Global Warming Update
January 18th, 2008 at 06:36am Mark Noonan
As usual when the global warming zealots show up:
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation’s toughest greenhouse gas control law.
As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.
“We are going to pass this bill this year,” said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George’s County and chairman of the senate’s environmental matters subcommittee. “We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop….We are going to keep going until we pass this bill.”
This happens so often that one begins to think that a Power is trying to get something through rather thick, leftwing skulls…be that as it may, there is also this news from Greenland:
Residents insist Greenland’s freezing temperatures don’t mean global warming has been called off
While the rest of Europe is debating the prospects of global warming during an unseasonably mild winter, a brutal cold snap is raging across the semi-autonomous nation of Greenland.
On Disko Bay in western Greenland, where a number of prominent world leaders have visited in recent years to get a first-hand impression of climate change, temperatures have dropped so drastically that the water has frozen over for the first time in a decade.
‘The ice is up to 50cm thick,’ said Henrik Matthiesen, an employee at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute who has also sailed the Greenlandic coastline for the Royal Arctic Line. ‘We’ve had loads of northerly winds since Christmas which has made the area miserably cold.’
Matthiesen suggested the cold weather marked a return to the frigid temperatures common a decade ago.
Gee, almost like its some sort of…well…what would the best word be?…..hmmm…oh, I know: its almost like a cycle; you know, a recurring pattern in weather where sometimes its warming, and sometimes its colder…
Entry Filed under: Environment
43 Comments
1. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 7:32 am
Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC, that has a vested interest in perpetuating thier climate change claims, of course you’re going to have unwarranted hysteria and legislation.
Much like the denial of progress against Islamic terrorism. Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
Interesting link excerpt and link below:
According to Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who?s been studying and writing about sea levels for four decades, the scientists working for the IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their point.
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf
2. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 8:13 am
neocon: Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
When criticizing those that disagree with you as being “agenda driven”, perhaps it’s not the best idea to provide a link to a Lyndon LaRouche web site.
I’m just saying.
3. liberalT | January 18th, 2008 at 8:29 am
yes yes we know Mark - there is no global warming, evolution is in your ever so eloquent words “stupid”, babies are caused by hope, and your dad showed you a calculation that proves it all. Hey I hear gravity is a liberal lie to invented by Al Gore to dishonor our troops and the catholic troops.
4. liberalT | January 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
catholic church!
5. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I understand the craziness that is LaRouche, but when debating an issue, it’s best not to attack the messenger.
Just saying.
Try and refute Mr. Morners assertions. That’s the best way to convince this is a reality based concern.
Again just saying.
6. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 8:33 am
What about the Methodist Church libT? Or the Lutherans?
7. Bigfoot | January 18th, 2008 at 8:36 am
The best evidence that the global warming zealots are driven by an agenda and not a genuine concern for the environment is their apparent lack of concern about the huge increase in Chinese CO2 emissions, to amounts which have caught up to, or will soon catch up to ours. When I see the Goreans protesting around the Chinese embassy, then I’ll take them seriously. Whether they realize it or not, CO2 is a greenhouse gas no matter which country produces it.
LT - Don’t blame Gore for the gravity lie. Everyone knows that this lie was first told by Isaac Newton, who wanted to blame something for that apple hitting him on the head.
8. liberalT | January 18th, 2008 at 8:43 am
of course we are concerned for the C02 emissions by China. That is currently one of the biggest problems - who isn’t concerned??
9. AAR | January 18th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Global warming and cooling are normal climatic cycles. Global warming is caused by the sun!
Man’s contributions are small by comparison!!!
AAR
10. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 8:57 am
If this is such an important issue facing mankind, why would anyone want to limit the debate?
The following is another interesting excerpt and link.
(Chicago IL - June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Comments/wg1-commentFrameset.html
11. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 8:59 am
>>…of course we are concerned for the C02 emissions by China. - libT<<<
In other words: “We talk about China all the time at our fundraisers and cocktail parties, we are very concerned”.
12. Bull | January 18th, 2008 at 9:11 am
still waiting on congress to pass legislation on reducing the largest contributor to green house gases…wator vapor!
oh, and any of you who are concerned with CO2 emissions, lead the way by not exhaling!
13. Retired Spook | January 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
Assuming that mankind were powerful enough to actually make global temperatures go down, who in their right mind wants to go back to the winters we had in the 60’s, 70’s and early 80’s? Certainly not farmers, who are getting double the crop yields that they were then. (admittedly as a result of plant genetic research and improvements in fertilizers, but also because of warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons and a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2) Reversing the temperature would put a serious damper on the development of biofuels, an unintended consequence that I suspect few have thought of.
There’s an interesting discussion over at Anthony Watts blog about the “Top 10 science-based predictions that didn’t come true”. In his post, Anthony references an article by Steven Running, a Climate Science professor at the University of Montana (I’m hesitant to do more than one link in a post lest my comment be thrown into the dreaded “awaiting moderation” black hole.) However, in his essay, Dr. Running says the following:
Second is visionary national leadership, a “Marshall Plan” level of national focus and commitment, so everyone is contributing, and the lifestyle changes needed are broadly shared, in fact becoming a new norm. Progress on that front has not been good so far. An obvious flaw in this analogy is that many people are simply ignoring the global warming issue, a detachment they cannot achieve when they are personally facing cancer.(emphasis added)
Actually the part about the “Marshall Plan” level of national focus I agree with in terms of moving forward toward new methods and generations of energy production, but what do you want to bet you could find words similar to the ones in bold in works by Karl Marx?
One of the commenters brings up the following point, which I have never seen made before, but which is 100% spot on.
14. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 9:35 am
Great Eisenhower quote Spook. I think he said it all.
15. William Teach | January 18th, 2008 at 9:39 am
You got that right, neocon. That is pretty much all the climahysterics ever do, talk. I love asking them “what are you doing to stop global warming? What actual actions have you taken yourself to live the carbon neutral lifestlye?” The crickets are deafening.
16. Retired Spook | January 18th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Neocon, I had never heard that Eisenhower quote before, so, of course, I checked the speech. Yup, it’s in there. As the commenter at Wattsupwiththat noted, it’s a great speech, and Eisenhower was, indeed, prescient.
What actual actions have you taken yourself to live the carbon neutral lifestlye?” The crickets are deafening.
William, you’ve noticed that too? Rico still makes a valiant effort from time to time to get the Alarmists to discuss solutions. I’ve pretty well given up. For most on the Alarmist side it really is a political debate, not a science debate, and politics, from the Left’s viewpoint is really all about feelings and intentions, not results.
17. William Teach | January 18th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I usually direct them to the The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, and tell them to read it and live the life. They won’t even take the time to get it from the library (it is actually a pretty good book. Some good environmental ideas, though, unfortunately, they are transposed into the climahysteria)
My favorite answer from the climahysterics is “I can’t afford to live the life right now.”
18. Mark Noonan | January 18th, 2008 at 10:25 am
liberalT,
I said evolution is stupid?
19. js | January 18th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.”
Where, exactly, is “probably” a scientific description?
Please explain is exact terms, how every other “possible” cause was ruled out.
Note the urgency of the issue, right now is too late to save the world is the climate of this global warming claim, yet, how does the UN take manipulated data and present it before the world to justify spending billions for a cure, when in truth, we dont even know for sure what the cause is, or, if it is indeed abnormal for our climate to vary average temperatures over a century or two.
No, the little chicken is running about screaming that the sky is falling again, its not wise to believe everything you hear!!
20. js | January 18th, 2008 at 11:48 am
The Real ‘Inconvenient Truth’
Send this page link to a friend
Some facts about greenhouse and global warming
www junkscience com/Greenhouse/
21. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Actually, no one seemed to pick up on Bull’s statement but he was dead on. People focus on CO2 like it is the most damaging greenhouse gass out there. It is not.
The most damaging one is water vapor and you don’t see anyone bitching about that. Funny thing is probably the biggest contributors to both CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere is human life itself.
I guess if we want to be really green then have to stop trying to save lives. Let the poor children in Africa starve and die. Let the mass killings in Darfur go unchecked. Increase civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan and come to the realization that we should never have stopped Hitler. He apparently was a global warming visionary.
My point is that environmental conservation is a good thing in reasonable moderate terms. It is a socialist control mechanism when applied by illogical, irrational reactionary legislation, designed to control the lives and productivity of this nation.
Perfect example: California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Proposed 2008 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Section 112(c), Subsection (2) which attemtps to mandate remote control thermostats that the State could control. Socialism anyone? This issue can be turned into a gateway to control our lives. It cannot be allowed.
22. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Spook, the Eisenhower quote contains a great deal of wisdom. I believe it is true that scientific work should be separated from policy decisions, and policy decisions should be separated from the technology proposed to implement it. Granted, that’s harder to do in practice than it is in theory, and any attempt will not be perfect. But by the same token, some approaches are obviously much more corrosive to the ideal than others. IMO, a really good example of a corrosive policy is grants, subsidies and the like, directed to specific industries or technologies — like corn-based ethanol, or the oil industry. And it becomes even worse if the approach is combined with earmarks handed to specific companies through no-bid contracts by politicians involved in developing the policies in the first place. That kind of scenario is way too open to corruption. Cap and trade policies can be gamed in a similar fashion.
The carbon tax concept is a better approach. And while I know it sounds reflexively repulsive because it has the word “tax” in it, hear me out. The idea is to tax any energy supplier not on the basis of the production cost of the commodity, but on the basis of the amount of CO2 it produces. As a result, the overall cost of the commodity (e.g., a coal-fired generator) is increased. That has two effects: (1) it stabilizes the base price, thus (2) allowing other, cleaner technologies to compete. This approach doesn’t stipulate any particular technology above any other. Whichever provides a commodity that is both relatively carbon clean and cost-effective in the best combination has an advantage. That separates the policy from the technology. Likewise, the technology will be motivated to incorporate whatever scientific innovations are best suited and most efficient for their process.
Another approach is mandates. A mandate is one which establishes targets for reducing CO2 over a given period of time. It’s a simple concept, it doesn’t favor any one technology or industry over any other, and it doesn’t have the word “tax” in it. Perhaps for those reasons, mandates seem to be the preferred method by both venture capitalists as well as government, both on state and federal levels.
I’m sure some people aren’t going to be very keen on either a carbon tax or mandates, because both artificially raises prices above current free-market rates. But as I see it, several technologies are at the point now where once they get over the capital investment hump, they could easily be competitive. And at that point their cost of production would continue to drop as economy of scale factors take over. In that respect, the higher initial cost is more properly considered a long-term investment rather than an unnecessary burden.
Getting back to Eisenhower… considering what he said about the danger of public policy becoming the captive of a scientific-technological elite, it might be supposed that he would be the last one to champion a large public works project that was heavily subsidized by the federal government. But he did — the Interstate Highway System. It was great for the automobile industry, which lobbied hard for it. Eisenhower considered it a necessary component of a national defense system. But however construed and reasoned at the time, the end result is that it dramatically improved interstate transportation, thus facilitating trade, thus increasing GDP, thus increasing tax revenues. Had he relied on free market principles alone the system either would never have been built, or it would have taken very much longer. As it turns out, it was a wise investment. And that’s how I see alternative fuels.
In the case of alternative fuels, they wouldn’t only be good for the environment, but would have significant repurcussions on national security and the economy. Think about it — if domestically produced alternatives to fossil fuels were available at cheaper cost, not only would it reduce our trade imbalance, but developing nations like China, India, and others, would be stupid not to take advantage of cheaper technologies. We could put the Saudis, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and others, out of business. Assuming the commodities were produced and manufactured in the US, it would further reduce our trade imbalance. Ultimately perhaps, energy concerns could be taken out of the national security equation all over the world.
That all might sound like wishful thinking. But I don’t believe it is. Solar thermal (otherwise known as Concentrated Solar Power, or CSP) is already quite competitive with gas-fired plants. There is at least one company (Ausra) which will soon have a manufacturing plant on-line in Nevada. They’ve signed a contract with PG&E to build a CSP plant in San Luis Obispo County. Once they get really “cooking” they expect to get their costs down below traditional coal fired plants. Sometime in 2009 they expect to have a heat storage system perfected which would allow their plants to be “dispatchable” (i.e., to accommodate variable loads and operate after dark and on cloudy days). Another CSP plant just opened outside of Las Vegas. Several more are in the planning stages. Another company (Nanosolar) just completed a thin film solar photovoltaic manufacturing plant in San Jose and shipped their first order to Germany. They are also constructing another, larger plant in Germany. Ultimately, they too expect to supply PV panels for less than coal. Things are happening in the geothermal industry, too. A new plant just opened in Idaho using a new “dual phase” technology that allows the plant to operate at lower temperatures — opening up geothermal to a lot more locations than before. New Zealand and Australia are working on some enhanced geothermal plants, which could greatly expand the technology to places that aren’t considered geothermally active.
So no, I don’t think it’s wishful thinking. In fact, I think not thinking about them is thinking too small.
23. js | January 18th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Freon superstitions
Editorial
Copyright 1999 Washington Times
May 18, 1999
www junkscience com/may99/freon.htm
And you thought Global warming was a hoax!!
24. DM | January 18th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
“For most on the Alarmist side it really is a political debate, not a science debate, and politics, from the Left’s viewpoint is really all about feelings and intentions, not results.” – Spook
That about says it!
25. Retired Spook | January 18th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Rico,
You know I fundamentally disagree with you on the concept of a carbon tax, but your last post is by far the most convincing argument you’ve made to date. And you’re right — there is just a boatload of cool stuff on the energy horizon.
I do have a couple questions, however. Would the tax be applied only at the provider level or at both the provider level and consumer level? i.e. would everyone who has gas hot water, gas forced air, wood pellet or corn-burning furnace, a gas clothes drier, gas cook stove, gas grill, gas fireplace log, or a wood-burning fireplace or wood-burning stove pay a periodic tax? Taxes on carbon intensive consumer products, just by the shear numbers, could yield a huge amount of tax revenue, something that would not be lost on politicians at all levels who never saw a tax they didn’t like. Could be an unintended consequence.
Second, in your opinion, how would the tax revenue be used? If it would go for Liberal entitlement programs, then I could not support it. If it could be earmarked specifically for energy research without favoring any specific company or companies, I might support it depending on the details. If it could be used to solve the Social Security and Medicare crisis, there’s a good chance I would support it.
Just some food for thought.
26. Tractatus | January 18th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
neocon, 8:32am:
when debating an issue, it’s best not to attack the messenger.
neocon, exactly one hour earlier:
Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC, that has a vested interest in perpetuating thier climate change claims, of course you’re going to have unwarranted hysteria and legislation.
Much like the denial of progress against Islamic terrorism. Theirs is not reality based policies but agenda driven policies.
Ahhh, I love the smell of wingnut hypocrisy in the morning.
27. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Tractatus,
I have to disagree with your assessment of neocon’s statement. An attack on a magazine, news paper or network, can be an attack on the source or simply on the messenger of something you do not like. If attacking an article it is more appropriate to attack the source of the article (ie the writer) than it is to only attack the vessle that publishes it.
An attack on the credibility of the IPCC is an attack on the direct source of the infomation, their methods and their integrity. It is not the same thing at all.
It would be like attacking a your local news program because the weatherman blew the forecast. Attack the weatherman, not the entire news outlet.
28. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Concerned Citizen: The most damaging one is water vapor and you don’t see anyone bitching about that.
I think the reason is that essentially all of the evidence suggests that the atmospheric concentration of water vapor (although a very important GHG) is regulated by temperature. In other words, the average relative humidity remains essentially the same. It is thus more properly considered a feedback, or an “amplifier”, rather than a forcer.
Funny thing is probably the biggest contributors to both CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere is human life itself.
I hope you wrote that wrong, or I hope I don’t understand what you’re trying to say, but the way it’s written makes it sound like you’re saying you think human respiration is the biggest contributor to both CO2 and water vapor. That can’t possibly be what you mean… could it?
29. js | January 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“Well, when you have a governmental body like the IPCC”
IPCC is not Government. The UN is not a government either. The fact that IPCC stands for inter-governmental panel on climate change does not make it a government panel. It is a UN activity, not directed by a specific Government, which would be an absolute necessity for it to be considered “governmental”.
Further, technical aspects within the scientific community, ignored by this panel, significantly reduces the meaning and value of its conclusions. Its a sham.
http://www.
oism org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5979
30. neocon | January 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Tractatus,
Concerned Citizen beat me to it. The IPCC is the source, not the messenger.
31. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
Ok, Rico, let me restate that to be a tad bit more accurate. Animal life in general.
Just for example, human exhale on average 1kg/day of CO2 (this varies greatly but the accepted average is 1kg). Current population estimates are at 6.64 billion people on this planet. Thus, we are epelling 6.64 teragrams (6.64 billion kg) each day. So human life contributes 2,423.63 teragrams (2,423.63 billion kg) of CO2 to the atmosphere annually. That has got to hurt.
Considering how the world as a whole only emmitts 27.34 teragrams annually, of which we contribuste 6.04 teragrams, that is really a drop in the bucket as compared to what humans are exhaling.
Take into consideration all the massive amounts of biological life on this planet and the number becomes astounding and unimaginable and our minor emmission from vehicles seem insignificant in comparisson.
My point was the level of absurdity that some people will take the environmentalism too. I agree that we need to control all forms of pollution that we release. That only makes sense.
However, to argue that our carbon emmissions from industrial sources, that amount 1.12% of the carbon put into the atmosphere by our mere existence, has made an undeniable damaging impact on this planet is absurd.
32. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Ok, may I just add that I apparently lost all ability to type and/or spell while posting that last article.
33. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Spook: I do have a couple questions, however. Would the tax be applied only at the provider level or at both the provider level and consumer level?
It would depend on the policy implemented. But my short answser is: I don’t think the notion of a carbon tax will ever float. So I’m not sure it’s worth speculating about. But mandates ARE floating. I don’t know what your area is like, but in CA the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program requires retail sellers of electricity to increase their sales of eligible renewable-energy resources by at least 1 percent of retail sales per year, so that 20% of their retail sales are served with eligible renewable energy resources by 2010. My understanding is that the definition of “eligible renewable energy resources” includes conservation measures as well (although that may be covered by the Integrated Energy Policy bill — it’s hard to keep them separate), like the deployment of smart grids and centrally controlled appliances… the kind of thing that Concerned Citizen characterized as “socialist control mechanisms”. In my area, the local power supplier (SoCal Edison) implemented a plan where if you let them hook up a monitor to your central air conditioner they’ll give you a discount on your electric bill based upon the CPU capacity of your unit. That’s capacity, not “typical use”. And since I hardly ever use the thing anyway, I figured what the heck. There are different plans, and any of them can be manually overridden, but my monthly savings have been running almost 20%. If that’s socialism, I’m for it. Then again, maybe they’re listening in on my conversations through my electrical lines. If so, I’m guessing they’ll be very disappointed.
At any rate, the idea behind incentives of that sort is to even out the load on the grid. Smart appliances are the same concept (e.g., instead of letting your refrigerator decide when it runs it’s defrost cycle, the grid only allows it to do so at off-peak hours). I don’t have a problem with that, and it’s not exactly a major imposition. The grid could be so much more efficient if the load was evened out.
34. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Concerned Citizen, re: comment #33, you really need to check your numbers — particularly the ones associated with the “the world as a whole”.
35. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Rico, you were correct. I was off by two decimal places. I had a converted percentage where it should not have been. The total planetart emmissions should have been 2.734 petagrams. This changes the overall calculation by two magnitudes, but not the overall point.
We emitt 112% as much carbon as our mere existence emitts. So we animal life on the planet is still an enormous contributor to global warming.
My entire point was to the extremes in which this can be taken.
You understand that we cannot even begin to calculate the amount of carbon released accurately in a given year. Even the amounts of industiral carbon are estimates with a wide margin for error. We have now clue how much is being released by the planet from the biomass or from geological activity. We also have no idea about how our planetary climate actually works. The models we use are filled with supposition, assumption and flat our guesses. None of them even take into account the difference in our distance from the sun based on the positions of Jupiter and Saturn which can migrate not ony our orbit but the very postion of the sun istelf relative to the center of the solar system.
You sometimes misunderstand my position I believe. I am all for smart environmental conservation and reduction of pollutants of all kinds. What I am inherently opposed to it the blithering idiots that say that the discussion is closed and all evidence points to man made global warming as the cause of a 1 fracking degree increase over a century of time.
There is no such thing as a consensus in science and if there is not demontrable proof of something then it is still a theory. Untill you can imperically prove a theory, the discussion is most certainly NOT closed.
Do not forget, I would in the environmental industry and I see first hand some of the damage that moronic, knee-jerk legislation can have. The perfect examples of panic trumping real science are all over: DDT, Freon, the catalytic-converter, ehtanol, etc. We do not need legislation based on junk science and fear. We need solutions based on scientific fact and real world applications.
If you do not find the aspect of your government being able to contol the temperature of your own home distrubing, than I pity you. When they are controlling when and how you can watch TV, shower, cook, drive, cool your home and have your lights on, how free will you feel then? It can all be done in the name of the environment.
Funny side note: I do not see California trying to do ANYTHING about the most environmentally damaging industry in the entire world that calls your misguided state home: Hollywood. The entertainment industry directly and indirectly cause more polution that any other industry on the planet, but apparently all they have to do is buy phony carbon credits and espouse their evironmentalism while they continue to pollute more than anyone else.
36. js | January 18th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Who said carbon causes Global Warming? Based on EXACTLY what scientific proof?
There is no proof. Probably, the men say, this is the cause. Several hundred years ago, junk science told us the world was flat.
ATMOSPHERIC CARBON DIOXIDE
The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon per year. Total human industrial CO2 production, primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6 Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of exchange between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated numbers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over geological time, with peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods during 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain substantial uncertainties (58), so these correlations are imprecise.
In all seven glacial and interglacial cycles, the reported changes in CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore, have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4 content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature (67,68).
www oism org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message5978
37. js | January 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Ya, I saw those guys.
The ones in the white coats that came through here in 1998. They were weighing the carbon emissions from our cars, you know, with carbon emission scales…….
Strange enough, I been tryin to buy one of them scales now goin on ten years, and I just can find anyone who sells them…..
So, when the guys come back, maybe Ill just run up and steal one of thiers. How else is a guy ever supposed to figure out if global warming is real?
38. Ricorun | January 18th, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Concerned Citizen: You sometimes misunderstand my position I believe.
I assure you, the feeling is mutual. That being said, read what you’ve written on this thread. How much sense do you make out of it?
I’m not trying to give you an inordinately hard time, but I suggest you might want to check your numbers one more time. Or give me your sources and I’ll do it for you. Then again, it might be a moot point because after all the numbers you quoted you now add, “You understand that we cannot even begin to calculate the amount of carbon released accurately in a given year.”
What am I supposed to say about that? Perhaps it might be this: you seem to be rather careless about your figures. You also seem to have a bit of a problem following any sort of cycle all the way through. With those caveats in mind, let me suggest that you check out the data pertaining to the global carbon flux. When you do, keep in mind that no one is denying that there are huge carbon sources and huge carbon sinks — in fact, they are estimated to be bigger by several magnitudes than anything you’ve mentioned thus far. The problem is, the sources are swamping the sinks — in fact, they’re spiking. So unless you think GHGs aren’t actually GHGs, that’s a concern. How big a concern? I don’t know.
If you do not find the aspect of your government being able to contol the temperature of your own home distrubing, than I pity you.
I appreciate your pity, but the bottom line is… I’m saving money. I don’t know if you’ve noticed yet, but I’m a very bottom line oriented kind of guy. I like to consider all the options, but in the end it’s eventually all about margins for me. By the way, did I mention that I can manually override the system? If I chose to it would cost me twice as much, perhaps a little more, for the time I did. But I don’t have a problem with that, because I am quite confident that I could never be so gluttonous as to lose money in the long run. But if that eventuality ever came to pass, I would elect to rescind the priviledge of trying. That override capability seems to be a concept you don’t understand. There are few requirements. Everything is essentially elective — wonderfully and mindlessly so. I guess you could call it “elective socialism”, lol!
Funny side note: I do not see California trying to do ANYTHING about the most environmentally damaging industry in the entire world that calls your misguided state home: Hollywood.
You might want to check those numbers too — or at least put them in context. For example, how does Hollywood compare to, say, the cement industry — both in terms of energy expended and total (per capita) revenues? Mind you, I’m not sticking up for Hollywood, I’m just trying to put THE WHOLE CYCLE into context. But for what it’s worth, yeah, I think carbon credits are BS.
39. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 11:18 pm
See the number cited in the comment js posted are very differnt than the numbers I cited. Mine were from the UN report on climate change as of 2004. His came from different sources and are vastly different, especially the exhilation amount which is a widely confused number.
I apologize for the bad math, I was writing that post while I was doing several other things and I should have paid more attention to my calculations.
However, the point is still valid. Most of these numbers are just guiesses and estimates. The data on carbon flux is no different. I understand that there are massive sources and sinks and no one knows that the sources are swamping the sinks. That is a statement based on supposition and cannot be tested or proven. Climate models are horribly innaccurate and filled will variables that we have so assume because we cannot hope to accurately ascertain their true values.
As to Hollywood, in November 2006, UCLA released a study citing the most environmentally damaging industries in the United States. The data was from a five year comprehensive study examining thousands of data points per industry. Hollywood was numero uno on the offender list.
40. Concerned Citizen | January 18th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Oh and as to the remote control thermostat issue, California was not offering to make it a voluntary program that you could override when you chose. They were attempting to pass it as law that you were forced to comply with. There is a BIG difference in those two concepts.
41. Ricorun | January 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Concerned Citizen,
With regard to the California “remote control thermostat issue”, this is what the relevant section says:
2) Communicating Capabilities. All PCTs (programmable communicating thermostats) shall be distributed with a non-removable Radio Data System (RDS) communications device that is compatible with the default statewide DR communications system , which can be used by utilities to send price and emergency signals. PCTs shall be capable of receiving and responding to the signals indicating price and emergency events as follows.
Price Events. The PCT shall be shipped with default price-event offsets of +4°F for cooling and -4°F for heating enabled; however, customers shall be able to change the offsets and thermostat settings at any time during price events. Upon receiving a price-event signal, the PCT shall adjust the thermostat setpoint by the number of degrees indicated in the offset for the duration specified in the signal of the price event. The PCT shall also be equipped with the capability to allow customers to define setpoints for heating and cooling in response to price signals as an alternative to temperature-offsetting response, as described in Reference Joint Appendix JA5.
Emergency Events. Upon receiving an emergency signal, the PCT shall respond to commands contained in the emergency signal, including changing the setpoint by any number of degrees or to a specific temperature setpoint. The PCT shall not allow customer changes to thermostat settings during emergency events.
The emphases are mine. And I presume your beef is with the last sentence. It does sound kind of “Big Brothery”. But the alternative is to head mindlessly into a blackout. Those really suck. And when they happen you could be completely out of power for quite a while. And while you are, your thermostat setting becomes irrelevant. I suppose it’s a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario. But personally, I’m inclined to avoid blackouts if I can. And if it means I have to go without air conditioning every once in a while, I can deal with it. I might sweat a bit, but at least I can get work done. And the stuff in my freezer won’t thaw out.
With regard to the Hollywood issue. I presume you were referring to this study:
http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/report%20card/RC06.pdf
I don’t care to defend the film and television industry (FTI). As the study indicates, the FTI could do more to cut emissions. However, as I suspected, your statement that “The entertainment industry directly and indirectly cause more polution that any other industry on the planet” is not even close to true. What IS true is they are a major polluter in the LA metro area. Then again, given how the FTI dominates in the LA area, that’s not entirely surprising. But it’s nice to have it pointed out. Hopefully they will do something about it. In comment #40 I also suggested that it would also be important to look at the industry’s emissions in terms of “per capita revenues”. That was a sloppy way to say it, but the idea is to scale the emissions relative to some unit of production (i.e., in terms of every dollar they generate). The UCLA study did that, and they found that the FTI was the lowest of the industries they compared it against. Of course, they may be just “guesses and estimates” and therefore don’t mean a thing. But if they didn’t mean a thing, why did you bring them up in the first place?
I enjoy discussing things with you, CC. But you really need to be more careful about what you say.
Finally, what did you think about what I said in comment #24?
42. Reggie Rasmussen | January 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
No doubt that global warming is very debated. I, however, have never heard that man is causing global cooling. For this - all I can say is that I hope that the people that believe this is natural are not wrong. But if man is causing at least part of the problem then why not do all we can.
Are you familiar with the ground floor movement to take solar to the masses by a company called Citizenre? They are trying market solar with an approach similar to satellite TV, cellular telephones, and alarm systems. That is to provide the customer a complete solar system with no upfront charges and make money from a service contract. In this case the service contract would be a rent agreement. They intend to put a complete solar system on clients home. When the system produces electricity, it will lower the bill from the current utility provider. In most cases the savings from the lower bill will more than cover the rent fee that the company intends to charge. The company currently has no product available but intends to deploy in the middle of 2008. They are currently taking reservations and have 27,000 takers so far. I have written several articles on this company in my blog and even have a couple of videos that I have recorded at http://www.solarjoules.com. Feel free to take a look. I welcome comments. As in any start up business, a chance exists that they may never get off the ground and fulfill any preorders, but if this is the case - the potential client has not lost anything. If you cannot afford the upfront cost of solar today, this may turn out to be a great alternative.
This solution would mean that we could produce at least a little less pollution and would be a great step “just in case”.
If anyone would like company information you can go to http://www.jointhesolution.com/razmataz.
43. SteaM | January 22nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Darwin pointed out that it is not just the strongest, fittest, or smartest who survive. It is those who are willing and able to adapt.
Are you willing and able to adapt? I think most of you B4Vers are content with sitting on your butts and doing nothing.
However, I just hope that the market catchs up and begins to provide us with more options. Because most people really don’t want to choose to use fossil fuels. They just do it because they have no choice even if that is because they can’t afford the alternatives.
I’d love to have solar power, for instance, and in my city their are incentives for purchasing them even giving me the option to sell my extra energy back to the city. This infrastructure is in place but at this time I cannot afford the estimated $12,000 it would cost to set up. Nor do I see myself being able to afford it any time soon.
What are my choices? Not use very much electricity. Ok, so I don’t use a lot and way below the average amount. But still, unless I start camping out in my yard and go completely cave-man there’s no way I can go without electricity where a majority of it comes from fossil fuels.
However, if my city were to purchase all of it’s power from renewable resources … or at least provided me that option at an affordable rate … then I would have the option and could then decide to either be responsible with my energy use or not be.
At this time, unless the market hurries up and makes these things available, we as average paycheck-to-paycheck working folks have to either go caveman and live in the woods or keep using fossil fuels for energy.
But, yeah, back to what I said… are you guys willing to adapt? Because if what you say on here is any indication by the time you think you need to adapt it will be too late.