just how they measure Carbon. it is a gas, but they manage someway to weigh it, and a ton of gas must be a huge volume, but i do not know that.
,?

When you said 2 billion tons were deposited in the ocean last year, did it sink, does it disolve and change its nature or does it remain a separate substance in the water?.'

That will quickly change the PH if it dissolves in significant amounts and salt water fish cannot tolerate much change in the water they get their oxygen from. So have there been fish kills from Carbon yet?

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 26, 2014
6:23 PM

Post #9777550

You add CO2 to the atmosphere with every breath you take. The O2 comes from what you breathed in and the C comes from what you eat to make CO2. If we didnt eat...the food would naturally decay on its own and contribute the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere anyways. So humans breathing doesn't add any net gain CO2 to the atmosphere since we are simply decaying what we eat and if we didn't eat it would decay on its own.

Whether you add manure and or compost or not it will decay eventually no matter where its placed. You are right each time we cultivate the soil we provide oxygen to microbes and organic matter decays more quickly which does add CO2 to the atmosphere. This is where no till farming can help to build soil organic matter percent content which sequesters carbon from the air.

One of the best ways to sequester CO2 is to harvest lumber and prevent the wood from decaying.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 26, 2014
8:19 PM

Post #9777620

hugelkultur, to save the world! no, build log cabins to save the world! no, we are sequestering carbon in all the sanitary landfills.
and , if you improve your soil with organic matter, might you then cause MORE plant and soil microbe growth than would have before, thus increasing the carbon trapped there?

walls to keep tornados out sounds like levees to keep floods out, and we know how perfectly THAT system is working.

and how dare we suggest that we want our ocean CO2 to change by 2 percent, I'd be just as worried about effects of that as anything else we've brought up.
So let's stop worrying , just be happy, count your blessings instead of sheep. All of us can be said the be incredibly lucky that we can sit fat and sassy online and talk about all this.

Cheers, guys, I had nothing to contribute, just checking in!

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 27, 2014
5:09 AM

Post #9777766

The organic matter in the soil is constantly being consumed and broken down by microbes releasing CO2 into the air. When you cultivate this speeds this process up releasing even more CO2 quicker. Using no till methods and adding organic matter to the soil causes the organic percent of the soil to increase which for a time temporarily sequesters CO2.

Most virgin grassland soils in the Midwest had 5 to 10% organic matter contents. This was a constant amount of carbon as what was added each year as the grass died was similar to what was decomposed by the microbes.

Most Midwest soils have about 2 to 4% organic matter contents after 160 years of tilling. That means more than half of the organic matter has been lost by increased microbial activity due to tillage over that time. These microbes have contributed millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

So the idea with no till farming is to restore higher percent organic matters to the soil. This will help lower atmospheric CO2 levels.

In places where no till farming has been used soil organic matter contents have increased dramatically. Also soil erosion has been reduced, better water percolation and water retention is observed and overall soil nutrients are more abundant.

The downsides of no till farming include a higher dependence on herbicides, difficulties planting into increased plant residues on the surface of the soil. Higher disease pressure due to all the decaying plant matter and higher insect pressures. ..insects can survive and overwinter well in all the surface compost. Soils are also slower to warm up and dry out in the spring which can delay planting. You also have weed shifts from annual weeds to perrenial weeds.

But even so in places like PA about 80% of the growers use no till practices.

One thing to note is that most organic production cant use no till methods as cultivation is the major way to control weeds. And in organic they cant accept higher disease or insect pressures.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 27, 2014
9:15 AM

Post #9777958

Drobarr,

I have learned a lot from your clear, simple statements of fact. No matter how much we may know about some things, it is surprising how much we do not know about other matters.

Thanks,
Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 27, 2014
6:09 PM

Post #9778337

SURPRISING RESPONSE!!!!!
We are finally expecting a real storm here in CA, so i clicked on MSN Weather to get the full forecast.
There was a box on the screen about a Global Warming report today from National Academy of Science and Royal Society of U K. Stating the usual dire warnings about Greenhouse Gas.

I scrolled down to the comments, expecting to see a lot of agreement, since MSN is certainly not like Fox.
But there were nine comments posted, and all of them were from dis believers, with different levels of intensity.

I am sure the same information will be on the HOME page for MSN email.

Ernie
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 27, 2014
7:37 PM

Post #9778398

Do you mean that people actually watch MSN!?

Ken

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

February 27, 2014
8:00 PM

Post #9778424

That's because their worried the UK is about to be under water , The London , Thames river Gate Dam .. The past flooding possibly of the London Subways and London , (that sit below sea level )
Much more polar melt (ice sheet) and say goodbye to London and Miami .
This is not speculative , it has already started to happen ...
Going to be real close ,
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

February 27, 2014
8:39 PM

Post #9778445

Ken,

I do not watch MSNBC, The TV station, I am sorry i was not more clear. I have MSN email program and that is where i checked the weather forecast.

I assume MSN is liberal oriented since they partner with NBC.

I am middle of the road conservative, with a good dose of Libertarian mixed in.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 28, 2014
4:26 AM

Post #9778530

London isn't below sea level. Its at 79 feet. The Thames Valley is a flood plain surrounded by gently rolling hills including Parliament Hill, Addington Hills, and Primrose Hill. The Thames was once a much broader, shallower river with extensive marshlands; at high tide, its shores reached five times their present width.

The river has been altered with embankments and parts of it that go underground etc. Flooding has always been a common occurrence there and has nothing to do with climate change. It has to do with its geography and heavy rains. You build a city on a flood plain and marshland...its going to flood.

This message was edited Feb 28, 2014 8:31 AM
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 28, 2014
5:50 AM

Post #9778584

New Orleans is below sea level.

Ken

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

February 28, 2014
7:33 AM

Post #9778654

New Orleans is in trouble

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

February 28, 2014
7:34 AM

Post #9778655

"Not been too enjoyable a winter though - it's been the stormiest on record, with repeated hurricane-force winds, and the wettest on record too (in over 240 years of recording), particularly down south, where some areas have had 2½ times their average winter rainfall and apocalyptic flooding."

Read more: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1347827/#ixzz2udCKwKId

That is from a post from a resident of UK. Don't blame ice cap melt when you see current pix of flooding in UK.

This message was edited Feb 28, 2014 10:35 AM
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

February 28, 2014
7:44 AM

Post #9778668

They always have been. Ask those that went through Hurricane Katrina.

Ken

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 4, 2014
6:25 PM

Post #9782008

>> No matter how much we may know about some things, it is surprising how much we do not know about other matters.

I think that the more we learn about science or nature, the more we realize how MUCH more there is still to learn. We just move on to more interesting and more complicated questions.

Like climbing a mountain so that you can "see everything". You just realize that there is much more to see than you ever imagined.



>> just how they measure Carbon. it is a gas, but they manage someway to

I would guess that they measure CO2 in the air by passing light through a clean sample, and measuring how much was absorbed in certain wavelengths (like specific IR wavelengths) where CO2 absorbs but other things don't. They might have to measure several wavelengths to detect other gases that might obscure the CO2 absorption peaks, and then deduct those.

I doubt whether they would have to go to the expense and trouble of doing mass spectrometry, which is more like actually counting the molecules.

>> a ton of gas must be a huge volume,

Well, they would have to allow for the weight of air it displaces, but all the claulations are done "as if in a vacuum".

It's been a while since I took a chemistry class, but one "molar mass" or "mole" of CO2 would weigh 44.012 grams in vacuum. That comes from the atomic average atomic weights of Carbon (12.011) and Oxygen (16). (The "0.011" allows for trace amounts of Carbon isotopes C-13 and C-14).

A "mole" of anything is enough of it to contain "Avogadro's number" of molecules of it. That is 6.022 X 10 ^23 I THINK that is:
602,214,130,000,000,000,000,000 molecules.

(Totally coincidently, that is with 0.37% of 2^79. And I see that they've redefined it from the number of hydrogen atoms in a gram to the number of atoms of C-12 in 12 grams. I doubt if that changes the first 8 digits of it.)

I would try to take a whack at calculating the volume of one ton of CO2 at one atmosphere of pressure and room temperature, but I realized it is not an "ideal gas" so the equations would not work.

Hmm, density is 0.1150 pounds of mass per cubic foot at NTP (20'C, 1 atm=14.7 psia = 760 torr).
One ton is 2,000 pounds.
Maybe 17,391 cubic feet? = 644 cubic yards?

>> 2 billion tons were deposited in the ocean last year

It dissolves.

Some dissolved CO2 combines covalently with water into "carbonic acid" = H2CO3.
I say "covalently" because it is a real molecular change where CO2 and H20 combine into a new molecule with real covalent bonds (not just ionic ring-around-the-rosey temporary rearrangements).

CO2 + H2O - - > "H2CO3" (neutral carbonic acid)

But the ratio remains "mostly CO2" until some of the carbonic acid ionizes.
Some of the H2CO3 loses one "H+" and becomes the negatively charged bicarbonate ion HCO3-

"H2CO3" - - > HCO3- (bicarbonate ion) plus acidity (H+ or rather H3O+)

BTW, the "H+" that was lost combines ionically with another water molecule to become a "hydronium ion", fancy name for "acid". That's one source of ocean acidification.



A very little of the bicarbonate loses another "H+" and changes to double-negatively-charged carbonate (CO3--)
HCO3- (bicarbonate ion) - - > CO3-- plus acidity

The pH controls how much stays as neutral carbonic acid and how much become negatively charged bicarbonate or carbonate ions.

Higher acidity drives it to stay mostly as carbonic acid and CO2. Adding bases would pull more towards bicarbonate and carbonate.

Scroll half-way down to see the pH / ratios tradeoff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid#Chemical_equilibrium

Thanks for sending me down this route: I thought that netral carbonic acud was a tiny minority, and most CO2 became bicarbonate. NOPE!

So it doesn't all change to bicarbonate and ocean acid as I thought. It only raises the ocean's acidity enough to drive the ratio back in the direction of CO2. Wiki said "0.1 pH unit" so far, but that's a single source.

I would not think that 0.1 pH unit affects many fish, but allegedly coral bleaching may be caused by that. I don't know, your research is as good as mine. The Wikipedia article on ocean acidification expresses some alarm, but I don't know enough yet to evaluate their possible bias.

Wiki says elsewhere that surface ocean pH is now around 8.14 (a little basic), which must encourage more CO2 to convert to bicarbonate and release its acidity into the water. BTW, because pH is logarithmic, the change from 8.25 to 8.14 pH translates into an increase by 30% in the "H+" ion concentration (actually H30+ since you never see a naked proton in water: it is always bound to a water molecule. )

Another unexpected change is that adding CO2 increases the acidity so much that carbonate (CO3--) becomes LESS plentiful, making life more difficult for delicate corals.

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

You might like this tidbit, although the "carbon" referred to here is METHANE , not CO2. (The Keeling curves we've seen on this thread don't go back 56 million years, I think they went back a few hundred thousand years).

" Ocean acidification has occurred previously in Earth's history. The most notable example is the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM),[14] which occurred approximately 56 million years ago. For reasons that are currently uncertain, massive amounts of carbon entered the ocean and atmosphere, and led to the dissolution of carbonate sediments in all ocean basins."

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 8, 2014
8:45 AM

Post #9784729

India, Jan. 15 -- Reddit, a popular linksharing website, has banned climate-change deniers from the forum.

Coming from a website which claims to be "passionately dedicated to free speech", the move has been described as nothing short of censorship. Reddit says the decision was taken to filter "uninformed and outspoken opinions" by "contrarians".

Now whenever such comments are posted, the user is issued a warning and repeat offenders are banned. Reddit says the results of the ban are encouraging as discussions are now measured and based on scientific works- in other words, conformist and uncontroversial.

Published by HT Syndication with permission from Down to Earth.

Source Citation (MLA 7th Edition)
"Silencing dissent." Down To Earth 15 Jan. 2014. Environmental Studies and Policy. Web. 8 Mar. 2014.
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

March 8, 2014
9:33 AM

Post #9784753

Sure smacks of censorship to me. I guess India, or at least Reddit, is not big on freedom of speech. Of course, we see much the same thing with our "main-stream" news agencies, whether it be TV, magazine, or newspaper. If the news doesn't meet their philosophical guidelines, they simply don't publish/produce it.

Ken

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 12, 2014
11:39 AM

Post #9788119

The earth cooled in the 1970's...then it warmed in the 1980's and 1990's and has been cooling slightly or holding steady since about 2000. Nobody wants to deny that.

What many deny is that humans are the cause of these temperature fluctuations which have been going on for centuries...since the earth began.

If CO2 is the culprit for the warming...why havent we been warming for the last 14 years as the CO2 has become even more concentrated? It was a nice theory but reality just doesnt show temperatures are rising anymore.

So IF humans are causing these temperature fluctuations now...what or who was causing them before?

Maybe it warmed in the 80's and 90's because the cold war ended hahaha.

I'm still waiting for this:
http://youtu.be/oQNkVmdicvA



ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 12, 2014
7:10 PM

Post #9788418

I have long argued that the Earth has been having warming and cooling periods since time began. But this is the first ime i have read that it was one of the reasons for the Mongolian expansion. But it makes sense to me that if Mongolia warmend, there would be more food available to increase the population of people and horses, so that would encourage expansion, just as increasing cold, less food, fewer babies would slow the population increase.
Ernie


Alec Torres argues the rise of the Mongolian horde may offer evidence that climate change may be more of a natural occurrence than a human problem for National Review. From Global Warming & the Mongolian Empire’s Rise: “…[A] recent study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences argues that there is a correlation between increasing global temperatures and the rise of the Mongolian empire… For global-warming alarmists, there’s one problem: The Mongolian empire, fueled by a ‘dramatic increase in temperatures,’ grew to power in the early 1200s, over 500 years before the first Industrial Revolution, when man began pumping large amounts of carbon into the atmosphere...if global warming was behind the rise of the Mongolian empire, it was surely natural, not man-made. Likewise, when alarmists claim that global warming will cause extreme weather, that may or may not be true. But in determining whether man is to be blamed or not, it is worth looking back to the Mongolians

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 13, 2014
6:43 AM

Post #9788642

Ernie,

Some good points. One thing that you mentioned was interesting...that under warmer conditions the Mongolians prospered more. I beleive that under warmer conditions most of humans would also propser more so than under cold ice age like conditions. So in my view a warming earth would be less of a problem than a cooling one.

However, It is now confirmed that this winter in many parts of the Midwest and Northeast has been the coldest on record in 100 years.

http://news.yahoo.com/video/coldest-winter-record-last-100-234323648.html

These variations in weather have very little if anything to do with humans. These changes and fluctuations in climate and weather have always ocurred...and much more dramatically than anything we are currently seeing.


drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 13, 2014
6:52 AM

Post #9788652

Even though this is an older article it is very relevant to our discussion. The average weather forcaster...meteorologist is more skeptical of "global warming" than the average citizen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/science/earth/30warming.html?_r=0
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 13, 2014
8:31 AM

Post #9788716

As far as global hot spots and global cold spots go,...there is about so much heat on earth at any given time. When it is warm in Alaska, it tends to be cold down here in the Midwest. The air does get pushed around.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
4:59 PM

Post #9789659

I think that censorship is when someone is prevented from [u]publishing[/u] something.

It's not censorship if a website or magazine or even a newspaper declines to publish something or give column-inches for free to someone or to something it considers obviously untrue.

For example, an anti-GMO website isn't "censoring" Monsanto if they decline to publish or link to articles by the Monsanto PR staff. They would be censoring if they blew up Monsanto's printing presses or got laws passed to forbid anyone from printing something (on Monsanto's dime).

A scientific journal about geology seldom gives equal time to Flat Earth proponents. My guess is that the "Flat Earth Monthly" (if there are any magazines like that) don't give away free full-page ads to NASA for satellite photography supporting the "anti-Flat-Earth theory".

Those aren't censorship, so why should Reddit be criticized for drawing the line somewhere? They found that discussions became more informative and less dogmatic and less "uninformed and outspoken" - that's enough reason for any website to ban a group.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 14, 2014
5:16 PM

Post #9789673

I'd like to know what other things Reddit has banned, to get a perspective on this ban.

Who is Reddit to say climate change denial is "obviously untrue? "
They say that their discussion become "less uninformed" ( more informed) when one side of the argument is banned? People are more informed when they only read posts from those who support just one side of an issue? Really?

I don't read Reddit but many (young) people do.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
5:31 PM

Post #9789684

I was bemused by the NYT article that said that "among TV forecasters, about half of whom have a degree in meteorology", only about 1/3rd of them believed cliamte change was “caused mostly by human activities.”

Even the forcasters who have any credentials trained in meteorology, not climate science or geophysics or modeling. Half of them are just performers and the other half studied chnages on an hourly and daily scsale, so why would anyone separate nthem out from the general public when asking them about long-term effects they never studied?

“There is a little bit of elitist-versus-populist tensions,” Mr. Henson said. “There are meteorologists who feel, ‘Just because I have a bachelor’s degree doesn’t mean I don’t know what’s going on.’ ”

The part of the article that I would call to this threads attention is this:

"A study published in the January 2009 newsletter of the American Geophysical Union, the professional association of earth scientists, found that while nearly 90 percent of some 3,000 climatologists who responded agreed that there was evidence of human-driven climate change, 80 percent of all earth scientists and 64 percent of meteorologists agreed with the statement ."

Even more tellingly:
" Only economic geologists who specialized in industrial uses of materials like oil and coal were more skeptical."

Gee, the fossil fuel industry is not yet convinced that doubling or tripling the Earth's CO2 level might be A Bad Thing.



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 6:59 PM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 14, 2014
5:35 PM

Post #9789688

If the HOT EARTH SOCIETY is gathered for a private meeting they cerftainly have the right to not allow non members take part in the private discussions, but if it is considered a public forum or discussions and they do not allow everyone, from however many sides, to participate, that is certainly censoring. And that can be done either by excluding, shouting down, drowning out with boos, or even hitting them over the head with a club.

But by doing that censoring, they can no longer call it a debate or an open discussion. It will only be a Kool Aid Party. limited to True Believers.

As i said before, the Hot Earthers lost their discussion when they tried to change the name of their Cult from Global Warmers to Climate Change. I have still not heard anyone from either side deny that the Climate DOES, IS,, and ALWAYS HAS, Changed.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
5:40 PM

Post #9789692

>> Who is Reddit to say climate change denial is "obviously untrue? "

They are entitled to their opinion, since they own the website, and want to attract discussions that will attract more people that will attract more people.

Who am I to say that human-caused climate change is obviously here now and worse is almost certainly coming, and will probably be very damaging to agriculture in the short run (10s to a few 100 years) and greatly change what-grows-where in the long run (a few to many centuries)?

It's my opinion. I think it is as well supported as a young science CAN support anything. If I owned a magazine it would color my editorial policy. Partly because I think that corrective action will already need 100s of years, and the fix-time probably stretches longer, the longer we wait for the coal and oil industry and their devout followers to see the evidence.


sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 14, 2014
5:42 PM

Post #9789696

DG does not ban ONE SIDE of politics, it bans the topic.
Haven't we all here (or many of us have said) been more educated here with both sides able to comment?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 14, 2014
5:46 PM

Post #9789698

Rick,
I am always pleased to see you taking part in these discussions.

There does not seem to be any disagreement that a period of Global Warming took place during the Mongolian expansion, so how do you explaing the tremendous amount of warming that took place before Man started polluting the skies?

Or for that matter when the earlier Ice Ages ended and the Glaciers melted?

Also Rick, I learned the Earth was not flat when I learned Celestial Navigaton and how to find my location on the Ocean with a sextant forty or fifty years ago.. So you can call me a Coolie, but i am really not a Flat Earther.

Ernie

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 14, 2014
5:48 PM

Post #9789701

Thankful for free speech and freedom of the press.

And thankful I don't get all my worldviews from something like Reddit.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
6:04 PM

Post #9789720

>> but if it is considered a public forum or discussions and they do not allow everyone, from however many sides, to participate, that is certainly censoring.

I'm surprised that a Libertarian thinks a privately owned corporation is obligated to publish things for free, even if they don't want to.

The mere fact that they wanted relatively calm discussions based on facts and logic is a justifiable reason to withdraw their invitation to publish someone's opinions for free.

Censorship is when someone uses political or other power to prevent someone from publishing something.

It's not censorship if Person A refuses to publish Person B's opinions for free.

Maybe, before there was an effectively-infinite number of cable channels, broadcast television had some obligation to give "access" to minority opinions, since licensed channels had a natural monopoly over the broadcast spectrum. I forget how that was handled.

But no one has any grounds for complaint if a website turns them away. There are plenty of other websites where they can compete in "the marketplace of ideas".

Nothing stops climate change Deniers from publishing anything they want on their own websites or politically conservative TV channels, magazines or newspapers.

Deniers who feel hurt are totally entitled to twit and tweak Reddit for being hypocritical about saying they promote open-access debate for any point of view no matter how offensive or universally disagreed with.

Clearly, they found something that was outside even their limits.maybe, if they are based in India (heat, drought, poverty, famine and monsoons), they took it personally that some people argue against mitigating eventual global warming, variable extreme weather that will harm many crops, and exacerbate extreme storms.

Like people in Holland or low-lying islands being touchy about denying (observed) sea level rises.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
6:19 PM

Post #9789734

Ernie, I won't debate with you that the idea that
BECAUSE there have been Ice Ages and interglacials and climate fluctuations in the past
THEREFORE
doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere - to a level much more than it has been in the last 400,000 years will not have a huge and probably catastrophic effect on global climate.

"Does gasoline cause fires?"

"There were fires in the past, before gasoline was extracted.
Therefore, no, gasoline does not cause fires.
I can fill my basement with gasoline a foot deep in complete safety".

You may actually be arguing something more subtle than i read in your comments. I admit that I didn't try to drill down and read more into those comments after i recognized them as the same words I heard on Fox News years or decades ago.

Blaming any evidence of climate change on the fact that "there have always been CHANGES" is like telling an arson investigator that there HAVE been fires without firebombs, therefore this building was not fire bombed.

It doesn't address the evidence, it just discards it using a glib sound sound bite.

Sorry, I'm sure you must have more reasoned thought behind it than I found.,

I also started to lose interest in this thread when you seemed to be defending ignoring (disastrous, human-caused, unprecedented) climate change because a few small tribes could repopulate the Americas. I don't see a connection between that and any discussion of climate change that I want to spend time on.

If you mean that humanity would probably not become totally extinct, so there is no reason to do anything about it, once again, I think I should bow out of this thread.

I very much respect you, but I haven't understood your arguments or even where you're coming from for a while now.

I do think it comes from political dogma, and that anything that contradicts or threatens the dogma is not going to have any effect.



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 6:57 PM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
6:27 PM

Post #9789742

In this thread, I haven't yet heard any "Denier" arguments that seemed to me to hold water, or any counter-arguments that disproved or explained away the many observed observed facts.

Sadly, almost every "Denier" counter-argument here, I had already heard years ago as sound bites from Fox News. I didn't find much validity in them, then, either.

I appreciate the link that back40bean found. It summarizes very concisely why it seems unarguable (to me) that anthropogenic climate change is already observable. I'm sad to say that it changed my overall belief from (mostly proved and we're about to see gross changes" to "conclusively proved, and blatant changes are here now".

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

But then, I thought it was already totally convincing back in the 1980s that there would eventually be huge, global, serious consequences to the CO2 spike we are causing.

The Keeling curve (extended back 400,000 years) was obvious then and now. That's on the first page of the link that back40bean found. I thought it was unarguable. Clear as a brick going through a window.

HOW can it not be obvious? I understand THAT some other people disagree, but I still don't understand HOW they can look at that curve and not say "Oh, darn, we are F^^CK@D".

The only counter-arguments I can think of are "maybe God will intervene" and "who knows - maybe totally unforseen climate factors will magically make the brick flying through the window NOT break the window".

Maybe I should not call the last one "magically". Climate science is such a young science that anything is possible. It might be 10 or 100 times worse than I think, or 10 or 100 times better. 100 times better than the Keeling Curve LOOKS would at least be survivable with only "minor" famines and population migrations.

I'm not reassured by the idea that Ice Ages have reduced hominid populations to just small tribes, or that meteor impacts have killed off high percentages of land species, "but something comes back", or "a few tribes could re-populate a whole continent" with Stone Age cultures.

My idea of the climate change debate is that we DO want to prevent the world population from being halved or decimated. It would bother me if most of North America and all of the tropics became a desert, or a swamp, or alternated between the two randomly for a few centuries.

This discussion has convinced me that discussing climate change is a lot like discussing fundamental political dogmas. No one is going to change their mind, no matter what is said or cited.

These facts have not impacted this discussion noticeably:
- ice core measurements of historic CO2 levels,
- simple physics of IR absorption,
- measured sea level rise,
- measured sea surface warming,
- glacier retreats unprecedented since the end of the last Ice Age,
- shrnking Arctic sea ice,
- ocean acidification
and
- 100-year-unusual temperature extremes in local weather (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html)

It even seems that opinions about serious anthropogenic climate change is divided along political lines.

Maybe that's why neither side is moved by things that seem obvious to the other side.

Anyway, I'm not going to bother formulating an "on the other hand" set of "maybes", and will be mostly dropping out of the thread.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 14, 2014
6:40 PM

Post #9789782

Rick,
I have only been watching Fox News for a few years, but i have been watching the climate change both ways for over 80 years, so i do not think we can blame my thoughts about it on Fox.

I am sorry you are closing your mind to the possibility, however remote, that the Global Warming may not be the disaster you now fear. That is very similar to the behavior of the people that fear GMO, and have closed their minds to anything else.

I am still open minded on both subjects and am only waiting on actual proof that the increased Carbon will actually cause more changhe than the naturally occuring Climate Changes, as well as whether GMO grain will actually cause harm. I have no hesitation about changing my mind as actual facts warrant.

I have never seen or read Reddit, and if they are a private discussion, they have the right to exclude who ever they wish, but by doing so, they cannot truthfully claim to be holding an open discussion. There are Climatologists, equally educated, on both sides of the question.

And once again. I do not DENY that the climate is changing. I have not yet seen any actual proof that the Carbon is what is causing the change, nor any proof that the changes are permanent.

Kindest regards,
Ernie


RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 14, 2014
7:29 PM

Post #9789817

>> I am sorry you are closing your mind to the possibility, however remote, that the Global Warming may not be the disaster you now fear.

No, I'm just not planning to discuss that much on this thread.

>> I am still open minded on both subjects and am only waiting on actual proof that the increased Carbon will actually cause more changhe than the naturally occuring Climate Changes,

I would say that is the only reasonable course, except that (probably) the climate has a lot of inertia, and it might not flip as fast I think likely. It might take several or many more decades before the existing evidence of change becomes undeniable evidence of huge, serious change.

Meanwhile the source of the problem is gettng worse at what, 9 billion tons per year emitted?
My eyeball-esitmate of the Keeling Curve is around 20 ppm per decade.
If it takes another 50 years to convince more than the "nearly 90% of climatologists" , that would raise the level of CO2 to 500 PPM. The natural level ove 400,000 years was 180 to 280.

That's why I'm all a-twitter about denying that we should do anything baout it now.

I admit, it is a good question WHAT we should do and how much the current generation owes to all future generations while it still subject too some doubt: are we gambling our current comfort against a 5% drop in world popuklation, or a 20% drop?

One qustion is how much doubt there is that somethign moderately serious is happening.

Another question is how much risk there is that soemthing utterly disasterous on a planetary and human-civilization-damaging-level.

Unfotunately, I suspect that even if people admitted there was a 10% or 20% risk of gobal famines or war, we would still resist "regulations" or "taxes" until the "risk" was obviously greater than 85%, in other words, already actually occuring. In other words, much too late.

>> There are Climatologists, equally educated, on both sides of the question.

Apparently, around 90% on one side and 10% on the other.

I guess that is 90% agree that "human-caused-change" is occurring. I assume that few professional climatologists would say that the consequences WILL be disastrous for humans. Who knows how serious the effects will be, since the science is still in its infancy and their main tool is "modeling", and what they are trying to model has never happened on this planet before.

(The following is a political opinion and hence about as valid or provable as flatulence.)

I think that we "should" take actions, even if they are painful, to avert a 15% or 25% risk of major global devastation or even "minor" famines likely to kill billions of humans.


You do know that the "runaway" greenhouse effect due to CO2 on Venus causes temperatures around the melting point of lead? True, Earth probably won't do a "runaway greenhouse" until the Sun becomes 10% brighter. I just hate to say "probably not" when the "maybe so" would cause (literally) Giga-deaths.

And I'm not even mainly worrying about the long-term, probable species-disaster if we don't reverse the Keeling Curve. I'm more worried about the near term random fluctuations that will cause crop failures and famines - the "minor" climate changes that some people will dismiss as having "unproven causes".

I figure that we're likely to stumble into nuclear wars before we get past the random climate fluctuations and into major warming and coastal drowning. When that many people are starving and entire regions know that rich nations killed them because they were unwilling to curb carbon emissions, major wars seem more likely than convincing the deniers.

>> I have not yet seen any actual proof that the Carbon is what is causing the change, nor any proof that the changes are permanent.

That's kind of my point in bowing out of the thread.

I am sorry that I got so hot a few posts back.


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 14, 2014
7:58 PM

Post #9789841

Rick,
We have pretty well declared our positions on the other points so let's side step a bit, and discuss comparable effects and results, that either continuing as we are, or destroying the Carbon based economy that the Warmies want us to do will cause.

rrr I admit, it is a good question WHAT we should do and how much the current generation owes to all future generations while it still subject too some doubt: are we gambling our current comfort against a 5% drop in world popuklation, or a 20% drop?

Your concern, which you have mentioned several times, as well as in the above paragraph, is for the people that MAY suffer in the future.

My concern is for the hundreds of thousands of coal miners, Oil Industry employees, and all of the people that currently work in carbon based industries, that WILL be put out of work and never have a decent job again if all the desired regulations come into place.

I was personally a witness to the devastation of many hard working families that were destroyed when the Eco-nuts misguidedly destroye the Northwest Logging industry, because they were mistaken in believing the logging was destroying the Spotted Owl. Many loggers and sawmill workers were never again able to get equal jobs. It is now known that a stronger, more aggressive Sea Bird was destroying the nests of the Spotted Owls, not the loggers, so all that suffering was needless. And then, as now, EVERY EXPERTthat was involed in the movement was absolutely positive that they were right.

So now, when i hear the Warmies demanding the people that work in the Coal Mines have their jobs and livelihoods taken away, I read the articles carefully to see if any of the protestors that have safe jobs downtown are offering to share their wages and houses with the people whose jobs they are destroying.

So, instead of worrying about future poor people in far away countries many years in the future, what are your personal concerns for, and feelings about, the families that will have their lives ruined now if the Coal Mines are shut down?

Ernie



This message was edited Mar 14, 2014 7:05 PM

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 15, 2014
6:23 AM

Post #9789999

The problem I have is that the 90% have been incorrect in their predictions. They are using models of the past to predict the future. And the future is very hard to predict. If the climate scientists have been incorrect now why cant they be incorrect again? Most anyone who predicts the future wont get it right. In fact the climate scientists are constantly changing their predictions...its an extremely fluid science. Many of them are dumbfounded at the relative cooling we are seeing.

They also vary significantly with respect to the supposed consequences that will occur. Many do not predict the level of calamity that Rick suggests. Some of the changes would be beneficial as well.

I don't watch Fox news.

I am a scientist. And I try to make my observations based on what people say verses what I think is happening. Sure I can very much be in error because what I see where I live and what I read can be very different than what others experience. Also my life span is short. The CO2 is rising no doubt. And that is due to human activity. Time will only tell what the effects will be. Obviously there has been significant slowing down in warming and this runs contrary to the theories.

I think Ernie has a valid point about what has historically caused warming and cooling in the past and that those same factors may be affecting the changes we are seeing now. What caused those changes? There are obviously things that change climate besides atmospheric CO2 levels.

If you add gasoline to a fire...the fire gets bigger. But we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere and it isnt getting warmer. And especially not as warm as was predicted nor in proportion to the amount of CO2 added. The earth is complex...this is not a simple chemical reaction where you increase one ingredient and you favor the reaction with an end result.

Rick, because of the fluidity of climate science I just cant put much faith in it and be so convinced to the point that you are where I would make any drastic changes.

One interesting point is that despite higher CO2 levels...atmospheric O2 levels remain constant. Why and how is this possible?
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 15, 2014
8:25 AM

Post #9790063

I believe both Rick, Ernie, and drodarr have giiven excellent summaries I will add my own...looking upward.

I believe that all the mighty vast universe was created for a purpose. This creation presupposes a Creator. I believe that He is watching closely...knows your every thought and even your every heartbeat. Such a One already has a plan and program for HIS creation.

I believe that according to Scripture that all spirits have been made manifested in this day and are coming to a maturity and the combine is coming. All our little plans outside of Christ will fall away. The least of our worries will be climate change when men are calling for the rocks to fall on them.

Well, perhaps you say, "You are careless and don't care about the ecology." Nonsense. I plan to be around forever Good stewardship for God's creation should be fundamental to a changed heart.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 15, 2014
5:57 PM

Post #9790393

"Averaged across all drought treatments, tuber yield from plants growing under elevated carbon dioxide levels was as much as 60% greater than tuber yield from plants growing under current carbon dioxide levels."

http://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/potatoes/potatoes-could-step-up-performance-under-climate-change-pressure/?utm_source=knowledgemarketing&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=avgenews%2002062014

I have seen study after study that increased CO2 and warmer temperatures increases food production even if under drought.

Have you ever heard a climate scientist say anything positive resulting from a warming earth? Why are their predictions like Ricks so negative. I see so many potential benefits if the earth warms. A warming earth might just be what is needed to sustain us.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 15, 2014
6:19 PM

Post #9790403

I usually try to use the rule, "Follow the money". Let's say the Global Warming Thing is a hoax for someone to "make a bundle". Who would that be and how would they do it? Just as an exercise.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 15, 2014
6:33 PM

Post #9790411

If the climate scientists predicted anything other than catastrophe most would be out of a job. That's what keeps the research dollars rolling in!

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 15, 2014
7:19 PM

Post #9790433

Pending catastrophe makes for great news stories and ratings as well.
And politicians must "keep us alarmed with a series of hobgoblins' which they will save us from, to keep us thinking we need all the politicians and government departments. (see H L Mencken, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html)

drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

March 15, 2014
7:28 PM

Post #9790444

Al Gore became a multi-millionaire, writing a book and lecturing BEFORE there was even scientific evidence that there was so-called Global Warming. Of course, now none of the "experts" will use that term. Needless to say, university, governmental, and private research thrive on controversy and catastrophic predictions, just as people like Al Sharpton thrive on much the same hog-wash.

Ken
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 15, 2014
7:52 PM

Post #9790458

I guess I should have been more specific. Let's say it is a hoax and yet we (everyone) prepare for the "catastrophe" and there is none. Who benefits? Who loses?


Now turn the coin over and someone take the other side and say if it is not a hoax, we prepare for it and who benefits? Who loses?

Where is the big money to be gained or lost?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 15, 2014
7:55 PM

Post #9790461

Drobarr,

To go along with your remarks about warmer weather producing more of a lot of crops, right now most of the surplus water is in the higher latitudes, so if the temperate zones move several degrees higher, the better growing zones will be closer to abundant water, also.

But as you say, the Warmies never mention the many benefits that will occur along with the problems.

Ernie


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 15, 2014
8:16 PM

Post #9790471

Global Warming has already been used as an excuse to give away hundreds of millions of dollars of Taxpayer money to "Friends of the Warmies" like Solyndra and Fiskar, and writing expensive new regulations for things like Coal fired Power Plants will drive up their costs to make more Solyndras competitve in price, opening the door to many more Solyndra type money pits to be filled with more Taxpayer dollars.

This fight over Global Warming is actually part of the War between Bigger Government and Entrepenures, and Private Enterprise and Free Markets.

Business will be the Short Term loser, but like everything else spent by both the Government and the Businesses, all fo the costs of both are eventually paid for by the ultimate consumer, AKA the Taxpayers.

Ernie


steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 15, 2014
8:27 PM

Post #9790476

Can anyone be more specific? I hear the generalities all the time. And Ernie, did you mean to say there exists a fight between private enterprise and free markets? If so, could you explain more what you mean? Thx
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 15, 2014
10:36 PM

Post #9790505

Steady,
Your question is too complex for a simple answer, but there will be many more winners like the promoters of Solyndra that got over a hundred million dollars of Tax Payer money to make Solar panels, And many losers, including all Taxpayers that lost every penny of that hundred million dollars the Green Government loaned to Solyndra.


Draining money from our Economy to finance startups that are not cost competitive with Carbon based energy drives up the cost of everything for every body. A member of the Adminsitration recently testified to Congress that the proposed new regulations on Coal burning Power Plants will increase the wholesale cost of electricity by 8 to 10 times. So all people that use electrictity, or buy products that are made with electricity will be among the losers.

I apoloigize for the clumsy sentence. I will try again.,

The fight over Global Warming is actually a part of the War between people that want Bigger Government with more regulations, and the people that want smaller Government that will consume less than the 21% of our Gross Domestic Production..

A smaller government, fewer unnecssary regulations, and a simpler Tax Code, would free up a lot of Capital that could be used by Private Enterprise and the Free Market to create more jobs,and produce more products, ,both of which would produce more taxable income, and strengthen our economy, and allow us to reduce our national debt..

Government jobs do not create new wealth, but productive jobs in Private Enterprise do..

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 16, 2014
8:09 AM

Post #9790669

CORRECTION TO POST ABOVE.

The Solyndra loss to taxpayers that I referenced above as being over a 100 million, understated the amount. I should have checked it as i knew i was not exact, Accordng to the Congressional Oversight committee, the loss may be as high as $849,000,000,00 [million]

And that was just the cost of one loan to one company.

And for those of us that have always had to live within our means it is particulary irksome that our Government BORROWED THE MONEY from Chiha to loan to Solyndra..

Ernie

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 16, 2014
8:32 AM

Post #9790686

aaaaarrrrrggggggghhhhhh...
(that's my sound of being irked)

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 16, 2014
9:57 AM

Post #9790751

Ernie,

Very well said. In total agreement. As government has grown together with taxes and regulations this has sqeezed the middle class. Our federal income tax rates might be similar or less than what they have been historically but every good or service has these costs built in and thus are sort of hidden. The tax we pay is much more than the 6 to 8 percent sales tax.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 16, 2014
10:21 AM

Post #9790762

And how are we going to pay the 16,000,000,000,000 plus we are in debt!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 16, 2014
10:31 AM

Post #9790771

Drobarr,

It amazes me that so many people, most of whom are concerned about the way they spend their persoanal funds, do not show enough interest in how the Government spends the people's Tax money to take time to study and understand what happens to it.

I do not mind paying taxes, because those are only paid on the years i have made money, and not making any money is much worse than paying taxes, but i do hate to see it wasted after i have paid it.

Ernie

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 17, 2014
6:59 AM

Post #9791372

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5601/2173.short
Study finds that carbon release from warmed forest soil is small and mitigated by increased plant growth
"warming has the potential to indirectly stimulate enough carbon storage in plants to at least compensate for the carbon losses from soils."

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 17, 2014
11:50 AM

Post #9791665

[quote="ERNIECOPP"]Drobarr,

It amazes me that so many people, most of whom are concerned about the way they spend their persoanal funds, do not show enough interest in how the Government spends the people's Tax money to take time to study and understand what happens to it.

I do not mind paying taxes, because those are only paid on the years i have made money, and not making any money is much worse than paying taxes, but i do hate to see it wasted after i have paid it.

Ernie[/quote]

Ernie,

I think part of the problem is we have a big portion of our own population that arent concerned about the way they spend their personal funds...folks that have 2 and 3 credit cards maxed out type of thing. Thus why worry about what the government is doing?

John



drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 17, 2014
12:10 PM

Post #9791676

Sallyg...great point!

Warm temperatures and higher C02 levels could be wonderful for plant growth! And if we have increased vegetation we will have more and more carbon removed from the air.

Sorry doom and gloomers...looks like plants are going to save the day!

If we are true plant lovers we should be finding ways to INCREASE our carbon footprint! I mean if we really love plants we need to give them lots and lots of rich pure CO2...organic CO2 for those who are organic. Those who are for smaller carbon footprints want to starve plants from the CO2 they need. Anti CO2'ers are really plant haters in disguise and this is just a whole conspiracy to starve and mistreat plants. How can denying what plants need be considered sustainable and environmentally friendly? Perhaps we need an organization...People for the ethical treatment of plants (PETP)that can lobby for and ensure plants obtain the atmospheric CO2 they are entitled too.

So I guess that makes Al Gore anti-plant...I knew there was something creepy about that guy. On second thought...with his big mansions and private jet maybe he is on the side of plants afterall.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
12:26 PM

Post #9791702

John,

You may be right about the profligate portion of the population. I have met some of those folks, too.

Ernie

.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
5:34 PM

Post #9791914

>> This fight over Global Warming is actually part of the War between Bigger Government and Entrepenures, and Private Enterprise and Free Markets.

I understand the temptation to reduce the science to "liberals want to spend my money and destroy industry". Especially since one part of the climate change "message" (reduce carbon emissions) sounds very much like an extreme far-left and anti-establishment position ("extreme consumerism may not be sustainable, especially if the Third World rises to, say 1/3 or even 1/4 our consumption of rersources")

But not every fact that conflicts with your dogma, or that supports someone else's dogma, is wrong! In fact, that kind of argument is like an argument ad hominem, which tries to convict the argument based on the character of the person asserting it.

Something like "argument ad ideology".

I try to go by what I hear from scientists in NOAA and NASA, or by what someone in one science (GMOs) believes about an allied science. For example, the link that back40bean found:
(http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html)

fact fact fact fact fact fact

Those seem more relevant to me than anecdotes about the Mongolian hordes.

Even the fact about about being able to get faster growth from a potato in a growth chamber is less relevant than the facts mentioned here about yield LOSS in the real world, where real crops are battered by the unprecedentedly erratic weather we are just starting to see.

http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/522596/why-we-will-need-genetically-modified-foods/

That's the MIT Technology Review article citing many independent scientific sources that all agree with the 90% of climatologists about global climate change. Like Reddit, they don't need to debate it since it's as obvious to them as to 90% of climatologists. They just need to factor observed, measured changes into their specialties, crop yields.

it might interest some here in different ways, since it expresses a strongly pro-GMO opinion, and assumes that climate change is already here and likely to get worse. Since those two attitudes cut across political lines, many people are likely to accept one half and reject the other half along pure party lines.

They were trying to evaluate how much we will NEED to rely on genengineering to keep crop yields rising fast enough to keep pace with population growth. They all agree that erratic weather caused by global climate change has already depressed crop yields relative to expected and historical yield increases, and make some USEFUL observations about the impact of a few very-unusually hot days compared to the whole-season-average of 1-2 degrees.

Anyway, I hope I'm very wrong about the eventual severity and how soon it will be so bad as to be obvious even to those politically pre-disposed to ignore and deny a scientific consensus.

When conservatives hear anti-GMO liberals say that any pro-GMO experiment was conducted by lackeys of the Industrial-Monsanto complex (exaggerating for effect), the conservatives are quick to say "you're huffing your own dogma - of course we should believe the scientists, they all tell the truth".

But as soon as 90% of climatologists agree on something that would put limits on industrial expansion, conservatives are quick to say that merely BEING a climatologist makes them liars out to score a research grant.

Unfortunately, here, I agree with Ernie again: probably the facts of massively rising CO2 levels and the current theories and models of that young science DO conflict with unfettered industrial expansion and resource-wasteful lavish consumerism. Coal miners are only the first ones who will suffer when energy prices go up - in effect charging to the current generation the costs of averting famine in the next 2-3 generations.

I thought that was how it worked: parents sacrifice to make the world safe for their children. I had also hoped that we would have made some international progress while the world economy was in fairly good shape. Now is not a good time to add to anyone's financial burden. But if we add global crop failures to the mix, it will get harder, not easier, to male painful choices.

It seems to me that, the longer we wait to "prove" that the Keeling Curve is as much of a global disaster as it seems to be, the harder it will become to reduce global crop failures, famines and the likelihood of stumbling into mankind's usual answer to famine: war.

But Ernie's argument is winning at this time: drill drill drill and consume consume consume until we PROVE to EVERYONE that climatologists are right and the only question is "how bad, how soon?"


I also used to hope that (slight, gradual, uniformly) increasing temperatures, or rather the increasing AVERAGE rainfall that climate models used to predict would turn more deserts into grain fields than it turned tropic farms into deserts or swamps. I just didn't want to think what India would be like if it averaged 2-5 degrees hotter!

If all of Siberia thawed and the entire Sahel region had more rainfall, I thought, maybe that would "make up for" the Midwest becoming a desert dust bowl and Florida and Texas becoming tropical or worse, instead of sub-tropical as they are now.

But the agronomists in that Tech review article showed that such optimism is NOT indicated. MAYBE the climate will settle down into some stable pattern AFTER we level off the Keeling Curve, but that might take ??? centuries after the deniers let us start working on it really hard.

In the meantime, all we will have is change and unexpected extremes.

Finding varieties that thrive under changed-but-predictable conditions will be hard enough. Dealing with changed pests and plant diseases due to changed (but stable) local climates will be hard enough.

Changing a region's agriculture from cotton, or tobacco, or corn and soybeans to cassava and breadfruit and bananas or whatever will be hard enough.

But you can't "adapt" to hottest-and-driest-ever one year, and coldest-and-wettest-ever the next year.

Quoting:

"Climate change is likely to make the problem far worse, bringing higher temperatures and, in many regions, wetter conditions that spread infestations of disease and insects into new areas. Drought, damaging storms, and very hot days are already taking a toll on crop yields, and the frequency of these events is expected to increase sharply as the climate warms. For farmers, the effects of climate change can be simply put: the weather has become far more unpredictable, and extreme weather has become far more common."

...

"Such variation is “worrisome and very bad for agriculture,” he says. “It’s extremely challenging to breed for it. If you have a relatively stable climate, you can breed crops with genetic characteristics that follow a certain profile of temperatures and rainfall. As soon as you get into a state of flux, it’s much more difficult to know what traits to target.”"

"David Lobell, a professor of environmental earth system science at Stanford University, ...
and his collaborators have clarified the projections by combing through historical records of weather and agricultural production. They found that from 1980 to 2008, climate change depressed yields of wheat and corn; yields still rose during that time, but overall production was 2 to 3 percent less than it would have been if not for global warming. This has held true across most of the regions where corn and wheat are grown."

"Lobell and his collaborator Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University, have found evidence that in the case of several important crops, the negative effect of global warming is more strongly tied to the number of extremely hot days than to the rise in average temperatures over a season. If that’s true, earlier research might have severely underestimated the impact of climate change by looking only at average temperatures."



steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 17, 2014
6:58 PM

Post #9791960

when I suggested we "follow the money" I was thinking about the people who have the most to lose if we try to slow down or reverse the Keiling curve, with government policies. That would have to be the folks who find and produce fossil fuels. That is quite a lot bigger pot of money than what Al Gore will ever make on his movie or all research grants ever awarded probably. If you were in Exxon or Shell's shoes right now, would you jump on board with all the people whose opinion could put you out of business? I doubt it and I also think they would not hesitate to lobby hard, and with all that money, they can lobby big and hard. They have the money to buy scientists opinions, they have the money to buy congress people. They have the money to buy the best advertising and persuasive tactics out there. I cannot imagine the likes of them just saying, OK. Let's just leave all this carbon in the ground and re-tool to use solar or wind or other energy. It would change the world as they have known it since oil was discovered.
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
7:20 PM

Post #9791974

Good point, SM3. With enough money, one can buy practically anything on the face of the earth. Politics has always been about money and power and I doubt that will ever change. Sometimes we mistake "back-bone" and "morality" in politics, but I think the underlying, true support for an issue is always the previous motivation. I know I have a jaded perception, but having followed politics for 70 years, that is simply my rational for what I see.

Ken

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 17, 2014
7:55 PM

Post #9791983

Nobody is spending more on alternatives to oil and gas than Exxon and Shell. These companies are in the energy business...not the oil and gas business. They plan to be around for a long time.

The companies that are developing organic products are the big pesticide companies...

Rick,
We don't know if any of the variations that were seen in weather from 1980 to 2008 were due to global climate change or just the normal variations in weather. It is very hard to attribute variations in weather to loss of yield. There could have been other factors that caused those drops in yields(they were imaginary drops in yield...actually yields went up) other than weather. The paper promotes a theory but does not provide any scientific testing. And as an agronomist myself with a fairly good understanding of growing conditions world wide... we have had much less variations in growing conditions and yields in the last 35 years than say the previous 35 or 50 years. We havent had multi year droughts with dust bowl like conditions over multiple seasons or summer time freezes or total crop failures. We have seen yields continue to increase, while growers have done that with less fertilizer, less pesticides, less land, and less water.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
9:00 PM

Post #9792016

Rrr I try to go by what I hear from scientists in NOAA and NASA, or by what someone in one science (GMOs) believes about an allied science. For example, the link that back40bean found:

Ee Rick, One of the weaker parts of your arguments for Global Warming is because you rely so much on Government Climatologists. If you look at them as a Government Climatology Choir, then of course they must sing whatever the Choir Director tells them too. If you had an equal mix of Climatologists that work in Private enterprise, the results of a poll would be more credible.

And Rick, putting your ideology and bias aside for a minute, do you really believe that papers published by members of the Choir are really more relevant than the changes the Mongolian Hordes made in their World as it was, from Siberia to the tip of India and from Kamchatka to Rome? It just happens the warming period then has been proved.

Rrrrr I thought that was how it worked: parents sacrifice to make the world safe for their children. I had also hoped that we would have made some international progress while the world economy was in fairly good shape. Now is not a good time to add to anyone's financial burden
Eee I certainly agree that sacrificing for the sake of others is commendable. But I did not see any of the Eco Nuts sharing the sacrifice when they destroyed the families in the Logging Industry because they were mistakenly convinced that the loggers were harming the Spotted Owls. And I do not think the Warmies are going to share the sacrifice of the Coal Miners Families if they are successful in their goals to shut down coal mining. And I think there is a very good possibility that the WARMIES are just as wrong as the Eco Nuts were.

I guess it is easier to worry about the poor people in Bangladesh in the distant future than to worry about some neighbors in West Virginia in the next 20 years, but I just do not agree with that.

Rrr But you can't "adapt" to hottest-and-driest-ever one year, and coldest-and-wettest-ever the next year.

eee Yes you can adapt. California has been adapting to El Nino and La Nina conditions, not yearly, but every few years, and they have been recorded ever since the Spanish Galleons were sailing the Pacific 600 years ago. We go through a very wet flooding cycle when El Nino warms the Pacific, and the dry cycle of La Nina, as of now, when it cools.

Quoting:

rrr "Climate change is likely to make the problem far worse, bringing higher temperatures and, in many regions, wetter conditions that spread infestations of disease and insects into new areas. Drought, damaging storms, and very hot days are already taking a toll on crop yields, and the frequency of these events is expected to increase sharply as the climate warms. For farmers, the effects of climate change can be simply put: the weather has become far more unpredictable, and extreme weather has become far more common

Eee Rick, One of the things that rob these dire predictions of a lot of credibility is the qualifiers they always contain, like the fourth word in your paragraph above, “LIKELY,”. What kind of racehorse is that to bet your farm on?. ALMOST anything is LIKELY to happen SOONER OR LATER. Using enough qualifiers like that just destroys the credibility of a prediction..


rrrr "Lobell and his collaborator Wolfram Schlenker, an economist at Columbia University, have found evidence that in the case of several important crops, the negative effect of global warming is more strongly tied to the number of extremely hot days than to the rise in average temperatures over a season. If that’s true, earlier research might have severely underestimated the impact of climate change by looking only at average temperatures."

eee I laughed, but I agreed with the above. I laughed because Lobell and Schllnker spent years in College and searching for proof of what any farmer could tell them whether he was even literate of not. Absolutely, more damage is done to crops on Extremely Hot days, and the more of them, the more damage they do. And I am sure it is going to get warmer sometimes so the only difference between me and a Warmie, is that I think it is going to get cooler, too. Or as we used to say, the Climate is going to Change.
Ernie


RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
9:02 PM

Post #9792018

>> we have had much less variations in growing conditions and yields in the last 35 years than say the previous 35 or 50 years.

That would probably be an extremely relevant point if true. I'm going by what I see a large preponderance of in reports that seem mainly "nerdy" and not political or hyper-ventilating, that the last 3-10 years have had more variations and extremes than random chance would have predicted.

My impression was that it was indeed not possible to distinguish the signal form the "noise" until recently. But that now it was. I'm going by what I read, and I haven't dived into papers on climatology, in part because I don;t know the lingo and in part because I'm pretty sure they are mostly reliant on statistics and modeling, where i would be totally unable to judge their rigor.

(It is a good argument for "your side" that ANY predictions based only on statistics and models or a very young science are very weak compared to "proof" as physicists and chemists can get "proof". My counter to that is only "how SURE do you need to be that the fire alarm is reporting a real fire, to get out of bed and do something about it?" What if you lived in a flammable boat when the fire alarm went off, and every person on Earth lived in the same boat?)

But the glacial retreats, sea level increase, surface sea temperature increases and so on ARE indisputable, since they are measurements and DO exceed historical maximums.

(Unless you go back as far as Ice Ages ending, and if the argument is that "global climate change probably won't be much more disruptive than an Ice Age / interglacial transition", I'll take my position as being very strongly agreed with.)

>> The paper promotes a theory but does not provide any scientific testing.

Yes and no. How could you measure what the yield WOULD have been if there had not been adverse weather?

Their claim that average yield on one crop WOULD HAVE gone up (say) 3% as it had been doing for the last 5-10 years BUT ON LY went up 1% due to weather ... is just their claim based on some calculations that were not reproduced in Tech Review.

So it is only an assertion based on some calculation. I suppose that you could have a yield/temperature curve, plug in the temperatures observed, and calculate a speculative yield suppression.

By the way, I couldn't gauge one claim in that article. They said that corn gets really unhappy and yield drops when the temperature goes over 30C (which is only 86 F) for even a few days. I thought that corn flourished in HOT weather, which in my mind exceeds 90F.

Maybe they meant when the all-day-average-temp exceeded 86F, which could be 96 at noon and 76 at night. Does corn have trouble in weather like that? That sounded fishy to me.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
9:17 PM

Post #9792021

Steady, Ken,
I agree there are probably some Millionaires and Billionaires that own stock in the Major Oil Companies and Coal Mines, but just forget any envy or resentment you may have towards rich people, and think about who is going to be hurt the most by the Carbon Regulations.

Is it a billionaire that does not worry about the cost of gas that goes in his car so he can go to work, or is it the poor working stiff, one of those fellows that have to buy five dollar gas 2 gallons at a time. The poor working stiff will only be able to buy one gallon when the price goes up to 10 dollars a gallon. So, who is the biggest loser.

Or, is Al Gore going to worry about paying a few more thousand a month for his huge electric bill, or is it going to be a poor woman living on her SS check that sees her bill go up ten times, per the guy from the EPA, that said the wholesale price of electricity was going to go up 8 or 10 times if all the proposed EPA regulations go into effect. So, if her bill now is 15 dollars, her cost will go up several times that amount. So, THINK about it, is it the rich man that is going to suffer, or is it the little guy.

And I agree with Drobarr, the business of business is making money, so when the coal mines close, those people will invest that money somewhere else, probably in other types of energy, and keep on making money. So, think about it, Who is the ultimate loser from all of these regulations

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
9:36 PM

Post #9792025

Rick,

I have just one comment on the melting Arctic ice, and it is true but not widely publicized. Two years ago, a record number of sail boats as well as other boats, made it through the NorthWest passage, above Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

A few had made it over the years, usually taking more than one season, but most were blocke by too much ice. So, those boats going through proved the Ice was melting.

As Sailors are an adventurous bunch, a lot of them tried to go through last year, and most of them got frozen in, so there is now a record number of boats locked in the ice up there, and may not thaw out this summer.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
9:41 PM

Post #9792028

I don't see any relevance of Mongolian invasions to weather variations. Are you still arguing that "weather has changed in the past"? That extra warmth drove them out of their homelands due to drought? I would rather use "Mongolian Invasions" as proof that relatively minor changes in climate can drive population migrations and wars - few of their neighbors considered the Mongol horde welcome guests.

Ernie, if you think every research scientist in the world is deluded or part of a world-wide conspiracy because he doesn't work for private industry, please let's just agree to disagree.

Theorizing that everyone who disagrees you is part of a conspiracy of deceit is an UN-disprovable theory at best. I'm not interested in that line of argument. For one thing, most governments would rather SUPPRESS news about terrifying changes that might shake their hold on power.

>> And Rick, putting your ideology and bias aside for a minute, do you really believe that papers published by members of the Choir

Translate "the choir" into "almost every scientific researcher in the field" ... yes.

They don't all think or say that the changes will be as dire or as quick as I fear is possible. But ask any of them to set an upper limit on how bad it MIGHT be say at the 10% level of confidence) in 100 or 200 years if CO2 levels keep going up this fast, and I doubt you could get 10% of them to put their reputation on the line and say it WON'T be disastrous.

Next paragraph: I understand that you are furious at and completely distrust, maybe even hate, groups that you give names like "Warmies" and econuts. I would never have called a spade a spade with the name "Deniers" until you villifed the entire scientific community by calling them "Warmies". And someone else made a point about using using mino5r quibbles to put down as "junk science" anything that someone wanted to disagree with. Something like "it is easier to quibble that there is a weakness in someone's "proof" than to prove they are wrong."

I would put the shoe on the other foot. Instead of demanding PROOF that a stick of dynamite with a burning fuse really, certainly, provably will be bad thing in some amount of time, I would say that we desperately NEED to start looking now for ways to put that fuse out until some PROVES that dynamite doesn't explode.

I know that you can look at the Keeling Curve and still say "so what". I don;t understand it, but that is at the root of our disagreement, other than politics.

Whether or not stopping the clear-cutting that I still see many scars from in WA helped any endangered species or not, you seem to be advancing an argument like "nothing that interferes with industry or loses a job can be tolerated even if we have to deny something as obvious as the Keeling Curve, melting glaciers AND oceans warming up".

That's why I compare it to gasoline or a stick of dynamite. It's not abstract any more, it is blatant and observable. Thinking that it won;t continue getting worse at an accelerating rate makes as much sense as "we don;t need to do anything, you have not PROVED that the fuse won;t just go out on its own".

I still don't see how ANYONE can look at the Keeling Curve and not predict doomsday. Now or in 100 or 200 years, a VERY DIFFERENT PLANET.

Granted, many people see it your way and not my way. I HOPE they are right, because the downside of the bet is huge.

Eee Rick, One of the things that rob these dire predictions of a lot of credibility is the qualifiers

The only alternative would be to do nothing until it is completely PROVABLE to people as far into denial as you are, that the house IS on fire and the boat IS sinking.

Unfortunately, due to planetary inertia, that translates into many billions more of CO2 released than the current terrifying level. It might not be "fixable" now. Waiting 10, 20, or 30 years might PROVE that we can't fix it and PROVE that human population will drop from 87 billion down to who-knows-what after we're done fighting over the consequences.

In other words, by the time it can be PROVED, it will be much too late because the fire will have spread too far to be put out and the boat will have flooded below-decks.

I suppose I weaken my case by talking about major disasters that "might be" 20 or 50 years away, when I should just admit that it WILL occur within some small number of centuries. But every year, the problem gets harder to fix.

>> What kind of racehorse is that to bet your farm on?.

You don't bet the planet on "it might NOT happen very soon".

>> Absolutely, more damage is done to crops on Extremely Hot days, and the more of them, the more damage they do.

I'm sorry to hear that, it was the weakest thing I saw in that article. I thought corn grew well where weather was "hot", and I thought that meant up to 100 F.


steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 17, 2014
9:51 PM

Post #9792029

Prove to me that the fossil fuel companies are working harder than anyone on alternative energies.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
9:56 PM

Post #9792033

Steady, I guess you are directing your question to Rick, but you can probably find it by googleing Shell or BP and with Alternative Energy as part of the caption.

But what i like about bit corporations doing it, they use their own money and do not borrow tax payers money and then spend it foolishly and go bankrupt.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 17, 2014
10:04 PM

Post #9792035

Steady
I googled it and found hundreds of articles. BP was reported to have invested 7 Billion since 2007, Chevron reported to have invested 5.4 Billion and Rolling Stones says they ar lying, so it sounds like another GMO discussion.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
10:08 PM

Post #9792037

>> So, those boats going through proved the Ice was melting.

Also satellite photography.

>> so there is now a record number of boats locked in the ice up there, and may not thaw out this summer.

That IS funny.

I just hope and pray that the "thermo-haline circulation" is not already weakening. That's the "conveyor belt" that carried heat from the tropics North until it cooled, froze out some fresher water, and then the cold, dense, saltier water sank into the abyssal depths and (over a few hundred years" circled back to the tropics where it warmed and rose.

Some models predict that, but I thought it came relatively late in those models. Once it does happen, the far North gets colder again, but so do northern Europe and northern North America.

So far so good, because that would counter average warming for the medium-high latitude North.

The downside is that less heat would be carried away form the tropics by ocean water, and the tropics and southern seas would warm faster (it would increase the north-south temperature gradient).

I don't think India and the rest of the tropics will be happy to know that while the global average is "somewhat hotter", they get that PLUS more heat from decreased "thermo-haline circulation".

When they need to change their crop varieties to adapt to hotter-than-tropical climates, they'll find there are none. True, in a few hundred thousand years, "something will adapt", but one possibility is that they won't be able to grow ANY food ... or ay their crop yields drop by 80-90%. So will their populations. That the kind of reason the DoD has put together some scenarios, or used that argument to try for adequate budgets.

Oh, yes. You can use models to pick any numbers you want, but whereas the models talk about "a few degrees" of average global warming, losing the "thermo-haline circulation" could drop winter temperatures in Northern Europe, Canada and the northern USA by a very unknown amount. wait and see - it MIGHT not be 20-30 degrees, it MIGHT be only 5 or 10 degrees. What effect would that have on growing season length?

I think that loss of "thermo-haline circulation" is one of the "runaway scenarios" where change is slow up until some point, then more rapid, because of positive feedback. I could very easily be wrong, and so could the models.

Then it gets even more speculative, but warmer ocean surface and hotter tropics suggest more and more violent cyclonic storms.

Anyway, we ARE betting the farm that NONE of that, and nothing remotely LIKE that will happen, when (it's true), we don't KNOW.

The models aren't solid yet, in part because models are only reliable when you already have experience with what you're modeling and know all the relevant factors.

We DON'T know whether losing "thermo-haline circulation" to the point of depopulating the tropics is a worst-case or just a middle-case of-the-road case. Is that an argument for doing nothing, or for panicking?

Only having the one planet an wanting it to remain habitable, I think the rational thing to do is to panic 20-30 years ago, and be 10-20 years into mitigating the problem with measured actions.

Or we could wait for another 50 billion tons to be added to the problem. Maybe it will just go away! Maybe we WON'T make the Earth nearly uninhabitable.

Not treating it as an immediate danger (and trying to find solutions like nuclear power that won't be as disruptive as shutting down all the factories) seems crazy to me.

I understand that I'm a minority on this thread.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 17, 2014
10:18 PM

Post #9792039

(whimsically)

Like the GMO researcher who some magazine (the New Yorker?) claimed thought that Monsanto was bugging him and had hit men lurking in alleys (I think I'm exaggerating somewhat) , here's my factitious scenario for BP's investment in alternative energy.

They are funding "research into alternative energy" so they can find everyone who wants to do that research. Then they will bribe them or brainwash them into being like Ernie's Choir, following dead-end ideas and publishing millions of papers "proving" that solar panel don't work and windmills kill eagles. Geothermal causes pollution. There's no radon in coal. Tides are imaginary.

Or just invite them all to one big "alternative energy conference", all expenses paid, collapse the roof on them with explosives, and blame the solar panels.


Like Red China's "One Thousand Flowers" campaign.

Or Count Vlad Drakul, inviting all his enemies to big feast and then burning the hall down.

Kidding.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 17, 2014
10:38 PM

Post #9792045

Major oil companies typically earn 4 billion per month so what part of their budget would 7 billion be over 7 years? It's not much comparitively speaking. They kinda missed the boat on the fracking for gas in the US so they are looking at other parts of the world to find shale to drill. I think they were just too big to respond quickly on the shale oil in time to capitalize on US shale. The smaller independents were better positioned. The majors sat on and are still sitting on a lot of cash. They invested heavily in deep water rigs where smaller independents dont have the capital to go for.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 17, 2014
11:15 PM

Post #9792052

It always makes me silly , discussing about all this , I was around for the going under of Texas oil in 1970 , East Houston was a Ghost Town for over a year ,
This I have seen , When those Energy industries go under , Whole Cities go with them , Just like the Boom and Bust Days ,
Until they come up with a super Transducer for Gravitational energy use or One for Solar Panels (The coming idea being you can drive forever With a Solar panel the size of your Desktop with a Super Transducer )
Then When that happens (with the price of copper ) a Wireless Electric Motor will be needed , it's coming and these actually exist ,
It will be the same until everyone changes as to "the same old same old ) Only that is not going to happen anytime soon ...
(Bad to Worse , then Worst to Better ) Always the way it has been ,,
We will argue on , and so will all ... Here's to still believing in tomorrow ...
Like you all are saying though , if not for these big companies ? We would all be the going under , Not everyone has say 5 to 30 Billion in their wallet everytime they have a good idea .
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

March 18, 2014
9:04 AM

Post #9792259

I posted the earlier links to NOAA and NASA just hoping to find a common point of agreement from which to continue a discussion. I am not a scientist and I don't have any answers, but it does seem that changes have occurred that warrant a closer look. The Keeling Curve looks scary to me and I haven't read anything to make me think everything's going to just be alright, but I'm still listening. I understand that we have not found a point of agreement, but here are a couple more links.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/science/scientists-sound-alarm-on-climate.html?ref=science&_r=0
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
9:06 AM

Post #9792261

Steady,
I researched the Major Oil company profits and only Exxon made 4 Billion a month. The other majors earned from 1 to 2.5 B, but those figures standing alone do not mean anything. They have to be paired with the total investment it takes to make that money. Oil Companies typically make less than 5%, on their invested Capital, while Apple makes many times that percentage, so if you want to be mad at someone for making too much money, you should be mad at Apple. I would not buy any major oil company stock because they do not make enough profit for that to be a good investment, but stock is available for anyone that wants to buy it.

Shell was the pioneer in developing the Shale oil and gas, as they made big investments on the Front Range of the Rockies 30 years or so ago. But the price of crude was under forty dollars a barrel, and the Shale oil required a minimum of 60 dollars to make it feasible. So, Shell gave up and walked away from it, much to the chagrin of some of my relatives that lived in Wyoming. Once the price of Crude got high enough to make it feasible, everyone jumped in.

You are correct that a lot of cash is being "sat on", not only by the major oil companies, but that is because no one has confidence in the future economy, and have not been able to calculate what all the new regulations are going to cost. But no one likes to have money sitting idle, and when the government allows the Economy to recover, that money will be invested.

The reason we need to be thankful for the big corporations is just what you said. They are the only ones that have the Capital to Risk, in doing the deep water drilling. And i am sure you see the benefit for all of us, being able to access those deep water reserves.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 18, 2014
10:10 AM

Post #9792288

Rick,

Corn is a C4 plant thus it is very efficient at warmer temperatures compared to a C3 plant like wheat. But there is not a magical temperature where the plant shuts down. This can depend on the age and stage of the crop as well as the moisture availability at the time of the heat stress. Also the duration of the heat stress and the previous weather. Humidity can also play a role as well as wind. Corn can struggle at any temperature if it lacks moisture. So soil type and moisture holding capacity which can vary in a given field often affects how well corn is able to handle hot weather.

Corn is senstive to temperature most during pollination. It it is hot and dry and has poor soil moisture, pollination will be poor. Pollen cant survive extremely hot temperatures...and has a shorter life under hot dry conditions. Likewise it it rains during pollination this can also detrimentally affect pollination. Each one of the silks is connected to a kernal and for each kernal to fill a pollen spore must enter the end of the silk and travel its way down to the ear.

High night time temperatures can be a factor as well when a plant shifts from photosynthesis to respiration, temperatures can negatively impact respiration.

Its not unusual for almost all plants to literally shut down during the hottest part of the day. Stomates begin to close when the evapotranspiration which cools the plants much like sweat cools us evaporates faster than what the roots can replace it and wilting a occurs. Plants will close their stomates and stop photosynthesis until turgidity can be restored.

New GMO varieties of corn have increased tolerance to drought and heat and there is naturally great variations in varieties.

If a drought even happens early on, corn over the season can recuperate so to speak. The later the drought event, the more likely it can affect yield, unless pollination has already occured and the crop is reaching maturity.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 18, 2014
10:20 AM

Post #9792290

Again...the oil companies together have invested more money in R&D for alternative fuels than any government has. When you include utility companies like PPL and others it is staggering how much has been invested compared to what the government has invested.

Oil companies have invested more in these alternatives as a percentage of profits than the percentage our government spends on them and what it takes in!

And Ernie is correct to say that much of what the government has invested has been wasted into technologies that never came to fruition and were more likley payoffs to donors and friends of those who are in power.

We could have a discussion on whether its governments role to invest the peoples money in these types of research, particularly when we have to borrow the money to do so.

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 18, 2014
10:43 AM

Post #9792306

Back40Bean, those links are excellent but I suspect you're wasting your time here. I haven't seen anyone respond to the very dramatic rise in the Keeling Curve that you and Rick have mentioned, and doubt that it will be acknowledged here.

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 18, 2014
10:51 AM

Post #9792312

Rick said: "But the glacial retreats, sea level increase, surface sea temperature increases and so on ARE indisputable, since they are measurements and DO exceed historical maximums."

Rick...you are correct...glacial retreats, sea level increase, surface sea temperature increases and so on ARE indisputable and are of concern. But your next statement of "exceed historical maximums" is incorrect. Oceans have been several feet higher than where they currently are. Temperatures have also significantly been higher...they find all sorts of tropical foliage in places that are hardly tropical and this isn't due to shifting land masses. I am not sure they are able to determine historical sea temperatures or not.

An though the media makes a big deal every time a new record temperature either hot or cold or some other extreme event occurs these have always been happening somewhere all the time. The hottest temperature ever recorded was in 1913 in death valley...at 136 degrees. Now thats extreme!

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 18, 2014
11:19 AM

Post #9792329

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

GHG, We can talk about the keeling curve here any time. Nobody is disputing it that I know of.

Nobody is denying that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and that human activity is involved. Where there is disagreement is whether glacial retreats, sea level increase, surface sea temperature increases and any observed variations in weather are the result of this rise in CO2 or not.

Changes in glaciers, sea level, and sea temperatures have always occurred and those changes occurred without any changes in CO2 concentration. So if those changes happened before, how do we know that the changes we are seeing are due to the CO2 concentrations and not some other reason...the same reasons why they changed previously.

My opinion as a scientist is that there are also many factors involved that regulates earths temperatures.

I see climate scientists fixation on CO2 as a mistake because other possibilities arent even being considered.

And even if CO2 were proven to cause the warming...what is causing the cooling...and why arent we seeing a steady increase in warming that paralells linearly with the keeling curve. If the earth is warming due to such high CO2 concentrations we should not be having record cold temperatures. Temperatures that are colder than they have been for over 100 years.
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 18, 2014
12:45 PM

Post #9792372

Is anyone monitering the temperatures of Mars compared to the past?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
1:17 PM

Post #9792391

GG, I have never denied that Carbon is increasing. That has been measured, so that is a fact, but the speculation and forecasts that have not come true in the past is what i cannot accept as being infallible.

But i remember when Freon was the focus and Warmies were positive if they outlawed Freon, then the Greenhouse effect would be taken care of. So millions of dollars of needless expense was dumped on the public, refrigerant gas went from 1 dollar a pound to 15 or 20 dollars a pound, and now they have found a new bugaboo. So i am waiting for actual proof, not more panic driven hype, before i believe anything the Warmies say.

Ernie

back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

March 18, 2014
1:46 PM

Post #9792409

One of the articles I linked to mentions the banning of the use of chlorofluorocarbons because of their link to the depletion of ozone in the stratosphere. I don't ever remember hearing that they were the sole cause of the greenhouse effect and that their banning would solve the problem but it would not surprise me to find out I am wrong. Was that really the case?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
1:58 PM

Post #9792413

I would not swear that was the only thing but it was the main thing, and the only one i recall.

I do not recall hearing about Carbon until much later. Keeling has been measuring carbon for a long time, but it did not get much attention because less than 20 or 30 years ago, the big worry was a coming Ice age that was going to destroy the agriculture in Europe. I was a lot busier back in those days and did not have time or email to be so welll informed.

In fact, i think this information explosion is partly the cause of the current panic. 50 years ago if we had bad weather it did not make national news, so no one far away heard of it, and we did not constanlty hear about bad weather in other places. Now we are constantly bombarded by reports of floods, blizzards, Droughts, etc, and seldom hear about Good Weather anywhere.

Ernie
back40bean
Decatur, GA
(Zone 7b)

March 18, 2014
3:18 PM

Post #9792477

I certainly agree that the information explosion is the cause, at least the fuel for a lot of panic. My wife and I have a small cabin in western NC where we have neither TV reception nor an internet connection and I never return from there feeling that I've missed out on anything.
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 18, 2014
3:47 PM

Post #9792505

Banning the use of freon and related chemicals worked. The hole in the ozone layer that protects us, has healed.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 18, 2014
3:59 PM

Post #9792514

I don't think warming was ever blamed on the ozone hole. Destruction of ozone by chlorine (in CFCs) was all related to reduction of protection from UV radiation. Eliminating CFCs did stop the destruction of the ozone layer.

I certainly agree with the information overload idea. Way too much info and we can have it slanted to our own biases to boot. It ain't good.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
4:02 PM

Post #9792522

back40bean,

>> "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,"

Again you lead the pack in finding information (not rhetoric). Thanks very much ... but even I didn't think the literal warming was THAT far advanced, or the agreement that nearly universal.

Your link led to this one, "harder to grow crops" , that connects "climate change" back to the global need for better genengineering techniques:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/science/earth/05harvest.html?pagewanted=all


(Usually when I see "Temperature Anomaly" they mean air temps, averaged over a year, and this might have one-year data points. I think it varies too much to be ocean-surface temps. Darn. Climate change IS as far along as I feared.)


>> This can depend on the age and stage of the crop as well as the moisture availability at the time of the heat stress.
>> naturally great variations in varieties.

Understood. Good points. Dry corn at a vulnerable stage might up and die at (say) 86F where well watered corn at some other stage might take 100 for a day and (for example) only slow down and then recover.

Side issue: someone who was looking for the "CO2 bump" under filed conditions in wheat, rice and corn saw none in corn, and only half what they expected in wheat & rice, based on growth chamber and greenhouse tests. One field trial means very little, but it's a hint that "more CO2" doesn't necessarily stimulate crops in a field as well as it does in a controlled environment.

>> Its not unusual for almost all plants to literally shut down during the hottest part of the day.

Ouch. So there is probably SOME downside from even moderate, average changes for the hotter (in hot climates).

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
4:03 PM

Post #9792524


>> And Ernie is correct to say that much of what the government has invested has been wasted into technologies that never came to fruition

>> We could have a discussion on whether its governments role to invest the peoples money in these types of research, particularly when we have to borrow the money to do so.

Again, that is pretty pure politics and ideology, but I toss in my 1.5 cents (inflation):

Privately or publicly owned companies are least likely to invest in expensive cutting edge research like commercializing higher-efficiency solar panels. The risk is high, and even if they DO find the Holy Grail that 'saves the world", they might not even recover their high-risk investment before the patents expire and trade secrets leak out.

If it is NOT funded by any government, we will never discover it. If we 'really need it", we'll just have to do without, if every government in the world were gung-ho laissez-faire, living back in the 1800s.

Fortunately, Red China (I never thought I would string THOSE three words in a sequence), IS far-sighted enough to invest in solar panel research and (as of a few years ago, at least), pretty much cornered the high-efficiency low-cost point in the market at that time. Embarrassing for capitalism, and our balance of payments, and our domestic job market.

>> Oceans have been several feet higher than where they currently are.

There was no agricultural during the previous interglacial period. Also, no coastal cities technological civilization to collapse. If there were ANY primates in the genus Homo way back then, they were already scattered hunter-gatherers lucky to have a cave to live in. If that is supposed to be reassuring - the coming human-caused climate change won't be any worse for humanity than a transition inot or out of an Ice Age ... I'm not reassured.

>> An though the media makes a big deal every time a new record temperature

Back40bean's first link made it clear that the whole last DECADE, averaged globally, was the hottest decade on record. Eyeballing the graph, it is a steady rise with one temporary flattening. NOT rnqdom variation.

I usually don't like the "appeal to authority", but I was surprised to hear that 90% of ANY science could agree on ANYTHING beyond "F=ma". Now I hear from reputable sources that 97% agree that the change is coming, some is already clearly measurable, and humans are a significant factor. Case closed.

We still don't know HOW bad or how soon. But (in my opinion), it is prudent to start bailing out the boat BEFORE the water breaks over the mast.

>> I see climate scientists fixation on CO2 as a mistake because other possibilities aren't even being considered.

All the other factors they can THINK OF are being added to models (and debated) as people think of them.

Like reflectance from clouds, different kinds of clouds predominating, oceans absorbing both heat and CO2, acidification absorbing more or releasing more CO2, reflectance from ice, snow and deserts, methane, CFcs, ozone, high-altitude particulates and aerosols, geo-bio-climate interactions like plankton taking up more CO2 when there are dust storms ...

That's why the predictions keep changing. It's not "the Choir changing its story", it’s a new science discovering more and more factors in a VERY complex system, and extrapolating into regions where the planet has never been before.

>> And even if CO2 were proven to cause the warming...what is causing the cooling...and why arent we seeing a steady increase in warming that paralells linearly with the keeling curve.

All the other factors, plus natural variability.

It may be a cop-out to say "it's so complex that it's very non-linear, or even chaotic" and "it is a young science and [u]still looking for all the relevant factors[/u]". But it's also true.

I stumbled on an unrelated article in Tech Review that pointed out that only scientists have the luxury of suspending judgment until they have "proof". Policy makers, governmental and business, have to make timely decisions BEFORE they have 100% certainty, or even 80% certainty. The market might move on them, or a problem become intractable, if they waited to be CERTAIN before making the best decision possible, at that time.

They need to avert things like a company going bankrupt, or mass famines, early enough to prevent the downside.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
4:12 PM

Post #9792531

>> Is anyone monitoring the temperatures of Mars compared to the past?

I don't know, but I bet we don't have anything more than a few ballpark estimates earlier than (guessing) 1970. And maybe not much before 1990. I just don't know. To do a good job, wouldn't they need an orbiter?

Hmm, Google Mars Climate Orbiter ... they launshed it in 1998, but it went dead in 1999 due to a software defect. One section of ground-based code used Metric units (SI), and another section used English! Bad testing! (I write software for aircraft braking systems, and these things are always embarassing).

"ground-based computer software which produced output in non-SI units of pound-seconds (lbf×s) instead of the metric units of newton-seconds (N×s) specified in the contract between NASA and Lockheed. "

But there IS some speculation about what changed Mars from a world with some running water (at least in spots) to a near-vacuumn dry, cold desert.

Maybe an ancient Martian civilization denied climate change a few decades too long, and then they lost everything including most of their atmosphere in some runaway event.

Be warned, maybe.

>> But i remember when Freon was the focus and Warmies were positive if they outlawed Freon, then the Greenhouse effect would be taken care of.

I thought the environmentalists' concern about CFCs was mainly their effect on ozone. I don't remember any environmentalists ranting about CFC-global-warming, only penguin-sunburn and humans eventually going blind from the noonday sun. (Yes I'm exaggerating, and indeed my memory is fallible.) However, ask anyone in Australia about UV on their beaches. Already there was noticeable human health impact (skin melanoma).

CFCs ARE also greenhouse gases, very potent, though at least they are lower in concentration than CO2 THANKS TO global regulation.

CFCs are one of the "other factors" that the climate modelers are trying to include accurately.

I don't know how mainstream the "CFC-Ozone-cosmic-ray-sunspot-UV factor is to climate change, but I think someone cited it on this thread. It sounded to me like some researcher with a big name in an Ozone-UV specialty including the interaction with CFCs, but what do I know?

>> So millions of dollars of needless expense was dumped on the public,
>> So i am waiting for actual proof

Banning some CFCs is already curing the ozone hole. That is also measurable and is not argued by any reputable scientist. The scientists were delighted that that "fix" effect was visible so rapidly.

>> So i am waiting for actual proof, not more panic driven hype, before i believe anything the Warmies say.

CFC concentration, ozone density measurements, ground level UV at high latitudes, the numbers ARE in already. Since we didn't wait for mass blindness and Deniers admitting facts before starting the fix.

>> before i believe anything the Warmies say.

Sometimes it seems like the Sahara will freeze over AND both ice caps melt before you'll believe anything "the Warmies" say.

Just once, so you can hear what it sounds like to others, would you please try saying "blah blah blah before I'll believe anything that 97% of the entire scientific community says."

And keep the same tone of disgust and contempt in your voice when you say "the entire scientific community".

You respected their mainstream opinion when they declared GMOs safe, and you didn't even need 97% consensus.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
4:14 PM

Post #9792534

Hmmm. My prediction is not working out so well.

I predicted that I wasn't going to keep participating in this thread.

Another egg-head theory busted wide open!

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 18, 2014
4:49 PM

Post #9792561

Predictions are tough, especially when they're about the future. (Yogi Berra, I think)

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 18, 2014
5:03 PM

Post #9792578

:-D
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
5:07 PM

Post #9792581

We missed you, for sure.

I did not think you could hold out as long as you did, I have quit it forever a few times, too.

And i will mkde a deal with you. Instead of repeating things you say that i think is unproven nonsense, i will just say Blah blah blah, if you will go back to using Global Warming, which describes your belief that the world is gettinng warmer, and stop hiding behind Climate Change, which describes what i believe, that the Climate Changes both ways.

You may be right about the Freon not warming the Earth, but what i thought was so stupid about banning it just in the United States, it was still available across the Mexican border for a dollar a pound, while we were paying 15 or 20 a pound. Ozone does not stop at the border, so if they could not ban it world wide, they should not have banned it just for us.

Ernie
..
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 18, 2014
5:28 PM

Post #9792593

Ernie, We got the desired result by a few countries banning it and we all benefitted from the effect on the ozone layer.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 18, 2014
5:50 PM

Post #9792610

Nice to see you back, GG!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
5:55 PM

Post #9792612

Steady, I hate to be skeptical, but our country and the ozone over it is a very small part of the world, and if removing that tiny fraction of the Freon fixed the entire world wide Ozone problem, it must not havbe been a very big problem in the first place.

I recall a lot of people did not believe the Ozone was disappearing, it was just moving. Remember there was a big hole in the ozone over Antartica and surely Freon did not cause that.

So many of these panics seem to not be as bad as first feared. Does anyone know if the Ozone over Mexico has disappeared because of Freon use down there?

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
6:18 PM

Post #9792624

>> I have quit it forever a few times, too.

LOL!

>> if you will go back to using Global Warming, which describes your belief that the world is gettinng warmer, and stop hiding behind Climate Change,

No, because they are different things, and no matter what you think, the global conspiracy that disagrees with you is not "hiding behind" a contrived lie. That's your world view, not mine.

1.
Global warming is about the long run average.

All that extra CO2 in the atmosphere HAS TO hold in a lot more heat than the atmosphere ever held in before, going back 400,000 years. That's the basic physics of the greenhouse effect: all frequencies of sunlight come in and are absorbed, They are re-emitted mainly as infrared (heat), but CO2 very strongly absorbs some IR bands. Now, that heat can't escape. Worse, it is being absorbed right into the atmosphere where weather happens.

No matter how the complex system shuffles that heat around, like into the ocean surface, it has to go somewhere and make those things warmer. Energy is conserved. That change in (?) surface temps(?) oceans (?) stratosphere (?) has to affect atmosphere and oceans in some way that, on average, raises averaged global temperatures.

Climatologists agreed on that right away and unfortunately talked to reporters who ran stories of rising oceans flooding New York City. Duhh.

But that's what I meant by "a brick through a window". There's an incredibly complex climate system with at least a dozen complex sub-systems like the water cycle with clouds, rivers and oceans, the carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, plants, crops, algae, heat transport ... convective heat transport which is even harder to predict, cloud structures which are even harder to predict ...

... Let's say it is around as complex as 10 Swiss watches. Now you make one important gear in each watch square instead of round (double or triple the insulation caused by CO2) and wonder if it will have a major effect on how the watch runs..

In the long run, however, the details can be allowed to blur together. In the long run, say 100-500 years, if you trap more heat, the temperature rises.

(Unless God or Gaea intervenes and pull some very unforeseen rabbit out of the hat that amazes everyone, like so many glaciers in some spots and deserts in other spots, that we reflect so much heat instead of absorbing it that we avoid some amazing amount of that inevitable warming, say half. But you can't grow crops or build cities on either glaciers or deserts.)

(Equally as likely as a Christian or Pagan miracle that almost saves us in the long run, is some fluke in the other direction, that kills us off much faster than predicted or guessed form the existing models).

The long-term prediction is hard because it will include huge changes we have never observed before. Predicting something very different is very hard. But "more heat = more warming" does get 97% agreement from those studying it. Apparently, they've even agreed that the human contributions are a significant factor.

I guess seeing 2-3 decades already agree with their long-range projections gave them a lot of self-confidence!

You can use the admission that long-run models can't yet predict details, only a net heat budget. You could use it to say :if we don;t know everything, we don;t know anything, so maybe nothing bad will happen - like some 0.01% likely optimistic case in someone's speculative model.

That's about as likely as the 0.01% likely pessimistic case where we have a runaway greenhouse effect in the next 50 years and boil the oceans.

Don't bet on double-zero to save the planet!

2.
Climate Change describes or tries to predict the closer-term changes (say, the next 50 years) in more detail and better accuracy.

NOW the fact of constant variability obscures detailed predictions.

And one thing the modelers somewhat agree on is that there will probably be chaotic flopping around until some new stability is found (probably with many things changed that we will have to adapt to, if we can).

And I don't mean "adapt to" by losing 90% of mankind to famine and reverting to hunter-gatherers, or becoming Mongols and conquering Patagonia.

Since they are trying to make detailed predictions that they can test against recent data, they keep discovering new factors. That is scientific progress, even if they are discovering how f----ed we are.

It's not a global conspiracy to increase taxes, changing its story to deceive you, it's a new science trying to understand something hugely complex and probably delicate, that we are banging on with a big, big hammer.

(Science is not like abstract math where you prove something in one theorem, BANG. You have a theory, see where it fits, adapt it, see if it gets better, compare it to facts, find a way to measure some new factors, someone disproves another part of it, thereby improving the theory, repeat 30 times, until you have a pretty complete idea of all the major factors and are mostly arguing about details, like stellar evolution is right now.)

So yes, there are fluctuations like "one year the polar ice cap did NOT retreat farther than it ever did before." It might be 15 or 200 years before we understand and can measure enough climate factors to predict details more than 3 days ahead.

But looking at the unbiased data (as in the links back40bean found), you can already see the long-term trend already visible and the more-chaotic near-term extremes.

That darned back40bean showed us that the long-term changes that I thought might take another decade or so to be incontrovertible can be seen clearly already even without the glaciers and ocean warming): " the last decade has been the warmest on record". That graph even shows a clear trend going back to around 1910.

And other comments in that link show that climatologists noticed some of the same things in their data that I was thinking just from random news items. The chaotic change is also here already.

I was hoping that I was being alarmist! Unfortunately not. Thank you back40bean ... but can't you arrange for the facts to be more pleasant when you find the next few?

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA   Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA         
Click an image for an enlarged view.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
6:49 PM

Post #9792655

>> I recall a lot of people did not believe the Ozone was disappearing, it was just moving. Remember there was a big hole in the ozone over Antartica and surely Freon did not cause that.

No, CFCs diffuse all through the atmosphere. They are so persistent that they have plenty of time to distribute themselves evenly.

>> what i thought was so stupid about banning it just in the United States, it was still available across the Mexican border for a dollar a pound, while we were paying 15 or 20 a pound. Ozone does not stop at the border, so if they could not ban it world wide, they should not have banned it just for us.

That turns out not to be the case. I had to look it up, when I wondered how widespread the agreements had become. Try Googling some of these and you'll be surprised also! This is the first encouraging thing I've read in a long time!

- "ban cfcs"
- Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer
- Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer)


Wikipedia:
"The two ozone treaties have been ratified by 197 parties, which includes 196 states and the European Union,[3] making them the first universally ratified treaties in United Nations history.[4]"

The agreement about ozone was more widespread than either of us thought!

I think the reason it is worst at one of the poles is because there is also some factor like seasonal concentration and release of some bromine compound there (I may be wrong, there may be other factors and the bromine story may be some BS artist.)

But the claim was that it was cold enough in the polar winter that this bromine compound froze out and precipitated on stratospheric ice clouds. Come spring, a whole winter's worth evaporated all at once and further weakened the local ozone - enough that it was super-easy to measure as a "hole".

Let's see ...

Yeah, Google "ozone depletion bromine".

The spring "hole" in the troposphere over Antarctica is a local symptom or consequence of the ozone layer DEPLETION over the whole Earth's stratosphere. I guess comparing two numbers wasn't dramatic enough for newspaper reporters: I also mainly heard about "the hole".

But it was the depletion of the rest of the globe's stratospheric ozone LAYER that would have progressed to more melanoma and retinal damage.

This seems to say that it is chlorine compounds that freeze out in ice clouds over the Antarctic and then are released all at once come spring.

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/hole_SH.html
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/o3/

"Because it is completely dark, the air in the vortex gets so cold that clouds form, even though the Antarctic air is extremely thin and dry. Chemical reactions take place that could not take place anywhere else in the atmosphere. These unusual reactions can occur only on the surface of polar stratospheric cloud particles, which may be water, ice, or nitric acid, depending on the temperature. "

I'm surprised that no one proposed geo-enginerring on those winter ice clouds, like zapping them with orbiting SDI lasers to blast the chlorine compounds into space.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 18, 2014
6:57 PM

Post #9792662

Sorry, I can't stop myself. It's "entrepreneur".
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
7:21 PM

Post #9792677

Rick,
When we first started hearing about the problem, the only words being used to describe it was Global Warming. Then when some of the Scientists got caught cooking the books, I believe in England, they found out it was not selling, so then we started hearing it change to Climate Change, to make it more palatable.

Now you and I may have read different dictionaries when we were boys, but it is pretty obvious that they mean different things.

I agree the Climate is going to Change both in the near term and the far term, but I do not believe anyone can predict whether it is going to be hotter or colder in fifty or a thousand years.

One thing I admire about you, is even when you are as wrong as a three dollar bill, you are sincere and believe every word you say.

I was Googling today during a conversation with Bean I believe, about when the conversation about Global Warming started heating up, and I wound up on a Yahoo search page that seemed to be a full blown discussion like we are having here. I did not open any of the articles, but judging by the article headlines, there seemed to be more contributors that do not think it is a looming apocalypse than do believe it is. You should take a look at it, since you believe 97% of legitimate scientists, not just the Boys in the Choir, believe it.

I have clarified it before to you,since you keep trying to mis-characterize my position, I will say it again. The increase of Carbon has been measured and proved. I accept that as a fact. But then the fantasies begin about trying to predict the future and then being terrified by what is possibly a mistake. The truth is, as you acknowledge, that many different things may,{or may not} happen. Warmies believe the worst possible is going to happen. I do not know which is going to happen, the best or the worst, so I am not going to buy a lot of land near the Arctic Circle for a future farm. I am just going to let the Coal Miners keep supporting their families until we see what develops.

rrr“I guess seeing 2-3 decades already agree with their long-range projections gave them a lot of self-confidence”

eee I do not think the last fifteen years, which has not seen an increase in temperatures, has given the Alarmists much confidence.

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
7:37 PM

Post #9792690

Rick,

Having bought industrial canisters of Freon 12 while my boat was in Mexico, both in 2000/2001 and 2002/2003 it was readily available, as well as in Panama and some other countries.

Having suffered much sun damage to my skin from spending my life outdoors, if the ban actually worked i am happy to hear it, but the last i heard, skin cancer is still rapidly increasing, instead of decreasing as would be expected. I just had some skin cancer, squamous, not melanoma, removed last week.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
7:43 PM

Post #9792692

You think its a global conspiracy of liars, I think it's science.
Lets agree to disagree.

>> I do not believe anyone can predict whether it is going to be hotter or colder in fifty or a thousand years.

I think that adding the extra insulation of 400 PPM CO2 makes it an obvious and easy conclusion for the next 50-200 years. Like most climatologists think, I recently had confirmed. I'll agree to agree with all of them, and respectfully disagree with you.

I have not heard of any climate model bold enough to extrapolate any predictions out to 1,000 years, except for saying "look what this model WOULD do if you ran it way past reasonable extrapolation".

>> then being terrified by what is possibly a mistake. The truth is, as you acknowledge, that many different things may,{or may not} happen.

I should try to make more clear what I expect is very likely, and what I think is frighteningly possible.

Say, for example, that the long term models that are immune to the short term variability managed to prove a 20% probability of climate changes over 100 years that would cause shortfalls in agriculture enough to starve 20% of our current population, or 30% of the population in 2114.

I would consider that solid grounds for the kind of international action that started reversing the ozone layer damage, and will probably solve that problem by 2050.


>> Warmies believe the worst possible is going to happen.

I don't know any of the crazed, evil conspirators that populate your posts.

People who study the climate or read about that science think is likely that some fairly dramatic and presumably bad-for-agriculture-things will probably happen in the next 10-50 years , and very bad things MAY happen in 50-100 years, but that if we do nothing the rate of CO2 release, that very bad things WILL happen in fewer than 100-300 years.

The WORST possible anyone has thought of yet is frequent super-cyclonic storms knocking down buildings and forests over half the globe, tsunamis from ice shelf collapses, EXTREME alternating climate extremes in different regions every few years, followed by runaway greenhouse effects like Venus, rapidly rising and/or boiling oceans, starting some time in 50-300 years but once it starts, going to the point of humans living in mines within only decades.

THAT would be "the worst" and I don't know anyone saying that WILL happen.



RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 18, 2014
8:14 PM

Post #9792713

>> I just had some skin cancer, squamous, not melanoma, removed last week.

If you look at the links, the rapid drop of ozone density leveled off, went up some, leveled or dropped a little, but i trending up.

That why I said something like 'will probably be solved by 2050'.

Maybe the improvement would be further along if fewer countries were cheating on the treaty ?

I see this:

"shall accept a series of stepped limits on CFC use and production, including:

from 1991 to 1992 its levels of consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A do not exceed 150 percent of its calculated levels of production and consumption of those substances in 1986;

from 1994 its calculated level of consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does not exceed, annually, twenty-five percent of its calculated level of consumption and production in 1986.

from 1996 its calculated level of consumption and production of the controlled substances in Group I of Annex A does not exceed zero.

There was a slower phase-out (to zero by 2010) of other substances (halon 1211, 1301, 2402; CFCs 13, 111, 112, etc.) and some chemicals were given individual attention (Carbon tetrachloride; 1,1,1-trichloroethane). The phasing-out of the less active HCFCs only began in 1996 and will go on until a complete phasing-out is achieved by 2030.

There are a few exceptions for "essential uses", where no acceptable substitutes have been found"

Hopefully the industrial canisters of Freon 12 you bought were from old inventory, that you aren't an international criminal conspiring to poison the planet and give yourself skin cancer! :-)

Let's see ... Freon-12 is CF2Cl2, which is in Group I of Annex A in the Montreal ... they agreed to zero production and consumption by 1996 and you bought it easily six years later.

Sorry to hear that. I agree that it supports your idea that not everyone obeys the law.

But if you were also saying, as it seemed you were, that "the existence of criminals means that we should not even start correcting the problem", I'll continue disagreeing.

BTW, this may get your blood pressure up before I go to bed:

Some science fiction novel was talking about a time when many people lived in space colonies, big tin cans where the life support system would rather quickly kill everyone if it was not carefully maintained.

The tin-can dwellers KNEW how fragile their ecosystem was, and had plenty of examples of blowouts and poisonings and crop infestations and diseases that required the survivors to abandon their entire "world" and sterilize it before anyone could return. No "maybes" there, they had examples.

The novel briefly described a controversial play where the main action was a child informing on his parents to the space colony's "life support police" for violating some law that protected the life support system from damage.

The novel made the point that "stupid mudfoot Earthers" thought it was horrible that mind police had brainwashed the kid into betraying his own parents for violating a mere law.

Most residents of space colonies thought it was sad that the kid had to rat out his criminally insane parents (but of COURSE he had to).
"Screw the law, we just don't want to all die tonight!"

The dumb Earthers did not realize how fragile their ecosystem was. They had not YET had their noses rubbed in an example of the failure of their life support system.

Oh, well, the Freon Cartel CFC-Lords will only slow down the ozone layer healing, not stop it.

Resistance to CO2 treaties ... now THAT could teach us the lesson that those space dwellers knew in their bones at a young age.

I hope we already have space conies by that time.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 18, 2014
8:39 PM

Post #9792730

One question for anyone who is sure the CO2 level is too high and needs to be lower-
What do you want to do about it?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 18, 2014
8:57 PM

Post #9792742

Rick,

Do you recall whether Mexico was a party to the Montreal treaty? The small cans amd the cartons looked new, as did the 7 kilo, canisters, and were manufactured in Mexico. I also heard from a Refrigeration Tech tthat flies all over the world fixing Navy and other ship refrigeration that it was available in Panama. I purchased it in a large modern marine hardware store, not some back alley deal. Come to think of it, a friend bought some down there 2 or 3 years after i did, so it was still in the market until about 2006 at least.

I read science fiction when i was 12 to 14 years old, and then gave it up, except about 30 years ago i read Dunes, that had the big Sand Worms in it, on a barren desert Earth. Hubbard wrote that. That was the last one i read.

You never responded to my question as to your thoughts about sacrificing the Coal Miners Families now, to slow down Global Warming. I do not understand why you are so concerned about people being destroyed in the future but it does not seem to bother you to have their lives ruined now to slow down the Carbon buildup.

Ernie

This message was edited Mar 18, 2014 7:59 PM
steadycam3
Houston Heights, TX
(Zone 9a)

March 18, 2014
9:12 PM

Post #9792747

Rick...You are a man of infinite patience.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 19, 2014
3:10 PM

Post #9793262

Dune, Frank Herbert. (so as not to be confused with L Ron Hubbard)
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 19, 2014
5:36 PM

Post #9793411

Sallyg asks the relevant question--what do we do about this? This is the big question. REAL BIG!!! No one anywhere is proposing, much less doing, anything realistic. People in the third world--China, India, etc.--who are coming into reasonable wealth are not going to want to return to mud huts. In this country, even very "green" people drive big SUVs and 4WDs (reference CG's comments from a few weeks ago). realistically, can anyone see the US cutting back and learning to walk and not heat/cool their homes? I heard one physicist (who had done modeling) say that, if the US just vanished, that in five years global carbon production without the US would equal what it is now with us.

Nobody (except, IMHO, reasonable people) wants nukes. Electric cars are a joke--they just move the coal burning elsewhere. Hybrid cars are good, but cars in general are a surprisingly small contributor to GW; it's mostly electricity generation that is the driver of atmospheric CO2. Solar and wind can't currently do the trick and it will be decades before they can.

If the most severe predictions are the ones that turn out to be accurate, we're already "toast". The best we can do is learn to adapt. Any other thoughts?

L. Ron Hubbard--another scary SOB ala Jeffrey Smith.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 19, 2014
5:44 PM

Post #9793419

thank you Willy, those are pretty much my thoughts there!

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:06 PM

Post #9793465

>> >> What do you want to do about it?

1. REMOVE CO2 from the air and oceans, hopefully without destroying the planet even faster than climate change.

There are several proposed schemes to suck CO2 out of the air, but "sequestering" a lot for a long time (centuries at least) is even harder.

And the problem with all those science-fiction-like "Geo-engineering" schemes is that the unintended consequences are likely to be huge. These schemes are like hitting a plate-glass window with a sharpened pick-axe ... but I expect that we will be driven to them in desperation, since we did NOT start fixing this problem in the 1980s when it became clear that we would have to, eventually.

These are the ones I remember:

1. "Ocean fertilization". Scatter soluble iron or floating iron "foam" in Antarctic ocens. The high-O2 level and presence of every other nutrient will support algae blooms if you provide iron. The area is (for now) only deficient in iron. Someone noticed that dust storms caused algae blooms, and that it was the iron in the dust that did the trick.

The algae feeds krill and fish and cetaceans. They hope that enough organic matter will sink and enter the abyssal circulation and "just stay there" for a few centuries to sequester useful amounts of CO2 pretty fast.

Someone tested the "iron bloom" by scattering iron sulphate (I think it was) from ships already passing through the area. But how much sank? How much just fee fish that resumed cycling carbon rapidly from sea to fish to sea to air?

How long would the algae blooms last, even if you could keep the iron floating around?
How long would it take to exhaust the local excess of other nutrients?
Don't know & don't know.

I only know that eager young nerdy scientists want to try it,
older conservative scientists don't think it would work very well, ...
...
... Ernie, we can agree on the rest of this paragraph!
...
... and true Eco-Warmies with an agenda and no conscience admit that they WANT to suppress industry and force people to live a less energy-intensive life (because they :KNOW we NEED to do that to be sustainable) ... and claim it won't work, and besides, that anything so unprecedented, experimenting on a global scale, is even riskier than learning to live with climate change.

I kind of agree that "unintended consequences on this scale are AS scary as climate at this time and for some number of decades into the future. But not as scary as the climate change will probably be in 2040 or 2060.


On land, the equivalent would be "plant lots of trees" and store the wood and bark where it won;t oxidase. Pretty small change, but every little Gigaton helps.

Turn desert sands into fertile soil with 5-10% organic content and keep it that way for hundreds of years. That could hold a lot of carbon, but as we know, organic matter in the soil is consumed rapidly and goes right back into the atmosphere.

Maybe turn the deserts into fast-growing forests, and then stack up the logs "somewhere" and sequester the carbon in giant pyramids. Future generations will think we had some strange fetishes.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:08 PM

Post #9793467

>> What do you want to do about it?

That's the difficult question, isn't it?

We've been pushing "efficiency" for some decades, and probably taken up some of that slack, since more companies and some people are willing to invest X to save Y per year, if it saves them money in 3-10 years.

But spending money (corporate funds, private savings or tax dollars) is an uphill struggle.

Becoming less competitive internationally (or compared to nearby company) is a hard decision. If another country or company has less concern about long-term sustainability, or the price of food in the Third World. they can put out a cheaper product and take your customers away.

My first reaction is "that's why countries have laws" and "that why countries sign international treaties". When the benefits accrue to everyone, including future generations, logically "everyone" should pay for it.

Then the hard part is agreeing on how hard to push and how far the obvious has to be proved before spending money, enforcing expensive regulations, and making everything more expensive.

And I do understand, and used to worry about, the idea of this government, or some UN agency, having and exercising power. Big organizations seem to make bigger mistakes than small ones, but we have conclusively proven, since the 1800s, that unfettered competition pollutes (BP), crashes the the global economy and gives each other bonuses for having done so, puts competitors out of business through what are now called "unfair business practices", and generally proven that they would follow the profit motive to h end of th3 world if it looked good on a quarterly earnings statement.

Some other system, mechanism, or authority is needed to address global problems like air, water and CO2 pollution. Like it or not, sharing a planet when our industry has the ability to destroy that planet's life support system without even trying, means that (like a space station), we need some global authority motivated by human survival more than quarterly profits. Or treaties with enough teeth that Mexico and Ernie don't undermine attempts to keep the boat from sinking.

I'm not a paranoid about "jack-booted UN thugs are taking over our school systems", but it DOES worry me that power becomes more and more concentrated in national governments, world organizations, and large corporation, as the world becomes more complex and, in effect, shrinks.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:08 PM

Post #9793470


>> What do you want to do about it?

Another kind of answer, ignoring HOW the actions can be enforced, is more nerdy.

1. Release less CO2 (hopefully without destrying industry and jobs).

Nuclear power, "hydrogen-based power distribution", small change from solar panels, wind trubines I guess ... then what? Electric or hydrogen cars?

Part of that is "sharing the costs", so that all the jobs and factories don't simply flee countries that care about our survival, and wind uo in Mexico and Red China so that everyone else is out of work.

As with air pollution, if every country FOLLOWS treaties that cap emissions, competition stays level. My theory is that at this time profit is flowing uphill faster than heated air over a volcano, and that there would be zero hardships if some of the profit that laws assure go the the richest 1% instead goes into paying the ACTUAL costs of industry.

Those costs should be based on running industries in such a way that it does not poison, cook, or drown the planet.

My theory was that it would have been cheaper to PREVENT lots of the last 180 billion tons of CO2 from having been released since 1994, than it will be to somehow suck them back out the atmosphere and sequester them somewhere. And INFINITY safer than the various "geo-engineering schemes being thrown around. But it's too late for that.

My next theory was to prevent lots of the NEXT 90 billion tons of CO2 from being dumped, like gasoline on a fire, between now and 2024. But it might take that long to convince the deniers that we even need to START.

I guess the only thing in this catetgory that we CAN do is struggle like heck to get minute improvments into international treaties over the next few years.

Then, as extreme weather and crop failures become undeniably caused by excess CO2, hope that something overcomes the denier's resistance and we start to bite the really unplatable bullet of international cooperation and regulation. In this context, global panic and food riots or monsoons drowning thousands (in the near future) might start to look better than billions of deaths in the middle future.

I guess that bleak possibility hints at a parallel method: pray that soemthing happens to save a species to stupid to live, from its own short-sightedness and greed. I'm not sure how I would phrase that prayer. Can a person pointing a loaded gun at his own head and pulling a trigger pray that God will spare him from reaping what he is sowing?

Maybe we can pray that the onset of undeniable change is fast enough to wake people up to the necessity of harsh, unpalatable, expensive actions, but slow enough that we can slow the rate of getting worse and start to reverse it while the tropics are still habitable and we have not made too many more species extinct and too much arable land into deserts or bogs or salt-inundated by coastal storms.


RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:10 PM

Post #9793471

>> What do you want to do about it?

3. Send tens or hundreds of of millions of tons of particulates and aerosols into the high stratosphere, and keep them there, to reflect sunlight indiscriminately.

That might simulate the effect of volcanoes like Mt. Pinatubo, but would aim for lasting effects more like the "Little Ice Age" than the sulfur-dioxide / sulfuric acid aerosol that Pinatubo threw into the stratosphere (taking a big bite out of the ozone layer as well.

The expect-able downside would be to stand the current system of atmospheric circulation and weather on its head, and then find out what happens afterwards. Probably something to try after the food riots have made extreme measures more palatable to the survivors.

Talk about unintended consequences!

The INTENDED consequence of this kind of intervention would be to reflect sunlight before it even reached the lower atmosphere. Fight fire with fire!

Maybe, after the climate models improve enough to make short-term testable hypothesis (like over 1-5 years), small-scale pilot-plant variations on this "nuke the stratosphere" approach will be proposed in order to try to create a small, predictable change that lets them refine the models enough predict more reliably what larger changes might do.

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/pinatubo.htm

"The cloud over the earth reduced global temperatures. In 1992 and 1993, the average temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was reduced 0.5 to 0.6°C and the entire planet was cooled 0.4 to 0.5°C. The maximum reduction in global temperature occurred in August 1992 with a reduction of 0.73°C. The eruption is believed to have influenced such events as 1993 floods along the Mississippi river and the drought in the Sahel region of Africa. The United States experienced its third coldest and third wettest summer in 77 years during 1992."

Umm, you ask: "how would we get tens or hundreds of of millions of tons dust or sulfuric acid aerosols or other aerosols that high, and keep them there, and NOT destroy the ozone layer?" Good question, I hope someone IS working on that.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:14 PM

Post #9793474

>> What do you want to do about it?

2. Orbiting mirrors to reflect 5-10% of sunlight. That's a LOT of mirrors! Like, at least 5-10% of the earths surface area, times some factor because they will be several hundred miles above the surface and hence have a larger radius. Plus another factor of 2-8 since they will only be in position to shade the earth some of the time.

Assume the mirrors come from lunar and asteroidal resources, using the space industry that we could not afford to develop while fending off famine. (Plus, it would have taken tax dollars to develop a space industry capable of saving the planet, and we CAN'T HAVE anyone spending tax dollars!

Figure out which latitudes need shade to mitigate the "uneven" effect of warming. First guess, the tropics need it most because they will be hottest soonest.

But who knows, due to the complexity of the system.

Probably, as some regions bake and others drown in rain or monsoons, the modellers will learn enough to get better models, and be able to guess where to put the mirrors to do less damage.

Then , the first few Geo-engineering schemes we try will teach the climate modelers more about what NOT to do, and what happens when you poke a hornets nest with a short stick.

Oh, yes! say we do learn that putting mirrors HERE but not THERE will benefit the industrialized North a lot, but give the tropics even more cyclonic storms. (Or vice-versa.) Negotiation, or war? Stay tuned.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:22 PM

Post #9793485

I forgot the most likely and effective way to reverse global warming.

Nuclear war, nuclear winter, problem solved.

The Keeling Curve and population curves look a lot like exponential growth curves. In the real world, as opposed to math, those never go on for long. They climb and climb until "something happens", like resource depletion or drowning in poisons.

Then, the bacteria, rats, lemmings or humans devour each other, go crazy, and/or start wars.

Based on history, that seems by far the most likely outcome as soon as crop failures and loss of arable land makes food our limiting resource.

First, the cost will go up, and "only" Third World and poor people will actually starve outright, stage food riots, and seriously depopulate regions and try to migrate en masses to anywhere with food. Small and medium-sized wars.

Then almost everyone will be impoverished trying to fed themselves, even in the industrial countries. Large and global and nuclear wars.

Problem solved.

The planet will recover from nuclear winter AND global warming at the same time. Then we'll find out whether small bands of hunter-gathering humans with Stone Age technology can compete with rats, cockroaches, raccoons, squirrels, and other primates.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
7:35 PM

Post #9793492

Ernie,
>> the cartons looked new, as did the 7 kilo, canisters, and were manufactured in Mexico.
... available in Panama. I purchased it in a large modern marine hardware store, not some back alley deal.
... so it was still in the market until about 2006

Bummer! The online articles I read said EVERY country signed.
Now that I think about it, of course, they all signed, in the absence of enforcment.

I do hope you know I was teasing about your being an internation CFC-smuggling king-pin!
Besides, doubting the claims of the warmies as you do, you wer acting consistently with your principles.

I could undertand giving up SF after reading ANY of the follow-on novels to Dune. Those stunk, major-league. As bad as Hubbard's ASF for the pulps. But Dune was Frank Herbert, by far his best book, thoguh "Under pressure" (I think it was) was pretty good.

I like Heinlein, Pournell, Niven, H. Beam Piper. You MIGHT like Piper and Pournelle.

Piper's works, or most of them, can be had free from Project Gutenberg. Check Lone Star Planet and Four-day Planet for humor, any Paratime short story for quality writing (like PoliceOperation or Time Crime). Space Viking, Litle Fuzzy, The Cosmic Computer / Graveyard of Dreams are some of my all-time fgavorites. You might like Uller Uprising, Day of the Moron and Murder in the Gunroom. I see I['ve listed most of his works. What can I say, I like Piper!

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 19, 2014
8:00 PM

Post #9793516

RickCorey, I think you've effectively demonstrated there is no realistic way to make any change to the CO2 level.
Algae blooms create other problems, particulates or mirrors do not get into the atmosphere without the expenditure of energy to create them and send them there, and we can't even get all the countries or rulers of the world to stop killing each other or their own citizens, much less come together and abide by international agreements.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
8:02 PM

Post #9793517

Ernie,

Why am I callous about coal miners?

Because EVERYONE will suffer, and not just from losing jobs, as we re-tool every industry and even, probably, how we live, to emit less carbon dioxide.

Say it another way. They (and the oil companies, and car owners, and maybe methane-farting Cows), are killing us slowly. Or fairly slowly, we're about to find that out over the next few decades.

We are going to have to do SOMETHING before it is much too late, and it is going to "hurt: everyone, economically at least, when we do.

Why am I callous about EVERYONE?

Because it WILL be much, much worse then just "economic hardships" if we don't start soon.

In the 1980s, it seemed to me that it might already have been too late to reduce catastrophe to "mere" global hardship. And (I thought) totally obvious to anyone that if you extrapolate a line going up steeply, it will reach "a bad place" eventually, or soon, or very soon.

Thirty years and 270 BILLION tons of CO2 later, we may still have a chance to reduce major global catastrophe to some more manageable degree of catastrophe.

Recently, it exceeded the highest levels the planet saw in the last 400,000 years. I'll express it as "I have concerns". "The sky is falling" sounds like small beer compared to this. To say "the sky is on fire" would be too alarmist. That won't happen for several hundred years (exaggeration - it won;t burn, just sear crops and lung tissue).

Yeah, it might take longer than I expect to reach the stage of enough crop failures to cause widespread, frequent famines and food riots.

It just doesn't make me delighted to think that maybe billions of people starving to death can be deferred several decades or even a whole century. Knowing that failing to act now dooms then eventually ... bothers me more than unemployed coal miners.

Besides, the coal miners might find work building levees to keep coastal cities above water if we wait long enough to start fixing the problem.

Wait a little longer yet, and they'll have full time jobs burying the bodies, or shooting at starving hordes trying to reach a food warehouse.

If we get to demand answers of each other, how can you focus on "we MIGHT NOT be destroying the planet"?

Do you have any interest or concern about the fact that we PROBABLY ARE, and the only reasonable question remaining is whether it will come in the early or late 21st century?

Let's even say that 9 billion more tons of CO2 every year might take until (wild, gross over-estimate) 2314 to fry or drown every hectare of cropland over half the planet.

When would YOU start addressing the problem, if you were King of the World and still had 5-6 billion people left, damn eager to do your will as long as you would quell the storms and turn their homelands back fro desert to arable?

What would you say to the billions of dead when they point at the Keeling Curve and demand to know why you voted against even TRYING to save their lives?

That you didn;t wnat to interfere with industry at all until you damn good and sure that they absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt WERE CERTAINLY going to starve in droves, and by then it would be MUCH to late to reverse it, too bad so sad?




RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
8:18 PM

Post #9793523

>> RickCorey, I think you've effectively demonstrated there is no realistic way to make any change to the CO2 level.

Sallyg, for the first time in this thread, I get to say "I'm not THAT pessimistic!"

There are no known plausible methods yet, that don;t involve HUGE risks. We probably won;t try them on large scales until the obvious, in-your-face downsides of climate changes are even more damaging than the plausible downsides of reckless Geo-engineering.

But they are better than seeing the world population drop from 8-9 billion down to, say 4-5 billion as the amount or arable land drops to 1/4 of what it was.

I do hope that we try some things (maybe even, gasp, conservation) soon enough that we can move from the new deserts to where the old deserts and tundra used to be, and establish crops that CAN survive there, before it gets so bad that we destroy industry and populations with large-scale wars.

It would be nice to avert mass amine, also. Risking huge damage to the planet with geo-engineering ... bad, yes. But the consequences of where we are going now? Worse.

My guess is that ocean fertilization and sequestering carbon in new soils and wood will be tried and found negligible.

Orbital mirrors will be too expensive unless we have lunar industry - but we won't invest in that, either, because multimillionaires have lobbyists to keep their taxes low, and the vanishing middle class will be spending more of their money on food.

We'll go to pumping sulfuric acid into the high stratosphere within a few of enough people noticing the obvious - that the alternative is worse.

Then we'll learn what the downsides of that are.

But I REALLY WISH that we had been researching such things on a small scale, as a desperately high priority, for the last 30 years, so we could feel our way into it gradually and hopefully keep the unintended consequences smaller.

But we didn't. And we aren't.

We may find that answer to the Fermi Paradox is that it takes more intelligence and wisdom and altruism from a species to create a sustainable industrial civilization, than it does to create a short-lived industrial civilization and then flush it down the tubes and revert to savagery.

By failing to pass the test.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 19, 2014
8:47 PM

Post #9793539

Willy, great post!

>> Nobody (except, IMHO, reasonable people) wants nukes.

I agree.

>> Electric cars are a joke--they just move the coal burning elsewhere.

I thought that too, but an electric-car enthusiast convinced me that the sheer EFFICIENCY of an electric motor over internal combustion was so great that it outweighed the waste in generating and distributing electricity. I don't know, but I hope.

One very painful small step is everyone (even in rich countries!) having to live near where they work. Not many people would vote for that, until gas is $100 per gallon, and wheat flour is (say) $20 per pound.

Hydrogen-powered buses for the luckiest masses and a few hydrogen airplanes and blimps for the very rich?

>> not heat/cool their homes?

Have to move everyone out of cold regions. Or heat in the winter using low-level reactor waste and count the sterilization as a free bonus for reducing the surplus population. "Bundling"? Not very reliable, and you still can't work a job while bundling.

I guess we could move back North after global warming makes the cold regions warm! (kidding)

I'm guessing that the tropics will starve before the fry, but I don't really know.

>> it's mostly electricity generation that is the driver of atmospheric CO2.

I didn't know that: it's very good news. Breeder reactors can generate electricity, create fissile fuel, and probably eventually "burn" reactor waste.

>> Solar and wind can't currently do the trick and it will be decades before they can.

Cartoon: a Woodstock-like festival, with a bearded, charismatic man shouting "Turn ON the solar-powered generator!!!"

Skinny, nerdy bespectacled guy holding a thin, limp power cable in his hands, sadly: "It IS on."

>> If the most severe predictions are the ones that turn out to be accurate, we're already "toast".

Yeah.

Pray, soldier on, hope. Push for sustainable technologies. Deal with despair and frustration. Prepare for hordes of refugees, and food riots or at least hideously expensive food. GMOs, pesticides, nasty herbicides ... all will be desperately embraced as alternative to famine. Or embraced as desperate alternatives?

Consider geo-engineering, so we at least go down swinging.

Develop profitable space industries that motivate LARGE self-sufficient habitats, so there's still a large gene pool of humans with technology to re-populate the planet after everyone else eats each other.

Replace electrical power generation with solar power satellites?

No, I forgot, we can't have taxes and anything that doesn't make the richest 1% richer is a bad, socialistic idea.

Gerard O'Neill started pushing space industry and colonies around 1970, but couldn't even get a paper published for four years ("L5" and "The High Frontier"). The Princeton conferences started in 1974 (I went to one of them.)

We might very well be, as a species, to dumb to live.
Almost every other animal knows not to foul it's nest.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 19, 2014
9:44 PM

Post #9793546

Rick--I guarantee that electric cars are a joke. Either you burn fossil fuels in your gas tank or you burn them in a power plant and then send the electricity to the car. Burning them in the car incurs X% loss. Burning them in a power plant incurs X% (plus or minus) loss, plus transmitting them via power lines incurs an additional loss. The only way you benefit in terms of CO2 is if the power is generated via hydro, nuclear, or some other carbon neutral generation scheme.

Electric cars can be a benefit in terms of air pollution in a congested city. Globally, they are actually worse because of additional inefficiencies. Hybrids are good because they take advantage of energy produced by the car itself. When braking, energy used to reach high speed is transferred to the battery and reused when accelerating. Also, batteries for hybrids aren't as costly because they don't get cycled as often. Battery expenses--both out-of-pocket and environmentally--are huge for totally electric cars. Read "Energy for Future Presidents" by Richard Muller (UC Berkley physicist).
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 19, 2014
9:47 PM

Post #9793547

Sally, Thank you for asking the question that needs to be realistically answered. If the problem does develop and becomes as serious as about 40% of the people believe, there will just not be enough lifeboats to save everyone.

Willy, While you do not post as often as some of us do, when you do it is usually relevant, and I for one agree with you that the only feasible choice is to Adapt. That will have to be coupled with a return to Darwinism or whatever ‘Survival of the Fittest is called.

The survivors will be forced into strange surroundings, as the Mormons were when they arrived in Utah. Irrigation was not the usual practice when they lived in the Midwest and East, but they adapted to using the melting snow to water the barren desert, and did very well. And that is just one example that has been repeated over and over during the history of our human race. Either people migrated into a different environment, or the environment around them changed.

As Sally said, Rick spelled out many theoretical possibilities, but all seem to be very difficult, if not impossible to put in place

None of us know how many of his theories would or would not work, but spreading Iron dust on the surface of the ocean would probably not be feasible. I had no conception of just how big the Pacific Ocean really is until I crossed it a few times in a small sailboat. And attempting to do anything physical in the atmosphere would be an even larger undertaking because, as Rick pointed out, the Atmosphere is much larger than the surface of Oceans.

But I am not worried, regardless of whether the next calamity is too much heat, too much cold, or too many rocks falling from the sky. There will be habitable pockets between the hot and cold areas, or between the wet and dry areas, where a few of the fittest will continue to adapt and survive.

But one thing about this entire difference of opinion that depresses me, is that instead of everyone believing in themselves being able to adapt and survive, so many of us now have lost that confidence and automatically turn to the Government to pass a law that will protect us, so we do not have to make the effort ourselves.

Rick, If I was the King of the World, I would gradually start weaning able bodied people from the idea that the Government’s duty is to protect us, not only from others but from ourselves. It would probably take longer to do that than it has taken to seduce them into dependency, while robbing them of their pride and self respect, but it would do much more good for them than to continue to make beggars and weaklings out of them to buy their votes.

As the able bodied people found out they actually woke up feeling better about themselves when they no longer had to use Food Stamps or take crap from a Social Worker to get Welfare, they would develop the courage to believe they could adapt as the CLIMATE CONTINUED TO CHANGE, just as I believe that I could..

Industry, Labor Unions, Corporations, Government, are all made up of groups of people, so collectively they have all of both the good and bad traits that individuals do. As any group gains power, that Power Corrupts the Group. So all groups need regulating.

In just my lifetime I have seen the Railroad treat my father and his co-workers brutally, even worse than slaves. That was before Unions had any power. Then, he got a ticket pass for the family from the Railroad and we migrated to CA. About 1937, I saw workers fighting with hired policemen on Soto Street, trying to organize into the CIO. Clubs were being used and I saw some men with blood on them. The Companies had the power and had been abusing it to the point the men physically fought for a Union.
I helped organize a Warehouse and was inducted into the Teamsters Union in November of 1941. In 1944 I joined the Operating Engineers Union and became active in it. By 1955 the AFL and the CIO had gained enough power that they became corrupted, and the abuse began flowing the other way. The Unions were organized enough to extort more money for their members then was deserved, which abused all non-Union workers by raising prices for everything without raising the non-union wages, plus all the graft the Union Officials raked off.

Then, as the Government grew and became more powerful, it became corrupted, and started buying votes and using taxpayer money to pay back the Unions or Private campaign contributors that helped re elect them.

And of course, the larger Corporations used their power to enhance their own growth.
So, the reason I took time to spell this out is that Power Corrupts, so every powerful group needs some Regulations.

But now. The EPA and the HHS and the IRS have gained so much power that they are now corrupted, and the regulators now need regulation.

So, to believe that big Government is the solution is a fallacy. It is just like the big Corporations, big Unions, and any other group. And the only solution is for the people to take an active role in fighting for a balance. But what we have been doing is to allow whatever group we happen to belong to or support, to become corrupt and abuse its power by taking advantage of weaker groups.

That is the real problem we should be trying to solve instead of worrying about things that may or may not happen in the distant and uncertain future.
Ernie

P.S
rrr That you didn;t wnat to interfere with industry at all until you damn good and sure that they absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt WERE CERTAINLY going to starve in droves, and by then it would be MUCH to late to reverse it, too bad so sad?


. Rick, i have never said anything to indicate that Industry should be allowed to run unfettered. That may be an ad homenen argument you are making.Every group needs REASONABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS but not to the point of being Counter Productive
E.



This message was edited Mar 20, 2014 7:15 AM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 20, 2014
4:54 AM

Post #9793614

Great post, Ernie.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
9:06 AM

Post #9793799


Rick,
I often see things like this that seem to contradict the links and articles you quote. Are people on both sides hyping or lying and actually getting away with lying, or how can the two sides be so far apart?

I have no idea who tthis fellow is, and i have never read National Review, but we are sure hearing different stories.
Ernie

"Victor Davis Hanson considers how technological advancements make it too easy to forget some things fall outside the range of technology for National Review. From Technology and Wisdom: “Computer models assured us that the Earth would now be getting really hot. But over the last 17 years, when carbon emissions reached historic levels, temperatures mysteriously have stayed the same or cooled. Nature remains fickle, complex, and unfathomable, and can defy even computer-enhanced theorizing…"
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 20, 2014
10:04 AM

Post #9793854

Great insights, Ernie.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 20, 2014
2:20 PM

Post #9794008

Regarding hydrogen: it isn't a practical source for energy. If obtained from electrolysis of water, it consumes more energy than the resulting hydrogen can return. If obtained from methane, it releases CO2. No free lunch.

We've had a Department of Energy for 34 years. What have they accomplished?

In a recent poll, a quarter of those asked didn't know the earth revolves around the sun. Another poll showed 65% of people thought only GE foods had genes. A letter to the editor in this morning's local paper stated: "Those who claim that evolution is scientific and creationism is just myth know better deep down. They are trying to avoid the reality of death and what comes afterward...(after the fall)...God had to limit man's ability to do evil by instituting death and the laws of thermodynamics".

Gee, if it warn't fer that durned apple, we wouldn't have thermodynamics!!!

Rick, I was going to disagree with your pessimism about mankind. The above tells me I have no argument. :«(
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
2:34 PM

Post #9794020

Willy,

Perhaps we need to Genetically Engineer the Evolution process and change SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST to SURVIVAL OF THE SMARTEST.

As a Human Race, we are certainly going down hill now. A large part of the dumbing down of America has been because we no longer require even a basic level of physical or mental effort to be able to survive. If you can make it out of your cradle, the Welfare State will carry you all the way to your grave.

Ernie
.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 20, 2014
5:21 PM

Post #9794151

Ernie--I don't know if I can go that far.

I will say I hate being pessimistic. Too many people have predicted doom and we've managed to carry on anyway. From the Plague to the Mongol hordes, to Stalin and Hitler and...we're still here. There's something deep down in all of us that lets us rise to challenges when we really need to do so.

Or not.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
6:25 PM

Post #9794204

Willy,
Well, i could agree with all you said except a couple of words.

That "Thing" that you say that lets us rise to the challenges of life seems to me to only be in part of us, not ALL OF us. . I have been arguing with Rick from the beginning that SOME OF US will adapt and survive, but sadly, not ALL OF us will.

While there are enough of the Survivor type that i am optimistic about the Human Race surviving, many able bodied people cannot survive on their own now, let alone if a calamity should occur.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 20, 2014
8:29 PM

Post #9794285

Ernie said:
>> There will be habitable pockets between the hot and cold areas, or between the wet and dry areas, where a few of the fittest will continue to adapt and survive.

You do seem to be saying that with a straight face. Please let me know if you're pulling my leg.

What you said seems to be what I would describe as "after 70% to 80% of the world population dies, and civilization is mostly destroyed".

I'll say again that AVOIDING that apocalyptic scenario seems worthwhile and urgent.
Even more urgent than reducing governments everywhere to Tea-Party-small!

You also seem to be assuming that the dead ones died quietly without causing huge wars and plagues that killed a lot of the people in the survivable pockets. I wouldn't bet on that!

Even the surviving pockets would be whiplashed by major climates changes, perhaps ongoing change, and presumably the locations of "farmable" regions will change, north and south, as the climate tries to adjust and find some new equilibrium. That why "widespread crop failures and famine" are easy to predict even if you don't know which ways which regions will change when. Major change, and especially rapid change, will drop yields sharply. Interesting world politics will evolve as certain regions find themselves starving or downing from monsoons while industrial nations keep burning more and more coal.

My guess? Those nations with weapons will eventually use them, before they starve. I think history supports that theory. "NBC": nuclear, biological and chemical. Bon appetite.

The changes will make agriculture a matter of rediscovering every few years what will grow and survive changing pests and diseases in each region - an ongoing experiment and gamble (which is to say, frequent famines even in the regions that are farmable after a fashion).

Even assuming that (for instance) the USA adapts your philosophy and would rather see most of humans on earth die than subject themselves to another regulatory agency, we might agree that many other countries (for example, all the ones that would starve first) WILL try to survive, and WILL use war as a tool for survival, and certainly WILL use nuclear, chemical and biological weapons if the industrialized and temperate nations tell them that the Northern Rich nations have all signed a suicide pact rather than work together to fix the climate. The Tropical Poor nations will have (literally) nothing to lose, if they go nuclear before the deserts, monsoons or glaciers kill them all.

This scenario sounds more like an argument FOR international cooperation and regulation to save the planet. I guess our values are more different than I realized.

Or, hopefully, you're pulling my leg.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 20, 2014
8:29 PM

Post #9794286

Ernie, do you have a link for that National Review article?
If I can only look at what you quoted, i can only make a superficial comment.

>> “Computer models assured us that the Earth would now be getting really hot. But over the last 17 years, when carbon emissions reached historic levels, temperatures mysteriously have stayed the same or cooled.

He either hasn't read anything technical on the subject for the last 10-12 years, is crudely lying (they have risen), and/ or a total idiot. Probably lying, excuse me, "distorting the science". Typical Denier distortion.

NASA, NOAA, the long list of real scientific organizations ALL disagree with that.
The quoted part of the NR article sounds like about as much integrity as Mr. Yoga-Flying or the "GMO causes Leukemia" anti-GMO publicists.

>> Nature remains fickle, complex, and unfathomable, and can defy even computer-enhanced theorizing…"

Yes, sure, obviously. But once you've taken your best scientific estimate, (not a politically-motivated BS position), and until you've refined the models further, you DON'T say "we can't know everything with certainty, so let's assume that the only true facts are those that agree with my political agenda".

You hedge your bets, and try to avert disaster. At least admit that you DO know what you know, and that this year's "middle-of-the-road-scientific-bst-guess" is "fairly bad soon, really bad later, and eventually mass famines".

Take two "5% extreme" guesses - one in either direction.
Say you get these two equally likely scenarios:
- maybe it will take 100 years to get really bad, and global famine might be as far as 200 years away, oh boy!
- maybe global famines are only 30-50 years away - we don't know.

BOTH SCENARIOS CALL FOR ACTION TO AVERT SUICIDE.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 20, 2014
8:30 PM

Post #9794287

"National Review", forsooth. ... Let's consider the source.

Ernie, you might call them a middle-of-the-road conservative think tank (the NR Institute).
I call them a raving, foaming-at-the-mouth lying mouthpiece for big-money sociopaths.
Maybe "socipaths" is a little harsh, but they fit the definition.

Founded by William F. Buckley, Jr.
They say of themselves: "has defined the modern conservative movement"
http://nrinstitute.org/

They're about like the Huffington Post for partisanship, but I think they go MUCH farter in the direction of knowing deceit than the Huffing Po.
You might think the opposite, that fits with our very different orientations.

Either way, I'll keep getting my science from NASA and NOAA, not self-professed political partisans, thank you very much.

P.S. I hope you find time to look at some H. Beam Piper. A lot of his early stuff is short stories, and you HAVE to read Space Vikings some day. If it helps: I came to like him back when I was at my most conservative stage.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 20, 2014
8:35 PM

Post #9794292

>> Perhaps we need to Genetically Engineer the Evolution process and change SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST to SURVIVAL OF THE SMARTEST.

Having spent a lot of time around nerds, that is NOT a survival trait. Maybe people with "people smarts" instead of "techy smarts" have some survival skills, and would help a primitive tribe to survive.

Technical smarts have almost no value unless you have a civilization around, with industry, technology, computers, books, libraries, schools and cyclotrons. Or at least enough surplus food that not everyone in the tribe HAS to spend all their time gathering it and fighting off other tribes. That was one theory of civilization. It took the invention if agriculture to produce enough excess food that a few people could specialize in crafts, government, teaching and religion.

Sort of like being J.P. Morgan , Fred C. Koch, or John D. Rockefeller. Having "industrial organization smarts" doesn't necessarily translate into helping a hunter-gatherer tribe re-discover agriculture or flint-knapping.

Global catastrophe might select for "the fittest" defined as those who can live on cellulose, in which case we would be replaced by termites.

>> the Human Race surviving, many able bodied people cannot survive on their own now, let alone if a calamity should occur.

Yeah, I kind of wanted technical civilization to survive, too, but I guess I'm in a wussy minority.

Neanderthals left fossil evidence of keeping tribe members alive into old age, arthritis, and broken limbs, even though they were not the FITTEST and didn't contribute to the tribes cash-flow. It sounds like the argument is being made for "climate change won’t be so bad if it reverses that wussy trend!"

That may be another liberal-conservative difference. "Social Darwinism" was a lot like the old Star Trek episode "Friday's Child".

"POWDERS, and LIQUIDS for the sick? Bah! We Klingons believe as you do, the weak should DIE!!"

I'm kinda on the other side, with the gentle and civilized Neanderthals. I think of one function of civilization as helping the weak and sick. Reducing human suffering.

Certainly rendering most of the globe un-farmable will select the survivors for certain traits. Resistance to pain, starvation and disease. Willingness and ability to kill neighbors for their food. Being nasty, brutish and short.

It might be worth factoring into the calculation that we mined out all the easily reached, rich ores decades or centuries ago. If civilization fell, even "briefly", we might not have enough technology left to re-create a technical civilization, because the only remaining metal and oil and coal resources requires advanced tech to get at.

Is there a word for "unfarmable regions" like "un-arable"? Uninhabitable? Not self-sufficient in foods?

Oh, well.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 20, 2014
8:41 PM

Post #9794295

P.S. I don't agree at all that every geo-engineering scheme has been thought of, or that all the proposed ones are totally impractical.

Suppose ocean fertilization could reduce the rate of getting worse by 2%.

Find a way to loft low-orbital metal balloons inflated with a tiny amount of gas, like Telstar, cut insolation by 1% right on the equator.

EXPERIMENT with strato-aerosols once it;'s clear that the alternative is mass starvation for some group we have any human sympathy for.

Fiddle with changing weather over deserts in ways that we might hope might establish some sod and/or trees over decades.

If we can postpone the worst consequences of our current suicidal stupidity by some decades or a century, that might give us time to find other technical mitigation.

Or (dreaming wildly now) the electorate might notice what's happening and think about voting for alternatives to riding the ship down while re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Call me a wild optimist.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
9:58 PM

Post #9794315

Ernie said:
ERNIE SAID
>> There will be habitable pockets between the hot and cold areas, or between the wet and dry areas, where a few of the fittest will continue to adapt and survive.

You do seem to be saying that with a straight face. Please let me know if you're pulling my leg.

Rick,
I was merely discussing how the Human Race would cope and adapt to the Changes that you are convinced are going to happen. Remember the thread changed to what REALISTICALLY could be done if it DID HAPPEN.

And I am not pulling your leg. While it may not be the Global Warming change that happens, based on the history of our planet, it is quite possible there will be a catastrophe that wipes out large portions of the population. But everyone of us are going to die sometime, which of course is always regretful but I do not see that a few years one way or the other is such a horrible thing.

As i said to Sally G earlier. IF RICK'S DIRE PREDICTIONS DO HAPPEN, THERE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH LIFEBOATS TO SAVE EVERYONE.

Your assume far too much, most of it wrong, about my philosophy or what i am thinking. I am just trying to add some common sense and reality to the things you imagine and fear are going to happen.

On the National Review article. I pasted all that was said. But as you seem to have closed your mind and ears to all of the moderate and conservative media, you apparently are not well informed on what the other viewpoints are. I watch Fox to find out what mistakes the Liberals are making as the Liberal media seldom mention that, and I watch the Liberal media to see what the Conservatives are doing wrong as Fox seldom reports on those things. By only listening to commentators that you know agree with you, you are depriving your self of half of the information.

And the information about very little Warming having taken place in the last 15 or 17 years is pretty well reported. It is also well documented by polls that about 60% of the population disagree with your beliefs about Global Warming, and while you sincerely believe it is the most Critical problem we face now, a large poll recently ask what the most important problem we face is now. Jobs and the Economy was near the top, and Global Warming was near the bottom.

Ernie


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
10:21 PM

Post #9794321

>> Perhaps we need to Genetically Engineer the Evolution process and change SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST to SURVIVAL OF THE SMARTEST.

Having spent a lot of time around nerds, that is NOT a survival trait. Maybe people with "people smarts" instead of "techy smarts" have some survival skills, and would help a primitive tribe to survive

Rick,
I certainly did not mean or believe that Education is an accurate gauge of Smartness or Intelligence. Education does provide detailed KNOWLEDGE about the subject being studied.

I have employed one Physicist, several Engineers, a few CPAs, Accountants and Lawyers,, and had 3 MDs as close friends. All, of course were highly educated in their professions.

I have also employed many skilled tradesmen, and some laborers, so i have had a good opportunity to study the results of Education, Experience, and natural Smartness or Intelligence. Education teachs a lot about one thing, leaving less room to learn about other things, but Intelligence or smartness seems to be lacking or be in abundance in a person, unrelated to the number of years they have gone to school. I do not mean this in a pejorative way, as i have respect for all good men.

And what i meant when i said " to perpetuate the human race, we should focus on Survival of the Smartest". And the man that can best lead the others to adapt to new conditions will, in that situatiion be the smartest..

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 20, 2014
11:01 PM

Post #9794333

P.S. I don't agree at all that every geo-engineering scheme has been thought of, or that all the proposed ones are totally impractical

Rick, I do not recall anyone mentioning future schemes that might work. Willy and Sally did not think the ones you proposed were realistic or feasible, and i had never thought they were.

So, that is when we started discussing the Adapting, as Willy suggested.

If your nightmares do come true, it is equally likely that someone in the future may think of a way to cope with it.

But when you get to talking about changing the Oceans by sprinkling iron dust, or changing the planets atmosphere by sprinkling Pixie dust, it reminds me of an old story.

A monkey was making love to an Elephant, and she coughed. The Monkey, being a Gentlemman, stuck his head around her hip, and shouted, "What's the matter, Old Girl, Am i hurting You?
The oceans and the atmosphere is bigger and Manknd is much smaller than you seem to think.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 20, 2014
11:25 PM

Post #9794340

Not to mean this going to go on as long as Religion , But , it brings to mind Moses and Daniel from the Bible , At least Hollywood's version of that .
Oh Well ,, The science and magic of this will go on a while , so I guess .

I forgot; Anyone know where the Ark might be hidden ? That is about the only place I can think of , that might have the answers .

This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 2:28 AM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 21, 2014
6:06 AM

Post #9794471

Humans adapt everywhere from frozen tundra to desert to Amazon jungle. I imagine any of them seeing the other extreme , would think it inhospitable. Just saying, isn't it amazing how humans have adapted for many centuries?

I hope one of them thar metal balloons does not fail, fall to the ocean, and choke a whale.

Changing weather over desert- I read some interesting things about plans to grow trees in arid areas. Probably New Yorker magazine which has good in depth articles. No matter what I think this is a good area to put some effort into. For example, one plan was growing saplings and then taking them to desert and planting them. Too many died. So a new idea is a concrete trough that collects what rain might fall, channels it to a hole, shields a portion of ground from direct sun and and, and put the seeds in the hole. Lot cheaper to install than planting trees. We need SMART people to think of things this way.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
8:17 AM

Post #9794548

jUHUR,

Last i heard the Ark was on top of Mt Ararat in Armenia or Turkey, so if the oceans rise high enough that will serve as one more Lifeboat, for at least a few of the people.


Sally,

That is the kind of Smarts i was talking about. The people in Israel did wonderful work adapting to the Desert, and changing it to support humans..

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 21, 2014
11:05 AM

Post #9794658

For the record, Willy didn't say that none of the schemes were not workable. I do think that having to adapt is what will end up happening--our leaders don't have the courage to address the problem head on--but I am definitely not arguing that we shouldn't try to do something.

Nuclear power is one good answer in the short term, but even that is a decade or more away from starting to help. Natural gas emits half the CO2 of coal and could be very useful near term. Both solar and wind can make small contributions right away, too--small being the key word. But both nukes and natural gas face heavy political winds and again, the politicians haven't the courage to lead. Just like GMOs, too many people are (irrationally, IMO) afraid of nukes/fracking/what have you. There is little understanding that, in the real world, nothing is 100% safe. Polluted air kills millions every year. One African country (Tanzania?) refused corn shipments during a famine because they MIGHT have included GMO corn. Better to starve for sure than eat GMOs! Good thinking there.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
12:14 PM

Post #9794723

Willy,
" No one anywhere is proposing, much less doing, anything realistic"



Thanks for the clarification. I would not want to misquote you.

The quote above is what you said. and I just assumed it included Rick's proposals.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 21, 2014
3:07 PM

Post #9794856

Ernie--re-reading my statement, I can see the interpretation you gave it. What I am trying to say is that, aside from loose talk about a carbon tax, or going 100% solar/wind (impossible for decades), or whatever else is offered, no one of import (a politician) anywhere in the world is actually trying to do something about the problem. As one former oil company CEO said (I forget who and I paraphrase) Not one world leader has the political courage, nor does any country have the political will, to actually DO SOMETHING.
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 21, 2014
3:38 PM

Post #9794874

juhur7, I have seem pictures of what could be the upper part of the ark of Noah. As far as the Ark of the Covenant goes, Ron Wyatt said he found it in a cave under the "Skull" in Jerusalem.

http://www.anchorstone.com/asi-newsletters/wyatt-newsletters.html
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
4:01 PM

Post #9794885

Willy,

First, I am glad you are not offended because the last thing i would want to do is offend my Spell Checker. Only God knows when i might need him again on this program.

And i agree completely with the paraphrase. That lack of courage the Oil Exec mentioned is one of the major reasons we are in the mess we are in.

The only thing i have against wind and solar is the exorbitant cost. Many sailors have been using solar panels for a long time, and of course the Old Windmills were a Godsend 100 years ago, before cheap electricity came along. Nuclear power is what i think we need, but then again, it is the timid people along with the timid Government that has kept us from having that.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 21, 2014
4:02 PM

Post #9794886

Indy: I have seen several films and information documentaries about the Ark ( of the covenant).
It has been known in Ancient History to change climate .
Have actually seen a piece of wood from Mt. Ararat Many decades ago . (Noah's Ark)

Part of the Ark of the Covenant is said to be in Africa , The Control Part and Tablets of Judgement and Prayer are under Or in a wall (most likely of what use to be any one of 15 of King Herod's Palace's
Well anyway , with those, the Tablets it is said to Control (weather , us , Various )
It is about as much a chance as anything here ..
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
4:11 PM

Post #9794891

Juhur,

I apologize for thinking you were referring to Noah/s ark, but now that you have explained about the Weather Control aspect, i understand.

I was thinking along the line of using it for a lifeboat.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 21, 2014
4:11 PM

Post #9794893

It's pretty hard to offend me, especially in a forum like this.

I enjoy the interchange and the perspectives of all contributors, but I can see that many don't understand the fundamental guideline: Be reasonable, see it my way.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 21, 2014
4:19 PM

Post #9794895

Ernie , Not a problem , I should of been clearer , Comes back to likely finding that(the Ark of the covenant) about as soon as finding answers to all this conversation here.
There are only a few ideas where 5 of King Herod's Palace's were , In Either case , all will be looking for while as to answers ..
All things being , I was really referring to it all being Science and Magic second guessing Creation (we all do not do that all that well ) and not to be-little Religion either .
Takes a lot of work .. to guess with creation ...

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 21, 2014
4:23 PM

Post #9794898

WillyFromAZ I was not ignoring your point either , Last I was considering wind solar here , they Have Raised The Taxes on that now also .
Most only want CONTROL ! not Resolution or Resolve !

Pardon Willy , Years ago I lived near the Great Salt Lake in Utah , It was about at it's lowest level in history then , You could see the erosion levels where the lake had risen and fallen for centuries ,
Decades after , It was up over a stop sign where i use to drive from Utah to Nevada .
I don't believe all this is any different than what has happened before , Science and us are worried about the challenges it all suggests , that is not any different either , always was, always will be ..

This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 7:47 PM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 21, 2014
6:09 PM

Post #9794957

Ernie said:
>> And the information about very little Warming having taken place in the last 15 or 17 years is pretty well reported.

Once again, I'll look to NASA, NOAA and every reputable scientific organization on the planet (Footnote *1) for facts, not biased reporting by flacks for EITHER partisan side, many of which are pretty intoxicated from huffing their own flatulence for decades.

(I wonder whether hot air from politicians is included in global climate models?)

MEASURED FACT: global average temperatures are already rising. The sound-bite from National Review is untrue and known to be untrue by anyone with back40bean's research skills and determination - and 97% of everyone who studies climate.
(see image below)
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


>> It is also well documented by polls that about 60% of the population disagree with your beliefs about Global Warming

I'm sorry to sound elitist, but I do give more credence to climatologists about climate modeling, than I do to "polls", many of which are conducted by groups with agendas.

>> what the most important problem we face is now. Jobs and the Economy was near the top, and Global Warming was near the bottom.

Short term, that makes sense.

But I make fun of managers for only looking at quarterly profits.

I make fun of politicians for only thinking about the next election, when planning for problems that might take decades or more to become widely life-threatening, and might take centuries to cure,

So I am also going to urge even people worried about their next paycheck, or lost home, to think about their next generation, and their lost ability to grow food. Ideally, the industry to save the planet will also create jobs.

My uniformed view of why the economy stagnates is that excess capital is flwoing into a small number of bank accounts and sitting there, instead of circulating through a middle class, being spent and stimulating industry.

-------
* Footnote 1 - collection of scientific organizations that acknowledge the problem:
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus : near the bottom

"nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2010)
Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2007)

Thumbnail by RickCorey_WA
Click the image for an enlarged view.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 21, 2014
6:14 PM

Post #9794964

RE: Geo-engineering

Ernie said:
>> The oceans and the atmosphere is bigger and Mankind is much smaller than you seem to think.

That's been true for many hundred thousand years (or more, depending on which primates you call "human").
And mostly I agree with the tone of humility in the face of the entire planet. It is big, and each human is (physically) relatively small and weak.

Unfortunately or fortunately, technology does give us a lever big enough to move the world.

We are already well underway in the process of damaging the climate without even trying, through technology and The Power Of Mega-Stupidity And Short-Sightedness.

With technology plus the (supposed) power of intelligence and wisdom (if we can muster enough of both), we actually COULD nudge the climate in various directions if we put the world's industrial might behind the effort with some kind of agreement about "let's not commit suicide".

The hard parts will be to get any agreement on "let's survive", and then do it WISELY enough that we make matters better, not worse.

If we had invested in lower-cost lift-to-orbit technologies 20-30 years ago, we would have stimulated the economy and soon be able to build solar power satellites, easing the electrical power genration CO2 footprint.

But we were short-sighted and cheap, and "drill drill drill" plus "burn clean coal" (!) won the day. Thanks, Koch brothers, burn in Heck.

If we had pushed space industry 2-3 decades sooner, orbiting "Telstar"-like mirrors from steroidal nickel-iron or lunar aluminum would have been possible by this date. But people thought O'Neil was a dreamer.

Yes, the SCALE of orbiting enough mirrors to shade a whole 5% of the globe would be HUGE. You could only do it with asteroidal (Near-Earth-Orbit) or lunar resources. But how about selectively shading 2% of the near-equator zone? When we understand climate better, that might be enough to avert some of the more damaging near-term chaotic downsides.

Deferring the catastrophic effects by 50 or 100 years would be VERY worthwhile, if it postponed global famine long enough for (say) us to build enough nuclear reactors and/or solar power satellites to drop the NEW CO2 production by a lot.

Unfortunately, the dirtiest and riskiest geo-engineering scheme is the easiest to do without space-based industry. Pump millions of sulfuric acid into the stratosphere. Let's see ... require burning only high-sulfur coal. That might be enough by itself ... if it didn't cause deforestation through acid rain.

Using fusion bombs to throw huge amounts of dust really high. We might get that "for free" when Pakistan decides that nuking someone is preferable to dying of thirst, or India gets cranky about losing a few hundred million more to monsoon floods.

I don't think it is BEYOND our ability to hit the climate with an even bigger brick than we already doing without even trying. The hard part will be doing more good than harm.

But apparently it is beyond our wisdom to even try.

"Lack of leadership" ... that's true and a very relevant point. But I fear that the WORST aspect of democracy is that we only occasionally get better leaders than we deserve.

BTW - I do include myself in the group of voters who should NOT be made King of the World. I would have spent the entire global budget on pie-in-the-sky schemes before I was 30.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 21, 2014
6:22 PM

Post #9794967

Willy wins the humor prize for today:
>> but I can see that many don't understand the fundamental guideline: Be reasonable, see it my way.

I've seen variants on that:

"I'm not bossy, you just need to be told what to do."
"I'm not nagging, I'm right!"


Sallyg said:
>> I hope one of them thar metal balloons does not fail, fall to the ocean, and choke a whale.

Totally! And that all the other, much much more horrid kinds of damage remain LESS damage than what is coming if we do nothing.

Flipping that problem around: the very first thing that would be tried (if we could) would be to throw a few thousand tons of refined asteroidal iron from orbit into the iron-poor regions of the ocean. That's why I originally said "foam". I would melt it in orbit, than expand it in vacuum with gas into tiny spheres that would be light enough to float in salt water. That way they would stay near the surface but release iron slowly as they rust away.

First they would notice that the "bloom" effect is pretty limited, then notice that the sequestration doesn't last very long (100 years is not long enough for a long-term improvement), and then notice that it also hurts existing ocean life (or helps some and hurts others).

Sure it would be hideously risky and certain to upset the oceans in SOME way. We probably would not take that risk until we saw, say, 90 million people die from famines that were OBVIOUSLY caused by man-made climate change. 1% of the world's population will spur desperate measures.

Too bad the climatologists can't convince us to start CAREFUL measures now, or 10-20 years ago, while we might still have had a chance of succeeding.

Remember: we add 9 BILLION TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere every YEAR.
The problem is getting that much worse, THAT FAST.


Willy said that someone said:
>> Not one world leader has the political courage, nor does any country have the political will, to actually DO SOMETHING.

Whether that was an oil company CEO or you, whoever said it is right. The "caps" and "carbon taxes" are typical politician/diplomat approaches: things you can pass laws about, but unlikely to solve the problem. At ;east they were trying ... but the US Congress voted it down, didn't they? It would have been very bad for their biggest campaign contributors, and also hurt everyone in the short run.

The Unabomber was also wrong, but at least he knew he was wrong, when he pointed out that you COULD greatly reduce industry (and by implication CO2 emissions) if 95-99% of the population was willing to give up industrial technology and hence commit suicide "for the greater good. We simply are NOT going to do that, even if it is the same thing as signing a pledge that our grandchildren will have to march into the sea en masse.

Just plain giving up on electrical power and comfortable lifestyles is NOT going to happen. Instead, the Third World is going to adopt our rate of resource consumption and CO2 release as fast as they can.

That's why the Keeling Curve is inflected upwards.

It is one of the reasons I think we need to find smart solutions, starting 20-30 years ago.


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
6:25 PM

Post #9794969

Rick,

I am glad you have so much blind faith in the Government that you trust them so implicitly.

But, to honest, aren't you very glad that you will not have to have Obamcare handle your health problems? lol.

It seems to me that some of the Scientists have been making huge mistakes, ever since they were arguing about whether the Earth revolved around the Sun, or vice versa, so I am going to wait until i see what ever reputable Scientist should do, and that is to wait until his ideas are proven before he starts hyping them. In fact, it seems like you said that is what a good Scientist should always do, is to prove his perceptions.

I am going to try real hard not to attempt to correct all of your mistakes tonight, as i know you make them in good faith, so I will stop here for a while.LoL

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
6:40 PM

Post #9794976

Rick,

There are enough qualifiers in what you wrote tonight that i have to correct only one mistake

rr"Unfortunately or fortunately, technology does give us a lever big enough to move the world"

It does not matter how long your lever is, if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything, and so you cannot move the World.


Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 21, 2014
6:47 PM

Post #9794981

>> I am glad you have so much blind faith in the Government that you trust them so implicitly.

Naah, just "better than the alternative".

>> so I am going to wait until i see what ever reputable Scientist should do,

I thought you were going to say "and then do the opposite"!

>> wait until his ideas are proven before he starts hyping them.

Real-world scientists do start hyping their theories, to each other, as soon as they can get into print (in reputable journals).

In an ideal world, they would refrain from yacking to reporters and trying to get it into textbooks until their results were at least fairly convincing to the researchers that used to disagree with them.

Like "a consensus". Like what we do have in climatology.

The sin is to call a "maybe" "certain".

In climate change, we are still at the point of "probably" many different things in the short term.

However, there is agreement that reversing the effects of many decades of huge CO2 emissions WILL take hundreds of years.

And unlike political leaders and most ordinary people, climatologists are already used to looking at various time ranges, where most of them consider 100 years to be "the near term".

Weathermen consider 5-10 days to be the very LONG term.

I do tend to consider the "scarier" side of the bell curve of their predictions, because I think it is prudent to insure against things that are only 20% likely. Heck, I pay a ton for car insurance even though that risk is lower than 2% per year.

My attitude is that, when it is "all our lives" that we're protecting, we should be more concerned than we are about totaling one car.

But if a 10% risk of starving 10% of the world population to death in either 50 years or 100 years is an acceptable risk and preferable to paying the premiums this year, continuing on the way we are going is also an acceptable risk.

In those models, the risk goes up sharply if the model assumes continued release of 9 gigatons per year. When you talk about the 100-200 year window, I think most of the modelers just look at you funny and say "Yes, of course, if we did THAT we would ALL be hosed, DUHH!"

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 21, 2014
7:00 PM

Post #9794991

>> if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything,

False analogy. Good rhetoric, but false analogy.

Proof:
acid rain
DDT killing off birds
Chernobyl
the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much
coral reefs dieing
deforestation
ozone layer thinning
irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space


All those are global modifications that already happened without anyone even trying.

If we start trying, for sure we will CHANGE things.

Ecologists are right to be horrified: the odds are great that we will do at least as much harm (to some things) as we do good to other things.

But as soon as people realize that doing nothing means things like more expensive food (and famines and desertification and monsoon floods etc etc etc) , we will start doing the notorious "something".

I'm urging that realistic planning and action be started ASAP, before it is obviously too late, instead of only maybe too late.

On the other hand, the population curve, in any other context, would scream out "Look at me! I'm about to top out and then crash!"

Climate damage will start that process. If it goes far enough, war will carry it through to a point where civilization and industry crash, too, and then the climate will heal and come back over some centuries.

Will civilization come back?

That depends on how far the wars go. Larry Niven came up with a phrase something like : "THAT war will go to a conclusion ... it will continue until it's fought with stones and sticks." Einstein said something similar.

Can humans without technology or agriculture compete with rats, wolves and coyotes? Wolves know how to cooperate with each other in packs, which gives them an advantage over humans, who only have politics.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 21, 2014
7:34 PM

Post #9795010

>> if you do not have a fulcrum, it will not move anything,

rr"False analogy. Good rhetoric, but false analogy."'

True anology.

Every item on your Proof list impacted very limited areas of the World, and did not "Move the World", and most of those problems were limited and have been corrected.

acid rain ...has been greatly reduced.

DDT killing off birds... Banning it has turned out to be a mistake. Probably as many babies have died in Africa from Mosquito carried Malaria as birds died in the USA. Should have been regulated, not banned. Panic stricken Eco nuts responsible for the dead babies in Aftrica.

Chernobyl... Animals and birds have returned and are thriving in the area affected by Chernobyl.

the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much... Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.

coral reefs dieing,,,Coral reefs in many places were destroyed by an explosion of starfish. Dead reefs both far above and far below current sea levels prove Coral reefs have been growing and dying for millions of years.

deforestation. Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.

ozone layer thinning . I thought that was solved with the expensive banning of Fluorcarbons. or was that another mistake by the Eco Nuts.

irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space...Increased food kept millions of people from starving or going to war over the last loaf of bread.

Larry Niven probably wrong. People become weary of war and will probably stop fighting and share the last few loaves of bread and make some babies and start all over againl

Rest of post i pretty much agree with.

Ernie






This message was edited Mar 21, 2014 7:06 PM

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 21, 2014
7:57 PM

Post #9795027

Where does all this CO2 come from? It comes from oil, natural gas and coal. And these three substances are incompletely decayed plant and animal matter that have been trapped under the soil surface over millenia. Where did the carbons originate from? They came from the air.

Humans by using fossil fuels are returning that carbon back to the air where it originated from. Of course we are doing this very quickly thus the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.

But fossil fuels wont last forever at least at the pace we currently consume them.

And since much of what climate scientists have predicted...yes all 97 percent of them...its been way off...they will not be able to predict the future correctly. So I have a hard time believing them or their numbers...not what has happened...those are facts...but what they have predicted or are predicting.




This message was edited Mar 22, 2014 10:34 AM

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 21, 2014
8:19 PM

Post #9795049

Rick...you ask if civilization will come back...im not so sure its going anywhere...at least not yet.

Humans have been able to successfully adapt to ever climate extreme on this planet. And they will continue to do so whether the climate changes or not.

This message was edited Mar 22, 2014 10:39 AM

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 22, 2014
7:37 AM

Post #9795287

Climate scientists have failed to explanin all of the natural resasons why temperatures and climate have fluctuated over time...nor proposed that those same mechanisims can be a part of the changes in climate we have seen.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 22, 2014
8:58 AM

Post #9795349

Drobarr,

Very well said, but too much common sense in what you say for the Warmies to want to sit still and discuss those points.

The only other time in my life that i have seen 97% of any group agree on anything, is when the People of North Korea "ELECT" there Dictators, It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists], to be a part of such a group, siince, as Americans they have the freedom to make up their own minds.

Ernie




WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 22, 2014
10:40 AM

Post #9795420

The oil exec I paraphrased was John Hofmeister from Shell. You can hear him here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/elements. This is a BBC podcast called "Elements" His interview portion starts about 23 minutes into the episode on carbon. Good series of podcasts.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 22, 2014
8:28 PM

Post #9795787

I give up on most topics here , good information for the ones who will be around to use it ,
Thing is though , another fact , I might be able to find convincing substantiation for is ; Nuclear Background radiation is rising two points every twenty years around the planet .
11/2 to go rads , in 60 to 80 years ,, and every mammal on this planet is dead ,,, that's all folks , ' From Happening now !!! smile I will see you all there ! ^_^ Where climate won't mean a thing !
Already happened ,, generation and a half , and no more mammals ,, it has already happened
Wouldn't happen to a cure for radiation poisoning handy ,? would any of you ?
Sleep tight and dream wonderfully tonight ...he , he , he ,
drdawg43
Starkville, MS
(Zone 8a)

March 23, 2014
7:40 PM

Post #9796439

What is the date of all our deaths? I would like to prepare my obituary notice. LOL

P. S. Is this the same "End of the World" as we have heard about for the last 100 or so years?

Ken

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 23, 2014
7:57 PM

Post #9796444

Ernie said earlier Chernobyl , Birds , insects , various animals , Apple groves , various plants , all doing well there ,
We (human) cannot live there ,
No is sure when anyone is going to crossover (our Deaths , time of from klrkkr )
Radiation has only been rising slightly since , mid 1960's . increasing all the time (geometric )some since then ,
It goes beyond a certain point and that all .. (yes that )
This planet does not need us humans , and that most life on earth developed in a radioactive environment , How come Mammals did not ?, How come Man did not ?
Not the same 100 yrs. syndrome ,, Only it leaves me with the thought , no matter what happens , some of this here, is not looking good for the future !!!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 23, 2014
8:12 PM

Post #9796460

A documentary, maybe National Geographic, on Chernobyl evidentally surprised a lot of researchers that expected to find a lot of mutant specimens, like two head coyotes and such, but aninmals are thriving. The researchers spend time in there, of course, but i do not recall how much time they are allowed to spend.

I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened, so maybe we are over cautious about the damage limited amounts of radiation cause. And of course i understand and agree that there has been a lot of proven damage from too much radiation.

I do not know enough about it too have strong opinions either way.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 23, 2014
8:27 PM

Post #9796498

Ernie; I am wondering something like this ; What happens when a Radioactive Bird catches and spreads Bird Flu , A human catching a radioactive virus or bacteria , Or perhaps a radioactive mange or Anthrax ,?,
Lots of very bad things come to mind ... I don't know enough about this to be concerned to intellect level myself , only it does set the mind questioning ,,

I am of the opinion ; Radiation ,nuclear , from weapons and power plants , came as the "No Choice Option"
with the "Cart Before the Horse"
Sometimes ,I am not to sure the people who work and invented the use of Nuclear Power really know or knew what they doing either, besides how to make the mix of particles explode or produce electricity ..

This message was edited Mar 23, 2014 11:40 PM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 23, 2014
8:37 PM

Post #9796511

Juhur,

I know some people worry about a lot of thngs, and some of us do not worry very much about what may happen. I suppose each way is best for those that choose. I just happen to be in the segment that does not think it does much good too worry, as the things people usually worry about seldom happen.

We always get hit by a different bus than the one we expected and worried about..

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 23, 2014
8:53 PM

Post #9796528

I am only the question , answer type , question come , most of the time to few answers ,


I was standing on the deck of a cargo ship once decades ago , A 90 foot wave came out of a clear sightly rough sea . (not anymore than normal at the time )(the sea)
My reaction from crew ( not allowed to report or log ) that as being a giant freak wave ) " "Those do not exist" officially ,,
I thought ' "Fun Place" lol It was not though . I was hanging from the side of a table (like Poseidon adventure) A while before hearing that , looking through the upper viewing deck windows at the clear blue Algae line of the Atlantic Ocean ..There is about four to six feet of Algae that sit on the top of the Atlantic at the surface .. (for those that might not )
I am not a worry type , I am only happy some questions are even being recognized.
There is a lot of "seeing" that happen that is not noticed , and some is noticed to much ,,
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 23, 2014
9:08 PM

Post #9796533

Juhur,
Well, you have changed the subject to something i know a little bit about, as i have spent a lot of time on the ocean the last fifty years, but have been lucky enough to never have seen one.

It is well understood now that Freak Waves like you describe do happen, but not often enough for them to be completely understood. Very few of them get as big as the one you saw, but even a 30 or 40 footer can do a lot of damage as they are always unexpected.

They seem to be influenced by normal waves stacking up on tope of each other as the seabottom becomes more shallow. But like a lot of things, people have different ideas about what causes them.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 23, 2014
9:18 PM

Post #9796534

Ernie I like the documentaries about Giant Waves , Something nearer to you perhaps ,
Is think of them as a Earthquake on water ..
All this together i suppose is Climate change , Has a lot more to it , than inclimate weather ..
Lots of Climate change in very nice weather ..
I had hardly ever heard of straight line winds before the late 80's either , clear sky and poof , they happen ,,
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 23, 2014
9:32 PM

Post #9796537

I guess everything in the History of the world has either been influenced by Climate Change or has, in turn, partly caused Climate Change, as it has been changing ever since the World began.

One thing that seems to be scaring and upsetting so many people is the constant barrage of information we get now.. We all hear about everything bad as soon as it happens.

Strong winds out of clear skies without warning are a fairly common occurrence in certain places, and under certain conditions.

Ernie

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2014
9:11 AM

Post #9796915

Exposure to radioactivity DOES NOT make you radioactive. If one ingests a radioactive substance (moral: don't eat uranium), that substance is in the body and it continues to emit radiation, but even then, you do not become radioactive.

The air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat, the materials we build our homes from ALL contain tiny amounts of radioactive materials. This has been true since the beginning of time.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2014
9:17 AM

Post #9796921

Willy,


That sounds factual and makes sense to me, but the people that are afraid of it will not stop worrying about it just because of a few facts.

Ernie

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2014
10:07 AM

Post #9796970

It is factual.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2014
12:02 PM

Post #9797052

Willy,

while i had never heard that explained so explicitly, i believed you, since i never thought people would glow in the dark like a wristwatch dial.

And i did know what you said in the second paragraph.

But I would not be surprised if some people do not dispute it.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
12:09 PM

Post #9797056

Before my eyes , on the East coast , from the moving of a nuclear Warhead part that was radioactive .
A high particle warning badge on an individual lit up . Individual a swallowed a nuclear particulate , Said individual Regurgitated and wasted at the same time for two days constant ,
Yes , ewww .. However , that alone , the reaction , can cause death from dehydration .
Said individual lived , but that poisoning is nasty folks ,,

That particulate was the result of plain old everyday breathing ,, did not eat Uranium
I get the point of over reacting though , the individual lived for many years after ,

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
12:19 PM

Post #9797063

I remember the nuclear garden tests , where all the plants eventually died , They use to show us those years ago .
I suppose it was because it was done to see the doses of radioactive amounts it would take to kill a certain or many plants
Well the amounts of radiation used bring to mind ; I would not walk through a Flu ward without vaccination ,
I would not sit on a nuclear reactor to how much radiation I could absorb .

I wonder How many know the Difference between an Atomic weights and measures chart
and a Nuclear weights and measures chart ?
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2014
12:53 PM

Post #9797074

How did this person swallow a "nuclear particulate"? BTW, it'd also be bad to inhale radioactive material.

I would not sit on a reactor either (neither would I sit in a fireplace)--but, if I did, I would not be radioactive. I would still die if the dose received was high enough.

Atomic/nuclear weights and measures chart?????? Do you mean the difference between atomic weight and atomic number?

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
1:34 PM

Post #9797101

Willy; your? ; Atomic/nuclear weights and measures chart?????? Do you mean the difference between atomic weight and atomic number?
Something like the difference in testing Carbon 12 ,and Carbon 14 ones radioactive as Nuclear Radiation ,
The other is us in our natural balance .
Atomic weight
Atomic Number
Atomic PH
These are based on forms of Static
Their is a Radiation chart , Nuclear That has the same Static Carbon weights and Balances , Based on the same statics of Carbon , as the Atomic three number chart .. (Basic Science)
You won't see the chart often if at all (the nuclear) , Because every nut on the planet would be using it to build Explosives (radioactive)

The person swallowed this as a Radioactive charged particle of our everyday Atmosphere ,
That is the Danger of Radiation leaks , it can charge the air we breathe , with radioactive nuclear particles ,(poison)
Everything is Atomic ,, But not Radioactive ..
I tend to think of extremes of this as the difference between the Sun and a Radioactive Nuclear power plant , Both can create life and /or destroy life ,
If you sat on the Sun , you would burn up .
If you sat on a Reactor , you would burn up ) Just not the same to eye or view , but science says it is the same .
This far away from the Sun We are not absorbing Nuclear Power Radioactivity , We are getting Solar Radiation (obviously) But the difference in Static Chart equations is extreme .
Without the Magnetic atmospheric shield of the planet , We would be dead in a few minutes or seconds ,
I suppose
Alpha, Delta , ( and most common nuclear talk Gamma waves , I suppose could be nearer what I am referring unto .



WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 24, 2014
3:30 PM

Post #9797192

Juhur7--I thin we are having a failure to communicate here. :«) I think you are talking about isotopes of various elements. Can you provide a link to the kind of chart you are speaking of?

The nuclear reaction in the sun is not the same as that in a nuclear reactor--Fusion vs fission. C12 and C14 are both in every "piece" of carbon. I am still not clear on what happened to the person you witnessed who was irradiated, but I know that he/she wasn't irradiated from "charged" air he/she breathed. Either he/she ingested (mouth or breath) radioactive material or he/she was exposed to high radiation from the nuclear weapon component without ingestion. The badges measure exposure, not consumption. Every X-Ray tech wears a badge like that.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
4:08 PM

Post #9797254

I am not as much as to search to show the charts as could be) I have owned the charts besides the Basic science ,
Yes , The thing is , they said exposure was within limits When the individual was washed .
But the continuation was about they breathed in a nuclear charged Ionized breathe of Atmosphere ?
I don't entirely understand myself and it has been a long time since my study of this ,

The difference in the Carbon compounds is , One is poison when static charged , the other is not ,
Isotopes are beyond , They (MAN ,science) have intensified or Manipulated to measure or to make isotopes ,
Where they occur naturally (returned to add ("measurable"isotopes) . They are usually poison also .To us anyway .

Kind of goes to far of my wondering about where do all these charged particles of atmosphere go , and how do they change . including us, the weather , the environment , as their part of all the gases , and elements we , the planet , live in , and on .


This message was edited Mar 24, 2014 7:12 PM

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
4:32 PM

Post #9797267

I should of added , the only thing I know for sure about isotopes is it is one of the categories used to measure Deutronium as a fuel .

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 24, 2014
7:55 PM

Post #9797416

>> Humans by using fossil fuels are returning that carbon back to the air where it originated from. Of course we are doing this very quickly thus the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.

That's a really interesting argument. It's very hard for me to believe it could ALL have been in the atmosphere at the same time, the charts I've seen don't show CO2 EVER being as high as it is now. I'll try to get some kind of data (or deductions) about CO2 levels older than glacial cores. They might be able to tell something from isotope ratios of C in coal.

Just speculating, the atmosphere is a relatively small reservoir compared to ocean sediments and soil organic matter, let alone mineral carbonates! Where did more carbon come from (over millions of years, not hundreds) as dinosaurs etc laid down those sediments that became coal and oil?

>> the CO2 level is rising quicker than nature can put things in equilibrium.

True.

If we had thriving space colonies that could hold 7-9 billion people, I wouldn't be AS worried about what we do to the planet over the next 100-1,000 years. I do assume that the planet could recover in less than 10,000 years from us putting all the oil and coal into the atmosphere, ocean, and ocean sediments.

That new equilibrium might not be hospitable to us, or any of the species we're now familiar with, and I would miss the old planet if I were still around, but it would be SOME equilibrium and some new species would appreciate it.

>> Climate scientists have failed to explain all of the natural resasons why temperatures and climate have fluctuated over time

>> they will not be able to predict the future correctly

They do still have a hard time predicting even "the present" in accurate detail, meaning predicting a few years to 10 years ahead.

They did get it right that global average temps are going up (already), averaged over the whole globe, but their earliest predictions were based on very simple models so the near-term details were (of course) not accurate.

They are still refining, but sometimes the long term is easier to predict than the short term. The Sun WILL change from a G2V yellow dwarf into a red giant in around 5.4 billion years. They're sure because they have examples of other suns to compare it with, and models that are accurate enough to predict that transition for that kind of star.

But what will the suspots be like next year, or 11 or 22 years from now? That's like predicting the weather.

Sort of like blaming Democritus or Arabic alchemists for not predicting that Teflon would break down if OVERheated (once it was invented).

If the standard of proof required is detailed and accurate short-range predictions, before we start trying to plug some of the bigger holes in a sinking boat, climatologists won't be able to provide that level of "proof" for years or decades. The complexity of the planet may make that an impossible goal.

But the long-range "forecast" that doubling or tripling the CO2 in the atmosphere will have large effects is, as I keep saying, about as hard to predict as the effect of a brick upon a glass window.

To confirm that kind of long-term prediction, we would have to collect data long enough for the long-term trends to manifest. Say, 20-50 years. Good luck reversing global warming after we put 450 billion more tons into the air!

No one has disputed yet that adding 9 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere will make solving the problem much harder. If we wait 20 years before starting, the problem will be 180 billion tons harder to solve. But I'm being repetitious.

>> Humans have been able to successfully adapt to ever climate extreme on this planet.

But the population density depends on what we can grow. If we can't feed ourselves, we will starve.

If humans were all angels and would not fight to try to get food for their children while an entire region is dieing back to a level that can be supported by 1/2, 1/3, 1/4 or 1/5 the crop productivity, then I wouldn't worry about the fall of civilization due to climate change for at least 100 years. Maybe not at all, as long as the starving are willing to lie down a die quietly.

But I think almost any nation would use every weapon they could buy, borrow or invent to prevent 50%, 67%, 75% or 80% of their people from starving. And chemical and biological weapons are very cheap.

Since I seem to be the only one who cares, I'll say it again: I personally think it would be "a bad thing" if half to 80% of everyone now alive starved necessarily.

I sort of thought that was one reason we became civilized at all.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 24, 2014
8:19 PM

Post #9797427

Ernie,

I think most of what you said argues FOR technology's ability to greatly affect the world, or at least humanity's experience.

I had not heard that animals were "thriving" around Chernobyl. I thought they were still having huge rates of mutation, cancer and miscarriage. I could be wrong, I haven't looked it up in a few years.

>> evidentally surprised a lot of researchers that expected to find a lot of mutant specimens, like two head coyotes and such, but aninmals are thriving.

It surprises me, too. That was a LOT of curies they dumped into the atmosphere! I seem to recall reading "mega-curies" (shudder).

Of course, there could be lots of adult animals even if 1/4 of all births died stillborn or due to mutations. "Nature, red in tooth and claw". I know that NATURE can survive high mutation rates and cancer rates, she doesn't care about pain or death, only the survivors. But I truly do not know the actual rate of miscarriages, fatal mutations, long term recessive mutations and cancer in the Chernobyl area.

If they "came right back" then you win that point, Chernobyl is NOT an example of human technology changing the world dramatically

One factor that WOULD cause animals to thrive and flourish: the absence of people! Now that I think about it, I bet the wildlife WILL make a big comeback with or without high mutation rates now that humans left the area. (I wonder if some super-genius squirrel sneaked into the control room or chewed through a cable to make Chernobyl safe for squirrels?)

>> I do not know enough about it too have strong opinions either way.

Me either.

>> Exposure to radioactivity DOES NOT make you radioactive

Actually that's only mostly true. Mostly it is contamination with radioactive material that makes you radioactive, hence the shower scene in "Silkwood".

You are right that beta, gamma radiation, and maybe alpha radiation (which is fast electrons, very high-energy photons like X-rays, and helium nuclei that for some reason are spit out by some radioactive nuclei) don't make things radioactive.

The exception is neutrons, especially slow neutrons.

Neutrons are captured by the nuclei of whatever absorbs them, and sometimes the nucleus that absorbed that neutron is changed from a stable nucleus to an unstable one. Later, the unstable nucleus spits out something or fissions, emitting some radiation.

But even for neutrons, you're mostly right. It takes a LOT of neutrons to create a little residual radioactivity. In core-collapse supernova, iron nuclei absorb some neutrons and become heavier than iron. That is the only source in the universe for nuclei heavier than iron. Google supernova r-process. So the existence of any elements heavier than iron that are not 9storngly) radioactive proves that even neutron activation doesn't create ONLY radioactive nuclei.

They do that deliberately in labs, "neutron activation analysis". Even to artworks, since the residual radioactivity is so slight. They zap a sample with lots of neutrons, and then rush the sample into an X-ray spectrometer so they can record all the X-rays or gamma rays that are emitted. Seeing the exact energies (spectrum of frequencies) of those X-rays tells them what elements (isotopes) were in the sample.

I do wish you could convince people who are against nuclear power generation without even being able to pronounce it correctly that they don't have much to fear. (But they won't listen to you very closely if you call them "Eco-nuts" to their face!)

>> I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened

Very ignorant, stupid people. The amount released offsite was minuscule, as I recall. Actually, I shouldn't call them ignorant and stupid. My sister called me from Cape Cod asking whether it would be safer to flee the cape or hunker down where she was to avoid "the fallout". And she's not dumb, just prone to panic, NOT technically inclined, and better informed about literature than science or technology. And she believed some of what she heard on TV.

"Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents."

"the deliberate venting of radioactive gases from the plant Friday morning which produced a reading of 1,200 millirems (12 mSv) directly above the stack of the auxiliary building."

"the Pennsylvania Department of Health for 18 years maintained a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state's registry was discontinued in mid 1997, without any evidence of unusual health trends in the area."

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident/

---
DDT did and could have saved many more babies sounds like "moving the world". And, apparently, mosquito netting is having a big impact. Supports my claim that technology does already have large impacts on the world (or at least, the human experience on this world).

If you feel I'm shifting my claim so much as to invalidate its point, OK, you win.

The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying.

However, trying to make specific climate changes without unintended consequences almost as bad as the problem: that, I don't know. I wish we start small, now, so we can figure out how to do it safely before its much too late.

>> deforestation. Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.

I hadn't heard about anyone mowing down many forests to build homes or even farms since our westward expansion. I was referring mainly to South American hardwood forests cut down to sell the logs for veneer. (If that cash went to the locals, I bet it did save lives and improve nutrition, but if it went to rich people in the cities, not so much.)

But I admit deforestation is not a "change the world" technology unless you count losing rare species in the rain forest. Point for you. (Unless you count the total deforestation since the invetion of agriculture, including (for example) the desertification of the entire "Fertile Crescent". I think that would count as major global change through human actions, mostly accomplished with bronze age and iron age tech.

>> coral reefs dieing,,,Coral reefs in many places were destroyed by an explosion of starfish.

That, and "bleaching", which is blamed on warming ocean surface (partly due to CO2), acidification of the ocean (CO2) ) and infectious bacteria (Vibrio shiloi), also more active at warmer temperatures. I can't swear to those, I just read it in a few places.

>> ozone layer thinning . I thought that was solved with the expensive banning of Fluorcarbons. or was that another mistake by the Eco Nuts.

Supports my point, both ways. Without even trying, we were well on the way to destroying the ozone layer, which would have allowed sterilizing radiation to reach the earths surface. (Well, sterilizing to bacteria, it would have only given us melanoma and blindness.) Then we reversed that trend by getting most countries to stop producing the worst ozone culprits. People + technology changing the world in ways VERY significant to humans.

"Yes we can" destroy the climate, but can we save it?

>> irrigation in the USA and Israel, visible from space...Increased food kept millions of people from starving or going to war over the last loaf of bread.

Supports my point.

>> People become weary of war and will probably stop fighting and share the last few loaves of bread

I hope so. More likely, the people starving rapidly just won't be able to REACH the zones that can grow food that decade. Unless they can FedEx enhanced Ebola virus.

>> the climate change MEASUREMENTS you don't talk about much... Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.

So there's no point to my providing links to actual measurements or scientific sources? That saves me some time.


>> It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists],

OK, I give up.

If you want to get your climate facts from National Review as an unbiased source, instead of scientists, I will agree to disagree.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 24, 2014
10:32 PM

Post #9797508


Rick
Rrr …I thought they were still having huge rates of mutation, cancer and miscarriage. I could be wrong, I haven't looked it up in a few years.

I Googled Chernobyl as I am not sure if I saw the documentary on Nature or NGC, and there is a dispute going on. Some people say there are not as many Swallows as there used to be and they ignore the wolves and other fauna.

rrr I do wish you could convince people who are against nuclear power generation without even being able to pronounce it correctly that they don't have much to fear. (But they won't listen to you very closely if you call them "Eco-nuts" to their face!)

eee The term Eco Nuts only refer to the extremists that do not think working men and their families and the ability for them to make a living are an important part of the Ecology. I am one of the people that believe there is room for everything and everyone that is ABLE TO ADAPT AS THEIR WORLD CHANGES.

Eee I remember when people were sure there would be a lot of deaths from the problem at Three Mile Island, but nothing bad happened

Rrr Very ignorant, stupid people. The amount released offsite was minuscule, as I recall. Actually, I shouldn't call them ignorant and stupid. My sister called me from Cape Cod asking whether it would be safer to flee the cape or hunker down where she was to avoid "the fallout". And she's not dumb, just prone to panic, NOT technically inclined, and better informed about literature than science or technology. And she believed some of what she heard on TV.

--rrr If you feel I'm shifting my claim so much as to invalidate its point, OK, you win.

I prefer to believe you are shifting your claim because you are beginning to understand the reasonableness of my arguments.

Rrr The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying.

No, your original claim was that we could affect the Global Warming Problem by sprinkling iron dust over the oceans.

rrr However, trying to make specific climate changes without unintended consequences almost as bad as the problem: that, I don't know. I wish we start small, now, so we can figure out how to do it safely before its much too late.

Rrr deforestation.

eee Necessary to provide shelter for the population. Kill the trees or kill the people.

rrr I hadn't heard about anyone mowing down many forests to build homes or even farms since our westward expansion. I was referring mainly to South American hardwood forests cut down to sell the logs for veneer. (If that cash went to the locals, I bet it did save lives and improve nutrition, but if it went to rich people in the cities, not so much.)

Eee What do you think was done with all the trees that were harvested in the Pacific Northwest before the Spotted Owl fiasco? Those trees were used for building houses for the housing boom in the Post War USA.

rrr But I admit deforestation is not a "change the world" technology unless you count losing rare species in the rain forest. Point for you. (Unless you count the total deforestation since the invetion of agriculture, including (for example) the desertification of the entire "Fertile Crescent". I think that would count as major global change through human actions, mostly accomplished with bronze age and iron age tech.

eee I do not think the Fertile Crescent, except for Lebanon that had the Cedars, ever had much Timber. That was either swampy or barren land, and it was called the Fertile Crescent because of the waters in the rivers.

eee Figures do not lie but Liars can select from a wide array of measurements to get the charts they want, You and Drobarr can settle that.

Rrrr So there's no point to my providing links to actual measurements or scientific sources? That saves me some time.

eeeThe information you post would be more credible if it was from more diverse sources. It is ridiculous to believe that a group of scientists, all of who have a professional obligation to provide proven, honest opinions, agree 97%, on identical results of their individual studies. Congress and Juries do sometimes all agree for expediency, but they do not have the professional obligations that Professional Scientists have. It should embarrass those Government Climatologists {i hesitate to call them Scientists],

rrr If you want to get your climate facts from National Review as an unbiased source, instead of scientists, I will agree to disagree.

Rick this is kind of a cheap shot, and I am a bit disappointed in you. I posted a quote from a column, and stated I was not familiar with the National Review, never having read a copy. You knew that when you said that is where I get my climate facts.

The truth of the matter is, I am seeking Climate Facts, not selfserving hype nor panic stricken nightmares. I have said many times that I do believe the Climate is changing and it always has. What I do not YET believe is that from now on it is only going to GET WARMER. Once I see some facts that it is, I will then agree with you on Global Warming.

Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 24, 2014
10:44 PM

Post #9797510

Read through Paleontology or Anthropology to the geologic ages .
and climate change is "same old same old" It is not doing anything that has not happened before ..

greenhouse_gal

greenhouse_gal
Southern NJ
United States
(Zone 7a)

March 25, 2014
4:35 AM

Post #9797571

Re mutations due to radiations:

http://enenews.com/genetic-mutations-from-radiation-exposure-are-up-to-100-times-higher-than-anything-we-have-encountered-in-the-animal-kingdom-dr-fernex-former-who-consultant
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
11:43 AM

Post #9797831

Rick—My comment about exposure to radioactivity not making one radioactive was in response to an earlier comment about radioactive birds spreading bird flu or radioactive viruses or radioactive mange. These things are not real possibilities. I fear your comment regarding neutron absorption will almost assuredly lead to some people who read this thread translating it into “Yes, you can become radioactive from dental X-Rays”. Most people don't know a proton from a neutron from an alpha particle. So, I repeat, you do not become radioactive from exposure to radioactivity. I hope you will agree with that statement.

Secondly, I too care about the effects of global warming. I just don't see anyone doing anything about it, nor do I see any reasonable efforts being proposed. I don't believe that expecting people to dramatically reduce their lifestyle is workable. Sure, we in the US could maybe pay more for gas or turn the old thermostat a few degrees, but these things are small, and, for those on the lower end of the income spectrum, still quite a sacrifice. Meanwhile, expecting third world countries to be content with mud huts and oxen (dramatized a bit) ain't gonna happen. We need practical options—20 years ago like you said. Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts. If GE technology improves, making more plants into legumes would help. So would making C3 plants into C4 plants. These things are not imminent, but let's work on them. Carbon sequestration, too. Mirrors in space and whatever else I don't even know about.

Instead, our DoE, who certainly understand these things better than I do, has done NOTHING to lead and educate. This is definitely a place where Government needs to lead. I'm thrilled to see Cosmos return. Why not more real science programs explaining these things. How about the media reporting real things instead of simply reporting which politician offended another politician or spending two solid weeks on a plane crash. For the media, an exploration of GE or GW is a 5 or 10 minutes sound bite between Jeffrey Smith or Ralph Nader and some scientist no one has ever heard of. Why not a 12 week, in-depth—examination of the real science, like Cosmos? Instead we get shows like Resurrection and Naked and Hungry.

The big reason is of course, money. The media is just as hungry for it as Monsanto or Exxon and so they feed us pablum instead of educating us. I guess I agree with you regarding the down side of profit seeking. :«(.

To close on a light note. Yesterday, I heard a lady claim that dinosaurs lived after the flood and were necessary because “God needed something to clean up all the dead bodies”.

Surely there is a market for educational programming?!

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 25, 2014
12:22 PM

Post #9797860

If there was a good market for educational programming we would have it. Remember when TLC channel was the learning channel?
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
12:28 PM

Post #9797866

Alas, Sally. You are right.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 25, 2014
12:57 PM

Post #9797876

Profit seeking can be criticized but it cannot be eliminated and still have a Sociiety.

Wages, Salaries, Consulting or Speaking Fees, all are Profits made from Effort, just as surely as the Markup on gasoline or GMO Soy beans. And without profit no one would work or give speeches, etc.

And whatever damage is done by selling a good for profit, the blame for the damage must be shared by the buyer as much as by the seller. For without the buyer being willing to pay for that good, the good would not have been created or performed.

Very simple when you look at both sides fairly, but mostly people look elsewhere, not at themselves, to find someone to blame for community created problems.

Ernie

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
1:13 PM

Post #9797882

Ernie--I agree on profits--that was mostly a cheap dig at those who feel only "evil" corporations are motivated by profit.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 25, 2014
3:44 PM

Post #9797989

Rrr "The original question was whether humans (with technology) could affect large changes on global weather. Yes, we are already doing so without even trying."

Yes, we seem to be making changes in the earth's atmosphere without even trying. But these are the side effects of the huge mass of 'everything people want in order to thrive or be productive or feel productive or have fun or be more comfortable, well fed, and secure" . Ameliorating our effects on CO2 will require effort solely in the opposite direction of that which "everybody wants". And there's the sticking point, as Willy described so well. Scarcity is one thing that makes people conserve resources pretty effectively, war is another.

Ernie, what do you think today's young generation would do faced with WW II type rationing?

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
3:48 PM

Post #9797990

If it mutates cells , it can mutate a bug , Bacterium and Virus are cells .. and the mutate anyway .. if gives them more energy to do so ...
Excites their change to other process ..
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
4:26 PM

Post #9798007

juhur7--Yes, if it mutates successfully (a big if), it can pass traits on--maybe. It DOESN'T mean the thing passing whatever on is radioactive. Being affected, or damaged, by radioactivity DOES NOT mean being radioactive.

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
4:34 PM

Post #9798016

All right , But the Irony would be (radioactively created ) Still the category being the cause ..

I don't trust anything about it because ; everything in this category of tragedy has been Manipulatively created by us ,
One mistake , and poof , a mess no longer usable of purpose , only wasted ..Billion after Billion ,,

Seems were talking about Nuclear radiation like electricity , 1 aaa battery might shock you , different from taking hold of a High Voltage electrode .
one might shock you the other your fried to your carbon base ,

Still we are the cause ..

This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 7:40 PM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 25, 2014
5:07 PM

Post #9798044

gee, juhur. We are also the cause of many humans living much longer and healthier lives than ever before.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2014
5:17 PM

Post #9798049


sallyg said:
>> Yes, we seem to be making changes in the earth's atmosphere without even trying. But these are the side effects of the huge mass of 'everything people want ...
...
>> Ameliorating our effects on CO2 will require effort solely in the opposite direction of that which "everybody wants". And there's the sticking point

You got me. I should have said that technology, when driven by peoples' DESIRES is a huge force, capable of destroying the climate or ecology. I do not know how to redirect all that power in the direction of saving anything.

>> Scarcity is one thing that makes people conserve resources pretty effectively, war is another.

Maybe after enough crop failures and unprecedentedly hot summers and unprecedentedly violent cyclones and monsoons occur that scientists are listened to more than Deniers, people will realize that is a real problem.

That, plus developing enough remedial technologies (nuclear, solar) and reducing or redirecting our consumption somewhat, will postpone the worst effects until we can develop some mythical "silver bullet" technology like fusion power or solar power satellites.

I hope that SOMEONE takes the CO2/climate risk seriously enough to deploy some small-scale geoengineering experiments, so that at least we can start to learn the possibilities and risks, for when we need them so badly that everyone recognizes they are the lesser risks.

I don't think there is a way to do "orbiting mirrors" or solar power satellites at all, without a vigorous pre-existing space industry (meaning industry in orbit, mining asteroids or the Moon).

Ocean fertilization is not as risky as stratospheric aerosols, but it is also thought to have less promise. I don't know, "algae blooms sunk into deep sediments" is at least not "science-fiction-y". The downsides I know about are disrupting existing nutrient cycles and ocean populations, plus running out of all the other nutrients as you sink the organisms.

Both of those need to be approached carefully, even on a small scale. Basically, experiments to see what the effects are.

Going back to science fiction, how about cultivating some plankton with a carbonate shell. At some pint it sheds the shell, the carbonate sinks, but the plankton remain in the water along with their NPK, FE, etc. What sinks is mostly CaCO3. The main drawback of that is that it isn't reality.

Dreaming up PRACTICAL mitigation schemes for capturing and sequestering carbon sounds appealing. Desert to grassland to forest sounds good, if you can get the water to the deserts and enough organic matter into the sands to support roots.

Thanks for reminding me of the word "PRACTICAL", Sallyg.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2014
5:17 PM

Post #9798050

>> Secondly, I too care about the effects of global warming. I just don't see anyone doing anything about it, nor do I see any reasonable efforts being proposed. I don't believe that expecting people to dramatically reduce their lifestyle is workable.
...
>> Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts. ... Carbon sequestration, too.

http://www.technologyreview.com/demo/524466/storing-the-sun/

I just saw an article in Tech Review (Storing the Sun) about Aquion's invention of cheap rechargeable batteries in the same price range as lead-acid batteries, but less toxic (no lead and no sulfuric acid). These are already being manufactured inexpensively enough to compete with diesel generators "off-grid", but can't compete with power plants burning fossil fuel.

Hopefully, someone might optimize that further with investment and scaling up. Having more efficient energy storage makes solar panels and solar thermal more competitive (at least it does for small installations).

No one bothered with that technology in the past because they are not suitable for fast-charge and fast-discharge. But they would be ideal for off-grid solar applications where you only have trickle-charge anyway, and the load is household or village-level loads, not cranking heavy engines.

The target market is the emerging Third World, where it might make solar panels practical instead of diesel generators. Having the storage capacity lets you have power overnight and during a few cloudy days (refrigerators, computers, radio/TV and cell phone chargers)

"sodium ions from a saltwater electrolyte shuttle between manganese oxide–based positive electrodes and carbon-based negative ones."

Another Tech Review article: turning CO2 into ethylene glycol. It sounds like it is still lab scale, not even pilot plant yet. But they seem to be thinking about trying to commercialize it which means make it industrially and economically practical.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/525356/a-cheaper-route-to-making-chemicals-from-co2/

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2014
5:17 PM

Post #9798051

NOTE: off topic digression:

>> I fear your comment regarding neutron absorption will almost assuredly lead to some people who read this thread translating it into “Yes, you can become radioactive from dental X-Rays”

I thought that all the reservations and qualifications would prevent any possibility of misinterpretation. Granted, since I tend towards 3-5 page posts, almost everyone will skim. But I hate to assume that most readers will understand the opposite of what a sentence says.

>> Most people don't know a proton from a neutron from an alpha particle.

That is a problem, but I think it would be cured of the people who care a lot about these issues, just read a little relevant science!

>> Surely there is a market for educational programming?!

Hmm. There is a big NEED, but is there any demand? Maybe we should follow the Canadian model (so to speak), where they improved the ratings of a dry news program by having a model read the news while naked. I guess that would only work on (at most) half the population, and would offend more than half the population.

>> So, I repeat, you do not become radioactive from exposure to radioactivity. I hope you will agree with that statement.

I could have said "to be made radioactive, you either have to inhale nuclear fallout or be immersed in a research reactor and deliberately be bombarded with neutrons". But that would have been a little less accurate.

I could be two-faced and make a technically mostlytrue but deliberately misleading statement:

"You can not become radioactive from exposure to radiation".

Neutrons are particles, not radiation. It doesn't take willful ignorance to confuse "radioactivity" or "radioactive materials" with radiation.

In the interests of full disclosure, and thank you for not calling me on it, I did ignore gamma-activated nuclei where an absorbed gamma way can pump a little extra energy into a nucleus that comes out later as a weaker gamma ray. That IS radiation, but the residual effect is pretty mild and short-lived. My belief is that if you tried to "activate" a person with that much gamma irradiation, you might have to practically cook them to make their corpse radioactive enough to twitch a counter a few days later. Hence in the context of the earlier discussion, I left it out for clarity.

Maybe I should have left the entire off-topic digression out, for clarity!

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
5:19 PM

Post #9798053

Sallyg yes I know , I take a life sustaining medication) a mistake by medical diagnosis is why I take the med ,
However , the other that was removed , I would be dead ,,, years ago ... I know what you mean ... really know ... and I see it every day of every hour of every day
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 25, 2014
5:22 PM

Post #9798054

Sally,
It happens that your question to me is related to a subject that i have given quite a lot of thought to, in trying to figure out what would bring our country back to its senses. So i will share some of those thoughts that do relate to your question.

First, i do not think it is just the young generation that has been affected and would have trouble adjusting to the scarcity of things they desire. The same problem affects, perhaps to a lesser degree, for all those born after WW2, and the Key seems to me is "UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS"

Those of us growing up in the depression had very low expectations foR what we might get in the future, whether a toy for Christmas or no toys. Or a job that paid for more than just groceries and rent or no job. In every aspect of our lives we just did not expect much. So when WW2 caused rationing, there was not much difference between not being able to buy gas for lack of money and not being able to buy gas for lack of gas.

But as jobs, and money became more plentiful we began, gradually at first, to start expecting more, like more money for our work, better conditions, extra money to buy clothes, all those things that we do not even think about now. Then after the war, our children started off expecting several toys every Christmas, all the gas they needed or wanted for their cars, and the entire popiulation shifted from very low or no expectations to very high expectations, and that leads us back to what you and Willy referred to about extravagant lifesthyles.

And of course, it is countless times easier to raise our expectations than it will be to lower them to the point that we can reverse the problems. When i think about these problems i have never been able to separate out "they" or "them" Like Pogo said, "It is US" My generation was the first that was able to spoil our Kids, and it just snowballed from there.

And all i have been able to come up with as a solution is that it will take something like another Big Depression, or another Big War, maybe Nuclear next time, to bring us all back to our senses, and then the few that are left can start all over again.

But i am sure you noticed the struggle people went through trying to give up their big houses when the Bubble Burst. And that is just a tiny problem to what it may take to get us back on a commonsense path.

Willy, On your comment..." We need practical options-20 years ago like you said. Nukes, natural gas, wind and solar are good starts"

Only Nukes and Natural Gas are ready for prime time because of cost, but they could not be utilized because of protests and the belief amongst a lot of our population that common sense was no longer necessary. Everything had always been provided free and easy to the Protesters and they reasonably assumed it would always be that way.

So here we are,
Ernie

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
5:27 PM

Post #9798056

Recombination devices and methods like an Atmosphere plant that have not been built yet also exist ,
A few billion to make our (the planets) base atmosphere with a few of those)as to failed power plants or the billions lost as to some of them , might be a good place to start to find answers .
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
6:29 PM

Post #9798079

Rick--It doesn't matter if it could be cured "if they read a little relevant science". The fact is, they don't. One quarter of them don't understand that the sun doesn't rotate around the earth. 65% think that only GMO tomatoes have genes. Roughly half think that the earth is 6,000 years old.

I think the only person that really grasps the situation here--at least among those who are bold enough to post--is Sallyg. Let me modify that--I know many understand the GW situation, or are very skeptical, but I thin Sallyg agrees with me about the difficulties of trying to solve it.

All of the disclaimers you made regarding when an object/person could be made radioactive went right out the window when you said "the exception is...slow neutrons." OMG, if I go to the dentist, I'll glow in the dark.

I know people (personally) who worry about compost that might come from GMOs. Never mind that commercial agriculture entities won't be sending their crop residues to a compost facility. They might, and that means I can't use city produced compost. And, good grief, now they've added biosolids! I might as well just slit my throat now.

The state of education in this country is damned sad--and getting worse.

This message was edited Mar 26, 2014 11:24 AM

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 25, 2014
7:19 PM

Post #9798113

Willy, I can't say you're wrong, but if we can't say anything that a mentally lazy person could possibly misinterpret, then we can't say anything at all.

Maybe it comes down to social responsibility: if I were more responsible, maybe I WOULDN'T say anything at all in public.

Ignoring for the moment the number of people who vote against "nuc-u-ler" power, and confining it only to "the dentist will make me radioactive" ... and they won't go to the dentist ... I would only feel guilty if I were trying to mislead them.

Hopefully this also excuses my sin: since I can't stop typing verbosely any more than I can stop overwatering seedlings, anyone capable of confusing neutrons with X-Rays when they are listed as separate categories in the same paragraph, already stopped reading my long posts and sinfully long sentences HUNDREDS of posts ago.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Umm ... besides ...

Dental X-rays make your hair grow long and glossy.
Dental X-rays keep you from getting gray hair.
Dental X-rays help you lose weight and increase your thigh gap.
Dental X-rays contain NO salt, high fructose corn syrup or fats.
Dentists have used only ORGANIC X-Rays since 1995.

Those are very little-known facts indeed!




juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
7:29 PM

Post #9798116

Yeah , but you can't eat while you have them
They tell you indirectly that you might be pain suffering
They make funny noises
And they won't always show you the pictures your paying for afterward ..

One good thing ,,, They don't make you wear the heavy led filled vest any more while you have them ^_^

And I can't type during them either ...



This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 10:30 PM
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 25, 2014
7:38 PM

Post #9798117

Deleted by Willy--Apologies for the rant.

This message was edited Mar 26, 2014 8:10 AM

juhur7

juhur7
Anderson, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 25, 2014
7:49 PM

Post #9798123

1963 Dna study group , I needed parental permission to get teachers permission to attend advanced or advancing classes .

My parent ; they already know that , you don't knead to know anymore about that ,,
My teacher and parent , that is retarded , it's not for you to know about .
To you Willy .. Just a memory ,, Giant waves , Dna ,, Atmospheric gas plants ,,sci fi . not going to happen ,,, huh ???

A proton ,a positive charged ion traveling around a nucleus ,
A neutron a negative charged particle traveling around a nucleus ?

I don't know the between these and an X-Ray except for models of them ,, I admit it ,, I'm guilty ,, lol?

This message was edited Mar 25, 2014 10:59 PM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 25, 2014
8:37 PM

Post #9798142

juhur, you sounded a bit down on people at large, is why I commented on your post; good luck with your medical situation.

Thanks for your thoughts on that subject Ernie.

Thanks Willy. I find myself very much agreeing with your comments in general.

I'm doing my best to keep sequestering carbon here in the form of unraked tree leaves all blown under my shrubbery...believe me it's adding up
Indy
Alexandria, IN
(Zone 6a)

March 26, 2014
10:57 AM

Post #9798463

I am a depression baby. I never thought that we were deprived out on the farm. My, when I see the kiddies playing with their electronic toys, it reminds me of my early childhood. I found a picture the other day of some of the family and a great uncle. I believe that I took that picture and believe that that was the first time I ever took a picture...about 8 years old. There are only about 10 pictures of me in the first ten years. My kids have dozens and more pictures.

My wife/s family ran a camera shop so they had oodles of pictures.

My dental hygenist keeps taking xrays of my teeth. Should I be glowing by now?
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 26, 2014
11:33 AM

Post #9798487

I edited my thoughts above in my 3/25 post (and deleted my post from last night) and I want to reiterate them here.

I didn't mean to imply that no one here understands GW; my statement was very poorly worded. I was trying to say that Sallyg seems to agree with me (which makes her correct, of course!!) that the solutions are difficult and often impractical or not feasible. We have a problem and the way forward is not obvious or easy. I hope I am summarizing your thoughts accurately, Sallyg.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 26, 2014
12:29 PM

Post #9798507

The book I have recommended on energy—Energy For Future Presidents—contains a pretty good summary on global warming. I went to check some nuclear, whoops, nucyahler, info and found the GW section, which I had forgotten. Anyway, here's an interesting except from the GW discussion:

“In 2009, President Obama attended the climate change meeting in Copenhagen...a proposed treaty was on the table. Many people expected President Obama to sign it. He didn't...his stated reason for rejecting the treaty was that China had refused to agree to inspections...Let's consider the treaty that was under consideration...(details on who cuts and how much, the US reduction is to be 80% by 2050)..Now let's be really optimistic. Assume that President Obama had won over the Republicans and that all parties—the entire world—abided by it...Assume that all of the world achieved these stupendous goals. Atmospheric carbon emissions would drop dramatically, right? Wrong. Very badly wrong. Under the treaty, CO2 levels would continue to rise to nearly 4 times the current level...above 1,000 ppm...global temperature could increase by more than 3°C.”

Ernie and drobarr—I think you will find the GW discussion in the book (written by a Cal physicist) interesting and maybe even convincing. Btw, the study at Cal was funded by, amongst others, Bill Gates, Gordon Getty, and Charles Koch. The book addresses pretty much any form of energy and does so in an impartial way. The schtick for the book is that it would give a future president a good solid grounding in the factual data needed to inform policy. I think a better title would have been Energy For Current US Voters.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 26, 2014
12:37 PM

Post #9798510

Indy, The only things i really missed, were shoes in the summer time. We would get a pair when school started. Other than that, we did not feel poor as every one we knew were in the same boat. You may be a bit younger than i am, or your Dad may have been more prosperous. My Father, Grandfather and 3 uncles lost the Apple Orchards in 1928, and dad was laboring on the Railroad after that. We never went hungry and had lots of love, but not much else.

But the point i was making was that no one expected to be moving into a 5 bedroom house and parking a new car in the driveway by the time they were 30.. Now, a lot of people expect or want, to do that.

I was born in 1926, so i was old enough to be aware of the situation by 1932 or 33. And i agree, although we have a handful of pictures, cameras were very scarce in those days.


Ernie


ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 26, 2014
12:52 PM

Post #9798515

Willy,

I will take a look at the book, but what did it convince you of? Do you believe that the Globe will continue warming from now on, and that the prior Fluctuations will not continue?

That is the main question for me. If it continues on the warming trend indefintely, we are in deep doodoo. But if this is just part of the historic fluctiations, we may not need to get our knickers in a twist. That is the question i am looking for an answer to, and once that is deternined, then we will know for sure what facts we need to deal with.

Your comments on the Treaty were also interesting. If the agreement did not firmly reverse the warming trend, but just slowed down the warming a little bit, that does not sound to me like it serves it purpose, even if it was agreed to and followed.

We all appreciate the clarity of your thinking, so if you were on the Committe what suggestions would you make to be included in the Treaty?

Ernie

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 26, 2014
1:35 PM

Post #9798533

Ernie—Just to be clear, those weren't my comments. They're copied directly out of the book. I'm not smart enough to know what to do (as you know, I favor nukes and natural gas short term, maybe fusion will save us long run). I think Rick said it well when he said we needed to start 20-30 years ago, though I doubt the science then was strong enough (I might be wrong). I do remember that in the 60s/70s, the fear was an ice age.

I came at GW as a skeptic, one who was too busy earning a living to pay close attention. I am always skeptical (politics, religion, everything) and I think the approach taken by GW advocates, which I'll crudely summarize as “The sky is falling, we're doomed, all we can do is raise taxes” was pretty off-putting to me and I think many people. I know many very well educated people who were and/or are skeptics. It shouldn't matter who is the “face” of a topic, but Al Gore puts me off a lot, too. Especially his insistence on living large while expecting us “reglur folk” to sacrifice didn't do much to inspire me, either. And I know his film contained a great many exaggerations. One particularly sickening moment for me was when his film won the Oscar and the movie stars all cheered and gave a standing ovation. I couldn't help but realize what VERY LARGE carbon footprints each of them had and how hypocritical they were. But, one can't judge truth based on who is on one side. Sometimes even the creeps can be right. lol

Anyway, at the same time, I am an engineer. Facts matter. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Too many experts agree. I have come to accept that AGW is real. Muller's book gives, to me, a nice summation of the case for AGW and it discusses alternate forms of energy. If Muller's book is accurate regarding the consequences of accepting the treaty still would lead to CO2 in excess of 1,000 ppm, it seems to me that we're screwed already, I hope not. Hey, it'll cheapen the price of saunas!

I think one very unfortunate fact is that politicians have to spend so much time sucking up to their bases that truth suffers. They can't just be honest, it'll annoy someone they depend upon for votes. So, we only trust those whom we agree with.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 26, 2014
1:40 PM

Post #9798536

The book Willy recommends, Energy for Presidents, is available on Amazon Kindle for $10.00 and Paperback for $13. Author is a Berkelety Professor but so far has not shown a lot of Liberal bias. I have read the preface and forward, and both more or less agree with what Drobarr and I have expressed, as far as showing some common sense.

Reviews from 5 star down to 1 star and a self described important Physicist is very critical of the book because of poor research. Others think it is a wonderful book, including Willy.

I will read it and then express my opinion of it.

Ernie

This message was edited Mar 26, 2014 12:44 PM

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 26, 2014
3:23 PM

Post #9798586

Willy, I have engineering in my blood, no wonder we agree.

I had a training session today that mentioned a site some here may like. Procon.org, for this issue the link is
http://climatechange.procon.org

The training was presented by our excellent State Library staff. The site ProCon is one they refer people to because the site tries very hard to give both sides of many controversies, and be unbiased. In class we looked at vaccine safety, another hot button.

Part of public libraries mission is giving people free access to information. And not censoring that information. Free access so people can make their own judgements.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 26, 2014
3:49 PM

Post #9798602

Sally, The procon article was interesting, and considering the imbalnce in the budgets between the Governmental Organizations and the Non Governmental groups, i thought it was more balanced than i would have expected.

I saved the site for further study.
Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 26, 2014
4:26 PM

Post #9798620

Interesting link; I've bookmarked it. Thanks sallyg. Long live engineers!

Vaccines. I can't believe they are being protested. Small pox. Polio. Vaccine. Shingles. Easy choice for me. I also understand that some object to the smart meters that radio electricity use to power companies. Not sure what that's about.

sallyg

sallyg
Anne Arundel,, MD
(Zone 7b)

March 26, 2014
5:53 PM

Post #9798688

Smart meters, I think they either give you brain cancer or catch fire...according to some. I love my smart meter, it allows us to participate in cycling the AC and we get money back for that. It just makes so much 'engineering' sense to me. (And probably makes it easier for them to cut off those who don't pay their bill, but after all they have to have revenue. There has not been any mention anywhere of that use)

Yes, our State Library librarian mentioned to the class that government sites (CDC) can have bias towards their position on vaccines.

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 26, 2014
7:39 PM

Post #9798742

Sally, thanks for that link! I'll read it. I can't get flu shots because I had GBS once. I think that protects the vaccine vendors from me suing them.

Willy said:
>> Btw, the study at Cal was funded by, amongst others, Bill Gates, Gordon Getty, and Charles Koch. The book addresses pretty much any form of energy and does so in an impartial way.

Thanks for proving me wrong about the Koch brothers! I already had a good impression of Getty.

>> I do remember that in the 60s/70s, the fear was an ice age.
>> I think the approach taken by GW advocates, which I'll crudely summarize as “The sky is falling, we're doomed, all we can do is raise taxes” was pretty off-putting to me

I agree about the flip-flop from the 70s to the 80s, and also the fact that they followed up with "and also enact our long-standing anti-technology and anti-industry and anti-consumerism agendas" was off-putting for EVERYone.

I just want to save the climate and make prosperity truly sustainable in the long run (100s of years, at least). I do distrust corporate managers, but only the same way I distrust almost any group of people that is larger than 3-4 people, and has a lot of power. (Except, I guess, scientists. That's my biggest bias, a strong pro-science and technology bias.)

Gore:
>> when his film won the Oscar and the movie stars all cheered and gave a standing ovation.

Try to find and watch the South Park episode where Hollywood created a super-cell of "Smug" that almost poisoned the whole country. Smug alert! I think that was the one where hybrid car owners' smugness also poisoned the atmosphere, because they were so smug that they started huffing their own farts (which, of course, did not stink).

>> the consequences of accepting the treaty still would lead to CO2 in excess of 1,000 ppm

That I don't know about, but I guess I need to find a copy! I would try to make a distinction between "rate" and "amount". I have read that the amount that we have already pumped out (now living in air, soil, ocean and sediments) will (probably will) take 100s of years to "work off" and that the leverls in the air MIGHT keep climbing even if every power plant and car switched to the power of positive thinking ogverngiht (I don't knw about THAT "might"!)

But say the treaty reduced the rate of new emissions from 9 billion tons annually down to 4 billion tons. Sure the level in the air will keep climbing, and if you extrapolate an upward curve far enough, it will eventually cross 1,000. Not having read it yet, i can't say.

Were they claiming that even reducing emissions by, say, 50%, would NOT slow the slope of the keeling Curve? That would surprise me.

My take is that sure, we ARE in a deep hole, and getting out of it will take a long time or some technical or religious miracle. But we need to start doing whatever we can to recue the rate-of-getting-deeper, then eventually find ways to make it slowly get LESS deep, and then keep pressing until the climate stabilizes at some level that is consistent with enough agriculture to feed the population.

Having more time could help (we might invent fusion power or find a cheaper way to build solar power satellites, or some other science fiction miracle).

Making the rate-of-getting-worse slower might let us "ease our way" into adapting globally to average crop yields dropping by 20%, 50% or 70%. Ways that avoid very many very bug wars, for example, and mass starvation. Who knows, birth control might catch on.

So I don't think that treaties, or ocean fertilization, are futile because neither one can "solve the problem" by itself. Every little gigaton per year helps! Ten billion tons here, ten billions there, eventually it will add up to a noticeable amount of CO2.

>> politicians have to spend so much time sucking up to their bases

Yup. As Ernie and Pogo said, "we have met the enemy, and they is us".

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 26, 2014
7:43 PM

Post #9798745

Ernie said:
>> If it continues on the warming trend indefinitely, we are in deep doodoo. But if this is just part of the historic fluctuations, we may not need to get our knickers in a twist.

Hmm! I mostly agree with that. My main disagreement would be to add something like
"as long as the fluctuations over the next 50 years ARE NOT much more serious than the historical fluctuations from the last few hundred or few thousand years, we may not need to get our knickers in a twist."

If, on the other hand, the Warmie predictions of UNPRECEDENTED or too-violent fluctuations cause extremes that we have never seen before, or extreme weather so often that it cuts very seriously into crop yields, then the twisted-knicker scenario might occur.

I think the LEAST well-answered question isn't "whether" or "how bad" the change will or won't be.

It isn't even "what can we do about it technically that won't destroy the economy as we know it?"

It is "how will we make anything happen POLITICALLY and internationally, even if we do figure out some plausible actions that have a chance of being accepted by 51% of the people in 90% of the countries?

I have zero idea of how to bring that about.

Even if I invented a death ray in my basement and made myself Emperor of the World, that "cure" would be worse than most twisted-knicker scenarios.

And even if I had total power over every person and power plant and commercial transaction, we still don't know what COULD be done technically and economically that would not cut everyone's "quality of life" by a huge factor.

Mass famine would be "bad", but throwing the entire developed world back 100 years in "prosperity" and freezing the Third World where they are now would also be "bad".

I think it proves that I'm a scientist at heart even if not by trade when I say that I would fund more research and start some experiments.

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 27, 2014
7:29 AM

Post #9799022

Amen on the science is good stuff. Replace lawyers in Congress with scientists.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 27, 2014
8:25 AM

Post #9799066

Willy,

Be careful what you wish for. Remember Rick says 97% of the Government Scientists agree with each other.

So it would depend on whether the Scientific Congress agreed to lead the Country Up or Down, because for sure, whichever way it went, we would get there a lot quicker. LOL.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 27, 2014
9:48 AM

Post #9799110

Some more comments about the book. I know something (not an expert) about some of the subjects he addresses (nukes, solar) and enough about some others to satisfy me that the book is unbiased and accurate. I do not know a lot about climate change beyond the popular media stuff and I am fairly ignorant about some other topics in the book, so my presumption of Muller's accuracy on those subjects is just that. After Ernie noted the Amazon ratings, some of which were low, I did a search for Muller and learned that he is intensely disliked by some. Not sure why, but it sounded fairly political. I did determine that he was a GW skeptic prior to his research, so, to me, his "conversion" makes him more credible. His critics don't see it that way. Again, not sure why. My bottom line is that the book is very useful for getting factual info regarding various energy schemes and I will trust it until proven wrong.

Rick, I don't have as poor an impression of the Kochs as you, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the Koch funding was based on the hope that Muller's skepticism would prove right.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 27, 2014
10:05 AM

Post #9799119

Willy,

I read the book last night through the GW section, and am really amazed that such a down to earth, common sense and unbiased person could hold a faculty position at Berkeley, which has been on the farthest edge of the extreme leftist nonsense in CA for 50 years.

Reading the book is like reading the script of the debate Rick and i have been having. He presents all of the points that both of us have made, is brave enough to criticize the Charts that the Government Scientists cooked up when their original model showed the Globe was cooling, alongside the changes. Just one proper thing after another.

He also defined our respective positions and i hope Rick reads it so he will finally understand that i am a Skeptic, not a Denier.

I agree bad stuff MAY happen, but if such changes as a 2% increase in the Cloud Cover, or another huge Volcano eruption happens, that appears to mitigate the damage from Carbon considerably.

Overall, it did not change my position, but clarified and supported both my beliefs as well as Rick's. So, as so often happens with big problems, only time will tell what the right solution for it is.

So thanks for posting the name of the book.
Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 27, 2014
11:10 AM

Post #9799155

Ernie--Very glad you read it! The sections on nukes, solar, and wind are worth a read as well. Btw, I was a fan of nukes long, long before I read the book.

I didn't perceive what I'm guessing you perceived as support for anti-GW, at least not to a large degree. I wonder if that "flavor" is why some folks dislike Muller so much.

The Cal connection is somewhat ironic or contrary to expectation, but, hey, the guy is a physicist, not a social science guy/
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 27, 2014
1:26 PM

Post #9799215


Willy, I did not mean to imply he was Anti GW. He just seemed to me to be Anti Panic and Hyperbole, I did see that he was skeptical in the beginning. We all agree the Globe has warmed or is warming slightly, and the author seemed to me to be trying to stick to the facts more than get caught up in the conjecture. He mentioned some of the counter arguments, like Warming will increase the humidity and may increase the cloud cover, and things like that. He just seemed interested in the actual evidence that is available now. But when it is still just conjecture, whether it is imminent doom or Cloud cover that will save the world, i am going to remain skeptical for quite a while yet.


I am no expert on the California University System, as there are so many different schools, but Berkeley is usually just called Berkeley, and the name CAL seems to be reserved for one just North of L A that is very high tech and deals mostly with Space programs and Physics, i think.

I have always been in favor of Nuclear Power, think solar is fine in places where Electricity is not available and therefor Solar is cheaper, and of course i have loved Windmills and Wind turbines since they were common when i was a boy. I just do not like to burden the economy with power costs that are a lot more expensive than fossil fuel. A lot of boaters have used solar power for forty years to good advantage, and i had a Wind Turbine on my boat for a while, but a diesel powered generator is better and cheaper and more reliable than either.

It is probably Muller's being truthful as regards each side that causes almost half of the people to dislike him, as people do not like there fears and fantasies cluttered up with facts and truth.

I enjoyed every thing he said, learned some new things, and wound up satisfied with being skeptical about castastrophe being a 100% certainty.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 27, 2014
4:35 PM

Post #9799315

Ernie--My misinterpretation. You read it like I did.

Now I know that Cal isn't UC Berkeley, thanks to you (always thought it was!?). I agree, catastrophe isn't certain, I don't think any reasonable person thinks it is certain. Per Yogi, it's tough to predict, especially about the future. And, as sallyg pointed out, what do we do? There is where I sure as heck don't have an answer and where I think no one else is proposing anything sensible or, more importantly, practical. I do think switching to nukes (20 years ago, nod to Rick) is wise, conservation is wise, natural gas is wise. Research into alternatives is wise. Expecting people to lower their lifestyle isn't in any way reasonable or logical/sensible, pending obvious, visible doom.

If Muller is right, and I suspect he is, whatever we in the US do is mostly irrelevant anyway unless the rest of the world hops on board. And again, it just isn't going to happen.

I hope you continue to enjoy Muller's book; I just reread some of it myself this afternoon. Amazing how much one forgets in a year or two.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 27, 2014
5:33 PM

Post #9799346

OK--Off topic

I just finished grinding up a few dozen Ghost and Trinidad Scorpion peppers that I had dried after harvest last fall. Whopping yield of maybe two tablespoons of powder. Despite using latex gloves and doing it all out doors, I am coughing and hacking and (very) afraid to use the little boys room.

Spicy foods ahead!

Laugh all you want.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 27, 2014
6:15 PM

Post #9799374

Willy,

I hope i was not wrong about Cal Tech being called Cal. It seems to me i have heard it referred to as that, but when i Googled to confirm it, i could not find an example of any college being referred to as just CAL, So be safe and do not quote me.

Ernie

.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 28, 2014
8:00 AM

Post #9799698

Interesting Op-Ed from this morning's WSJ:

By
Matt Ridley
March 27, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.
The 2007 report was riddled with errors about Himalayan glaciers, the Amazon rain forest, African agriculture, water shortages and other matters, all of which erred in the direction of alarm. This led to a critical appraisal of the report-writing process from a council of national science academies, some of whose recommendations were simply ignored.
Others, however, hit home. According to leaks, this time the full report is much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees, and the overall cost of global warming.
It puts the overall cost at less than 2% of GDP for a 2.5 degrees Centigrade (or 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit) temperature increase during this century. This is vastly less than the much heralded prediction of Lord Stern, who said climate change would cost 5%-20% of world GDP in his influential 2006 report for the British government.
The forthcoming report apparently admits that climate change has extinguished no species so far and expresses "very little confidence" that it will do so. There is new emphasis that climate change is not the only environmental problem that matters and on adapting to it rather than preventing it. Yet the report still assumes 70% more warming by the last decades of this century than the best science now suggests. This is because of an overreliance on models rather than on data in the first section of the IPCC report—on physical science—that was published in September 2013.
In this space on Dec. 19, 2012, I forecast that the IPCC was going to have to lower its estimates of future warming because of new sensitivity results. (Sensitivity is the amount of warming due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.) "Cooling Down Fears of Climate Change" (Dec. 19), led to a storm of protest, in which I was called "anti-science," a "denier" and worse.
The IPCC's September 2013 report abandoned any attempt to estimate the most likely "sensitivity" of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The explanation, buried in a technical summary not published until January, is that "estimates derived from observed climate change tend to best fit the observed surface and ocean warming for [sensitivity] values in the lower part of the likely range." Translation: The data suggest we probably face less warming than the models indicate, but we would rather not say so.
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London think tank, published a careful survey of all the reliable studies of sensitivity on March 5. The authors are British climate scientist Nic Lewis (who has no academic affiliation but a growing reputation since he discovered a glaring statistical distortion that exaggerated climate sensitivity in the previous IPCC report) and the Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. They say the IPCC's September report "buried good news about global warming," and that "the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate scientists had previously thought."
Messrs. Lewis and Crok argue that the average of the best observationally based studies shows the amount of immediate warming to be expected if carbon dioxide levels double after 70 years is "likely" to be between one and two degrees Centigrade, with a best estimate of 1.35C (or 2.4F). That's much lower than the IPCC assumes in its forthcoming report.
In short, the warming we experienced over the past 35 years—about 0.4C (or 0.7F) if you average the measurements made by satellites and those made by ground stations—is likely to continue at about the same rate: a little over a degree a century.
Briefly during the 1990s there did seem to be warming that went as fast as the models wanted. But for the past 15-17 years there has been essentially no net warming (a "hiatus" now conceded by the IPCC), a fact that the models did not predict and now struggle to explain. The favorite post-hoc explanation is that because of natural variability in ocean currents more heat has been slipping into the ocean since 2000—although the evidence for this is far from conclusive.
None of this contradicts basic physics. Doubling carbon dioxide cannot on its own generate more than about 1.1C (2F) of warming, however long it takes. All the putative warming above that level would come from amplifying factors, chiefly related to water vapor and clouds. The net effect of these factors is the subject of contentious debate.
In climate science, the real debate has never been between "deniers" and the rest, but between "lukewarmers," who think man-made climate change is real but fairly harmless, and those who think the future is alarming. Scientists like Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology and Richard Lindzen of MIT have moved steadily toward lukewarm views in recent years.
Even with its too-high, too-fast assumptions, the recently leaked draft of the IPCC impacts report makes clear that when it comes to the effect on human welfare, "for most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers," such as economic growth and technology, for the rest of this century. If temperatures change by about 1C degrees between now and 2090, as Mr. Lewis calculates, then the effects will be even smaller.
Indeed, a small amount of warming spread over a long period will, most experts think, bring net improvements to human welfare. Studies such as by the IPCC author and economist Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University in Britain show that global warming has probably done so already. People can adapt to such change—which essentially means capture the benefits but minimize the harm. Satellites have recorded a roughly 14% increase in greenery on the planet over the past 30 years, in all types of ecosystems, partly as a result of man-made CO2 emissions, which enable plants to grow faster and use less water.
There remains a risk that the latest science is wrong and rapid warming will occur with disastrous consequences. And if renewable energy had proved by now to be cheap, clean and thrifty in its use of land, then we would be right to address that small risk of a large catastrophe by rushing to replace fossil fuels with first-generation wind, solar and bioenergy. But since these forms of energy have proved expensive, environmentally damaging and land-hungry, it appears that in our efforts to combat warming we may have been taking the economic equivalent of chemotherapy for a cold.
Almost every global environmental scare of the past half century proved exaggerated including the population "bomb," pesticides, acid rain, the ozone hole, falling sperm counts, genetically engineered crops and killer bees. In every case, institutional scientists gained a lot of funding from the scare and then quietly converged on the view that the problem was much more moderate than the extreme voices had argued. Global warming is no different.
Mr. Ridley is the author of "The Rational Optimist" (HarperCollins, 2010) and a member of the British House of Lords.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 28, 2014
5:37 PM

Post #9800030

Willy, {SATIRE}
It looks like your post at 7 AM today shut this conversation down. I have been waiting all day for Rick to apologize for all the scurrilous comments he has made about mean spirited, hard hearted Rednecks like me that would willingly sacrifice millions of future victims just to save the jobs of a few thousand expendable coal miners. In fact i have spent a lot of time in front of the mirror practicing how to accept those forthcoming apologies in a gracious manner.

But all I have heard since your posting is deafening silence. While i enjoyed all of the Op Ed you posted immensely, the one thing I enjoyed the most was learning a new name for people that believe as i do. While i thought the name Warmies was fine for the True Believers, I never cared much for the name i chose for Skeptics like me, which was :"Coolies" as that was reminiscent of the Chinese laborers. So, learning that people with my opinion of the problem were called Lukies, for Lukewarm believers, was a nice thing.

I am also looking forward to hearing how the 97% of the Government Scientific Choir change their tune to match the new report.

Ernie


RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 28, 2014
8:29 PM

Post #9800138

I ordered the book. I have to leave soon, I'll have to read the last 2/3rds of you post Monday. But a fast-scan sounded very encouraging.

>> much more cautious and vague about worsening cyclones, changes in rainfall, climate-change refugees,

That's VERY good news.

I wonder if there are end-dates on those predictions. Like, "not as bad as we thought for the next 50 years". I thought that most predictions except for the near-term "chaotic" instabilities simply got worse and worse as the CO2 level increased.


"Clouds" were a big variable or unknown in models (or were last I checked.) . What altitude, what temperature, what latitudes. What kinds will form where, and what effect will each have on atmospheric structure as that structure changes? Temperature gradient with altitude and latitude ... they must have made SOME progress in figuring that out, or at least forming and knocking down theories, in the last 5-15 years.

I was amazed that he said "2%". I thought 10-20% decreased solar radiation was needed to balance the CO2-warming over the next 50-100 years. I might be wrong about what was thought 5-10 years ago, or theories may have changed. If true, it makes "space mirrors" and stratospheric particulates 10 times less impractical!


P.S. I went hunting for info about "saturation" but was disappointed. The people that talked about "saturation" were ignoring the fact that the area of most interest for the greenhouse effect is not really the lower layers of the atmosphere, but rather the higher layers. (Compared to lower down, the higher parts are not only much thinner and colder, but also drier).

for example:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


The "saturation" idea was that, if there is enough CO2 in the air (added up over all altitudes), "all the IR will be absorbed anyway", so that more CO2 would not mean more greenhouse effect.

Unfortunately, it works differently. Heat has already been absorbed, re-emitted, absorbed again and re-emitted again in the lower atmosphere. (As well as being carried up and down by air convection.) The question is, "how high do you have to go before reemitted IR can actually ESCAPE to space?" The answer is "higher and higher as we add CO2". So if there is any upper limit to "how bad can increasing CO2 make the greenhouse effect?", it's far above what the "saturation argument" suggested.

P.S. The fact that IR only really escapes to space from high altitudes when we have extra CO2 also knocks another "saturation" idea in the head. Some people said that H2O also has IR absorption bands, which overlap with some of CO2 absorption bands. Absorption spectra at GROUND level do look like there's a lot of overlap, which would reduce the effect of CO2 to the extent that water is already absorbing some of what extra CO2 would absorb.

Unfortunately, that only affect which compound absorbs more near ground level. Up where the action is, thee are two big factors. One, the upper atmosphere is really dry, so CO2 is the only player, and changes in its concentration are not overshadowed by H2O where it counts. Two, the high atmosphere is low pressure compared to ground level. Dense gases have very "smeary" absorption spectra that look like hills and valleys. Low pressure gases absorb in clean, thin "spikes" or absorption lines. The absorption "hills" or bands at ground level DO overlap. At high altitudes, the pressure is so low that the spikes or lines no longer overlap, so the effect of CO2 is independent of whatever trace H2O is up there.

I think the really twisted-knickers scenario (improbable in all models) of "runaway" greenhouse effect is the idea that so much more H2O gets into the high atmosphere where IT'S greenhouse effect becomes serious at high altitudes. (Maybe one protective mechanism was that the water froze out before it could get that bad.) But, speculatively, NO IR would be escaping until you got so high that it's also really cold, so very little escaped at any altitude. At that point, "the pile of blankets" would be so thick that lakes and oceans would boil, and it would get even worse much faster, as some speculate happened on Venus. I don't think anyone is predicting pessimistically enough or far enough into the future to worry about that!

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 30, 2014
9:32 AM

Post #9801103

Here is another of the Ridley op-ed pieces. I will find the December one he mentioned and post it soo.
By
Matt Ridley
Updated Sept. 17, 2013 3:16 p.m. ET
Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.
There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPCC thought in 2007.
Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Specifically, the draft report says that "equilibrium climate sensitivity" (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is "extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), "likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and "very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was "likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius and "very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since "extremely" and "very" have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.
Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the "likely" range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time.
A more immediately relevant measure of likely warming has also come down: "transient climate response" (TCR)—the actual temperature change expected from a doubling of carbon dioxide about 70 years from now, without the delayed effects that come in the next century. The new report will say that this change is "likely" to be 1 to 2.5 degrees Celsius and "extremely unlikely" to be greater than 3 degrees. This again is lower than when last estimated in 2007 ("very likely" warming of 1 to 3 degrees Celsius, based on models, or 1 to 3.5 degrees, based on observational studies).
Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC's emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.
Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.
Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.
Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don't adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating "equilibrium climate sensitivity" and "transient climate response" on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models. The most significant of these, published in Nature Geoscience by a team including 14 lead authors of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report, concluded that "the most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 degrees Celsius."
Two recent papers (one in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society, the other in the journal Earth System Dynamics) estimate that TCR is probably around 1.65 degrees Celsius. That's uncannily close to the estimate of 1.67 degrees reached in 1938 by Guy Callendar, a British engineer and pioneer student of the greenhouse effect. A Canadian mathematician and blogger named Steve McIntyre has pointed out that Callendar's model does a better job of forecasting the temperature of the world between 1938 and now than do modern models that "hindcast" the same data.
The significance of this is that Callendar assumed that carbon dioxide acts alone, whereas the modern models all assume that its effect is amplified by water vapor. There is not much doubt about the amount of warming that carbon dioxide can cause. There is much more doubt about whether net amplification by water vapor happens in practice or is offset by precipitation and a cooling effect of clouds.
Since the last IPCC report in 2007, much has changed. It is now more than 15 years since global average temperature rose significantly. Indeed, the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri has conceded that the "pause" already may have lasted for 17 years, depending on which data set you look at. A recent study in Nature Climate Change by Francis Zwiers and colleagues of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, found that models have overestimated warming by 100% over the past 20 years.
Explaining this failure is now a cottage industry in climate science. At first, it was hoped that an underestimate of sulfate pollution from industry (which can cool the air by reflecting heat back into space) might explain the pause, but the science has gone the other way—reducing its estimate of sulfate cooling. Now a favorite explanation is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. Yet the data to support this thesis come from ocean buoys and deal in hundredths of a degree of temperature change, with a measurement error far larger than that. Moreover, ocean heat uptake has been slowing over the past eight years.
The most plausible explanation of the pause is simply that climate sensitivity was overestimated in the models because of faulty assumptions about net amplification through water-vapor feedback. This will be a topic of heated debate at the political session to rewrite the report in Stockholm, starting on Sept. 23, at which issues other than the actual science of climate change will be at stake.
—Mr. Ridley is the author of "The Rational Optimist" and a member of the British House of Lords.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 30, 2014
9:39 AM

Post #9801107

Here is the third Ridley op-ed. As I searched for this, I noted that many people had written posts, articles etc. suggesting Ridley is wrong. So, not surprisingly, opinions range widely.

By
Matt Ridley
Dec. 18, 2012 6:09 p.m. ET
Forget the Doha climate jamboree that ended earlier this month. The theological discussions in Qatar of the arcana of climate treaties are irrelevant. By far the most important debate about climate change is taking place among scientists, on the issue of climate sensitivity: How much warming will a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide actually produce? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has to pronounce its answer to this question in its Fifth Assessment Report next year.
The general public is not privy to the IPCC debate. But I have been speaking to somebody who understands the issues: Nic Lewis. A semiretired successful financier from Bath, England, with a strong mathematics and physics background, Mr. Lewis has made significant contributions to the subject of climate change.
He first collaborated with others to expose major statistical errors in a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures. In 2011 he discovered that the IPCC had, by an unjustified statistical manipulation, altered the results of a key 2006 paper by Piers Forster of Reading University and Jonathan Gregory of the Met Office (the United Kingdom's national weather service), to vastly increase the small risk that the paper showed of climate sensitivity being high. Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.
Mr. Lewis tells me that the latest observational estimates of the effect of aerosols (such as sulfurous particles from coal smoke) find that they have much less cooling effect than thought when the last IPCC report was written. The rate at which the ocean is absorbing greenhouse-gas-induced warming is also now known to be fairly modest. In other words, the two excuses used to explain away the slow, mild warming we have actually experienced—culminating in a standstill in which global temperatures are no higher than they were 16 years ago—no longer work.
In short: We can now estimate, based on observations, how sensitive the temperature is to carbon dioxide. We do not need to rely heavily on unproven models. Comparing the trend in global temperature over the past 100-150 years with the change in "radiative forcing" (heating or cooling power) from carbon dioxide, aerosols and other sources, minus ocean heat uptake, can now give a good estimate of climate sensitivity.
The conclusion—taking the best observational estimates of the change in decadal-average global temperature between 1871-80 and 2002-11, and of the corresponding changes in forcing and ocean heat uptake—is this: A doubling of CO2 will lead to a warming of 1.6°-1.7°C (2.9°-3.1°F).
This is much lower than the IPCC's current best estimate, 3°C (5.4°F).
Mr. Lewis is an expert reviewer of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report. The IPCC forbids him to quote from it, but he is privy to all the observational best estimates and uncertainty ranges the draft report gives. What he has told me is dynamite.
Given what we know now, there is almost no way that the feared large temperature rise is going to happen. Mr. Lewis comments: "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."
A cumulative change of less than 2°C by the end of this century will do no net harm. It will actually do net good—that much the IPCC scientists have already agreed upon in the last IPCC report. Rainfall will increase slightly, growing seasons will lengthen, Greenland's ice cap will melt only very slowly, and so on.
Some of the best recent observationally based research also points to climate sensitivity being about 1.6°C for a doubling of CO2. An impressive study published this year by Magne Aldrin of the Norwegian Computing Center and colleagues gives a most-likely estimate of 1.6°C. Michael Ring and Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois, using the most trustworthy temperature record, also estimate 1.6°C.
The big question is this: Will the lead authors of the relevant chapter of the forthcoming IPCC scientific report acknowledge that the best observational evidence no longer supports the IPCC's existing 2°-4.5°C "likely" range for climate sensitivity? Unfortunately, this seems unlikely—given the organization's record of replacing evidence-based policy-making with policy-based evidence-making, as well as the reluctance of academic scientists to accept that what they have been maintaining for many years is wrong.
***
How can there be such disagreement about climate sensitivity if the greenhouse properties of CO2 are well established? Most people assume that the theory of dangerous global warming is built entirely on carbon dioxide. It is not.
There is little dispute among scientists about how much warming CO2 alone can produce, all other things being equal: about 1.1°-1.2°C for a doubling from preindustrial levels. The way warming from CO2 becomes really dangerous is through amplification by positive feedbacks—principally from water vapor and the clouds this vapor produces.
It goes like this: A little warming (from whatever cause) heats up the sea, which makes the air more humid—and water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas. The resulting model-simulated changes in clouds generally increase warming further, so the warming is doubled, trebled or more.
That assumption lies at the heart of every model used by the IPCC, but not even the most zealous climate scientist would claim that this trebling is an established fact. For a start, water vapor may not be increasing. A recent paper from Colorado State University concluded that "we can neither prove nor disprove a robust trend in the global water vapor data." And then, as one Nobel Prize-winning physicist with a senior role in combating climate change admitted to me the other day: "We don't even know the sign" of water vapor's effect—in other words, whether it speeds up or slows down a warming of the atmosphere.
Climate models are known to poorly simulate clouds, and given clouds' very strong effect on the climate system—some types cooling the Earth either by shading it or by transporting heat up and cold down in thunderstorms, and others warming the Earth by blocking outgoing radiation—it remains highly plausible that there is no net positive feedback from water vapor.
If this is indeed the case, then we would have seen about 0.6°C of warming so far, and our observational data would be pointing at about 1.2°C of warming for the end of the century. And this is, to repeat, roughly where we are.
The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.
Mr. Ridley writes the Mind and Matter column in The Wall Street Journal and has written on climate issues for various publications for 25 years. His family leases land for coal mining in northern England, on a project that will cease in five years.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 30, 2014
1:25 PM

Post #9801248

Willy,

I am sure lots of people disagree with Ridley,, as many of them have staked their careers on declaring it absolutely is going to happen.
I would suspect, as is usually the case, that the final truth will lay somewhere near the middle of the two most reasonable studies.

Thanks for finding and posting these OP EDs. I look forward to seeing if it causes any opinions to change. I hope the lower projections gain enough support that the huge expenditures that are now being undertaken to prevent the calamities hyped in the past, will be curtailed.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

March 30, 2014
7:24 PM

Post #9801534

enjoyed reading everyones comments...Sorry i havent said much...I'm busy working in the garden now so I wont be online as much.

John
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 30, 2014
7:26 PM

Post #9801537

Lest you think that the optimism is widespread...

(CNN) -- Your forecast for the next century: Hotter, drier and hungrier, and the chance to turn down the thermostat is slipping away.
That's the latest conclusion from the United Nations, which urged governments to address the "increasingly clear" threats posed by a warming climate before some options are closed off for good. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that taking steps to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for rising temperatures could buy more time to adjust to a warmer world.
Cutting emissions now "increases the time available for adaptation to a particular level of climate change," the report states. But it adds, "Delaying mitigation actions may reduce options for climate-resilient pathways in the future."
"In many cases, we are not prepared for the climate-related risks that we already face," Vicente Barros, the co-chaiman of the IPCC working group behind the document, said in a statement accompanying the report. "Investments in better preparation can pay dividends both for the present and for the future."

Expert: Sea levels make flooding worse
The summary for policymakers was released Monday morning in Yokohama, Japan. It's the second part of the IPCC's benchmark assessment of climate change, a document released every six years with the input of nearly 1,000 scientists. Without checks on emissions, the impacts of climate change will be more severe, more likely, and possibly irreversible, it concludes.
Monday's report underscores "that we have committed to a certain amount of warming," said Kelly Levin, an energy and climate expert at the U.S.-based World Resources Institute.
"Over the next few decades, we are going to lock ourselves into a climate change commitment that is going to paint a very different world, depending on what we choose today," Levin said. "The choices we make today are going to affect the risks we face through the rest of the century."
As a result, "Adaptation is emerging as central area in climate change research," Levin said. But adaptation -- steps such as building sea walls, conserving water and designing cities for warmer climates -- has its limits, she said.
"The report suggests some options are going to be too resource-intensive or too expensive," she said.
An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven average temperatures up by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1950, the IPCC says. The first part of its report, released in September, concluded that even a best-case scenario would result in an increase in global average temperatures of 1.6 C; the worst-case scenario estimates a rise of 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.6 Fahrenheit).
The idea that carbon emissions are changing the Earth's climate is politically controversial, but generally accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of scientists. And as emissions continue to rise, driving up CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, the impacts will be more severe, more likely and possibly irreversible, Monday's report states.
The summary of the full document -- which is more than 1,000 pages -- will be the premiere guide for lawmakers. It breaks down the expected impacts by continent and by categories such as marine life, agriculture and flood risks. And by diving into the specifics of the report, policymakers will be able to see what risks their specific locations face, as well as what adaptation and mitigation techniques could prove fruitful.
"The real highlight is how many impacts there are, how widespread they are and how pervasive they are around the world," said Heather McGray, who studies adaptation at WRI.
In most cases, climate change will exacerbate existing problems, such as the availability of fresh water in sub-Saharan Africa. The authors conclude that glaciers will continue to shrink "almost worldwide," affecting water supplies downstream.
Animals have begun shifting their habitats in response to a warming world, and key crops have been affected already, they wrote. Colder climates may see increases in crop yields from longer growing seasons and milder temperatures, but the negative effects are expected to outweigh the positive, the report states.
"In this report, the finding is the impacts of climate change are already widespread and consequential," McGray said.
The impacts won't be the same for everyone, and as usual, the world's poor are more likely to be hurt.
"Climate-related hazards affect poor people's lives directly through impacts on livelihoods, reductions in crop yields or destruction of homes and indirectly through, for example, increased food prices and food insecurity," the report states. Positive effects on the impoverished "are limited and often indirect."
For those people, the effects "will be catastrophic" unless emissions can be reduced, McGray said.

ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 30, 2014
9:15 PM

Post #9801580

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven average temperatures up by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1950, the IPCC says. The first part of its report, released in September, concluded that even a best-case scenario would result in an increase in global average temperatures of 1.6 C; the worst-case scenario estimates a rise of 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.6 Fahrenheit).

Willy, I am still optimistic. And having been a General Engineering Contractor since 1954, I have come to prefer the precise way Engineers use clear words and numbers to state the facts, as in the preceding paragraph, rather than the Lawyerly way the rest of the CNN article was written. I have had considerable experience with Lawyers, too, So i speak and understand both languages.

That one clearly stated paragraph states that in September the estimated worst case temperature increase was 6.5 times as much as the actual increase, which was a measly 1 degree F. So it is very difficult to call a mistake that big an EDUCATED ESTIMATE .

So, while I am still optimistic that with that small an increase over the past 64 years, that it will not take much of a climate fluctuation or cool spell to reverse that trend, but you are correct that i should not be optimistic that the Government and UN Commission will tone down the spending, as that is how they make their living.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 31, 2014
8:44 AM

Post #9801872

This is a long thread!
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 31, 2014
9:17 AM

Post #9801900

Willy,

I agree, so please go ahead and start a follow up thread as you did last time.

Ernie

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 31, 2014
3:48 PM

Post #9802181

Matt Ridley
March 27, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will shortly publish the second part of its latest report, on the likely impact of climate change. Government representatives are meeting with scientists in Japan to sex up—sorry, rewrite—a summary of the scientists' accounts of storms, droughts and diseases to come. But the actual report, known as AR5-WGII, is less frightening than its predecessor seven years ago.

Read more: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1350831/#ixzz2xZeo82hn

=======================

>> all I have heard since your posting is deafening silence.

I take weekends off, Ernie.

Remember the GMO thread where someone would post a link to an article with a plausible headline, that was full of obvious bias? Just like that.

This one has better-quality hot air and BS - to the point where it might even be substantively right about the "leaked IPCC report. But too many BS-tactics are used for me to take his word for ANYTHING now. I have to read the report. If I were retired, I would say "read papers about the climate models", but I would need to learn a LOT of math.

However, he rests his whole argument on observations up to the current date. That's somewhere between dumb and picking the result by choosing the method. Like proving something is "toxic" by proving that it is "cytotoxic in tissue culture". So skewed as to be a from of deceit.

When major, future, change is being modeled, the whole POINT is that major change is being looked for (determined to be somewhat likely, or nearly certain, or unlikely, also depending on whether you mean the next few decades or 100s of years).

It's not even a "DUHH" argument to say that extrapolating the very first, slight, upward twitch does not "predict" major changes. That's just bogus. Then the question about the author is: wilful deceit, or an agenda? Either way, he invalids himself. And insults his audience, unless he's writing for an audience that would rather hear a predetermined outcome than look for the best-guess truth.

Like the first few drops of rain don't determine whether it will be a shower or a flood.

Falling the first 90 stories off a 100 story building doesn't predict anything but an exhilarating "flying sensation". It would be a "yoga flying" conclusion to extrapolate that just another 10 stories!

Similarly, the theory of AGW includes the possibility of changes to the temperature gradient in the atmosphere, deep ocean circulation, and who-knows-what-all ... until we HAVE so much new climate knowledge that we CAN predict the effect of never-before-experienced changes in greenhouse gasses.

It's such a bogus argument that he discredits himself. Too bad. I would love to know who was leaking what, and what their motives were. I need to to read the whole report and form my own opinion. From his reporting or distortions, caused by leaks and what seems his clear bias, even the IPCC is backing off the initial alarm. Did the scientists also back off due to improved models? Or did the deniers screams back in 2007 (some of which were justified screams!) motivate everyone to become cautious and only sat things that would not get them bad press?

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 31, 2014
3:48 PM

Post #9802182


>> I am also looking forward to hearing how the 97% of the Government Scientific Choir change their tune to match the new report.

That's one reason I'm curious to read the whole report. Has there been any change (even gradual evolution) in the science, or is the IPCC (UN Panel) taking a more cautious approach after the 2007 bias (or alleged bias - certainly there were inaccuracies).

Wikipedia is no final authority, but it says:

" The IPCC does not carry out its own original research, nor does it do the work of monitoring climate or related phenomena itself. The IPCC bases its assessment on the published literature, which includes peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources.[7]
Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute (on a voluntary basis, without payment from the IPCC)[8] to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments. IPCC reports contain a "Summary for Policymakers", which is subject to line-by-line approval by delegates from all participating governments. Typically this involves the governments of more than 120 countries.[9] "

I'll still read the long OP-ED pieces when I have time, but only as a source of ideas for what kinds of things I should look for in papers WITHOUT obvious bias.

>> That one clearly stated paragraph states that in September the estimated worst case temperature increase was 6.5 times as much as the actual increase, which was a measly 1 degree F. So it is very difficult to call a mistake that big an EDUCATED ESTIMATE .

The estimated numbers like 6.5 degrees are predictions about the future. (They should have said how far into the future they were trying to project). The 1 degree F number was a measurement about the present. It's not a mistake, it's a difference between "already measured" and "predicted for the future".

RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

March 31, 2014
3:49 PM

Post #9802183

Willy,

Thanks for posting the review of the IPCC " summary for policymakers". I was surprised there were so few qualifiers. But the more technical body of the report will hopefully be more specific about how the modelling science is coming along.

>> " "Over the next few decades, we are going to lock ourselves into a climate change commitment that is going to paint a very different world, depending on what we choose today," Levin said. "The choices we make today are going to affect the risks we face through the rest of the century.""

That's what I've been thinking since 1980. So, I suppose I will have been proven wrong if we CAN still take actions that will keep the knicker RELatively un-twisted.

>> key crops have been affected already, they wrote. Colder climates may see increases in crop yields from longer growing seasons and milder temperatures, but the negative effects are expected to outweigh the positive, the report states.

That's the impression I had. However, changes in plant disease and pests my affect temperate growing regions negatively (or positively, if plants adapt faster than pests).

WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 31, 2014
5:01 PM

Post #9802217

The news reports indicate that the just released report is very negative regarding the future. So, it still looks like one's political view might influence one's interpretation. My take on it so far is that Ridley has poor advance data, or wishes to twist facts, or the media are alarmist, or...whatever.

I own a book on evolution by Ridley (The Red Queen), so my experience says he's OK and is a scientist. The apparently huge difference between his articles and my perception of the actual IPCC reports is startling. I tried to read thru the IPCC stuff, but became overwhelmed with the jargon. I will try again later--it's happy hour now, for #%&**&%$$#@ sake.

Here is an observation on how far the average citizen will go to be "helpful" on environmental issues. My neighborhood was offered a new waste disposal service about a year ago. It was significantly cheaper than the one we had AND it offered recycling, which was not an option we had with the then current provider. Most of the neighborhood jumped on it. Last week, the new company discontinued the recycle option as it wasn't well enough supported. Things like this make me say things like "what can we do about it (AGW)?". I understand very well the skepticism; it often includes me. Most forecasters of doom have historically been flat out wrong (Ludd, Malthus, Erlich). Nonetheless, it seems prudent to try and reduce carbon emissions. I don't see it happening. No nukes, no natural gas, no GMOs, no biosolids, no vaccines, no smart meters, no research--let's be afraid of or oppose any technology that might help. I am pessimistic. I hope the IPCC is wrong.

Here's a link to the IPCC website: http://www.ipcc.ch/.
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

March 31, 2014
5:17 PM

Post #9802227

Michael Mann typically writes a letter to the editor following any WSJ AGW commentary, so I'll keep my eye out for that and post it if it happens.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

March 31, 2014
6:25 PM

Post #9802273

An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other emissions have driven average temperatures up by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit) since 1950, the IPCC says. The first part of its report, released in September, concluded that even a best-case scenario would result in an increase in global average temperatures of 1.6 C; the worst-case scenario estimates a rise of 3.7 degrees Celsius (6.6 Fahrenheit).

The above paragraph was taken verbatim from the CNN article. The 1 degree increase seems to be from impeccable sources. The projections were made in September and after peer review were changed in the December and later reports.

Rick,

How about limiting a couple of posts to discussing the above paragraph, which was from the latest report and was copied verbatim from the report without mixing in the liberal reporters bias.

Just as you read material on this subject as a Scientist wanting to be sure you are correct, i read them as an old contractor preparing to submit a bid, so i lookf for solid facts that i can trust, not at the Devloper or Promoter's Brochure or Projections..

So what i read t is that from 1950, to 2013, all of the Carbon and Freon and other junk that has been dumped into the atomosphere in the last 63 years has resulted in 1 degree of temperature increase, or about two hundreths of 1 degree per year. Since it is pretty obvious with such a small amount of average increase that many of the years must have showed a cooling trend. Or to put it another way, if the report had been taking on almost half of the other years, the report would have shown that the Temperature was stable or declining.

I have said before that Figures do not lie, but Liars can figure, and so i put my trust in the actual figures. I understand that words can be twisted and slanted to support almost anything, but when the basic figures are as simple as this, it becomes more difficult to convince anyone that the distortions are the truth.

So, Fact One, according to the report, admits that they have been wrong about dangerous Global Warming for the entire period of 63 years, But now, to continue to get their grants and budget awards, they need to convince us that suddenly the temperatures are going to rise to dangerous levels. If i was bidding the job, i would base my bid on the actual proven increase and not on some nightmare or fantasy that has no documented basis in reality.

Please limit your reply to this particular post to the relationship of thetemperature of the past 63 years and how it relates to the future conjectured rapid iincrease.

A side note. Anyone that has evrt extrapolated anything for any reason has surely learned that even the slightest error in the beginning rapidly increases as the erroneous information is projected forward. .

Ernie





RickCorey_WA

RickCorey_WA
Everett, WA
(Zone 8a)

April 1, 2014
5:03 PM

Post #9802926

>> My take on it so far is that Ridley has poor advance data, or wishes to twist facts, or the media are alarmist, or...whatever.

I got cranky about him at first, then came back to about the same point you did: I don't know what the report itself says, whether he is biased or just has some ideas that differ from mine ... in fact now i wonder how well the Executive Summary agrees with the scientists' input!

>> overwhelmed with the jargon

Yeah ... is that deliberate or just they way that in-groups always talk?


>> How about limiting a couple of posts to discussing the above paragraph,

>> with such a small amount of average increase

I've tired to say why I don't think that extrapolating the very earliest visible beginning of a change has any meaning for predicting climate CHANGE, "change" meaning new things happening that are different from the past and even from the very first stages of the climate reacting to being forced out of the old patterns and into finding some new patterns.

If you only extrapolate the past, you've started by assuming that the curves will NOT CHANGE. That's fine for you, if you want to assume that you already know the future without considering all the changed conditions, but please don't ask me to start out by agreeing that climate will not change in any way other than a very slow, very gradual creeping.

I think it likely that changing the CO2 levels as much as we already have (and adding 9 billions tons per year more, every year) will cause CHANGE, meaning new patterns. Not just flat extrapolation of the very first blush of initial trend that was even denied to BE a trend by so many Deniers.

Changed rainfall patterns,
changed air-temperature gradients with altitude and latitude,
changed cloud patterns in who-knows-what directions,
maybe even changed gradients of ocean surface temperature with latitude, which would change EVERYthing (note I did say maybe).

So I have no interest in using the first little twitch of the meter to "extrapolate" 50, 100 or 200 years into the future.

If we don’t reduce carbon emissions by more than anyone thinks we CAN, that kind of curve-changing change is what I mean by climate change, not infinitesimal changes of 0.02 degree per year. If that were all that was going to happen, I would not worry. Farmers and crops could adapt to that kind of "incremental, tiny, lukewarm change" which is not what I mean by "climate change".

P.S. I'm going on vacation for a week, so we don't really need to discuss why I would accept CNN as (apparently) impeccable in your eyes, and everything else including all of the science as "liberal reporters bias".

>> So, Fact One, according to the report, admits that they have been wrong about dangerous Global Warming for the entire period of 63 years,

No, no, no! If the Summary for World leaders is actually saying exactly that, it was written by idiots. More likely, someone with an agenda and few scruples expects to be able to get away with really lame BS to his intended audience.

Maybe in the very first year or two that anyone ever tried to model the entire global climate, there were simplistic ideas like that anywhere other than in newspapers color Sunday supplement. But realistic models expected a period during which the changes would be very hard to see. Then, many models thought there would, or probably would, or might be "tipping points" after which change would be more rapid and the traditional stability of the climate, recovering form extremes and trending towards long-term averages would just CHANGE, and it would chaotic until some new stability established itself, handling the greatly increased CO2 levels, but not necessarily being convenient for humans or crops.

>> But now, to continue to get their grants and budget awards, they need to convince us that suddenly the temperatures are going to rise to dangerous levels.

I forgot that you automatically assume that any scientist must be a liar motivated by salary and grants only.

You may be unaware that researchers GIVE UP the possibility of lucrative salaries and security when they decide to do research all their lives. Even tenure, if non-teaching researchers can get tenure, only means that you can RELY on making much less than industry employees, instead of making much less AND not knowing whether you'll have a job next year or not.

To clarify: since you start by throwing out all scientific opinions, because you already know they are all systematic liars, and consider CNN a Gold Standard by comparison, we aren't in the same conversation at all.

Don't expect me to take seriously or respond to ideas based on that assumption.

If I made a new thread, I would make two: "discussion of political assumptions and propaganda about climate change", and "discussion of the scientific attempt to predict and mitigate AGW".

>> Please limit your reply to this particular post to the relationship of thetemperature of the past 63 years

I'm not interested in straw-man arguments that presuppose nothing will ever happen that has not already happened.

>>
A side note. Anyone that has evrt extrapolated anything for any reason has surely learned that even the slightest error in the beginning rapidly increases as the erroneous information is projected forward. .

Yes, but that shows one blatant error in what you seem to want people to do: straight-line extrapolation. Accepting this paragraph, everything else you've asked me to do would be futile and almost certainly erroneous. I've pointed out that it ALSO guarantees a systematic error: simple extrapolation ASSUMES the weakest form of "Lukie" assumption.

Wait until we get into the (theoretical) rapid-chnage part of the curve, and THEN you would see that extrapolation of that would give predictions even worse than long-term models do. It will still BE theoretical until we go that far ... what I have in the past called "actually fallen OFF the cliff" or "the house has mostly burnt DOWN already" or the ship has sunk up to the gunnels but the mast is still visible".

By the way, in science, "interpolation" is a respected method. If you already have a curve that consistently describes a well-know situation, and you CHANGE NOTHING, then it's valid to INTERpolate between two known points, in the middle of the curve, where you have already established a steady, predictable relationship.

As soon as you EXTRAPolate OFF the end of the curve, a scientist has to acknowledge that now he's assuming unproven ideas, or asserting a theory or a model, that the curve CAN just be extrapolated from the known to the unknown, past to future, ASSUMING that the old relationship continues to be valid OUTside the range where it was observed in the past.

That is exactly what climate CHANGE theories point out is probably NOT going to be true.

You can assume that the last 15 years predicts the next 50 or 100 ... but why assume that? We already know that the conditions are changing hugely in ways that have never been seen before.




WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

April 1, 2014
5:29 PM

Post #9802951

On second thought...

This message was edited Apr 2, 2014 12:38 PM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 1, 2014
7:42 PM

Post #9803066

Rick,

You do sound like you very much need a vacation, and i am sorry if i was partly to blame for upsetting you, but in my own defense, many of the things you state that i said or think are not mine. They are YOUR idea of what i was thinking or what you imagine i was thinking or things that you accuse me of thinking or saying.

I will look forward to reading your thoughts and comments when you return.

Kindest regards,
Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

April 3, 2014
1:08 PM

Post #9804214

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-cooling-real-inconvenient-truth-140500879.html

Three months ago, it snowed in Cairo, Egypt for the first time in 112 years.

2013 was the largest one-year temperature drop ever recorded in the United States.

The extent of the Antarctic sea ice is at record highs.

It’s the Real Inconvenient Truth—right now the world is getting colder. And it’s likely to get even colder for the next 20 years—before a new, stronger cycle of sunspots begins, as they have for eons. They are statistically very, VERY accurate.

But there’s more, and it’s A Sad Truth: there is ample evidence that suggests private scientists and public servants have been manipulating the basic raw data that most everyone relies on to calculate climate change. (This story has great timing as the IPCC–International Panel on Climate Change–just released Part 5 of their most recent major assessment on climate science (even they can’t bring themselves to call it Global Warming anymore).)

There are some investment trends that come out of this new Truth, and some of it is as simple as get long snowmobile makers and get short lawn mowers. One trend is that Global Cooling should bring more seasonality in oil and gas prices, making energy ETF and commodity traders happy.

All of this is part of a new ground-breaking study completed by Unit Economics, an investment think-tank from Boston. They are a non-partisan group with no axe to grind on this issue; like me, they are here to make money for their clients. Show us a trend and we’ll figure out how to profit from it.

In Part I, you’ll understand the big swings in temperature the earth has experienced in the last million years, and the last thousand years, and the last 50 years. In Part II I’ll explain how sunspot activity directly correlates to ALL these temperature changes. And I’ll give you a hot, near-term investment trend to capitalize on this cool idea.

And in Part III, I’ll show you how some original research by Unit Economics has uncovered some disturbing data about the integrity of Global Warming science. And really, all they’re doing is adding to an already big pile.

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

Satellites first started measuring earth’s temperature in 1979. Over the next 20 years, temperatures did rise, by roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9°F). In the 15 years since, that trend has reversed–rendering the total temperature increase since 1979 a mere 0.35°C (0.6°F), well within the range of statistical noise.

The real culprit for climate change is simply—the sun, through a complicated but predictable set of cycles.

Those cycles predicted today’s cooling trend – and they predict it will continue for another two decades and may well lead to the coldest period on earth in the last 1,200 years.

The Earth, the Sun, and the Temperature

The earth’s cycle around the sun stretches and contracts, creating 100,000-year temperature cycles. Our planet also slowly tilts one way and then the other, resulting in 41,000-year temperature cycles.

We know this because scientists have several methods to estimate historic weather, an effort that has produced this general result:

.

A few things jump out.

1. The 100,000-year temperature cycles are very apparent – and the current one is peaking.
2. The timeframe of this chart covers ice ages and tropical periods, which means it takes only a small change in global temperatures – only two to four degrees – to separate a very warm world from a very cold one.
3. Through the cycles of the last 800,000 years, the average global temperature is creeping upwards.
4. The magnitude of each cycle seems to be increasing.

Now, this chart should be taken with a grain of salt because the methods we use to conjure these numbers are not perfect. But at least the chart lets us put recent climate changes into historic context – a context that deserves a closer look.

The key takeaway is that the earth has been through some very warm periods and some pretty cold ones. Take the years between 800 and 1200 AD, for example. During these 400 years it was so warm that vineyards spread across central England and bountiful harvests almost doubled Europe’s population.

Then it all changed. By the mid-1300s England’s vineyards were gone and sea ice expanded so much that polar bears crossed to Greenland. This short cold snap was truncated in about 1400, when warmer weather returned for 150 years. Get the idea? Up, then down, then up, then down. And then came the Little Ice Age.

Lasting from 1550 right until 1850, the Little Ice Age froze Austria’s vineyards, forcing parched Austrians to switch from wine to beer. Winter fairs were held on the frozen Thames River for 20 years (you’ve all seen the paintings) and Hudson Bay was littered with ice chunks in mid-summer.

This period of time was so cold it earned the moniker The Dalton Minimum—a reference to the very low number of sunspots then. In the year 1816, storms dumped snow across New England and Quebec in June, lake ice lasted until August in Pennsylvania, and failed crops led to food riots in Britain and France.

So when you get asked, is the world warmer over the last 200 years, since the Industrial Revolution started? Yes, but it has squat to do with industry. That just happens to co-incide with the smallest sunspot activity in “modern” times.

Eventually the world started to warm again. From 1890 to 1934 central Europe barely saw any snow. Another warm spell from 1942 to 1953 had scientists predicting the death of Europe’s glaciers, a forecast invalidated when the world once again cooled.

Here’s some interesting data as we get closer to the present day:

1. Temps continued to fall from 1953 until the mid-1970s – despite rising CO2 levels. This was during the single most industrializing time on earth—and temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose.

2. Another point: if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km (3-6 miles) above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth’s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.

3. There has been a large outcry about the decline of Arctic Ice. While Arctic sea ice extent is just above average levels, Arctic sea ice is near record thickness: the volume of ice in the Arctic last fall was 50% higher than 12 months prior, following a very cold summer in 2013 in which temps climbed above freezing only 45 days compared to an average of 90 days.

I bet you didn’t read about that.

4. There’s a lot of ice at the other end of the globe too. In eight of the last ten years global sea ice extent has bested the 30-year average, aided by an Antarctic sheet that in October hit its highest extent since record keeping started in 1979.

5. The Northern Hemisphere had its second, third, and fourth highest snow extents on modern record in 2010, 2011, and 2013. In the United States 2013 brought the largest year-over-year drop in temperature on record and the winter is on track to be labeled the third coldest in 200 years.

Evidence of this cooling is everywhere – even if politicians and the media try to pretend it isn’t. Of course, the media has short memories. Only 40 years ago, in mid-1974 Time magazine ran a cover story entitled “Another Ice Age?” noting a 12% increase in New Hampshire snow cover in 30 years.

Conclusion: over the last 1,200 years the earth has been through several pretty extreme temperature swings. What gives?

The answer lies with the sun. Cold periods coincide with solar minimums, which generally happen every 150 to 200 years. Warm periods coincide with solar maxima, which happen every 700 years or so.

In Part II, you will read about how accurately sunspot activity relates to earth’s temperatures, why the signs are indicating a deep cooling trend for the next 20 years (brrrrrr……), and one near term investment idea in the energy patch that should prosper greatly from this new trend.


WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

April 3, 2014
1:33 PM

Post #9804232

I dunno, drobarr. Relying on an investment counselor for guidance on climate?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 3, 2014
1:48 PM

Post #9804241

Drobarr,

That article certainly jibes with what i have seen in my lifetime, which has mostly been spent outdoors feeling both the heat and the cold.

Thanks for finding and posting it,

Ernie
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 3, 2014
1:59 PM

Post #9804251

Willy,

That is a pretty funny comment, but the article sounded to me like all the climate related facts had been lifted from other another person's work.

Only the last sentence sounded like it had been created or composed by a Financial Advisor.

Ernie
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

April 3, 2014
2:16 PM

Post #9804257

drobarr--I read the report you pasted above, but I cannot find anything on "Unit Economics".

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

April 3, 2014
2:24 PM

Post #9804261

Nobody can predict the future. Not even 97% of climate scientists. Well actually anyone can predict it...but its only luck if they get it right. Since temperatures have historically gone up and down and up and down it is bad science to say they will only go up in my scientific opinion.

Facts in the article are checking out.

Very interesting that the markets are predicting cold over the next 20 years.

This message was edited Apr 3, 2014 5:40 PM
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 3, 2014
3:04 PM

Post #9804301

Willly, I found this on Google
Ernie

Unit Economics is a Boston-based independent research firm. We provide
institutional investors with insightful research on small and mid cap equity securities.
We believe successful investing is no accident - it comes only with experience, a
commitment to excellence and hard work.

Our innovative approach focuses on the ‘Unit Economics’ of the companies we
analyze. We believe that there are important insights to be gained by combining
our proprietary financial modeling techniques with frequent management interaction
and intensive industry research. Earnings are the main driver of share prices in the
long term and we pride ourselves on the accuracy of our earnings estimates and
analysis.

Unit Economics strives for excellence at both the individual and organizational
level, and toward that end, we have created a rare learning environment. We expose
our employees to the challenges of publishing sell-side research. At the same
time, we are developing trading and portfolio management skills through our
focus on maximizing the real-world investment returns of our clients.


Leadership


Senior Analyst and company founder, Nathan Weiss, was the author of The
WeissReport, a monthly newsletter focused on risk arbitrage and market neutral
strategies from 1998 to 2000. From 2000 to 2006 Mr. Weiss was a generalist
analyst and portfolio manager at Noble Partners, contributing significantly to their
outstanding returns.

Mr. Weiss holds a Master of Science in Investment Management from Boston
University and a BBA in Business Administration from the University of Iowa.
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 3, 2014
3:08 PM

Post #9804304

Willy,
Here is the link. It just sounds like another Stock research firm, so they do not do the original work, they just gather it together.

Ernie



http://uniteconomics.com/Methodology.html

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

April 3, 2014
3:38 PM

Post #9804330

What has caused these huge historical variations in climate? And how can we be sure that CO2 is the cause in some of the most recent warming events that have been observed.

I think the sun and its variations has more impact on our climate here...it is where heat originates from and it just makes sense that as it varies so our temperatures and climate on earth would vary.

A good scientist is skeptical until you have verified experiments that are repeatable.

If CO2 supposedly traps heat or absorbs heat by preventing it from escaping back in space according to the greenhouse effect...why doesnt it prevent or trap heat on its way in?
ERNIECOPP
Vista, CA

April 3, 2014
3:58 PM

Post #9804343

Businessmen need to be skeptical of everything until they find some FACTS they can bet their money on, or they will not survive long enough to become Old Businessmen.

So, I prefer actual facts, knowing the future will not be identical, to a whole new scenario where none of it might be correct. That is the reason i prefer the Article from Mulder, i belive his name was, that quoted facts from research, and the article posted by Drobarr, instead of the CNN article that quoted hyperbole and dire predictions of the future mostly.

Ernie

drobarr

drobarr
Hummelstown, PA
(Zone 6b)

April 3, 2014
7:08 PM

Post #9804467

I started a new thread this one was getting too long...

Go to: http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1355326/
WillyFromAZ
Sierra Vista, AZ
(Zone 8b)

April 3, 2014
8:49 PM

Post #9804529

Because coming in, it's light in the form of photons--not subject to the green house effect--going "out" it's IR and CO2 is somewhat opaque to IR.

I do think the fact that CO2 (and water vapor and methane) is a green house gas is undisputed. As one of Ridley's op-eds noted, it's whether or not CO2 acts "alone" or works in concert with other effects to create positive feedback that is questioned by some.

You cannot post until you register, login and subscribe.


Other Vegetable Gardening Threads you might be interested in:

SubjectThread StarterRepliesLast Post
very important question farmgirl21 31 Jan 8, 2008 12:31 AM
Need Source For Chinese Vegetable Seed berrygirl 18 Jun 15, 2008 7:21 PM
An accidental lesson Farmerdill 26 Feb 24, 2013 12:10 PM
Planting the "Three sisters" HilltopDaisy 94 Jul 6, 2011 3:38 AM
Rhubarb emilyrasmus 19 Apr 25, 2013 4:55 PM


We recommend Firefox
Overwhelmed? There's a lot to see here. Try starting at our homepage.

[ Home | About | Advertise | Media Kit | Mission | Featured Companies | Submit an Article | Terms of Use | Tour | Rules | Privacy Policy | Contact Us ]

Back to the top

Copyright © 2000-2014 Dave's Garden, an Internet Brands company. All Rights Reserved.
 

Hope for America