[litespeed]

madi - I really do appreciate the effort you put into your posts. However, you seem to have a very limited range of thought on these topics. For instance, you wrote: "... Disappearance of the low-lying island country Tuvalu.."

Frankly, you seem to have chosen dozens and dozens of catastrophic events pulled out an an algore hat. Specifically, you claim Tuvalu will actually disappear. I have posted on this same topic for the Maldives citing specialists:  "We both know that the 1,200 islands of the Maldives are all low-lying with the highest point only some 2.5m (8ft) above sea level. Hence, your nation is vulnerable to extreme storms, tsunamis — and, of course, any possible sea level rise.. "

"[However]By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."  http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5595813/why-the-maldives-arent-sinking.thtml

May I suggest your extensive list of cataclysms is counter productive to your own cause? You and The Goracle make comedy of your own positions. Yap Yap Yap. There are more polar bears now then twenty five years ago. Neither the Maldives nor Tuvalu are going to disappear. What IS disappearing is any credibility either you or the Gorical might once have had.  Essentially, we are onto your game.

Further, the recent Climate Gate scandals have simply diminished the entire effort.  And it does not even matter whether the science is discredited or not. The 'scientists' themselves have been shown as venal, vindictive, manipulatory, confused and vengeful individuals. Yeah. Like THESE are the guys I really really want to set my utility rates.

IMHO, they suck hind teat.

[Madidus_Scientia]

you seem to have a very limited range of thought on these topics.

My range of thought is limited? And your absurd notion of "warm is good, cold is bad" isn't?

Frankly, you seem to have chosen dozens and dozens of catastrophic events pulled out an an algore hat.

Frankly, you seem to ignore dozens and dozens of potentially catastrophic results of global warming.

Specifically, you claim Tuvalu will actually disappear. I have posted on this same topic for the Maldives citing specialists:

I don't know about the Maldives but much of Tuvalu is less than 1 metre above sea level, and even before flooding occurs the rising saltwater table could destroy deep rooted food crops such as coconut and taro.

Anyway regardless of the fate of Tuvalu, it is as you say only one of dozens and dozens of potential catastrophies.

The two that effect me most have already had drastic effects, the decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin and the ocean acidity problem.

Further, the recent Climate Gate scandals have simply diminished the entire effort.

I'm sure you'd like to think so. Others know quotemining when they see it. Out of hundreds of emails they found a few sentences to take out of context? I wonder what picture the other thousands of sentences painted?

You accuse me of losing credibility, I think the fact that deniers have to quote-mine stolen emails for material they can ad-hominem climate scientists with to try to make their case throws all the credibility they never had out the window.

[litespeed]

Madidus_Scientia - You wrote: "Frankly, you seem to ignore dozens and dozens of potentially catastrophic results of global warming."

Human history IMHO, has flourished during times of warming and suffered mightily when it got cooler. Not to mention when it really got into Cold Ice Ages.  I have already posted URLs showing plants flourish with 500 ppm CO2. The dynosaurs flourished with 2,500ppm.

And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway. China already may be the most prolific CO2 emitter and is building coal plants at the rate of about one per week.  In an historic irony, almost all the advanced economies are in serious financial deficits. Accordingly, they will need to borrow money to give the third world places in some sort of reparations scam.

Much, if not all that money, will be borrowed from CHINA! You just can't make this stuff up......

[Madidus_Scientia]

Human history IMHO, has flourished during times of warming and suffered mightily when it got cooler. Not to mention when it really got into Cold Ice Ages.

If you're refering to the medieval warm period, that was a regional effect, not a global effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

I also have a general predilection for warm anyway. My general point is human civilization does better in warmer times such as The Roman Era and the Midieval Warming, and does less well when weather cools. Such as late Roman Times, the post Midieval Warming period [famine, plaque and general mischief) etc.

Your general point is invalid considering we are in vastly different times to the romans, and more is at stake now. What was good for maybe a hundred million romans may be different to what's good for 6.7 billion odd people today.

I'm not denying that an ice age would be bad, but so would the opposite. If we're to endure ice ages at some period in the future maybe we should save our fossil fuels for then?

And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway. China already may be the most prolific CO2 emitter and is building coal plants at the rate of about one per week.

You may be right, but whether we will or won't decrease our emissions is not the point i'm making, it's that global warming and ocean acidification is due to our emissions and we should try reduce them.

[frethack]

I have already posted URLs showing plants flourish with 500 ppm CO2. The dynosaurs flourished with 2,500ppm.

Plant life has also flourished at around 350ppm during the Carboniferous period. 

And, as I have already demonstrated, increased CO2 from fossil fuels is inevitable anyway.

While this is likely so, it doesnt necessarily provide an open invitation to pollute in the same fashion.  CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check.

If you're refering to the medieval warm period, that was a regional effect, not a global effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

The regionality of the Medieval Warm Period was used to explain the lack of temperature variability in the hockey stick graphs when compared to the previous IPCC work.  Dendrochronology was rather new and it was not yet understood that when you detrend a trees growth curve from the record as a whole that you also squash much of the low frequency variability as well...especially when you use exceptionally long ring-width chronologies such as the bristlecone pine.  This is why RCS (regional curve standardization) began to be used (though it has its own shortcomings as well).

The MWP is very pronounced in the N Atlantic basin because of the sensitivity and variability of the Gulf Stream, but it is not the only region with a pronounced signature.  Now that China has begun to produce very high resolution proxy records, the MWP (and Little Ice Age) is very evident in south and southeast asia, which is an exceptionally large geographic region.  Recent high resolution records from Australia and S America also show the MWP and LIA.  It is not generally accepted that the MWP was a N American and European phenomenon.

I would be automatically suspicious of the objectivity of a video entitled 'Climate Denial Crock of the Week - "The Medieval Warming Crock"'

If you would like to read some recent peer reviewed literature, I would be happy to send the PDF's to you, as always.  If you have access to a university library, Ill even post the links here to save time. 

[litespeed]

Fret

You are one of the few serious persons here about. In particular I take note: " CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check."

Chlorofloricarbons and SO2 may be among those industrial products and by-products that should be kept in check. Interestingly, the Electric Utility industry initially bellyached SO2 scrubbers would be expensive. This may actually be true. However, the resultant product from said scrubbing turns out to have a market value of its own. If I am not mistaken, it is used in road construction.

China, and soon India, will be almost the entirety of these issues. I do not know if China installs SO2 scrubbers, but I doubt it. And I don't know if R-12 is still produced outside the US. However, the industrialized nations are entirely impotent in this regard.  The very idea of borrowing money from China for climate reparations to Zimbabwe while China builds one or two coal plants per week belongs on Saturday Night Live.

IMHO, there is only one option available for the GW crew. They need to jump out of the box and begin thinking about ways to cool the planet, because there is no way in living hell they are going to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 50 years at least. Further, the technologies to do so do not appear all that difficult to me, as I have posted elsewhere.

And I do not object. If climate warming continues, and if it turns out to be a bad thing, I am entirely open to employing cooling mechanisms.  These include stratospheric SO2 delivery, sort of like volcanos. Seeding the Pacific with Iron filing to produce CO2 sequestration through algae plumes. Perhaps doping jet fuel with inert reflective nanao particles.

But the CO2 game is up, over and gone. Copenhagen was worse then a circus. I have even heard rumors algore tried to buy ten Polar Bear Hunting licenses just to get back at the buggers for over population .

Later....

[frethack]

Chlorofloricarbons and SO2 may be among those industrial products and by-products that should be kept in check. Interestingly, the Electric Utility industry initially bellyached SO2 scrubbers would be expensive. This may actually be true. However, the resultant product from said scrubbing turns out to have a market value of its own. If I am not mistaken, it is used in road construction.

Good point.  I dont know enough about environmental tech to know how effective SO2 scrubbers are, but I do know that sulfuric acid has a very wide industrial use.  There would be money to be made here to help recoup the costs of installing the technology.  I would still prefer to work toward using a much larger percentage of renewable energies though.

China, and soon India, will be almost the entirety of these issues. I do not know if China installs SO2 scrubbers, but I doubt it. And I don't know if R-12 is still produced outside the US. However, the industrialized nations are entirely impotent in this regard.  The very idea of borrowing money from China for climate reparations to Zimbabwe while China builds one or two coal plants per week belongs on Saturday Night Live.

Maybe not the entirety of the issue, but a very large fraction of it.  And I completely agree that the other developed nations (especially the US) will be in no position to demand any changes in the way that China conducts its business if we are over a trillion dollars in debt to them.

IMHO, there is only one option available for the GW crew. They need to jump out of the box and begin thinking about ways to cool the planet, because there is no way in living hell they are going to reduce CO2 emissions in the next 50 years at least. Further, the technologies to do so do not appear all that difficult to me, as I have posted elsewhere.

Geoengineering scares the hell out of me.  I think that it would be a good idea to understand MUCH more about the climate system before we actively begin tampering with it more than we already have.  I have a decidedly alarmist view on this subject, but it is difficult to see an endeavor like this ending well with our current knowledge.

[litespeed]

Fret - You wrote: "I think that it would be a good idea to understand MUCH more about the climate system before we actively begin tampering with it more than we already have.  I have a decidedly alarmist view on this subject, but it is difficult to see an endeavor like this ending well with our current knowledge."

It seems clear to me there will not be any substantial tampering for generations to come. First, CO2 emissions will continue to grow, not decrease. This seems an inconvenient truth and the GW crowd needs to intellectually understand this and begin working on Plan B. Specifically, identifying ways and means to deploy cooling technology should things come to that.

One of the areas that bugs me is the GW crowd seem silent on warming that occurred after the little Ice Age and long before major industrialization. Isn't that nearly the entire 1800s? For instance, didn't the Thames stopped freezing over at the very begin of the industrial age?

And there have been other warming spells that took place before ANY industrialization. I see no discussion on these warming spells, or how the compare to the current climate. In fact, I get a sense some climatologists would just a soon deny Roman Warming or Midieval warming ever existed. And the Little Ice Age was the norm from which subsequent dreadful warming has evolved from CO2. It drives me nuts.

How do they expect to be taken seriously with these giant blind spots that seem positively willful in nature. Incidentally, there is a similar wilfulness concerning ocean levels. The Maldives want our money, and display a frogman in fishtank at Copenhagen.

And the formost expert on Sea Level and the Maldives writes to the Maldavian's thus: "...By the end of this century, sea level may have risen by between 30cm and 50cm according to the various IPCC scenarios. Our records suggest a maximum of 20cm. Neither of those levels would pose any real problem — simply a return to the situation in the 17th and the 19th to early 20th centuries, respectively."

Exasperation begets skepticism, begets cynicism, and is now turning to hostility in much of the population.  And for good reasons beyond algor and his stupid war with the thriving Polar Bears. Geeze. Some of then need first to get a life, then all of them need get working on a reasonable Plan B, since Plan A is already too late and won't happen anyway. Is that really so much to ask?

[peppercorn]

Plant life has also flourished at around 350ppm during the Carboniferous period. 

Rate of change is the key thing - as has been pointed out many times.

CO2 itself is not a pollutant, but there are a number of other pollutants created that are associated with industrialization and anthropogenic CO2 that should be kept in check.

I was under the impression that any chemical that became too abundant in an eco-system is a pollutant. CO2 is no where near the levels where it is directly poisonous, but clearly that is not the whole story.

The regionality of the Medieval Warm Period was used to explain the lack of temperature variability in the hockey stick graphs when compared to the previous IPCC work.

Excuse my lack of knowledge on the data collection methods for the MWP and the LIA, but where those climate variations not a combination of natural factors? - Volcanic activity, Ocean Conveyor slowdown, Solar activity, human influences (growing with population).

Further, even if the MWP was not purely a regional effect, is there any valid figure for what the global mean temperature might have been? Since we are talking about figures around 2.x degC - what variation is the MWP predicted to have been?
What I want to establish is are we even talking in the same ball-park?

pepper - You are a good adversary. However, you wrote: "...the engine house of a large, complex machine that appears to be slowly, but surely heading for a runaway condition."

Fret - You are one of the few serious persons here about.

Looking at these two quotes side by side is an illustration of what it means to LS to be a serious person or an adversary.  "Serious" seems to mean having views broadly supportive of LS in terms of being (in the case of Frethack) sceptical about the present validity of climate science.   "Adversary" seems to be (possibly) a grudging respect for you enemy. [obviously MS has already explained how we are likely facing a runaway condition - That is not for me to reiterate for an untold time].

Can I ask Litespeed, seriously - Why?  Why has every post on the Environment section got you making more or less the same statements over and over again? Do you believe there is a crime being perpetrated by the massed ranks of climatology? Do you care so much for your fellow man & believe so unflinchingly that lives will be sacrificed in a pointless charade that you have to speak out so varmontly?  Really, just wondered.

[litespeed]

Pepper - You wrote: "Can I ask Litespeed, seriously - Why? 

1) Why has every post on the Environment section got you making more or less the same statements over and over again?

ANSWER: The GW faithful make the same arguements over and over again. For instance, I continuously point out Roman Era Warming, with citations. I have yet to find much in the way of serious rebuttal. In fact, Roman Era Warming seems clearly warmer then now since the UK can not grow Roman Cultivars. It has warmed up enough for the Dutch to grow hybrid cultivars, but not enough to grow the original Roman vines.

2) Do you believe there is a crime being perpetrated by the massed ranks of climatology?

ANSWER: Yes, the conspirators who deliberately erased data prior to audit seem to have commmited a crime. However, mostly I don't like being treated like a fool by climatologists. Specifically, 19th Century Warming followed at least a two hundred year cooling 'The Little Ice Age'. Yet climatologist repeatedly seem to use that as the norm from which CO2 has forced warming. THERE IS NO FRIGGN HOCKEY STICK.

3) Do you care so much for your fellow man & believe so unflinchingly that lives will be sacrificed in a pointless charade that you have to speak out so varmontly? 

ANSWER: Historical climate records seem unequivocal to me. Warm is Good and Cold is Bad. The Roman and Chinese Empires of the time benefited greatly from excess agricultural production.  How else do you explain how the Romans fed Legion Upon Legion and built all their monumental arcitecture.  During the same era the Chinese continued to build The Great Wall using at least half a million peasants. All these workers were fed by excess agriculture made possible by climate optimum.

The Midieval cold era led to famine, the black plaque of death, and lots of witch burnings. More then one historian implicates cold wet weather for psychotropic ergo poisoning from moldy rye in both the old and new worlds.

Besides, CO2 reduction is SO 1990's. It is unstoppable. Accordingly, I advocate, for insurance purposes, investigation of various non-CO2 mitigation methods to potentially cool the planet, if that becomes necessary. I have proposed my own; inert reflective nano particles in all jet fuel.  Others propose SO2 dopining of the Stratospher. http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2511875/nathan_myhrvolds_anti_global_warming.html

Its REALLY REALLY time to consider Plan B. Plan A has become a running fiasco from accademia to Copenhagen. If algore shows  me one more polar bear, or if the maldivians put one more scuba diver in a fish tank I will become nauseated.

PS: Further, the Nature Magazine rebuttal to the hacked emails cements my position. Those duplicitous, bigoted, and condescending THEOCRCRATS sealed their own fate, as far as I am concerned.

[BenV]

Litespeed, you don't really make much sense.  You say that warming isn't happening, then say you're glad it is because warm is good, then say we should look at cooling technologies.

You also seem obsessed with Al Gore - noone else here talks about him, why you?

We get the point though, you're a climate change denier.  Can we just move on now please?

[litespeed]

BenV - You wrote: "You say that warming isn't happening..."

ANSWER: Clearly the climate has warmed since The Little Ice Age. What else would you expect after an ice age of any sort. According to the hockey stick guys, the climate has been on a straight up increase ever since. However, significant industrial age CO2 is primarily a 20th century phenomena.

According, the increase should in no way be linear since much of it happened in the 1800s prior to the massive CO2 emissions of, particularly, the last half of the 20th Century. IMHO, the hockey stick guys tried to pull a fast one.

And yes, we are in a climate optimum which I believe is a good thing.  However, since the GW maniacs are both a menace and a nuisance, I simply point out to them the climate can be cooled in a variety of ways I have mentioned and referenced. That simply means the hysterical GW crowd is myopic, and not very intellectually active.

You also wrote: "...you're a climate change denier." You are a Silly Little Name Caller. You bore me. Go light a candle or two at East Anglia. Then genuflect.

[BenV]

But you are a person who denies anthropogenic climate change - that's what climate change denier means - its' not an offensive term, it's a starement of fact.

And please don't even consider calling me silly again.

[litespeed]

BenV

My only recommendation to you is to give up the hopeless task of reducing CO2 enough to make any difference in the next several generations. Not with the Chinese building one or two coal plants per week. I encourage you to face reality and begin a Plan B: planetary cooling by artificial means.

I support research in this area for the simple reason it will accomodate everyone. The methods are many, are testable at low levels, can be scaled up, and reduced as required. Why beat the dead horse of reduced CO2 emissions in the next 40 years when we know that won't happen. To give you an idea how silly THAT is our own President promised reductions per capita to the rate we had in 1885.

If you really believe the planet is in grave danger from warming, it is incumbent on you to encourage ways to plan an actual intervention for cooling.  Thats all....

PS: We all know the term 'denier' is an epithet. Like holocaust denier. The proper term is skeptic.

[Karsten]

You are a Silly Little Name Caller.

Man, you are pushing it rather far with this one. An insult addressed at one person who posts here. Hmmm.

[Karsten]

PS: We all know the term 'denier' is an epithet. Like holocaust denier. The proper term is skeptic.

I bet there are many holocaust deniers who consider themselves holocaust skeptics.

[Karsten]

BenV - You wrote: "You say that warming isn't happening..."

ANSWER: Clearly the climate has warmed since The Little Ice Age. What else would you expect after an ice age of any sort. According to the hockey stick guys, the climate has been on a straight up increase ever since. However, significant industrial age CO2 is primarily a 20th century phenomena.

According, the increase should in no way be linear since much of it happened in the 1800s prior to the massive CO2 emissions of, particularly, the last half of the 20th Century. IMHO, the hockey stick guys tried to pull a fast one.

And yes, we are in a climate optimum which I believe is a good thing.  However, since the GW maniacs are both a menace and a nuisance, I simply point out to them the climate can be cooled in a variety of ways I have mentioned and referenced. That simply means the hysterical GW crowd is myopic, and not very intellectually active.

You also wrote: "...you're a climate change denier." You are a Silly Little Name Caller. You bore me. Go light a candle or two at East Anglia. Then genuflect.

So those who are in disagreement with you are (at this point) maniacs, a menace, a nuisance, hysterical, myopic, and not very intellectually active? Wow! I have to say, I have enjoyed some of your other posts much more than this one. It feels not quite the same to have discussions with you any longer. Your latest attitude has pushed the issue in a direction and area that is not pleasant or reasonable any longer.

[yor_on]

Want to know why so many protest Global Warming
Well, to me its the same people that somehow got the notion that we somehow are different from all other animals..

Like the 'crown' of evolution, and made in the mold of our 'shaper'
Hang with me for a moment here )

And then we can't be, can we, cause we're 'good'?
After all, we're the ones 'revolutionizing' Earth with 'science' and 'stuff'.

And if 'Global Warming' was man-made then?
Where would that leave us?

And our 'inventions'.
And our jobs.

To me it's about being scared, really scared. Like when the mob rules your neighborhood, or that 'religion' defines what you're allowed to think.

But here it's our inability to face the fact that we ain't the crown of creation.
We're more like rats multiplying over a shrinking territory.
And the end result of your denial will be a war.

So why not accept that life doesn't care for us, we're just animals amongst animals.
Very clever, and mimicking, we learn quickly.
But only to maximize pleasure.

And this time it won't work.
Earth doesn't care for us.

Which seems only proper considering the mess we made.

[litespeed]

 yor_on - You wrote: "To me it's about being scared, really scared."

Scared about what, precisely? Do you fear personal starvation? Do you not have shelter? Do you not have adequate heating in the Winter. Is your water supply drying up and you fear death by dehydration. What in the hell do you have to be scared of? The price of automobiles and gasoline?

Methinks you have much excess time in hand to ponder catastrophies that are entirely irrelevant to your own situation. I suggest you sign up for a survival class that will dump you out into the middle of nowhere from which you use an axe to cut fuel for warmth, and branches for cover. Where you must fish, snare rabbits, or eat grubs for food.

You will take chances with the water supply. If you break a leg you simply die, or radio to be extracted from the exercise. And if you don't break a leg, what is your general situation? Adequate food, shelter, warmth and water?  No doctors, no dentists, no pharmacies. People do this sort of thing on purpose these days to test themselves against their ancestors.

But you seem scared to death in the very middle of civilization. Get a grip, already.

[Karsten]

yor_on - You wrote: "To me it's about being scared, really scared."

Scared about what, precisely?
(...)

If you do not rip a sentence out of context (or read it all) you might find what yor_on finds scary. It is written right after the sentence you quote. Same line even.