No more global warming?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Sorry i was at school.

So was I, at the Uni library , when I posted then.

I once heard a man on MSNBC claiming the layer of warming. Had me on the floor laughing.

Well, I have long lost the last vestiges of respect I had for those news corporations... Every day I see Internet videos highlighting the latest blunders. Especially CNN and Fox. I have never seen MSNBC. As a matter of fact, I never actually saw any of the news channels on the telly - I was just watching Internet videos of their farce.

[Centurion1]

Lol but i was in a class, supposed to be taking a political compass quiz for ap government (i thought it foolish to do what i have already done, twice....)

Nah MSNBC is simply the far left of the three with cnn sort of middle but leaning more towards left. and fox the only right wing network. Seen all together you get the full picture.....

and the worst part about this was one. The man had a phd and two the news anchor just nodded their head and said so true.

[Furunculus]

Data collection from the 1800’s is not good. Data collection from right now is not much better. Who observed it? How was it collected? If the data is off by a few tenths of a degree, then there might be no increase in mean temperature at all. Besides, maybe the “mean temperature of the world” went down two hundred years ago or two thousand. The temperature of the world is a moving target. It’s bad science to intentionally show data that only supports your conclusion.

the data is about to get a whole lot better; they are in the process of recovering the archive of 350 years of royal navy ships logs.

300 plus datapoints that involve worldwide scientific measurements three times a day for the previous three centuries!

[Agent Miles]

Not really and I don’t mean to cast aspersions on the excellent men of the Royal Navy. However, the sailors who collected this data 350 years ago were expert meteorologists and went to exacting lengths to be absolutely precise in their measurements and had equipment that was above reproach, right? You see, if you ask an average person how long a given meter stick is, they will naturally answer that it is one meter long. A scientist will break out the laser and give you a response like “one meter plus or minus .1 mm”, or something like that. It’s the inexactness of ancient measuring devices and the level of experience of the person measuring that come into play in arriving at a scientific result. If the mean temperature of the world went up one degree, give or take one degree due to slipshod methods, then you can see that the results are worthless, Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO).

[Fragony]

Don't you recall that tiny matter of acid rain being reduced due to heavy regulation and is still requireing calcinations of lakes and causes the destruction of lime stone, that was mentioned last time you brought the subject up?

I do remember that it were in fact bugs that caused trees to lose leaves. I remember the hysteria, the doomsday scenario's, having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about acid rain?' OMG DEAD LAKES

but that was then and things have changed.

Now we see hysteria, doomsday scenario's, kids being dragged to the cinema to watch Al Gore's lies, kids having to write a paper on it WE ARE SCREWED, 'how are you going to educate your parents about global warming?' SAVE THE POLAR BEARS

flyingspagettimonsterlolclever

[Louis VI the Fat]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879251.ece

Go geo-engineering! If CO2 is a problem, then remove it from the atmosphere and store it underground, back to where it came before it was burned as fossilised fuel. If warming is a problem, than cool the planet. Far more efficient than bankrupting the economy because alarmists fear the wrath of nature for man's sins.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

As much as Caldeira disliked the concept, his model backed up Wood’s claims that geoengineering could stabilise the climate even in the face of a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide — and he wrote a paper saying so. Caldeira, the most reluctant geoengineer imaginable, became a convert — willing, at least, to explore the idea.

Which is how it comes to pass that Caldeira, Wood and Myhrvold are huddled together in the former Harley-Davidson repair shop showing off their scheme to stop global warming.
IT wasn’t just the cooling potential of stratospheric sulphur dioxide that surprised Caldeira. It was how little was needed to do the job: about 34 gallons per minute, not much more than the amount of water that comes out of a heavy-duty garden hose.

Warming is largely a polar phenomenon, which means that high latitude areas are four times more sensitive to climate change than the equator. By IV’s estimations, 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year would effectively reverse warming in the high Arctic and reduce it in much of the northern hemisphere.

[...]

IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.

Nicholas Stern, the economist who prepared an encyclopedic report on global warming for the British government, suggested we spend 1.5% of global GDP each year — that would be a $1.2 trillion bill today — to attack the problem.

By comparison, IV’s idea is practically free. It would cost $50m less to stop global warming than Gore’s foundation is paying just to increase public awareness about global warming.
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.

In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.

[Beskar]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879251.ece

Go geo-engineering! If CO2 is a problem, then remove it from the atmosphere and store it underground, back to where it came before it was burned as fossilised fuel. If warming is a problem, than cool the planet. Far more efficient than bankrupting the economy because alarmists fear the wrath of nature for man's sins.


[spoil] As much as Caldeira disliked the concept, his model backed up Wood’s claims that geoengineering could stabilise the climate even in the face of a large spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide — and he wrote a paper saying so. Caldeira, the most reluctant geoengineer imaginable, became a convert — willing, at least, to explore the idea.

Which is how it comes to pass that Caldeira, Wood and Myhrvold are huddled together in the former Harley-Davidson repair shop showing off their scheme to stop global warming.
IT wasn’t just the cooling potential of stratospheric sulphur dioxide that surprised Caldeira. It was how little was needed to do the job: about 34 gallons per minute, not much more than the amount of water that comes out of a heavy-duty garden hose.

Warming is largely a polar phenomenon, which means that high latitude areas are four times more sensitive to climate change than the equator. By IV’s estimations, 100,000 tons of sulphur dioxide per year would effectively reverse warming in the high Arctic and reduce it in much of the northern hemisphere.

[...]

IV estimates this plan could be up and running in about three years, with a start-up cost of $150m and annual operating costs of $100m. It could effectively reverse global warming at a total cost of $250m.

Nicholas Stern, the economist who prepared an encyclopedic report on global warming for the British government, suggested we spend 1.5% of global GDP each year — that would be a $1.2 trillion bill today — to attack the problem.

By comparison, IV’s idea is practically free. It would cost $50m less to stop global warming than Gore’s foundation is paying just to increase public awareness about global warming.
Would it work? The scientific evidence says yes. Perhaps the stoutest scientific argument in favour of it came from Paul Crutzen, a Dutch atmospheric scientist whose environmentalist bona fides run even deeper than Caldeira’s — he won a Nobel prize for his research on atmospheric ozone depletion.

In 2006 he wrote an essay in the journal Climatic Change lamenting the “grossly unsuccessful” efforts to emit fewer greenhouse gases and acknowledging that an injection of sulphur in the stratosphere “is the only option available to rapidly reduce temperature rises and counteract other climatic effects”.

Crutzen’s embrace of geoengineering was considered such a heresy within the climate science community that some of his peers tried to stop the publication of his essay. How could the man reverently known as “Dr Ozone” possibly endorse such a scheme? Wouldn’t the environmental damage outweigh the benefits?
Actually, no. Crutzen concluded that damage to the ozone would be minimal. The sulphur dioxide would eventually settle out in the polar regions but in such relatively small amounts that significant harm was unlikely.

That sounds really awesome.

[Furunculus]

aha, a useful solution that won't bankrupt the western world to no useful effect.

at this rate there is a chance that copenhagen might produce a sensible result rather than the epic retardation that was kyoto.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is built on the fallacious assumption that global warming would be a constant trend. It is not.

Right. Global warming fears were born in 1994. Since then NO year has beaten the highs of 1994.

When you stat developing trends, I'm pretty sure there needs to be a trend.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Will a mere $250 million suffice to undo CO2's climate effect? A Microsoft funded science group thinks so, and at least one Nobel Prize winner agrees...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6879251.ece

.[/spoil]

I don't believe in Human driven climate change, but 250 million is such a short price tag that I would support it just for kicks. And to shut people up about the issue.

[Beskar]

I was tempted to send it to the Eco-stormtroopers on University campus, just to frill their feathers. I think we have one of the only Green led councils in Britain.

[Vladimir]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.

[Fragony]

In 100 years global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees celcius, measured with 100 year old equipment. No serious scientist would ever take that seriously if this wasn't all fear and piety. Apocalyptoloco's, every generation has them, they need the notion that everything is going to hell, clever businessmen like Al Gore feed on their fear and grow fat. It's always good business to feed on fear.

Famous quote from Dutch Bishop to a feudal lord: 'Ýou keep them poor, I'll keep them stupid'.

[rory_20_uk]

Famous quote from Dutch Bishop to a feudal lord: 'Ýou keep them poor, I'll keep them stupid'.

I thought that was Blair to Brown...

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.

I think he has a point.

This type of thing has happened before, although not in such a big way.

For instance, California's massive wildfires this year were in part attributed to the way that they have instantly extinguished fires in the past.

This meant that the forests never burned, which meant that the natural "cleaning" process never took place, which meant that lots of debris gathered on the forest floor, which built up kindling until they weren't able to stop the fires any more because they grew so fast!

I think perhaps that the unintended consequences of playing with nature on that scale may be very dangerous.

But then I'm no nobel-laureate expert. :D

[Furunculus]

nobel laureates are a devalued currency at present.

[drone]

Releasing large quantities of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere is exactly what volcanoes do in large eruptions. So, like I said before:

And all this work and fuss will mean nothing the next time some random volcano in the Pacific Rim blows it's top and spews enough ash and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to cool the planet down by a couple of degrees.

Of course, the downside of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is acid rain, but beggars can't be choosy.

[Vladimir]

Of course, the downside of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere is acid rain, but beggars can't be choosy.

Exactly! You can't make this dumb up. Who would of thought of polluting the upper atmosphere with this stuff 20 years ago?

[Xiahou]

Oh great. We don't even fully understand all the factors that affect global warming and now we want to cool the planet down. What happens if we do too good of a job? On one end you have crop failures, on the other you have an ice age. Brilliant.

I think an ice age might lead to some crop failures too. Probably a few more than warming would, actually. :yes;

According to new polling less people think there is strong evidence of warming and just over a third think any warming is man-made. Also, people who think it a serious problem have dropped by 9%, with people who think it's no problem at all gaining 6%.

[Fragony]

Good thing for these lemmings that there's an ice age is comming up, they can be absolutely terrified again. How are you going to educate your parents about the ice age? AND DON'T YOU BUY THAT.

forgive me Gaia for I have consumed, god help us all.

[Furunculus]

Global Fools Day:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10...ate_fools_day/

[Fragony]

Hehe oh really http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-belief

Kudo´s for this secular judge

[Furunculus]

oh god, yet more evidence that CO2 isn't having the impact it has been accused of previously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...n-dioxide.html

does this mean that computer models predicting catastrophic climate change could be wrong, or that spending trillions controlling anthropogenic CO2 would be a complete waste of money.............................?

[Beskar]

oh god, yet more evidence that CO2 isn't having the impact it has been accused of previously:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...n-dioxide.html

does this mean that computer models predicting catastrophic climate change could be wrong, or that spending trillions controlling anthropogenic CO2 would be a complete waste of money.............................?

It will take them twenty years of todays computer processing to accurately forecast the weather in twenty years time.

Make of that as you will.

[Fragony]

I personally feel the earth warming up is a factor of great importance in the CO2 and consequent global warming debate, but earth isn't warming up, so what are we talking about. Common carrotmunchers you have been hoaxed and you fell for it, no shame in that they are good at it.

fear this

[Beskar]

Actually, being honest, there are many issues which are important which is getting thrown under the "Global Warming".

It is as if Global Warming became the bandwagon to actually start doing things we need to be doing. We are running out of resources such as oil, there are land-fill problems, there is excess energy demand and we need more efficiency, etc. We should be recycling and other things.

All these things came under the Global Warming bandwagon to actually get people doing things, because in short, they are dumb and need a bandwagon to do it.

[Vladimir]

It’s not because people are stupid but that people usually get to a point where they’re comfortable and don’t advance much if not forced. Compare the development of Western Europe to that of China. Oddly enough those two directly relate to this modern problem.

[Agent Miles]

Exactly, Global Warming is an issue, not a science. Here are the real issues.

Except for the material in the space probes, all of the resources that were on the Earth for the last 4.7 billion years are still right here and we have used very little of them. All of the iron, copper, lead etc. that was ever here are still somewhere on Earth. The cheap, easy to mine resources are being used up, but that doesn’t mean that future generations will look back on our time with envy. Salt was once a resource that men killed for, now we have the technology to manufacture it by the ton.

Likewise, the carbon atoms in the oil are not destroyed and the energy it releases when burned can be gained from other chemicals, which the carbon from the oil becomes after it rains back on to the Earth. We didn’t have a shortage of lamp oil in the 1800’s, we just invented electric lights. There are plenty of ways to power our civilization; oil is just the cheapest way at present. If oil were 500 USD per barrel, then something else would displace it. We haven’t switched to that something else, because we still have relatively cheap oil and OPEC knows there is a limit to what they can demand.

People who want to spend the next 20, 50 or 100 years conserving supposedly meager resources, limiting growth and inventing technologies to do this ignore the fact that in the next 20, 50 and 100 years technologies that are currently under development (fusion power, smart materials, carbon nanotubes) can continue to permit growth and expansion of resource use. We have to choose which technologies, and issues, to pursue.

Recycling isn’t a good idea if it costs more to do than it is worth. Jobs in recycling are not good for the economy if they don’t pay for themselves and subsidizing them just makes this worse. Wind and solar power supplement the conventional power grid, but they do nothing when the wind is not blowing or the sun has set. For that you need a steady production of power. The U.S. has built over a hundred nuclear power units since the Three Mile Island incident that have worked just fine. However, none of them provided one single watt to the commercial grid because they were on submarines and aircraft carriers of the U.S. Navy. If we had a thousand commercial nuclear power plants instead of a hundred, we wouldn’t need any other energy source and we wouldn’t contribute to Global Warming.

Some people aren’t dumb.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Your post, Agent Miles, has a lorry-load of inaccuracies as well as frightening generalisations that any scientists will ardently debate and that I myself lack the time to address. However, your overall spirit may be correct IMO. Oh well...

[Megas Methuselah]

I'm not sure who to beilive. But I live 800 miles inland so it doesn't matter.

Right on, brotha! A little more sun this far north can only be a good thing.