Dena,

Thanks for some interesting stuff there.

For context, how does all that compare with:

Re-visiting climate forcing/feedback concepts…

?

OK, so the effects of increased CO2 will level off... But at what level and with what effects?


True enough, the change in CO2 concentration is not the only part of the story. With it goes various very significant positive and negative feedback effects that overall work to amplify the effect from the CO2 concentration alone.

One very interesting number is that our climate is very resilient from the effects of changes in solar radiation intensity from our sun. Solar variability is very much too small to have a noticeable effect.


In summary, the question boils down to (please excuse the bad pun there):

Do we go to the inconvenience and expense of limiting the level of CO2 to maintain our present climate and weather patterns?

Or do we blithely continue to pollute our atmosphere on an ever increasing industrial scale to rapidly force a whole new climate with changed and more extreme weather patterns? Also with reduced land area and forced migration?

Also, can we afford to destroy all ocean shell-life?

And all radically over a very few decades?...


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

"And all radically over a very few decades?..."

Not sure how old you are but I have been hearing this since the 70's and it still hasn't happened. Someday it probably will and the cry Wolf people will be partailly to blame as they made everyone complacent. I'm sorry but with reading all these posts and other places I don't believe we are as bad off as you do and I have faith in mankind to overcome even greater obstacles. Look at San Jose you used to see it from Sacramento as a black spot in the sky, changes are happening and people are waking up once again just not as fast as you like. And I still believe you will turn more away than towards you untill you change how you tell the message. You make me want to go out and leave my car running in the driveway...

Pete

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

It's obvious that non-scientists should not interpret scientific data.
Posting a graph that shows the CO2 concentration versus Global average
temperature using a million year timescale is absolutely meaningless.
Still at a global average temperature of 22C Humanity is "DEAD".

Right now the major contributor to global warming is CO2. If left unattended
Methane will become the next major contributor to global warming,
as the permafrost melts, and next as Methane Hydrates are released from the ocean floors,
global warming will hit with a vengeance.

On the other hand lets say global warming is a myth. The response is one of
accelerated research into alternative Hi-Tech solutions into energy production.
How can we lose?

There is a survey ongoing that shows Elderly people are more likely to
denounce global warming due to human intervention. sounds like a major Guilt
Complex to me, even though i fall into that Elderly demographic.

With Climate gate, you can't prove warming is man made and not natural warming caused by us exiting the little ice age. The fact that warming has stopped for the last 10 years is something none of us can explain. If the warming we have seen is natural, there is nothing we can do. On the other hand any fix we apply is going to take a long time to apply because you are talking about restructuring the entire world.
I am not against working on some of the solutions, however the government has not done very good at picking winners and losers in this area. All of our ethonal producer are shutting down because it was to costly without government dumping large amounts of money into the industry. I only ask until you know you have a solution, don't massively deploy it.
I think we are facing future cooling and some of the solution you are thinking about could deal with either problem.
One other thing to consider. Every major branch of science was started by someone who didn't have any training in the field. How could they. The best example is Einstein. He was working in a patent office when he did some of his best work. Just because I am an amateur doesn't mean my ideas are worthless. The difference between an amateur and a professional is an amateur dose something for the love of it. A professional does it for the money. With Climate gate, we have seen again that a professional has one more reason to produce false results. I on the other hand don't depend on my love of science to feed me.
We post to these threads to explore ideas and because someone else may be able to show flaws in our thinking. I have received several corrections from other who post here and I thank them for their efforts. I am learning more through my errors and my efforts to explain my views also makes them clearer to me.

---

Wow, Dena that is awesome and I can't wait for the responces. I will be watching your posting.

Thanks for the complement but I do hope you have seen some of my other postings on this thread. I have been at it for a few months already.

This graph in question doesn't extend back to 4.5 billion years...

Oops. I may be right but I don't have any proof of it.

Also, have you considered Methane concentrations? Ozone concentrations? Sulfur concentrations? Nitrous Oxide (which is really fun by the way ;)? Water Vapor?

ML1 was pushing CO2 so I only wanted to take on one gas at a time. Other than water vapor, the gases in the list will not be around as long as CO2 and most of the time are minor players. Sulfur can be a very major player at times such as the little ice age but Nitrous Oxide is only fun in very high concentrates.

Dena,

Thanks for some interesting stuff there.

For context, how does all that compare with:

Re-visiting climate forcing/feedback concepts…

?

OK, so the effects of increased CO2 will level off... But at what level and with what effects?


True enough, the change in CO2 concentration is not the only part of the story. With it goes various very significant positive and negative feedback effects that overall work to amplify the effect from the CO2 concentration alone.

One very interesting number is that our climate is very resilient from the effects of changes in solar radiation intensity from our sun. Solar variability is very much too small to have a noticeable effect.


In summary, the question boils down to (please excuse the bad pun there):

Do we go to the inconvenience and expense of limiting the level of CO2 to maintain our present climate and weather patterns?

Or do we blithely continue to pollute our atmosphere on an ever increasing industrial scale to rapidly force a whole new climate with changed and more extreme weather patterns? Also with reduced land area and forced migration?

Also, can we afford to destroy all ocean shell-life?

And all radically over a very few decades?...


Regards,
Martin

The link you provided is good as far as it goes but it's limitations are because the science has not filled in some of the blanks yet. Climate gate cut both ways. Not only was to much money put into researching something that may have been a fraud, but peer review of non warming science suffered as well.
While it is true that Solar output is almost constant, climate records show that Solar activity appears in climate records. Our sun has gone inactive again so I suspect over the next few years we are going to learn a great deal more about climate and what causes it.

The last part of your question is way beyond my pay grade. I have lived long enough to see what happens to people who think they know what the future will hold. Once upon a time, whale oil was used for light and lubercation. It was feared the world would end when they took the last whale, but then someone found this black stuff that bubbled up from the ground worked just about as well. When I was young, fusion power was only 20 years away, it looked like we were going into another ice age and a book came out called "The population bomb". Don't bother trying to get the book, you can learn what you need to know about it by Googling the title or looking at Wikipedia. Needless to say, "The population bomb was about as far off as you could get, but it did succeed in scaring the pants off a generation much like Global Warming is today.
Don't hold me to it but I will get out my Crystal Ball and see what I can tell you with what we know today. First I don't think CO2 will go over 500 to 600 parts per million. I think the limiting factor will be that the cost of carbon fuels will reach the point where it will be cheaper to use other forms of power.
The reason I feel this way is because oil is already going up in recovery cost mostly because the United states is not doing much new drilling. Coal recovery already involves moving a large amount of dirt to get at the coal and then the land needs to be restored after the coal has been removed. The amount of dirt will increase, but at some point it will be cheaper to use some other form of energy.
This gives us a time window of 100 to 200 years to work in. While our power need will increase, at some point in time the phasing in of clean power sources will reduce our total emissions. The phasing in of clean power could take as long as 50 years because existing coal plants will be replaced as they wear out or become to costly to continue running.
I suspect we would be getting our power from a mix of the following sources.

Fast neutron reactors. These reactors burn U235, U238 and Plutonium and the waste products become harmless in around 100 years. It has the advantage that it will even burn the waste out of our current reactors and the depleted uranium left over from fuel production. The problem is someone needs to come up with the money to build the first one. The United States was considering building the first one under Bush, but now Obama is in power, it will be delayed for a while unless another country takes on the task.

Fusion power is still on the list, but I would put it in the 20 to 50 year range. There are some new ideas for containing the reaction, but not much money is going there to prove or disprove them.

Hydro electric power will still be around where possible, but some of the dams are being removed to restore nature.

Wind power will be limited to peaking applications and will account for less than 20% of our power. I live less than 100 miles from a major wind farm but many times when I drive by it, all of the blades are still. This is a form of power that you don't want to place all of your eggs in one basket with.

Geothermal power is running into some problems because it can cause earthquakes if installed in the wrong location. It is a good source of power but because of the limited number of locations suitable locations, it will not be able to provide all of our power.

Solar Cells are currently way to costly to replace existing sources of power but the cost are dropping as new manufacturing process and cell designs come out. Again these will be used for peaking as they don't provide power at night.

Fuel Cells are something I don't think we will see. While hydrogen is clean, most of the time the fuel is made by striping the hydrogen out of hydrocarbons. Extracting hydrogen from water is possible, but very costly and there are better things to do with electricity that wasting it on this. Hydrogen takes about 4 times the volume of a normal hydrocarbon fuel and its hard to store. Think of what would happen if your tank was ruptured, it would be the hindenburg all over again. It would also make a great tool of a terrorist. Just rent a car, make sure you have a full tank, drive to the target and crack open the tank.

As a bonus, I will cover batteries. The big problems is most of what we know about batteries is 100 years old. Lead acid has evolved with better plate designs that allow more power per cubic foot, but we have just about reached the limit without reducing the life of the cells. Nickel metal hydrate and Nickel Cadmium are just an improvement of Nickel Iron cells which Thomas Edison produced for use in electric trucks and the railroads used for remote signals. The only thing new is Lithium batteries. They are still evolving and while good for Laptops and Cell phones, they still need a little work before they will work well for electric cars.
Any kid in high school can look in their physic or chemistry book and tell you how much power you can get out of a battery reaction. Then the problem is finding chemicals that will allow the reaction to happen and making a cell structure is dense but will hold up to normal wear and tear.
Unless someone is very clever in the future, we will not be able to come near the power density that we see in modern autos because hydrocarbons are just a real good way to store energy.
Batteries will never work for grid storage, but the plugable hybrid with more range is in the future and electric cars could drop in cost. The electric car will still have charge and range issues, but if you could recharge while you eat lunch, it could work. The problem with a lunch recharge is that cells may not be able to take a charge that fast, but they are working on solutions to the problem.

The computer I am currently running on is a wonder but 20 years ago only a few government labs had computers of like power and they cost more than I would make in a life time. If you go back 40 year, a computer like mine would have been considered impossible. Who is to tell what the future will hold. The population bomb missed the mark because the author couldn't see what humans could do when faced with a problem. This was not done with big government programs but by a few people with great ideas chipping away at a human problem. This is the way it always has been and I see no reason why it will not continue.
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year and I will be back in the new year.

---

...

Fuel Cells are something I don't think we will see. While hydrogen is clean, most of the time the fuel is made by striping the hydrogen out of hydrocarbons. Extracting hydrogen from water is possible, but very costly and there are better things to do with electricity that wasting it on this. Hydrogen takes about 4 times the volume of a normal hydrocarbon fuel and its hard to store. Think of what would happen if your tank was ruptured, it would be the Hindenburg all over again. It would also make a great tool of a terrorist. Just rent a car, make sure you have a full tank, drive to the target and crack open the tank.

...

Hi Dena,

I wouldn't write off Hydrogen and Fuel Cells yet. Iceland's geographic isolation in the North Atlantic makes it expensive to ship in gasoline - it costs almost $8 a gallon there. Fuel cell cars will go on sale to the public there in 2010. Once Iceland's vehicles are converted over to hydrogen, the fishing fleet will follow. Iceland will be fossil fuel free by 2050.

Now, in the US you already have the Honda Clarity in California. It's doing just fine there. It took almost 100 years to put in place the current gasoline delivery infrastructure in the US, so you can't expect Hydrogen to appear overnight, but it WILL be in widespread use within 25 years if your government can kick the oil lobbies out of Washington. The Honda Clarity is expensive but let me ask you something - what did a Sony first generation WEGA 42" Plasma TV cost in 2002 ($15,000). Today you get a free one when you buy a furniture set.

The issue I have with your automakers is while a new company like Honda, which was born from the ashes of WW2 was hiring engineers like there was no tomorrow and innovating things to perfection, most of the US automakers seemed preoccupied with cup holders, velour interiors and hiring lawyers to fight damage claims. Why did GM kill the EV1? Why is the Clarity not made by GM? It's a Honda for Christ's sake :-)

BTW, your comments about a Hydrogen tank rupturing or being used as a terrorist's tool is a bit ridiculous; just 2 tablespoons of gasoline with gas vapours in your tank, has the destructive force of a stick of dynamite. Gas is just as dangerous as hydrogen when it explodes!

I predict that in your lifetime, you will own a Fuel Cell car...

Take care and all the best for 2010!

...

Fuel Cells are something I don't think we will see. While hydrogen is clean, most of the time the fuel is made by striping the hydrogen out of hydrocarbons. Extracting hydrogen from water is possible, but very costly and there are better things to do with electricity that wasting it on this. Hydrogen takes about 4 times the volume of a normal hydrocarbon fuel and its hard to store. Think of what would happen if your tank was ruptured, it would be the Hindenburg all over again. It would also make a great tool of a terrorist. Just rent a car, make sure you have a full tank, drive to the target and crack open the tank.

...

Hi Dena,

I wouldn't write off Hydrogen and Fuel Cells yet. Iceland's geographic isolation in the North Atlantic makes it expensive to ship in gasoline - it costs almost $8 a gallon there. Fuel cell cars will go on sale to the public there in 2010. Once Iceland's vehicles are converted over to hydrogen, the fishing fleet will follow. Iceland will be fossil fuel free by 2050.

Now, in the US you already have the Honda Clarity in California. It's doing just fine there. It took almost 100 years to put in place the current gasoline delivery infrastructure system in the US, so you can't expect Hydrogen to appear overnight, but it WILL be in widespread use within 25 years if your government can kick the oil lobbies out of Washington. The Honda Clarity is expensive but let me ask you something - what did a Sony first generation WEGA 42" Plasma TV cost in 2002 ($15,000). Today you get a free one when you buy a furniture set.

The issue I have with your automakers is while a new company like Honda, which was born from the ashes of WW2 was hiring engineers like there was no tomorrow and innovating things to perfection, most of the US automakers seemed more preoccupied with bloody cup holders, velour interiors and hiring lawyers to fight damage claims. Why did GM kill the EV1? Why is the Clarity not made by GM? It's a Honda for Christ's sake :-)

BTW, your comments about a Hydrogen tank rupturing or being used as a terrorist's tool is a bit ridiculous; just 2 tablespoons of gasoline with gas vapours in your tank, has the destructive force of a stick of dynamite. Gas is just as dangerous as hydrogen when it explodes!

I predict that in your lifetime, you will own a Fuel Cell car...


Take care and all the best for 2010!

Hydrogen from natural gas is cheap but from electricity will always be expensive because it takes large amounts of power to break the water bond. Until natural gas becomes very expensive, we will get our hydrogen from natural gas. However, I though part of the goal was to stop using hydrocarbons.
My dad used to work around forklifts that were power with bottled gas because they were used indoors and they produce far less carbon monoxide. They scared him because a broken line would cause an instant disaster. Gasoline takes time to turn into a vapor. On the other hand, when I was young I cleaned engine parts with gasoline and never blew my self up.
The great thing about talking about the future is that nobody can be proved wrong until the future is now. As for owing a Fuel Cell car, I always wanted a turbine power car. I think it was something about the car that the original Batman drove that made me want it. Yes I know now that the sound was from a turbine and the car really had a V8 in it but Hollywood creates some wonderful illusions.

---

Hydrogen from natural gas is cheap but from electricity will always be expensive because it takes large amounts of power to break the water bond. Until natural gas becomes very expensive, we will get our hydrogen from natural gas. However, I though part of the goal was to stop using hydrocarbons.

Since a lot of electric power comes from burning natural gas ...

As H2O is a green house gas what does all this vapor coming out of the tail pipes of the fuel cells do the the world's weather and global warming?

My dad used to work around forklifts that were power with bottled gas because they were used indoors and they produce far less carbon monoxide. They scared him because a broken line would cause an instant disaster. Gasoline takes time to turn into a vapor. On the other hand, when I was young I cleaned engine parts with gasoline and never blew my self up.

The real disaster is if time passes as then the building fills with vapor. If the broken line ignites right away you have a blow torch but not an explosion.

---

As H2O is a green house gas what does all this vapor coming out of the tail pipes of the fuel cells do the the world's weather and global warming?

Very good thought and a very good question!

It would precipitate out of the atmosphere in a few days as does the other water vapour that the atmosphere naturally picks up. So, it might rain slightly heavier or more often.

At worse, you might get slightly increased humidity in cities and other traffic 'hot spots'.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I couldn't let this blatant ignorance go unchallenged.

One other thing to consider. Every major branch of science was started by someone
who didn't have any training in the field. How could they. The best example is
Einstein. He was working in a patent office when he did some of his best work.

If I'm not mistaken Einstein had a Phd in physics, and only worked in the
Swiss Patent Office because he couldn't get a teaching position at a university.
I don't think many people would call him an amateur.

As for "Climate-Gate" having invalidated Climate Science, well we all live in a
bubble of our own beliefs. Right now my bubble includes a "Green Christmas"
and it ain't natural, though it does bring down my "Carbon Footprint" some.

Einstein created a branch of science that didn't exist before he came along. The word relativity didn't exist in science before Einstein. You don't go to school to learn how to create a new branch of science, you go to school to learn about an existing branch.
On the other hand, my dictionary calls a professional a person who is payed for their work. Einstein was not being payed by the Patent office for his physics work. By default that make him an amateur. I will admit that he was a well trained amateur but he was still an amateur.
I am with you on reducing my carbon footprint. Even though I don't think CO2 is causing warming, it hurts me to waste anything from food to fuel. My motive is money and not the environment but the end results are the same as yours. I hate the fact we live in a throw away world and I am willing to pay more for goods that I don't have to replace in a few months and sometimes I even find my self turning off lights that others left on. Others sometimes think I may be a little strange and I am sure they are right.

---

A fair comment on present proceedings:

Climate change sceptics 'playing Russian roulette with planet'

Prof Peter Liss, acting director of the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU), said sceptics were endangering the lives of generations to come by making unsupported claims.

"The evidence is hugely for there being substantial climate change due to man's activities and if you want to argue against that case you have to produce some evidence."


Note also that a turgid mess of conspiracy theories or that it "just can't be so", or an oil and coal fuelled vote in Utah, all are not 'evidence'.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fboiCncc

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

So much for the myth of Mann made global warming. Seems the more sunlight that gets poured into the shadowy world of academic "scholarship" and so-called "peer-reviewed" scientific articles (peer-censored is more apropriate) the more the myth falls apart.

That's why Hansen is fighting so hard to prevent the release of NASA's data.

"Things fall apart, the center cannot hold,
Mere anarchy is loosed on the world."

It is the purist hubris to believe that man can affect global climate.

Time to fumigate the rat's nest. AGW was never about the climate, it is and always has been a political tool devised to acrue and hold power.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fboiCncc

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

So much for the myth of Mann made global warming. ...

Also see:

Climate scientist says Himalayan glacier report is 'robust and rigorous'

Parry 'perplexed' at media's 'clamour without substance'
Scientist also cites differing figures over Netherlands error


Those are very good examples that show the skeptics will sieze upon any and every even trivially minor comment that they deem denies everything and use blinkered gutter arguments the 'save the world' for oil and coal and for their extravagant lifestyle.

Take note and let's see how the hot air rhetoric balances out in two weeks time. The state of the rhetoric and the sheer volume of FUD is just impossible to argue against in reasonable time.


Is this where the power industries have successfully sponsored a world-wide pollution filibuster?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0fboiCncc

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

So much for the myth of Mann made global warming. ...

Also see:

Climate scientist says Himalayan glacier report is 'robust and rigorous'

Parry 'perplexed' at media's 'clamour without substance'
Scientist also cites differing figures over Netherlands error


Those are very good examples that show the skeptics will sieze upon any and every even trivially minor comment that they deem denies everything and use blinkered gutter arguments the 'save the world' for oil and coal and for their extravagant lifestyle.

Take note and let's see how the hot air rhetoric balances out in two weeks time. The state of the rhetoric and the sheer volume of FUD is just impossible to argue against in reasonable time.


Is this where the power industries have successfully sponsored a world-wide pollution filibuster?

Regards,
Martin

Jones happens to be a person who 6 months ago was just a rabid about Global warming as you are. He was an insider and was a key figure in the climate gate e-mails. Are you telling us that industry has payed him off and made him throw away something he has been behind for years.
I think it's more likely he is trying to salvage what little is left of his professional reputation by coming clean.
All of the arguments you have used on this thread have been proven to be lies provided by people in the warming crowd. It's not your fault that their lies weren't found out at the time you used most of them, but when you know your source might not be truthful, try to avoid them.

---

... Jones happens to be a person who 6 months ago was just a rabid about Global warming as you are. He was an insider and was a key figure in the climate gate e-mails. Are you telling us that industry has payed him off and made him throw away something he has been behind for years. ...

And there is a very important issue, right there.

Jones hasn't been "rabid" in any way. He's a professor and a scientist. He's perhaps not very good at PR or in giving "soundbites" that are safe for the rabid deniers to not turn into lies.

He's been driven to near suicide from the attacks from the rabid deniers. He's received death threats.

For his recent comments, try reading ALL of the comments and looking at them IN CONTEXT. The only lies there are the out of context soundbites taken to 'prove' what the rabid denialists wish to screem out in their campaign of blind FUD.

The way Professor Jones has been treated, and indeed the way Hansen has been treated in the past, all speaks of the worst of the most nasty of conspiracies against them.

He is just one researcher out of many thousands that all share very similar views. All agree that we must limit the output of CO2 that industry and farming are belching out in ever greater and ever more vast quantities. The one difference is that Professor Jones has been singled out.


Looks like the oil and coal funded Marketing program is out to kill a few people now, and almost all of us soon later.


Now. Where is your hard evidence that using industrial output to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, over the period of just a few years, is not going to have any effects?

Get your answer wrong and a billion or so people starve and/or drown and die over the next few years.

So which side of caution would your err on?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Jones happens to be a person who 6 months ago was just a rabid about Global warming as you are. He was an insider and was a key figure in the climate gate e-mails. Are you telling us that industry has payed him off and made him throw away something he has been behind for years. ...

And there is a very important issue, right there.

Jones hasn't been "rabid" in any way. He's a professor and a scientist. He's perhaps not very good at PR or in giving "soundbites" that are safe for the rabid deniers to not turn into lies.

He's been driven to near suicide from the attacks from the rabid deniers. He's received death threats.

For his recent comments, try reading ALL of the comments and looking at them IN CONTEXT. The only lies there are the out of context soundbites taken to 'prove' what the rabid denialists wish to screem out in their campaign of blind FUD.

The way Professor Jones has been treated, and indeed the way Hansen has been treated in the past, all speaks of the worst of the most nasty of conspiracies against them.

He is just one researcher out of many thousands that all share very similar views. All agree that we must limit the output of CO2 that industry and farming are belching out in ever greater and ever more vast quantities. The one difference is that Professor Jones has been singled out.


Looks like the oil and coal funded Marketing program is out to kill a few people now, and almost all of us soon later.


Now. Where is your hard evidence that using industrial output to double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, over the period of just a few years, is not going to have any effects?

Get your answer wrong and a billion or so people starve and/or drown and die over the next few years.

So which side of caution would your err on?

Regards,
Martin

We are bumping the CO2 at the rate of around 1 part per million per year. At that rate it would take almost 400 years to double the amount of CO2. I suspect China, India and a few other countries will start using more hydrocarbons in the future so it will take us at least 100 years to get a doubling and it may take longer because hydrocarbons will get harder to recover in the future and solar may drop to the break even point in a few more years. Instead of dumping large amounts of money into technology thats not there yet, lets spend a few years developing solutions that do work and then use them.
As for Jones, getting caught in a lie is a horrible experience. Ask any man or woman who was caught cheating on their mate. People handle that using one of two ways. People who have no conscious act as if nothing happened and may continue the lie. On the other hand I now have more respect for Professor Jones because it appears he has a conscious and is trying to make amends for his mistakes.
The truth is because of a small group of people the study of climate has been destroyed. We can't apply the fixes you are suggesting without destroying all human life. Our only option is to push research to see how much of a fix is needed and develop solutions such as breeder reactors and solar power so there are real solutions that we can use.
The question for you is if you were given absolute control of the world, how would you solve the problem. I have given you real world solutions that would work. What would you do different and don't forget that I will know if a solution will produce more carbon that it gets rid of and I will call you on it. One additional ground rule I will allow is if you are unsure what a solution will do, indicate that and it will not count against you. I have an extensive background in technology of all forms so I will not hold it against you if you tell me you are not sure because you have not had time to study the full impact of a solution or have the knowledge of what the solution will do.

---

The truth is because of a small group of people the study of climate has been destroyed.

HA HA HA!!!

-----------

---

Poor Phil Jones...boohoohoo. The man has not faced nearly as much pressure from the skeptics as they have received from the true believers. Careers have been destroyed by your side simply because someone voiced doubt about what is now proving to have been a con-job from the outset.

Hansen has been nailed several times for diddling the numbers on temperatures. Question, if the data are so compelling, then why are he and NASA fighting tooth and nail to prevent the release of their data? I thought that "sunlight is the best disinfectant" for corruption. Seems the left are changing their tune now.

Hansen's most egregious attempt was the "mistake" of cutting and pasting the temperature data for September 2008 into the October slot, thus leading to one of the greatest single month increases in annual temperatures recorded. Any scientist worth his salt would have seized upon such an anomalous finding and rigorously examined the data to determine if it was accurate, but so convinced were the researchers at Goddard of their own infalliblity that such an eventuality never even occurred to them. It required the intervention of an outside body to discover this "mistake."

A real scientist is a skeptic first. He doesn't attempt to prove his theories, he conducts experiments to disprove his theories and if he is lucky ends up proving them by default. This is the antithesis of the approach used by AGW advocates.

Here are a few gems from the "Climate gate" discussions on the computer modeling:

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop *****footing around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5761180.shtml

I know it's difficult for people like you to admit that you've been had by a con-man especially when that con-man is a former US Senator who has made $Millions off of his scam. You assume that your are too intelligent to be duped, your arrogance radiates from your every post, so it is a very bitter pill to swallow that one of your superior intellect could be so easily fooled.

But now we can see who the real "deniers" are...those who deny reality as an ever growing body of evidence deconstructs this monument to human hubris laughingly called "Anthropogenic global warming."

Embrace the truth and it shall set you free.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas

...those who deny reality as an ever growing body of evidence.

...

---

A real scientist is a skeptic first. He doesn't attempt to prove his theories, he conducts experiments to disprove his theories and if he is lucky ends up proving them by default. This is the antithesis of the approach used by AGW advocates.

Here are a few gems from the "Climate gate" discussions on the computer modeling:

In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named "Harry" -- possibly the CRU's Ian "Harry" Harris -- was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be problematic. Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added:

I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.

I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight... So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

One thing that's unsettling is that many of the assigned WMo codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country's met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up – but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!

Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite - the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we'll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop *****footing around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software suites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?...

As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU's code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU's climate model.

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: "I feel for this guy. He's obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources."

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU's Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!" and "APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION." Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: "Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend - so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11...y5761180.shtml

I know it's difficult for people like you to admit that you've been had by a con-man especially when that con-man is a former US Senator who has made $Millions off of his scam. You assume that your are too intelligent to be duped, your arrogance radiates from your every post, so it is a very bitter pill to swallow that one of your superior intellect could be so easily fooled.

But now we can see who the real "deniers" are...those who deny reality as an ever growing body of evidence deconstructs this monument to human hubris laughingly called "Anthropogenic global warming."

Embrace the truth and it shall set you free.[/quote]

No a real scientist is unbiased and hopefully observant. Actually scientists always conduct experiments to "prove" their theories. Evidence for or against a theory has to be examined for anomylous results. Remember that theories are works in progress. They are NOT rules. Evolution is a theory because it isnt perfect, but it is a very good model for understanding what is happening. Global warming is also a theory. A theory that has a lot of physical evidence to support it. 1 month of faked info doesnt really belay the fact that things are happening globally.

Haven't you ever wondered why El nino and la nina occur so often in last few decades. This isn't a new weather pattern. However it is occurring increasingly in the last few decades.

Again DENY DENY DENY and DISCREDIT DISCREDIT DISCREDIT this is a very conservative politically motivated movement. Most noteably from the Newt Gingrich playbook for defeating a political opponent. the number 1 rule of this agenda is never affirm an opponents points no matter how irrefutibly valid it is.
This I consider one of the main reasons for our current gridlock in the US congress

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

No a real scientist is unbiased and hopefully observant. Actually scientists always conduct experiments to "prove" their theories. Evidence for or against a theory has to be examined for anomylous results. Remember that theories are works in progress. They are NOT rules. Evolution is a theory because it isnt perfect, but it is a very good model for understanding what is happening. Global warming is also a theory. A theory that has a lot of physical evidence to support it. 1 month of faked info doesnt really belay the fact that things are happening globally.

Well that lets out your boys right there. There has been no objectivity in the pro-AGW side for decades...every since they figured out it was a gravy-train.

---

Man's future lies in the stars, not on Earth. It is each successive generation's responsibility to humanity to expand the knowledge and understanding of our Universe so that we may one day venture forth to meet our neighbors.

Houston, Texas