Global Warming Total Fraud

[CyberKen]

No, you just ignored my last post explaining your error. A small amount of incoming IR is indeed reflected out, but a far bigger amount is emitted by the black body radiator which is the earth and is trapped by the IR absorber CO2 in the atmosphere. This creates a longer residence time of energy in the atmosphere with a significant net increase when weighed against the lost incoming IR. The profile of incoming and outgoing radiation is completely different because they are sourced from different black body radiation sources with different radiation profiles. the amount of incoming vs outgoing radiation must ultimately balance out - but there is a net imbalance at the moment as the planetary system adjusts to a new equilibrium temperature - so every second of every day - more energy is trapped within the overall system. Different wavelengths of light interact completely differently to different atmospheric gases. the overall effect is that the planet is a huge transformer which takes visible and UV light and transforms it into IR (no part of the planet emits visible light apart from volcanoes) where as the sun emits large amounts of its energy in the form of visible light. The amount of IR light energy going out equals the amount of Visible+UV+IR energy coming in, but they behave very differently in the atmosphere.

Again I repeat this fundamental and very basic stuff and if you fail to grasp it - it is not a surprise that you fail to understand the more complex concepts of climate change. As has been demonstrated many times before - if you fail to grasp the basics no meaningful discourse can happen.

Br Cornelius

I read that the amount of ice in the arctic is increasing. Global warming has been called off.

[Guest]

I read that the amount of ice in the arctic is increasing. Global warming has been called off.

It increased on last year, yes. however it is far below the average of the last decade so no global warming has not been called off.

Sea ice continued its late-season summer decline through August at a near-average pace. Ice extent is still well above last year’s level, but below the 1981 to 2010 average. Open water was observed in the ice cover close to the North Pole, while in the Antarctic, sea ice has been at a record high the past few days.

Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.03 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent.

Be careful who you listen to and believe

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Br Cornelius

[CyberKen]

It increased on last year, yes. however it is far below the average of the last decade so no global warming has not been called off.

Be careful who you listen to and believe

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Br Cornelius

I predict the amount will increase again this year and next year.

We are cheating. We can cool the Earth with Geoengineering Technology.

Solar Radiation Management

[Guest]

I predict the amount will increase again this year and next year.

We are cheating. We can cool the Earth with Geoengineering Technology.

Solar Radiation Management

It seems highly unlikely, but only time will tell.

Br Cornelius

[Kowalski]

I saw this and didn't know if it was posted or not:

Link: http://www.dailymail...redictions.html

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

Instead, days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Burt Gummer

[+DieChecker]

I think the nature of capitalism is given in the name, the use of capitol to make investments in businesses or resources to make a surplus/profit as a return on investment. Despite the rhetoric there are practically no examples where that doesn't involves growth based on resource exploitation. Debt based money makes that inevitable, but I think that even without debt based money the outcome would be the same. Traditional economic theory assumes at its foundation that resources are unlimited and that therefore there is no constraint on this resource based growth imperative.

Infinite growth and unlimited resource's are the unspoken foundations of the economic system.

Let it be said that socialism is not a viable sustainable system, because it simply replaces the private capitol with state capitol in the same overall economic model.

There has to be a sustainable steady state economy where change is a process of iterative improvement (more efficient less resource intensive, improved outcomes for reduced inputs) rather than simply a growth of the economy for the sake of measured growth. Wisdom has to become the driving principle - rather than novelty.

Br Cornelius

I totally agree. You are talking "real world" capitalism, right? Not just the definition. Well, then give me an example of a economic system being used in the real world by some nation that does NOT exploit resources. If you can't then we are not talking about the End of Capitalism, but the end of Economic paractices everywhere.

[Frank Merton]

I think probably the best setup is a mix of command and market, socialist and capitalist, in as pragmatic way as we possibly can.

[Guest]

I totally agree. You are talking "real world" capitalism, right? Not just the definition. Well, then give me an example of a economic system being used in the real world by some nation that does NOT exploit resources. If you can't then we are not talking about the End of Capitalism, but the end of Economic paractices everywhere.

All forms of economy are fundamentally the same at the moment, baring a few primitive aboriginal societies. I really find it all but impossible to distinguish between capitalism and socialism on the macro level - since they both fundamentally reference all the same economic axioms.

Its a fundamentally new type of economic system that we require - as we are indeed currently on a one way path to economic and social collapse.

Br Cornelius

[MonkeyLove]

I think you missed my point. If this was a well known, or popular opinion, then wouldn't there be scientists names associated with this idea, and articles written?

Why scientists? Capitalism is an economic process.

[MonkeyLove]

I certainly can admit that I might have a skewed idea of capitalism. Here is a good description of what I think Capitalism is....

Blaming Capitalism for Corporatism.

Profits does not mean growth. Profits mean making more income then expenses. Being successful in Capitalism means making a profit, it does not demand growth.

I certainly can understand that environmental and resource concerns are going to increase expenses, but that does not demand growth either, or imply that capitalism will collapse.

The argument is based on naivete. The writer refers to what capitalism "used to mean," assuming that the meaning will never be changed and that participants will not go against it, otherwise the system becomes "corrupted."

But the very nature of a free market is precisely the fact that participants can do anything that they want, and that anything that they do which will make the system "corrupted" will go away due to market forces. For example, if a corporation pollutes, then consumers will turn to a corporation that does not.

But what we have been seeing is precisely the results of a free market: the financial elite taking control of government and forming corporations, and consumers buying from corporations not because they don't pollute because their products are cheaper. And not surprisingly, products are cheaper because they are manufactured elsewhere where environmental laws are not followed, leading to lower costs.

In addition, the formation of corporations is the result of capitalism, i.e., accumulation and concentration of capital, leading to the formation of mega-corporations, and with that a growing middle class dependent on the same.

[MonkeyLove]

Somehow, as a socialist, I don't see capitalism as in a "death spiral." That kind of talk has been around for a couple of centuries now, and I think was first uttered by Herr Marx himself.

A number of capitalist countries may be in decline for periods of time -- economic cycles characterize unregulated capitalism -- but that proves nothing.

Likely because Marx didn't have enough information on peak oil, over-population, or even global warming.

As mentioned earlier, economic cycles work as long as there's an abundance of resources. That's not the case.

[MonkeyLove]

Can you show a clear article or resource example of where economists say that is true? Where without growth capitalism cannot exist.

Try Richard Wolff.

Capitalism requires growth not because economists say so but because capitalists need the same to get a return on their investment or to profit continuously. If at some point they experience a drop in growth or losses, then they make up for it during the next cycle or other capitalists take over. Ultimately, trend lines show increasing production and consumption of goods fed by increasing credit.

And how can we know that we're not going to produce that energy? There could be solar farms growing up overnight that could fill that need. The wind farms here in Oregon and Washington popped up basically overnight and are a huge success. And there is talk of tidal generators now too.

Re: solar farms, etc, because the energy returns for renewable energy are not very high to sustain a global capitalist system, increasing population, increasing resource consumption per capita, and the need for petrochemicals for manufacturing and food production. There's also the matter of bio-capacity, as seen in supply issues relating to phosphorus and other materials.

That is the Global middle class, which is growing based on inertia alone. The US middle class is decreasing.

Exactly my point. You are referring to the U.S. middle class when you should be talking about a global middle class.

Well naturally the oil is going to run out eventually. Your link says 1 to 2 percent of the shale oil (Greenriver) is recoverable. While several other sources say half or a quarter. The GAO in 2012 said that as much as 50% may be recoverable about a year before.

You have to look at the energy costs of obtaining what is recoverable. The IEA argues that globally, it will be 9 pct for the next two decades but only if maximum depletion rates are reached, and that usually does not happen. That's why government intervention and cooperation will have to be extensive, but I don't think that will happen.

Why should I trust your link more then others? This is not the general opinion of geologists but was a presentation at a geology convention. And an article written by a writter who (according to his bio on Slate) has extreme environmental views that I believe may make his writting bias. Very likely the 1 to 2 percent was mentioned, but what else was mentioned? I notice there is no link to the actual paper, or article, or the meeting. I went to the IEA site and looked at their itinerary of their meeting for Fall 2013 and did not see anything there on oil, so I'm not even sure at this point that such a presentation actually occured.

Now, you're more confused than ever, as this contradicts your previous paragraph. Also, there are links in the article.

For the IEA, look for the 2010 report.

And what "others" did you consult to argue that what I shared is biased?

Plus the "cooking" technology already exists and is being used on small scales. So the solid oil shales are not impossible to gather. They just need more time and engineering. 10 years ago probably people would laugh at a person describing the fracking going on in North Dakota today. The same applies here, if there is motive that oil will be collected.

Exactly my point: "small scales" and "need more time." And don't forget energy returns.

Also, you should know that fracking has been known for decades. The reason why we didn't resort to that was because oil was only $20 a barrel. There's your peak oil.

I'll still have to get back to you on this. My point is still that the article itself (not the data) was being put forward in a bias manner.

Still waiting, while receiving the same unsubstantiated claims.

No. I'm admitting that capitalism requires resources, which eventually will run out. Even if we operated at negative growth we'd run out of resources eventually.

But this supports my argument!

It is.

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

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Capitalism

Barter leads directly into Capitalism. The only thing that barter does not require is profit.

Precisely! One leads to the other. One is not the same as the other. View the links you shared and see for yourself.

So? So are small businesses and many/most non-profit organizations.

Obviously! Where do you think mega corporations came from?

That is true, but the source of burger in this case is still in dispute. Some say we have 100 years of cattle left, and some say less then 10 years. But capitalism will still not fall regardless of if burgers are there, because they would turn to chicken or pork. And... so we don't have enough pork or chicken to replace the beef, then we'll all die, right? Nope, because we'll use technology to allow us to either do with less, or we'll figure out how to get more pork and chicken. It is that simple

Together with the "illusion of growth," we also have the illusion that technology (what it is) will save us, not to mention "burger" redefined.

And so Capitalism does not exist in the 3rd world? I have no doubt that bad stuff is going to happen, but I just doubt that capitalism will disappear because of it.

I'll have to get back to you on the rest.

That is a good point Q!

It does, which is why I explained that there's a growing global middle class.

About the "bad stuff," that's my point.

Finally, if by a capitalist system you refer to at least one person profiting at the expense of everyone else, then obviously capitalism will never disappear.

[Frank Merton]

The assertion that the world is running out of resources is not proven and almost certainly a mirage. All of the argument of the fall of economic systems is, then, based on an utterly faulty premise.

As one resource goes, another comes. The world has thousands of years of natural gas and coal, probably a hundred years of oil, unlimited solar energy, a thousand years of nuclear. All that is needed is a high enough price (and doubling would more than do it).

More than likely other competitive sources will also appear, long before prices reach even those levels.

[+DieChecker]

Why scientists? Capitalism is an economic process.

Fine then... (sigh) economists....

I just supposed that resource depletion and the environment going to hell was based on scientific data, not economic opinions.

[+DieChecker]

Try Richard Wolff.

"The New York Times Magazine has named him "America's most prominent Marxist economist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_D._Wolff

Capitalism requires growth not because economists say so but because capitalists need the same to get a return on their investment or to profit continuously. If at some point they experience a drop in growth or losses, then they make up for it during the next cycle or other capitalists take over. Ultimately, trend lines show increasing production and consumption of goods fed by increasing credit.

That capitalism desires growth and profits I agree with. But, you've never answered my question of... Isn't this true of all presently practiced economic systems? And not just of Capitalism? Why hate on Capitalism, when there is not any system practiced today that is better?

Re: solar farms, etc, because the energy returns for renewable energy are not very high to sustain a global capitalist system, increasing population, increasing resource consumption per capita, and the need for petrochemicals for manufacturing and food production. There's also the matter of bio-capacity, as seen in supply issues relating to phosphorus and other materials.

But as the various technologies mature isn't the EROEI going to improve?

The need for petrochemicals is beyond doubt, that they are going to run out rapidly is still in doubt to me.

Exactly my point. You are referring to the U.S. middle class when you should be talking about a global middle class.

I thought the current thinking was the population growth and economys of currently growing countries were going to start to mimic the US and Europe by 2040.

In 20 to 30 years (supposedly) we'd see the global middle class decreasing, even if we did have unlimited oil.

You have to look at the energy costs of obtaining what is recoverable. The IEA argues that globally, it will be 9 pct for the next two decades but only if maximum depletion rates are reached, and that usually does not happen. That's why government intervention and cooperation will have to be extensive, but I don't think that will happen.

"In November 2011, an IEA report entitled Deploying Renewables 2011 said "renewable energy technology is becoming increasingly cost competitive and growth rates are in line to meet levels required of a sustainable energy future". The report also said "subsidies in green energy technologies that were not yet competitive are justified in order to give an incentive to investing into technologies with clear environmental and energy security benefits". The renewable electricity sector has "grown rapidly in the past five years and now provides nearly 20 percent of the world's power generation", the IEA said."

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

It appears to me that the IEA says that Solar is a clear option for global energy.

It does appear that the IEA thinks that oil hav a limited future.

Exactly my point: "small scales" and "need more time." And don't forget energy returns.

I'm sorry... I thought we were talking on a 20 year timescale.

Also, you should know that fracking has been known for decades. The reason why we didn't resort to that was because oil was only $20 a barrel. There's your peak oil.

I thought that decades ago when oil was $20 a barrel that a candy bar was 25 cents. That oil is five times as expensive really should be no surprise, everything is now five times as expensive. It costs $13 to go to a movie.

But this supports my argument!

No. It supports that there will be a Global economic meltdown, not specifically a Capitalist meltdown. You are fixated on Capitalism, when Marxism (as practiced in the real world) would have to fail exactly the same.

Finally, if by a capitalist system you refer to at least one person profiting at the expense of everyone else, then obviously capitalism will never disappear.

My very point. And if it is practiced by an individual and he profits by it? Won't his neighbors and then his town and then his nation be practicing it also?

[+DieChecker]

Free market capitalism leads to a growing middle class because that is the source of sales of goods and services. See the wiki definition of "capitalism" for details, especially

https://en.wikipedia...nancial_markets

It's a bit complicated, but I'll try to explain it to you in the easiest way possible. When you have competing businesses, they can choose to lower prices of goods or services sold or sell more goods and services at the same costs. Obviously, the latter is desirable as the labor market does not obviously prefer lower wages, goods and services lower profit margins (unless they can make up for it later), or financial lower returns on their investment.

This explains why people generally want better jobs, higher wages, bonuses, promotions, etc. This also explains why businesses want more profits through more sales each year. This also explains why investors want better returns on their investment and usually select businesses that perform well.

And all of these obviously lead to the formation and growth of a middle class.

In many ways, your question is irrelevant because history itself has shown the rise of capitalism and the growth of the middle class, with the U.S. as a prominent example. In fact, the process appears to be the same across various capitalist countries, including even those that are poor: the rise of industrialization, then manufacturing and exports, then outsourcing, consumer spending, and casino capitalism, ultimately leading to asset bubbles popping, peak oil, and environmental damage coupled with global warming.

This explains why you have rich countries spending and consuming resources at significant levels, leading to asset bubbles popping and the financial crisis of 2008, now spreading to other countries and on-going, oil prices eventually tripling as crude oil production peaked in 2005, with more reliance on unconventional oil, and effects of environmental damage and global warming disrupting food production, businesses, and causing human and property destruction.

So you're basically saying that the Extravagant Capitalism as practiced by the Most wealthy industrialized nations is going to come to an end? And thus send the global economy into a crash. So your problem really is not with Capitalism, but with flagrant excessive Consumerism and the damages that is caused by that consumerism?

Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts.

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

Edited September 11, 2013 by DieChecker

[Guest]

The assertion that the world is running out of resources is not proven and almost certainly a mirage. All of the argument of the fall of economic systems is, then, based on an utterly faulty premise.

As one resource goes, another comes. The world has thousands of years of natural gas and coal, probably a hundred years of oil, unlimited solar energy, a thousand years of nuclear. All that is needed is a high enough price (and doubling would more than do it).

More than likely other competitive sources will also appear, long before prices reach even those levels.

This is a critically misinformed opinion based on your intrinsic optimism. Energy at current prices and higher is enough to destroy most of the basis of our current economy which is fundamentally based on cheap energy. The recession we are currently in is an adjustment to expensive energy - and many of the jobs we have lost cannot come back in an expensive energy regime.

Resources which are in limited supply are water, phospherous, rare earth's (batteries which are the basis of many of our modern technologies and are fundamental to a sustainable future), Uranium, wood (can be overcome with good planning - but we are not managing it sustainably).

I could go on in multiple ways but the point should be obvious.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

This is a critically misinformed opinion based on your intrinsic optimism. Energy at current prices and higher is enough to destroy most of the basis of our current economy which is fundamentally based on cheap energy. The recession we are currently in is an adjustment to expensive energy - and many of the jobs we have lost cannot come back in an expensive energy regime.

Resources which are in limited supply are water, phospherous, rare earth's (batteries which are the basis of many of our modern technologies and are fundamental to a sustainable future), Uranium, wood (can be overcome with good planning - but we are not managing it sustainably).

I could go on in multiple ways but the point should be obvious.

Br Cornelius

you are nuts

[Guest]

you are nuts

No an informed Environmental Scientist. it is those who are in denial who are nuts.

Br Cornelius

[Guest]

Lets look at this objectively in terms of simple oil production;

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug99/MS406.htm

That's an army intelligence officer telling us that we have entered peak oil land. This is common knowledge at this stage among those who make themselves aware of the issues. Unconventional fossil fuels cannot change this situation as they are massively expensive to extract and represent everything after the peak on the graph.

Prices can only go up because demand is still rising as supply is plateauing and entering a period of decline and that is simply supply and demand economics. Think how much fuel contributes to the cost of everything we do or purchase - my estimate is somewhere between 25-50% depending on the product/service.

There is no silver bullet technology coming over the horizon to replace cheap oil. Its adapt or die, and since we are been painfully slow at adapting - I suspect the outcome will be the later.

Br Cornelius

[Whisperer]

For sure global warming is real but is it soley the effects of human industry? Perhaps, perhaps not.

In or around 1990, possibly earlier, a small news article appeared in my national news paper about an axical shift of some 5 degrees with the report quoting its source as saying that said tilt may in fact extend further, to 20 odd degrees.

If this was in fact a based on actual incident then all glacial regions would in effect be much closer to the sun than previously and so melting would naturally follow, hence the effects we are experiancing due to the increased vapor content in the atmosphere.

At this time also, ships which had followed the same path for over a hundred years suddenly started smashing into rocks that the navigators knew were, owing to the trend of navigating by the stars at the time, when GPS was first offered to all vessels operating.

Very expensive then too as I understand it.

Following these collisions, maritime organisation required all vessels to employ GPS navigation (good scam huh?) and so the collisions eventually ceased.

Now then, if the tilt had happened then of course, navigating by the stars would have become perilouse as the positioning was now altered.

Some time later, a Time reporter published an article about his observations on the effects of rockets blasting thru the atmosphere, since discredited of course, as you do...but he raised some interesting points, namely that the rocket exhaust would have burned a 2 mile diameter hole in the ozone layer which apparently , when all known flights were tabulated, came within hundreds of cubic meters to the actual volume of ozone missing from the atmosphere....

Meh type of thing?

Who really knows but one thing is for sure, we are being devasted by super storms and burgeoning heat waves the world over.

There is more to find of course but will you detractors and supporters research these cases or will you continue to mouth of on the band wagon of others?

(where is spell check here?)

[Guest]

I think you might be confusing magnetic pole drift with physical axial shift. The magnetic pole has indeed been wandering of late and would produce the navigation effects you described. However I know of no reports of an actual physical pole slippage.

Br Cornelius

[RavenHawk]

Gee, look at the activity. Maybe I should get busy and reply…

Ravenhawk -I supplied a wealth of evidence which shows that temperature is only one signal that CO2 is the cause of Global warming.

Precisely!!! Yes you did but that didn’t counter Carter’s first point. For all practical purposes, you just disproved AGW with that statement. If Man is not *ALL* sources then AGW cannot exist. It’s really that simple. It’s a matter of degree (pardon the pun). *cause* or *affect* are two different problems with two different solutions.

You claim that only temperature is needed to disprove AGW, but the theory is not just based soley on the temperature record so Carter has not addressed the totality of the theory and its predictions.

I never said that AGW was solely based on temperature. Carter is not required to address the totality of the theory. He only needs to disprove one part of it and that is what he has done. To prove a theory, you need to prove *ALL* aspects of it. To disprove anything, you just need to disprove a part of it. That’s the way it works in science.

Its really that simple, and you unwillingness to engage with my clarification of the shortcomings in Carter understanding of the theory means you are not engaged in a debate - merely in political posturing.

Except, you haven’t shown any shortcomings from Carter, or at least from his first part. And that’s as far as we’ve gotten so far. I’m discussing both the political and the science aspects of this and that you don’t seem to be able to comprehend the two would indicate that you aren’t engaged. The fact that I’m having to repeat myself several times supports that. But if repeating myself gets the job done, then that’s what I must do.

As I have repeatedly said, Carters dodgy theory can only be unpicked one element at a time and since you are unwilling to do that we cannot discuss Carter in any meaningful way.

Carter isn’t dodgy, it’s straight forward. You haven’t unpicked the first element yet. And as Carter’s analogy goes, any one of his torpedoes is enough to sink the AGW theory. Now, do I think that all of his points are solid, no. No one is that perfect. But what is the purpose to go on to any of the others if you can’t defend your counter of his first point? What’s the purpose? Continue down the line until you can counter something and then declare victory? I don’t think it works that way. You counter Carter’s first point here or it’s over.

If you want to continue,

I really don’t think we need to. I believe we are done here. You obviously have had several chances to counter Carter and you’ve failed with the first point.

please explain what causes account for the other attributes of AGW as per the complete theory which I gave you.

There is only one cause for AGW (or as the theory goes). That’s why it doesn’t exist. However, there are many causes for climate change. That is what the science shows and we have yet to fully understand it all. With a little more research and study, we will learn that Man does not cause climate change but he can affect it. But not so much as to threaten our existence. And that’s not necessarily due to climate change as it is a dirty environment. Climate and environment are two different things. Our demise is found in the best of Science Fiction and Hollywood or do you not realize that?

The theory of AGW is not what you want it to be, it is what it is clearly stated to be in the scientific literature and we don't get to pick and choose the bits we like or don't.

Exactly! You can’t use the science of climate change to support AGW. That’s very disingenuous. AGW is strictly political or just totally wrong. It is pseudo science at best.

To address your point regarding CO2 levels been higher in the past. This is true of certain times, but again is not particularly relevent.

It is very relevant. That’s the whole point. That CO2 levels existed without Man around. Meaning that Man never has driven the cause for climate change. Because of the natural existence of Man is causing an increase in CO2 does not mean that that is the cause of climate change. Just because we are experiencing higher than *normal* CO2 (ppm) does not tell us that we are even close to a *drop dead level*.

The ecosystem is highly adapted/evolved to the levels of CO2 and climate regime we currently occupy which has prevailed for 100's of thousands of years. The changes which we expect to happen upon doubling of the atmospheric CO2 level are predicted to be in the future and most have only just begun to manifest in response to the highest levels of CO2 in thousands of years.

Yes, it does adapt but it also changes. It doesn’t stay static. It is still pretty robust to handle changes short of an asteroid or chain of volcanoes, unless you are trying to equate Man’s existence to surpass those catastrophes. If you are, then we should just end our parasitic life now and let Gaia get on with hers.

I like your terminology “predicted to be in the future and most have only just begun to manifest”. It is very reminiscent of stating that temps are just decades away of going down don’t you think? Except that the possibility of a downward tick in temperature is more historic than experiments done in a lab that produces expected results and then extrapolated to a large complex system. CO2 alone does not mean catastrophic warming. Throw in a few volcanoes to get the particulate matter in the atmosphere, then you might make a few tenths of a degree of change.

Continuing to burn the fossil fuels will rapidly accelerate the rate of change in the environment and this will have significant impacts on the viability of already stressed ecosystems and biozones. The changes are already been recorded across the planet - but what has already happened is as nothing to what will happen in the coming century.

I thought you didn’t want to deal with the political aspects? Trying your best at fear mongering? Yes Man is affecting ecosystems and biozones but this will happen even without burning fossil fuels. Whatever form of alt energy we discover will produce excess heat. Structures we build gives off radiated heat. 7 billion Humans produce methane. It’s not just his carbon foot print. You don’t seem to understand what it will mean for us when we reach a Type I Civilization. In the next couple of centuries, we will achieve this level, which will mean that our reliance on fossil fuels will dwindle. By that time, we may find ourselves in a global cooling period. The future is unknown and we shouldn’t be running scared. It is “The Undiscovered Country” filled with new challenges and we should move into it with all confidence in our capabilities.

Climate science is a piece of predictive human wisdom telling us its not to late to stop destroying the ecosystem, we ignore it at our peril.

I thought you said you were not interested in the politics? Climate science does not tell us this. It only tells us that climate consists of numerous cycles that respond to and affect the other cycles. This is not human wisdom. This is predictive observation of natural events. AGW is the politics of Man self-flagellating himself for his bad, evil deeds of polluting the Earth. One does not learn from this kind of Socialist behavior. If we had the wisdom of planet development in the universe, we would know that we are quite average and on the right path. From here, we need to be better custodians of our environment. This has nothing to do with changing climate, just having a clean living environment. One does not need to self-flagellate to do that.

It is a brave attempt to stop us from destroying the very systems which we relie on to survive in the culture we have created for ourselves.

The implications are dire and based on sound geological evidence of past CO2 caused mass extinctions;

If that isn’t such a Socialist idiom. Perfect for a community organizer hack. It is arrogant to think that a civilization less than Type I can cause such a catastrophe. And CO2 isn’t the cause of mass extinctions.

Throughout the Phanerozoic (from 542 million years ago), major mass extinctions of species closely coincided with abrupt rises of atmospheric carbon dioxide and ocean acidity. These increases took place at rates to which many species could not adapt. These events – triggered by asteroid impacts, massive volcanic activity, eruption of methane, ocean anoxia and extreme rates of glaciation (see Figures 1 and 2) – have direct implications for the effects of the current rise of CO2.

That’s exactly right! Nowhere was Man the cause of any of these. Are you equating that Man can generate the same power as a series of mega volcanoes or an asteroid spewing millions of tons of particulate matter into the atmosphere? Since the beginning of the Industrial age, Man has not come close to showing a fraction of that power? Why do you think I mentioned the number of nuclear detonations that have occurred? Almost 2000 plus 3 nuclear accidents in just the past 70 years and that didn’t affect the average temp. There was fear that the Van Allen Belts would catch fire. Mt St Helens changed the North Polar region average temp by 0.1° C. As I pointed out, it looks like Gaia mildly reacted to Hiroshima and Nagasaki but by the time of Able and Baker the shock to her system was absorbed. Gaia is a living creature, not a sterile inanimate laboratory.

https://theconversat...f-species-12906

So it is untrue to say that CO2 was higher in the past and life thrived, this is only true when that CO2 level prevailed for long periods at a stable level at which life could adapt to, but when CO2 has historically risen rapidly (as it is now) it has repeatedly caused disastrous collapses in biodiversity across the planet.

For one, CO2 levels during the cretaceous were much higher than now and this is when life flourished.

If you noticed from your link, that the cause of extinction was massive volcanism and asteroid impacts. CO2 levels obviously didn’t help but CO2 alone was not the cause of extinction. I would have to believe in the odds that we are not going to be visited by massive volcanism and asteroid impacts in the next two centuries. And if we are, then CO2 levels will be the least of our worries.

If Temp is keyed solely off of rising CO2 levels and Carter has shown that the rate of change is at 1.5° C per century, then the increase rate of CO2 is not affecting the norm.

[Frank Merton]

My word so many find it so easy to predict doom.

The evidence that the world is running out of energy is highly manipulated and not credible. The only thing we were apparently running out of was oil, and now it seems with new technologies (several of them, not just cracking), we will have at least twenty years worth. Also, although the Saudis and Norwegians both like to poor-mouth, it is obvious they have a lot more than they are letting on, considering their behavior.

[Frank Merton]

The one area where we should worry is the fact that all these new hydrocarbons becoming available is going to make dealing with CO2 emissions (and global warming) politically more difficult.