In the area where i currently live it means 15 year old with less than three kids.

Evidently i was looking for too deep a layer of meaning.
Alaska is cold, so a freezer franchise has limited viability, but the Virgin islands aren't full of virgins.
I was expecting more than just a pun.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

I was expecting more than just a pun.

Well, since a Pun is the lowest form of Humor--I apologize profusely.

Sarcasm is the lowest form of humor from the 'highest form of intelligence'
Who's planting trees to help carbon capture? ;o)

---

I'm not a complete idiot, but, I'm working on it.
I have an opinion and I'm not afraid to use it

I was expecting more than just a pun.

Well, since a Pun is the lowest form of Humor--I apologize profusely.

Would a Pu-ti-n do?

He's by far one of the worst offenders for promoting world destructive pollution...


Unfortunately, that's no joke :-(

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

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

Hiya Anniet!

Yay! :) You're still talking to me :) even though I've been SOOOO slow responding :/ for which I apologise.

To answer your questions (though perhaps not in the order you asked them)...

What is the 'Center for Urban Science and Progress'?

A link describing it:

http://energy.gov/contributors/steven-e-koonin

Thank you :) Still as clear as a mud but I kind of get it - weirdly :)

As to your concern that:

I got the distinct impression that the goal of the stall holder was to put everyone off the product he had laid out for our perusal and that he was using some rather sweeping statements to do his undermining...

I am sorry, I don't read it that way at all. Dr. Koonin (at least to me) is making a GOOD case that much more research is needed into certain aspects of GHG/AGW so that we can make sensible public policy. Dr. Koonin also makes a good case that we will likely need a LOT more computing power to adequately model the climate. He also says that the whole fracas between the rabid Deniers and the rabid Warmists is counter-productive.

I happen to agree with all of these points.

Okay. I have muzzled the anniet that get's all hot and bothered at the mention of *grumpy face* BP *even grumpier face* for whom Dr Koonin used to work... and without the former, bleating away suspiciously in my head, I certainly agree that the fracas between the rabids is definitely counter-productive :( Continuing research IS a must... but NOT of the kind that wafts an odour similar to the "gifts" my dog used to leave under my washing line for me to tread in - although I do miss them now he's gone :( I'm frankly tired of "good news everyone! There's nothing to worry about" ... only to find out who paid for the good news is beyond iffy and their "data" so selectively skewed and self-serving *attempt dainty screwing up of nose* *fail* *continue whilst resembling a pug*

I think it's probably terms like "sensible public policy" and how open they are to interpretations once in the hands of politicians (and those who are paying the most to hold onto their ears at any given time) which leaves me uneasy - much like the last UN summit on Climate change did, which left me wondering why they bothered having one at all :/

Whilst it can be argued that fingers could be pointed at both sides of this debate... the side with the biggest amount to lose (other than ourselves if they win) is without doubt, the fossil fuel industry. They have already counted their unpumped, unfracked, unpiped, unmined "assets" as future income. It holds up their share prices and feeds them the promise of shareholders and profits for so many more decades to come... AND guarantees their subsidies and taxbreaks too... and when you get an animal as powerful as that one is with it's back against the wall - it will use ANY means at it's disposal to shred what stands between it and the freedom to continue doing what it does best, making money with no regard to the consequences :(

Their ability to field us "experts in undermining" "wolves in sheep's clothing" and "masters of manipulation" is part of a very well-funded propaganda machine that plays up uncertainties and twists open-ended waivers... so I do apologise if my initial reservations about Dr Koonin (in the absence of having the time to fully check him out) have been misplaced :) His recent tendency towards job-flitting and his oil industry pedigree, should not detract from his desire for caution, and the following extract you kindly posted for us does seem to back that up. Thank you :)

One of Dr. Koonin's papers (Dr. Koonin convened the study and was one of the two lead authors) on the subject of climate:

"Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/0907.5140

The PDF of the entire paper:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/0907.5140v2

A quote from page 11:

The recent Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with “very high confidence” that anthropogenic accumulations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere are affecting the Earth climate.6 AR4 also documented a range of scientifically measured impacts on human and natural environments due to the current warming. As anthropogenic GHG concentrations continue to rise, their environmental impacts will increase.

However the sensitivity of the climate system to continued increases in atmospheric GHG concentrations remains significantly uncertain. AR4 placed the “likely” (66% likelihood) global mean temperature increase due to a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels at between 2ºC and 4.5ºC, while also noting that “values substantially higher than 4.5°C cannot be excluded.”7 This very broad range means that it is not currently possible to define a “safe” level of atmospheric CO2,8 because the future rate, magnitude, and distribution of climate change impacts are all far from certain. There is no guarantee that the previously observed trend of gradually intensifying consequences will continue. Indeed, the significant reduction in arctic summer sea ice coverage during the summers of 2007 and 2008 (~30% lower coverage than predicted by recent linear trends)9 highlights the possibility that non-linear feedbacks in the climate system could accelerate these impacts.10,11

It is possible that international efforts to stabilize CO2 concentrations will be sufficient to prevent or delay the worst climate impacts, that the world will warm only another 2°C or 3°C, that ice sheets will melt slowly, and that most of the consequences will be gradual, allowing smooth adaptation by human societies and natural ecosystems. However, it is also possible that even with concerted near-term efforts and cooperation on emissions reductions, the climate system could change quickly and unexpectedly, or could change smoothly, yet with consequences that are both severe and unanticipated. For example, the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disappear more rapidly than currently projected and the impacts of a warmer world on humans and natural ecosystems — ranging from rapidly increasing sea level to more frequent and stronger storms — could be more severe than current median predictions.12

It is rather bizarre to see the warmists turning on one of their own. Much of the criticism of Dr. Koonin's Op-Ed in the WSJ has been over his statement that the climate's sensitivity to CO2's roughly doubling is approximately equal to the climate's natural variability.

In the section of Dr. Koonin's paper I just quoted, the sensitivity is listed at 2C to 4.5C (I have also seen it reported as about 2C to about 8.5C, with a most likely value of about 4.5C).

The natural variability of the Climate: A small amount of research into this will show you that, over the last 2000 years, the climate has varied naturally between about +2C above the 2000 year average (the Medieval Climate Optimum) to -2C below the same average (the Little Ice Age). This gives a natural variability in climate of 4C over the last 2000 years.

In other words, Dr. Koonin was correct when he claimed that the climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 is approximately equal to the natural climate variability (about 4.5C vs. about 4C).

Other criticisms can similarly be answered. If you have something specific, please post it, and I will try to answer it.

Dr. Koonin was also correct when he said we need to nail down a much closer value to the climate sensitivity to CO2.

There are 4 possible responses to the problem.

1. ignore it, and possibly all 'cook'.
2. cut out some of our CO2 emissions.
3. cut out some of our CO2 emissions and try some of the somewhat risky 'climate engineering' projects outlined in the study from Dr. Koonin I linked above.
4. stop ALL CO2 (and other GHG) emissions and 'return to the balance of nature'.

Somewhat risky? *sudden emphatic lie down* Stratospheric aerosol injection? You're not kidding! *big goggly eyes* so um... what do we do for the next decade whilst they work on that one... carry on as we are, or as we were... in a big burning bonfire frenzy with the promise that every once in a while we'll give our atmosphere a big injection to cure it of its ills? Erm... You don't think I was being a bit hasty using the term "his desire for caution" do you? :) It's just... without my permission, my brain wandered off into thinking about who would benefit the most from such a research study... and came over all suspicious again. I hope you'll forgive me, MK, because I am muzzling as I type... but when I popped The Novim Group into Source Watch... it threw me a link to the Koch Family Foundation. (Did you know they donate money to something called the Environmental Science Independent Peer Review Institute? I didn't.) Anyway... you'll be relieved to know I couldn't find out WHY my window got so suddenly polluted (although there is a LOT of reading matter in there and I didn't have a peg handy for my nose to endure a lengthy wade so I didn't get far into the cesspit) but I am happy to put it down to being just a glitch... for the moment... The sad fact is... we may well need people like Dr Koonin and his associates to be doing some responsible brainstorming IN CASE... but I sincerely hope there is no one out there who sees it as a viable alternative to reducing the harm we're doing to every environmental realm that life inhabits on this planet today.

1. is not desired because we might all cook.
2. might be enough. maybe.
3. might be necessary. but it can also REALLY mess thing up.
4. is not desired. it would mean the death of over 99.95% of humanity.

So the real choice is between 2. and 3., and how much of both (or either) we do. In order to make a reasoned choice between the two, we need to know the climate sensitivity to CO2 to a much closer value so that we can make a risk assessment and decide how much CO2 emissions to cut and whether or not to also include any 'climate engineering' efforts.

This is the part of the science, the important part of it, that is NOT settled. We don't cut enough, we still cook. We cut too much, and we have damaged our economy without reason. We need to know how MUCH to cut, and as of now all we really have on this is a few guesses.

So whilst that get's worked out by our prevarication-free boffins :) there should be nothing stopping us cleaning up the rest of our polluting act in the meantime. Yay! :)

Thanks for the post MK! :)

I was expecting more than just a pun.

Well, since a Pun is the lowest form of Humor--I apologize profusely.

Ahem, excuse me, dear sir??????

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

... So whilst that get's worked out by our prevarication-free boffins :) there should be nothing stopping us cleaning up the rest of our polluting act in the meantime. Yay! :)

Thanks for the post MK! :)

And thanks Anniet for a very good reply!

Far far more sweetly put than I could put considering the Fossils-fueled unwholesome selfish foul stench of corruption being forced upon us all.


Amazing how the Fossils sponsored Marketing and 'lobbying' is so good that it grabs so many gullible people to follow along! Or is it something like how hydrogen sulphide gently smells like rotten eggs until the stench builds to get so strong that you then lose your senses and then a little more then kills you?

Note for the nay-sayers and disbelievers and denialists: Note how that happens at around a mere 300–350 ppm. By random coincidence, about the same level of concern as we have for industrial CO2 pollution pushing us 'over the edge'...


Anniet, thanks again for your extreme patience and restrained eloquence!

Even so, will the Denialists really see what is happening around them? Or are they forever doomed to their greed and Marketing and determined to drag everyone else to hell?

We have an easy way and a hard way for all of this... Hopefully OUR politicians are not so corrupt as to make all this silly hard...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

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

Hopefully OUR politicians are not so corrupt as to make all this silly hard...

Hmmm, something just doesn't make sense in this sentence...

Who are OUR politicians Martin?

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

Martin... Maybe these three simple yes or no questions will help you clear things up.

Do you accept the premise that human caused GHG emissions cause Climate Change?

Yes or No?

Do you accept that a rather broad swath of human activity cause GHG emissions, not JUST use of Fossil Fuels?

Yes or No?


Do you accept the possibility (raised by that paper I linked a few posts ago) that the GHG emissions from Agriculture since the dawn of of the Agricultural Revolution has produced global warming at least approximately the same as (and likely greater than) the GHG emissions from fossil fuel use and industry since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has produced?

Yes or No?

Major, Noticed Martin hasn't answered. Unfortunately expected. It appears he isn't interested in any discussion.

---

Far far more sweetly put than I could put considering the Fossils-fueled unwholesome selfish foul stench of corruption being forced upon us all.

Oh! Look wat 'Fossils-fueled unwholesome selfish foul stench of corruption being forced upon' has done to ME! My Complextion-ARGH! I've bought ALL The Creams and still look! GOD AWFUL! Sweet Jesus help me.

I Haven't Had a Date In Years! I can't Go Anywheres Lookin' like this! Damn You Fossil Fuels, DAMN YOU!

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Martin... Maybe these three simple yes or no questions will help you clear things up.

Do you accept the premise that human caused GHG emissions cause Climate Change?

Yes or No?

Do you accept that a rather broad swath of human activity cause GHG emissions, not JUST use of Fossil Fuels?

Yes or No?


Do you accept the possibility (raised by that paper I linked a few posts ago) that the GHG emissions from Agriculture since the dawn of of the Agricultural Revolution has produced global warming at least approximately the same as (and likely greater than) the GHG emissions from fossil fuel use and industry since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has produced?

Yes or No?

Major, Noticed Martin hasn't answered. Unfortunately expected. It appears he isn't interested in any discussion.

Yes, I noticed.

For quite some time, Martin has been telling others that there is a problem, but there is an easy fix, and resoundingly condemning the 'Deniers' that are effectively keeping their head in the sand.

Now, when I say 'yes Martin, there IS a problem (as you have been saying), but it is WORSE than you thought, and there is NO easy fix.' he has a conniption, and calls me a Denier. Go figure.

... Now, when I say 'yes Martin, there IS a problem (as you have been saying), but it is WORSE than you thought, and there is NO easy fix.' he has a conniption, and calls me a Denier. Go figure.

Wow, how the MajorKong and Gary doth cackle and tripe!

So all your arguments thus far are doomed and dust and so you must now resort to the last resort old argument that we are all doomed in any case?...

Yer got no backbone to wish to enjoy the world around you and to strive to continue to enjoy our blue and green pleasant only one planet?


There is indeed the Gary option to pollute at the same levels as we do at present and to save the world by selfishly 'reducing' the population to lazily reduce pollution.

We also already have the option to live better and cleaner. The next pollution problem to solve next will indeed likely be to improve the culture and education for everyone to remove the need for continued growth until destruction...

We have a way to go. Ideas other than DOOM welcomed to overcome the various selfish corruption plaguing the planet...


It is the only planet we have...
Martin

---

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

Now, when I say 'yes Martin, there IS a problem (as you have been saying), but it is WORSE than you thought, and there is NO easy fix.' he has a conniption, and calls me a Denier. Go figure.

Yes, he is in total denial. I guess the saying it takes one to know one is 100% accurate in his case.

He has no concept of what the cuts he advocates will require. No concept that more than 50% of the world's population will be out of their present job if his cuts are implemented. How much work with human muscle will be required to farm the plot he will have to tend himself to get his food when it can't be shipped half way around the globe. How 50% of the population of the planet will have to move from where they live to a different home so they can grow their food.

His issue is the one that affects many; that micro-projects scale into mega-projects without any issue or disruption. You and I know that there is massive engineering needed to go from the lab to the real world and about 75% of the time it fails or has to await other inventions.

We might ask him how well the biosphere experiment worked. Ask him if they had good science behind it. That they had a 100% understanding of the entire system. After all he is asking us to do this on a planet wide basis.

But we know he won't answer. If he did, honestly, it would burst his bubble.

---

... No concept that more than 50% of the world's population will be out of their present job if his cuts are implemented. How much work with human muscle will be required to farm the plot...

You sound like you are really enjoying yourself with the scaremongering!

There is the more realistic consideration that without the parasitic subsidies and pollution of the Fossils Fuels, and without the environmental damage from the big Agribusiness bad practices, we would all profit from greater healthier efficiencies.

Note that most of the first "going green" tech is all about replacing our existing dirty tech with similarly capable tech that doesn't cost us our own planet.

Might that be why the Fossils are playing so foul and putrid dirty with their FUD and dirty tricks. Or are you enjoying that as fun also?

... After all he is asking us to do this on a planet wide basis...

After all, we are all suffering the existing pollution on a planet-wide basis...


Can we try better? There is a great deal of scope yet!

All still on our only one planet,
Martin

---

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

... No concept that more than 50% of the world's population will be out of their present job if his cuts are implemented. How much work with human muscle will be required to farm the plot...

You sound like you are really enjoying yourself with the scaremongering!

FYI
wiki wrote:

Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses around 70% of the country's land area .... The UK produces less than 60% of the food it eats.

I guess you could stand to lose a little weight.

Martin, just once use your brain. The problem is far worse that a little 5% CO2 haircut will solve. I know you want to do that, wave your hands and claim it is fixed and run off to the next thing to save. Unfortunately that attitude is one of the major problems that must be solved before we can honestly tackle AGW. The Manhattan Project was a cakewalk compared to this issue.

---

:( I'm so ashamed right now. Our ecological footprint is bigger than the one from the USA... Woke up with this news this morning. The main cause is our overconsumption of energy... We (in general) consume more resources than the world produces. Pretty soon, it's over here for us, folks...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ecological_footprint

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures

FYI
wiki wrote:

Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses around 70% of the country's land area .... The UK produces less than 60% of the food it eats.

I guess you could stand to lose a little weight.

Or just cut down on the (farming energy and land use very expensive) meat and also kill the Big Agribusiness monopoly.

Shame there's the little blockage there of the words Monopoly and Money controlled by the present few regardless of the wider costs and damage.

(Also note how it ain't the farmers who are rich or are wantonly doing damage.)

... just once use your brain. The problem is far worse that a little 5% CO2 haircut will solve...

Indeed so. We have the kamikaze blockage of existing Big Business and corruptly lobbied politics to overcome...


After that, saving the planet for our present population is relatively easy with existing tech.

The next race is then to keep the politics and business and population stable and sustainable.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

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

FYI
wiki wrote:

Agriculture in the United Kingdom uses around 70% of the country's land area .... The UK produces less than 60% of the food it eats.

I guess you could stand to lose a little weight.

Or just cut down on the (farming energy and land use very expensive) meat and also kill the Big Agribusiness monopoly.

Shame there's the little blockage there of the words Monopoly and Money controlled by the present few regardless of the wider costs and damage.

(Also note how it ain't the farmers who are rich or are wantonly doing damage.)

... just once use your brain. The problem is far worse that a little 5% CO2 haircut will solve...

Indeed so. We have the kamikaze blockage of existing Big Business and corruptly lobbied politics to overcome...


After that, saving the planet for our present population is relatively easy with existing tech.

The next race is then to keep the politics and business and population stable and sustainable.


All on our only one planet,
Martin

Martin, I see you are making progress in stopping your Denial. You are admitting that more than just Fossil Fuel use leads to AGW. Good job!

I think that you will find that GHG emissions from agriculture are quite a bit more pervasive than just meat and 'Big Agribusiness', though, if you study the situation with an open mind.

I still think you are mistaken in your statement that a solution is easily done with existing tech while preserving our current population level.

Yes, we can START the solution now, but existing tech falls short of a complete solution without a drastic population reduction AND a drastic reduction in EVERYONE's quality of life and standard of living.

Sorry, but we can not have a 'sustainable' population at its current level.

Should we phase out fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible and replace it with wind/solar/etc.? Yes, absolutely! But it won't be enough to STOP AGW. Slow it down, sure! But stop it? No.

I am pleased that you are making progress in expanding your rather narrow viewpoint.

Should we phase out fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible and replace it
with wind/solar/etc.? Yes, absolutely! But it won't be enough to STOP AGW.
Slow it down, sure! But stop it? No.

Geezy Peezy. Again. The 2nd Law of Thermo-Dynamics Will Not Allow HuWoMan to 'Rapidly Change' due to 'Climate Change' or Any Other Energy Disorder.

Fossil Fuels Will Reign Almighty fO A Long Time To Come.

Unless, The Gubment releases The Alien Technologies, 'They' have been 'Hiding' fO So Long. heeeheeeheeeETsaysHeeeHeeeHeee.

Got ET? No? Then Deal wif da situation Until 'it' 'Changes'.

Slowly.

Dr. HO HUM will Be Waiting Patiently at His Retreat in Rapi Nui 'till 'then'.

Mmmm Mmmm. Dat CO2 is Mighty Tasty Today. And Dat O2 is Just Right. Yummm.

' '

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Should we phase out fossil fuel use as rapidly as possible and replace it
with wind/solar/etc.? Yes, absolutely! But it won't be enough to STOP AGW.
Slow it down, sure! But stop it? No.

Geezy Peezy. Again. The 2nd Law of Thermo-Dynamics Will Not Allow HuWoMan to 'Rapidly Change' due to 'Climate Change' or Any Other Energy Disorder.

Fossil Fuels Will Reign Almighty fO A Long Time To Come.

Unless, The Gubment releases The Alien Technologies, 'They' have been 'Hiding' fO So Long. heeeheeeheeeETsaysHeeeHeeeHeee.

Got ET? No? Then Deal wif da situation Until 'it' 'Changes'.

Slowly.

Dr. HO HUM will Be Waiting Patiently at His Retreat in Rapi Nui 'till 'then'.

Mmmm Mmmm. Dat CO2 is Mighty Tasty Today. And Dat O2 is Just Right. Yummm.

' '

Now that's what I call Seti poetry! (or something...feel free to discuss:)

---

rOZZ
Music
Pictures