Global Climate Disruption.

[Fragony]

Well it's a start if he's onto something, if he doesn't get an unfortunate accident that is

[gaelic cowboy]

Well it's a start if he's onto something, if he doesn't get an unfortunate accident that is

We need to figure a way to get the Lithium out of seawater would be my guess but it needs lots of energy which means nuclear energy.
You would get lots of Lithium and very little co2 as a result of production, therefore the only problem with nukes is the public.




It is a solution it's just not an easy one to get too.

[Fragony]

We need to figure a way to get the Lithium out of seawater would be my guess but it needs lots of energy which means nuclear energy.
You would get lots of Lithium and very little co2 as a result of production, therefore the only problem with nukes is the public.




It is a solution it's just not an easy one to get too.

Isn't sea-water packed with deuterium, winwin

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lithium Nitride takes a lot of energy to make in the first place. Delta G would not be favorable in this set up.

[gaelic cowboy]

Lithium Nitride takes a lot of energy to make in the first place. Delta G would not be favorable in this set up.

Well obviously were not talking free energy, but seeing as the GHG emissions have been improperly priced anyway we need to ask if it's worth it to reduce CO2.

Basically we need Nuclear based generation and somehow to find more suitable Lithium (possibly from seawater maybe)

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well obviously were not talking free energy, but seeing as the GHG emissions have been improperly priced anyway we need to ask if it's worth it to reduce CO2.

Basically we need Nuclear based generation and somehow to find more suitable Lithium (possibly from seawater maybe)

I think the better way to reduce CO2 is to plant more trees and curb desertification.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think the better way to reduce CO2 is to plant more trees and curb desertification.

I would hazard a guess there isnt enough room left for that ACIN in order to feed ourselves and curb CO2.

[Vladimir]

I would hazard a guess there isnt enough room left for that ACIN in order to feed ourselves and curb CO2.

True to an extent. Areas that can support greenery are not always suitable for agriculture. The problem is money, both in purchasing and planting.

More can be done but it would take an economy of scale to make a dent in the big picture.

[Fragony]

Store the stuff and use it for extended space travel. Hydrophonics baby!

[gaelic cowboy]

True to an extent. Areas that can support greenery are not always suitable for agriculture. The problem is money, both in purchasing and planting.

More can be done but it would take an economy of scale to make a dent in the big picture.

Marginal land is not always suitable for trees either and a good chunck of the global agricultural base was taken from the forest centuries ago.

If you ask me trees would merely slow the increase and not reduce ghg emmissions.

[Vladimir]

Marginal land is not always suitable for trees either and a good chunck of the global agricultural base was taken from the forest centuries ago.

If you ask me trees would merely slow the increase and not reduce ghg emmissions.

I intentionally avoided the word "trees." Anything that increases O2 production and biomass is a good thing to me.

[InsaneApache]

It is not surprising that President Obama is steering clear of any talk or action on global warming. The entire man-made global warming movement lay in shambles as the United Nations attempts to shift to the new environmental cause of biodiversity/species at the upcoming Earth Summit in Rio in June. Climate Depot will be attending. See: Sen. Inhofe may be joining Climate Depot at UN Rio Earth Summit in June! Inhofe: 'I think Marc Morano and I will probably go down to that one'

Formerly outspoken proponents of man-made climate fears are now openly admitting climate is not even the biggest environmental problem, let alone the biggest problem we face. See: Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for saving species 'more powerful than climate change' – May 21, 2010

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/16005/...climate-change

[Fragony]

I expected the next hoax would be about water shortages or particles of dust that will kill us all with death if we do not act right now really. Throw out the schoolbooks they are outdated, a lack of biodiversity is going to kill us all if we do not act right now. A lack of biodiversity will lead to mass starvations and and and WW3 and you know all kind of nasty stuff, if we do not act right now

[Papewaio]

That website is a news aggregator. Not a bad thing in itself, but it has an agenda and was helped put in place by Exxon.

" from 1998-2005, approximately 23% of the total ExxonMobil funding for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow was directed by ExxonMobil for climate change activities [p. 32]."

"ClimateDepot.com is the website of Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow employee Marc Morano"

Paid to spin. The most they can dig up is that biodiversity is a much greater threat then global warming.

So people are worried about global warming. They are worried about sea levels rising, coral reefs dieing, animals disappearing, extinction events. Generally one would term a species dieing out as a reduction in biodiversity. So the. Spin doctors best paid finger pointing is to restate the concerns of the global climate changers into a poor attempt at a flip flop.

Climate changers are worried about the end results of global change causing extinctions, resulting in less biodiversity.

I dont see how pointing out the result lessens the root cause.

[Whacker]

Global warming is undoubtedly real. So it global cooling. There's tons of evidence that shows that our planet has gone through tons and tons of change over the past billions of years. Some of the data we have from the past thousands of years is moderately accurate and can paint some pictures.

The problem is, there is data, but not a lot of it. It's also not incontrovertible. It sometimes does and sometimes doesn't line up with other data. Ice core samples. Rock samples. Archeological evidence. Geographical evidence. We've only had very real, SOLID temperature data for the past 100 years or so. Some of it's suspect anyway, due to potentially bad or faulty equipment, skill or human error. 100 years in the scope of the life of this planet is a tiny speck of a fart and drawing far ranging conclusions based on that is ridiculous.

In short, we don't know, and what conclusions we can draw are highly tenuous at best.

That said:

I unconditionally agree that humanity needs to get a hell of a lot better at taking care of spaceship earth. Heavy emphasis on recycling. Using greener energy methods. Cleaning up existing pollution. Educating people in all regards. Using more environmentally friendly products, and methods for producing these products. These are all very good, very solid things that we should all be moving towards. Using fear or bunk science as a method to push that is not the right way.

[CBR]

Climate changers are worried about the end results of global change causing extinctions, resulting in less biodiversity.

Worry worry worry! I have a solution for that:


Of course before you do that, you should watch Peter Hadfield's (aka Potholer54) YouTube series about Climate Change. His debunking of the "skeptic" Lord Monckton is a great job. That Monckton only answered with some petty insults, and finally ran away from a debate on the WattsUpWithThat website (the king of "skeptic" websites) just made it even more hilarious.

The 23 vids are a total of around 4 hours, but anyone with the slightest interest should be able to find the time.

[InsaneApache]

Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause.

For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.

Good practice requires double-checking the facts. After all, geoscientists have checked the pre-industrial climate, over the past 10,000 years: this isolates natural climate drivers. According to the IPCC, natural factors hardly play any role in today's climate so we would expect a rather flat and boring climate history.

Far from it: real, hard data from ice cores, dripstones, tree rings and ocean or lake sediment cores reveal significant temperature changes of more than 1°C, with warm and cold phases alternating in a 1,000-year cycle. These include the Minoan Warm Period 3,000 years ago and the Roman Warm Period 2,000 years ago. During the Medieval Warm Phase around 1,000 years ago, Greenland was colonised and grapes for wine grew in England. The Little Ice Age lasted from the 15th to the 19th century. All these fluctuations occurred before man-made CO2.

Based on climate reconstructions from North Atlantic deep-sea sediment cores, Professor Gerard Bond discovered that the millennial-scale climate cycles ran largely parallel to solar cycles, including the Eddy Cycle which is – guess what – 1,000 years long. So it is really the Sun that shaped the temperature roller-coaster of the past 10,000 years.

But then coal, oil and gas arrived: from the 1850s onwards, Man pumped large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and the CO2 level today stands at 0.039%,compared to 0.028% previously.

With our empirically proven natural pre-industrial pattern, however, we would predict that solar activity had risen since 1850, more or less in parallel with an increase in temperatures. Indeed, both timing and amount of warming of nearly 1°C fit nicely into this natural scheme. The solar magnetic field more than doubled over the past 100 years.

Remember, there are three climate parameters that go up at the same time: solar activity, CO2 and temperature. Modern climate is likely to be driven by both anthropogenic and natural processes, so CO2 will undoubtedly have contributed to the warming, but the question is just how much?

Yet the IPCC's computer models consider the solar-forcing as negligible, requiring an unknown amplifying mechanism to explain the observed temperature variations. A promising model is proposed by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark but is still under research.

Whether this mechanism is understood or not, the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years. But if these models fail so dramatically in the past, how can they help to predict the future?

Furthermore, what is little known is that CO2 also requires a strong amplifier if it were to aggressively shape future climate as envisaged by the IPCC. CO2 alone, without so-called feedbacks, would only generate a moderate warming of 1.1°C per CO2 doubling. The IPCC assume in their models that there are strong amplification processes, including water vapour and cloud effects which, however, are also still poorly understood, like solar amplification. These are the shaky foundations for the IPCC's alarming prognoses of a temperature rise of up to 4.5°C for a doubling of CO2.

In the last 10 years the solar magnetic field dropped to one of its lowest levels in the last 150 years, indicating lower intensity in the decades ahead. This may have contributed to the halt in global warming and is likely to continue for a while, until it may resume gradually around 2030/2040. Based on the past natural climate pattern, we should expect that by 2100 temperatures will not have risen more than 1°C, significantly less than proposed by the IPCC.

Climate catastrophe would have been called off and the fear of a dangerously overheated planet would go down in history as a classic science error. Rather than being largely settled, there are more and more open climate questions which need to be addressed in an impartial and open-minded way.

Firstly, we need comprehensive research on the underestimated role of natural climate drivers. Secondly, the likely warming pause over the coming decades gives us time to convert our energy supply in a planned and sustainable way, without the massive poverty currently planned.

In the UK and Germany, for example, power-station closures and huge expenditure for backup of volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will raise energy prices massively and even threaten power cuts: the economic cost will be crippling, all driven by fear.

We now have time for rational decarbonising. This may be achieved by cost-improved and competitive renewable technologies at the best European sites, through higher energy efficiency and by improving the use of conventional fossil energy.

The choice is no longer between global warming catastrophe and economic growth but between economic catastrophe and climate sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9...mentalist.html

[Fragony]

'Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society – painfully but for a good cause. '

A religion that wants to go back in time, gee they never do that. And letting Greenpeace edit the final version lololol. Nice to see a serious scientist come clean about the IPCC calculation model I hope this doesn't destroy his carreer.

[Papewaio]

I wonder how many papers allowed a final edit by Greenpeace.

Might as well let PETA do the final edit on the Michillen Guide.

[InsaneApache]

I wonder how many papers allowed a final edit by Greenpeace.

Might as well let PETA do the final edit on the Michillen Guide.

Indeed. One of the reasons I went from supporter to sceptic was when I twigged about buying carbon credits about eight years ago. When I sat and thought about it, it only made sense as a money raising exercise. As I'm somewhat familiar how governent (albeit local) functions I smelt a great big Rattus Norvegicus.

[InsaneApache]

I think we might be nearing a tipping point.

The 92-year-old now says he is “not worried about sea-level rises”, which he believes will rise two foot a century “at worst”, and complains “the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion”.

He said wind farms were “ugly and useless”, instead supporting nuclear power and fracking, arguing Britain should be “going mad” on methane.

Professor Lovelock is most famous for his Gaia theory, formulated in the 1960s to explain the Earth’s environment as a regulating organism to sustain life.

The theory has been the foundation of many of the beliefs around climate change and energy production.

In an interview with the Guardian, Prof Lovelock has now said he had become more of “a thinker” since retiring from practising science, and is now moving to a seaside home in Dorset.

Speaking about environmentalists, he said: “It's just the way the humans are that if there's a cause of some sort, a religion starts forming around it.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion. I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use.

“The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.”

Is 'green religion' taking over from the Christian religion?

Yes

He also criticised politicians for the way they have handled energy issues.

“I'm neither strongly left nor right, but I detest the Liberal Democrats,” he explained. "They are all well-meaning, but they have mostly had little experience of power.

“The coalition has behaved disgracefully on environmental and energy policies. It would have been much better if they had been properly rightwing.

“I don't mean something like Thatcher; that was a revolutionary Conservative government. Just a regular one. Our political system works because they tend to self-correct each other.”

Earlier this year, he admitted he had made "mistake" in being so certain about some of his climate predictions, conceding he had been “extrapolating too far”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...ge-expert.html

[Fragony]

I think we might be nearing a tipping point

Doubt it, they will just continue on repeating, repeat repeat repeat, preferably on schools the younger the better. Sceptics cannot hope to have their budget for indoctrination, nor the networks to even give them acces to media.

[CBR]

Fritz Vahrenholt...hmm where did I see something about him, oh yeah!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/frit...te-change.html

Frankly if Vahrenholt can't even accurately read the 18-page SPM [ IPCC summary for policymakers ], it's exceptionally difficult to take him seriously. His subsequent comments in the interview reveal that he has been very selective about what scientific research he chooses to accept.

And lots of other goodies there.

James Lovelock has made numerous outrageous predictions before so why should we care about him? It's not like climatology is based on his research is it?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...imate-science/

[Major Robert Dump]

I have 47 mature trees on my property and plan on growing more. The way I see it, that gives me 47 carbon credits, 5 of which I have used:

1. Dumping Freon
2. Flushing my used motor oil down the toilet at the state fair
3. Burning tires
4. Shooting a bald eagle
5. Dumping Freon

I have 42 credits left until my newly planted trees mature to the point of my current ones, which I expect will take about 78 years, so I have to pace myself on the freon dumping etc.

If everyone followed simple rules like mine and lived like I did, this old earth of ours would be a better place for my children.

[Fragony]

Fritz Vahrenholt...hmm where did I see something about him, oh yeah!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/frit...te-change.html



And lots of other goodies there.

James Lovelock has made numerous outrageous predictions before so why should we care about him? It's not like climatology is based on his research is it?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...imate-science/

Isn't about his predictions, it's about him understanding that the green movement is a religion REPENT or the apocalypse will cometh

[CBR]

His old claims of doom did not have the science to back them up with nor does his new claims. Examples were provided in my link above. Same link ends with:

But until he actually reads the scientific literature, his thoughts on climate will continue to have, well, no basis in science.

But I guess this prophet-of-the-week-who-confirms-my-belief cherry picking is easier.

[Fragony]

His old claims of doom did not have the science to back them up with nor does his new claims. Examples were provided in my link above. Same link ends with:


But I guess this prophet-of-the-week-who-confirms-my-belief cherry picking is easier.

For my position the mere fact that unlike the IPCC claims the science isn't settled, not everybody agrees we should be absolutely terrified of CO2 and that we are all going to be KILLED with DEATH if we do not act RIGHT NOW. And isn't the IPCC the champion in cheery-picking, there have now been so many gates that there aren't enough gardens

[CBR]

Read about the settled science bit here http://www.skepticalscience.com/settled-science.htm There is both a basic and intermediate answer (and same thing with other two Skeptical Science links)

For IPCC http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm

So many gates you say. I guess the biggest one was the hacked emails and stuff:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Clim...ils-hacked.htm

But there are other gates too as mentioned here (yes I know it is a longer text, but that is life for you)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...acts-and-spin/

But a few videos would be easier perhaps:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4OB2prBtVFo

If you care so much about cherry picking, then why not also care about how much you are being manipulated by the "skeptics" ?

But since you have problems with acid rain and CFC gases too, I doubt the above links will do much. But gotta try anyway.

[Fragony]

How could sceptics manipulate me in the same way believers can?

[CBR]

Lovelock is one example of how a believer(doomist) can make claims that have no scientific basis. There might be more examples and who knows, maybe the stereotypical hippie treehugger, who claims we need to go back to be hunter gatherers or Earth will die, is out there somewhere.

Skeptical Science has a list of the most common skeptical arguments: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

In post #384 I encouraged people to watch the Climate Change videos made by Potholer54
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?lis...F0994AFB057BB8 In several of the videos he does show how "skeptics" either manipulate or gets things totally wrong, and how it can spread to the mainstream media because people simply don't bother to read what the scientists are actually saying. But at least watch the third and fourth video in case you don't want to watch all 4 hours combined.

That does not mean that misleading information only comes from the "skeptical" side and Potholer54 also provide examples of that in at least one of his videos. Us "mortals" are not always served well by the media, as some journalists are not doing a good enough job on a complex subject.

I got more videos and several links with lots of text and graphs if you are interested, but as my cat has done a Sudetenland on my computerchair it will have to wait until I can check my bookmarks.