Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

ChrisGraley (29.75)

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says

Recs

30

January 11, 2010 – Comments (71)

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/11/years-global-cooling-coming-say-leading-scientists/

 

We simply can not have this! We need to tax ethanol! We need to tax hydrogen fuel cells! We need to fine people who are not driving far enough to go to work every day! We can not sit idle and worry about mother nature handling the problem!

We are all doomed! Oceans will shrink and all the fish will die due to overcrowding! Then we will all die of starvation, for lack of fish!

The dolphins will escape to another planet though, while singing us a song thanking us for all of the fish.

 

 

71 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 11, 2010 at 4:49 PM, lemoneater (78.14) wrote:

Not another Little Ice Age! Not good for gardening :( or utility costs.

Got the Hitchhiker guide to the galaxy allusion. I haven't read the book, but my husband told me about it.

Report this comment
#2) On January 11, 2010 at 4:55 PM, 100ozRound (29.39) wrote:

It's 75 degrees and sunny here in San Diego. 

Report this comment
#3) On January 11, 2010 at 5:24 PM, USNHR (32.06) wrote:

Chris that is why it is no longer Global Warming that all of those excess Carbon Atoms cause but is now ....

 

"Climate Change"

Report this comment
#4) On January 11, 2010 at 5:36 PM, Option1307 (29.75) wrote:

I'm not one to put a lot of weight into a single article and I'm not even trying to debate AGW, but check out these gems. 

Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years. 

Umm, ok...

Mark Serreze, senior research scientist with NSIDC... ...arguing that the cold snap is still another sign of global warming.

huh?

Report this comment
#5) On January 11, 2010 at 5:42 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Also see this article and the comments by the Science members which are pretty funny.

IPCC scientist: Global cooling headed our way for the next 30 years?

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/ipcc-scientist-global-cooling-headed-our-way-for-the-next-30-years/#more-15116

example comment: 

rbateman (13:51:31) :

I’ll go with the 80-20 natural rule:
80% of the climate warming is due to natural Earth cycles.
80% of the remaining 20% (16%) is due to Solar Cycles.
80% of the remaining 4% (3.2%) is due to Anthropogenic activity
[0.8%] is pure chaos.

What they wanted us to believe is that the top 80% is Anthropogenic (give us all your money now) and the 3rd cut was natural Earth cycles. 

Report this comment
#6) On January 11, 2010 at 6:08 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

You guys seem really afraid of facing up to this. Its ok though. I for one am looking forward to the day that oil does not own me. And that day is coming.

Sorry.

I hope you are right about the global warming theory being wrong though. You are not, but I hope you are.

 

Report this comment
#7) On January 11, 2010 at 6:31 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

I agree devoish -- Stewardship is long overdue but business and competition should be driving it. Why is the taxpayer being asked to shell out for the change and why is this being packaged as "Global Warming"? 

Report this comment
#8) On January 11, 2010 at 6:45 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Business and competition?

They've known for thirty years they need to get off oil and coal.

I say it's Governments turn to have a go. I just would like it to be a different Government.

Nader, Gore, Greenpeace.

The cost of having let business fail at the task will be high.

Report this comment
#9) On January 11, 2010 at 6:49 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

+1 Rec to devoish

 It doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not right? I mean YOU won't be here to have to deal with it anyway.

Please, go about your dirty business while we clean up the problems you leave for us.

 Pay it forward, if you will.

 

http://earthfirst.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/bird-plastic.jpg

Report this comment
#10) On January 11, 2010 at 7:16 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Modeling to the 2nd degree: back to the future

source: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/11/modeling-to-the-2nd-degree-back-to-the-future/#more-15132

This one is really interesting in the comments section - suggests Fusion (possibly Cold Fusion) by 2050 to eliminate the need for fossil fuels and any environmental impact from power generation.

This is one I'd vote for and invest in for the kids with or without "Global Warming" as long as it was without government intervention which would retard its completion.

Report this comment
#11) On January 11, 2010 at 7:46 PM, jsneesby (94.37) wrote:

Business and competition cannot solve it because only governments can put a price on negative externalities.

Report this comment
#12) On January 11, 2010 at 8:05 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Environmental impact from humans isn't a new topic and that's a great image that should be in every child's textbook if its accurate.

Business didn't carelessly produce those containers nor did it set them out for what I'm assuming is one of the few birds capable of and inclined to swallow fish whole. Pretty big fish to have swallow all that plastic to made its way to the image?

Stupid "citizens" throw plastic into the oceans, waterways, landfills, and impact without regard. That plastic could have been recycled? The pharma products inside that pill bottle could have been returned to the pharmacy for proper disposal?

The purely toxic batteries could have been recycled instead of cast into the trash and landfill to poison for hundreds of years?

Business can change stupid "citizen" attitudes and will if they aren't taxed to death and are given "proper" incentives.

The problem is that most politicians aren't good at making anything of substance and never stop to ask. They pass policy without insight.

So, how many ideas Bills can we come up with that will solve these problems if properly thought out and then put in the hands of "law makers".

No government is good government but regulation, penalty, and incentive are a MUST.

One of these days GE will finish the Hudson PCB clean-up?

Report this comment
#13) On January 11, 2010 at 8:11 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#11) On January 11, 2010 at 7:46 PM, jsneesby (93.15) wrote:

Business and competition cannot solve it because only governments can put a price on negative externalities.

The free market is just fine at solving just this type of problem. If you want to solve the problem quicker, then remove all taxes from oil. We will burn oil even quicker, and we are already burning oil at a pace faster than we are finding it. When we get close to the point of running out, oil will be so expensive that the alternatives will be the cheapest alternative.

If you really want to solve a climate problem though, you should concentrate on global cooling, because the next Ice Age is inevitable and it will kill more humans on the planet than warming and last about 85,000 years longer than the current inter-glaciation.

 

 

Report this comment
#14) On January 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

llcx,

I have the feeling that the contents of that birds stomach was made to look worse than the real condition of that bird too.

Still, there is a truth in that picture even if was dressed up for the camera.

Unlike this OP which as it turns out is FOX running with a story and not fact checking or bothering to actually call the scientist in question.

Maybe I'll add this story to the Fox News Suicide Watch.

I have to tell you though, I agree with your reply, except that a private business cannot afford to recycle those batteries unless his competitors do. Unfortunately the first recycler that promises to recycle and then dumps the batteries into the ocean makes the most money. Unless there is a Gov't big enough and equipped enough with a law for it to enforce.

Thirty years of "Gov't is the problem" propoganda eroding public support, the cop on the beat has been badly weakened.

In 2000 the cop was replaced by the problem, and it is a longer harder road back.

JMHO and all that.

Report this comment
#15) On January 11, 2010 at 8:29 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Hey ChrisGrayley,

Did you check the story or just run with it?

http://climateprogress.org/ 

In an exclusive interview, Latif told me: "I don't know what to do. They just make these things up." NSIDC Director Serreze says it is "completely false."

January 11, 2010

 

Report this comment
#16) On January 11, 2010 at 8:32 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

#13 Here's the funny part, we're not running out of oil. Its not the resources that are the problem, its the way we are using them that's the issue. 

How long does it take to get a great idea to market and who decides?

There's the problem and so far government isn't the solution.

Report this comment
#17) On January 11, 2010 at 8:54 PM, catoismymotor (24.55) wrote:

The dolphins will escape to another planet though, while singing us a song thanking us for all of the fish.

Don't worry. The Vogons in DC will save us. Or  Slartibartfast will build us another planet to replace this one. Cheers!

Cato Prefect

 

Report this comment
#18) On January 11, 2010 at 9:13 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Hey devoish - I wasn't picking on you and in fact completely agree with the stomach wrenching image -- the truth is in the telling and I wish you well.

I grew up in Chicago in the era when the federal government declared an end to PCBs. If they had acted responsibly, the realization of the threat would have been measured with ideas for the disposition of the problem -- an above ground clean-up correction to a business mistake.

Instead, we got a law from fools who clearly didn't understand consequence and an undetermined volume of PCBs now sit at the soil base of nearly every waterway in every industrialized area of the US. Business meet their ban and yet the consequence now prevents any dredging for fear of stirring the toxic waste into the water supply.

History is doomed to repeat itself until we get better government or wake up?

Report this comment
#19) On January 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Is an article in the New scientist good enough for you? He was only predicting 2 decades in that article though.

I can understand how he may be under pressure to back out now though.

If you like, I can show you the data on the Hockey stick chart again before it was altered? Just let me know.

Here's a quote from your article...

In an interview back on October 1, Dr. Latif told me “we don’t trust our forecast beyond 2015″ and “it is just as likely you’ll see accelerated warming” after then. 

Here's a quote from the "New Scientist"

 But while discussing how this might be done, some of the climate scientists admitted that, on such timescales, natural variability is at least as important as the long-term changes from global warming. "In many ways we know more about what will happen in the 2050s than next year," said Vicky Pope at the UK's Met Office.

 Latif predicts that in the next few years a natural cooling trend will dominate the warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes in the atmosphere and ocean currents in the North Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and the Atlantic Meridional Oscillation (AMO).

Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, Latif said the NAO was probably responsible for some of the strong warming seen around the globe in the past three decades. "But how much? The jury is still out," he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a phase that will cool the planet.

Latif says the NAO also explained the recent recovery of the Sahel region of Africa from the droughts of the 1970s and 1980s. James Murphy, head of climate prediction at the Met Office, agrees and also links the AMO to Indian monsoons, Atlantic hurricanes and sea ice loss in the Arctic. "The oceans are key to decadal natural variability," he says.

Another favourite climate belief was overturned when Pope warned the conference that the dramatic Arctic ice loss in recent summers was partly a product of natural cycles rather than global warming. Preliminary reports suggest there has been much less melting this year than in 2007 or 2008.

Now my source might not be as unbiased as such a fine upstanding organization like "Climate Progress"

Climate Progress's Romm Blames Tiger's US Open Loss on Global Warming

But I hope it shows that I might check my sources a little more than you do.


 

Report this comment
#20) On January 11, 2010 at 9:34 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#14) On January 11, 2010 at 8:26 PM, devoish (99.61) wrote:

I have to tell you though, I agree with your reply, except that a private business cannot afford to recycle those batteries unless his competitors do. Unfortunately the first recycler that promises to recycle and then dumps the batteries into the ocean makes the most money. Unless there is a Gov't big enough and equipped enough with a law for it to enforce.

Best Buy does it and they seem to be doing ok.

 

Report this comment
#21) On January 11, 2010 at 9:36 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

BTW China has already discovered that there is more gold in a ton of computers than a ton of gold ore and they are making money while recycling.

It's funny what free markets can do when they are allowed to make money.

Report this comment
#22) On January 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

a wonderful weatherman in Chicago discovered Chaos in the "60s and his name is Edward Lorenz.

What he discovered was the inaccuracy associated with data transforms but, in his case, he also discovered the inaccuracy associated with the attempt to model weather.

So much "noise" is riding on poor press, poor science, and political comment yet within the schema is the idea that "Father knows Best".

Big '60's rerun for me so far :\

Report this comment
#23) On January 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

The incompetence of pseudoskeptics is mind-boggling. They don't even know how to perform basic fact-checking:
"A leading scientist has hit out at misleading newspaper reports that linked his research to claims that the current cold weather undermines the scientific case for manmade global warming.
Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change.
He told the Guardian: "It comes as a surprise to me that people would try to use my statements to try to dispute the nature of global warming. I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming.
"
He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases.""
"The reports attempted to link the Arctic weather that has enveloped the UK with research published by Latif's team in the journal Nature in 2008. The research said that natural fluctuations in ocean temperature could have a bigger impact on global temperature than expected. In particular, the study concluded that cooling in the oceans could offset global warming, with the average temperature over the decades 2000-2010 and 2005-2015 predicted to be no higher than the average for 1994-2004. Despite clarifications from the scientists at the time, who stressed that the research did not challenge the predicted long-term warming trend, the study was widely misreported as signalling a switch from global warming to global cooling."
"He said the ocean temperature effect was similar to other natural influences on global temperature, such as volcanos, which cool the planet temporarily as ash spewed into the atmosphere reflects sunlight.
"The natural variation occurs side by side with the manmade warming. Sometimes it has a cooling effect and can offset this warming and other times it can accelerate it." Other scientists have questioned the strength of the ocean effect on overall temperature and disagree that global warming will show the predicted pause.
Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions."
The recent articles are not the first to misrepresent his research, Latif said. "There are numerous newspapers, radio stations and television channels all trying to get our attention. Some overstate and some want to downplay the problem as a way to get that attention," he said. "We are trying to discuss in the media a highly complex issue. Nobody would discuss the problem of [Einstein's theory of] relativity in the media. But because we all experience the weather, we all believe that we can assess the global warming problem."
"
- The Guardian, Monday 11 January 2010.


See Mojib Latif speaking for himself:




Homework list for pseudoskeptics:
- Learn to perform basic fact-check.
- Learn the difference between weather and climate.
- Understand that anthropogenic forcing doesn't mean that natural variability and other forcings suddenly disappear from the scene.
- Understand that the purpose of Latif's work is to improve the skill of climate models on decadal time frames.
- When dealing with complex subjects, try to use primary sources (e.g. the refereed literature) instead of mass media articles. Journalists (including science journalists) can get things wrong, fail to provide context or over-hype research.
- Learn to be skeptical of cutting-edge research, specially research in complex fields.

Report this comment
#24) On January 11, 2010 at 10:41 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

So sorry for this but scientists just aren't "media friendly" so this time you REALLY need to listen to the words and understand the meaning:

 

Report this comment
#25) On January 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

BTW China has already discovered that there is more gold in a ton of computers than a ton of gold ore and they are making money while recycling.

It's funny what free markets can do when they are allowed to make money - ChrisGrayley

It's criminal what free markets will do, when they are allowed to.- devoish

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1870485,00.html 

http://www.ban.org/E-waste/E-wastephotos/index.html 

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chinapix/sets/72057594058415939/ 

http://www.ban.org/photogallery/index.html 

http://images.google.com/images?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4TSHB_enUS280US283&q=electronic+waste+pictures&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=s_pLS5bvBoS9lAfPopmLDQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQsAQwAA 

Lead – Accumulates in environment and has high acute, toxic effects on plants, animals and micro-organisms. Damage to nervous system, blood. A neurotoxin. It also harms the kidneys and reproductive system. Even low-level lead exposure can impair a child’s mental development.

Cadmium – Acute and Chronic toxic compound which accumulates in human body, esp. in kidneys.

Mercury – Causes Chronic brain damage. Easily accumulates in living organisms, esp. Fish. Also linked to Kidney damage and harmful to a developing fetus. It can be passed through breast milk.

Arsenic – Various diseases of the skin. Can also cause lung cancer and can often be fatal.

Plastics (PVC) – Various cancers, endocrine system disruption. If burnt, releases highly toxic dioxins.

Beryllium – Human carcinogen – cancer causing. Lung cancer and skin disease.

Hexavalent Chromium – Strong allergic reaction (asthmatic, bronchitis) even in small concentrations.

Brominated flame retardants – Cause Thyroid Damage and harm fetal development.

Barium – Brain swelling, muscle weakness, damage to the heart, liver and spleen.

Selenium – Causes Selenosis, which symptoms are hair loss, nail brittleness and neurological adnormalities.

Transend. 

 

 

When you shop for food in America, remember to thank the big Gov't, liberal treehugger, for trying to get Country of Origin labeling on your imported Chines veggies and farmed Tilapia, and Vietnamese shrimp.

Yummie.

 

 

Report this comment
#26) On January 12, 2010 at 12:07 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

How did I know you would pop into the thread Lucas?

Love the video! The Dr Frankenstein thing was amazing!

I see that you and devoish share the same unbiased sources. The Guardian and this Greenman guy are obviously unbiased sources!

If you are showing that I misquoted either article that I posted please point to exactly where in the article.

You can write off the Fox news article as biased if you would like, but it's not any less biased than any link that the 2 of you have posted here. I would really like to see you make the bias claim for "New Scientist" though.

Passing off weather as climate is exactly what the alarmists are counting on to push this agenda through!

At most, you have a 60 year trend that you are passing off as climate at the moment. The data that you use has been manipulated to the point that it's worthless in the first place and even in it's manipulated form, doesn't prove a convincing trend. A half of a degree over 60 years is not climate it is weather.

I never said that that natural forcings dissappeared, but I do believe that you said that they can be ruled out as a cause of the current warming and that most current natural forcings point to negative.

I'm quite aware what Latif's work is attempting to improve the climate model and it will probably have the same data showing a 50 degree increase over the next 50 years after it gets the special "hockey stick smoothing" done to it.

I'll try to use the primary sources for my argument from now on like you did with the link from the guardian and guy named green dude's youtube video.

I think that my being skeptical is what's got you more riled up than anything Lucas. I am very skepticle because of a few things...

I am  skeptical because the missing Briffa data seems to agree with Latif and was purposely deleted. I am skeptical because the NASA satellite data was ignored for the same reason.

I am skeptical beause the famous "Siple curve" arbitrarily adjusts only recent ice core data 83 years while leaving all previous data unadjusted.

I am not skepticle about Harry the programmer's notes, I am shocked that given those notes, that the IPCC claims to have any climate model at all at this point.

I am equally shocked that  people that have "tricks" named after them to "hide the decline" still have any credibility at all at this point.

I am also shocked that someone can still believe that Carbon causes warming when every piece of data seems to show that Carbon lags warming in history. 

I am shocked that the increased water vapor that is supposed to be caused by Carbon is not currently found in the atmosphere even though we are stating that the Carbon is already warming the planet. (Don't bother posting the modeled water vapor vs measured water vapor chart. I've seen it and it shows that water vapor is actually decreasing as the temperature is rising.)

Mostly I'm shocked how something so flawed is followed so blindly and still accepted as science. There is so very little of that hockey stick chart that hasn't been manipulated that it's completely worthless. I can share some actual programing code from Harry the programmer if you'd like to see it.

As for me, I'll continue to be skeptical of used car salesman, pink sheet stocks with no earnings, and the IPCC.

 

 

Report this comment
#27) On January 12, 2010 at 1:52 AM, jsneesby (94.37) wrote:

The free market is just fine at solving just this type of problem. If you want to solve the problem quicker, then remove all taxes from oil. We will burn oil even quicker, and we are already burning oil at a pace faster than we are finding it. When we get close to the point of running out, oil will be so expensive that the alternatives will be the cheapest alternative.

If you really want to solve a climate problem though, you should concentrate on global cooling, because the next Ice Age is inevitable and it will kill more humans on the planet than warming and last about 85,000 years longer than the current inter-glaciation.

Global cooling.  Ha ha.  Pure obfuscation.  Global warming may or may not seem like an issue to you, but look around you.  There are other problems related to burning fossil fuels.

Global warming may be the next step up from localized smog / pollution, but the free market failed to solve that problem (and never would by itself).  If you don't think that pollution's a problem, try sucking on your exhaust pipe with the engine running. 

Have you ever heard about the increased levels of asthma cases along urban freeway corridors?  That is an example of a negative externality.  How is the free market going to solve that?  With feel-good marketing?  More bonuses? 

Try not to focus on the big-picture, ethereal problems such as climate change, since you have such disregard for meta-issues.  Leave it to the geniuses of this world.  Focus instead on more tangible topics, at least for my sake.

troll (plural trolls)

(Internet) A person who posts to a newsgroup, bulletin board, etc., in a way intended to anger other posters and to cause drama, or otherwise disrupt the group's intended purpose.

 

Report this comment
#28) On January 12, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Melaschasm (55.51) wrote:

I love that last quote, which is a surprisingly common statement by the pro global warming people.

Report this comment
#29) On January 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, JaysRage (89.42) wrote:

For the most part, I haven't been all that upset about the Climate Change initiatives, even though I've known from the beginning that the global warming results were not grounded in any mathematical solvency.     My reasoning....despite the entirely incorrect hypothesis....was that our scientists were actually driving positive behavior that had some merit..... 

Unfortunately, they missed the real point.....POLLUTION causes CANCER.    I felt for a long time that some of these initiatives might help clean up our air and water and help eliminate the chemicals that inevitably make it into our diet through our water and food (fish, particularly).  

But when the EPA declared that CO2, not carbon-MONoxide....yes, carbon-DIoxide was their primary target, I just throw up my hands in disgust.  

You wanna get rid of CO2, plant some trees.   My goodness, what's next killing people because they take in O2 and breathe out CO2?   Eh.   

Report this comment
#30) On January 12, 2010 at 10:02 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Carbon Tax Center

source: http://www.carbontax.org/

The Obama Administration and Congress are being called upon to address 21st Century climate realities. In a carbon-constrained world, a permanent and increasing U.S. carbon tax is essential to reduce the emissions that are driving global warming."

• A carbon tax is a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas)."

• A carbon tax is the most economically efficient means to convey crucial price signals and spur carbon-reducing investment. Our spreadsheet shows how fast emissions will fall."

 

Cap-and-Trade

A tax on carbon emissions isn’t the only way to “put a price on carbon” and thereby provide incentives to reduce use of high-carbon fuels. A carbon cap-and-trade system is an alternative approach supported by some prominent politicians, corporations and mainstream environmental groups."

The assumptions are:

• We are running out of carbon fuels

• C02 is causing Global Warming

• US produces more C02 then other countries

• US businesses and households should pay a tax on carbon usage to reduce the carbon footprint and thus encourage alternative energy.

 

Everyone is right, Pollution is a big problem and our systems of power generation, distribution, and usage are inefficient. But if we're going to pay a fee to build out a business, shouldn't we get some stock in return?

 

Report this comment
#31) On January 12, 2010 at 10:41 AM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Here's a thought, lets reduce taxes to corporations that reduce the carbon footprint of their products and manufacturing. Outsourcing the manufacturing to other countries doesn't count under this incentive.

Oddly, isn't this already in place as depreciation for capital equipment expenditure?

If the issue is that it will effect company growth and stock/dividend value or they can't get the loan, float a federally backed Carbon Credit bond issue and lend them the money to fix the problems.

We get clean air and efficient products and get paid back down the road.

Is tax and spend a good way to solve pollution and reliance on carbon fuels?

Report this comment
#32) On January 12, 2010 at 11:50 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Devoish did you check the pictures on the tags? The same California government that is mandating recycling can't even control where their own government computers wind up. How can they control business and residential waste?

Until you can control the Chinese government, that isn't going to change either. Let me know your plan to control the Chinese government. Once you figure out how to control them though, you'll just have to deal with the next evil country that decides to take their place.

#27) On January 12, 2010 at 1:52 AM, jsneesby (92.94) wrote:

Global cooling.  Ha ha.  Pure obfuscation. 

Have you heard of Ice Ages? They are a normal part of the climate cycle and usually last 100,000 years. The warmer periods only last about 15,0000 years and our time is starting to run out.

I'm glad that you pop into my own thread to call me a troll, but prefer if you could discredit me with actual science.

I'll be awaiting Lucas' 10 page rebuttal with hundreds of charts and links devised to stray from or expand the topic from the initial post. We've already got the alarmists trying to shift the topic to pollution and electronic waste dumps, asthma incidents in Urban freeway corridors and 10,000 other things. At least Lucas tries to stay in the overall topic of Global Warming, though he loves to post unrelated links to show his knowledge of the subject even when they don't apply to his supporting statements.

LOL, I think I'll prime him up a bit.

I might be mistaken Lucas, but I do believe that you did admit at one point that Carbon lags warming in climate history. I believe that you stated that although there were other intial forcings, once there was enough Carbon, it took over as the primary forcing. That simply amazes me! Especially, given that in some cases Carbon lagged warming for almost 1000 years. If you just think about it a little bit, if the warming occurred first then Water Vapor had to increase in the atmosphere 1000 years before the Carbon got there. This is the reverse of what the IPCC climatologists say is the normal Carbon forcing cycle. It also amazes me that Carbon lags cooling as well. Now it doesn't seem to lag cooling as much as warming, but even as a secondary forcing, shouldn't Carbon decrease as a forcing before cooling would occur? On the other hand if Water Vapor was the secondary GHG causing the warming and Carbon was tertiary? It would explain the lag in Carbon. The Carbon would lag going up as the rise in temperature would cause more outgassing. It would lag going down as well because the water vapor would precipitate and take a little Carbon with it, but the majority of Carbon would take longer to fall out of the atmosphere. It would make more sense that water vapor which makes up 40,000 ppm of the atmosphere would influence Carbon which makes up about 380 ppm of the atmoshpere than the other way around. That's just me thinking out loud, but it does sound a little more plausible. Especially when the evil man-made Carbon is just a small percentage of the 380 ppm. But you are at least willing to commit a couple of trillion dollars to fighting off that small percentage of that 380 ppm. Perhaps you could explain how such a small amount of Carbon can influence such a large amount of water vapor?

Report this comment
#33) On January 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

I'm confused - is the original poster trying to use this article as evidence against global warming?

It's as if Mr. Graley only read the title, and forget to actually read the entire article:

"Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years. "

...

"We are indeed starting to see the effects of the rise in greenhouse gases," he said.

Report this comment
#34) On January 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

Don't you know that freezing weather is a side effect of global warming. It is obvious that this cold weather is supposed to be happening.

Report this comment
#35) On January 12, 2010 at 12:41 PM, astewboy2 (< 20) wrote:

I think that the big deal with global warming (or not) is not the degree to which it is happening, but whether the proposed remedies are in line with the problem or are out of proportion to the intrusion in freedom and economic activity.  I'm of the opinion that, sure, we're having an impact on our planet's climate, but I don't think we should be so cock-sure we know the exact impact or have enough data to justify the conclusions I've seen.  I also think there are certain rememdies that make sense, but some ideas almost smack of scientific dictatorship.  I also feel that there are so many issues related to carbon-based fuels (where they're located, how to get them and transport them, pollution irregardless of global warming, price and scarcity) that when there's a viable alternative or alternatives, that's the direction people, companies, etc. will go.  And someone will profit from it. 

Report this comment
#36) On January 12, 2010 at 1:16 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#33) On January 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, ETFsRule (99.21) wrote:

I'm confused - is the original poster trying to use this article as evidence against global warming?

Nope, just trying to point out the absurdity of the climate models and to the insane reaction to those models.

#34) On January 12, 2010 at 12:25 PM, drgroup (96.07) wrote:

Don't you know that freezing weather is a side effect of global warming. It is obvious that this cold weather is supposed to be happening.

So you are saying that it is cooling because it is warming? This is a 30 year timeframe, not a 1 or 2 year timeframe. I'd prefer to go with the climatologist's observation of a change in ocean currents.

Thanks astewboy2.  At least a few people seem to get it.

 

Report this comment
#37) On January 12, 2010 at 1:50 PM, FleaBagger (28.92) wrote:

If we want to stop global cooling, subsidizing hydrogen fuel cells would probably be the most effective way of warming the earth. See, they emit water vapor, a greenhouse gas that accounts for 5-10x the warming effect of atmospheric carbon.

Report this comment
#38) On January 12, 2010 at 1:51 PM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

ChrisGraley ... sorry Chris, I am being sarcastic. In my life it is so obvious that global warming is nothing more than a hoax, that it is hard for me to even comprehend intelegent people believe in global warming.

Report this comment
#39) On January 12, 2010 at 2:22 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

This is really a fascinating topic and an indicator of the next engineered financial bubble (scam).

So here goes:

• scientists have pointed out since at least 2001 that C02 doesn't drive temperature - temperature drives C02.

• scientists have pointed out that the Earth has been in a warming cycle since the last ice age

• scientists have pointed out that for the last 12,000 years the Earth has been in an unusually stable warm range of peaks and troughs (highs to lows - maybe 30 year cycles) but that the Earth prefers cold cycles (Ice Ages). Note: we're in the comfy warm range that supports humans.

• scientists have pointed out C02 spikes within the last 400,000 years that predate the Industrial Revolution and exceed current levels yet are unexplained in the climate models

• scientists have pointed out that the oceans and flora are the C02 sink and that C02 from fossil fuels at 2-4 times these levels is little more then background "noise" -- can't possibly have an impact on climate at current C02 levels.

• scientists have pointed out the poor news coverage concluding the topic is over the head of the news media

• scientists have pointed out that we are not running out of carbon fuel (oil, gas, and coal)

So, in a projected 30 year cold snap we've decided to increase the cost of heat with taxation and decided to tax small business to the tune of $100,000 a year/company to pay for solar arrays that aren't likely to work well under the projected cloud cover that's likely to result from decreased solar activity?

Maybe its just me but this doesn't sound like a great plan. Note: Congress put Cap and Trade on hold until the end of the year and there's a news piece out today indicating that California is in the process of overturning Cap and Trade until unemployment reaches 5%. 

Report this comment
#40) On January 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

Yes, they could have been doctored, though Chris Jordan himself says he didn't. I suppose there can be some skepticism there as a man is only as good as his word.

 

Nonetheless, here is his website with more disturbing pics

http://www.chrisjordan.com/current_set2.php?id=11

also a reuters link to the pics

http://blogs.reuters.com/adam-pasick/2009/10/23/victims-of-the-pacific-trash-gyre/

 And Chris, I think it's a bit oxymoronic that you just claimed China has more free market capitalism than the US. But hey, everyone's entitled to their opinion, regardless of the facts, right?

 

Alright, so I was sitting down, thinking about this very subject the other day and I tried, very hard, to figure out why some people are so anti-environmental. I really would like to know why you think the way you do. For all honesty, I would love to understand your side. What is in it for you to be anti environment? Is it just because the government is getting involved? Do you think you can make more money by investing in companies that are anti environment? Is it religion, does you religion admonish being good stewards of the environment? 

I hope it's not the self interest and greed card, but if it is, at least I can understand that perspective, I mean we are all on Caps to learn how to make better stock selections right? 

So what is it that is making you so antienvironmental?

 

Report this comment
#41) On January 12, 2010 at 6:24 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

creek138,

Two possible answers to the question you posed;

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php 

Or possibly they are upset they did not buy YGE in April at $7.00, and instead chose UNG or XOM?

Sometimes the buggywhip maker is the last to know.

 

 

Report this comment
#42) On January 12, 2010 at 6:41 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#40) On January 12, 2010 at 4:58 PM, creek138 (98.83) wrote:

And Chris, I think it's a bit oxymoronic that you just claimed China has more free market capitalism than the US.

I never said that creek138. I just said that came up with a free market solution to a problem. The fact that they don't mind poisoning their own people to do it bothers me, but neither I or devoish or anyone else can control the policies of their government. Their own people will eventually rebel and come to their own solution.

I'm not anti-environmental either. I recycle and conserve energy. I do that because it is in my best interest and that of my children. I am anti-global warming because it is simply hogwash. If you are looking at this post on an 800 x 600 computer screen. Imagine that the pixels are the atmosphere. There are just slightly under 500,000 pixels on an 800 x 600 screen. So all of the CO2 (both natural and man-made) would equal less than 2 of those pixels. Most of the rest would be water vapor. If you look at the man-made CO2 by itself, it doesn't even come close to 1/2 a pixel.

Now your government wants you to commit to spending 2 trillion dollars based on the fact that those couple of pixels influence the rest of the screen so much that they can create a climate emergency. They back it up by showing that there seems to be a high amount of CO2 in the atmosphere when it's hot. When you point out that it gets hot earlier than when the Carbon hits the atmosphere, they ignore that by saying well something else started the heat but once it got hot Carbon took over. If you look at the climate model that they show you, they have manipulated every piece of data including the computer program that created the model. They refuse to show their work when asked. When someone argues with them they simply state that they aren't smart enough to understand. I still have not heard a decent reason for why Carbon lags cooling. It can't be a main forcing if cooling happens while it's still in the atmosphere. It's simply impossible. There would have to be a bigger forcing leaving while the CO2 is sitting there. 

This is simply a big ponzi scheme and as long as they can get people to buy into it, they become rich and nothing changes in the environment. If they really wanted to change the environment, they would have a flat Carbon tax instead of Cap and Trade.  They declare victory before a problem even happened and then tell you that Cap and Trade has to stay or it will happen later.

I'm not sure where you are going with the religous people hate the environment thing, so I'll ignore it.

Lastly, you are right and I should relate this to investing. Those people that know me enough already know this so I don't beat the drum as much anymore. Buy precious metals and buy lots of them. Buy the physical metal because the government is manipulating this market too and paper metal is worthless.

The American public is too stupid to the fact that our government has written too many checks that it can't cash. Just this one ponzi scheme alone amounts to more than twice what The US debt was in 1980. And it's based on hogwash! It's all part of the happy. happy, joy, joy, goverment that can keep spending without remorse. When the dollar finally dies, the citizens starve while the culprits that got rich off this scheme move to their beach houses in Monaco.

This bubble is like any other and it will pop. So you ask me again what would motivate me? Maybe the fear of massive starvation and chaos that will occur when our economy implodes. Maybe that every idea of the current administration is just making it worse and maybe the fact that too many people don't see it coming. We can't afford our debt from a decade ago, let alone our current debt!

I don't know maybe it's a combination of all of the above, but I'll tell you this much. I've got my boat, a few passports and a plan and I can have my family out of the country in 3 hours if I need to. I would suggest that others do the same when the worst hits.

You asked, so I told you.

I hate to sound like Alstry, but there are too many people selling stupid and far to many others that are buying it!

 

Who is John freakin Gault?!?!?

 

 

Report this comment
#43) On January 12, 2010 at 6:43 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Or devoish it may be that I don't like financially irresponsible people in control of money.

Report this comment
#44) On January 12, 2010 at 6:51 PM, TLassen (59.73) wrote:

it is no longer 'global warming' it is called 'climate change', this way they can be right either way.

Report this comment
#45) On January 12, 2010 at 7:16 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ChrisGraley,
"The Guardian and this Greenman guy are obviously unbiased sources!"
- The Guardian contacted Mojib Latif to get his opinions about the articles that appeared in the Daily Mail and other outlets which cite his work. In this case, Mojib Latif is the primary source. Are you saying that the Guardian distorted Latif's words and opinions?
- That video quotes Latif word by word to show how his work and his opinions were being misrepresented and misinterpreted. Here again, Latif is the primary source and he was properly interpreted by the author of that video.

"If you are showing that I misquoted either article that I posted please point to exactly where in the article."
- FOX "News":
"America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age."
"it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif"
"Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it"
"Latif is a key member of the UN's climate research arm"

- Where does Latif talks about a mini ice age? Do you know what a mini ice age would mean?
- What's a top global warming proponent?
- The UN doesn't have a climate research arm. The IPCC doesn't do original research; it combs through the peer-reviewed literature and makes assessments of the evidence.

"You can write off the Fox news article as biased if you would like, but it's not any less biased than any link that the 2 of you have posted here."

Latif complains in The Guardian about the misuse of his work and the misrepresentations of his views in some news organizations. This makes The Guardian a source as biased as the Daily Mail or Fox?

"I would really like to see you make the bias claim for "New Scientist" though."

The headline is a bit over the top and there's some poor choice of words by Fred Pearce. Overall, the article is fine if you're open-minded and able to parse the content and the context. Pseudoskeptics don't have these skills, though.

"Passing off weather as climate is exactly what the alarmists are counting on to push this agenda through!"
Citations please. Climate scientists don't like bold claims and over-hyping extreme weather events.

"A half of a degree over 60 years is not climate it is weather."
Statistics isn't your strong point, is it?

"The data that you use has been manipulated to the point that it's worthless in the first place"
What are you talking about? The raw data is available and so are the metadata, code and documentation of some temperature reconstructions (independently validated)
When will you stop using false talking points?

"but I do believe that you said that they can be ruled out as a cause of the current warming and that most current natural forcings point to negative"
Correct. There's no natural forcing (sun, volcanoes, orbital cycles, etc) which is as big or as long-lived as the net anthropogenic forcing (GHGs + aerosols + land-use changes). Latif thinks that one internal variable (i.e. not a forcing) of the climate system may be responsible for a bigger share of the recent warming trend than previously acknowledged. The burden of proof is with him.

"I'm quite aware what Latif's work is attempting to improve the climate model and it will probably have the same data showing a 50 degree increase over the next 50 years after it gets the special "hockey stick smoothing" done to it."
- What's the connection between paleoclimatic reconstructions and general circulation models?
- Which models predict a 50 degree increase over the next 50 years?
Can you get your facts right for once?

"I'll try to use the primary sources for my argument from now on like you did with the link from the guardian and guy named green dude's youtube video."
So, Mojib Latif's own words aren't a primary source. Congratulations: you can work at Fox "News" now.

"I am very skepticle because of a few things..."
You're skeptical because:
- you're paid to lie (unlikely)
- you have a deep hatred of the left so you have to oppose every argument of the left even if they're reality-based.
- you're an unconscious victim of propaganda.
- you're anti-science/anti-intellectual. You don't like pointy-headed scientists and their facts.
- you feel that your lifestyle and/or your world-view are threatened by the realities of anthropogenic climate change so you're pushed into denial, an understandable psychological response
"A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would likely reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms."
Your skepticism of ACC/AGW isn't the result of an open-minded, cool-headed, rational evaluation of the (abundant) evidence and arguments. This is evident in your use of non-sequitur, strawmen, red herrings, exaggerations and other fallacies.

"I am  skeptical because the missing Briffa data seems to agree with Latif and was purposely deleted."
So you think that a handful of tree-ring chronologies invalidate other, more numerous tree-ring chronologies and thermometers?
Do you know about outliers and bad data?
Do you know that the bad data wasn't deleted? Dendroclimatologists decided to not include the bad data in paleoclimatic reconstructions without a good explanation of the divergence problem.
Do you know that this divergence problem opened a new line of inquiry?

"I am skeptical because the NASA satellite data was ignored for the same reason."
What are you talking about? The satellite record isn't ignored and it's in wide agreement with reconstructions (NCDC, GISSTemp, HadCRUT, JMA) of the global average temperature anomaly.

"I am skeptical beause the famous "Siple curve" arbitrarily adjusts only recent ice core data 83 years while leaving all previous data unadjusted."
You don't know what are you talking about. The criticism of ice cores is completely baseless:
"Too many of the objections made by Jaworowsky are either completely outdated, physically impossible (even the reverse of what he alleges) or based on wrong age data."
Remember that lecture at the AGU workshop by Richard Alley? He says that ice cores are the gold standard of paleoclimatic evidence and other lines of evidence are calibrated against ice cores.

"I am equally shocked that  people that have "tricks" named after them to "hide the decline" still have any credibility at all at this point"

Trick:
"3 a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result : knack (2) : an instance of getting a desired result b : a technical device (as of an art or craft) "

"I am also shocked that someone can still believe that Carbon causes warming when every piece of data seems to show that Carbon lags warming in history."
- I'm shocked that someone can deny basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher CO2 levels = stronger greenhouse effect = higher temperatures (all else being equal).
- I'm shocked that someone will ignore anthropogenic sources of CO2 because in the past that CO2 was released by volcanoes or the oceans.
- I'm shocked that someone is confused by the directions of cause and effect.
- I'm shocked that someone can't understand the amount of radiative forcing necessary to start/end an ice age and how orbital forcing isn't strong enough on its own.
- I'm shocked that someone will only pay attention to the Quaternary and ignore the rest of Earth's history (we have paleoclimatic evidence for the last billion years) when the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temperature (Snowball Earth, PETM, etc)

"Mostly I'm shocked how something so flawed is followed so blindly and still accepted as science."
It's amazing how someone can claim wrongdoing while being almost completely ignorant of the amount of evidence, the chains of inference, the construction of scientific knowledge, etc.

"There is so very little of that hockey stick chart that hasn't been manipulated that it's completely worthless."
The hockey stick, a peripheral evidence, was ratified by independent reconstructions and a committee of the National Academy of Sciences.

"As for me, I'll continue to be skeptical of used car salesman, pink sheet stocks with no earnings, and the IPCC."
I'll continue to be skeptical of fossil fuel shills, ignorant people and illogical arguments.


@TLassen,
"it is no longer 'global warming' it is called 'climate change', this way they can be right either way"
Your ridiculous theory doesn't fit the facts. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is 21 years old. According to your theory, the IPCC should have been named IPGW and then it should have changed its name to IPCC.

Report this comment
#46) On January 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Chris, 

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE60A05U20100111?type=marketsNews 

The clock is ticking on another generation of buggywhip makers.

Good luck.

 

Report this comment
#47) On January 13, 2010 at 1:16 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Are you saying that the Guardian distorted Latif's words and opinions?


No more than you are saying Fox News is.



I don't believe I misquoted any of that text in Fox News.
In fact I don't believe I quoted any of it either. I just posted a link
.

Why are you asking me if I know what a mini Ice Age is? It was Latif's statement. If you are suggesting that Fox News misqouted him,then I suggest that you contact them.

The IPCC doesn't do original research

That I will absolutely agree with Lucas!

Latif complains in The Guardian about the misuse of his work and the misrepresentations of his views in some news organizations. This makes The Guardian a source as biased as the Daily Mail or Fox?


Nope, the Guardian's politics make them as biased as Fox News.

 
Citations please. Climate scientists don't like bold claims and over-hyping extreme weather events.


The IPCC states that: “Antarctic sea ice continues to show interannual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region”. (AR4 WG1 SPM p.9)
This is refuted Here: In the last graph Antarctic Sea Ice has increased since 1978 and was ignored buy the IPCC. Is the NSIDC primary source enough for you?
How about these papers?

Cavalieri et al, Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1970 (2003): Antarctic sea ice has gradually increased since 1977 (following a drop in the early 1970s).

Hanna and Bamber, Derivation and optimization of a new Antarctic sea-ice record, Int J Remote Sensing 22, 113-139 (2003), using satellite data, obtain an increase in Antarctic sea ice extent of 3% over the period 1987-1997.

Vyas et al, On the secular trends in sea ice extent over the antarctic region based on OCEANSAT-1 MSMR observations, Int. J. Remote Sensing 24, 2277-2287 (2003), found a positive trend in Antarctic sea ice and found that this trend is increasing.

Zwally et al, Variability of Antarctic sea ice 1979-1998 J. Geophys. Res.  107, C000733 (2002), found a net increase of both the extent and area of Antarctic sea ice, at a rate of around 1% per decade.

All ignored by the IPCC

Here's another graph of the same thing.


The AR4 WG1 SPM claims (table SPM.1, page 7) that sea level is rising at 0.21 mm/yr over the period 1993-2003, due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

H.J. Zwally et al, Growth of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet, Science 281, 1251 (1998). They found an ice sheet thickening rate of about 5 cm/year.

C. H. Davis, C. A. Kluever, and B. J. Haines, Elevation Change of the Southern Greenland Ice Sheet. Science 279, 2086-2088 (1998). They found a small increase (1.5 cm/year) over the period 1978-1988.

R. Thomas et al, Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet at High Elevations. Science 289, 426-428 (2000). They find that "On average, the region has been in balance".

O. M. Johannessen, K. Khvorostovsky, M. W. Miles, and L. P. Bobylev, Recent Ice-Sheet Growth in the Interior of Greenland. Science 310, 1013-1016 (2005) - They used satellite altimetry over the period 1992-2003, and found the "spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area".

H.J. Zwally et al, Mass changes of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and shelves and contributions to sea-level rise: 1992-2002.  J. Glaciol. 51, 509-527 (2005) - Found an overall mass gain of 11 GT/yr.

AR4 cites the last two of these (though they incorrectly refer to Zwally et al as 2006) but not the first two. AR4 also incorrectly shows Zwally et al as showing mass loss in fig 4.18. AR4 also attempts discredit Johannessen et al (fig 4.18 caption) by saying that they were not 'corrected' (i.e. fudged), and by showing it as a dotted line in their figure.  


In AR4 chapter 2, page 153, the IPCC states that

"Harries et al. (2001) analysed spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation as measured by two satellites in 1970 and
1997 over the tropical Pacific Ocean. The reduced brightness temperature observed in the spectral regions of many of the
greenhouse gases is experimental evidence for an increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect. In particular, the spectral signatures were large for CO2 and CH4."

The 2001 paper by Harries et al (on-line here) made use of data from the IRIS satellite, launched in 1970, and a comparison with data from the much more recent (1996) IMG satellite.  They estimated errors in the results of around 0.5K.

However, a more recent paper by Brindley and Harries  in the Journal of climate in 2003 (here) raises some doubts about these results, saying that "the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K".  They also make the cautionary statement that "Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes".

This more recent paper, by the same authors, saying that the errors were much larger than previously thought and urging caution in the interpretation, is not cited by the IPCC


The first and second drafts of the IPCC AR4 WG1 reports, together with the reviewer comments, can all be found here.

I suggest that you look through the comments and particularly the ones that were simply ignored by the IPCC. From those it's easier to see what they were manipulating.
I'll admit, I've barely made it through a small amount of the comments. I keep getting side-tracked to figure out what they were hiding.

I can post more citations if you want me to. Just let me know.

 
"A half of a degree over 60 years is not climate it is weather."
Statistics isn't your strong point, is it?

 
We've been over this before, you can't count regression to the mean.


"The data that you use has been manipulated to the point that it's worthless in the first place"
What are you talking about? The raw data is available and so are the metadata, code and documentation of some temperature reconstructions (independently validated)
When will you stop using false talking points?

 The entire model is a false talking point. Data is ommited at whim. Parts of the data are arbitrarily shifted 83 years to the right. The programmer admits that the data is garbage and he had to tweek the code to get it to say what they were looking for. etc... What more needs to be said about the subject?

There's no natural forcing (sun, volcanoes, orbital cycles, etc) which is as big or as long-lived as the net anthropogenic forcing (GHGs + aerosols + land-use changes). Latif thinks that one internal variable (i.e. not a forcing) of the climate system may be responsible for a bigger share of the recent warming trend than previously acknowledged. The burden of proof is with him.

I'm pretty sure we found a gray area with the Sun, but I won't go there. I'd really like to know what makes the Sun a forcing and AMO just a variable though? It does change the climate and I believe that cycle length of 70 years is longer than other things that we consider forcings. Is it that we can't predict it? Is it that it isn't in the current model? Is it that it might be an inconvienient truth?


"I'm quite aware what Latif's work is attempting to improve the climate model and it will probably have the same data showing a 50 degree increase over the next 50 years after it gets the special "hockey stick smoothing" done to it."
- What's the connection between paleoclimatic reconstructions and general circulation models?
- Which models predict a 50 degree increase over the next 50 years?
Can you get your facts right for once?


I'm pretty sure that even a pseudoscientist has the brain capacity to detect sacasm and over-exageration. You can save the political bantering for those blog posts on the Guardian where they will appreciate it.

So, Mojib Latif's own words aren't a primary source. Congratulations: you can work at Fox "News" now.

Are you sure you can attest that was totally unedited and Latif said nothing else and also played a Frankenstein movie at the conference? I would like to see a citation for that if you could.


You're skeptical because:


I won't post the rest of that diatribe but it is above if anyone wants to see Lucas diagnose my problems. He is not only a pseudo-intellectual and a pseudo-scientist, but also a pseudo-psychiatrist apparently.

Lucas your blind acceptance of AGW stems from a egotist view that you can't possibly be incorrect. Dismissing alternatives views without investigation, claiming that people with opposing views are mentally inferior and regurgitating only data spoon-fed to you by your political party shows signs of future life problems that you should seek help with.


So you think that a handful of tree-ring chronologies invalidate other, more numerous tree-ring chronologies and thermometers?

You can't delete an entire time-frame of data when it doesn't agree with the model.

Do you know about outliers and bad data?
Do you know that the bad data wasn't deleted? Dendroclimatologists decided to not include the bad data in paleoclimatic reconstructions without a good explanation of the divergence problem.
Do you know that this divergence problem opened a new line of inquiry?

Do you know that data must be taken as a whole and is either good or bad as a whole. If you can't explain the divergence, and you simply delete the part of the data that doesn't agree with the model, you aren't doing science any favors.

What are you talking about? The satellite record isn't ignored and it's in wide agreement with reconstructions (NCDC, GISSTemp, HadCRUT, JMA) of the global average temperature anomaly.

The fact that models predict far greater warming than satellites have measured is being ignored. Also the satellites disagreed with the surface measurements for the same time as Briffa and showed the same downward trend. The IPCC blamed the satellites and Nasa responded.

"I am skeptical beause the famous "Siple curve" arbitrarily adjusts only recent ice core data 83 years while leaving all previous data unadjusted."

You don't know what are you talking about. The criticism of ice cores is completely baseless:
"Too many of the objections made by Jaworowsky are either completely outdated, physically impossible (even the reverse of what he alleges) or based on wrong age data."
Remember that lecture at the AGU workshop by Richard Alley? He says that ice cores are the gold standard of paleoclimatic evidence and other lines of evidence are calibrated against ice cores.


A word of advice Lucas - When dealing with complex subjects, try to use primary sources (e.g. the referred literature) instead of mass media articles. Journalists (including science journalists) can get things wrong, fail. In the link, the complete set of data is used and he also points out the cherry picked data from the IPCC. He references in the footnotes where they tried to validate the arbitrary data and failed.

3 a (1) : a quick or artful way of getting a result


The result being to hide the decline.


"I am also shocked that someone can still believe that Carbon causes warming when every piece of data seems to show that Carbon lags warming in history."
- I'm shocked that someone can deny basic physics. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Higher CO2 levels = stronger greenhouse effect = higher temperatures (all else being equal).


But evidence clearly shows that there is a bigger forcing than Carbon and when it leaves Carbon lags cooling as well.

- I'm shocked that someone will ignore anthropogenic sources of CO2 because in the past that CO2 was released by volcanoes or the oceans.


I don't ignore them. there are just not significant enough to worry about.


- I'm shocked that someone is confused by the directions of cause and effect.


So am I! If the warming comes before the Carbon, than the Carbon is the effect.

- I'm shocked that someone can't understand the amount of radiative forcing necessary to start/end an ice age and how orbital forcing isn't strong enough on its own.


Who said that orbital forcing would do it on it's own?


- I'm shocked that someone will only pay attention to the Quaternary and ignore the rest of Earth's history (we have paleoclimatic evidence for the last billion years) when the rise in CO2 preceded the rise in temperature (Snowball Earth, PETM, etc)

Wow it was like pulling teeth to get you to admit Holcene was relevant less than a month ago and now you are stretching back to snowball Earth! At least you're growing.

"Mostly I'm shocked how something so flawed is followed so blindly and still accepted as science."
It's amazing how someone can claim wrongdoing while being almost completely ignorant of the amount of evidence, the chains of inference, the construction of scientific knowledge, etc.


Being able to see manipulated data for what it is, is not ignorance. Blindly following the model when you know it's been manipulated is ignorance.


@TLassen,
"it is no longer 'global warming' it is called 'climate change', this way they can be right either way"
Your ridiculous theory doesn't fit the facts. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is 21 years old. According to your theory, the IPCC should have been named IPGW and then it should have changed its name to IPCC.


Don't mind him TLasen. He jaded because he's selling crazy and the market for it is dwindling.





Report this comment
#48) On January 13, 2010 at 1:21 AM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#46) On January 12, 2010 at 9:56 PM, devoish (99.63) wrote:

Chris, 

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

 

devoish, Did you notice that the free market did that all by itself without a 2 trillion dollar gun being held to it's head?

Report this comment
#49) On January 13, 2010 at 11:13 AM, drgroup (69.07) wrote:

ChrisGraley...let the global warming crackpots drive to work in their sneaker shaped Prius's. Let them install costley solar panels on their roofs or where ever they think they need them. Let them invest in wind power that kills millions of birds with the sharp edged blades. I will be the one who continues to use coal or oil to fire up my besimer converts in order to produce steel to use in production of the Prius's. I will use my 18 wheel diesel powered flatbed trucks to deliver their solar panels up the side of the mountain they will need to live on in order to get optimal performance. I will use my oil driven cargo ships to import from China, all the components required  to assemble the bird killing wind mills. 

All of these ideas should be nothing more than hobbies for utopia cults scattered around this country. If they want to make windmills, solar panels and prius's a part of their existence, then more power to them. But don't try to manufacure goofey laws that affect every citizen of this country, by trying to scare the idiots that the sky will fall if they don't buy into the plan.

Why hasn't al gore and his ilk of ponzi schemers been subpeonaed to produce and prove the data behind the lies and deceit they are purpitrating? It is all a hug con.

G-d help us all if we can't control insanity like this....

Report this comment
#50) On January 13, 2010 at 12:05 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

The point about keeping this closely focused on investment is a good one.

So consider how population and climate effects long term investment in agriculture.

Here's a link to a study done in 2003 by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations titled Climate change and long-term fluctuations of commercial catches -- The possibility of forecasting; ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/

Conclusions are in the y2787e10.pdf but an interesting chart appears on page 50 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/005/y2787e/y2787e08.pdf which shows a 55 years oscillation of the atmospheric circulation index and temperature range. Page 51 indicates the global temperature anomaly related to "Global Warming" concerns. 

Report this comment
#51) On January 13, 2010 at 12:42 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

The most interesting statements I've found in the UN's study related to climate are on page 19 in the y2787e02.pdf

The ACI dynamics (Figure 3.6A) exhibits regular, roughly 30-year, alternation of the "circulation epochs" characterised by predominance of either «zonal» or «meridional» components. These epochs correspond to the periods of either global warming or global cooling. In fact, only the upper parts (peaks) of C (“meridional”) and WE (“zonal”) curves are of practical significance (Figure 3.6B)"

The alternation of “cool” (meridional) and "warm" (zonal) circulation epochs correspond also to the  long-term changes in the catch of main commercial species over the Atlantic and Pacific. The maximum production of seven of the twelve major commercial species fall on the "warm" period, whereas the production of the remaining 5 species is in good agreement with the "cool" periods (Klyashtorin 1998)."

The relationship between the circulation epochs and maximums of the major commercial fish production in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans is shown in Figure 3.7. The long-term fish production follows the regular alternation between the "meridional" and "zonal" circulation epochs. Regular alternation of the epochs for the last 110 years suggests that the present epoch of "zonal" circulation is coming into its final phase and the new "meridional" epoch is due." 

 

Clearly, the circulation and temperature epochs are already know so I guess the question is why is this news and why isn't it part of the original Global Warming modeling?

Report this comment
#52) On January 13, 2010 at 1:09 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Note: it also puts ChrisGraley's concern about fish in perspective ; )

It was also interesting to find the statement -- even though fishing fleets have increased over the past decade, the catch has remained nearly constant. With technology, this doesn't make sense to me unless the fish are getting smarter ;P

Report this comment
#53) On January 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

Concerning the article I linked to:

 http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTOE60A05U20100111?type=marketsNews

devoish, Did you notice that the free market did that all by itself without a 2 trillion dollar gun being held to it's head? - ChrisGrayley

I'm pretty sure that the Chinese Gov't funded the project,with low interest loans, tax breaks and subsidys, not some imaginary free market which you David and a few others have assured me does not exist every time it screws up.

Seriously, we will by crying for the oil we did not have to burn, when we want to make plastics in a few decades.

Waste not - want not. Good advice, eh?

Report this comment
#54) On January 13, 2010 at 4:05 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

#53) On January 13, 2010 at 1:16 PM, devoish (99.62) wrote:

Seriously, we will by crying for the oil we did not have to burn, when we want to make plastics in a few decades.

You should be hoping for the reverse. it would encourage recycling.

Report this comment
#55) On January 14, 2010 at 10:31 AM, devoish (98.26) wrote:

You should be hoping for the reverse. it would encourage recycling.

 ?

Report this comment
#56) On January 14, 2010 at 12:30 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

Chris,

Thank you for the lengthy reply, I'm at work and havent had a chance to read it yet, but as an avid proponent of Due Diliigence, I think you will appreciate this "Risk Management" scenario:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ&feature=player_embedded

Also, more here, but most of these are bit more politicized:

http://current.com/16fmk4c

Report this comment
#57) On January 14, 2010 at 4:02 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

#56 Great vids creek138 but are they too black and white?

What if we proclaim Stewardship, embrace alternative technologies, and institute pollution controls without the need for Cap and Trade and Carbon taxes and without the need for Big Government (which actually doesn't fix anything and probably adds more Greenhouse gas from all the hot air).

Haven't we then done the right thing "just in case" and saved ourselves a ton of money?

Note: based on my review of 2007 "Green" power generation (boy do I hope I got the numbers right) we are already 28+% "Green". This effort started long ago and is starting to snowball.

 

Examples: 

UTC Power

http://www.utcpower.com/

"Three of AC Transit’s buses are equipped with UTC Power fuel cell systems and have now traveled more than 213,000 miles, with an average fuel economy that is 65 percent better than the control fleet of diesel buses running the same routes and duty cycles."

"Fuel cell buses also have a significant effect on reducing greenhouse gases, ranging from a 43 percent reduction over diesel buses if hydrogen is supplied from the reformation of natural gas, up to a 100 percent reduction when hydrogen is generated from on-site renewable sources like solar and wind power."

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2010-01/UTC-Power-Attains-5000-hour-Dura

 

14 Jan 2010

NYPA Installs Fuel Cell at Westchester Office Building

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/online/news/articles/2010-01/NYPA-Installs-Fuel-Cell-at-Westc

Kessel was joined by City of White Plains Mayor Adam Bradley, other elected officials, representatives from Federated Conservationists of Westchester County, Inc., other environmental organizations and Robert Byron, product manager, UTC Power stationary fuel cell business, to announce the new plan for future energy and environmental programs to be undertaken by NYPA. 

Highlighting the announcement was the new energy saving 200 kilowatt (kw) fuel cell at NYPA’s downtown White Plains office building, which will generate 200 kw continuously, or about 1.6 million kilowatt hours annually, to supply approximately 20 percent of the building’s annual energy requirement.  Waste heat from the unit will be used to heat and cool the office’s lobby areas. 

This is the first fuel cell to be installed at an office building in Westchester County and its operation is expected to offset about 1,116 tons of carbon dioxide annually contributing to a cleaner environment. 

Report this comment
#58) On January 14, 2010 at 6:08 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

licx, yes I do believe this scenario is much too black and white. For one if we had economic collapse, surely we would have some form or government collapse and social unrest. However, life will go on in some fashion, in the current technological age.

 On the other hand, if climate change creates catastrophe and most of our population gets displaced, and we have to spend unequivocal resources on rebuilding, this will create many more problems than a severe depression. For one, we may not have the resources to rebuild or if such diplacement has to occur across the globe, that means we'll have much less arable land to support our current population.

 

I agree with you, cap n' trade is not the best idea, especially when it comes with punitive damages on businesses that are trying to sustain or improve our current quality of life. (but is our current QOL even sustainable?). However, we need a carrot and a stick to motivate people. Unfortunately, people do not change merely by carrot or stick alone. Google it for studies, but I'll give you some examples:

All carrot:

"The biodome" (no allusion to pauly shore here, well ok maybe a little) - all carrots and no sticks, failed miserably in the 90's

spoiled children

economic bubbles without regulation

 

All Stick:

Totalitarian regimes across the world - you're just the dictator until someone else usurps power (read: off with your head)

The Berlin Wall - built to keep people in, how well did that work

 

 If you get the right mix, then people fear enough of the consequences not to take the improper action and enough carrot gives them incentive to keep following down the path. I think a great example of this is our current economic society. You don't steal from others because it's wrong and you could go to jail, yet you also beleiev in the system and thus have a job or own stocks to make money in the system in order to get your rewards: goods and services. Some that you may not want or need, but it's just enough incentive to keep you from deviating from the system.

The problem with just letting companies act upon the market is that people are extremely short sited, they want results now with less regard for the future. Thus, people are only going to make climate change a concern when people can't afford electricity for their heating and cooling or people are dying from heatstroke ont he street. It just hasn't come home to us yet.

For an incredibly macabre reference, consider the 9/11 attacks. Were you at all concerned about what terrorists were doing in afghanistan prior to 2001? No, nearly none of us were, because we didn't see it as an issue worth considering. In fact many people thought Clinton was using the afghan terrorist camp bombing in 1998 as to "wag the dog" and sway people from the impeachment trial. We thought it was bogus, and the next year we didnt even think about it. There were no sticks because we hadnt been attacked. There was very little industry contemplating urban warfare, and IEDs comparitively. But now, it is imperative for our elected officials to be strong on terrorism and national safety, moreso than in the previous 30 years, because terrorism came home and now we have all sorts of crazy new weaponry to dislodge the terrorists.

But the stick had to come first, didn't it? When it comes to climate change, the stick may come to swift for us to react, and I think that's what our side is so worried about, not being prepared when our judgement day comes. Then again it may never come, but best to be prepared right? 

Report this comment
#59) On January 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

Chris,

So from what I read on your perspective. To surrmise, the reason you don't believe in anthropomorhic climate change (ACC) is that you don't believe the data and that the government is colluding to steal the corporations profits, is this true?

If this is the case, what impact does this have on you? Maybe because this cost potentially gets passed down to the consumer or impacts the companies' profits? If this is the case, then the free market would take over fromt here right? People would switch to cheaper energy sources, investors would switch to companies to higher growth potential. And regulation effectively takes dollars from monopolistic competitors to harder-to-start small innovative technologies. What the heck is wrong with that?

Rockefeller and Carnegie showed us what happens when you grow so big that people only have one option...growth and innovation stagnates. Spurring competition helps improve our quality of life and keeps the gears of the market well oiled. (er, no pun intended) I would think people interested in increasing competition and efficiency in the market would be excited about a little bit of government interference.

Granted the gov makes mistakes, everyone does. But they have a lot of very smart people working on these things, and they must be doing something right, we've avoided numerous catastrophies, even in my short life. I may have approached some things differently, but I'm only one person with a limitied knowledge base, theyre running the largest company in the world and have some of the top talent in every sector (and some dimwits) so I'd prefer to take what they provide at face value and then fact check against the scientific data and likely, this trust in both of these factors is where we differ.

Thanks for your explanation.

Report this comment
#60) On January 14, 2010 at 7:33 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

comparison of both sides

http://s3.amazonaws.com/infobeautiful/climate_skeptics_960.gif

Report this comment
#61) On January 14, 2010 at 8:19 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

creek138,

Well put -- it takes a crisis for a majority of the US to agree and to act.

Is our current QOL even sustainable? Its a very good question and depends on what we mean by Quality. The term is essentially meaningless unless defined but we all know that fossil fuels aren't the answer. They are a legacy solution thats been difficult to overcome.

The problem I've seen for decades is that the burden of change is placed on the backs of tax payers. Every time they pass an environmental law, the cost is passed on to the consumer and taxpayer. 

Or, they enact laws without any insight to correctly implementing solutions.

Here's a simple example that actually happened. The Federal Government demands that States recycle or it will withhold Federal funds. The States then pass a law requiring mandatory recycling by a given date in time. The law in-turn forces municipal governments to respond but the city planners don't have a clue as to how to implement it or understand the value of the resources they are being asked to recycle.

City planners don't want to take on the responsibility of implementing a plan which might make them look foolish nor can they afford to be the one that caused the State to lose the Federal funding. So they in turn contract for a feasibility study to determine the best way to implement recycling.

Now we have numerous municipalities wasting tax payer dollars on feasibility studies that ultimately deliver different solutions. Some in the interest of the tax payer and most that aren't.

Everyone "feels good" because we are now recycling to help conserve resources and landfill but ended up paying several thousand times what it would have cost if the Federal boobs had taken the time to simply work out a proper solution with the States that the "People" would support before passing the decree (hopefully with out a lot of pork in it).

Here's another one, the DOE has been supporting research for decades looking for alternatives to fossil fuels. The DOE discovers a significant breakthrough from one of the projects and pitches it to Industry until they find a company who is willing implement it. Good for the DOE, at least some tax payer money is going to a good cause.

The DOE then informs the States of the opportunity looking for one or more States to be a first implementors for testing and build out. They end up testing and everything goes great, its a huge success and along the way discover they can create electricity directly from municipal waste (biogas). They also discover a potential scrubber process that converts high sulfur coal into hydrogen and another that converts hydrogen into electricity and works well with solar and wind power to make them even more efficient.  

Now in background, the Federal government decides that the planet is going to be in trouble by the year 2100 because of emissions. They in-turn decide to implement the only thing they seem capable of which is to place a heavier tax on citizens by handing out tax incentives and implementing billion dollar government projects to reduce the carbon footprint when they could have pulled the utilities and States into a committee to implement a solution that would likely have reduced the cost of electricity for every taxpayer and cleaned up significant air pollution at the same time.

The issue for me isn't the problems, its the inefficient way they attempt to address the solutions and the knowledge that we ultimately end up paying 10 times the taxes as a result.

Fix government and we just balanced the budget and ensured a better QOL. 

Report this comment
#62) On January 15, 2010 at 1:44 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

llcx, I am all for your idea, it seems very efficient for the government to collect data from all of the states, report on the data, consult a professional energy panel and implement the most effective strategies we have for the most efficient locations. In fact I'd consider this one of the best ideas I've ever heard.

 BUT, that's not free market capitalism at all, that's big government forcing decisions upon the market, considered at least socialism. I'm for free market, but I agree with you, long term decisions that are unprofitable in the short term but more viable in the long term should be made by our government.

Sadly, in this instance free marketers create blockages in the process, and big government in general becomes inefficient because beaurocracy(red tape) ends up getting involved. That and city managers do usually know better how to allocate their resources that big gov does and usually can't afford/implement collosal changes in a few short years, but again that's a consequence of our choice of government. Not that I want a different one, I enjoy my freedoms and my opportunity to make my own decisions, but other models would work more efficiently when it comes to infrastructure.

Something I stumbled upon yesterday that sort of highlights this, caveat though, it is pretty biased. I also think they neglected a large factor in economic collapse: aging populations:

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/23259

Report this comment
#63) On January 15, 2010 at 4:59 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Odd that that article was written in 2006.

As I understand it, Government at all levels in our Republic is Civil Service. They are acting on the behalf of the taxpayer and using taxpayer dollars. When they enact and contract for goods and services, they are required to follow a bidding process and typically pick the lowest bid based on the criteria they present for bid. If the criteria is poorly crafted, the result will be as well.

National Public Works projects use taxpayer dollars from all States for the benefit of the Nation. Local Municipal Projects like education, roads, and waste management are typically a combination of Federal and State funding as well as tax funds from property owners. All of the funding for these projects is based on taxation.

It isn't violating our free market system or capitalism to require government to get the public bid criteria correct before selecting a good or service. And, from my perspective, it also doesn't violate free market to require that the bidders deliver a technology for Federal and State Public projects thats efficient and in the interest of Public Health.

So, if Government actually wants to reduce our Carbon footprint in a meaningful way, they could start with government buildings and government projects at all levels to recover carbon, biogas, and produce or minimize energy with the best product criteria available.

example: Inputs of Fossil Carbon from Wastewater Treatment Plants to U.S. Rivers and Oceans

The problem is that they don't appear to be able to define the criteria? 

Report this comment
#64) On January 15, 2010 at 5:51 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Then again, I could be wrong about the criteria aspect. They've been at this for over 22 years and, to be fair, we do have hybrid cars on the market, some of the first biogas fuel cell conversion in waste water treatment, and 5-10 government buildings using Fuel Cells.

Sorry about the caps, its a Senate thing.

SEPTEMBER 23, 1987

FUEL CELL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND UTILIZATION POLICY, AND HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

S. Hrg. 100-501 

HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION

ON 

S. 1294: TO PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNOLOGIES WHICH WILL ENABLE FUEL CELLS TO USE ALTERNATIVE FUEL SOURCES 

S. 1295: TO DEVELOP A NATIONAL POLICY FOR THE UTILIZATION OF FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY

S. 1296: TO ESTABLISH A HYDROGEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Report this comment
#65) On January 15, 2010 at 6:01 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

DOE (we) supported this one as well which could be a huge success.

SRT/ISPRA Flue Gas Desulphurization Process

SRT/ISPRA Flue Gas Desulphurization Process was or is being tested at the Four Corners Power Plant in NM which started sometime in 2008 or 2009 for 18 Months. I couldn't find any results of the testing so it may still be ongoing.

"The process has been demonstrated to remove more than 90% of the sulfur flue gas SO2. It also has the added potential to aid in the reduction of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and mercury (Hg), which has been identified as goals of President Bush’s Clear Skies Initiative."

A unique aspect of the SRT/ISPRA process is the regeneration of the reactant Bromine (Br2). In the electrolyzer, the HBr formed in the reactor is converted to Br2 and H2. Thus the reactant Br2 is regenerated and a valuable fuel source Hydrogen (H2) is formed. The production of H2 is in line with the current administrations support for developing hydrogen as a primary fuel for cars and trucks."

The process also has the ability to operate a H2/Br2 reversible cell. During on-peak hours the cell operates as a fuel cell by reacting H2 with Br2 to form HBr and power. To regenerate the chemicals, the cell operates as an electrolyzer, converting the HBr back to H2 and Br2."

The incorporation of the ISPRA FGD process with SRT's electrochemical HBr energy storage system enables a base-loaded, coal-fired plant to operate virtually SO2 emission free, store off-peak energy, and produce marketable H2 and H2SO4. The stored energy, in the form of H2 and HBr, can be discharged during on-peak spikes and generation equipment outages, or for providing black start capability for peaking turbines."

Note: the process not only scrubs pollution from coal flue gas but creates and stores Hydrogen along the way. The Hydrogen can be sold or recombined with the Bromine in a subsequent step to produce electricity without combustion during peak loads to reduce emissions and prevent brown-outs. As far as I can tell, this process has yet to be fully funded by industry. Hopefully the tests will be a huge success. Four Corners Power Plant is one of the largest coal-fired generating stations in the United States -- five units generate 2,040 megawatts for over 300,000 households in 4 states.

Forget the bunny. Robin Parker has a battery that might save the world. 

Report this comment
#66) On January 15, 2010 at 6:14 PM, creek138 (31.71) wrote:

20 years and theyre still trying. Takes alot of effort to move mountains, especially when that mountain costs more to move than just leaving it there. Let's just hope it's not a dormant volcano.

I agree, the government is slothlike and the data can be confusing, but there also hasn't been enough public interest up until recently or else we wouldve done it, like we banned most CFC's in a few short years. I guess that goes back to carrot and stick.

I think alternative energy is just now starting to pass into the productivity phase of the tech curve. This means we'll see more ad more facilities built and SD integration, and public knowlegs is growing. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next 20 years.

As for your first link, so they found petrochemicals in wastewater that changes the physical properties of the water. I understand that, it doesnt provide what the impacts are or what to do about it. I'm confused by what you mean by "The problem is that they don't appear to be able to define the criteria?"

This has been an enjoyable civil debate, and informative, I just wish more people were interested.

Report this comment
#67) On January 15, 2010 at 7:08 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

: ) I agree it has been fun and a chance to read up on a lot of the things I've missed over the years.

I now have a lot more respect for the DOE efforts, for the funding and research support from Congress, and the utility companies that have been actively supporting the delivery of hydrogen and fuel cells. The States have also been activity supporting the research and testing.

Solar in conjunction with Parker's energy storage could just turn the corner for wind and solar. Fuel Cells are 11x more efficient then solar and battery storage for wind and solar farms may not be available.

I posted the study on Fossil Carbon in Waste Treatment as a way of alluding to what we believe is a clean process but turns out to be flawed. If they want a major win that's also a place to devote some of the Billions. Introduce Biogas conversion with Fuel Cells to reduce carbon fuel consumption and also improve water treatment. Seems like they should be able to capture the Fossil Carbon from the water and use it as fuel.

Have a Great Weekend 

Report this comment
#68) On January 15, 2010 at 7:20 PM, EcoFire (< 20) wrote:

Why is it that when a commercial tells the American people that an herbal substance will cure all our problems (air born is a good example) we turn out in droves to take the miracle pill but when well regarded scientists using the best data available tell us something we write it off as conjecture? The argument that because only a small fraction of atmospheric CO2 is produced anthropologically proves that humans have nothing to do with global warming is false. It called system sensitivity… some factors in a system impact the final outcome disproportionally to their input. This can be shown using a sensitivity analysis with most models. By the way it only takes one nanogram of the botulism toxin per Kg to kill a human. This represents 1.0 x 10-7 % of an individual’s body weight .( My point being, natural systems can be very sensitive and even a small amount of change can have huge implications).

Report this comment
#69) On January 15, 2010 at 8:21 PM, ChrisGraley (29.75) wrote:

Well if the scientists didn't side-step scientific method, and if they didn't manipulate data and if they would so adverse to showing their work, then the masses may follow a little bit better. The because we are smater than you are argument can only go so far before you start getting called on it.

Also i would be onboard if botulism was in the atmosphere and not the stuff that plants like to inhale.

 

Good video creek on the risk and I might use it in another post, but got ito it in a little more detail.

 

Report this comment
#70) On January 15, 2010 at 8:24 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

No one is disputing Stewardship EcoFire its just the idea of taxing us to correct an industrial problem we have already been shelling out to fix since at least 1987 and cloaking it as Global Warming that stinks.

Sticking us with a Carbon tax and Cap & Trade tax is absurd. They need to rethink the funding mechanism. Let's call it capital equipment depreciation which they already get under tax codes.

One way or the other we still get stuck with the bill but at least we don't feel like chumps. 

Report this comment
#71) On January 15, 2010 at 9:57 PM, IIcx (< 20) wrote:

Just in case anyone missed the last few related blogs:

Aviation pioneer and master engineer Burt Rutan on Global Warming

Obama administration announced $2.3 Billion for Clean Energy

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement