Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 28, 2018

Trump Administration Acknowledges Climate Change - Predicts Large Rise In Global Temperatures

The Trump administration admits that climate change will increase the global temperature more than anticipated:

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous 7 degrees [Fahrenheit] by the end of this century.

A rise of 7 degrees Fahrenheit, or about 4 degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists.

That increase though, says the Trump administration, is no reason to stop emitting gases that, for a large part, cause such warming:

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

"The child already fell into the well, there is no longer any need to cover it."

The administration uses such faulty reasoning to eliminate regulations that are supposed to limit 'greenhouse' gas emissions. It is set to allow higher emissions from cars and trucks.

For millions of years plants on earth used the energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide and water into hydrocarbons. Where those plants were later covert with volcanic ash or sunk into the sea, geologic pressure and time converted them into coal, oil and gas. Since the start of industrialization humans have used an enormous amount of these dead plants to generate energy. Coal, oil and natural gas - the hydrocarbons - oxidize in exothermic reaction. They burn and give off heat which humans transform into various kinds of usable energy. The emissions from such fires are basically the stuff from which the plants were created - carbon dioxide and water.

A large part of the energy from the sun that hits the earth is reflected back into space. Carbon dioxide and other gases (Methane) in the atmosphere lower the reflection rate of the earth, they trap the energy (heat) the sun shines onto earth within the atmosphere just like the glass of a greenhouse traps the heat inside. Spectroscopic measurements from space over several decades show a decrease of reflections from earth at the spectral range of carbon dioxide. Long term measurements on earth of carbon dioxide concentrations correlate strongly with the general temperature increase.

All this is well known and not controversial. But, as John Maynard Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead. Humans are not willing to give up on their personal comfort and profits for the benefits of far away future generations. The 2015 Paris agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions was largely a scam. Hardly any country stuck to the endorsed targets. After the Fukushima disaster the Merkel government in Germany decided to shut down nuclear power plants but increased the use of brown coal for electricity production.


bigger

It was a 'populist' decision, sold as a "green" policy even as it was the opposite, and contradicted the commitment to decrease emissions. The Obama administration allowed a huge increase in fracking which, next to the hydrocarbons, releases a large amount of other greenhouse gases.

The decision by the Trump administration is wrong. Yes, we will likely not be able to stop a global temperature increase in next few decades. But future generations also deserve our compassion. We must still do our best to limit the long term increase by ending the use of hydrocarbons wherever possible.

It will not be easy to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Large amounts of electric energy are difficult and expensive to store. We need a certain locally distributed base capacity in our electricity networks to provide energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. For now nuclear energy is still the most climate friendly way to generate this base capacity. It also creates highly toxic waste that is extremely difficult to get rid of.

The effects of climate change, higher temperatures, rising sea levels and generally more extreme weather, will hit the poorest people the most. This within the U.S. as well as in a global frame. The consequences will be mass migration on a never before seen scale, widespread lack of consumable water and large violent conflicts arising from both.

Two countries may hope to profit from the rise in global temperature as it will increase their access to natural resources that are currently covert by ice. The U.S. (with Canada) and Russia may be the winners of the trend. Most other countries will be losers.

While short term human greed will likely prevent a reduction in hydrocarbon use, and a slowing down of climate change, there may be other effects that could suddenly turn the trend. A large volcanic eruption or a big asteroid impact could cloud the earth and bring back (much) colder times. Some yet unknown effect in the atmosphere that is not anticipated in current climate models could stop or reverse the current trend.

The human race is able to adopt to extreme climates. Humans can live in deserts as well as in the arctic. But such extreme climate zones do not allow for high density populations. The current number of people on this planet may prove to be too high to sustain. Climate change itself, through large scale conflicts and famines, may well provide for its own natural regulation. Reduced to some 100 million individuals humanity may well survive. Nature will not be compassionate in effecting such.

Posted by b on September 28, 2018 at 18:15 UTC | Permalink

Comments
« previous page

ADKC@194

Sorry you didn't learn anything from my attempt to enter a dialogue. Please consider the article I linked of atmospheric chemistry.

Perhaps I should have correctly stressed that all three of the more near term events would result in massive CO2 releases, especially Nuclear Winter.

Failure of Humans to prevent these three disasters are also the very reasons who people are not going to deal with global warming from CO2 emissions.

My chances of living through the near term disasters are slim even though I am very prepared. I wish you luck.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 1 2018 1:23 utc | 201

Maybe of interest-mann and the hockeystick

https://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

Posted by: Pft | Oct 1 2018 1:46 utc | 202


2001 was 17 years ago

Nothing I have learned since 2001 has convinced me that schoolchildren of impoverished parents.
ought to be taught to fear some future scenario. In the long War of Reform Mexico cast off
the priestly institution; now Mexicans are supposed to kneel before a new God of foreign science?

I don't think so. IMO the best chance 3World kids have to survive is by using reason and method.

But, if the result of their education is to become beholden to a foreign super-state construct...

not so much...

These children are not to be allowed to question the very truthfullness of its central propositions;
because, if they ever do, they will be shouted down as fossil-fuel-shills or else regarded as retards.

Follows the question that so challenged those long-ago true-believer debaters, so much so that
nobody would engage this question; instead, the posters became defensive and resorted to ad hominems:

HOW did those clorofleurocarbon molecules get into the upper atmosphere when they weigh eight-times what an atmospheric oxygen weighs? My understanding was that at the time of the big Ozone Hole scare
CFCs had not been experimentally detected in the upper atmosphere; only the model had them up there.


Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 2:19 utc | 203

Sure thing, Grieved. You think about it as well.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 2:26 utc | 204

Sorry. That may be obscure. What I mean is: I will think about it as you think about it too.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 2:28 utc | 205

HOW did those clorofleurocarbon molecules get into the upper atmosphere when they weigh eight-times what an atmospheric oxygen weighs?

Wikipedia says they got carried up by wind.
Now, those chemicals have been used since 30s. How they did not manage to deplete ozone in 50s and 60 and even in 70, when according to uncoy playing outside was safe, but started to mess up things only in 80s, after 40 years. I bet scientists have a convincing explanation for that. If not, they can always call us idiots.

Posted by: hopehely | Oct 1 2018 2:36 utc | 206

ADKC@194

There is a glimmer of hope in reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by reducing and preventing desertification via intensive grazing in grasslands and innovative desert revegetation projects.

For innovative grazing approaches in increasing moisture holding in soils and carbon capture see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

China has had dramatic success in reversing desertification which is now being replicated in several other countries: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/04/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification/

https://www.wired.com/2003/04/greenwall/

http://time.com/4851013/china-greening-kubuqi-desert-land-restoration/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVSodNA54A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkdxObsCVGY

Unfortunately,the three points I made about the collapse of ecosystems will happen prior this solution being successful. Perhaps the buffalo and other ruminants will survive to restore the world after most of the humans are gone.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 1 2018 5:01 utc | 207

Guerrero @198

This appears to be the standard answer as to how Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) get to the Stratosphere when they are heavier than air.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 6:57 utc | 208

I don't understand the mental illness of people who acknowledge the evil of the corporate globalization empire but who turn around join its propaganda in denying its most destructive campaign, the climate chaos its driving, which will destroy them first.

I don't get it. You must be retards.

Posted by: Russ | Oct 1 2018 7:25 utc | 209

Krollchem @201

You said it yourself 'especially nuclear winter'. Nuclear winter can only happen after nuclear war? This is an ever present danger that humanity will have to live with for the rest of human existence. Once it happens its game over. If it doesn't happen there is no effect of nuclear winter.

The collapse of western civilisation does not mean the end of humanity.

Dealing with the ecosystem helps with Global warming and vice versa.

I don't disagree with the points you raise. I just disagree with how you presented them (by implying that global warming doesn't need to be addressed [at least for now or for the foreseeable future]).

I still have no idea why you decided to take issue with me. All I did was take Pft seriously and look into the points he raised. Hours of reading later it became obvious that nothing Pft stated actually stood up (it was all partial and misrepresented information) and he had just wasted my time. Then you latched on! Am I your straw man or something?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 7:45 utc | 210

I don't get it. You must be retards.
Posted by: Russ | Oct 1, 2018 3:25:29 AM

Maybe. Or maybe you should look a little harder?

Funny how the fertilization effect of CO2 keeps being ignored by alarmists. I've posted a link to many thousands of scientific work on it. Let me repeat, thousands of separate scientific papers.Extra food for billions. Silence...

What about the greening of the Sahara? Silence. But it is happening, slowly, piece by piece if we do not burn everything before as 'renewable' ...
All those woods slashed and burned for palmoil and other renewable nonsense in Indonesia. Just look a little harder.

We do live in an age when thousands of voices can call a thing true, and barely a handful of sources exists to prove it a lie. Climate change just happens to be one of those contrary things, where it truly does seem that the good guys are the thousands of actual scientists and researchers, and that the bad guys are the handful of sources serving to discredit the theme.
Posted by: Grieved | Sep 30, 2018 8:59:46 PM

Scientist can be victims of bias and propaganda. Look at that link I posted about the oceans cooling. That NASA scientist seems sincere in his quest about correcting ocean cooling, but he does not think a moment it might be rightly measured so. Did they discover a failure in the instruments? No. They considered them simply 'faulty' and corrected, they did not even think it might be really cooling.

All those models are simply weather models with added 3.5 W/m2 radiation per CO2 doubling + some feedback. This is not how physics work. There is no real energy balance in the models, no calculated lapse rate and energy transfer, so it is clear they can only show warming.
But does the energy in the atmosphere really work that way? It is an oversimplification, it does not work that way.

All those doom time frames are now moved at the end of the century. Hardly verifiable. But what about all the scenarios that were to be fulfilled in decades? It did not happen.

Show me a model that calculates correctly the lapse rate in the atmosphere and is used to show global warming and I will start to be interested in the modelled results.

Pft also refers to CO2 levels in the past as proving that C02 does not cause warming. This confuses two different (but also re-inforcing) processes; 1. that global warming causes increases in CO2, and 2. that increases in CO2 causes global warming.
Posted by: ADKC | Sep 30, 2018 12:32:03 PM

The correlation was strongly suggested by all alarmists with CO2 causing the warming.
The reality is CO2 followed the warming due to the oceans degassing CO2.

The new scientists article you linked to says: “Rising together
It takes about 5000 years for an ice age to end and, after the initial 800 year lag, temperature and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rise together for a further 4200 years.”

Absolutely not true. As I posted above the last ice age is supposed to have ended in one(1!) year precisely 11711 years ago :).
The ice cores show rapid changes not slowly growing lines.

Pacific Islands are a good gauge.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054011
"Using time series aerial and satellite imagery from 1947 to 2014 of 33 islands, along with historical insight from local knowledge, we have identified five vegetated reef islands that have vanished over this time period and a further six islands experiencing severe shoreline recession"
In the news from time to time, a few populated Islands are now getting the occasional high tide inundate them, which has not occurred previously - apart from storm events.
Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Sep 29, 2018 9:35:08 PM

What about the other islands? If you look only on one side of the equation you might miss something.
I will not put a wattsup-link as that would be deemed: fossil fuel shill, not credible etc. What about nature? Is the glass half full or half empty?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-24630-6
Analysis of the satellite derived shoreline data indicates that 24% of the world’s sandy beaches are eroding at rates exceeding 0.5 m/yr, while 28% are accreting and 48% are stable.

Sea level varied and was higher in the past – see 35 scientific papers collected here:
http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/06/35-scientific-papers-global-sea-levels-were-1-2-meters-higher-than-now-for-most-of-the-last-7000-years/

sigh, no guerrero, wattsupwiththat and jonova aren't "science". neither one is a scientist for one thing.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Sep 30, 2018 8:04:53 PM

I assume that was indirectly addressed to me as I posted links.

The link to Jo Nova was a link to a scientific paper as was the link to wattsup. Unfortunately this is typical alarmist behavior of attacking the messenger.
Again ignoring all the other papers linked and then pretending 'deniers do not cite science'.
Why this?

Posted by: LP | Oct 1 2018 11:21 utc | 211

AKDC@211

You keep saying what I say is BS

How about backing it up. With facts. I spent a lot of time supporting my position . I am prepared to have a meaningful dialogue with you if we can drop the ad hominum attacks. Lets get it on my friend.

Posted by: Pft | Oct 1 2018 11:42 utc | 212

Pft @201

You are so partial that you cannot bring yourself to describe accurately what deniers might gain if AGW was true. Instead you just describe a situation more appropriate to the scenario of AGW being fake.

It would seem to me that the motivations for denial (excluding those who might be considered misled or mistaken) if AGW was true would be to continue the existing financial capitalist system in order to grab as much wealth, resources as possible to be in an overwhelming dominant position when global warming can no longer be denied, and them allow the environmental collapse polish off 'excess' humanity and/or engage in genocide to reduce population. As you can see the NWO would gain from this.

Obviously, a very similar position could be described if AGW was fake but there would be no environmental collapse/imminent threat that would justify genocide (unless such a collapse was provoked/created).

But these alternative motivations are useless because they are not provable they can only be assumed. What matters is whether or not AGW ir real; 'cui bono' is a ridiculous proposition in this case.

I have to say that your posts have done more than anything I have ever read, viewed, listened, or discussed to incline me towards AGW being real and deniers having malevolent motivations.


Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 11:48 utc | 213

LP @201

"The reality is CO2 followed the warming due to the oceans degassing CO2."

Yes I know. I am not disputing that. The point is that warming causes C02 to increase. But also that increases in C02 causes warming. It is not an either/or situation; it is both. I thought the point I made was fairly clear so your interpretation of my point seems intentionally obtuse.

Models have weaknesses and need to be constantly improved (and can be wrong, prone to bias, even confirmation bias). But modelling is the only practical away to measure/predict/monitor/plan for global warming.

Similarly, there are issues with interpreting ice cores because they cannot be compared with what is 'actually happening' (i.e. we cannot travel back in time and check what the whether was actually like) but it's one of the few tools humanity have to interpret the past; I am not expecting total accuracy and can live with a degree of inconsistency. Ice cores may show rapid changes but effects on the atmosphere/environment may lag.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 12:18 utc | 214

LP @213

(My previous post should also have been addressed to LP @213)

The negative effect on plants of increased seems to outweigh the positive benefits of increased growth.

Scientific American article

I do appreciate the point you are making. That plants are forming a negative sink for CO2 but I would be more impressed if deforestation was actually increasing (i.e. that humanity is destroying C02 sinks, not expanding them.

Broadly speaking I would be happy is humanity increased C02 sinks to be sufficient to absorb the amount of CO2 released into the environment (by humanity); but this is not happening.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 12:31 utc | 215

Pft @214

I did not say that your posts were BS. I said they where intentionally misleading, time consuming and obfuscating. I also said that you were very good at what you did. That is, your posts where very effective (I am very impressed with your facility); they just don't stand up when you research the points. However, they did waste a lot of my time.

I am interested in what those don't think climate change is happening but not when they are manipulative.

In truth, it must be the case that I don't really know enough to know for definite whether AGW is real or not. However, I am concerned about not taking any effective action (on a precautionary basis).

I said your posts have done quite a lot to convince me that some deniers have malevolent motives.

We won't be 'getting it on'.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 12:43 utc | 216

ADKC@211

I only pointed out that global warming due to increased cloud formation is a gross oversimplification. High clouds and certain chemicals and particles actually cause global cooling. Apparently, you didn't read the link I provided. You may also wish to investigate the literature on El Nino/La Nina events and how clouds effect their cycle.

You later failed to read my comment on creating carbon dioxide sinks via revegetation which is being pioneered in China and Africa. Please consider that this approach is not being considered seriously in the corporate capitalist plantation economies of the West.

I have watched the MIT model on collapse of civilization and the ecosystem it supports for almost 50 years and the model still holds for collapse by 2040 showing that little has been done to prevent this prediction.

If you had read any of Chris Hedges interviews or even his recent book you would realize that Western Civilization has perhaps only 10 years left in its present corporate capitalism from.

Given the rapid increase in weapons spending by the US and its allies there appears to be a major war baked in. America and its allies (FUKUS) do not want to lose the Middle East war in support of their Israeli/Saudi/UAE allies. If there is a deliberate attack on Russian forces the massive conventional response will be such a shock the the West will result in tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) leading to a full scale nuclear war involving a 5000 MT exchange. The potential for Nuclear Winter cuts the survival timeline to perhaps 5-10 years.

What makes you think that reducing carbon dioxide levels will be tackled in an effective way? The big issue seems to be how will the US corporations sell more big CO2 generating trucks:
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/2018/09/28/ford-f-150-ram-1500-chevy-silverado/1372067002/

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 1 2018 13:08 utc | 217

LP @213

(My previous post should also have been addressed to LP @213)

The negative effect on plants of increased seems to outweigh the positive benefits of increased growth.

Scientific American article

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1, 2018 8:31:18 AM

Sorry ADKC, that is no scientific paper, just garbage opinion regurgitated by a newspaper. I posted a link to a database with scientific papers, please keep the standards you are asking for.

Posted by: LP | Oct 1 2018 13:14 utc | 218

"Yes I know. I am not disputing that. The point is that warming causes C02 to increase. But also that increases in C02 causes warming. It is not an either/or situation; it is both. I thought the point I made was fairly clear so your interpretation of my point seems intentionally obtuse."
Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1, 2018 8:18:17 AM

The argument that climate changes happened only on a milenial scale, as argued in the link you posted, (5000 years to come out of the ice age) is proven false. The younger dryas period is a clear example of such very fast changes.
The argument that Greenland warming = medieval warm period, or little ice age were only local is also strange.

First, there are databases with scientific articles showing it was a global phenomenon. Example here:
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

Second, nobody explained how that could have happened. What god of climate made cool to persist for centuries in Europe? Where did all the heat go and why? How do you imagine that happened? Do you have links to scientific papers which would promote that?

Models are a tool to work and try to understand complex phenomenon, but models need to be verified by praxis. If models cannot reproduce the past changes, then those models are missing the climate drivers that caused those changes => are useless to predict future development.

Posted by: LP | Oct 1 2018 13:29 utc | 219

Krollchem @218

I am aware of the points about clouds. I don't and didn't dispute. Water vapour has both positive and negative reinforcing effects (although, as far as I can ascertain the positive reinforcing effects outweighs the negative).

It is very good news about the sinks being pioneered in China & Africa (I wasn't aware). I am well aware that nothing effective is being done in this regard in the west; I have referred to the lack of effective action on climate change a number of times.

I never disputed that western civilisation was heading towards collapse. I just said that such a collapse might be necessary to effectively deal with climate change. It was you who regarded the collapse of western civilisation as existential. This is what you stated:

"While climate change is a threat to the earth there are more immediate threats that will result in mass extinctions long before human CO2 becomes a issue. Three near term problems come to mind:

(1) Collapse of Western civilization due to a failed corporate capitalism model"

I am aware of Chris Hedges and am very sympathetic to his views and those of his guests.

I am aware of the behaviours of FUKUS and the risk of war; I would hardly be on this forum if I wasn't.

Where did I ever say that the west would effectively deal with CO2? Whenever I have commented on this I said that they are not doing so.

You seem determined to foist views and opinions on me that are not mine.

I repeat again that "I don't disagree with the points you raise. I just disagree with how you presented them (by implying that global warming doesn't need to be addressed [at least for now or for the foreseeable future])."


Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 14:37 utc | 220

LP @219

I don't recall asking for (or expecting) any standards?

Your point was that CO2 means extra food for millions.

The intention of the link I provided was to raise questions about the nutrients levels of the food.

My real point, however, is that while the plants are acting as a CO2 sink this is nowhere near enough to deal with excess CO2 especially as deforestation is continuing.

Your point gives the misleading impression that CO2 sinks are adequate, the evidence (increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere) indicate otherwise.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 14:50 utc | 221

LP @220

Climate change science asserts that:

1. That increases in CO2 causes warming.

2. That warming causes increases in CO2.

Do you agree or disagree with the either of the above two points?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 15:14 utc | 222

AGW is real and deniers have malevolent motivations. (paraphrase)

Who has malevolent motivations? What malevolent motivations are suggested to be present?

From my first post in this thread, I related my own personal experience in a dialog forum.
The posters (an intelligent crew) eschewed addressing The Hole in the Ozone with science.

Over several months, they ran away from the scientific method and rational discourse;
and I was called a petroleum-industry-shill when i made my life in Mexican villages. Ha!

"Retard" was an epithet I heard often and all forms of ad homenem attacks were issued.
No one could ever explain how the CFCs got into the upper atmosphere in the first place.

I concluded then that The Hole in the Ozone was a form of induced psychosis, since without
the employment of reason and rigorous scientific-method, humanity would be truly doomed;
yet those posters with whom I was conversing were totally closed to open and honest inquiry.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 16:13 utc | 223

Climate change science asserts that:

1. That increases in CO2 causes warming.

2. That warming causes increases in CO2.

Do you agree or disagree with the either of the above two points?

Now this is a correctly phrased scientific proposition and worthy of rigorous examination.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 16:17 utc | 224

Guerrero @224

You paraphrased my comment which was about "some" deniers (and was based on specific incident). I very specifically did not classify all deniers as such.

This is not about rudeness and aggression, which is a different thing altogether.

However, your experiences around the "hole in the ozone", you need to let it go! :-)

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 16:36 utc | 225

@Guerrero

You earlier asserted:

Meanwhile every Third World country had chlorofleurocarbon production plants established.
(Chlorofleurocarbons are a cheap, safe, and proven technology to preserve foodstuffs.)

No such factories exit. The stuff has been phased out and is no longer in use except for very minor special (pharma) cases.

The 1987 Montreal Protocol prohibits other uses. All nations on this planet signed on to it. It is an excellent example of how environmental issues can be handled by diplomacy.

Posted by: b | Oct 1 2018 16:49 utc | 226

At the time of the CFC ban due to the Hole in the Ozone health scare, Mexico had
clorifluerocarbon production, as did just about every nation in Latinamerica and Africa.

The production of this commercial gas, cheap and efficient for food refrigeration
was curtailed by USA laws and everyone was supposed to buy DuPont's patented replacement,
which, at the time, cost ten+ times more. At the present date (2018), I can assure you
that every ordinary Mexican refrigerator repairman will employ the old-fashioned gas.

The expensive stuff one supposes is for wealthier populations who can afford it,
and for government institutions and regulated businesses. But in the third world,
the same-old same-old reliable refrigeration gas with the CFCs is routinely employed;
it were fair to say that this is contraband, but i don't think anyone here is aware of that.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 17:26 utc | 227

@228 guerrero... so you are saying mexico is not honouring the montreal protocol..fascinating.. mexico doesn't enforce the agreements it makes internationally is what it sounds like you are saying..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2018 17:49 utc | 228

Noteworthy

This is pretty much how every thread on climate change / global warming plays out for the past 5 years or more.

The 'climate change deniers' no longer deny that there is climate change, instead they:

>> point to natural climate change as a means of "proving" that human impact on client will have no ill effects'

>> exaggerate how beneficial CO2 is - essentially suggesting that CO2 will cause plant growth that solves the problem;

>> attempt to discredit climate scientists by calling into question their motives or methods or pretending that there is no 'consensus' - usually because some unscientific opinion survey.

The purpose of these deceptive "commonsense" arguments and surveys is simply to cause doubt and confusion in the minds of ordinary people so that politicians don't feel pressed to do anything.

Does anyone really think that climate scientists have failed to factor into their models the natural variation in climate or the "benefits" of CO2? And if that WERE the case, then you would have to also believe that, over the course during the last 30 years that "global warming" has been a public issue:

>> no one pointed out the flaws in their thinking, or

>> scientists just ignored valid, commonsense criticisms and governments across the global have chosen to ignore the flaws as well.


I'm not a scientist. But commonsense tell me that the scientists are right and the corporations that make tens of billions of dollars in profits from CO2 emissions have a powerful motive to do whatever they can to protect those profits.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 1 2018 17:54 utc | 229

James @229

If this is the case then it is the fault of the West and DuPont. The replacement for CFC should be no more expensive than CFCs particularly for poorer countries. However, if Mexicans are just recycling CFCs then that seems less of a problem than dumping CFC's. But if Mexicans are manufacturing new CFC's then that is a worry because, if so, it is a practice likely to be replicated in poorer countries throughout the world.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 18:01 utc | 230

@161 Grieved

I suppose it is to my detriment that I view most attempts to fix the problem of technological pollution as half-assed and not wholly-innocent of greedy and monopolistic intentions. Furthermore, as I lay out below, these attempts further dull authentic thinking about human organization around technology, in general. In other words, thinking about technology is A#1.

...

I view the overall push to promote the concept of AGW or climate-change into the collective unconscious of humanity as just another tool in the toolbox of globalists. The concept when used politically, breathes a demonic presence into an otherwise natural concept. The climate is always changing and sometimes this change is sudden and catastrophic to forms of life coexisting during these epochs. But, like a Golem, the concept has been brought to life as a tool for God knows what final aims of those who promote it.

But humanity is the animal par excellence for adaptation. With our current forms of food delivery and innovation, our plight may be manageable during upcoming instances of catastrophic climate change. I am not passing judgement on these futurist forms of technology, because that is another topic. I am merely saying that humanity will probably weather creeping forms of disruption. Cataclysmic events, however, are a different story.

As I said in a prior post, like Trump as a symptom of these destitute times, and not the cause, oil is likewise such a symptom of a godless epoch of technology for its own sake. You see, it is fine to be disgusted by oil and the poor relationship to the natural world that combustion has engendered, but we are fooling ourselves if we think that throwing up wind turbines and solar rooftops everywhere in its place will provide the understanding of our relationship with the world through technology that we so desperately long for in our heart of hearts.

This is a fine essay on Heidegger's thought on the dangers of western technology during this modernist age and the need for poets in these "destitute times." Here is a snippet:

The threat to man does not come in the first instance from the potentially lethal machines and apparatus of technology. The actual threat has already afflicted man in his essence. The rule of enframing threatens man with the possibility that it could be denied to him to enter into a more original revealing and hence to experience the call of a more final truth.

You see, we will have only hidden this potential truth even better if we were to eliminate fossil fuel burning and then pat ourselves on the back saying: "You see, we did it." And in its place, with wind turbines and rain barrels under every gutter, we will have condemned the question of technology to future generations, relegating the authentic purpose of thinking to the abyss. Call it gobbledygook if you wish, but an analogy might also be made with the phenomenon of Trump in a post-Obama era. Slick Barry put on some nice window-dressings to the picture of Americana, didn't he? But with Trump, the question of Empire is more pronounced and more apt for seizing, wouldn't you agree? But immediately we are seeing a movement of questioning hijacked by political and reactionary forces. In effect, they are saying: "Anyone but Trump!" But there isn't much foresight or thinking in this proposition is there? The same can be said for fossil fuels: "Anything but burning fuels!" And likewise, we would be missing an opportunity in these destitute times if we were to replace one method of concealment for an even more dangerous form: ignorance of the question in general through our own self-satisfaction. Just as Trump is a symbol of the need for this question to emerge, so are fossil fuels regarding the question of technology.

...

As for Russia and their commissioning of numerous nuclear-class icebreakers for the Arctic, this could be for two reasons:

1) Russia knows that the Arctic will be thickening with ice in the future and they are readying themselves accordingly, or
2) Russia will take advantage of increasing melting in the Arctic to open up new trade routes through previously normally-frozen passageways.

I lean towards number 1 because I have read more titles (yes, I can't understand scholarly articles very well, so I just go by the titles) of articles which dismiss climate alarmism as of recent than slick, MSM productions of climate alarmism featuring pics of emaciated polar bears and breaking ice shelves.

The way I see it, the same forces of propaganda are at work with both these images of emaciated polar bears and pics of Omran, the bloodied Syrian-boy of White Helmet fame.

"WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!" "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!" "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!"

Feel the desperation in their attempt to sway your permission on such vile actions of meddling in other nations' affairs as dooming the world's poor to various carbon-credit schemes to suck up more wealth and control to TPTB.

Nevermind that, as in the ice extant graphs I originally linked you to from the Danish Meteorological Institute, you can clearly see that extant, while never differing drastically in overall volume from year to year, does show rapid change in local ice variations. A polar bear may wake up to find his local stomping grounds warming, yes, but ancient humans found themselves conversely awoken in ice ages struggling to survive, too. They use all of these images and pseudo-science to cynically prop up their narrative. Bastards!

To what purpose?...god only knows.

Posted by: NemesisCalling | Oct 1 2018 18:09 utc | 231

@228 guerrero... so you are saying mexico is not honouring the montreal protocol..fascinating.. mexico doesn't enforce the agreements it makes internationally is what it sounds like you are saying..

Seriously?

In Mexico, we are living a raging public security emergency, one that the government is
unable to control, yet the government is supposed to regulate the use of refrigeration gas?

The expensive DuPont gas was never introduced here in the sourthern provinces, unless,
of course, one purchases a new refrigerator, the manufacturer would be required to use it.

Is the government expected to regulate the use of pirated windows software as well?
Well, how would they even do that? Even tax-collecters don't dare go to many places.

That Montreal Convention would perhaps be applied to the big regulated businesses,
however, without a question, refrigerator repairmen do not use DuPont's patented gas


Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 18:16 utc | 232

ADKC@221
Your citation from the climate change connection was in error in stating that clouds only result in warming of the atmosphere. I was merely stating that this citation was in error.

carbon dioxide is not the only factor effecting climate change. I do not claim to understand the systems dynamics (stock and flow)of how the hundreds of factors effect climate change.

The good news is that US (real) oil production has been in decline since about 1973. The majority of "oil" produced in the US is NOT OIL but condensate from fracking and is not economical (Ponzi scheme). In addition, the fracking operations flare off a large percentage of the natural gas at the wellhead adding to global warming. There is also the delay loop between deep injection of fracking fluids and major earthquakes.

The upcoming world energy shortage could eventually serve as a break on carbon dioxide emissions if point 1-3 can be forestalled. Good luck with that.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 1 2018 18:23 utc | 233

But if Mexicans are manufacturing new CFC's then that is a worry because,
if so, it is a practice likely to be replicated in poorer countries throughout the world.

Naturally, Mexico continue to manufacture and use the CFC gas for refrigeration.
And so does, one dares say, every other 3rdWorld economy, on the informal level.

I mentioned that the CFC production plant was well-established in all the 3W countries
when that new globaloney edict was issued, justified by an alleged upper-atmospheric
ozone-destruction by CFCs: DO you think that those independent chemical plant owners
(i.e. those owned or controlled by nationals) went and immediately destroyed their facilities?

At the time, 10 years ago, the price of the new DuPont patented substitute cost 10X+ more.

I don't know what this gas's price is now, Maybe someone will look this up? My own refrigerator is fading, and my last electricity bill came in higher than ever. It's well past-time
when I should get a local refrigerator repairman to come to get the unit to work again
I will ask him to tell me where he buys the gas he uses to restore the old refrigerators.

Or should I purchase a brand-new refrigerator with the cost of the patented DuPont Corp. gas
built into the price and payment terms? Ordinary people are going to use the cheaper gas
of course. The 3rdWorld refrigerator repairmen have not even heard of the Hole in the Ozone.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1 2018 18:49 utc | 234

@231 adkc... i agree with your first statement and don't have a clue on the questions in the rest of your post..

@232 geurrero... perhaps an alternative to the dupont patent is now available.. i have no idea.. i get what you are saying and don't question that, but i suppose it reminds me of just how busy some gov'ts are just running to stay afloat, that it is impossible for them to monitor such stuff as this.. it sounds as though mexico gov't falls in this place..

i tried to look up prices for the stuff, but couldn't find anything..

Posted by: james | Oct 1 2018 19:07 utc | 235

Guerrero @234

Your posts just confirms for me what I have suspected for a long time: that for AGW to be tackled effectively there does need to be an equalising of wealth/resource/sovereignty across the world (effectively a transfer from the west and rich countries to the third world and poorer countries). And before you respond...No, I don't see it happening!

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 19:21 utc | 236

Hopehely, you wrote about bulk purchases to justify continued use of disposable plastic (are you employed in the PR department or a shareholder anywhere in the petroleum or plastic industries):

It [glass] will not work. Bulk items are sold by weight, so they have to be weighted at checkout. If they are in your glass containers, it will not be possible to determine net weight accurately. That is why you put bulk stuff in thin plastic bags. The weight of the bag is negligible. And the bags are nicely rolled so they do not take lot of space. Cheap and convenient.

This has been solved long ago. The empty jars are weighed first (standard jars will help) and that weight deducted from the weight of the full vessel.

In your mania to "debunk" anything which might point to mending humanity's foul ways (we are in the middle of the sixth extinction event with more animals and fauna disappearing in the last two hundred years than the last twenty thousand), you wrote:

Now, those chemicals have been used since 30s. How they did not manage to deplete ozone in 50s and 60 and even in 70, when according to uncoy playing outside was safe, but started to mess up things only in 80s, after 40 years. I bet scientists have a convincing explanation for that. If not, they can always call us idiots.

Let's take another example of fouling the nest. A paper company began dumping its waste into a lake (Baikal for instance) in the thirties. People safely swam in that lake for fifteen years after the paper company began. Somewhere between year fifteen and year twenty it became apparent that the lake was being slowly poisoned. It took another twenty years to get naysayers, skeptics and the crooked owners to agree that the paper plant is at fault. Finally fifty years later, the paper plant is retrofitted or shut down. It takes another thirty years to clean the water enough for safe swimming.

Just because ecological harm does not strike or your children dead like lightning would, does not mean it will not send your grandchildren, your great-grandchildren and the rest of humanity to a hellish Dune like existence within a few generations. Extinction events are not a small road bump. They take tens of thousands of years to unfurl completely. Recovery takes tens of millions of years.

Wake up guy and stop soiling and provoking the planet for very short term gains in theoretical material prosperity. Theoretical as most of the crap we buy and build in the last fifty years is of plastic and won't be standing or useful within twenty to thirty years, as opposed to our forefathers who built out of brick and stone and whose dwellings and works had a shelf life of hundreds of years.

Posted by: Uncoy | Oct 1 2018 21:22 utc | 237

On a positive note —- treesisters.org
Check it out !

Posted by: Mark2 | Oct 1 2018 21:37 utc | 238

LP @219

"The intention of the link I provided was to raise questions about the nutrients levels of the food."

And my answer was: just throwing in doubt without any scientific paper. Btw, the food nowadays grows with a lot of extra CO2 in special greenhouses....

My real point, however, is that while the plants are acting as a CO2 sink this is nowhere near enough to deal with excess CO2 especially as deforestation is continuing.

Your point gives the misleading impression that CO2 sinks are adequate, the evidence (increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere) indicate otherwise.
Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1, 2018 10:50:03 AM | 222

My point is that C3 plants photosynthesis increases with increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Satellites have measured an increase in tree leaves of about 20% in the last 3 decades, about 6-7% per decade. There are a couple of papers about it. This is not a model output but a measured thing.

Also plants resist better drought with higher CO2 levels.
Due to the fact that plants lose less water with increased CO2 (plants stomata do not need to open so many times to absorb the needed CO2 and lose water through evaporation in the process), they may absorb less minerals. This is what the article says with "losing nutrients". A glass with mineral water would compensate for that loss.
As to the sink question, I did not refer to it, however looking at the C3 plants photosynthesis curve it would imply a higher CO2 consumption with increased concentration. There was a paper which was comparing estimated biosphere during the ice age with the pre-industrial time and found I think a doubling in the biosphere.
Currently CO2 increases with about 2 ppm er year. With increased photosynthesis it should stabilize at a certain value.

Climate change science asserts that:

1. That increases in CO2 causes warming.

2. That warming causes increases in CO2.

Do you agree or disagree with the either of the above two points?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1, 2018 11:14:48 AM

During the previous warm period CO2 level increased due to degassing by the sea. Correct?
Then even with more CO2 in the atmosphere it started cooling. And it cooled no matter that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. Where is the warming from more CO2?
=> there are other factors that trump CO2.

During the roman warming it was warmer and sea level was higher. During the medieval warm period it was warmer.
The driver for these variations was not CO2.
=> There are other factors that influence our climate beyond CO2 with variations higher then what have we seen this and past century.

At the present date (2018), I can assure you that every ordinary Mexican refrigerator repairman will employ the old-fashioned gas.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 1, 2018 1:26:49 PM
Nice one Guerrero. What is funny is that the ozone hole scare disappeared once the Montreal protocol was signed, doesn't matter if the gas is used or not. There have been measurements in the 1950's which showed already reduced ozone at the South Pole in winter. I think the cause for it is air under -70°C or -80°C.
Fluctuations can be caused also due to sun's radiation if I correctly remember (u-violet was found to be highly variable)

I'm not a scientist. But commonsense tell me that the scientists are right and the corporations that make tens of billions of dollars in profits from CO2 emissions have a powerful motive to do whatever they can to protect those profits.
Posted by: Jackrabbit | Oct 1, 2018 1:54:28 PM |

There is a lot of pollution and many other problems like famine, wars etc. How comes that this relative harmless gas which is plant food, which until now has benefited the world - see CO2 fertilization and greening the planet - is projected to cause so much trouble in the future and requires our focus? It could wait 50 years until we fix all else, nothing will change in the climate.
How many trillions have been spent on this industry? What is the result in °C of those trillions? 0.0000x?
Does this make sense to you? Is this common sense?
90% of plastic pollution in the oceans comes from 10 big rivers, 8 in Asia and 2 in Africa. This is a task that could be solved with a fraction of the money spent to cool the climate for 0.000x

Posted by: LP | Oct 1 2018 22:29 utc | 239

This has been solved long ago. The empty jars are weighed first (standard jars will help) and that weight deducted from the weight of the full vessel.
That might work in small over the counter stores, but in big supermarkets it is not doable.
I guess your supermarkets do not sell bulk, but mines do, and I do buy bulk. There is no way I could bring my own glass containers to fill them up. How will that work anyways? To measure them at the entrance? And then to provide weights to checkout girl so she can perform the arithmetics? It is just not practical. Well perhaps I can bring my own paper bags for dry goods, but glass jars? Nope.

A paper company began dumping its waste into a lake (Baikal for instance) in the thirties.
Listen, you Mr Russian Basher (tm). Until you restore your Danube river back to its pretty blue state, you have no right to lecture anyone about environmental responsibility. You haughty Europeans soil and pollute your rivers and lakes as badly as everyone else. Clean your crap first. Or at least use examples from your home not from some places 10 hour zones away.

...and the rest of humanity to a hellish Dune like existence within a few generations.
I am glad you brought back Dune reference from your blog. You see, if you actually read the whole novel, you would understand that for the surface ecosystem of Arakis is essential to be a desert. Because water is poison for the sand worms. Arakis is actually water rich, but all the water is locked deeply beneath the surface by sand trouts to protect sand worms. Without it, the sand worms would die out, they will become extinct. No sand worms, no spice. No spice, no interstellar space travel, because space navigators need spice to navigate spaceships.
So Dune analogy, is wrong very, very wrong for our discussion. Because Arakis must be that way. Food for thought, eh?


Posted by: hopehely | Oct 1 2018 22:55 utc | 240

LP @239

Yes you are right tree cover has increased over the last 30 years or so. But everything I have checked indicates that this is boreal forest and the effect of the growth of boreal forests is a net increase in CO2 into the atmosphere. This is because boreal forests grow on permafrost and while global warming (at present) promotes the growth of boreal forests it is also thawing the permafrost (which releases more CO2 than the increased tree growth absorbs). It is also believed that as temperatures increase there will come a point where boreal forests will be detrimentally affected.

I expect you were aware of the above but chose to omit it in your post. So my initial interest in the point you raised has turned a bit to annoyance because you appear to be presenting partial and misleading information.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1 2018 23:25 utc | 241

What if both factions of climate change deniers (AGW and otherwise) and those pointing at the obvious (AGW and otherwise) are engaging in verbal conflict by design? Like 'liberal' versus 'conservative', 'left' versus 'right' and/or any derivative of an artificial divide born out of these archetypal disputes/disagreements?
It makes a lot of sense to imply that there has been a steady promotion of scientific and layman's conflict for a good reason. That reason being to maintain some, or as much as possible order. The suppression of chaos based on the truth that has been available for a very long time.
This truth is that our beautiful planet comes from an environment that did not contain oxygen. As a matter of fact, the present biospheres are the result of an evolutionary process that enabled both fauna and flora in an exquisite equilibrium to promote/support each other and create the planet we have been able to live on for a very long time. 'We' is in this context 'mammals' and oxygen based life.

Sure, it is deeply depressing to accept the huge Gorilla on the planet. That Gorilla is a feedback loop that required the fine tuning of evolution in order to allow for oxygen utilizing life forms - creating oxygen. I am talking about the prehistoric anaerobic state of Earth. In a methane loaden atmosphere, or better methanesphere.

A complex process brought about the removal of methane from the Earth's atmosphere and the deposit of it in enormous areas under permafrost and cold deep water around the planet. These methane bunkers are now releasing their contents on a scale utterly incomprehensible to mankind. The reason for this lies also in the ignorance about this exponentially more devastating feedback loop. If I would have asked anybody a mere 18 yeras ago what they would know about the hyper fragile equilibrium of the methane cycle, the answer would have been what it still will be today: "Huh?"

Mankind has engaged in a battle about CO2 and I don't dispute the need for sustainability. What I do find preposterous and ludicrous is the obvious denial about the real McCoy, the Methane cycle on Earth. There is data about the increase of methane in the atmosphere. The irreversible spike of the last ten years alone has started runaway release of this most destructive component on Earth. Every day new methane wells of gigantic proportions are discoverd - especially in regions of the planet in which they were presumed (by science) not to exist.

But I guess to each their own. Some people will always live in denial, others freak out easily. In the end, it won't matter though. There is no remedy, no reduction of CO2 emmissions. Rien ne va plus.

How mankind will exit is the only question that matters to me. Will it be with dignity, or with cruelty, horror and mayhem? Wars, because it won't matter anyways? Closing eyes about the massive croaking of life in other places? Facebook, twitter et al until the bitter end? Or more like 'carpe vita' - using the remaining time to make the best of it, something mankind should have started to do a very long time ago.

And yes, becoming a vegetarian does seem to be a good, respectable way out.

All the best to all of You.

Posted by: notheonly1 | Oct 1 2018 23:49 utc | 242

What if both factions of climate change deniers (AGW and otherwise) and those pointing at the obvious (AGW and otherwise) are engaging in verbal conflict by design?

Not me! I'm NOT engaged in verbal play and here to generate a controversy. NO, I am NOT.

In that 2001 Internet discussion forum on the beautiful Motet Software I learned that
proponents of The Hole in the Ozone theory were not able to engage in socratic dialog.

The very same thing here. This is the reason I made the post I did in this thread.

Those posters resorted to epithets and could never move past calling me an "oil industry shill",
decrying my motives, never admitting that my views might be based on reason and principle.

I think this behaviour may by typical of persons who are supporting official theories?

As for the suggestion that AGW is somehow "obvious", I would issue a this caution:
many things appearing "obvious" to the five senses, have turned out to be illusions.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 0:47 utc | 243

Guerrero @243

Why is it important that your 'motives are decryed'?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 1:18 utc | 244

Why is it important that your 'motives are decryed'?

It's not. Not at all. It's just what true-believers come up with when they are stumped.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 1:21 utc | 245

Guerrero @245

Do you believe that true believers are sincere in their beliefs?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 1:28 utc | 246

Do you believe that true believers are sincere in their beliefs?

Of course I do. It's obvious that their belief in this is heartfelt, through and through.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 1:50 utc | 247

Guerrero @247

Do you believe deniers are sincere in their belief that AGW is a hoax?

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 1:59 utc | 248

Here's one of my several favourite indicators of Global Warming. What I like about it is that there's no new water being created on Planet Earth. Therefore any water contributing to a rise in sea level can only have come from water, produced by melting land-based ice, flowing into the ocean.

Sea Level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, from 1841 to the Present
Abstract
Observations of sea level at Port Arthur, Tasmania, southeastern Australia, based on a two‐year record made in 1841–1842, a three‐year record made in 1999–2002, and intermediate observations made in 1875–1905, 1888 and 1972, indicate an average rate of sea level rise, relative to the land, of 0.8 ± 0.2 mm/year over the period 1841 to 2002. When combined with estimates of land uplift, this yields an estimate of average sea level rise due to an increase in the volume of the oceans of 1.0 ± 0.3 mm/year, over the same period. These results are at the lower end of the recent estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of global average rise for the 20th century. They provide an important contribution to our knowledge of past sea level rise in a region (the Southern Hemisphere) where there is a dearth of other such data.

There are many similar sea-level monitoring sites scattered around the world and none of them has recorded a reversal of the trend in more than a century. So rising sea levels, and the melting of land-based ice, are established trends.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 2 2018 1:59 utc | 249

Vast quantitues of sparkling clear water north-flowing into the Arctic Ocean every minute.

In the 1950's, the USA Congress approved NAWAPA, a plan to transport this water by pipe.
The Great American Desert was to have been watered and the depleted aquifers topped off.

This fresh water was designated to reach into the Mexican States of Sonora and Chihuahua.

This was decades before the abominable NAFTA sank its claws into the national flesh;
long before post-industrialization of the United States, the onslaught of globalism, etc.

I was wondering why everyone is going around saying that water is the next oil,
when all that beautiful clear fresh water flows into the salt ocean - for nothing.

If the world's oceans are rising, won't this transfer of fresh river water help?


Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 4:01 utc | 250

...
I was wondering why everyone is going around saying that water is the next oil, when all that beautiful clear fresh water flows into the salt ocean - for nothing.
If the world's oceans are rising, won't this transfer of fresh river water help?
Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2, 2018 12:01:13 AM | 249

Oil & energy supplies and prices are already controlled by private global cartels. Water will be next. Control of water is already being sold to private interests in bed with, and clo$e to, so-called "small" governments.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 2 2018 5:28 utc | 251

...
"It will not be easy to replace hydrocarbons as a source of energy. Large amounts of electric energy are difficult and expensive to store. We need a certain locally distributed base capacity in our electricity networks to provide energy when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow."
...

In Oz's topsy-turvy electricity market it would seem that that is no longer true. There was an interim report in yesterday's news about South Australia's gigantic Tesla battery installation which has been operating for nearly a year.
The intention was to use the stored energy to smooth the supply system by instantaneously feeding power into the grid when generating supply falls below demand. This eliminates the need to disconnect chunks of the grid to restore the balance between supply and demand.

Long story short - it stores cheap grid energy and energy from renewable sources (solar & wind) and sells it during times of peak demand. It is expected to pay for itself in 4 years.
News item...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-02/tesla-battery-proves-a-leading-source-of-dispatchable-power/10326420

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 2 2018 6:03 utc | 252

B, you are wrong about manmade climate change. Truth is that CO² is less than 0.04% of earth's atmosphere. Yes, plants need CO² for photosynthesis, but no, atmospheric concentration is not dangerously high, on the contrary, it is dangerously low. All other considerations aside, increasing CO² is good for planet earth.
You might actually be the one who has swallowed big oil propaganda on this one...no offence, but 'tis the powers that be pushing the anthropogenic climate change Malachi. You can do the maths on that. It's just another line from corrupt global elites trying to hoodwink the rest of us. Suggest you dig a little deeper. Saying that carbon dioxide is dangerous pollution is like saying that water is pollution, they are both fundamental to life on earth

Posted by: Dan | Oct 2 2018 7:07 utc | 253

"But everything I have checked indicates that this is boreal forest and the effect of the growth of boreal forests is a net increase in CO2 into the atmosphere. ...

"I expect you were aware of the above but chose to omit it in your post. So my initial interest in the point you raised has turned a bit to annoyance because you appear to be presenting partial and misleading information."

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 1, 2018 7:25:46 PM |

Where do you get this BS ADKC? What tool do you use for search? Here just a couple of links found fast with Google:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentFeature/GlobalGarden/Images/npp_change_350.jpg

"Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth’s vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity—a total increase of about 6 percent,” says Ramakrishna Nemani, the study’s lead scientist. “That increase occurred mainly in the tropics, and secondarily in high northern latitudes."

This from a site very pro-AGW and only partial result, and still global picture can be seen. I posted before other links to greening Sahara, will not repost.
I wonder what do you imagine? I do not on a fight against nature? I get no money from big oil? Why should I hide and obfuscate? Don't you realise you are doing that my friend?

This one has a link to a paper in nature:
https://environmentcounts.org/news/greening-of-the-earth-1982-2009-revealed-by-satellite-imagery/

"Long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records were used to investigate trends in the greening/browning of the Earth during 1982–2009. The analysis reveals a persistent and widespread increase of greening over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows browning. "

The scientific paper referred from nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004

I haven't seen yet any paper documenting permafrost releasing CO2. The japanese have a CO2 measuring satellite and partial results showed a while ago saw Russia, Canada, etc as a net sink, if you are so interested in CO2 sinks.
Yes there is scare about it in alarmist circles but nothing real.

Posted by: LP | Oct 2 2018 7:56 utc | 254

LP @253

This article reports on recent NASA funded research states that "an international team of U.S. and German researchers found that abrupt thawing more than doubles previous estimates of permafrost-derived greenhouse warming". The greenhouse gases that are of concern are the release of methane and CO2 from permafrost sinks.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 9:57 utc | 255

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2, 2018 5:57:16 AM

"Arctic permafrost’s expected gradual thawing and the associated release of greenhouse gases "
"The impact on the climate may mean an influx of permafrost-derived methane"
"Using a combination of computer models and field measurements,..."

As I said projections, projections, expected, might be, etc...

Posted by: LP | Oct 2 2018 10:51 utc | 256

lp, why do you think you know more about the science than the scientists? why do you read and trust sites like wattsupwiththat and jo nova? why do you implicity trust the propaganda by the fossil fuel companies, which make billions (hundreds of billions? trillions?) off fossil fuels, and have no more interest in the truth of the science than the tobacco companies have in the link between smoking and cancer?
as an earlier poster wrote, i just don't get it. the only "science" you people link to are misinterpretations of the science by people like the shills i mentioned above. the fossil fuel companies, who have more than enough money to finance any scientist who disagrees with consensus and can show why it it wrong, do not do so. their own scientists told them emissions cause climate change, back in the 80's, so they funded a tobacco institute style propaganda campaign, using the same advertising/marketing agency that had created the campaign to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt about the link between smoking and cancer (hill & knowlton). that campaign worked well for the tobacco industry, in delaying regulation and preserving tobacco industry profits, and there's no telling for sure how many people died because of it. this time, falling for corporate propaganda is going to have a far, far higher cost. at this point, we can't avoid damage, but we can mitigate it. the more people believe the corporations, the greater the chance that the changes we are currently experiencing will approach the disastrous end of the scale. the people running those corporations don't care, because they are just interesting in short term profit, and they'll be dead before the worst effects hit.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 2 2018 11:01 utc | 257

"lp, why do you think you know more about the science than the scientists? why do you read and trust sites like wattsupwiththat and jo nova? "
Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 2, 2018 7:01:35 AM |

Oh dear, I answered, but you ignored it. Jo Nova had a link to a scientific paper.
Here is the link to the paper without Jo Nova:

https://www.clim-past.net/13/1609/2017/
Does it help to understand what I am saying?
"Our new reconstructions confirm a significant cooling trend from 0 to 1900CE across all Antarctic regions where records extend back into the 1st millennium, with the exception of the Wilkes Land coast and Weddell Sea coast regions. Within this long-term cooling trend from 0 to 1900CE, we find that the warmest period occurs between 300 and 1000CE, and the coldest interval occurs from 1200 to 1900CE.Since 1900CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions, and these trends are robust across the distribution of records that contribute to the unweighted isotopic composites and also significant in the weighted temperature reconstructions. Only for the Antarctic Peninsula is this most recent century-scale trend unusual in the context of natural variability over the last 2000 years. "

The last 2k years Antarctica cooled. The warming in the last century did not compensate for that cooling. Look at their graph.

"i just don't get it. the only "science" you people link to are misinterpretations of the science by people like the shills i mentioned above. "

What "science"? Please specify or stop the nonsense.
If you want I will do the same for the one Wattsup link.
Any other comment to my post except that I had those two links? Did you tried to digest what I said? Does it make sense to you? What do you make with those changing temperature charts?

"the fossil fuel companies, who have more than enough money to finance any scientist who disagrees with consensus and can show why it it wrong, do not do so"
You are misinformed. The money grants go for climate change, have a look and try to find evidence to the contrary. You will fail.

"falling for corporate propaganda is going to have a far, far higher cost. at this point, we can't avoid damage, but we can mitigate it."
I am sorry, we are already taking hundreds of billion/trillions per year damage from nonsense climate change policies and circus. I know it is hard to look at it from the other point of view, but maybe you can try.

Posted by: LP | Oct 2 2018 11:41 utc | 258

does the paper you quote support your conclusion, lp? this sounds like the paper whose authors had to issue a warming that climate science deniers would misconstrue it. antarctica is not the globe, and 1900 is not 2018. please quote a scientific source that refutes the science. quote the conclusions of papers you cite.
what science? the science endorsed by every single major science organization on the planet. the basics of which we have known for over a hundred years. wattsupwiththat is not a scientific source; scientific journals are.
no i'm not misinformed, scientists don't profit from grants. fossil fuel companies profit, greatly, from selling fossil fuels.you think that grants that scientists don't profit from are somehow corrupting, and profits for fossil fuel companies somehow are not.
and no, we are not taking hundreds of billions of dollars a year in damage from climatology. you are basically asserting that you know more about this subject that experts in the field from all over the world, while every post shows you don't know the basics of how science works, such as your smear about "grant money". there would be billions of grant money from the fossil fuel industry for any scientist that could show climatology is wrong; but there aren't any such studies. they can't do one. the only study they recently funded, the BEST study, showed the opposite. explain that.
don't believe corporate propaganda, whether it comes from the oil and coal companies, or the tobacco industry, or big agriculture, or the big pharmaceutical companies, or the defense industy. they will lie to you to protect their profits. this has been shown over and over and over again, across time, across different industries. don't fall for their con job.

Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 2 2018 12:36 utc | 259

@ Guerrero

But you didn't answer my question:

"How on earth does it serve you to deny this campaign of destruction they're inflicting upon you? Do you also deny their NAFTA pesticide/GMO campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their "Drug War" campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their coup attempts in Venezuela and Honduras? Do you deny that globalization is going to turn the Amazon into a desert even before global warming gets its full licks in?"

If you acknowledge these, as you said you do, then why would you flip around and deny the climate assault?

In general the deniers of corporate-driven ecological catastrophe are the most abject identify-with-the-oppressor victims I've ever seen.

No wonder the Judenrate had such support, and no wonder fake NGOs are so popular.

Posted by: Russ | Oct 2 2018 12:43 utc | 260

LP @257

But the very next sentence of the quotation you used from the "Climate of The Past" report states:

"However, projected warming of the Antarctic continent during the 21st century may soon see significant and unusual warming develop across other parts of the Antarctic continent."

From the National Research Council (U.S.). Committee report on
Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Year:

"It can be said with a high level of confidence that global mean surface temperature was higher during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period during the preceding four centuries. This statement is justified by the consistency of the evidence from a wide variety of geographically diverse proxies.

Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600. Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. The uncertainties associated with reconstructing hemispheric mean or global mean temperatures from these data increase substantially backward in time through this period and are not yet fully quantified.

Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data cover age and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods."

As you well know the concern is that man made activity is causing increasing releases of green house gasses which is leading to increasing global warming and that this is set to increase unless humanity does something effective to address the issue.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 13:30 utc | 261

Guerrero @249

I very much doubt that the plan you are so enthusiastic about is really feasible at the scale that would be required.

It seems obvious to me that, in the scenario outlined by you, those with out access to water will just be left to die.

Those in Mexico and Latin America seeking water may well migrate towards US but will encounter a large wall. Should these unfortunates seek to breach this wall then they will be shot.

We can see evidence of this in Israel where the European colonisers shoot the locals and keep them penned into an area lacking resources including adequate water.

On and let me assure that (in the context of severe water shortages) both Trumpists and Anti-Trumpists will be okay with such action.

Latin American countries need to shake off US influence and work together for the common good.


Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 13:47 utc | 262

@Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2, 2018 9:30:35 AM

Yes, I left out "may" "projected" etc. As I mentioned my confidence to these projections is very low based on the reasons I mentioned before.
There have been a lot of projections and may sentences that should have happened until 2020 if you look at the 1990's projections. It did not happen, which supports my scepticism.


The link you bring up is also comparing this warming to the medieval warm period. It does so based on various proxies which have problems that you do not want to acknowledge, so no use to mention. What I would mention is how on Earth had the vikings have farms in Greenland in what is now permafrost. And I don't buy the local warming.

One cannot combine instrumental record with proxy as it is done in that graph, that is a typical error. There are other reconstructions which show medieval warm period as being warmer then current time. Global warming is not happening, this is why the name change to climate change, but still the theory is global warming.

I am glad you started to accept the greening of the planet. That is a progress.
To the instrumental temperature reconstructions see my previous post about adjustments and changes from one year to the other. I would please ask you to consider it is not about climate but something else, for instance a company that wants to sell you stock based on their increased value. What would you answer? Would you buy that stock? Would you trust that vendor?

Posted by: LP | Oct 2 2018 14:08 utc | 263

the only study they recently funded, the BEST study, showed the opposite. explain that.
Posted by: pretzelattack | Oct 2, 2018 8:36:03 AM |

Explanation:
The BEST study considers UHI had no influence to the temperature record.
If you drive a car and have a temperature sensor you will realise a higher temperature in cities. In any big city.
A lot of the data collected for these temperature studies comes from observatories near or inside cities. Most of the time these were outside the city, but as the town grew, the observation points came within the city.
In the period they talk about humanity grew from 1 billion to 7 with most new people coming into cities. Cities grew and the UHI grew with them, but BEST is trying to convince everybody that had no influence.
As cities grew, the observation point was moved further to the periphery. Now we had a drop in temperature as it was colder outside, but BEST does adjust the temperature to the previous higher value in such cases.
And then we go again, city growing, temperature growing.

I will not answer to your insults, please control yourself, even if our opinions differ.

Posted by: LP | Oct 2 2018 14:24 utc | 264

"How on earth does it serve you to deny this campaign of destruction they're inflicting upon you? Do you also deny their NAFTA pesticide/GMO campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their "Drug War" campaign against Latin America exists? Do you also deny their coup attempts in Venezuela and Honduras? Do you deny that globalization is going to turn the Amazon into a desert even before global warming gets its full licks in?"

Dear friend I thought I mentioned that since 2007 we have been living a reign of terror and horror. ¿No?
including forced disappearances, massacres, tortures, fusillades day and night, 14 year old assasins, etc.

I am the LAST person you have to convince about the War on Drugs Fast & Furious Operation Phoenix.
Hey, I already answered these questions. You must have missed it. I said GMOs are practically satanic.

What else? Uncle Sam's behaviour in Cuba, Nicaragua, Honduras, Haiti, Venezuela, Chile, Argentina,
you were saying? Execrable. Lamentable. I am an old-fashioned Lefty, the kind that may be rare today.

Just because the good people of the 3rd world are being assaled by globaloney imperialism bullshit,
(excuse my french) does NOT mean that country bumpkins' children should be worrying about the climate.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 16:38 utc | 265

Guerrero @249

I very much doubt that the plan you are so enthusiastic about is really feasible at the scale that would be required.

"Not feasible"? Why? NAWAPA was already feasible back in the 1950's, authorized by congress and ready
to break ground. Engineering was never the problem. In Libya the government did something similar, piping in water several hundred kilometers to the parched population centers on the Mediterranean
coast. If Libya could do it, WHY do you think that the United States would not be able to build it?
of course the United States could do this if the political will existed.

It seems obvious to me that, in the scenario outlined by you, those with out access to water will just be left to die.

Not at all. The idea is to irrigate and transform the Great American desert. Problem with that?

Those in Mexico and Latin America seeking water may well migrate towards US but will encounter a large wall. Should these unfortunates seek to breach this wall then they will be shot.

Who are you kidding? Guerrero has 3 million+ people in the United States. I know dozens of them.
My old football pals are in Arizona, Chicago, Carolina, New Jersey, Kansas, and Ohio. Yeah right,
they're going to be shot. Ha! Look: make the wall a thousand feet high, so long as employers pay their tickets they'll be going, as always; one thing you should know is that there are virtually NO unemployed Mexican wetbacks in the United States. None. These people are in high-demand because they are good workers. Half the people I know are up there, including my in-laws; twelve of them, twenty including their kids, are living nearby O'Hare Airport. All of them work multiple jobs and are highly regarded by their employers for productivity and good attitude. Everybody says they can get another job anytime becasue there is a steady demand for these Mexican day labor, folks who sing when they work and who arent going to rob you, or when they get fired come back and stick-you-up, etc. Don't think that I approve. I don't.
I always tell people that they will be sorry if they go up there; that they'll return home a shadow.

We can see evidence of this in Israel where the European colonisers shoot the locals and keep them penned into an area lacking resources including adequate water.

I don't know what you are riffing on. It has nothing do do whatsoever with anything I have said.

On and let me assure that (in the context of severe water shortages) both Trumpists and Anti-Trumpists will be okay with such action.

I am saying to recall the NAWAPA Plan and divert the enormous amount of fresh clean water
flowing into the Artic Ocean, to bring it south where it will do some good topping off the aquifers
and providing for irrigated agriculture as far south as Chihuahua Mexico. What is wrong with that?
People don't have to fight over water. There's more than enough being wasted every second as we talk.
Someone estimate the volume of clean water being wasted into the salt sea every second of every day?

Latin American countries need to shake off US influence and work together for the common good.

Now, there's some good political advice worth taking. Which side would

you
be on?, I wonder.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 17:23 utc | 266

Guerroo @267

""Which side would I be on?!?!""

That's a pretty scummy comment.

If you believe (in the circumstance of catastrophic climate change) that the west will be helping poorer countries then you are completely mistaken. Who really controls drugs in Latin America? Who gets rid of South American governments that they don't want? Who wants to overthrow Venezuela and grab their oil? Who is really creating the chaos in Middle East, North Africa, Central Europe, Central Asia and South America? And you believe that these kindly souls will be supplying Mexico and the rest of South America with fresh drink water? Dream on!

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 2 2018 21:49 utc | 267

Why are you so sure that you would be on the side of the Third World in a showdown with the USA?

And you believe that these kindly souls will be supplying Mexico and the rest of South America with fresh drink water? Dream on!

It goes without saying that kindness is the last thing one might expect from our neighbors to the North.

I am only reminding you that as recently as the 1950's they were going to transport the river water
flowing into the Artic Ocean and to use it to top-off the aquifers and to green the American desert.

Instead of trusting in Mass-Media propagated climate-emergency scenarios, why not think in positive terms of what could be done? of what might have been done? if the USA had NOT de-industrialized!

The water emergency has a solution: the NAWAPA Plan. When you and other Northamericans eventually
return to productive and sane economic policy, this will be one of the first projects you should construct.


Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 23:27 utc | 268

By the way, the USA and Mexico have had excellent and mutually beneficial relations in the
administrations of Lincoln and Juaréz as well as in the administrations of Cardenás and FDR.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 2 2018 23:30 utc | 269

Guerrero @269 & @279

You appear to be assuming I am North American, which is not the case. I am European.

Your comment was insulting, which, as I recall, is something you have been moaning about non-stop on this thread. Which means you are a bit of a hypocrite.

Even I can see that it is the US that has messed up Mexico, corrupted it's governments, introduced major drug problems and violence. And you imagine that the US will be transporting fresh drinking water from the Arctic to Mexico as some sort of social endeavour? You're living in an imaginary world.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 3 2018 0:21 utc | 270

you imagine that the US will be transporting fresh drinking water from the Arctic

You have misunderstood me. IAll I said was that NAWAPA was ready to go in the 1950's.

I have NOT been "moaning", dude. I have been making myself available for socratic dialog.

As for Europeans, I am one who believes that Mexico did a good thing on the Hill of Bells.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 3 2018 6:19 utc | 271

i.e. The NAWAPA Plan to pipe cast amounts of fresh clean water to top off the acqifers and to green the
Great American desert was feasible from an engineering standpoint in the 1950's. So if the people want
to cry their eyes out about how Pepsi is taking over the water and there won't be any soon, these folks
should perhaps try to think about why it was possible then, but that it is supposedly not possible now.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 3 2018 6:22 utc | 272

Guerrero @273

"So if the people want to cry their eyes out about how Pepsi is taking over the water and there won't be any soon, these folks should perhaps try to think about..."

That seems awfully like an insult of Mexicans. And you claim to be Mexican? What is this? Some kind of self hatred?

"I have NOT been "moaning", dude."

You have been "whining" continuously throughout this thread about how some one called you an "oil company shill" 17 years ago!

Pepsi and the US don't care about Mexico's water. They will just use up as much as they can and then they'll move on. There will never be any water transported from the Arctic to Mexico by the US/West.

Quite why you should champion a negative effect of global warming (melting arctic ice cap) as a solution to the misuse of Mexico's scarce water resources is just bizarre.

Posted by: ADKC | Oct 3 2018 7:32 utc | 273

While some still debate anthropogenic climate change the insurance business folks know what they are up to

Climate Change Is Forcing the Insurance Industry to Recalculate

Big insurers are expanding teams of in-house climatologists, computer scientists and statisticians to redesign models to incorporate the effect of the warming earth on hailstorms, hurricanes, flooding and wildfires. Insurers such as Swiss Re Group say hurricanes like Harvey and Florence, which caused widespread flooding, could represent a more common occurrence in the coming decades.

Climate change may be gradual, but the effects are volatile, meaning a company could become exposed to a large, unexpected hit if it doesn’t understand the changing risks, says Junaid Seria, head of catastrophe-model research and development and governance at Paris-based reinsurer Scor SE.

“We’re in the camp that believes you can have an increased potential for an outsized loss in a single year,” he says. “There’s a cost for inaction.”
...
Allianz, one of the world’s largest insurers, says it sold the retail business of U.S. insurer Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. in 2015 in part because climate change is increasing the risk of losses to coastal homes in California and Florida.

“Coastal flooding will clearly become a bigger issue in the long term,” Swiss Re’s Mr. Schmid says. “We can offer protection for hurricane losses or flood losses or other perils, but if certain coastal areas are so exposed, insurance becomes no longer viable. It becomes even uninsurable.”

Posted by: b | Oct 3 2018 10:33 utc | 274

While some still debate anthropogenic climate change...
Posted by: b | Oct 3, 2018 6:33:12 AM | 275

I would trust insurance company to mitigate all risks. If even part of science tells it is a risk they need to look at it.

Yes, it is warmer then in the 70's, I remember there was some ice age scare at the time.

Global temperature variations are within natural variations:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2018-0-14-deg-c/

Cosmic rays theory presentation - dr. Svensmark which could explain natural variations based on other factors, not CO2:
https://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2018/03/SvensmarkLondon2018.pdf
I personally think he has a strong point. Probably 10-20 years of more data would settle it with the sun activity going down as some other posters mentioned.

Speaking of sea front properties, 30 years old prediction:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/03/fail-30-year-old-climate-prediction-proves-to-be-a-load-of-bunkum/
I know wattsup... but yes it's funny, it has also links to other interesting posts like this one about the island nation of Tuvalu:
"Island change has lacked uniformity with 74% increasing and 27% decreasing in size. Results challenge perceptions of island loss, showing islands are dynamic features that will persist as sites for habitation over the next century, "

Also speaking of fossil fuels:
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/science/geochemist-says-oil-fieldsmay-be-refilled-naturally.html?pagewanted=all
The abiotic theory I found interesting:
http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Peak_Oil___Russia/peak_oil___russia.html

Speaking fo global warming, I wonder if all the noise is justified for what we have seen and measured?
I wonder, should priority not be about rising the living standard in the world as fast as possible? We have seen that rising living standards also reduce population increase, currently Africa is expanding at very fast steps. If we are worried about population explosion, would that not be a first step to undergo?
We know there are billions and trillions spent as subsidies for renewables.
If one tries to quantify what °C has been reduced with that money that is a really tough question. Have any emissions be reduced?
Frankly speaking, I see all the food for oil, pellets to burn actions as more damaging then doing nothing. Entire woods destroyed to burn or to accommodate palm oil production.

Then I would repeat a question I asked before to ADKC: if a company would show their revenue graphs, and someone would make the comparison of past and current graphs, as I posted Steven did for GISS temperature graphs, would anybody of the pro-AGW crowd here buy those stocks? Put their money where their mouth is?
Does this not make any of the pro-AGW persons think twice about it?

At current CO2 levels, increased CO2 is still beneficial, this fact can hardly be hidden - see global surveys. It is almost amusing to see how pro-AGW people try to find ways to go around it. Frankly speaking with all the habitat destruction that has and is happening it could be one of the very few things that we did well, even involuntarily.

The hydrocarbons industry will continue to exist for longer decades no matter what regulations are done, as hydrocarbons are vital to so many industries, replacement in transportation is still a long way, especially if we think at lorries, I do not think they are particularly worried about it and if a replacement comes with the time they will move to it.

I always found political activism damaging, and I have the impression to recognise a lot in the climate change debate but not really on the 'deniers' side..

Posted by: LP | Oct 3 2018 16:31 utc | 275

38, 50, 100

'97% of law professors agree Kavanaugh is perjured!' He is past the tipping point! His internet flaming troll rate will rise by 7 degrees by November!

It's an old Kraft margarine marketing meme from the 1950s. '97%' is the psychological point at which focus group subjects abandoned their own individual beliefs and fell for the 'group consensus' as presented. It's been used ever since as a claim of veracity in advertising.

'97% believe Trump is the best president the US ever had'. And they will.

Anecdotally, 40 years ago Halloween was the end of Indian Summer cool dry Fall days to enjoy the changing seasons in PacNW. This year, like the last several, thevrains began over a month earlier. 40 years ago, I sweltered in North Africa for a week asvtemperatures hit 50 degrees C. This summer the CCCC green media raged, 'greatest heat in human history 50.2 degrees in Aden!'.

The Catholic Church, after seizing control of the Gospels and making them tithe-per-view, then declared themselves the True Science. See for yourself! They keep excellent records. So does NYTimes. Their browsablevrecords go back to the Civil War, where you will find blazing temperatures and natiinwide droughts and crop losses over entire states. The real 'Inconvenient Truth'.

Gore is just reverting back to his tobacco-lobbyist days. 97%!! Uggah boogah!

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 3 2018 17:25 utc | 276

198, 207

The Ozone Hole shuck was devised to take HVAC to the next level of technology, expense, and complete manufacturing retooling.

In fact, TOH was most likely due to a solar minimum in high-energy protons splitting oxygen in the upper atmosphere into O3. Yes, it was depletion, but caused by lack of production, not by supply destruction. If that theory is correct, then we should see the hole open again, as it has for eons. This time it will be attributed to some other new industrial uggah buggah.

Far more likely than CFCs 'causing' (without anybevidence whatsoever) TOH is NH4, used in agriculture, injected as liquid into the soil as fertilizer by the megaton, immediately vaporizes and heads for the upper atmosphere.

But you can't tax agriculture! OMG!! Instead, HVAC has been retooled again, and from talking with the local HVAC tech, the newer new CFC cost even more, equipment is under even higher pressure, and it's forcing a move away from central chillers, to split-systems outside every individual office unit now.

Billion$ and billion$, as Sagan used to tome, ... and one Carbon Catholic to rule them all.

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 3 2018 17:47 utc | 277

275

Pretty sure the insurance industry is raising premiums, not because some already floating Antarctic ice shelf just broke off, but because of the traction that the Carbon Catholic and their Carbon Tithe Tax Bourse 'scheme' has achieved, under the knowledge that the lawyers and court system will start cnflating the every-10-years since records were kept New England storms into SUPER STORM SANDY!! and Congress will cough up $65,000,000,000 to make whole ... the insurance companies!! A few years later, another once-every-few-decades hurricane hits New Orleans, and once again, Congress coughs up another $65,000,000,000 to make whole ... the insurance companies!!!

It's a racket, b. USA is the Home of the Slave, Land of the Fee, and one Carbon Catholic to rule them all. Wish we had time to go into every specious futurology claim that's ever been made by them, but why bother? We have no power. We will never, ever, got to vote on a carbon tithe referendum. It will simply be imposed.

I used to live in 3W and when I first gotbthere, noticed most of the motorbikes has plastic bags filledcwith yeloow liquid tied to their gas tank. At first I thought it was piss, to sell to the leather tanners. Then I saw peoole heading home from the truck stops with beer in big refrigerator bags. Finally I asked someone. It's one liter of gas to get them home if their commute is particularly bad. One liter of petrol a day is all they can afford. It's sold right out of dripums, or you can buy a liter in a plastic bottle on street corners, if you have the dirhams.

That's how lean 5 billion humans live. When Trump blows oil up over $100 in 30 days, 5 billion people will only be able to afford three-fourths liter. A Carbin Catholic tithe-tax does nothing to reduce that cost or curtail demand. Petrol is totally price-insensitive. It is like the air we breath, or the water we drink. They taxed the water, they taxed and now tithe-taxed the petrol.

Next will be the air the Carbon Cathokic garrots from your throat. You want to protest, shout out, to yell nyet, I'm just trying to feed my kids, but you can't breath. You can't breath!!

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 3 2018 18:11 utc | 278

Guerrero @273 "So if the people want to cry their eyes out about how Pepsi is taking over the water and there won't be any soon, these folks should perhaps try to think about..." (...the NAWAPA Plan to transport large amounts of north-flowing river water to irrigate the Great American desert and North Mexico).

That seems awfully like an insult of Mexicans. And you claim to be Mexican? What is this? Some kind of self hatred?

In what way is such a statement an insult to Mexicans? What you say does not make much sense to me,
not even on the surface: there is not even an indirect reference to Mexicans in what I have said here.

You have been "whining" continuously throughout this thread about how some one called you an "oil company shill" 17 years ago!

Here is what you don't get: I am NOT "moaning". I could care less what supercilious critics think,
if indulging in abuse and insults. My personal emotional reaction to such behavior is null. Get it?
I take such behaviour as proceeding from a sense of intellectual impotence and unconscious anger.

My first post on this was to point out that: in my experience, the Climate emergency true-believers
typically indulge in epithets and ad hominem attacks. My reference was to the multiple vicious attacks against earlier posters in this thread: those who brought forward scientific evidence and reason, and that
this was similar/identical to the bad behaviour of the Climate Emergency militants in that 1991 web-forum.

I am NOT concerned with infantile tantrums on an Internet discussion forum. I was trying to observe that, in my experience, Climate Changers tend rather to abuse than to scientific method.

17 years ago called someone me an "oil company shill"; that is of no emotional interest; I merely
cited an example from experience: that 'Global Warming' advocates typify this variety of bad behaviour.

There will never be any water transported from the Arctic to Mexico by the US/West.

WHY are you so sure of this? The NAWAPA Plan can be revived at any moment when the political will would exists. It did exist in the 1950's. I wondered aloud for rhetorical purpose: what is different now?
I tried to make the point that clean water availability is merely a political, not an engineering problem.

Quite why you should champion a negative effect of global warming (melting arctic ice cap) as a solution to the misuse of Mexico's scarce water resources is just bizarre.

My point has absolutely NOTHING to do with melting ice. It is about the gargantuan quanity of clean
fresh river water that's wasted into the salt ocean, instead of being used for greening the American desert.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 3 2018 21:06 utc | 279

I would like to thank Anton Worter, LP, Krollchem and others for putting forward scientific arguments
with citations in face of incredulity and personal abuse, effectively proving my principle rhetorical point.

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 3 2018 21:51 utc | 280

I want to thank all the posters who have provided information backing their arguments, and not just personal attacks on each other.

Regardless of your belief about AGW do you really think anything positive is going to be accomplished by governments?

Ending wars would do a hell of a lot to reduce our carbon footprint and help out the local folks suffering from our warfare footprint which is stomping people all over the globe.

But despite our hopes and efforts wars continue... and wars are, certainly, caused by humans and yet we can't seem to do much to stop them. What sort of self-centered freak would think we could change the world's climate? Seriously!

The pro AGW debaters remind me of church leaders dealing with Galileo and his heresy regarding the earth revolving around the sun...

Posted by: DaveS | Oct 3 2018 22:12 utc | 281

281

Todo por nada. Gracias por la sombrero propina.

Esta no problemo por los que tienen ojos que pueden ver realidad

Poner un tenedor en ella chicas de soya del Estados Unidos, lol.
Cualquiera que crea que el Papa Albertus de CCCC es una cara de pez.

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 3 2018 22:27 utc | 282

260

"There is only one great threat to America today ... and that is Iraq!!"
Albertus Gore, 2003

He parlayed that into big stock gains in the war profiteering stocks.

"There is only one great threat to America today ... and that is AGW!!"
CCCC Pope Albertus Gore, 2006

He parlayed that into mega-mansions on both coasts and an MLM upline.

"The time to debate has passed, we must pass a $100 a ton carbon tithe!"
CCCC Pope and Chairman Energy Transitions Commission, Albertus Gore, 2017

¿Suck $15,000,000,000,000 out of the US-EU? Gore makes Trump look good!

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 3 2018 22:41 utc | 283

Anton, thank you. (¡Gracias!) It always surprises when people think Al Gore might somehow
be a good person with the interests of humanity or the people of the united states in his heart.

At the time An Inconvenient Truth was released, Al Gore was a partner in a London-based financial company, solely dedicated to trading "carbon credits". The poor countries were supposed to sell their unused carbon-credits to First-World industrial manufacturers and governments (that way the poor nation
would have sufficient income to be able to pay their IMF loan installments and not get hopelessly behind).

Another thing I don't like about Gore is: he was the leading figure in the "kitchen cabinet"
of Bill Clinton, an author of the brutal NATO bombing-attack against Serbia, justifying anti-human
acts with a hoax about how the Serbs were "committing genocide" in Kosovo. Bridges over the Danube River were pulverized. NATO destroyed power stations, communication hubs, truck terminals, hospitals and public buildings. Even the Chinese Embassy was bombed by these unredeemable reprobates.
This wanton war in Europe was cooked-up by Gore and cronies, a gaggle of the usual neo-con suspects
taking advantage of the salacious impeachment proceedings of President Clinton to pioneer the violence.

Financializing the atmosphere itself seems to be an intensely alluring prospect for little emperors;
Al must be very proud at having gotten the population to militate for all those unlikely fairy-tales!

Posted by: Guerrero | Oct 4 2018 0:52 utc | 284

256 257

The release of methane from permafrost in Russia, if any, is entirely due to massive Siberia deforestation programs for building lumber. A member of my extended family works as a logger in Siberia, in the short season when equipment can be brought in and felled trees can be brought out.

Nobody says nada at the Carbon Catholic about either deforestation of Siberia or of Indonesia, just like nobody at Carbon Catholic says nada about the megatons of ozone-depleting NH4 anhydrous ammonia released into the atmosphere by American farmers.

More to the point, I was tasked to review one of the US studies to investigate methane release by melting permafrost, and after a summer of excavating the tundra away and exposing the permafrost, they found NO DETECTABLE INCREASE OVER AMBIENT.

Their clever conclusion, though, stated, "This informs the research into methane release from melting permafrost", and then the AGW crowd ran screaming through the streets, "See?! This shows permafrost is releasing methane! GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE!"

No, you cretins, it shows, as stated, there was NO DISCERNABLE INCREASE. Too late, Science picked up the false headlinne, then Nature Conservancy and now its a meme: "97% of (168) climate scientists say melting permafrost is the end times!!"

Which all goes back to logging deforestation, like logging for palm oil plantations in Indonesia, it's all just a massive global Rothschilds banking profit 'scheme', run my Pope Albertus and the Forty Thieves.

Posted by: Anton Worter | Oct 4 2018 1:40 utc | 285

Gee, all the hot air expended on this subject could really lift a giant balloon.

GW, real or fiction, doesn't matter. With all the poisons dumped daily into the Eco-System, through human activity, we'll kill the planet anyway.

Is there anyone here who believes human activity is benign to the Eco-System?

If the answer is yes, I might suggest you get out more.

Posted by: ben | Oct 4 2018 1:46 utc | 286

Anton Worter@278

Anhydrous ammonia is NH3 NOT methane (NH4). Ammonia has an Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) of zero:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion_potential

Ammonia can react with ozone but rapidly reacts with other atmospheric components such as sulfur dioxide and is rapidly washed out of the atmosphere before appreciable reaction with ozone in the upper atmosphere:
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ba-1972-0113.ch006
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/aqrsd/reports/ammonia.pdf

Methane, however, has a Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 86-times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential

Methane release into the atmosphere is of great concern due to the high GWP, which is why oil and gas operations try to flare off volatile gases converting them to carbon dioxide. Granted there is wellhead leakage and failures of underground gas storage as in the case of the massive Southern California gas leak a couple of years ago.

Recent research has shown the arctic and sub-arctic lakes are a considerable source of methane release due in part to summer warming of the arctic:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/arctic-lakes-are-bubbling-and-hissing-with-dangerous-greenhouse-gases/?utm_term=.2973c1ff7a10

Methane release into the atmosphere from methane hydrates is another factor and is covered in more detail at:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/12/methane-hydrates-and-global-warming/
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2007.hydrate_rev.pdf

Fortunately methane levels in the atmosphere are currently only about 1.8 ppm compared to carbon dioxide at 410 ppm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

However, methane contributes about 25% of the global warming compared to carbon dioxide:
https://www.edf.org/climate/methane-other-important-greenhouse-gas

One must also consider that water vapor as a factor in warming of the atmosphere http://www-users.math.umn.edu/~mcgehee/Seminars/ClimateChange/presentations/2013-1Spring/20130212ThermalIRandCarbonDioxideintheAtmosphere.pdf

Chloro-fluorocarbons have a much higher GWP than either carbon dioxide (GWP=1,430-14,800) and sulfur hexafluoride is even higher (GWP=22,800)
http://climatechange.lta.org/get-started/learn/co2-methane-greenhouse-effect/

Unfortunately, those who point out that such chloro-fluorocarbons compounds are heavier than nitrogen and oxygen gases (Guerrero et al.) do not understand that the atmospheric winds (not to mention hurricanes) can transport such heavier gases into the upper atmosphere.

As I have stated earlier in this discussion there are hundreds of factors that go into climate change and those who simplify the problem down the carbon dioxide are also at fault.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 4 2018 20:45 utc | 287

Krollchem@288

Oops the first sentence should read Anhydrous ammonia is NH3 NOT methane (CH4).

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 4 2018 22:18 utc | 288


Thank you for the summary. unpacking this line may be worth a few posts,

" While short term human greed will likely prevent a reduction in hydrocarbon use '

instead of 'human's in general, how much is the situation due to particular groups of 'humans' in particular, specifically the 1% ?

e.g. we know exxon research had identified global warming as real, in the 1970s, if not as early as the 1950s, their response was to shut down the research and launch a vast denial campaign...
similarly charles koch intends to spend 100s of millions dollars even in the upcoming minor midterm elections in the us, to influence outcomes toward his oil companies etc.

even in us academia, there is an 'unconscious' massaging of the story, for example, usually the 'population' threat is mentioned first, with overconsumption secondary which releases the pressure of responsibility in the audience... however for what has happened so far, the huge programmed percapita consumption of capitalism has used up much more of the carbon sink than the wretched population of the third world. Of course, population is a problem but it is more of a future problem, the actual use of the carbon sink so far is due to past and present industrial civilizations overconsumption... an american percapita produces many times the carbon of someone in africa or even china whose total use is now approaching the US ....

honest acknowledgement of such facts over the last few decades would have allowed a possibly workable deal both on consumption and population, however the US and capitalist
1% obstruction, manufacturing doubt etc has succeeded so far... their techniques of obstruction and its effects are worth studying ( e.g. even the IPCC have played down the more serious scenarios, e.g possible catastrophic arctic methane release is not considered in their models ? ) books like 'merchants of doubt' might be useful in this ?

Posted by: anon | Oct 5 2018 13:27 utc | 289

Some of the comments on this are like "my brain already fell out of my head so there's no reason to think before I type". The science of climate forcing due to the still-accelerating accumulation of fossil emissions in our very thin atmosphere is well developed, and hardly controversial, unless your paycheck or membership in a cult is dependent on denying it.

Posted by: Dave Winship | Oct 7 2018 8:14 utc | 290

ADKC@193

Atmospheric chemistry and is effects are extremely complex. Recent models predict that the release of volatile organic matter and sulfur from coal burning in the northern hemisphere causes regional and global cooling. Unfortunately, these effects are short lived while the warming effects of the co-generated carbon dioxide are a long term warming factor.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05838-6

If we do not reduce carbon dioxide emissions a linear model would show that feedback loops would add methane as a greenhouse gas and additional carbon dioxide from warming of the arctic regions. If we do reduce carbon dioxide emission the suppression of the warming by carbon dioxide by would be greatly reduced causing the warming to occur more rapidly.

The planet may have a chance to avoid carbon dioxide warming effects if a massive desert to forest reclamation were undertaken. There is also a change that an increase in cosmic rays, due to weakening of the earth and solar magnetic fields, wold allow for more cloud nucleation at lower altitudes resulting in cooling effects that offset the reduction in fossil fuel use.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 12 2018 19:22 utc | 291

What a farse. Some low level government Deep Stater injects this phrase into a report and you take it as gospel.

Global Warming is a fraud and a hoax. It's the adult version of the children's story "Chicken Little". Please fuck off. I'll not return to your blog if I see another reference to globull warming as something that is true. It calls into questions your credibility on all other issues. Only retards and bureaucrats who will benefit from the taxes believe in this farse. Since I assume you are not working in government that leaves only one possibility.

Posted by: Freemon Sandlewould | Oct 13 2018 2:28 utc | 292

Freemon Sandlewould@292

Never seen you here before. Glad you are not returning.

I cannot fix stupid.

Posted by: Krollchem | Oct 14 2018 1:18 utc | 293

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.