Caltech Study: CO2 At Highest Level in 15 Million Years

Environment • Views: 3,936

A new study by Caltech scientists led by geochemist Aradhna Tripati shows that there hasn’t been this much carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere for at least 15 Million Years.

“The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today and were sustained at those levels, global temperatures were five to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, and there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland,” says Tripati, whose team included Caltech postdoc Robert Eagle. To read the complete report, go to Science online.

Jump to bottom

306 comments
1 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:53:24pm

Tipping point?

2 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:54:38pm

Wow, several AGW posts and one bashing Beck and Limbaugh at the same time... Do we need to take up a collection for armed gards for Charles' Lizard Lair?

//sorta. although there are days I wonder.

3 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:55:04pm

Only measured with 41 data points.

/kidding

4 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:56:42pm

re: #2 ~Fianna

Volunteers available.

5 Pawn of the Oppressor  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:56:57pm
Departments of Earth and Space Sciences and Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, and Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 3EQ, UK.

Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA

Oh, tosh. Nobody really knows anything about climate!

/

6 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:57:40pm

re: #3 swamprat

Only measured with 41 data points.

/kidding

We had a stalker attacking AGW last night. He calls himself 'dude' over on the stalker blog. Charles banned his 'astronr20' sockpuppet and two others he was using. The trolls will come out to attack these threads. Keep your eyes open, folks.

7 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:59:12pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

We had a stalker attacking AGW last night. He calls himself 'dude' over on the stalker blog. Charles banned his 'astronr20' sockpuppet and two others he was using. The trolls will come out to attack these threads. Keep your eyes open, folks.

Actually, 'astronmr20' was not the stalker. He was just mistaken about his claims. I restored his account after an email exchange.

8 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 8:59:30pm
To read the complete report, go to Science online.

I see the abstract there, not the whole report. Am I missing something?

9 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:00:13pm

re: #6 Dark_Falcon

Did I see a post from Charles about Astronr20 ? Mistaken id and an apology about the forty something data point thing.

10 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:00:25pm

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

I see the abstract there, not the whole report. Am I missing something?

A subscription to Science online...

11 ghazidor  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:00:34pm

Ha! As if that proves anything, I saw a post by a guy at Prison Planet and an article in Pravda that completely disprove this study. Your just shilling for the "big warming" conspiracy...

///

12 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:00:50pm

re: #10 Charles

A subscription to Science online...

Give me your password :)

13 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:00:57pm

I was late to the screen refresh sorry!re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

14 Boondock St. Bender  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:01:27pm

i know that scientists use ice cores for climate/particulates for past atmospheric conditions,but how did they go so far back?(sediments,clays?)
interesting stuff.

15 Irenicum  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:01:31pm

I'm reading for classes tomorrow, but I'll def. be coming back to this study. It still amazes me how people will listen more to their crazy uncle telling tales about an incident that proves whatever nonsense they want to believe, but don't you dare give them an actual scientific study that uses real numbers and that gawd awful thing called the scientific method! OK, rant is done! Back to my reading on epistemology! Oh, btw the author of the study has a really cool first name of Aradhna! That's why I decided to post and run! Check out the music. It's absolutely beautiful!

16 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:02:56pm

re: #7 Charles

Actually, 'astronmr20' was not the stalker. He was just mistaken about his claims. I restored his account after an email exchange.

Understood. Consider my #6 withdrawn.

17 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:03:12pm

Well, I will await the arrival of LVQ to take the lead on the whack posts that will soon begin to show up here, but in the meantime, I will carry the weight.

Bring it on, paid shills!

But first, a cigarette on the front porch...

18 ghazidor  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:03:52pm

re: #12 Walter L. Newton

Give me your password :)

If you have a local library card check and see if they don't have it in their online resources. My library gives me free access to a lot of subscription reference materials.

19 funky chicken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:04:17pm

nuclear power, please

20 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:04:59pm

re: #19 funky chicken

nuclear power, please

You can say that again. AGW or no AGW.

21 bosforus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:05:58pm

re: #19 funky chicken

nuclear power, please

A chicken of my own heart.

22 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:06:07pm

re: #18 ausador

If you have a local library card check and see if they don't have it in their online resources. My library gives me free access to a lot of subscription reference materials.

Good idea.

23 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:07:02pm

I'd like all the opponents of the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca to read up on AGW and just stop whining. Besides, that stuff will be useful someday.

24 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:07:17pm

re: #19 funky chicken

nuclear power, please

Quite concur.

25 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:08:52pm

re: #24 Dark_Falcon

Quite concur.

Never happen, it's not on the left's agenda.

26 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:09:09pm
27 lostlakehiker  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:11:11pm

More confirmation that the direct effects of higher CO2, which absorbs some of the outgoing IR from hot ground and thus acts to limit nighttime cooling, predominate. There might have been other effects, indirect ones that we don't understand, that worked to limit this. Instead, we see that when CO2 is high, temperatures are high and polar ice is meager.

We either reduce our CO2 impact or we take a pretty hard hit. It just might be cheaper to build some nuclear, wind, and solar and wean ourselves off these coffin nails called coal and oil.

28 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:11:41pm

re: #26 Daddyquatro

Check this out-carbon capture tech! Solar powered.
[Link: www.physorg.com...]

29 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:12:27pm

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

Never happen, it's not on the left's agenda.

It can happen, the left simply needs to be overruled.

30 BryanS  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:12:59pm

Let the wars over control of Antarctica for its arable lands begin :/)

31 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:14:10pm

re: #30 BryanS

and the new cliche is "when Greenland freezes over"

32 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:15:17pm

US used to lead the way in wind power, now it's Germany. We were first in on solar panels -- now we buy them from China. We used to be big on nuclear power. Then 3-Mile Island and we're terrified of it. Now we're a nation of climate change deniers being told to drill baby drill. 61% of Americans have NEVER used public transportation. Excellent. See Highlights report on that link if you're feeling too sanguine about the state of the world and our place in it.

33 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:15:30pm

re: #29 Dark_Falcon

It can happen, the left simply needs to be overruled.

Actually, I should have been more fair and just say it's not on Washington's agenda. There has been enough times over the last 30 years that the GOP could have pushed nuclear and won. Never happened. It's just not in the cards period.

34 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:16:17pm

re: #33 Walter L. Newton

Actually, I should have been more fair and just say it's not on Washington's agenda. There has been enough times over the last 30 years that the GOP could have pushed nuclear and won. Never happened. It's just not in the cards period.

Uh, yeah. Oil lobby anyone.

35 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:17:00pm

re: #33 Walter L. Newton

Actually, I should have been more fair and just say it's not on Washington's agenda. There has been enough times over the last 30 years that the GOP could have pushed nuclear and won. Never happened. It's just not in the cards period.

I disagree. We'll see some new plants, but we may not get the number we need.

36 Walter L. Newton  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:17:30pm

"Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse"."

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

37 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:19:09pm

re: #23 Rightwingconspirator

I'd like all the opponents of the nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca to read up on AGW and just stop whining. Besides, that stuff will be useful someday.

I'm in Nevada and left or right, Yucca is something of a shibboleth here.

I'm a proponent of taking it and negotiating for it, honestly. But that's a minority view here.

38 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:19:14pm

One more glimmer of hope to post before I go to bed... just to offer some hope from technology and change

[Link: www.guardian.co.uk...]

39 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:19:48pm
40 ArchangelMichael  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:20:46pm

re: #34 SeaMonkey

Uh, yeah. Oil lobby anyone.

Nuclear is not a direct competitor for oil. Very little is used for electrical power generation. It's a direct competitor for coal and natural gas.

41 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:21:08pm

I'm curious- who exactly is going to regulate the emissions from volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo or Monserrat? If I recall correctly, the carbon output from those dwarfed anything man-made.

42 Daniel Ballard  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:21:31pm

Here we go.

43 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:21:37pm

re: #29 Dark_Falcon

It can happen, the left simply needs to be overruled.

There are those of us on the left who are pushing that agenda.

44 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:22:38pm

Carbon sequestration, nuclear, wind, solar, distributed generation.

We need them all - along with some capitalists to make them viable.

45 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:23:00pm

re: #39 austin_blue

Ha ha! I love how you use a Koran to start a fire in you BBQ on your website!

That is so...

Wow. What a disgusting individual. I'm predicting their stay here will be short and uncomfortable.

46 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:24:07pm

re: #45 ~Fianna

Wow. What a disgusting individual. I'm predicting their stay here will be short and uncomfortable.

Yes. Despicable.

47 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:25:23pm

re: #46 austin_blue

Yes. Despicable.

Page two down towards the bottom on the luser's blogspot page, if anyone else wants to see. It's the Labor Day post.

Ugh.

48 Ben G. Hazi  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:25:39pm

re: #45 ~Fianna

Wow. What a disgusting individual. I'm predicting their stay here will be short and uncomfortable.

Its LGF existence should be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short...

49 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:25:40pm

re: #45 ~Fianna

re: #46 austin_blue

Well, at least he'll enjoy the stalker blog. And austin, I know you support Nuclear Power. My remarks were directed towards the anti-technology left, not to you.

50 BryanS  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:25:41pm

re: #41 Fenway_Nation

I'm curious- who exactly is going to regulate the emissions from volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo or Monserrat? If I recall correctly, the carbon output from those dwarfed anything man-made.

Volcanic emissions don't warm, but cool the earth. The sulfate aerosols reflect energy and reduce how much gets to the earth's surface.

51 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:26:23pm

re: #39 austin_blue

Ha ha! I love how you use a Koran to start a fire in you BBQ on your website!

That is so...

that is so ...?

52 goanna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:26:26pm

I'm new to this blog. I've noticed the tendency for conservatives to line up on the climate change skeptic side of the aisle and wonder why this is so? It's very obvious in the US and here in Australia. It seems every well known conservative pundit doesn't accept the science. How did this meme get started?

53 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:27:28pm

re: #49 Dark_Falcon

re: #46 austin_blue

Well, at least he'll enjoy the stalker blog. And austin, I know you support Nuclear Power. My remarks were directed towards the anti-technology left, not to you.

Understood, my friend.

54 KingKenrod  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:27:53pm

So about those high CO2 levels...

Even if we could sequester 100% of the CO2 coming from our power sources (coal and oil), would that necessarily mean the CO2 levels would drop? After all, we've released stuff that took millions of years to naturally sequester itself.

55 Charles Johnson  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:29:00pm

Ugh.

56 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:29:50pm

re: #51 Boyo

that is so ...?

Disgusting? Despicable? A new level of of rock dumb?

Choose.

57 Ben G. Hazi  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:29:53pm

re: #55 Charles

Ugh.

And it's outta here!!!

58 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:29:59pm

re: #2 ~Fianna

That's ok, there are some lizards who will happily stand guard mount...

William

59 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:30:04pm

re: #40 ArchangelMichael

Nuclear is not a direct competitor for oil. Very little is used for electrical power generation. It's a direct competitor for coal and natural gas.

Natural gas. Right, Chevron, ExxonMobil. All carbon lobbies fight alternative energy in Washington.

60 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:30:51pm

re: #56 austin_blue

Disgusting? Despicable? A new level of of rock dumb?

Choose.

all of the above and a few others

61 cliffster  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:31:21pm

Nature corrects. We might be about to witness this firsthand. Or, maybe not.

62 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:31:22pm

re: #55 Charles

Ugh.

Thank you. Totally justified.

63 Sharmuta  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:32:37pm

re: #52 goanna

I'm new to this blog. I've noticed the tendency for conservatives to line up on the climate change skeptic side of the aisle and wonder why this is so? It's very obvious in the US and here in Australia. It seems every well known conservative pundit doesn't accept the science. How did this meme get started?

Hi, Newbie. This aspect of politics and science is very much tied to the other aspects of politics and science- like evolution and intelligent design. Some of the Big Money behind AGW groups is the same Big Money that funds other far right/theocratic groups. You can see this trend in just one of the large foundations, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Scroll down and read their list, but the group behind a lot of AGW distortions is the Heartland Foundation- clear listed. It's one small group of very rich people funding the right wing machine.

64 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:32:46pm

re: #52 goanna

I'm new to this blog. I've noticed the tendency for conservatives to line up on the climate change skeptic side of the aisle and wonder why this is so? It's very obvious in the US and here in Australia. It seems every well known conservative pundit doesn't accept the science. How did this meme get started?

Good question. Any takers?

65 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:32:48pm

re: #59 SeaMonkey

Natural gas. Right, Chevron, ExxonMobil. All carbon lobbies fight alternative energy in Washington.

They really could learn to diversify. Do what Microsoft and Google do: find a company that makes something that fills a gap in their product line, buy it, and reap the rewards.

66 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:34:37pm

re: #65 Gearhead

They really could learn to diversify. Do what Microsoft and Google do: find a company that makes something that fills a gap in their product line, buy it, and reap the rewards.

Ther eis big money in green energy. They coul have devoted 1% of their budgets to it and led the way. Instead we got... Hummers. Now owned by a Chinese company.

67 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:34:39pm

re: #47 ~Fianna

Page two down towards the bottom on the luser's blogspot page, if anyone else wants to see. It's the Labor Day post.

Ugh.

I didn't have to go that far, and didn't want to. He has gotten the stick, and I am a happy boyo. That philosophy simply can not be tolerated on this board.

68 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:35:08pm

a happy boyo indeed

69 William Barnett-Lewis  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:35:46pm

re: #19 funky chicken

I've been a pro-nuke lefty since long before TMI. F*** the idiots.

I will be the first to admit it got me used to modern politics because even the modern right & it's anti-science hate has nothing on the left and a good anti-nike screed! .

William

70 jaunte  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:36:34pm

re: #52 goanna

I'm new to this blog. I've noticed the tendency for conservatives to line up on the climate change skeptic side of the aisle and wonder why this is so? It's very obvious in the US and here in Australia. It seems every well known conservative pundit doesn't accept the science. How did this meme get started?

Maybe the kneejerk tendency for conservative talkers to support (what they think is) a laissez-faire business climate, and the recognition that acknowledging the fact that we could be having an effect on the climate might require that we put some limits on certain businesses.

71 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:36:44pm

re: #67 austin_blue

I didn't have to go that far, and didn't want to. He has gotten the stick, and I am a happy boyo. That philosophy simply can not be tolerated on this board.

Agreed. I'd already gotten the grill going so it'll only be 20 minutes till the troll roast is ready.

72 BryanS  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:37:06pm

re: #54 KingKenrod

So about those high CO2 levels...

Even if we could sequester 100% of the CO2 coming from our power sources (coal and oil), would that necessarily mean the CO2 levels would drop? After all, we've released stuff that took millions of years to naturally sequester itself.

Good point. If the study's results really are true, a 15 million year high is really something. That CO2 isn't just going to go away quickly on its own.

73 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:38:09pm

re: #68 Boyo

a happy boyo indeed

Jeez, didn't mean to jump your nic!

Irish-American or just a wannabee?

;-)

74 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:38:26pm

re: #66 SeaMonkey

Ther eis big money in green energy. They coul have devoted 1% of their budgets to it and led the way. Instead we got... Hummers. Now owned by a Chinese company.

I really think market leadership in green energy could trigger an economic boom. But when I mention it to someone else, I usually get a blank stare.

75 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:38:58pm

re: #73 austin_blue

Jeez, didn't mean to jump your nic!

Irish-American or just a wannabee?

;-)

neither but always loved that word :)

76 cliffster  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:39:43pm

re: #74 Gearhead

I really think market leadership in green energy could trigger an economic boom. But when I mention it to someone else, I usually get a blank stare.

With the help of cap and trade, that could could work real well

77 SeaMonkey  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:39:51pm

re: #74 Gearhead

I really think market leadership in green energy could trigger an economic boom. But when I mention it to someone else, I usually get a blank stare.

Well, the government supports it and is helping any way it can. The Chinese government.

78 goanna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:39:56pm

re: #63 Sharmuta

I can see how that has happened in the US. That doesn't seem to explain the position of Australian conservative politicians though, since the religious right types don't have much power. Generally, the intelligent design types are in a minority party that have no seats in the house of reps and only 1 seat in the senate (of course this guy doesn't accept global warming and has recently returned from one of those conservative think-tank conferences in the US).

79 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:42:08pm

re: #75 Boyo

neither but always loved that word :)

You really should put some basic info in your nic slot. Where are you from? What do you do?

Enquiring minds, etc. Check mine. Doesn't have to be so informative that folks can track you down.

80 Sharmuta  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:42:19pm

re: #78 goanna

I can see how that has happened in the US. That doesn't seem to explain the position of Australian conservative politicians though, since the religious right types don't have much power. Generally, the intelligent design types are in a minority party that have no seats in the house of reps and only 1 seat in the senate (of course this guy doesn't accept global warming and has recently returned from one of those conservative think-tank conferences in the US).

Well- you wondered where the meme started, and I would say "follow the money". It gets latched on from there, but where it started is a larger anti-science agenda than just American politics. Anti-science is quite global.

81 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:43:02pm

re: #71 Dark_Falcon

Agreed. I'd already gotten the grill going so it'll only be 20 minutes till the troll roast is ready.

Mmmm...gamey buttocks...

82 Teh Flowah  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:43:04pm

re: #54 KingKenrod

So about those high CO2 levels...

Even if we could sequester 100% of the CO2 coming from our power sources (coal and oil), would that necessarily mean the CO2 levels would drop? After all, we've released stuff that took millions of years to naturally sequester itself.

True, but that doesn't mean we should just continue as we are because we can't go back to pre-industrial era CO2 levels in an instant. Better not to accelerate things. Plus, I know we have methods of sequestering existing CO2. We just need to refine these methods and also capture all the CO2 being produced by industry and start switching to renewable and cleaner fuels.

83 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:47:34pm

re: #79 austin_blue

will do! didnt think folks checked

84 Gearhead  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:47:48pm

Nite all. Sleepytime. Well...after I deal with an unfinished to do list.

85 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:48:14pm

re: #52 goanna

Because the 'solutions' to global warming proposed so far seem to involve government reaching into one's pockets for more money, OR disastrous, jobs-killing legislation like cap & trade.

Apparently that's what it takes to stop global warming.
/

86 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:49:19pm

re: #84 Gearhead

Nite all. Sleepytime. Well...after I deal with an unfinished to do list.

Goodnight, Gearhead.

87 katemaclaren  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:54:01pm

Well, I guess we can expect a return of the T-Rex, soon. No, wait, that was 65 million years ago.

88 katemaclaren  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:54:21pm

Goodnight DK. Sleep tight.

89 goanna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:55:57pm

re: #80 Sharmuta

Interesting. It seems petroleum product companies have just jumped on the anti-science bandwagon out of convenience for a position that favours them also. Not surprising of course. It's just amusing to see that businesses that rely of fossil fuels allying themselves with people who think the Earth is 6000 years old.

90 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:56:28pm
91 goddamnedfrank  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:57:48pm

re: #8 Walter L. Newton

I see the abstract there, not the whole report. Am I missing something?

Here is a Science Daily article on the subject with tons of good info and quotes. Also may I please get an upding for being the first person in this thread to remark upon how incredibly HOT Aradhna Tripati is. Goddamn, she is one gorgeous research scientist!

92 goanna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:57:53pm

re: #85 Fenway_Nation

These are stances that make sense and I can fully understand. What doesn't make sense is denying there isn't a problem at all.

93 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:58:02pm

re: #90 MikeySDCA

OT: The Bambicrats seem to be setting up Karzai as the Kerensky of Afghanistan.

Interesting analogy. Please elaborate.

94 goanna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 9:58:51pm

re: #92 goanna

oops

95 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:00:21pm
96 bosforus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:00:45pm

re: #94 goanna

oops

Got lost in the negatives, I see.
:)

97 sagehen  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:00:54pm

re: #89 goanna

Interesting. It seems petroleum product companies have just jumped on the anti-science bandwagon out of convenience for a position that favours them also. Not surprising of course. It's just amusing to see that businesses that rely of fossil fuels allying themselves with people who think the Earth is 6000 years old.


More in the strange bedfellows category: the Russians are thrilled to pieces with global warming. St. Petersberg is going to be a year-round port, Siberia will be a lot more useful without the permafrost, Arctic resources within their territorial boundaries (or 20-mile limit) will be accessible...

98 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:01:38pm

re: #54 KingKenrod

So about those high CO2 levels...

Even if we could sequester 100% of the CO2 coming from our power sources (coal and oil), would that necessarily mean the CO2 levels would drop? After all, we've released stuff that took millions of years to naturally sequester itself.

Sorry for not responding earlier, there was a bigot that needed to get the stick.

Now as far as your post, it seems perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, what's the point of changing the way we produce energy? Well, here are the facts from the past 800,000 years:

Image: File:Atmospheric_CO2_with_glaciers_cycles.gif

You will notice that under natural cycles, the CO2 levels have maxed out at around 300 ppm around 330,000 years ago.

We are now galloping toward 400 ppm, with no end in the increase in sight.

It's not a matter of sequestration, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the way we produce electricity on this planet.

99 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:02:01pm

re: #95 MikeySDCA

The only question is who is the Lenin. Certainly not AA, a fool. Perhaps it would be better to call Karzai Prince Lvov, and AA as Kerensky.

AA?

100 sagehen  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:03:09pm

re: #99 Dark_Falcon

AA?

Abdullah Abdullah.

101 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:03:36pm
102 Bob Levin  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:04:58pm

This problem will be solved by someone most folks have never heard about, inventing some type of battery, wind turbine, something...getting his patent, finding a venture capitalist to begin the business. Think automotive industry but the ecological opposite. I've heard of a very powerful battery, recharged with a solar collector that can take folks off the grid. I can't think of anyone who wouldn't buy this. I don't know if this is true, that such technology exists in a ready state, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of people working day and night on this problem, and a technological solution will come into being.

Then the politicians jump into the forefront of the picture just as the historical shutter is about to click and insist on some kind of credit. I think that the last time our political class got in front of a problem might have been the Revolution. It may never have happened in Europe.

I mentioned James Burke earlier today. His work focuses on how the scientists and inventors have advanced civilization to where it is today. He wouldn't call his work the history of Black Swans, but that's pretty much how things go. In all of his work, with the exception of economic policy, we never see politicians at the forefront of problem solving.

103 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:06:10pm

re: #95 MikeySDCA

The only question is who is the Lenin. Certainly not AA, a fool. Perhaps it would be better to call Karzai Prince Lvov, and AA as Kerensky.

They are about to overthrow the election returns and go for a runoff. Karzai is not happy. His kleptocrasy is at risk.

104 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:06:40pm

re: #100 sagehen

Abdullah Abdullah.

re: #101 MikeySDCA

Abdullah Abdullah.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Thank you. That said, I don't see Afghanistan as Russia. We already have large numbers of troops there, and the Allies did not have substantial troops in Russia till after the Bolshevik Revolution. I'd also urge against a coup against KArzai. Such acts did not work out well for the Russians there, nor for us in Vietnam.

105 ShanghaiEd  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:09:43pm

re: #41 Fenway_Nation

I'm curious- who exactly is going to regulate the emissions from volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo or Monserrat? If I recall correctly, the carbon output from those dwarfed anything man-made.

So you're saying because there are volcanoes, mankind shouldn't do anything? Please explain, and show your work.

106 shimoda  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:12:08pm

New nuclear power plant under construction...
Just to make you all jealous...

/

107 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:12:29pm
108 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:14:52pm

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

Thank you. That said, I don't see Afghanistan as Russia. We already have large numbers of troops there, and the Allies did not have substantial troops in Russia till after the Bolshevik Revolution. I'd also urge against a coup against KArzai. Such acts did not work out well for the Russians there, nor for us in Vietnam.

There is a significant possibility that Karzai may be our biggest problem in Afghanistan. If the polity feel that the government is a mafia, they will support neither the government nor the foreigners. (Us). If it is generally accepted that we are supporting the (bullshit) government, we are targets, and not helping the situation.

Time to rethink the situation, yes?

109 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:15:54pm
110 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:16:37pm

re: #108 austin_blue

There is a significant possibility that Karzai may be our biggest problem in Afghanistan. If the polity feel that the government is a mafia, they will support neither the government nor the foreigners. (Us). If it is generally accepted that we are supporting the (bullshit) government, we are targets, and not helping the situation.

Time to rethink the situation, yes?

What would you propose, austin?

111 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:16:43pm

re: #109 MikeySDCA

Kindly define the polity.

Tribes.

112 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:17:10pm

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

re: #106 shimoda

New nuclear power plant under construction...
Just to make you all jealous...

/

Do you know the cost basis of the plant compared to nat gas?

113 Dancing along the light of day  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:18:26pm

Goodnight, Dear Lizards.
Keep on fighting the good fight!
And, rock on!

114 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:19:30pm
115 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:20:35pm

re: #110 Dark_Falcon

What would you propose, austin?

I have no idea, at this point. The government in place seems to be a mafia organization. District governors are squeezing money out of local farmers to beat the band. Those district Governors pay to be given those posts by Kabul.

It's a goat fuck.

116 shimoda  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:21:40pm

re: #112 Bagua

re: #106 shimoda

Do you know the cost basis of the plant compared to nat gas?

Sorry no. I am not involved with it in any way nor am I any kind of expert on nuclear energy. I just think it is good that they are building it. And one more is planned.

117 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:21:49pm

re: #114 MikeySDCA

Do they express themselves other than with submachine guns? Karzai was chosen by a loya jirga.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

And the recent election? Not so much.

118 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:22:10pm
119 lostlakehiker  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:23:01pm

re: #32 SeaMonkey

US used to lead the way in wind power, now it's Germany. We were first in on solar panels -- now we buy them from China. We used to be big on nuclear power. Then 3-Mile Island and we're terrified of it. Now we're a nation of climate change deniers being told to drill baby drill. 61% of Americans have NEVER used public transportation. Excellent. See Highlights report on that link if you're feeling too sanguine about the state of the world and our place in it.

Agree with most of it, but honestly, public transport is lame. I've taken a few bus rides in my life. I'd rather bicycle or walk, even if it's several miles. If it's hundreds of miles, I'd rather drive or fly. Maybe in big cities, buses serve some useful purpose, but for most of us, public transport is a total waste of time and money.

120 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:23:21pm
121 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:25:23pm

re: #120 MikeySDCA

The recent election has been a joke in bad taste, Chicago style.

It's worse than Chicago. Chicago is actually able to build and maintain its roads. Karzai can't even get that right.

122 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:25:54pm

re: #120 MikeySDCA

The recent election has been a joke in bad taste, Chicago style.

How does one say 'Hopenchange' in Pashtun?

123 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:26:56pm

re: #118 MikeySDCA

Since the dawn of time, Afghanistan has been a goat fuck.

Yes. And we have inserted ourselves into the midst of the tribal bushkhazi

124 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:27:23pm
125 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:27:56pm
126 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:28:26pm

re: #120 MikeySDCA

The recent election has been a joke in bad taste, Chicago style.

Ha ha! Bring Obama's election into it! Well played!

THTHTHTHPPP

127 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:28:48pm

re: #116 shimoda

Sorry no. I am not involved with it in any way nor am I any kind of expert on nuclear energy. I just think it is good that they are building it. And one more is planned.

That may be about 2 short.

128 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:30:13pm

re: #125 MikeySDCA

More fools us.

What was the alternative? The problem we face is keeping Afghanistan from becoming a terrorist base again. We've got to find a way to meet that goal or we'll get hit by terrorists based out of there again.

129 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:30:43pm

re: #122 Fenway_Nation

How does one say 'Hopenchange' in Pashtun?

I believe it sounds like "snackbar."

130 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:31:27pm
131 KingKenrod  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:31:38pm

re: #98 austin_blue

Sorry for not responding earlier, there was a bigot that needed to get the stick.

Now as far as your post, it seems perfectly reasonable, doesn't it? I mean, what's the point of changing the way we produce energy? Well, here are the facts from the past 800,000 years:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

You will notice that under natural cycles, the CO2 levels have maxed out at around 300 ppm around 330,000 years ago.

We are now galloping toward 400 ppm, with no end in the increase in sight.

It's not a matter of sequestration, it's a matter of fundamentally changing the way we produce electricity on this planet.

That's right. That's a difficult political task and will take a long time - it's already taken a long time. It's not the skeptics, really, it's the interest every human being has in cheap energy. Even people who accept the science don't act accordingly. Congress and their constituents are used to kicking the can down the road. And then there's China and India.

I think in the short term the damage is done. I also think a workable atmospheric carbon removal technology will probably come along, maybe in 1 to 2 centuries. That's just a guess. By then, we should be off carbon- releasing energy sources. The extra CO2 will be in the atmosphere until then. We should plan for a warmer earth until then and spend some capital to adapt wherever necessary.

132 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:32:38pm

re: #105 ShanghaiEd

I'm obligated to show you nothing. If a bunch of multimillionaires and billionaires flying around in learjets for speaking engagements where they tell those present 'The World is going to end and it's your fault, you useless SUV driving peons' and the only solutions brought forward are job-killing legislation like cap & trade, a 'carbon offset' market that's even less regulated than the subprime lending sector, unelected bureaucrats deciding what kind of cars we have to drive and what kind of light bulbs we should use while the midwest has it's coldest October on record and we're still waiting for the first hurricane of the season to make landfall on the USA- despite dire predicitons of weekly 'killer hurricanes' post-Katrina by some of these same geniuses...if none of this sets off your bullshit-meter and you unquestioningly accept what they have to say at face value...then what's the point? What can I say to convince you when your mind is already made up?

133 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:34:11pm

re: #122 Fenway_Nation

How does one say 'Hopenchange' in Pashtun?

re: #122 Fenway_Nation

How does one say 'Hopenchange' in Pashtun?

Easy!

"Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."

That's what got us into this shitstorm.

134 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:34:56pm

re: #133 austin_blue

Easy!

"Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."

That's what got us into this shitstorm.

How do you figure?

135 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:35:12pm
136 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:36:27pm

The Manila Light Rail gets a pass for actually being faster and more convenient than the other traffic-causing public transportation modes in the city.

However, I'm still hoping they can make electric/hydrogen/whathaveyou cars that perform as well as their internal-combustion counterparts. Being confined to using the train for the rest of my working life is too...depersonalizing.

/also good afternoon

137 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:37:49pm

re: #133 austin_blue

Easy!

"Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq."

That's what got us into this shitstorm.


Yes...we all know that the president was lying about Weapons of Mass Destruction being present in Iraq.

138 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:37:49pm

re: #135 MikeySDCA

Begging your pardon, but we got into A-stan over 9-11.

seemed like we put it on the back burner over wmds in iraq no?

139 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:38:43pm
140 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:39:39pm

re: #139 MikeySDCA

Irrelevant.

Saddam allegedly "supplying Al-Qaeda" is irrelevant to Afghanistan?

141 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:40:13pm

re: #138 Boyo


seemed like we put it on the back burner over wmds in iraq no?

Front burner or rear burner, the Afghan excursion has just chugged along at a low level.

142 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:41:01pm
143 Clemente  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:41:37pm

One day, they'll probably find mine...

Scientists find trawl of 32 new planets

"More than 40 percent of stars like the sun have low mass planets,"

And then I'm outta here!

/re-run...

144 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:42:21pm

re: #136 lazardo


However, I'm still hoping they can make electric/hydrogen/whathaveyou cars that perform as well as their internal-combustion counterparts. Being confined to using the train for the rest of my working life is too...depersonalizing.

/also good afternoon

I now find cordless drills, in general, to have more power and be generally more ergonomic and convient, that the standard corded drill.

There is hope for teh new tek .

145 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:43:11pm

re: #141 Bagua

Front burner or rear burner, the Afghan excursion has just chugged along at a low level.

That's perhaps inevitable. Iraq commanded more attention because Iraq is a more important country. Its only Afghanistan's potential as a terrorist hideout that causes us to take a major interest in it, Iraq has something we really need: oil. That's not a "no blood for oil" line of bs, just honest analysis.

146 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:43:41pm

re: #144 swamprat

I now find cordless drills, in general, to have more power and be generally more ergonomic and convient, that the standard corded drill.

There is hope for teh new tek .

Sony laptop batteries still suck though.

147 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:43:47pm

Please let us not rehash "bush lied people died"?

148 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:44:30pm

re: #147 swamprat

Please let us not rehash "bush lied people died"?

Wasn't planning on it.

149 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:44:35pm

re: #131 KingKenrod

That's right. That's a difficult political task and will take a long time - it's already taken a long time. It's not the skeptics, really, it's the interest every human being has in cheap energy. Even people who accept the science don't act accordingly. Congress and their constituents are used to kicking the can down the road. And then there's China and India.

I think in the short term the damage is done. I also think a workable atmospheric carbon removal technology will probably come along, maybe in 1 to 2 centuries. That's just a guess. By then, we should be off carbon- releasing energy sources. The extra CO2 will be in the atmosphere until then. We should plan for a warmer earth until then and spend some capital to adapt wherever necessary.

Sweet! Thank you for responding. Your basic position is that nothing can be done because the rest of the world wants to catch up with us.

But what if the rest of the third world leapfrogs the west and installs nuclear power stations for their electricity needs?

150 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:47:50pm

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

Iraq has something we really need: oil.

very few places I see it spelled out in black and white like that

151 Clemente  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:47:55pm

re: #122 Fenway_Nation

How does one say 'Hopenchange' in Pashtun?

Too many Afghan men won't speak of such notions, and women rarely dare...

152 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:48:09pm

re: #135 MikeySDCA

Begging your pardon, but we got into A-stan over 9-11.

Yes we did, and appropriately so. But we lost focus and invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. It is why we are in the shit right now in Afghanistan.

153 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:48:38pm

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

That's perhaps inevitable. Iraq commanded more attention because Iraq is a more important country. Its only Afghanistan's potential as a terrorist hideout that causes us to take a major interest in it, Iraq has something we really need: oil. That's not a "no blood for oil" line of bs, just honest analysis.

Afghanistan is more a police action, low level counter-insurgency. The Talib have been kept squashed with the attention they've been receiving. It didn't need much more attention, just better equipment for the men there.

154 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:49:33pm
155 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:50:55pm

re: #154 MikeySDCA

So what? What next?

You tell me. I have no answers. The shit is the shit.

156 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:51:14pm

re: #152 austin_blue

Yes we did, and appropriately so. But we lost focus and invaded Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. It is why we are in the shit right now in Afghanistan.

Not unless the alternative was to invade Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan was always going to heat up with those two left to meddle.

157 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:52:00pm
158 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:53:31pm

re: #156 Bagua

Not unless the alternative was to invade Iran and Pakistan. Afghanistan was always going to heat up with those two left to meddle.

Iraq had something to do with Iran and Pakistan? Really?

159 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:55:43pm

re: #150 Boyo

very few places I see it spelled out in black and white like that

I try to avoid BS. It's not just the oil, of course. It's also about Iraq's greater population. But oil is a decisive factor. It makes Iraq wealthier than Afghanistan which gives Iraq more potential power. Wealth, more people, and a vital resource add up to Iraq being a more important country.

160 shimoda  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:55:45pm

OT-warning:

Just suffered a mysteriously filled up HD. And found the culprit with this excellent piece of freeware from a Dutch university.

Check it out if you ever wondered What The Heck that is eating up your +100GB HD.

I go back into hiding now.

161 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:56:23pm

re: #158 austin_blue

Iraq had something to do with Iran and Pakistan? Really?

No I wasn't saying that, I'm saying that going into Iraq was not much of an effect on our fight in Afghanistan, it is likely to drag on at a low level indefinitely as long as the terrorists have bases in Pakistan, and support from Iran.

162 Gus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:56:28pm

I have nothing to add regarding Afghanistan other than some St. Louis Rams cheerleaders at Kandahar Airfield.

163 NervyNews  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:56:30pm

Very OT: "ATTEMPTED ESPIONAGE" FEVER HITS WASHINGTON! Developing...

Stewart Nozette, 52, of Chevy Chase, Md., who formerly worked for NASA and the Pentagon, who had developed an experiment that led to the discovery of water on the south pole of the moon, and held a special security clearance at the US Department of Energy, was caught trying to sell to an undercover FBI agent posing as a Mossad operative classified and top secret information related to US satellites, early warning systems, means of defense including retaliation against large-scale attack, communications intelligence information, and major elements of defense strategy.

Are there any sort of precedents for an "attempted espionage" case such as this? It's a bit baffling thus far. The Wall Street Journal reports the following:

"The FBI affidavit doesn't explain how Mr. Nozette came to the attention of U.S. investigators. However, the affidavit describes Mr. Nozette's work over the past decade for an Israeli aerospace company that is wholly owned by the Israeli government. During a security search as he departed on a foreign trip in January, a security officer noted he was traveling with two small portable hard drives, which another government officer couldn't locate in a subsequent search as Mr. Nozette re-entered the U.S."
164 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:56:47pm

re: #154 MikeySDCA

So what? What next?

Roads. Roads are the key to pacification.
Roads lead to commerce, the free exchange of ideas, multiculturalism, the widening of the gene pool, the breaking of monopolies on trade and information. Roads break cultural stagnation, lower the cost of goods, and increase the general well being. A good D9 Caterpillar will do more to get rid of the Taliban, than a thousand well meaning troops. Rome knew about roads. You show me a county with good bridges and roads and I will show you a healthy country.

165 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:58:38pm

re: #164 swamprat

Or railways.

/Biased but dead serious.

166 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:58:55pm

re: #162 Gus 802

I have nothing to add regarding Afghanistan other than some St. Louis Rams cheerleaders at Kandahar Airfield.

Well, cheering for the army is better than them cheering for their team. The US Army kicks ass, the St. Louis Rams suck ass.

167 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:59:19pm

re: #164 swamprat

In Japan, they have the best rails. And they're the healthiest country of all, especially given the stress levels the population endure.

/also, they make fightan robots.

168 kingkenrod  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:59:26pm

re: #149 austin_blue

Sweet! Thank you for responding. Your basic position is that nothing can be done because the rest of the world wants to catch up with us.

But what if the rest of the third world leapfrogs the west and installs nuclear power stations for their electricity needs?

It could happen. India and China have only 26 reactors between them now. Both, esp. the Chinese have ambitious nuclear programs. But these 25 year programs will only grow their domestic supplies to 25% (China) and 9% (India). These facts are from Wikipedia. So you can see they will be releasing massive amounts of CO2 for many, many decades.

And their nuclear programs will stall if they are forced to stop modernizing, which is a fancy way for saying they have to continue to have access to cheap energy now and for many decades.

Well, off to bed for me...

169 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:59:27pm
170 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:59:40pm

re: #162 Gus 802

I have nothing to add regarding Afghanistan other than some St. Louis Rams cheerleaders at Kandahar Airfield.

CURSE YOU RUSH LIMBAUGH!

/ :B

171 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 10:59:50pm

re: #157 MikeySDCA

McCrystal (sp?) seems to have an answer. Does Bambi?

Is that an answer, or a stopgap?

According to Patraeus's anti-insurgency bible, we would need to put around 650.000 troops into Afghanistan to stabilize the country and knock down the Taliban.

You willing to make that commitment?

No?

Okay then, your turn.

172 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:00:13pm
173 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:01:28pm

re: #165 Fenway_Nation

Or railways.

/Biased but dead serious.

I agree. A railway proved key to Kitchener's conquest of the Sudan in 1898, as well as being a key tool in the USA's conquest of the Plains Indians. Railroads are vital for moving things and they are still the most efficient way of moving freight overland.

174 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:01:37pm

re: #160 shimoda

Checking it out now. I need to see what's eating up my external HDD...

175 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:02:10pm

re: #169 MikeySDCA
We were already doing it. May still be.

176 Gus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:02:11pm

re: #166 Dark_Falcon

Well, cheering for the army is better than them cheering for their team. The US Army kicks ass, the St. Louis Rams suck ass.

Except those cheerleaders rule!

177 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:03:08pm
178 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:03:53pm

re: #167 lazardo

In Japan, they have the best rails. And they're the healthiest country of all, especially given the stress levels the population endure.

/also, they make fightan robots.

True, but they'll on course for demographic doomsday. They are reproducing at far below replacement level. That's a far worse problem than any health care issue we face.

179 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:04:21pm

re: #164 swamprat

Roads are key to developing a local economy and effective governance if Afghanistan is ever to emerge from its primitive state.

180 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:04:22pm

re: #172 MikeySDCA

In Afghanistan? I know...there's a couple of stub lines that connect the border areas to the former Soviet republics, but nothing to, from or between the major cities.

181 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:04:30pm

re: #177 MikeySDCA

Hope so.

Waiting...

182 swamprat  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:04:35pm

good night all

Fun as always

183 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:07:36pm

re: #180 Fenway_Nation

In Afghanistan? I know...there's a couple of stub lines that connect the border areas to the former Soviet republics, but nothing to, from or between the major cities.

Nor could there be. Railroads are too vulnerable to low-tech sabotage. You'd need to patrol the line so much it would be a net minus. Still, pushing a rail line to Mazar-e-Shereif would be a start and that would be feasible.

184 [deleted]  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:07:49pm
185 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:10:57pm

If I may share with everyone where I am at these days, on topics like this (AGW) in our national dialogue...

I'm at a loss about where to begin... but ultimately it comes down to this: the process of governance, by which I mean how we order our lives wrt to authority of the group over the decisions of the group or individual, is breaking down in this country. This is probably not the first time in history, but during my adult life it is now as bad as I can remember.

Traditionally the idea is that in a representative government every representative knows that she must compromise, at least on something. The idea is to prioritize the goals for one's constituents and then trade away those of a lower value for the sake of getting those of a higher value.

Today however there is a certain atmosphere that is best characterized as digging in one's heels, a George Custers's Last Stand approach, where the only option is everything or nothing.

Note how Sen. Graham has been mercilessly crucified for his willingness to negotiate with Sen Kerry on the issue of climate change legislation. The cries of RINO have never been louder (except when Sen McCain was working on the immigration bill that died.)

Laws that are to be passed in regards to controversial issues need to be argued, no doubt about that. Yet the goal ought to be that action for the greater good is possible. Now, instead of compromise, the rallying cry is secession.

I think the fact that such a well known blogger as Instapundit is now linking to openly secessionist sites has convinced me that the process of governance has hit a new low (of the past 40 years).

The Clinton impeachment hearings were vicious... yet the subject matter was not, in retrospect, that important (though I agree it was wrong of President Clinton to abuse his authority over a mere intern, as well as to lie about it.)

In the run up to, and immediately after, the 2003 war with Iraq there was quite a heated exchange of feelings. Yet did you notice how in the end President Bush did get authority and funding?

WRT climate change legislation - I do not believe that the US Congress is ready to actually pull the trigger on anything substantial, and so I conclude that both Rep. Markey and Sen. Kerry are doing this more for show than for reality. They are going to have to give away so many carbon credits to get the votes from Democratic senators from coal and oil producing states that in the end very little CO2 reduction is likely, at least from "capping" the production.

The development of new energy sources is more promising, and certain alternatives such as wind are already economically viable in particular situations.

It's a long slog ahead.

/end of rant

// promise - no more rants, just Christmas music.

186 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:11:11pm

re: #178 Dark_Falcon

True, but they'll on course for demographic doomsday. They are reproducing at far below replacement level. That's a far worse problem than any health care issue we face.

That's why they're also the global leader in robotics. The quicker we can plant our brains in sexy robot bodies, the less we'll have to worry about aging.

187 Boyo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:11:34pm

re: #159 Dark_Falcon

I try to avoid BS. It's not just the oil, of course. It's also about Iraq's greater population. But oil is a decisive factor. It makes Iraq wealthier than Afghanistan which gives Iraq more potential power. Wealth, more people, and a vital resource add up to Iraq being a more important country.

wish our then president Bush would have said as much...

188 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:11:50pm

re: #183 Dark_Falcon

Nor could there be. Railroads are too vulnerable to low-tech sabotage. You'd need to patrol the line so much it would be a net minus. Still, pushing a rail line to Mazar-e-Shereif would be a start and that would be feasible.

re: #184 MikeySDCA

A-stan railways.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Turns out that the tracks to Mazar-i-Sharif are already being planned out and should be done by 2011.

189 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:13:54pm

re: #187 Boyo

wish our then president Bush would have said as much...

Me too. Had he done so, he would have had much more credibility and been able to avoid the charge that he "lied".

190 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:16:10pm

re: #183 Dark_Falcon


FWIW, the railways in Iraq were back up and running within a few short months of the fall of Baghdad. There were some problems with raids and sabotage at first, but the insurgents moved onto more high profile targets.

191 Gus  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:16:30pm
Oh, my name is Sammy Small, F--k 'em all.
Do you hear what I hear?
Oh, my name is Sammy Small, F--k 'em all.
Do you hear what I hear?
Oh, my name is Sammy Small, and I've only got one ball.
But it's better than none at all, It's better than none at all.
192 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:18:19pm

re: #135 MikeySDCA

Begging your pardon, but we got into A-stan over 9-11.

And we abandoned it over Iraq.

sad thing is that I wanted to support the war in Iraq. Hussein and Uday and Kusai needed to get taken out. Anyone who uses rape rooms as a means to control their populace needs to get taken out.

But Afghanistan was and should have remained priority 1 because that was where our national security was at risk and that was where plots that killed almost 5k Americans were hatched.

Afghanistan is priority 1.

In my dream world, Saudi Arabia and it's vile and repressive (but very American friendly and thoroghly ass-kissed oil-rich regime) needs to go, and stat. While we're at it, we should look at Pakistan, because they aren't as friendly to us as they pretend to be on the surface (or at least, the civilian government may be, but I bet that the military would be just as happy to nuke Bombay and call it a day.)

Iran needs our support to work its stuff out, but I think direct intervention would hurt the cause more than help right now.

Iraq was on the list for humanitarian reasons, but in terms of national security, it shouldn't have diverted us from Afghanistan and the actual war against the Taliban.

I was initially a big Bush supporter, especially post 9-11, but as a New Yorker and an American, Bush lost me when he diverted from the war against the actual Taliban to the war against the pretend Taliban.

193 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:18:56pm

re: #190 Fenway_Nation

FWIW, the railways in Iraq were back up and running within a few short months of the fall of Baghdad. There were some problems with raids and sabotage at first, but the insurgents moved onto more high profile targets.

True. It's also easier to patrol there. A single line in flat terrain can be kept under close watch, making it hard to plant a bomb and get away without a Hellfire up your backside.

194 austin_blue  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:19:49pm

Well, I am out of here. I've got to say that folks on this board who have never served in the military have got a lot of nerve opining on policy decisions that impact our Soldier's and Marine's lives.

You really need to study up on the politics in the countries where we are presently engaged.

195 Clemente  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:21:53pm

re: #173 Dark_Falcon

I agree. A railway proved key to Kitchener's conquest of the Sudan in 1898, as well as being a key tool in the USA's conquest of the Plains Indians. Railroads are vital for moving things and they are still the most efficient way of moving freight overland.

Agreed, but there needs to exist an export commodity of compelling interest. In Afghanistan, the most significant export commodity is opium. And a Toyota four-by full of opium is worth more than a hundred boxcars of anything else the warlords might export. Sadly (for the inbound mercantile) trains aren't a likely solution for an Afghan export trade.

The corollary to Iraqi oil is notable: Afghanistan can put opium over its border cheaper than any political entity in competitive range to Europe; Iraq enjoys the same advantage in oil. The real barrel-in-supertanker cost of Iraqi oil is the lowest on the planet, barring the inconvenient politics. That exceptionally low cost of production means these countries will have aggressive competition for their output no matter how tastefully our politicians seek to arrange relations.

196 lazardo  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:22:22pm

re: #194 austin_blue

Well, I am out of here. I've got to say that folks on this board who have never served in the military have got a lot of nerve opining on policy decisions that impact our Soldier's and Marine's lives.

You really need to study up on the politics in the countries where we are presently engaged.

Being a pansy blogger, I've never served in the military so I try not to cross those lines. Hard to do when you're living in America's only former colony though. q;

197 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:22:40pm

re: #194 austin_blue

Nonsense, in a democracy every citizen has the right to "opine" on how troops are deployed.

198 e5india  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:23:51pm

From PoliticsPA

P.A. Rep. Metcalfe (R) sent out the following email to the entire PA House of Reps:

As a veteran,
I believe that any veteran lending their name,
to promote the leftist propaganda of global warming and climate change,
in an effort to control more of the wealth created in our economy,
through cap and tax type policies,
all in the name of national security,
is a traitor to the oath he or she took defend the Constitution of our great nation!

Remember Benedict Arnold before giving credibility to a veteran who uses their service as a means to promote a leftist agenda.

Drill Baby Drill!!!

For Liberty,
Daryl Metcalfe
State Representative
Veteran U.S. Army

Well played Daryl! I guess vets should be seen and not heard.

199 Dark_Falcon  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:24:03pm

re: #194 austin_blue


I have studied the politics, austin and your remark sounded like a 'chickenhawk' attack to me. I know you didn't mean that way but do be careful next time.

200 freetoken  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:25:14pm

re: #198 e5india

Sounds like an "Oath Keeper" to me.

201 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:25:25pm

re: #192 ~Fianna

And we abandoned it over Iraq.
.

We abandoned nothing, Taliban have been killed in great numbers over the years we were in Iraq and rarely came out to fight. It's mostly bombs and terrorist attacks. As long as they had Pakistan as a base to recruit and train, we were always going to have a steady trickle of new terrorists flowing over the border.

202 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:26:21pm

re: #198 e5india

From PoliticsPA

P.A. Rep. Metcalfe (R) sent out the following email to the entire PA House of Reps:

Well played Daryl! I guess vets should be seen and not heard.

Wow, that's absolutely disgusting.

What does one thing have to do with the other???

So according to this jerk, veterans who don't agree with him aren't really veterans, but are actually traitors.

Wow. That's an insult to anyone that served in defense of the Constitution that gives all of us the right to run our mouths.

203 Fenway_Nation  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:27:04pm

re: #194 austin_blue

That better not have been directed towards me.

/wonders if you were saying the same thing at any point during the Bush Administration

204 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:27:22pm

re: #185 freetoken

Freetoken, that was a well written rant. Only lost me in the end of the wind bit as those are still unicorns at this point. Also, agree on the political state, but is AGW really the key issue here, or just caught up in the partisan divide?

205 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:27:55pm

re: #201 Bagua

We abandoned nothing, Taliban have been killed in great numbers over the years we were in Iraq and rarely came out to fight. It's mostly bombs and terrorist attacks. As long as they had Pakistan as a base to recruit and train, we were always going to have a steady trickle of new terrorists flowing over the border.

Afghanistan has regressed over the past 5 years.

Women have ha hard time going to school even in the capital now, which wasn't the case 5 years ago. Women were absolutely abandoned in Afghanistan.

206 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:29:16pm

re: #205 ~Fianna

I agree, socially it's a nightmare. I mean the military situation, not nation building.

207 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:32:21pm

re: #119 lostlakehiker

Agree with most of it, but honestly, public transport is lame. I've taken a few bus rides in my life. I'd rather bicycle or walk, even if it's several miles. If it's hundreds of miles, I'd rather drive or fly. Maybe in big cities, buses serve some useful purpose, but for most of us, public transport is a total waste of time and money.

Have you been in a city with good public transit?

We're planning another visit to Portugal this year, and one of the nicest things is the very extensive network of public transit. We're flying in to Lisbon and out of Porto and also visiting Sintra. Every where we want to go, we're taking trains.

Last year we took a bus in to Spain. I guess they don't get a lot of Americans coming over the frontier in a bus, because the border patrol looked really close at the passports we handed them. (We were the only ones that even got their passports looked at, since everone else just held up their EU passport. They didn't seem quite sure what to do with a blue passport! It was kinda scary, actually.)

It's heaven to be able to plan a whole vacation without renting a car, worrying about parking, insurance, directions, freeways, driving styles, etc.

208 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:38:33pm

re: #206 Bagua

I agree, socially it's a nightmare. I mean the military situation, not nation building.

It's part and parcel of the same. The same forces that fuel the Taliban are in control.

We never really fully controlled the rural areas, and we've gradually lost the cities as well.

Afghanistan requires the full attention of any country if we want to control it. Ask both India and Russia/the Soviet Union.

Afghanistan is as austin called it, a goat-fuck because ever since Alexander the Great it's been traded back and forth between holding powers as a route to the east. The variant of Islam that's practiced there has more to do with Pashtun tribal culture than it really does with classical Islam from the more "civilized" and urban parts of the Muslim world. No outside country has ever tamed the Pashtun. Even far in to the future, Frank Herbert didn't think we would be able to , either (the Fremen are based largely on Pashtun and Bedouin culture.)

Afghanistan was being stabilized in 2003... Once we diverted troops to go to Iraq, that started to slip. We over committed, and we're paying the price for that now.

209 Bagua  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:43:34pm

re: #208 ~Fianna

All good, except that more troops would have only meant more targets with the Pakistani bases left operational and support from Iran intact.

This is still primarily an anti-terrorism operation, it's wishful thinking that a greater effort would result in a reformation of Pashtun tribal culture.

210 ~Fianna  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:50:10pm

re: #209 Bagua

All good, except that more troops would have only meant more targets with the Pakistani bases left operational and support from Iran intact.

This is still primarily an anti-terrorism operation, it's wishful thinking that a greater effort would result in a reformation of Pashtun tribal culture.

It's going to take a generation to reform Pashtun tribal culture. But until we do that, the area isn't ever going to be secure.

This is one area where we do need UN or NATO support. We can't be there forever, but someone needs to be there for a while.

211 Captain America 1776  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:50:29pm

re: #54 KingKenrod

"The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the air above, with varying currents, temperatures, salinities, mixing ratios, and wind interactions."

[Link: www.hawaiireporter.com...]

"In pragmatic terms the IPCC does not pursue a better scientific understanding of our climate, but instead pursues programs that are leading to ultimate control of the global energy, to justify global energy rationing, increased energy costs, and eliminating fossil energy sources---true economy killers. This is quite a different agenda from what is portrayed. This crippling agenda extends into 3rd world nations, where billions of people are being asked to forego fossil fueled energy, including electrical energy and the prosperity it brings."

212 Capitalist Tool  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:55:46pm

re: #160 shimoda

OT-warning:

Just suffered a mysteriously filled up HD. And found the culprit with this excellent piece of freeware from a Dutch university.

Check it out if you ever wondered What The Heck that is eating up your +100GB HD.

I go back into hiding now.

Nifty little tool.
Thanks for the link.

213 Varek Raith  Mon, Oct 19, 2009 11:59:35pm

re: #211 Captain America 1776

"The oceans contain 50 times more CO2 than the air above, with varying currents, temperatures, salinities, mixing ratios, and wind interactions."

[Link: www.hawaiireporter.com...]

"In pragmatic terms the IPCC does not pursue a better scientific understanding of our climate, but instead pursues programs that are leading to ultimate control of the global energy, to justify global energy rationing, increased energy costs, and eliminating fossil energy sources---true economy killers. This is quite a different agenda from what is portrayed. This crippling agenda extends into 3rd world nations, where billions of people are being asked to forego fossil fueled energy, including electrical energy and the prosperity it brings."

"Dr. Fox is listed by the Heartland Institute as a global warming/climate change expert."

That is direct from the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, which he is a fellow, website. Credibility; None.

I suggest you do yourself a favor and research the Heartland Institute and Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

214 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:00:29am

re: #210 ~Fianna

It's going to take a generation to reform Pashtun tribal culture. But until we do that, the area isn't ever going to be secure.

This is one area where we do need UN or NATO support. We can't be there forever, but someone needs to be there for a while.

I see no evidence that it is possible to reform Pashtun tribal culture even over several generations. It's been tried before.

215 Captain America 1776  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:09:40am

This caltech study of "apparent" highest CO2 levels in 15 million years reveals nothing new. But check out the graph/link below for a much greater historical scale that reveals CO2 concentrations in excess of 1500 ppm 35 million years ago and in excess of 1700ppm at on point.

Image: paleoco2last70m.png

216 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:24:49am
217 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:29:02am

re: #215 Captain America 1776

And consequently, a period in Earth's past in which the mean temperature was usually much warmer that in recent times.

I go back to my usual question in circumstances such as these: do you know why the Earth and Moon have different average temperatures, though each receives the same level of sunlight?

218 Varek Raith  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:36:32am

re: #216 THEY CALL HIM BOSS

This, from the guy who posted the video of "The Great Global Warming Swindle?"

Must be nice to have your convictions change as easily as the wind blows.

As opposed to remaining steadfast in your own ignorance, like you apparently?

re: #215 Captain America 1776

This caltech study of "apparent" highest CO2 levels in 15 million years reveals nothing new. But check out the graph/link below for a much greater historical scale that reveals CO2 concentrations in excess of 1500 ppm 35 million years ago and in excess of 1700ppm at on point.

[Link: img11.imageshack.us...]

And tell me, what kind of creatures/plantlife flourished under those conditions?

219 Shiplord Kirel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:38:13am

re: #216 THEY CALL HIM BOSS

This, from the guy who posted the video of "The Great Global Warming Swindle?"

Must be nice to have your convictions change as easily as the wind blows.

How have you established that this conviction changed either suddenly or easily, rather than by a process of, say, analysis and research?
At one time I believed in the tooth fairy and the monster lurking in the attic. I don't now. Does that reflect a lack of conviction on my part?
Of course, since you antiscience mooks still believe in the intellectual equivalent of the tooth fairy, creationism and so on, it is entirely possible that your answer would be yes.

220 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:38:32am
221 ckb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:38:36am

So, what have I learned recently...

1. A major respected climate modeler, predicts 20-30 years of cooling ahead, a minor downslope on a larger uptrend.

2. A few AGW backers go out on the Arctic Ice an tell us it's young ice, which was plainly obvious because we have the satellite data to tell us where all the new ice is since 2007, the recorded low, when the young ice was water. They go on to say how positively sure they are the ice will disappear with the next 10 years. See above cooling trend in #1.

3. We've got someone at Caltech who finds a way using isotopes of some sort that CO2 is very high. Was there any a dispute that CO2 was high? And, last time it was this high, the world was a different place, much hotter. Might this not be as much evidence against CO2 being a major factor as it is for?

And ignored by all, except maybe the guy in #1, is the one trend we are certain is highly correlated with climate - sunspot activity. We are in a minimum that is pretty much unique in modern times. My prediction is that we've got a hell of a winter on the way. The arctic ice is pretty safe year round.

Anyway, maybe, the next time we vote to spend 800 billion dollars, of which about 1/4 was used in wise fashion, we take the other 3/4s and parter with industry to foster the construction 50-100 pebble bed reactors in the US. And we do it to improve the economics of the country instead of pork that accomplishes nothing. And when we do it we don't even mention AGW. We just do it because it makes so much damn sense.

222 Bob Levin  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:49:47am

#185 Freetoken--

I bookmarked the page on Climate Change for later study. You may want to journey through Youtube, the shows by James Burke--Connections, The Day the Universe changed. Let me find a link: Right here.

It won't change the politicians, but you will see how insignificant they are to the survival and progress on humanity. They are the real comedians of history. But you will also see the movers of all of us, stumbling upon the great and vital discoveries and information that sustains us.

Those with the real power and knowledge to deal with our environment don't need convincing (I do, but I'm not one with the essential knowledge). Those with the power to make those ideas part of our lives (the venture capitalists), they believe it. No one is stopping any of these folks from going to work tomorrow or the next day. And no one can stop them. Because no one knows who they are. They are operating quietly and carefully. They are like that little San Francisco computer club--that unknown club that gave birth to our technological world, starting with Steve Wozniak making his daily trip to Radio Shack.

Look at political commentary since the inception of the US. Our politicians have always been buffoons with few exceptions. They can't rise above that buffoonery. Hoping so is hoping for a miracle. So just look at them with detached amusement.

Hope this helps.

223 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:56:54am

re: #222 Bob Levin

All of Burke's Youtube videos seem to be nothing other than 1 minute title shots.

224 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:59:58am

re: #216 THEY CALL HIM BOSS

This, from the guy who posted the video of "The Great Global Warming Swindle?"

Must be nice to have your convictions change as easily as the wind blows.

Must be even nicer to be a completely unshakable hidebound mouthbreather who clings to mumbo-jumbo and outright falsehoods in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Just say it, you hate everything liberals like, even when they're correct. Just say it, so we can dispense with this fraudulent waltz where you pretend you're intellectually honest.

225 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:07:59am
226 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:10:53am

re: #144 swamprat

I now find cordless drills, in general, to have more power and be generally more ergonomic and convient, that the standard corded drill.

There is hope for teh new tek .

Motors have gotten a lot better in recent years, thanks to vastly improved magnets - largely as a side effect of increased research into making hard drives smaller, where tiny, powerful magnets are key.

Batteries, however, remain a huge stumbling block. There haven't been nearly as many improvements in storage technology, and those that have been developed are not at all friendly pricewise, or environmentally. As far as energy storage goes, it's really, really difficult to beat the energy density of gasoline.

227 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:12:24am
228 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:13:42am

re: #194 austin_blue

Dude, I'm queer. I can't even serve in the military, even if I wanted to. And nobody on the internets is going to tell me I can't opine about foreign policy, I don't care if they're to the right of Atilla the Hun, or to the left of Lenin. I don't care if they were in Vietnam, I don't care if they fought in World War One. Toting a gun in uniform is worthy of respect, but it does not make you a professor, it does not mean you are magically incredibly well informed about centuries of military history. The guy who runs the military, his name is Barack Obama, and last I checked, he was a civilian.

229 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:16:31am

re: #194 austin_blue

Well, I am out of here. I've got to say that folks on this board who have never served in the military have got a lot of nerve opining on policy decisions that impact our Soldier's and Marine's lives.

You really need to study up on the politics in the countries where we are presently engaged.

You do know that the position of Secretary of Defense is held by a civilian who must not have served in the military for at least the previous ten years?

230 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:16:32am

re: #225 They Call Him Boss

OOOH! I touched a nerve! DO IT AGAIN!

"Intellectually honest." Like you didn't slurp up that little piece of literary vomit from someone else's blog like a diehard alcoholic slurping diarrhea out of a drunk's asshole for the alcohol content.

Touched a nerve? Chuck, I argue on the internet for fun, I've been doing so for like 18 years. You're just one more sheepie in the long line of sheepies waiting to be sheared of their misconceptions. About climate change, and many other things you know little about. It'll happen here at LGF, or it'll happen elsewhere. I wish you well in your journey!

231 They Call Him Boss  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:26:37am

re: #230 WindUpBird

Touched a nerve? Chuck, I argue on the internet for fun, I've been doing so for like 18 years. You're just one more sheepie in the long line of sheepies waiting to be sheared of their misconceptions. About climate change, and many other things you know little about. It'll happen here at LGF, or it'll happen elsewhere. I wish you well in your journey!

18 years? Wow, how DO you find time for a social life?

I also wish you well on your journey to proper sentence structuring.

232 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:31:36am

re: #231 They Call Him Boss

I've noticed some of your jive got erased from the record! Look above you. And if I wanted an english degree, I'd go back to college. Thanks for the protip though, even though this is a blog, and not grad school.

So! Back to matters of import, do you actually have any links to real evidence that climate change ain't actually happenin'? Cuz son I would love to see it!

233 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:38:11am
234 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:55:42am
235 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:56:48am
236 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:57:34am
237 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:59:43am
238 [deleted]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:00:18am
239 WINDUPBIRD DISEASE [S.K.U.M.M.]  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:32:58am

That's a lot of deletions! Anyway, I'm listening to Katatonia, spooky melodic metal band from Sweden. You should as well. :D

Youtube Video
240 AtadOFF  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:22:31am

re: #218 Varek Raith

uh... mammals appeared?

[Link: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...]

241 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:41:46am

re: #240 AtadOFF

uh... mammals appeared?

[Link: www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...]

The species of which were then later replaced by newer mammals... and then in the Quaternary eventually our current array of animals appeared, adapted to the cooler climate of the Quaternary.

242 SixDegrees  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:05:59am

Here's an excellent program from BBC featuring a tour of a natural history museum with a creationist and a paleontologist.

The outright brainwashing of children is sickening, as is the overt stupidity and outright rejection of logic and evidence. Well worth listening to, both for the direct glimpse into the mind of a creationist and for answers to the obsfucation he attempts to raise.

243 AtadOFF  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:08:31am

re: #241 freetoken

If you'll pardon the pun, do you know what else is cool? This period marked the first major expansion of the east antarctic ice sheet.

[Link: geology.gsapubs.org...]

244 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:12:44am

re: #36 Walter L. Newton

"Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse"."

[Link: news.bbc.co.uk...]

Eyeroll. Just like I don't like leftie or rightie faith healers, I don't like "REPENT NOW" messages from either side.

245 Ghazicide  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:13:44am

re: #194 austin_blue

Well, I am out of here. I've got to say that folks on this board who have never served in the military have got a lot of nerve opining on policy decisions that impact our Soldier's and Marine's lives.

I wouldn't put to much stock in that mindset.

246 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:21:58am

re: #119 lostlakehiker

Agree with most of it, but honestly, public transport is lame. I've taken a few bus rides in my life. I'd rather bicycle or walk, even if it's several miles. If it's hundreds of miles, I'd rather drive or fly. Maybe in big cities, buses serve some useful purpose, but for most of us, public transport is a total waste of time and money.

"Public transport" sounds British, no offense. It's a self-fulfilling cycle. Public transportation empowers the elderly for one thing and could reduce drunk driving. Obviously it is not practical for many people, but attitudes like yours feed the cycle of starving funds for trains and buses in favor of roads and highways. It is cheaper and quicker to fly (or drive) between DC and NYC, for example, than to take the train. This is silliness. But public transportation requires federal money -- why should a Wyoming senator vote for it? A hundred years ago we built a huge subway system in New York (private money, pre-unions.) Now we can't even afford to maintain it. Our airports look more like Nigeria's than France's. Why? Starved for federal money.

247 SeaMonkey  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:23:03am

re: #245 BigPapa

I wouldn't put to much stock in that mindset.

People who have never worked for minimum wage have a lot of nerve having an opinion on what the minimum wage should be.

248 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:23:57am

re: #169 MikeySDCA

Lovely theory, but roads take time, and A-stan is not exactly shovel ready.

Yep. My husband's been there several times in several different regions. Most of the country never made it up to even European medieval standards. I guess the Romans never made it all the way there, or the scouts they sent that way reported back that it was a hellhole completely devoid of charm.

If the Chinese want those Afghan minerals, the Chinese should run their own security, and we should bring some folks home from the place.

249 funky chicken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:26:59am

re: #192 ~Fianna

Um, I guess you're not convinced that the military leadership encourages and protects extremism any more?

250 Ghazicide  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:32:55am

re: #145 Dark_Falcon

That's perhaps inevitable. Iraq commanded more attention because Iraq is a more important country. Its only Afghanistan's potential as a terrorist hideout that causes us to take a major interest in it, Iraq has something we really need: oil. That's not a "no blood for oil" line of bs, just honest analysis.

Our needs of oil are not the driving force. The fact is Iraq was sitting on huge $ that would likely be spent on weapons and military might used unquestioningly in a rogue and unstable fashion. Canada is sitting on a bunch of oil too and be don't seem to be chomping at the bit to go invade them.

It's not a matter of Iraq having something we need as opposed to Iraq has been for 25 years dangerously misusing something they've had to wreak havoc on that part of the world. It was time that was put to the end before their realm of influence started moving beyond Iran and Israel.

251 godziller  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:34:03am

15 million years ago and CO2 levels were high, but there wasn't a human or automobile to be found. Global warming? Sure. But I am still skeptical about the "man-made" aspect, whether we can really do anything about it anyway, and if it is worth the cost now for an unpredictable future.

252 Ghazicide  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 6:36:07am

re: #247 SeaMonkey

People who have never worked for minimum wage have a lot of nerve having an opinion on what the minimum wage should be.

People who have never fought fire have a lot of nerve having an opinion on fire fighting.

People who have never been a cop have a lot of nerve having an opinion on crime fighting.

My, that suddenly seems a tad silly, no?

I suppose all gynecologists shall now be women. No prostate researchers shall be women. Women should not be allowed to have an opinion on football either, in fact most men shouldn't either.

253 molding_perception  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:02:06am

Kinda suggests that humans are not the problem and maybe the Sun activity is. Don't ya think?

254 ryannon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:20:07am

I'm happy to see that our reliable forum alpha males were finally able to get rid of LVQ. That guy was a total pain in the ass: very knowledgeable about climate change, literate and patient enough to reiterate the same points again and again each time someone attempted to submit fancy for fact. All in all, an infuriating individual, especially when he ran out of patience trying to explain what he had already explained many times before and began to be a bit verbally abusive towards some of our star posters.

Anyway, the important thing is that he's not posting anymore.

But why do I wish he was?

255 ryannon  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:22:11am

re: #254 ryannon

But why do I wish he was?

No, it's not because I'm a jerk.

I thought he was a valuable member of our little dysfunctional family.

256 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:27:41am

re: #253 molding_perception

Kinda suggests that humans are not the problem and maybe the Sun activity is. Don't ya think?

No. Sun activity has not matched the last century+ trend of global temperatures.

257 dauntlessone  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:29:54am

So, if CO2 were the dominant determining factor for temperature and sea levels, wouldnt temperatures still be rising?? Wouldnt the oceans be significantly higher than they are?

Counting CO2 as a pollutant seems ridiculous to me. Plants remove it so if you want to reduce it, plant a tree, or a million trees.

258 kirghazi  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:30:41am

Nuclear is not the answer. It is, I believe, part of the answer, but it is not the whole answer.

Setting aside the time and cost to build sufficient nuke plants to replace all the coal plants, uranium appears to be more finite than oil.

I think we need more nuke plants (and yes I'm willing to see one in my 'back yard'), but I don't think they are a long-term solution even if the fiscal and political feasibility problems can be overcome.

For what it's worth, my personal push is for solar power satellites. I acknowledge the weaknesses there as well but still think the potential of that system is significantly greater than that of pretty much every other system.

I also want to note - both for nukes and for the SPS - that these only solve stationary and certain categories of mobile energy demand pollution problems. Unless and until we get better batteries or retail fuel cells we're still going to burn oil - a LOT of oil.

259 Coracle  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 7:48:10am

re: #257 dauntlessone

So, if CO2 were the dominant determining factor for temperature and sea levels, wouldnt temperatures still be rising?? Wouldnt the oceans be significantly higher than they are?

Counting CO2 as a pollutant seems ridiculous to me. Plants remove it so if you want to reduce it, plant a tree, or a million trees.

Feedbacks are not instantaneous. You're going to need rather more than a million trees at the rate we continue to deforest places like the Amazon. Counting CO2 as a pollutant is only ridiculous if you know nothing about how it works in our atmosphere.

260 kirghazi  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:06:54am

re: #194 austin_blue

Well, I am out of here. I've got to say that folks on this board who have never served in the military have got a lot of nerve opining on policy decisions that impact our Soldier's and Marine's lives.

You really need to study up on the politics in the countries where we are presently engaged.

What makes you think those who disagree with you, or who are opining on policy decisions, have never served?

261 Bob Levin  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:10:34am

#223 Freetoken

Looks like Youtube and Ambrose Video hit the guy with copyright guidelines. The whole of each series used to be up there. And it looks like they set down these rules just a few days ago. Burke ended up writing a column for Scientific American.

He's very unique. Where Ken Burns lends himself to being copied, no one even attempts to copy Burke. A Robert Cringely, I believe, did something somewhat similar a few years back with a show called Accidental Empires, chronicling the rise of Silicon Valley. He showed how Microsoft and Apple grew, how Adobe grew. Evidently, Xerox had a group of researchers on the payroll who invented desktop computers with mouses, printers, all of this, but they, Xerox, didn't know what to do with the inventions. One by one the group left, teamed up with some venture capitalists, and started their own companies. The Microsoft history and the Apple history are different, but the idea is similar, Gates wasn't looking to revolutionize the workplace and home, and Wozniak just wanted to impress his friends at a little computer club in San Francisco.

Cringely's point is that this is so odd, this entire tech revolution seemed to have happened by accident. Burke's point is that all of history moves like that.

So on the surface of the news folks were talking about oil politics, the Iranian hostages, the Reagan revolution, the fall of the American Automobile industry, the terrible economy--but the real currents of change were taking place where no one was looking. This is the idea behind Black Swans.

James Watt, for instance, was a maintenance man at a museum who had to fix the display of the Newcomen Steam Engine, and he immediately knew how to improve it.

Even the politically powerful Catholic Church--at the time (different time now) couldn't stop scientific progress. For instance, the Church didn't have an accurate calendar to keep track of holidays, saints days, whatever. So they gave a monk the assignment of coming up with an accurate calendar. Well, the only way that Copernicus could do that was to rework the entire concept of the solar system.

I have every confidence that someone is going to work today not realizing they have the knowledge and wherewithal to completely transform the ways that we use energy, and that they may be the next James Watt. And there isn't a force on earth that can stop this, because it never has stopped it.

262 flywheel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:15:12am

My prediction: GW will soon become the least of our worries.

263 so.cal.swede  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:42:29am

re: #217 freetoken

And consequently, a period in Earth's past in which the mean temperature was usually much warmer that in recent times.

I go back to my usual question in circumstances such as these: do you know why the Earth and Moon have different average temperatures, though each receives the same level of sunlight?

Because of the greenhouse effect and because of the massive bodies of water on earth.

264 flywheel  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 8:48:46am

re: #263 so.cal.swede

Because of the greenhouse effect and because of the massive bodies of water on earth.

I would leave it at just the atmosphere. Without it, the oceans would boil off anyway.

265 lostlakehiker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:20:02am

re: #221 ckb

So, what have I learned recently...

1. A major respected climate modeler, predicts 20-30 years of cooling ahead, a minor downslope on a larger uptrend.

2. A few AGW backers go out on the Arctic Ice an tell us it's young ice, which was plainly obvious because we have the satellite data to tell us where all the new ice is since 2007, the recorded low, when the young ice was water. They go on to say how positively sure they are the ice will disappear with the next 10 years. See above cooling trend in #1.

3. We've got someone at Caltech who finds a way using isotopes of some sort that CO2 is very high. Was there any a dispute that CO2 was high? And, last time it was this high, the world was a different place, much hotter. Might this not be as much evidence against CO2 being a major factor as it is for?

And ignored by all, except maybe the guy in #1, is the one trend we are certain is highly correlated with climate - sunspot activity. We are in a minimum that is pretty much unique in modern times. My prediction is that we've got a hell of a winter on the way. The arctic ice is pretty safe year round.

Anyway, maybe, the next time we vote to spend 800 billion dollars, of which about 1/4 was used in wise fashion, we take the other 3/4s and parter with industry to foster the construction 50-100 pebble bed reactors in the US. And we do it to improve the economics of the country instead of pork that accomplishes nothing. And when we do it we don't even mention AGW. We just do it because it makes so much damn sense.

As to point 1, I think what he said is that we might well be in for a cooling interval of 20 years, give or take...that climate models indicate we should expect them, from time to time, even if overall, climate is warming. That's different from saying that right now, it's very likely to get cooler for 20 years.

As to point 2, the sea ice has been thinning rapidly. If it gets cooler than it was when it was thinning fast, maybe it will thin slower rather than re-thicken. There's also a tipping point and we're very near it. Any open water near the poles in summer will receive and store much more solar heat than the reflective ice that used to be there. That heat will slow the formation of sea ice the following winter, and make it that much easier for next summer's sun to melt through to open water again. Once we get a lot of open water at the poles, we won't go back to the days of Peary in terms of polar ice, even if CO2 levels stop rising or drop a bit.

As to point 3, what this says to me is that the equilibrium climate at that high CO2 level is hotter than what we see now. Right now, the earth has a couple of big iceboxes, one in Greenland and one in Antarctica. While those last, their melting will absorb a lot of heat that would otherwise drive temperatures higher.

As to point 4, hear hear. AGW or not, we are dangerously dependent on foreign oil, and if we want electric cars, we must have electricity.

266 Martinsmithy  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:21:56am

The latest meme from the global warming deniers has been: "global warming may be occurring, but CO2 is not a pollutant - it's abundance makes life flourish even more." And they cite the fact that luxuriant plant and animal life developed during periods of high CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere.

They conveniently leave out the other part about sea levels being 75 to 120 feet higher than today. The amount of dry land upon which luxuriant plant and animal life existed would be much, much smaller than it is today. The amount of disruption to human life and our world economy would be, to understate it, massive.

But it's all part of (take you pick) a) stupidity, b) intellectual dishonesty, or c) both that plagues the global warming deniers.

I understand that the sequel to the book Freakonomics has some controversial things to say about global warming. The fur is already flying, and the book is only being released today. [Link: volokh.com...]

267 friarstale  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:21:56am
For the last 5 million years the Earth has been in a major Ice Age. There have been only a few times in Earth's history when it has been as cold as it has been during the last 5 million years.

http://www.scotese.com/moreinfo15.htm

Florida unda wata:
http://www.scotese.com/miocene.htm

268 BetterLuck  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:23:13am

re: #267 friarstale

If that is the case, the why do we assume that we can make it continue exactly as it is in the future. Seems like it's always been changing.

269 lostlakehiker  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:26:04am

re: #268 BetterLuck

If that is the case, the why do we assume that we can make it continue exactly as it is in the future. Seems like it's always been changing.

We cannot prevent all climate change. We can abstain from causing changes we won't like.

270 friarstale  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 9:30:05am

re: #268 BetterLuck

If that is the case, the why do we assume that we can make it continue exactly as it is in the future. Seems like it's always been changing.


I don't know
I'm just along for the ride
to me, this is all shear speculation
I do not have a firm opinion on man-made global warming
I don't reject it out of hand, but if it is due to the combustion engine and/or the way we burn fossil fuels, then we better get crackin' on finding new sources of energy

if it ain't one darn thing, it's another!
;>)

271 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:17:56am

re: #41 Fenway_Nation

I'm curious- who exactly is going to regulate the emissions from volcanic eruptions like Mt. Pinatubo or Monserrat? If I recall correctly, the carbon output from those dwarfed anything man-made.

This is false. Exactly the opposite is true. According to the USGS,


not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of good-sounding propaganda.

272 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:16:30am

re: #25 Walter L. Newton

Never happen, it's not on the left's agenda.

Some of us on the left think it's a good idea. Nuclear technology is advancing quite quickly.

273 ckb  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:42:54am

re: #271 MinisterO

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of good-sounding propaganda.

I always take the meme that volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans as shorthand for "all natural sources that emit CO2 dwarf the human contribution". The latter is undeniably true. Natural sources also soak much of it up.

274 AtadOFF  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:52:38am

Anyone got the inside on the fusion rector prototype they're supposed to be working on?

275 AtadOFF  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 11:57:23am

re: #274 AtadOFF

reactor... keyboard is dying...

276 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:05:52pm

re: #273 ckb

I'm not so forgiving of those repeating debunked propaganda as fact. It only takes a rudimentary understanding of the magnitudes of the numbers involved to prove the volcano claim is a lie.

277 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:39:54pm

re: #221 ckb

So, what have I learned recently...

1. A major respected climate modeler, predicts 20-30 years of cooling ahead, a minor downslope on a larger uptrend.

No actually he didn't say that. His name is Mojib Latif and what he said was that his projections do not go beyond 2015. The 2 decades he was talking about were centred on 2005 and 2010. They were 10 year averages.

Get your facts straight.

2. A few AGW backers go out on the Arctic Ice an tell us it's young ice, which was plainly obvious because we have the satellite data to tell us where all the new ice is since 2007, the recorded low, when the young ice was water. They go on to say how positively sure they are the ice will disappear with the next 10 years. See above cooling trend in #1.

The point they were making is that new ice is thinner than old (multi-year) ice so the volume and mass of ice is less and melts faster. The more new ice and the less old, even if the extent is the same, the less ice there is to melt.

You are getting bad information from your denialist sites. You might want to change your source.


3. We've got someone at Caltech who finds a way using isotopes of some sort that CO2 is very high. Was there any a dispute that CO2 was high? And, last time it was this high, the world was a different place, much hotter. Might this not be as much evidence against CO2 being a major factor as it is for?

Not without more information. You, like other denialists (and creationists with evolution), jump on single factors and without looking at them in context of all the other factors, and then assert that they disprove AGW.

All of the factors are interrelated. Do you have knowledge of any other factors that show CO2 was not a substantial catalyst? What other events could have raised the temperature as high as it was without GHG feedbacks?

And ignored by all, except maybe the guy in #1, is the one trend we are certain is highly correlated with climate - sunspot activity. We are in a minimum that is pretty much unique in modern times. My prediction is that we've got a hell of a winter on the way. The arctic ice is pretty safe year round.

Sunspot activity peaked in 2000 and has been on a downward trend since then. Temperature peaked in 1998 and again in 2005. The past 4 months have seen temperatures close to the recorded highs. The correlation is between ENSO and temps, not sunspots and temps. ENSO, and sunspots, are part of the natural variability of the climate system which at times can overshadow the weaker but more persistent warming by GHGs. If ENSO is statistically removed, leaving GHGs, the trend is upward.

The oceans below 700m are gaining and storing heat. This will eventually affect the atmosphere.


Anyway, maybe, the next time we vote to spend 800 billion dollars, of which about 1/4 was used in wise fashion, we take the other 3/4s and parter with industry to foster the construction 50-100 pebble bed reactors in the US. And we do it to improve the economics of the country instead of pork that accomplishes nothing. And when we do it we don't even mention AGW. We just do it because it makes so much damn sense.

I have no argument with more reactors, research and development of 4th gen should be a priority.

278 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:45:03pm

Unfortunately on a day where we had two AGW threads, I had pressing work in the lab and I was unable to respond to many things as I normally would on such threads.

One of the things that I would like to most clearly state is the certainty to which we know there is a problem.

The mechanisms behind AGW are actually quite simple to understand. So much so, that many find it difficult to understand how people don't get them when they are laid out. To be fair, the interactions of those mechanisms are quite complex and there are very many great difficulties in pinning down certain predictions accurately.

However,just because we can not say that on August 12 2079, the sea level will be x, or the temperature in Denver will be y, does not mean that the basic mechanisms are no longer at play or that they have lost their power or simplicity.

It does not mean that there is nearly the wiggle room for doubt that many hold for whatever reasons.

Here are some of the mechanisms:

1. CO2 really is a GHG, and the sun really does emit a large amount of IR. When CO2 is hit by IR, it both becomes warm through vibrations and it can then re-radiate the absorbed IR back to earth - where it gets absorbed by other things that in turn heat up. It is well understood quantum mechanics as to why CO2 does this. Even if it were not throughly understood why it does this, it has been conclusively measured for over 100 years that it does this.

It follows immediately that the more CO2 you have in your atmosphere the warmer you planet must be. This can not be debated. It follows immediately that if you increase CO2 concentrations in your atmosphere, your planet must warm as a matter of consequence. This has been directly observed.

2. The warmer your planet gets, the more ice will melt. It should not be hard to imagine that the Earth is in some sort of dynamic equilibrium in terms of how much ice it has. It should not be hard to imagine that as you warm the planet, you change the equilibrium and ice will melt. It already did so as part of natural cycles at the cooler temperatures 100 years ago. It should only do so more now. We see this happening now.

This also creates a feedback. Ice reflects more IR into space - where it will not be absorbed terrestrially and warm things - than water. If you have more water, less IR gets reflect, which will warm things more, which will mean you have even less ice. Then the cycle repeats more IR is absorbed etc... This is a feedback. We are seeing it happen now. This too is not hard to understand.

Note: from both of these effects alone, there should be no debate that these processes end without ice if you keep adding CO2 into the atmosphere. This should be obvious.

3. As you warm the Siberian and Canadian bogs, you have yet another massive GHG release in the form of both methane and CO2. This is another feedback. More melting -> more GHG from the bogs -> more warming -> more melting.

Again, what is so hard to understand? Where is there room for uncertainness? Where is there room to say maybe not?

There are other feedbacks as well. There are shifting current, ocean anoxia and all matter of other things to discuss as well. However, these three are sufficient to make my main point.

There is not a lot of room to debate the ultimate effect of this or where the road leads. If one were to put a gun to there head and pull the trigger, there is not a lot of room for debate there either.

The problem with our culture is that everyone feels they have a right to an opinion, in science you do not. Some have a romanticized view of the uncertainties of science. No, we are very certain. People need to understand this.

279 freetoken  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 12:50:45pm

re: #278 ludwigvanquixote


The problem with our culture is that everyone feels they have a right to an opinion, in science you do not. Some have a romanticized view of the uncertainties of science. No, we are very certain. People need to understand this.

That is just so... soo... unAmerican of you! Don't you know I have rights! I've been endowed by my Creator to know that you are just a leftist!

/

280 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:01:23pm

re: #251 godziller

15 million years ago and CO2 levels were high, but there wasn't a human or automobile to be found.

Could you point me to the scientist that claimed CO2 is the only possible cause of climate change?

Global warming? Sure. But I am still skeptical about the "man-made" aspect, whether we can really do anything about it anyway, and if it is worth the cost now for an unpredictable future.


We know the CO2 is from burning fossil fuel because of the carbon isotope ratio.

281 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:04:21pm

re: #253 molding_perception

Kinda suggests that humans are not the problem and maybe the Sun activity is. Don't ya think?

I possibly would if I hadn't bothered to research the actual science. Maybe you should do the same. (No, WUWT is not a science blog and science is not done on blogs)

282 Bipartite Gnomenclature  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 1:08:27pm

re: #267 friarstale

http://www.scotese.com/moreinfo15.htm

Florida unda wata:
http://www.scotese.com/miocene.htm

What is your point?

283 molding_perception  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:10:32pm

re: #281 b_sharp

Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

284 Bagua  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:24:30pm

re: #278 ludwigvanquixote

All of what you said is accurate except for the bit about "certain." Some of it is indisputable, some highly likely, some somewhat likely, some probable and some only suspected.

285 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:47:35pm

re: #283 molding_perception

Downding for the "CO2 lags temperature" canard. The science does not assert that all past climate change was driven by changes in atmospheric CO2. We do, however, know pretty conclusively that the factors mentioned other than CO2 are not causing the warming seen over the last century.

286 last turnip  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:26:50pm

All we are doing, in burning fossil fuels, is releasing the carbon back into the earth's atmosphere where it came from in the first place. All the carbon fuels we burn were created by plants who take in Carbon and Water, create carbohydrates, and release oxygen. Since all the carbohydrate derivatives we are burning were created by plants, using carbon from the atmosphere, we are just, slowly, putting a little bit of it back each day. If all organic matter on the earth were to be urned/oxidized, then we will have arrived back at the carbon levels that were in the earth's atmosphere before life began. Who is to say which level of atmospheric concentration is "right" given the full range of concentrations that have been in our atmosphere since forever. That said, I favor nuclear power. Clean. French. Nice.

287 edgesitter  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:27:44pm

Something smells. 15 million years??

288 last turnip  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:32:22pm

Also, if CO2 caused global warming, since we are releasing CO2 at continuously higher rates over time, we should see continuous increases in temperature. Yet, last year was one of the clodest years on record. We cannot even predict weather next week, let along build models that predict weather over the next decades. None of the Northern California forecasters predicted yesterday's rain storm --oe inch an hour. They said it would be about a tenth of an inch total. Not a precise science, yet. Not enough to declare truth.

289 martinsmithy  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 3:32:59pm

re: #286 last turnip
All well and good, last turnip, but see my post #266. If we put all the carbon back into the atmosphere that was originally there, the world will be a lot warmer and a lot more of the world will be under the sea. Unless humans develop gills, that will mean a "stable state" of far fewer humans than are on the Earth now, and an unmitigated nightmare getting to that point.

290 molding_perception  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:00:58pm

re: #285 MinisterO

I am only questioning the conclusion that the warming is overwhelmingly man-made (i.e. debate ended by CO2 emissions). Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapor and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

291 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:04:45pm

re: #288 last turnip

Yet, last year was one of the clodest years on record.

Rubbish. Last year was the one of the 10 warmest years of the last ~150 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

292 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:12:04pm

re: #288 last turnip

Also, if CO2 caused global warming, since we are releasing CO2 at continuously higher rates over time, we should see continuous increases in temperature. Yet, last year was one of the clodest years on record. We cannot even predict weather next week, let along build models that predict weather over the next decades. None of the Northern California forecasters predicted yesterday's rain storm --oe inch an hour. They said it would be about a tenth of an inch total. Not a precise science, yet. Not enough to declare truth.

You know you could consider actually looking at the data before saying such obviously false and stupid things. It really only does make you look brain damaged.

Here for instance is a graph from NOAA.

Can you read a graph?

What does this graph say?

[Link: www.ncdc.noaa.gov...]

You see on the line going up is temperature... you see how that as we go out - one the line that goes sideways, in years, temperature keeps going up overall?

Do you see that?

Now grown ups call the sideways line the abscissa and the up and down line the ordinate... but that is just to impress your friends. In next weeks class we will cover the difference between triangles and squares.

293 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:15:00pm

re: #286 last turnip

All we are doing, in burning fossil fuels, is releasing the carbon back into the earth's atmosphere where it came from in the first place. All the carbon fuels we burn were created by plants who take in Carbon and Water, create carbohydrates, and release oxygen. Since all the carbohydrate derivatives we are burning were created by plants, using carbon from the atmosphere, we are just, slowly, putting a little bit of it back each day. If all organic matter on the earth were to be urned/oxidized, then we will have arrived back at the carbon levels that were in the earth's atmosphere before life began. Who is to say which level of atmospheric concentration is "right" given the full range of concentrations that have been in our atmosphere since forever. That said, I favor nuclear power. Clean. French. Nice.

Rubbish again, if we are burning fossil fuels, we are clearly taking it out of the ground where it had been sequestered for eons - and adding that on top of the present equilibrium.

It is true that in the distant past there was more CO2 in the atmosphere. It is also true that lots of where we live now was underwater.

How is it possible for you to say such silly things with a straight face? Do you have even the most basic understanding of what you are talking about, or do you prefer to just blather what you heard from propagandists and other morons?

294 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:38:07pm

re: #290 molding_perception

Plagiarize much? Your entire post is copied verbatim from a denial site, except for the first line. This is another canard. See 3c here.

295 woodentop  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:42:56pm

re: #293 LudwigVanQuixote

This sort of language is from RealClimate, can't you take it back there?

There are plenty of reasons to query the current "consensus" on the link between CO2 and global temperatures, some touched on above. None of them involve Intelligent Design or belief in God, both of which seem to have become conflated with the issue in the US - and on this site, which I find somewhat disappointing.

I can inform you that in the UK at least, ID and God play no part in the debate (such as it is): on the contrary, the religious zealotry appears to come from those pushing the paradigm, not from those of a skeptical bent.

Downding sir.

296 MinisterO  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 4:56:15pm

re: #295 woodentop

Ludwig's #293 has nothing to do with religion or ID. Turnip's posts are factually incorrect and logically foolish. There's no need to drag God into it.

297 Almost Killed by Space Hookers  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:01:02pm

re: #296 MinisterO

Ludwig's #293 has nothing to do with religion or ID. Turnip's posts are factually incorrect and logically foolish. There's no need to drag God into it.

Thanks buddy, it is so nice to have another person to man these threads when the deniers come out. They have this perverse fetish that they will somehow win if they get the "last word in" and they always leave the worst propaganda for the end.

It does need to be cleaned up.

So thanks!

298 woodentop  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:03:58pm

re: #296 MinisterO

Fair point, though the latter part of my post was aimed at the debate in general rather than Ludwig's post in particular. I should have made that clearer.

And how annoying - I can't ding anyone until 50 posts!? Newbie alert!

*buried under hail of rocks for mentioning "Jehovah"*

299 woodentop  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 5:04:42pm

re: #297 LudwigVanQuixote

WTF!?

300 Charles Johnson  Tue, Oct 20, 2009 10:26:12pm

Again and again, the same falsehoods and canards.

301 molding_perception  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 5:24:16am

re: #294 MinisterO

Here is the link... read it for yourself... It took me 2 seconds to find it. There are hundreds like it, just as there are hundreds against it.

[Link: www.globalwarminghysteria.com...]

Your responses are typical - state something that does not matter and debate ended.

302 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 8:05:32am

re: #301 molding_perception

You are not contributing to discussion by quoting whole sections verbatim from denial sites. Just post a link if that's all you've got.

Better yet, don't waste everybody's time - we've all seen it before and we know it's nonsensical. Read why here.

303 last turnip  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:30:53am

re: 292

You linked to a post that contained data up to 2006. I said that 2009 was one of the colder years on record. Neither your graph nor your comments addressed my statement about 2009. Do you have anything more recent than 2006? Also, Ludwig, your snide style does not bother me, but it does take a lot longer for you to make your points, outdated as they are.

304 last turnip  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:34:32am

Again, to Ludwig (not sure if anybody goes back to read things later, I do) True, when I said "last year" I meant this year, 2009. Please let me know where to find current climate data. And if you know what the CO2 level was during the last ice age, that would be good too.

305 last turnip  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:37:18am

re: #292 LudwigVanQuixote
I finally figured out how to "reply" to a post. So, in case you check things later, Ludwig, your link was to a site with data through 2006. I am talking about this year (sorry I said last year) but 2009 was/is a cold year. That point is not addressed with 2006 data. Also, your condescending tone does not bother me, but it does make your responses unnecessarily wordy.

306 MinisterO  Wed, Oct 21, 2009 10:58:19am

re: #303 last turnip

Bullshit. According to NASA-GISS, 2009 is tied for 5th warmest year on record.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 123 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 287 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1