Global cooling causes what ?!

Interestingly , from historical graphs I have seen of past temperatures [estimates] it seems apparent that the far greater danger comes about from severe global cooling . The climate can't get much warmer than it is now but it can get a helluva lot colder . And another ice age would reeeeally be a disaster ...

Now Bruce ... there were no "lunatic tree huggers" injured in the writing of this article . Let's keep it that way , OK ? ;~ P

Now I'm just scared of the climate in general!

It's gonna get us allllll....!!!!!

LOL Bruce. Not sure if your a "south Park" guy or not but this episode bags on gore and his "conservationism" somethingfierce. It's a riot!

MANBEARPIG

Alright! an expert!

Love it too and thought that season 10 was a particularly poignant one. Starting with "The return ofChef".

You do realize that the Mayan calendar did not account for leap years. Therefore, the end has already happened and we are now in Valhalla.

Damn ! There's always a catch ...

I grew up in the Texas Panhandle, until I was 40 I didn't know there was anything but extreme weather events.

Mike ,

Yes , much better . Thanks ...

Do you notice that strained look on someone's face when they talk about being in "the panhandle" ? There's a reason for that !

"Gladiator"!

I don't normally pay much attention to the mirror, but I can sure feel it!!!!

I love it!

Is it possible this is true for all panhandles , Texas , Oklahoma , Florida ?

I never did know the title of that one ...

My dad lived in Apopka, FL. I hated driving through the Florida panhandle because it always smelled like dead fish to me. I've heard there is an Idaho panhandle, but I've never been to the NW, so I'm not sure.

The Florida panhandle is best avoided during hurricane season . I wasn't aware of the Idaho panhandle . No potatoes

Ah, yes, one of our government's finest hours!

Ummm.. Bruce... I might be one of those "Lunatic Tree Huggers"... want to discuss that term a bit further???

LMAO! Well... yeah... I have to be a bit of a lunatic since I am the leader of this asylum... love those edits...

BTW, I never whine. But I do love to drink the stuff.

And Teddy Roosevelt was the first conservationist... got a problem with him?

I believe in taking care of this blue marble we live on... since we don't have any other place to go. What's wrong with that...

Here.. let me put it in your language.

You hunt. Hunters say that they are helping to cull the herd, right? Why cull the herd? Conservation.

Those fish that got their freak on. Why do that? Oh yeah... we need fish.

See... your a tree hugger, too!

[leans into screen..] Bruce... can you move a bit closer... closer... *WHACK!*

I feel better now.

Well, then your more of a tree hugger than I am. I've never hugged a tree.

It's very silly.

But taking care of my planet, to me, is no different than taking care of myself, since all I have is this one body.

"You mean, if the car goes too far to the right, it goes off of the road, too?! Fuck! If it's going to go off the road no matter which side of the road it swerves toward, I guess there's no reason to bother steering!"

That is what is called a strawman argument , a classic one at that . In fact what I am implying is that environmentalists really don't know what the effects are of climatary changes . Sure , they can give an idea of what will happen with extreme warming and extreme cooling but the less severe effects that are seen in weather reports may be completely unrelated to climate change . If they can't distinguish between effects caused by warming and effects caused by cooling it puts in doubt their entire theory and forecasts .

Rich,

But we do know the effects of both extremes because they are there in the geological record. What we don't know is if we are a direct cause of it, an indirect cause of it, or none at all.

Iar's comment is only in response to Bruce's, both of which I took tongue in cheek.

"What we don't know is if we are a direct cause of it, an indirect cause of it, or none at all. "

Exactly . The subtle distinction required of the models is challenging . In fact what they need to do is distinguish between the natural warming while we are coming out of the little ice age and increased recent warming supposedly due to CO2 .

"Iar's comment is only in response to Bruce's "

You should take another look at his comment . He quoted an excerpt of my article . But don't worry , things are cool .

You should take another look at his comment . He quoted an excerpt of my article . But don't worry , things are cool .

Sorry, didn't notice that.

"What we don't know is if we are a direct cause of it, an indirect cause of it, or none at all. "

But that doesn't mean that it should be ignored either.

Why not Perrie?

Seems to me that is EXACTLY why it should be ignored!

I have generally found that if you don't know what is causing X, trying to fix X usually ends up having greater detrimental results than waiting to find out what causes X (or if X is even, truly, occurring), then treat the true cause.

But hell, that's just rationality!

On both sides, Iar, on both sides of the divide.

Fact is that though there is much ballyhoo, we still don't know that humanity is causing a damn thing, or what the result will be, of whatever is caused!

Hell, have read articles where global warming will bring a new era of plenty to the world as numerous areas will now be able to be tilled and some areas will have two growing seasons, not one.

Terry,

You shouldn't ignore something as important as this. You don't jump to conclusions either.

Ignoring theleveesin New Orleans didn't work out to well for them.

"But that doesn't mean that it should be ignored either. "

Ignoring it completely would probably not be wise . But the chicken little scenarios I keep reading are reeeeally too much . The obsessed focus on unusual weather events is a waste . Weather is NOT climate . OTOH examining the changes to Arctic sea ice is potentially important . But unless we are sure such changes have not happened naturally before we really can't go nuts over those either .

Well, I think we should ignore it, if our "scientists" and "policy makers" are going to be as wonkers as they seem to be now.

Of course, anyone with a lick of sense knows that it's not about saving humanity, it's all about wealth transfer from the West to those countries who are poor. Simple stuff, same ole, same ole, just another day.

" This is precisely analogous to:

If we steer to the right (global cooling), we'll go off the road (experience weather effect [y])
If we steer to the left (global warming), we'll go off the road (experience weather effect [y])
That's why I think we should stop steering (i.e., stop worrying about global climate change) "

No , it's not entirely analogous . For one thing we don't "steer" global cooling at all . Whether or not we "steer" global warming is still under investigation . And worrying is not "steering" at all . In fact that is one of my biggest concerns . Getting the public whipped up into a frenzy over something that is still has a high degree of uncertainty is just a waste of energy . I have no problem with the pursuit of the study of climate . It is a worthwhile endeavor . But acting on uncertainties before we even know what the problem is [or even if a real problem exists] is fixing something before we know what's wrong or before we even know IF there is anything wrong .

" Climate change theories, however, aren't about forecasting localized weather events. "

Agreed . And that is one of the problems . Every time there are severe weather events they tend to get blamed on global warming = CO2 emissions . If you wonder why the public is so turned off over talk about climate change it is because of the obsession over severe weather . We have always had severe weather and always will .

Thanks for the link to Hansen on Pinatubo . I'll look that over and get back to you . [Sorry , I've been busy with some other stuff.]

" The more important question is to what degree changes in climate feedback systems are self-sustaining or self-amplifying. And to understand that, we need even better models than the current ones "

Agreed . That is why continued study of climate is a good idea . But until the models have settled the bigger uncertainties , going all bonkers about worst case scenarios is just alarmism .

Incidentally , there are scientists who think that climate change is the wrong focus . They have said that since we are already at peak oil the policy decisions which need to be made ought to be directed at issues of fuel shortage .

thenewstalkers...
sciencedaily
[[
the economic pain of a flattening oil supply will trump the environment as a reason to curb the use of fossil fuels.

"Given our fossil-fuel dependent economies, this is more urgent and has a shorter time frame than global climate change," says James W. Murray, UW professor of oceanography, who wrote the Nature commentary with David King, director of Oxford's Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment.

The "tipping point" for oil supply appears to have occurred around 2005, says Murray, who compared world crude oil production with world prices going back to 1998. Before 2005, supply of regular crude oil was elastic and increased in response to price increases. Since then, production appears to have hit a wall at 75 million barrels per day in spite of price increases of 15 percent each year.

"As a result, prices swing wildly in response to small changes in demand," the co-authors wrote. "Others have remarked on this step change in the economies of oil around the year 2005, but the point needs to be lodged more firmly in the minds of policy makers."
]]

Good comment . These are important complex issues .

As a species, we're primed to look for the comfortable middle, and as media consumers, we tend to think "objectivity" consists of giving two sides equal weight (no matter whether they're equally valid or not)

Very interesting point . That states an important perspective which I had never put into words before .

"I'd love to see us industrialize the living hell out of the production of bio-diesel via algae bioreactors."

That has possibilities . I don't mean to rain on that idea parade but converting solar energy directly into power [either electricity or H2 production ] is far more efficient in terms of land use and water use [and CO2 generation] . Plants might be ecologically sound but they are not very efficient . I could hunt up the actual comparative numbers if you are interested . The only real downside is that transportation would have to be based on electric motors . But things are leaning that way already .

That's always true, Iar. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction, in almost every walk of life.

It's called the "tough shit" syndrome or, if you prefer, the "life's not fair" syndrome.

[[ I think plants are far more efficient in direct conversion of sunlight into energy usable for themselves. ]]

Good observation .

As to the infrastructure problem , cars are replaced all the time . There is no need to declare a moratorium on IC engine vehicles . They can simply be replaced driven by the market forces of more expensive fuels .

[[ Clean and efficient diesel engines already exist. They don't need to be "designed". ]]

Although diesels exist today they are not in large numbers in passenger cars . It would involve a "change in infrastructure" to have all the cars become diesels . Diesels are cleaner than they used to be but they still produce soot . I don't look forward to having all diesel engines fouling up the atmosphere .
In any case electric motors and the vehicles that run on them are not brand new technology . The electric car has been around since the late 1800s .

[[ That can't be said about solar, and likely won't be said about solar for decades, if not longer. But we could do algae-based bio-diesel starting today. ]]

I don't think you have a concept of how much land would be required to produce fuel for the entire transportation structure . It's a lot , too much to be practical . Then you need the infrastructure of the algae farming process to be designed and built . That would be a major change .

[[ In other words, the hurdles to getting something meaningful accomplished are far lower than for solar power and/or electric vehicles. ]]

All future power paths lead to electric vehicles . Renewables , nuclear and fusion devices all produce electric power . It is inevitable .

[[ It's a problem for electric vehicles that they gain range at the expense of weight, and that there are few "quick fuel" options or (virtually) any public fueling stations. ]]

That is accurate for the pure electrics but not for the plug-in hybrids , certainly not for the Chevy Volt .

[[ Additionally, the much smaller size of ultrafine particulate matter produced by gasoline engines actually presents a greater health hazard than the relatively large particles emitted by diesel engines.]]

I'm not familiar with that info . Do you have a link ?

[[ Typical estimates of algae yield run from 10,000 to 20,000 gallons of diesel per acre.]]

Those are not the numbers I have seen . There were estimates like that for GMO bacteria but they present other problems .

[[ I'd prefer to be doing something meaningful toward reducing our reliance on foreign oil right now, while simultaneously shifting to a carbon neutral fuel.]]

If you are willing to hold off on the carbon neutrality , natural gas vehicles could be available without the need for the change in infrastructure required of algae fuels .

In addition , the Chevy Volt doesn't have any of the problems you mentioned for the pure electrics . It can be charged out of your home , uses far less fuel than a gasoline car of the same power and if you need the extra range , you've got the gasoline option to deal with that .

That takes care of now . But the future inevitably belongs to renewables and the electric car or H2 powered fuel cell cars .

What ... no increased sales at Starbucks ?

I'm googeling and just trying to keep up with you guys but am learning a lot.

Terry,

I am not sure how you came to that conclusion. In the 1970's when they first realized that there was a whole in the Ozone layer, and that it was caused by fluorocarbons, we did something about it. It was the same kind of science applied to C02. Now that we are fluorocarbonfree, the Ozone layer is healing.

Our activity on this planet does have an effect. How bad is the question.

Actually there is evidence that the Arctic sea ice has melted to a large degree back in the last century , 1923 to be exact .