Earth heading for 'mini ice-age' within 15 yr

[Doug1029]

Carbon taxes and cap and trade policies are transferring billions of dollars from the working poor ... for 0.4 degrees above normal. What's wrong with this picture?

Cap-and-trade boils down to an industry hoax. It's their fallback position because it allows them to continue polluting.

And, it doesn't work. Money paid into "mitigation" funds gets spent first on land acquisition. No change is made in the land or in carbon sequestration. Only AFTER land is acquired can money start going into carbon sequestration activities. Besides, cap-and-trade requires an army of inspectors to make sure those carbon credits really exist and lawyers and brokers to handle the trading. And further, any unit area of land has a finite carbon-storage capacity. Once that capacity is reached, it cannot sequester more carbon. So as long as we continue polluting, we have to keep acquiring more land for use as carbon sinks. We have already cleared 40% of the world's forests for agriculture. Any carbon sink is going to have to involve ways to use farmland for carbon sequestration while continuing to farm it. There simply isn't that much land available.

Carbon taxes don't work, either. Theoretically, if you tax carbon content of a product, it will make that product cost more and people will choose alternatives. But most of those "carbon taxes" don't get spent on mitigation or regulation. To be effective, those taxes need to be spent on mitigation. Also, if people no longer have that money, they cannot spend it on alternative products, so the theory behind carbon taxes collapses. Also, many products that use large amounts of carbon escape the taxes due to governmental favoritism.

So what works? A carbon-content fee assessed at the mine mouth, well head or port-of-entry. All such fees are returned to citizens on a per-capita basis, with minor children getting a half-share in an account on which they can draw for educational purposes. People then have the money with which to purchase the alternate product. After that, government needs to get out of the way and let the market work. Fees start low and gradually increase until CO2 levels stabilize or decline to an acceptable level.

What else works? Wind. The US is converting to wind, albeit, slowly. In terms of kilowatt hours, we are the world's largest producer of wind energy, but because of our huge energy use, that's only about 3% of the total. We could easily produce 30% of our energy needs from wind. The Plains and Eastern DC line starts construction next year and is scheduled to go online in 2017. Contracts for carrying wind power on that line are already being signed. This is a multi-billion dollar investment in wind by private industry. Industry doesn't invest that kind of money if it can't see a profit. Where's that profit coming from? Wind and gas-fired turbines both produce electricity at about 7 cents per kwh. Oil costs about nine cents and coal about 10 cents. The profits are generated by increased efficiency.

The New England power grid has signed the contracts needed to convert to wind with gas back-up. California will convert to wind once the current lawsuit is settled. Iowa is already well along and leading the country in wind farms.

What happens if the wind isn't blowing? You use the grid to bring power from places where it is blowing. That's why we need a good grid. Besides, our old one is breaking down and will need to be replaced soon, anyway.

Conservation works, too. The fluorescent light bulb has reduced energy needs enough that 32 coal-fired powerplants are scheduled to close, with 36 more under consideration. The conservatives are trying to blame the EPA, but it's just good ol' economics that's doing it. The Sierra Club is trying to take the credit, but once again, it's dollars and sense that made the difference.

Solar is progressing. Passive solar is quite effective, especially in the southwest. Once the system has been installed, it operates for free. I friend of mine built a house with passive solar heat with wood backup. He has burned six cords of wood in 27 years. I used to burn that much every winter.

Technology isn't advancing as fast as I once thought, but it is progressing. Whoever can solve these problems can patent their ideas and get rich selling them. How about that? Save the world and get rich doing it!

Doug

[Doug1029]

Doug, as far as I know there is no substantial evidence suggesting the "little ice age" was a global event. As far as I know it's was only the northern hemisphere.

However haven't looked into the subject for a long time. Has there been any new evidence suggesting a global event?

Mann's 1998 article shows little effect in the US and southern hemisphere. He put a lot of weight on those bristlecone pines in California. I'd prefer a broader dataset. My own chronologies don't quite make it back that far, for the most-part.

FYI: a bunch of old tree trunks has been found buried in mud along the Suwanee River. The oldest trunk, so far, dates from about 500 AD, while the newest one dates from about 1500 AD. About 160 trunks have been recovered, so far. That means there are a number of gaps in the chronology. Efforts to fill those gaps are under way.

I don't remember whether I saw it in "Science" or "Science News" but there was a recent headline that said "The Little Ice Age was global." I didn't read it, but I'll look and see if I still have it.

Doug

P.S.: To get global temps down to LIA levels is going to require some volcanos as well as a weaker sun. Not saying it can't happen, but it isn't real likely.

Doug

Edited July 27, 2015 by Doug1029

[robinrenee]

Cap-and-trade boils down to an industry hoax. It's their fallback position because it allows them to continue polluting.

Doug

Thanks, Doug. That's an excellent post. I think you covered about everything.

The fact that pollution continues bothers me most. Things like dioxin, benzene, mercury, etc.... all the petrochemical poisons. It seems to me when politicians go after the CO2 they're ignoring the real toxins.

I remember when plants would belch out black smoke. Those carbon particles are heavy. They eventually fall back to the earth. In my opinion, the carbon is not a problem. It just goes back to dirt. The CO2 feeds the vegetation. Can't they filter out the poisons and leave the innocuous elements and gases alone?

I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains. My mountains have trapped greenhouse gases (water vapor and CO2) for eons. That's why they're so lush and green.

Thanks again...

Edited July 27, 2015 by robinrenee

[Flashbangwallop]

Here in Blighty no one seems to give a yawn about pollution any more. My thoughts are: Assuming it's right about pollution, who is going to be clever enough politically to turn the trend around in any of the developed countries? Or indeed in those countries wishing to emulate the status quo. Most of us earn our living by polluting in one way or another. It would appear that pollution is a necessary by product of progress. I guess we will all have to become Amish and mish out on all the modern toys.

[robinrenee]

P.S.: To get global temps down to LIA levels is going to require some volcanos as well as a weaker sun. Not saying it can't happen, but it isn't real likely.

Doug

It could happen. I searched "solar activity and volcanoes," and came up with a bunch of hits. It seems that many scientists do believe that there is a relationship between a solar minimum and earthquakes and volcanic activity. I shall do more reading about this tomorrow.

"Can Solar Activity Cause Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Extreme Weather?"

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2011/08/does-solar-activity-influence.html

[Doug1029]

I don't remember whether I saw it in "Science" or "Science News" but there was a recent headline that said "The Little Ice Age was global." I didn't read it, but I'll look and see if I still have it.

I better restate that: the Little Ice Age was global, but it had different effects in different places - more pronounced in Europe, less pronounced in the US and Southern Hemisphere.

Doug

[Doug1029]

Thanks, Doug. That's an excellent post. I think you covered about everything.

The fact that pollution continues bothers me most. Things like dioxin, benzene, mercury, etc.... all the petrochemical poisons. It seems to me when politicians go after the CO2 they're ignoring the real toxins.

I remember when plants would belch out black smoke. Those carbon particles are heavy. They eventually fall back to the earth. In my opinion, the carbon is not a problem. It just goes back to dirt. The CO2 feeds the vegetation. Can't they filter out the poisons and leave the innocuous elements and gases alone?

I live in the Blue Ridge Mountains. My mountains have trapped greenhouse gases (water vapor and CO2) for eons. That's why they're so lush and green.

Thanks again...

"Pollution" is defined as anything harmful to life. That can be dioxin, naphtha, CO2 - anything that alters ecosystem function in a manner detrimental to living things. Dioxin, benzene, mercury are obvious pollutants. But so are CFCs which admit more UV light to the earth's surface.

CO2 in excess quantities is also harmful to life. There are enough known (and owned) coal, oil, gas, tar sand, shale oil and other sources of carbon that if they are all burned, will raise the earth's temperature to somewhere near the boiling point. This means that many of these sources cannot be extracted, but must remain forever locked away. And that means that somebody is going to lose his financial shirt. That's what scares people like the Kochs. They are more afraid of losing money than they are of destroying life on earth. They can't refute the science, so they simply choose not to believe it. They are sincere in their beliefs, but dead wrong.

I used to live near a coal-fired power plant operated by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI). Four huge chimneys belched coal smoke with a plume 200 miles long. That's why I have no sympathy for folks who don't like the looks of a wind farm. I don't want to breath poison air just so they can have a beautiful view: Kennedys: are you listening?

I saw the Blue Ridge once. Beautiful country.

Natural forests can act as carbon sinks, but swamps do a better job. Florida's Everglades, Big Cypress Swamp and the other one with the name I can't pronounce are examples. There are also major swamps in Louisiana and along the Mississippi. Houston, Texas is a swamp they tried to fill in - didn't work real well - the swamp is still there. Anyway, all these areas act as carbon sinks and can help somewhat with mitigation, but the only reaql solution is to quit making so much CO2.

Doug

[Guest Br Cornelius]

Natural forests can act as carbon sinks, but swamps do a better job. Florida's Everglades, Big Cypress Swamp and the other one with the name I can't pronounce are examples. There are also major swamps in Louisiana and along the Mississippi. Houston, Texas is a swamp they tried to fill in - didn't work real well - the swamp is still there. Anyway, all these areas act as carbon sinks and can help somewhat with mitigation, but the only reaql solution is to quit making so much CO2.

Doug

Every one of those carbon sinks will become an emitter if the global average temperature reaches certain levels. This is one of the critical tipping points which cannot be easily discerned when looking at the currently small rise in global temperatures. Siberia, Canada and Alaska are ticking time bombs for mega releases of carbon in a few centuries time. This process can however be greatly accelerated when those drying tundra bogs catch fire in the freak heatwaves in a warming climate and this has already happened in Siberia over vast areas.

One of the issues we face is that a century seems a very long time away when you measure your life in decades and when all the people who hold power are within sight of their own deaths within a few short years. Its a problem of human perception to not be able to project yourself into the future you are creating for your children and following the wrong narratives of meaning bestowed on us by short sighted economists and Religious ministers.

Br Cornelius

[robinrenee]

CO2 in excess quantities is also harmful to life.

Of course that's true, and I'm not trying to be argumentative when I suggest that I feel that CO2 has been unnecessarily demonized. Certainly, pollution is toxic and poison and will lead to a miserable death. And ... those poisons are held down by greenhouse gases in many parts of the world. I can remember days in Los Angeles when the air made my eyes burn. Changes in public transportation and uber stiff laws for cars and industries that contribute to the pollution would help a lot... as well as less sprawl in houses and more luxury "stack and pack" skyscrapers. Basically, if you wanta live where the action is, you gotta submit to some changes in your way of life.

There are enough known (and owned) coal, oil, gas, tar sand, shale oil and other sources of carbon that if they are all burned, will raise the earth's temperature to somewhere near the boiling point.

A bit of hyperbole... but I understand what you're saying.

This means that many of these sources cannot be extracted, but must remain forever locked away. And that means that somebody is going to lose his financial shirt. That's what scares people like the Kochs. They are more afraid of losing money than they are of destroying life on earth. They can't refute the science, so they simply choose not to believe it. They are sincere in their beliefs, but dead wrong.

I doubt that they are sincere, and I also doubt that they are exactly dead wrong.

For decades I have read or watched the liberal news and then the conservative news... daily. That's the only way to get a true picture of what is happening in politics and (unfortunately ...) climate science. When one examines a subject from both points of view, one begins to see the agendas on both sides. There is good science on both sides of the debate.. just different emphases.

Aside: During my working career, I spent the 1st 20 years as an English teacher and the 2nd 20 years as a street medic for EMS. (I call it middle-aged crazy.)

Regarding CPR: As a medic we were taught that ...

room air has 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.04% CO2, plus other trace gases.

exhaled air has 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4.5% CO2, plus other trace gases. (giving CPR)

air pumped out of a patient during CPR has 78% nitrogen, 11% oxygen, 9% CO2, plus other trace gases. (receiving CPR)

The reason I'm pointing this out is that a patient... exhaling 9% CO2 can be revived and go on to live a healthy and happy life.

My conclusion about this is that CO2 is NOT the poisonous gas that a screaming media would have us believe.

I used to live near a coal-fired power plant operated by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CEI). Four huge chimneys belched coal smoke with a plume 200 miles long. That's why I have no sympathy for folks who don't like the looks of a wind farm. I don't want to breath poison air just so they can have a beautiful view: Kennedys: are you listening?

I completely agree that air pollution poisons must be stopped. I don't know what the alternative might be for my mountains. We don't have a lot of wind unless it's stormy. And there's usually a thin to heavy cloud cover. We use hydroelectric now, but that's mostly coal generated with a few nuclear plants here and there. So I don't know what the final solution will be around here.

I saw the Blue Ridge once. Beautiful country.

God's country...

Natural forests can act as carbon sinks, but swamps do a better job. Florida's Everglades, Big Cypress Swamp and the other one with the name I can't pronounce are examples. There are also major swamps in Louisiana and along the Mississippi. Houston, Texas is a swamp they tried to fill in - didn't work real well - the swamp is still there. Anyway, all these areas act as carbon sinks and can help somewhat with mitigation, but the only reaql solution is to quit making so much CO2.

Doug

Around here it seems that the plants that used to have black smoke now have white smoke which I'm told is steam. I don't know how, or if. they're capturing or filtering the sooty smoke. I'll have to investigate that.

Edited July 28, 2015 by robinrenee

[Doug1029]

A bit of hyperbole... but I understand what you're saying.

My source on that was James Hanson's book on global warming. He lays out the numbers. I think it safe to say that none of us would survive long enough to actually see that happen.

For decades I have read or watched the liberal news and then the conservative news... daily. That's the only way to get a true picture of what is happening in politics and (unfortunately ...) climate science. When one examines a subject from both points of view, one begins to see the agendas on both sides. There is good science on both sides of the debate.. just different emphases.

Neither conservative nor liberal media are good sources about climate and global warming. As you say, they each have their own agendas.

Neither do they take the time to actually understand something before they broadcast it. My favorite example was Rachel Maddow wondering what the Texas Railroad Commission had to do with oil and gas drilling rights. Texas was an independent country for a short time. Thus, all publicly owned land belonged to the state when it was admitted. The General Land Office never had anything to do with Texas. Instead, the Texas Railroad Commission filled that role. Texas retained all mineral rights to the land it sold. Unless someone has bought those rights specifically, nobody owns the mineral rights to the land their house is on. Thus, a major oil company can buy the rights from the state and drill a well on your land and all they have to pay the owner is surface damages.

Anyway, stick to research articles and science magazines (like "Science News") for reasonably-accurate information.

Regarding CPR: As a medic we were taught that ...

room air has 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.04% CO2, plus other trace gases.

exhaled air has 78% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, 4.5% CO2, plus other trace gases. (giving CPR)

air pumped out of a patient during CPR has 78% nitrogen, 11% oxygen, 9% CO2, plus other trace gases. (receiving CPR)

The reason I'm pointing this out is that a patient... exhaling 9% CO2 can be revived and go on to live a healthy and happy life.

My conclusion about this is that CO2 is NOT the poisonous gas that a screaming media would have us believe.

Carbon dioxide is lethal at a concentration of 11%. That doesn't leave much room for error.

http://avogadro.chem.iastate.edu/MSDS/carbon_dioxide.pdf

Doug

[robinrenee]

We use hydroelectric now, but that's mostly coal generated with a few nuclear plants here and there.

Duh! I was mistaken. We use hydroelectric power around here, but it's NOT coal generated. So we're clean.

[robinrenee]

Carbon dioxide is lethal at a concentration of 11%. That doesn't leave much room for error.

http://avogadro.chem...bon_dioxide.pdf

Doug

Oh wow! That's a blast from the past. When I first began working on the ambulance, we had to carry the MSDS book on the ambulance. That thing must have weighed 30 pounds!. And we had to replace with new sheets every week. It was a happy day in the early 90's when we began to carry laptops and could just look up the hazardous material.

That MSDS sheet is for how to handle a bottle of compressed CO2.

CO2 is an asphyxiant gas, but it's not toxic. In an enclosed space breathing causes the CO2 to increase as the O2 decreases. Around 10% CO2 can cause unconsciousness... according to the tolerance of the patient. As soon as the person gets fresh air, the whole situation reverses with no damage to the patient.

Some lung diseases (COPD) gradually cause hypercapnia, and their tolerance for a lower % O2 and a higher % of CO2 can go on for years.

What I'm saying is that CO2 is not a toxin, nor is it lethal unless you're in an enclosed space for long enough to displace most of the O2. That is suffocation.

But CO2 is a part of our metabolism and plays a role in the acidosis-alkalosis balance of a healthy individual.

If you want to consider CO (carbon monoxide), now that IS a toxin. At any dose, it attaches to the hemoglobin (red blood cells), and if you don't get the patient into a hyperbaric chamber, they will probably die.

[Doug1029]

What I'm saying is that CO2 is not a toxin, nor is it lethal unless you're in an enclosed space for long enough to displace most of the O2. That is suffocation.

The fact remains that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere. That is detrimental to living things. And that makes it a pollutant.

Context is crucial. Ozone is beneficial when high in the atmosphere where it protects us from ultraviolet light. But at ground level, it is toxic to vegetation, causing chemical burns on leaves. Same thing applies to CO2. In an animal, it is a waste product that will cause serious harm if levels get too high. In a plant, it is a raw material used to manufacture starches and sugars.

Doug