Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCoal Carves a Place in the Future of Global Energy
ALBANIA, COLOMBIA - Its gray and black walls stretching to infinity, Latin America's largest coal mine resembles a miniature Grand Canyon.
The big difference is that the timeless hand of nature has not carved out El Cerrejon mine. Booming global demand has.
A fleet of electric shovels runs 24 hours a day scooping up 50 tons of coal at a swipe. The rock is loaded onto 100-car trains that roll nine times a day to a private Caribbean port, where it is placed on cargo ships that deliver it to power plants in Chile, the Netherlands, Japan, the United States' Eastern Seaboard and elsewhere.
As the global price of oil and natural gas soars, some customers are taking a new look at other fuels -- including coal. And countries such as China and India, whose demand is contributing to the price of petroleum, need even more energy. Besides petroleum products, they are buying vast amounts of coal, as well.
The worldwide demand for oil has its own set of environmental consequences -- drilling in pristine areas where it previously was uneconomical and continued emission of greenhouse gases. But environmentalists warn that renewed reliance on coal takes the threat to another level.
"Growing coal use threatens nothing less than the end of civilization as we know it," said Henry Henderson, the Chicago-based Midwest director of the Natural Resources Defense Council.
Low in acid-rain-causing sulfur and cheap to produce, Colombia's coal has always been coveted. These days, El Cerrejon and half a dozen other major mines in the region are booming. Energy & Mines Minister Hernan Martinez says Colombia's shipments will rise to 80 million tons this year, 10% more than last year and double the amount just five years ago.
The value of Colombia's coal exports in 2008 will surpass $5 billion, up 40% from last year and 10 times what it was six years ago, a reflection of the increased price. Coal has more than doubled in price to $100 a ton in a year.
China added more coal-burning power plants in 2007 than Britain has built in its history, said Gerard McCloskey, a coal market specialist with Cambridge Energy Research Associates in London. A few years ago, China was exporting the equivalent of Colombia's current annual exports. But by next year, the U.S. Department of Energy forecasts, it will become a net importer.
Similarly, Russia and Poland are keeping much of the coal they once exported. Prices have also been driven up by flooded mines in Australia and a hike in global shipping rates.
Still, generating energy from coal costs a third as much as from natural gas in Japan, and half to two-thirds as much in Britain, McCloskey said.
According to John Dean, coal energy consultant with Global Insight, a research firm in Frederick, Md., those favorable economics have persuaded several U.S. utilities to build new or expand coal-fired power plants.
Probably the largest project is Duke Energy's two coal-fired generation plants in Cliffside, N.C., which by 2012 will produce 1,600 megawatts of energy -- more than the output of the San Onofre nuclear power plant near San Clemente.
By 2030, about 54% of all U.S. electric power will be coal-fired, up from the current 48%, according to the National Mining Assn., a Washington-based trade group. Environmentalists and consumer advocates warn of the consequences.
Customers are beginning to see higher electric bills. Much more pain is on the way, according to U.S. Department of Energy economist Michael Mellish. "Coal prices have taken off with a vengeance and electricity prices will spike up if they stick," Mellish said.
Of longer-term concern are the effects on climate change. Coal-fired power generation and manufacturing is the leading source of carbon dioxide and methane emissions, which scientists agree are the leading contributors to the "greenhouse effect" and global warming.
Two environmental advocacy groups, Greenpeace and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), have called for a moratorium on new coal-fired plants until a feasible means of mitigating carbon dioxide emissions is in place.
One such method, called "carbon capture and sequestering," which recycles carbon dioxide from smokestacks for use or storage underground, has raised hopes. But the National Mining Assn. says its practical application is 12 to 15 years away.
"We recognize coal is a reality to which you can't simply say no," said the NRDC'S Henderson. "But you have the issue of getting coal right, or of many, many other things going wrong."
Kate Smolski, legislative coordinator with Greenpeace in Washington, said that although all fossil fuels contribute to global warming, coal is the "dirtiest, emitting double the carbon dioxide per energy unit produced, compared with natural gas."
A mid-sized coal mine that produces 500 megawatts of energy, the amount consumed by 500,000 families, will churn out as much carbon dioxide a year as half a million cars, according to the NRDC.
Located in sparsely populated northern Colombia, the El Cerrejon mine, rail line and port were built in the late 1970s by Exxon according to U.S. standards. El Cerrejon has generally been credited with being environmentally kind, as coal mines go. (ExxonMobil sold the mine in 2002 to a partnership of Australia's BHP Billiton and two London-based firms, Anglo American and Xstrata.)
The owners say they are making an effort to reclaim the areas already stripped by planting trees and pasture, predicting that they will be habitable decades from now when the coal is gone.
But other areas of Colombia, particularly the historic port city of Santa Marta and its surrounding beach areas, are suffering spills and barge sinkings, which have damaged fishing and tourism along the country's Caribbean coast. The government is requiring all mines to use direct loading systems like El Cerrejon's by 2010, but some in the industry say the goal is unrealistic.
For now, Colombia is reaping a windfall. Known for legal exports such as coffee, bananas and oil as well as illegal tonnage of cocaine, it has quietly become a world player in coal, ranking fourth among exporters, behind Indonesia, Australia and Russia.
El Cerrejon's owners are considering investing $600 million in a second docking facility at Puerto Bolivar and a major expansion of its railroad line.
The Colombian government is sharing the wealth. El Cerrejon will pay royalties totaling $380 million to the government this year.
"The industry invested billions of dollars in an area of Colombia where there was once nothing, and it's paid off," Martinez said.
Copyright 2008 Los Angeles Times
147 Comments so far
Show AllThe Northwest Passage has never been totally ice free and never free at all during the winter months, not in man's recorded history.
Oops, it is now, just within the past two years. The Arctic will be totally ice free from the lower parallels to the North Pole in all geographical directions within five years or LESS. That has never happened, even prior to man's history.
Kem:
And the northwest passage being ice free happened how long ago? OH OH..it was during the last warming spell.
The air temp in the Arctic is as cool as it was at the beginning of the century. The ocean currents are doing their normal thing. A good thing?...I don't know....but it sure has happened before and will happen again.
The only ones not kicking like cockroaches, will be those in the International space station and those who have an enormous amount of oxygen and masks readily available.
I wonder what sex is like while wearing a scuba divers outfit? Billy Clinton probably wouldn't enjoy it.
There are chunks of ice the size of California melting and have aready melted ~SIGURDUR 11~ the Arctic will be ice free within five years or less and you keep denying that fact. Good grief, we can Google it and see it on video via satellite daily. Where on Earth do you get your horribly flawed information?
BTW, you have never given us the names of the people who YOU claim, state the DISTINGUISHED Vertebrate paleontologist, Michael J. Benton is wrong about the clear threat, that the Arctic's methane will very likely "burp" out into our atmosphere, when the Arctic's perma frost thaws suffeciently. No credible climatologists or geologists disagree with his comments. The International Geological Society fully agrees with him.
That Arctic methane "burp" won't kill us, it will however set off global warming like few have ever dreampt. When that happens, the average Earth's temperatues will rise by 10 degrees or more and then the ocean's methane will release and that disaster will be the killer "burp". It happend previously and that is well proven.
~NORMAN~ re-posted what I had previousy written and that came from several books and one was written by Dr. Benton. So AGAIN, for YOU to say it's a silly argument, is to say Benton is silly. Who are you to say he's wrong?
~ NAMASTE` is a regular blogger, a global warming denier who uses any of several names ~NORMAN~ and I do believe he is using a new name here. I could be wrong about that, but if not he knows I am aware that he's here making a fool of himself.
We little, self-important piss-ants are such fun to watch! I hope some "outside" intelligence is getting all this on video, while we are still performing (I guess the ending will have us all on our backsides, legs up in the air, kicking, like expiring cockroaches?).
:)
norman:
What is this millions of years stuff that you keep referring to in the Arctic?
The permafrost is young geologically speaking. During the Mideval Warm spell, most of what you say was trapped was released.......
This is what makes this arguement so foolish. Please use correct data for pete's sake will ya?????????
Does this sound familiar?
Do you know that the methane in the Arctic has been safely frozen in the perma-frost for millions of years and when it escapes because of thawing, it will insure the world temperatures will climb by over ten degrees and then global warming will be so dramatic that the methane in the oceans will also escape into the atmosphere.
When the methane which is now "safe" in the ocean's floor beds does "burp" out, all life will be eradicated within hours, down to the microbal level, with only bacteria and some deep sea life left alive. That may occur within five to seven years also.
Have you ever heard of ~Michael J. Benton~? Doctor Benton is a distinguished vertebrate paleontologist, who states that what is currently occurring from our burning fossil fuels, occurred previously in Earth's history and nearly all life died withnin hours.
That massive die off was in the Permian era, when the ocean's methane "burped out" into the atmosphere. That time the excess Co2 in the atmosphere and resulting global warming was caused by massive volcanic eruptions, which were likely caused by a strike of a huge asteroid, which in turn caused the earthquakes to commense eruptions.
All of that theory has been proven by examination of dirt, rocks, an inch thick layer of sediment which is found at the same level around the globe and came from volcanic activity, fossils and bones from that time frame and I'm not about to argue with Doctor Benton, or Doctor Atcheson and the hundreds of other qualified scientists who agree totally with them . You may if it so suits you, it's still a free country.
Do you disagree with those comments, like some of the idiots who have posted crazy comments here? If so, ~NAMASTE~, you are arguing with obvious facts and the warnings of the most highly qualified scientists on the planet, ___ not ME or MY words.
Who the hell is ~NAMASTE~?
Kem:
I will have to look at the other posters when I have more time.
See, I don't think co2 amounts to a hill of beans. However, if you look at the methane levels, then I agree that is a cause for concern.
From what I have read the vast majority of methane is realeased naturally, like that boiling lake. I am trying to recall how much methane even the small eruption of Mt. St. Helens emitted. I do remember looking at the sum in total as very very large.
As far as the ice, it isn't even close to being as melted as it was during the 900-1300 time period. The actual arctic temps are lower now than they were during the 40's, but the ocean current which is much more important to watch is pushing warm water north, and that appears to be what is melting the ice.
Greenlands total ice load is greater today than it was 10 years ago. It is thawing on the edges, but the central mass is heavier. Same with Antarctica.
As I stated, we each have our own opinions and can back said opinions with research. And that is why it is still a debate and not provable.
Best Regards
How many years did industry-paid sceptics deny the connection between tobacco and cancer? How ofen did we hear dummies opine that their father smoked like a chimney yet lived to be 90? Tobacco was certainly good for southern farmers. So it is with fossil fuels like coal. Only all of us have to breathe the smoke.
~BBR-001~ once stated that the EPA, the NOAA and NASA have the real scientists. I agree. Those outfits all have confirmed, that our "current" global warming is caused from humanity burning fossil fuels for the past 200+ years and the EPA just announced that global warming is a distinct threat to humanity. I'm not about to say they are wrong. Anyone else here think their scientists are wrong?
Of course there are. Silly question. He hee hee. You should be tickeled pink that this thread will be deeply buried in the archives shortly ~Namaste~, or whatever code name you are currently using now.
Finally ~SIGUDUR11~ There are 19 other bloggers here who have cut you down one way or another, and you do not argue with them as you have with me. Did you miss their comments which were directed to you and or ~MIMICCS~?
Several have hit you with far more abrasive words than I did. Perhaps your egotistical buddy ~COSMOBILLY~ Could straighten them out for being so rude, if he's still playing the role of Shrink and House Daddy here.
The 19 are listed in order from the top. Perhaps you could go back and read what they wrote and reply to their astute charges. They are:
Bugs B Bunny __ Hedology __Physics Citizen __ What Fools __ Ruthu __ MapleFudge __ Culicomorpha __ Huntz __ Madrone __ Yours Truly __ Brashwa 842 __ WCDevins __ Galen __ Ncshev __ BBR_001 __ USAn __ Funky P __ Douglas Barnes __ and Rtdury.
Ya think you could handle that bud? Or is it just me you prefer to debate and argue with? Several answered the questions you keep raising with me BTW.
Well I strongly disagree with you that nothing has been 'PROVEN', ~SIGURDUR~. Where is Dr. Michael J. Benton wrong? There are no credible scientists who disagree with his findings or opinions. He has PROVED beyond any reasonable question, that durng the Permian era of history, methane suddenldy burped out into the atmosphere and almost all life was eradicated within hours.
Warming and cooling cycles certainly have occurred many times in the past, but this is the first time frame since the Permian era that excess Co2 has been in our atmophere and that causes the Greenhouse effect. It has also been well PROVEN that the excess Co2 in our atmosphere began to develop 200 years ago, which is directly related to humanities industrial age and the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere is out of balance with nature.
From what I have seen you post here on this issue, you ignore those PROVEN facts and you also ignore the fact, that both of Earth's poles indeed ARE thawing and doing so far more quickly than any scientist has ever imagined or projected.
As of today, it is still estimated the Arctic will be practically (ice free) within five years or less. You do not address that comment. You also are ignoring the fact that methane in our atmosphere rose dramatically last year and is on the rise again this year at an even higher accelerated rate.
Global warming will become far worse and temps wil rise much faster as more methane enters the atmosphere and then the "feed-back" begins. More warming,___ more methane,___ more methane, ___ faster warming. It's like an out of control snow ball rolling down the side of a snow filled, mountain deer trail.
I believe Drs. Benton and Atcheson when they warn us, that if the Arctic thaws suffeciently, what transpired during the Permian era will most likely re-occur. You say they have not PROVEN that opinion, or theory, and that is correct, they have not proven it, there is no way they could PROVE it. They have PROVED it happened at least once previously.
They can surely offer their highly educated opinions however, that what transpired during the Pemian era will "most likely" re-occur once again, unless we take strong and timely measures to stop burning fossil fuels world-wide.
You don't want to hear it and I cannot say I blame you. I don't want to hear it either. I will accept their words however before I accept yours or ~MIMICCS~ or any other who deny we have a serious global warming crisis and it has been PROVEN that humanity is causing it, in spite of your opinions about that. Humanity has a chance to stop it and deniers are a major obsticle that helps to slow down that vitally necessary help.
And I wil argue with you, or debate the issue with anyone who is a global warming, caused by mankind denier, until the methane burps out and 'obliterates' all of us humans and the polar bears, etc. And I could care less what the amature psycho ~COSMOBILY~ thinks about my posting so many comments. Lousy speling tho huh? Well, this ain't a speling be either.
Kem,
You are taking someone's opinion as fact. IF you read the articles you mentioned carefully, you will find that there is NOT a certainty involved, but an opinion.
There is a huge amount of money changing hands with the GWT. Global Warming Theory. Note that everyone, even you, calls the co2 reason theory.
The models that are being used to predict consequences are constantly tweaked to keep making them work, sorta, cause they have not predicted most anything right so far.
I see no reason not to conserve and develop alternative sources of power. That is the christian thing to do. But will I credit co2 for climate change?.....nope. There have been toooo many cycles in the past well before man was here, and shucks, we aren't even close to being as warm as we have been in the past.
While people want the climate to stay the same, it never has. And also, as a benifit to mankind, warm is a whole lot better than cold. IF we were to cool as much as will prob happen in the next 2,000+ years, that will cause much more human misery than warming ever could.
I also get a kick out of the polar bear thing. Somehow, they seem to have survived quit well during the 800-1200 warm period when the Arctic Ocean was ice free around northern Canada. That warm period, which man had no influence on was followed by the Little Ice Age, when the Gulf Stream stopped bringing warm water north. There was a lot more human devestation during that Ice Age, than there was previous to it when it was warmer.
Call me a troll, or whatever, I don't care. Just because I don't agree with your opinion, nor some of the scientists opinion, which it is, doesn't make me a troll or any other such being.
I had asked you to provide me with a theorem on any of the theories, and so far you have not, nor can you as nothing has been proved.
Thank you for the pleasure of exchanging opinions.
I subscribe to Farm Show newspaper (farmshow.com) and I'm constantly finding (amassed at the) new energy ideas someone is trying to develope to help with the energy needs. Our government needs to help these individuals (seed money) to get these ideas into production. We give the military contractors Billions to try and produce weapons, and even if they're not needed or have no idea if they could or would work. Supposedly, if 1/10th of our desert out west 9 the uninhabited part, was converted to mirror/steam electricity, as one inventer invisions, we could produce quite an abundance of electricity for the nation, at least when the sun is out.
~
amitola:
There are many pressing issues, but warming and climate change may trump them all. Please read (or re-read) some of the recent press releases and CD articles about and by James Hansen (NASA chief climatologist and Prof at Columbia).
The other issues won't matter if we aren't here or "just hanging on by a thread" in 50 years.
~AMITOLA~ You wrote. "Not even KEM". What I know or don't know, or what I think or do not think, is a moot issue. Like you, I'm not a scientist.
What's YOUR opinon of these scientists/ geologists findings. Are they wrong in your opinion?
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
I agree with you fully, we must take steps to clean up our atmosphere (and our oceans), but we have to start doing it now, and the trolls and deniers don't help in that regard, __not at all.
I say again, the deniers and trolls are liken to a cancer in a body and that is not being nasty, or vulger. It's just a good analogy and that IS MY opinion, ___ which is not scientific.
I'm no scientist, but I'm fairly well informed about the anthropogenic theory of global warming, among other pressing issues of our time. Most of what we call "scientific truth or fact" has been modified ad infinitum through the centuries - truth is relative. So, what we think we know today, can change tomorrow. And, we humans need to keep in mind that we basically control nothing - not how we digest food we eat or how our hearts beat or making our toenails grow or what makes the Earth fly through the universe.
Right now, it seems that the Earth is going through a period of warming - which may or may not be caused by human activity. There is compelling evidence on both sides - could be the cycles of the Sun; could be burning coal. We really don't know for sure - not even Kem. But, as a prudent person, I recognize the fact that we do seem to be destroying our environment - specifically the air we need to breathe,the water we need to stay hydrated, and the aerable land we need to grow food to sustain us.
Therefore, I think we should take steps to introduce better, less-polluting ways to create the energy we need to sustain a resonably comfortable standard of living for as many occupants of Earth as possible. Arguing about whether and why the atmosphere seems to be changing will not help the situation - we should just agree to pursue logical solutions that we know will help alleviate the symptoms.
To everything there is a season - turn, turn turn. A time to heat and a time to Chill!
`
Perhaps you could tell us all what you are doing about global warming that is productive ~COSOBILLY~?
Yes I have posted the most comments here and as I have stated here previously, most were replying to others, primarily the deniers. There are 90 articles on the site and I've commented on four of them, most with one commment and that's becaue there weren't some other bloggers posting the Bush spin.
When they do I reply to them and we've had three here to reply to. You don't criticize the number of comments they have posted.
You take it upon YOURSELF to EXPOSE MY personality here and you don't know jack squat about me, you are an ASSUMER who supports the deniers in a back handed manner, by attempting to discredit me. The deniers and trolls play that game of "good guy/bad guy" here. Take your amature "doctoring" and shove it.
MIMI, ya gonna answer where doctors Atcheson and Benton are wrong? Of course not, ___you can't___, so you ignore the links I offered in my first post here. That's why there are so many from me here, arguing with you and the other trolls.
Thanks for that link ~BBR-001~. Yeah, all of a sudden I'm preaching the Bible here,___LOL. That's another tactic trolls use to detract from the issue and sneak attack another.
USAn,
there are very few absolutes in life, and certainly you understand the distinction between scientific laws and scientific theory. And there is a difference between constructing well-reasoned inquiry citing seminal resources to reason a position versus the use of non-seminal second or third-hand reports to argue ones personal convictions. There is absolutely a difference between projecting emotional fervor and exercising wisdom.
matti, thanks for the attempt of reason. Perhaps the personality analysis was a bit much but it was to expose the personality that dominates the conversation more than the sound objective rationale. You are quite right about the stage and setting here at CD, and meaningful productive conversation hardly ever ensues. But then, perhaps it is more about folks expressing themselves than about doing something constructive.
Hey Kem:
If you're practicing a religion, here is a Bible:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents
Your opinion is based on peer reviewed science and supporting evidence reported from all over the world. Religion is appealing to some force to intercede in things we can't control. Science is trying to understand how the world really works. You got Science, bro. (Science and religion don't have to be incompatible.)
Say a prayer that in 50 years there are 10 billion happy well-fed people on this planet, along with polar bears, penquins... Who knows?
wcdevins- "The rate of ice cap/glacier/ice cover/tundra melt is undeniably more rapid than ever seen by man........"
Man has not been looking very long.
"...... and even more rapid than the most hysterical of AGW prognosticators envisioned even five years ago."
I guess that means their models stink, and besides, we are talking 5 years, it is meaningless. The Anatarctic seas ice exent has increased over the last 30 years, more than compensating for the loss in the Arctic, and only recently started to decrease, the loss limited to the western Antactic and Antarctic peninsula. This might be due to increased volcanism below the ice, or other regional weather effects.
"The chain reaction of ice melt/raised albedo/solar heat absorption may already be irreversible."
You assume no negative feedbacks, and should consider some scientists have suggested that soot, not CO2 may cause increased absorbtion on the ice.
"Since the sun is not expanding, I see no other possibility other than human bioturbation contributing to this extremely rapid change."
Scientists from Finland and Germany reported that the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years. The methods are described in the link.
http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/c153.pdf
Solar irradiance changes have been measured reliably by satellites for only 30 years. These precise observations show changes of a few tenths of a percent that depend on the level of activity in the 11-year solar cycle. The next solar cycle has been delayed and is predicted to have low activity. The little ice age was due to the Maunder Minimum, when there was little sunspot activity between 1650 and 1700.
Remember, a complete climate cycle is 60 years or more, we had warming from 1978 to 2007, and we had cooling from 1945-1978. So reading too much into any 30 year period is silly, unless you want to con someone out of their money or change their living standards.
Besides, even IPCC says it's understanding on solar influence of global warming is low.
The other information we lack is accurate global cloud observations back to the 1970's and earlier. Other climate variables, like water vapor, which is our main greenhouse gas are unknown. Water vapour can cause warming as well as cooling (if there is more precipitation). The fact that we don't have a good understanding (or observations) of cloud changes, or precipitation changes, on decadal time scales make it hard to pin all of the warming on manmade CO2. Yet they do, despite the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns.
rtbury-5-10 year averages are not climate, it is weather. Since 1880, temperatures have increased 0.6 deg C.
The data is so corrupt due to stuff like this link exposes.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3327
KEM PATRICK- you just repeat the mantra of the unproven hypothesis. It is a matter of opinion or faith with you. The fact that you are responsible for almost 30% of the comments here means you feel strongly about your position, and you are welcome to it. Freedom of and from religion I say.
~MIMICCS~ Your posts are interesting, however you fail to address some of the most important issues.
One is, there is no credible argument that the Arctic is thawing and it is now estimated it will be almost totally ice free within five years and perhaps even two to three years. Some like you, will say that's normal and such happens every 12,000 or so years, or they may say that we are entering a normal ice age and it wil stop thawing, and some will say the excess Co2 in the atmosphere is not causing global warming and the rapid thaw of the Arctic.
Well, let us just think about those sayings for a moment. You have stated that Co2 in the atmophere is good and plants like Co2. That's true. EXCESSIVE Co2 is another matter. BALANCE, if you may recall I spoke of that word previously here. Nature tends to maintain a balance of such things as Co2 and methane in the atmophere.
Humanity has overloaded the atmosphere with Co2 during the past 200 some years and nature cannot handle that overload, it's out of balance. We humans emit excss Co2, but we don't then sequester the excess carbon and it tends to build up oin the atmosphere and the result is the atmopheric Greenhouse effect and global warming ensues.
That global warmng is why the Arctic is thawing and it never has done so for millions of years. The last time it did, the methane gas in the Arctic was released into the atmosphere and global warming then was a runaway event, which resulted in the release of massive amounts of methane from the ocean's floors and almost all life on this planet was then eradicated within hours.
Those are the issues you and a couple of other bloggers here do not address. That mass extinction of life did occurr previously and it will re-occur unless the global warming caused by humanity burnig fossil fuels stops.
We will not stop and that is primariy because so many people have argued the points and so nothing productive is being done. And you are one of the people who have been sayng that burning fossil fuels is not causing global warming. And you are wrong.
MiMiCcS, one of the statements in the US Senate report, "there has been no net global warming since 1998" concurs with the one-year average temperature data from the UK Meteorological Office shown in wikipedia: global warming, but it does not concur with the five year average. 1998 was especially hot. To get meaningful data, the number of years has to be chosen to best reveal the trend of interest, e.g. carbon emissions from human activity. Year-to-year temperature fluctuations are filtered out by increasing the number of years in the average, but stopping before it distorts the trend. As you change the number of years in the average, you know when the trend distorts because you see it as a constant function in the noise of the smaller number averages. The five year average looks much more meaningful than the one year average. It shows a warming trend that correlates very well with economic growth in the USA over the past couple of centuries. Coincidence?
MiMi - I appreciate your posting of links which allowed me to see more information on climate change. The rate of ice cap/glacier/ice cover/tundra melt is undeniably more rapid than ever seen by man and even more rapid than the most hysterical of AGW prognosticators envisioned even five years ago. The chain reaction of ice melt/raised albedo/solar heat absorption may already be irreversible. Since the sun is not expanding, I see no other possiblity other than human bioturbation contributing to this extremely rapid change.
Reading your post above, I find I agree with virtually all your philosophical ideals and your overarching views of the what is and what should be. Mankind is certainly enslaved, but trying to head off further subjugation to a "Big Green" is a bit premature in my view. I personally think your time would be better spent enlightening others along the bold lines you present above and trying to solve some of those problems rather than debating endlessly what's at the root of climate change and how fast it's happening and when in the next few millenia a new Ice Age will start. We just ain't gonna last that long.
wcdevins. I do not trust anyone. I read what they say, and what the other side says, and think about it after verifying what each side has said to the best of my ability, and then reach a conclusion. I also look at motive and conflict of interest.
What action do you want to take. The warming that has taken place has been enormously beneficial. Most of it occurred without mans help. And like I say, the average interglacial has lasted 12,000 years. Thats where we are now. History says tommorow will come forth an ice age. There is no consensus as to how we go into an ice age, just that when it happens, it lasts 80,000 or more years, and it would wipe out billions. I do not deny there has been global warming. I do deny it has been rapid warming that will accelerate due to mans CO2 into runaway warming that will kill us all off. The certainty this will happen for this reason is not logical, but is accepted as a matter of faith. Consensus is not a scientific term, it is a political one. Majority rule is not how science works. At one time their was a consenus the world revolved around the sun. Galileo was called a heretic and jailed for his views by religous leaders who supported the consenus.
Now, Big Oil certainly wants to keep people on the carbon track. But the environmental movement also serves Big Oil by putting limits on drilling and giving them an excuse not to build refineries, and increase prices as a result of a contrived shortage, so they take both sides (one publicly, one privately). Nuclear and Solar corporations also benefit from AGW. The bankers will benefit from carbon capping and trade and carbon credits. But Banking and Big Oil are interlocked, and they control the uranium resources. Any investment in new energy technologies, or expanding nuclear, will be financed by Big Banking which Big Oil has an interest in. The whole global economy is interlocked. Big Oil wins today, tommorow we go green, so Big Oil suffers, but it's interlocking banking businesses and uranium interests do well, and lets face it, it will take mucho longo time to transition away from oil. And corporate government would benefit from a carbon tax. More money to fund the MIC.
I have no problem with reducing mans CO2 emissions, as other pollutants would be reduced as well. I have a problem with reducing mans living standards for a problem that does not seem to exist. CO2 is good for plants, thats their food. Thats why greenhouses use it, for food, not for warming. I am a big proponent of solar energy plants. A 90 mile by 90 mile area in the desert could produce as much energy for electricity as we need, although the plants and the infrastructure could cost tens of trillions of dollars, but the costs would be recovered once the plants started generating revenue, and government would earn money from the interest.
Of course, Big Oil and Big banking would not profit from an infinite supply of energy from the Sun. Tesla ran into the same obstacle. When JP Morgan figured out his free energy could not be metered, he froze the financing.
The biggest obstacle is the current economic system, which says only private corporations under a banking monopoly can create a nations money, from which government must borrow at interest, and tax it's citizens to pay the interest. Allow government to create the money to lend out to corporations for infrastructure projects at very low interest to build these solar plants, payable only when the plants started generating revenue, and build an electrified intercontinental and transcontinetal railway system powered by electricity to reduce reliance on oil for transportation, and the world will be greener.
I am not a denier, I am a believer, in man. AGW is a tool for the neo-malthusians to reduce growth and livings standards to exercise more social control as they enslave man. They are the deniers. It is a religion of a pseudoscience where man sins against Gaia and rules are imposed to punish him and control him, otherwise we will all burn up, much like the faith based religions where mans sinned against God and is born a sinner who must follow the rules of the religion or burn in hell.
The real monsters genetically modify food and organism without adequate testing, poison the planet with depleted uranium in explosives that kill people, subject 3rd world nations to civil wars over resources, impoverish them with debt to spread disease and famine and keep their population down to preserve resources (google NSSM 200), punch holes in the ionosphere with HAARP in the search for weather modification weapons, etc.
MiMi - I read most of your last link. Virtually no true CG deniers there, only degrees of agreement on who/what is responsible, good/bad measurement, etc. They virtually all say the earth is warming, and most speak in broad terms like "the earth has seen this happen many times before". This may be true, but man has never seen it happen and is unprepared for the consequences. The ones who shrug and say there is little we can do merely by controlling CO2 emissions are probably correct. As I've said, the self-destruct sequence is likely irreversible. You can drown while yapping about what's responsible; I'd prefer we took some action. As for the credentials of any of these guys, George Bush has a degree from Yale, does that mean I trust his opinion on anything?
Galen- you say you hear global temperatures have increased 3 deg C. Link please. Localized temperature changes have been observed in the Antarctic peninsula, a localized part of the Antarctic, and this may be attributed to localized wind effects that have affected the weather patterns, not necessarily global climate change.
As for the ice core data that covers 650,000 years.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Well, on the one hand, if you accept the validity of the results, which some scientists question, then it kind of proves that CO2 has not much impact on warming. Since this period covers the depths of 6 ice ages we have had in this period, as well as the peak of the interglacials warming which are 5 deg C warmer than today.
We are 12,000 years into an interglacial warming period where temperatures have risen 6 deg c since the end of the ice age and raising sea levels 120 meters. History says, an ice age is imminent. Perhaps man may delay this. So rising CO2 levels due to warming is expected.
The validity of the ice core data, especially at ice cores taken at great depth back to 650,000 is questionable due to the following reasons.
"Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels...... are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria.
One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to –73oC) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].
One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. Drilling decompresses cores excavated from deep ice, and contaminates them with the drilling fluid filling the borehole.
Decompression leads to dense horizontal cracking of cores, by a well known sheeting process. After decompression of the ice cores, the solid clathrates decompose into a gas form, exploding in the process as if they were microscopic grenades. In the bubble-free ice the explosions form a new gas cavities and new cracks[4]. Through these cracks, and cracks formed by sheeting, a part of gas escapes first into the drilling liquid which fills the borehole, and then at the surface to the atmospheric air.
Particular gases, CO2, O2 and N2 trapped in the deep cold ice start to form clathrates, and leave the air bubbles, at different pressures and depth. At the ice temperature of –15oC dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 meter depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 meters. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now."
Also, the ice core data results seem to change with time (pre 1985 and post 1985 which is the age of Hansen and the consensus)
"Proxy determinations of the atmospheric CO2 level by analysis of ice cores, reported since 1985, have been generally lower than the levels measured recently in the atmosphere. But, before 1985, the ice cores were showing values higher than the current atmospheric concentrations. These recent proxy ice core values remained low during the entire past 650,000 years (Siegenthaler in the ice cores. —even during the six former interglacial warm periods, when the global temperature was as much as 5°C warmer than in our current interglacial! Jaworowski et al. 1992b).
This means that either atmospheric CO2 levels have no discernible influence on climate (which is true), or that the proxy ice core reconstructions of the of the ancient atmosphere are false (which is also true)"
physics citizen- you may read this link
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Apologies for the glitched formating of my previous post.
I hope it is not to annoying to read.
funky p:
There is a difference between being sick and being dead. An illness can be managed, and maybe someday cured. Mercury in fish is being sick. An endangered species is being sick. Global Warming may be death to us all, and we may not have much time to prevent it. Its now much more urgent than individual occurences of degradation.
The powers that be choose to deny or minimize it, and purchase hired gun dissenting opinions, or just pay lip service to make you go away, and they don't know what they are risking.
1. I think that -cosmobilly- was more lamenting your tone and dominance of the thread than "berating" you for it -KEM PATRICK-, though I think "he" could have removed the condescending "analysis" of your personality.
Surely you realize that you can be a bit much, sometimes?
Have a laugh at yourself, maybe, and relax. I think you'd come off better. But what do I know? It's just a Suggestion.
What I would really like is if we could spend more time discussing Solutions and Adaptations to our challenges and our World and less time "discussing" Problems and Crimes that have been brought on or committed by the groups of people and enterprises we don't like.
I realize that CD is a "news and opinion" site with comments and not a full discussion forum, so I'm not suggesting that anything can be done to really change the comment section -it's the sideshow, mostly.
But why aren't there more articles focused on solutions?
Since the format here seems to have evolved into Article-Denial-Response-Total off Track Debate or Article-Agreement-Response-Broad Discussion of Subject of Article, doesn't it seem likely that by merely changing the editorial focus a bit the whole "discussion" at CommonDreams would change -in my opinion- for the better?
I think the current level of focus on short articles from Large-Circulation Newspapers and Wire Services is too high, and that this is degrading the quality of the "discussion" despite a "resident" core of intelligent and knowledgeable "commenters".
This article is a good example.
Its simplified notion of "pristine areas" being the concern of "environmentalism", excessive focus on CO2 as the entirety of Climate Change AND Climate Change as the entirety of our problems in regards to the biosphere, it tired and B.S. Manichean structuring of "environment vs. economics", and its need to dish out "sexy quotes" about the "end of civilization as we know it" from Big Name Green Groups all reflect the realities of Space and Budget, and therefore Content when it comes to the operations of a Large-Circulation For-Profit Paper like the L.A. Times.
The effect on the "discussion" here is almost wholly negative in terms of both style and content.
Also, little real information is gleaned because of the limitations of the Source format.
And all of this is a double shame.
1. Because the editors at CD could do more to alleviate this by eliminating much of the Wire Service and Big Rag content, and switching to a more "in-depth" and "independent" analysis focus. They seem constrained by something financial or mental -perhaps there is little they could do.
2. Because when the articles ARE good, the "discussions" are often excellent. And the few Contributors who seem most consistent in sparking this better "conversation" are independent, book writing, Net-Famous types like Chris Hedges or Tom Engelhart OR -and more intriguingly- members of the CD staff themselves.
Oh well I guess you can't have everything, can you?
But keep Having Fun everybody.
-matti
I hope you are being factitious ~FRANK~?
Limbaugh, Hannity, Prager, Levin, Savage, and Cheney all say this "global warming thing" is a hoax.
Why would such upstanding Americans lie?
"Everyone" knows the damn hippies have a master plan to destroy capitalism and create forced communal-living compounds where drugs, abortions and gay-marriages are mandatory!
Actually ~Douglas~ I see where the trolls are beneficial in one good way. They get converstions going and then links are provided by those who disagree with the trolls and we all have an opportunity to learn from them.
Then we have the ~CosmosBilly~ types who will state that bloggers such as myself are self centered or abrasive, we don't have anything better to do, we should write our comments and take off, etc, and attack in a condensending fashiion so they hope they don't appear to be self centered or bossy.
Funny how ~Cosmos~ berated me for posting several comments but tended to ignore the trolls for doing that. The majority of my posts, all but four, were answering the more than 22 comments posted by the trolls. ~Cosmos~ is guilty of what he accused me of.
We all are different and we all have opinions and I post mine here or those of experts I agree with and if the Common Dreams Web-master ever decides that he or she is tired of me, they know how to bannish me as have been many others and allow the trolls to take over the site.
I lived 71 years before I ever heard of Common Dreams and I can live the rest of my time if I'm kicked out and not lose any sleep over it. I've been blocked form postin ghere for a couple of hoiurs now by WORD PRESS and don't know if this one will post or not. If it don't it don't. It isn't the end of the world, like the methane gas spewing out will be.
I see Common Dreams still hasn't learnt to delete and ban trolls yet. Well, maybe in 10 years time they will have figured out what other webmasters figured out years ago...
Galen July 21st, 2008 12:00 pm
We are not in disagreement. I personally believe that 9/11 was either aided or planned by agents with connections to our government, and Cheney seems to have been in charge, but these are not things about which I have personal knowledge. We all can read various reports/articles/facts that contend 9/11 was or was not 19 terrorists acting for Bin Laden. We tend to mostly read those reports that mostly agree with our beliefs, and it's only natural to do so.
So, I'm just trying to keep an open mind. My main point addressed here is that both sides of the climate change debate can cite some scientist that supports his/her opinion.
And all I'm saying is, coal is bad for the planet, whether it contributes to warming, cooling, or temperature stabilization. To limit the debate to warming/cooling overlooks the fact that burning coal is just flat out wrong for a healthy environment/ecosystem
How did this turn into the WTC 9-11 disaster? This thread could become even more interesting, but the most serious issue should be the "Methame gas" situation. (IN MY HUMBLE OPINION.)
~Sigurdu~ I cannot answer your questions, I am not qualified to do so and don't choose to look up links to argue with you about your questions. I do bellieve ~USAn~ answered you quite well.
I can post the links I do and agree with those scientists. You do not agree with them and that's our disagreement. Suit yourself.
Funky p - Dude, I support the argument that humans are the major culprit at the base of Global Warming/Climate Change.
And I also believe that agents of the Bush Junta carried out the events of 9/11. So, yes, I believe there was a high level conspiracy.
So does Mike Ruppert, who makes the successful argument that in fact Peak OIl and Climate Change are the REASON 9/11 was carried out. Check out 'Crossing the Rubicon'.
USAn wrote: "Your assertation that average temperaures have not warmed in the arctic is utter nonsense! It is a lie, period. It is the product of kooks with a political agenda - just like those who claim explosives planted by Bush, not airliner impact and fire, brought down the WTC buildings.
Your assertion that airplane impact and fire brought down the WTC twin towers AND building seven (not struck by an airplane) is a lie, period. It is the product of kooks hiding a global agenda.
No steel structures have ever collapsed (in their own footprint, no less) due to fire/and or airplane impact, in the history of the modern world.
The first hand reports of firefighters in building seven who heard the explosions, would take issue with your assertions.
I, personally, am not arrogant enough to assume I know what happened. I do know that the story we've been fed by the powers that be, are false. The 9/11 commission never even addressed the issue of building seven.
So, your whole point loses validity, because you compare global warning deniers with 9/11 conspiracy people.
There are facts to support both positions on both issues, and you have chosen yours.
I have few answers, but many, many questions.
~Cosmos BILLY~, I am so sorry, I did not realize that you were the boss here and should listen to your ranting towards me and you telling me to go away. ___ "Fuck off boss", and indeed you are an asshole as you have already stated.
And my opinions are in support of the articles I post, not visa versa as you state. And I could care less if you sort of agree with those scientists or not. How could I support MY own opinions on a scientific subject? I'm a layman, not a scientist and have so stated here. As to my being forceful with word usage towards some others. That's one method of making a point when replying to those who are purposely being obtuse.
This is a very serious subject, the most serious I personally know of and that comment is MY opinion. So when a few make a mockery of this issue I may say they are like cancers and that too is my opinion.
And if you don't like it, I don't care and if you condemn me and get personal with me I'll tell you off and also tell you that you started a shit fight here with me and no one wishes to hear it. I have not seen anyone else here complain about my comments to them and I don't believe I was vulgar with anyone else. You wish to have some distraction here and attempt to discredit me in the process, like a closet denier would do. ___ Fuck you.
USAn - Please tell me, exactly how many steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire alone before or since 9/11? Please include the C-130 Hercules that crashed into an apartment building in Tehran, Iran in your findings.
Also, if aircraft were solely responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers, why is the Empire State Building still standing? What about the Royal Alexandria Hospital in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada?
And please explain why the Salomon Brothers Building (WTC7) collapsed into it's own footprint, after a minor fire and a few broken windows?
cosmo,
I know we life in post-modern, anti-scientific times, but a scientific theory backed by a robust body of data, rises to something somewhat more categorical than "opinion". Are Newtons laws "opinion".
If some of us get abrasive at science-deniers, it is because we find this post-modernist retreat from science among so many USAns to be rather alarming. The dark ages started the same way.
Sigurdur,
Your assertation that average temperaures have not warmed in the arctic is utter nonsense! It is a lie, period. It is the product of kooks with a political agenda - just like those who claim explosives planted by Bush, not airliner impact and fire, brought down the WTC buildings.
Please see for yourself. You can create a timeseries of NOAA radiosonde temperature data for any range of latitude and longitude by following the instructions on this web site.
http://serc.carleton.edu/eet/seaice/part_4.html
After collecting the data, you can graph it on Excel or other spreadheet - but in the case of Arctic latitudes, the trend is so dramatic that you don't have to graph it.
What do you expect with all these problems popping up everyday when humans are replicating like plastic bags?
KEM, you've expressed nothing but your opinion. All the articles and other references you cite are in support of that. And that's fine, I happen to agree with you in general about global warming, but I don't agree with your classless tact, your use of abrasive language, and your belligerence toward those that disagree with you. That's why it is so easy in fact to characterize you - you are transparent. In ways that may indeed make you a pleasant likable guys (as long as we agree with you), but it also makes you a perfect target for the likes of Sigurdur11; or me too, even though I tend to agree with you more than not.
And you really are overbearing. You must have something to do other than post here, don't you? Make your comments and observations and go away. Don't try to turn CD into your own personal soapbox. That makes you as offensive as those you rail against.
And thinking that telling me to go fuck myself has any positive significance whatsoever clearly demonstrates your overestimation of your own importance and your under-appreciation for the value of those that may tend disagree with you. It makes you less powerful, not more.
I'm confused.
Yes, there have been there have been some extreme warming events of natural origin, causing mass-extinctions - in one case a near wipeout of life on earth.
So this justifies humans delibeately doing the same thing?
Ther have also been global catastropies from perfectly natural asteroid impacts; does this make nuclear war ok too?
I guess human "civilization" is just a natural phenomenon, so anything humans do, including self-extinction from coal burning, or nuclear bombs is natural too. Everytihng is "natural" - so don't worry, be happy! There is a word for this - nihilism.
funky p - I appreciate your approach, but I believe neither framing will work in the instant gratification world of today's USA. The environmentally conscious have always been derided as wackos, liberal loons, and tree-huggers by the rich and powerful, who find it all too easy to rile their easily-duped camp followers. Putting an environmental face on the situation thus doesn't gain us anything that hasn't already been derided. Additionally, the most dedicated climate change advocates (myself among them) realize that the emergency is at code red already, and it may actually be too late to abort the self-destruct sequence we have initiated on this planet.
My 2 cents worth
I have long felt that the people promoting the concept of global warming have erred in their framing of the debate, and the postings here point out the weakness of such framing. There are enough misleading statistics and opinions to sew doubt in the minds of those who do not agree with the opposite side's opinion.
I feel the debate should be framed in terms of environmental degradation.
There is little doubt that the burning of fossil fuels has greatly damaged the environment, coal being a prime example. Even the low sulfur coal from South America contains mercury, which has ended up in our oceans and made most seafood at the higher end of the food chain dangerous (Tuna, swordfish etc)
Even if the temperature were not changed, these pollutants endanger all life on this planet, and the focus on climate change (and ensuing arguments pro and con) ignores the fact that fertilizer, pesticides and other chemical contaminants which may not effect temperature, are a real threat to the continued existence of life on this planet.
You can spin your wheels looking up research to validate your own point of view, or we can come together to fight the environmental degradation that is our main threat. If we do, then the factors contributing to global warming will be alleviated because they degrade the environment, while at the same time, removing those factors from the equation.
Artmuse4 - The US is also the only first-world country (and falling fast) involved in a political debate over the use of a modern English version of a book, compiled some 800 years ago to keep the serfs scared and quiescent, as a science book. I think that and our climate change denial is interrelated.
MiMi and Sigi - Even if I agree with your interpretation of your data, ONE YEAR is WEATHER! Don't tell me how a cold winter in China portends an arctic ice recovery - I might as well read the bible as a science book! Virtually no glacier left in Glacier National Park, retreating ice sheets in every Arctic / Antarctic sea, land visible in Greenland where none has ever been before - the Earth is warming, and at a pace even the most hysterical GW advocates never predicted. Greenhouse gases are a contributing, even multiplying factor, and human activity, including burning fossil fuels and raising herd animals, are at the very least a contribution to that factor.
Kem:
I have no idea who this Namaste is for starters.
You won't address what climate model has been proven by theorem.
You won't address that the air temp in the Arctic has not warmed.
You won't address that we have cooled more on average in one year that we have warmed in that past 100.
Bingo: The person talking about the Solar minninum has it right.
I have to be off for the day...have a good one.
Don't mind MiMi too much. I think she gets her talking points, cherry picked anomolies, and fibs from the Lyndon LaRouche crowd. He has decided GW theory is an affront to the Big Guy upstairs, and a deep, sinister big biz/gov't/who knows plot, with even Dubya and the cons involved. At least she isn't Exxon/Mobil.
An interesting aspect to GW is the slightly overdue ramp up of Solar Cycle 24. There was a lot of argument about how intense it would become, but other than small sunspots in Jan and April, its been a non-event.
The folks at NASA and NOAA still think it will ramp up with a typical peak in 2012, much like in 1998-2001. A "perfect storm" (even more CO2, solar peak and El Nino for example)year around 2012 would be the clincher.
Maybe the Big Guy will cut us a break and provide a protracted solar minimum, just enough to counteract the GHGs, but not enought for an ice age. He parted the Nile, right?
You win ~MIMI~ there is no melting of the ice in Antartica, the scientists who are there studying it and state they are very concerned, even alarmed, are all crazy.
MiMI - Umm... last I heard, average global temp. was up 3. someodd degrees C.
But I guess you ignored that too...
Kem - Well, bugs and bees we have a'plenty. The garter snake is even making a comeback. And today as I was headed out to the Richmond International Buddhist Temple (a beautiful place by the way, and they grow all their own food that they serve in the vegetarian cafeteria), I saw a bald eagle with a wing span of 5-7 feet. Fantastic.
It's to bad, with all the hard evidence available, and a growing preponderance of evidence that Peak Oil is not only coming, but is here, we still have those who are dead set on Keeping Things Just So. You know, the whole 'Leave It To Beaver', damn-wasn't-America-great-in-the-50's, when women were in the kitchen, blacks weren't uppity, and Technology (tm) was the answer to every thing? I mean, didn't everyone want a Jetson's (tm) flying car that folded up into a briefcase?
(sigh)
Too bad we are gonna go through a nasty spasm of 'Mad Max' (tm) before we realize exactly how little we are leaving our grandchildren...
KEM PATRICK
MiMiCcS said "There is no consensus on the cause of the warming 55 million years ago, let alone certainty that is was caused by methane hydrates."
You then reply
"~MIMICCS~ indeed there is absolute proof that methane gas was the cause of the Permian mass extinction."
By cause, I am referring to what caused the initial warming. Methane was certainly involved at least as a feedback, if not the initial cause. But it is not a consensus the methane came from methane hydrates, or peat/coal, etc.
This comment says it all
"Average world temperature is not the issue, as it has not risen a degree in the past 200 plus years. That is not the point or the problem. The Greenhouse effect is the problem and excess Co2 in the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to heat and global warming is the result and anyone can see the effect of that by observation of Greenland, the Arctic, Antartica and all of the melting glaciers in the world."
If I understand this right, heating from additional CO2 that is all from mans emissions (only 3% of the total) causes the ice to melt in these regions, but leaves the temperatures at the surface and in the "well mixed atmosphere" unaffected. That sort of argues against CO2 being a global GHG. And exactly how is CO2 transferring this heat to the ice?. It must travel to the ice carrying the heat carefully, making sure not to raise global air temperatures, and then in a surprise attack it attacks the ice with it's stored heat and melts it with LWR. Help me out KEM.
Of course, one problem you do know that the volume of ice in the Antarctica has been growing over the past 30 years. The western Antactica peninsula which is 2% of the continents area and holds only a fraction of the ice. Thats localized warming, not global warming.
Antarctica has 10 times more ice by volume than Greenland and the Arctic sea ice combined, and it is growing, not melting.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml
Even sea ice extent is not a big concern at this point over the last 30 years.
http://climatesci.org/2008/07/18/role-of-regional-climate-forcings-on-antarctic-sea-ice/
Hi ~GALEN~ It ain't easy arguing with these deniers. I "think" this Sigurdu11 guy is actually Namaste, who stated this week that he finally came out of the closet on the global warming issue and joined in with MIMI. Namaste uses several different names as you may know.
We have a beautiful garden and orchard again, huge tomato, eggplant and squash plants, etc, and lots of blossoms, but no pollinating inscects or birds and we have to self pollinate and so our crop is not good. We didn't have many peaches, apricots or plums.
We don't even have any house flies to speak of, an d there are horses here every night as it's open range. Not a single lady bug, we've seen exactly three butterflies and very few moths. No bats this year either and all in all, there is another very grim problem.
We used to harvest enough to feed 12 families all year long. Not last year or this one and our weather has been unusually cool for the southwest, but rain fall has been normal.
Until last year we'd count 70 to 75 different specie of birds at our feeders, but so far this year we have counted nine and not very many of each specie. Saving a lot on bird seed though.
Kem - Not to mention what all that warmer less salty water will be doing to the North Atlantic Current, the GIANT heat exchange engine that is the only thing from keeping Northern Europe from freezing...
~MiMICCs~ There you go again, spreading false information.
I will reply to your comments about the ice in Antartica. The creeping of added ice around the edges of Antartica sounds like there is no problem there. It sounds like it, but there is a major problem. "Rush Lim-bow" loves your type.
That sea-ice is "seasonal" ice, MIMI, not he great fresh water ice masses which have built up there for millions of years and which are now meltilng at an alarming and dramatic rate and that melt of the mile thick ice shelfs Miss MIMI is a real world wide disaster.
Fresh water ice melting will raise sea levels and there is enough fresh water ice in Antartica to cause sea levels to rise over 250 feet when it melts and it's now melting very quickly.
Actually the added sea ice portends warmer temperatures. A 2005 MASA study showed that warmer temps caused more than normal snow fall on that continent and more "thin" sea ice.
MiMiCcs: Believe me. The Bush administration does NOT want to support any scientists who actually report their data. Look what NEARLY happened to Hanson, the director of NASA's climate group. Bush hired a 24 year old schill to 'review' all talks and articles and expurgate reports that mentioned human causes of climate change.
There is a LOT more money out there from Exxon to help any scientist who wants to lie than there is out there to help scientists actually take data and draw conclusions from it. I work with some of these guys and know just how desperate the funding situation usually is. In Europe it's a bit better than it has been in the past....largely because governments that have people with brains running them are getting worried.
I personally am reassured. Despite the huge resources that are available to any scientists who make the faustian choice and deny what their data tell them, as KEM points out over and over again, the vast majority are all singing the same tune.
Yes, this is not an easy problem. Nor is it easy to understand the Earth's climate.
But I do not believe the Perfect should be the Enemy of the Good. Just because the model isn't perfect and it is merely 'good', that's no reason to then claim we should just give up.
Kem - How's the garden doin? The weather here in the Lower Mainland of BC is on a roll. 14 days straight of sunshine.
Come on up and visit. But watch out for those 'terrist' watch lists. I hear the cavity searches are a BITCH!
Hey `COSMOS BILLY~. I have not offered MY opinions on this issue. So why tell everyone here I'm very opinionated. I have only offered the opinions of the highly regarded scienitsts I quoted.
Don't you come on here and "assume" anything about me or my past. I had a very good Carreer and have been happily married to the same high school sweetheart for 52 years and we had wonderful children. So don't you attempt to psycoanalize me.
If you want to berate me, do it for my spelling, otherwise shut it off. You are not my boss, my mate, my friend, or my daddy or mommy. ___ Ya got that?
Furthormore, if you read back here, you will note that several others here agreed with me about any minor, but quite appropriate insults which were directed at "neo-con type" deniers, who are very damaging to having anything productive done about the global warming issue.
Now perhaps you should stick to the issue and mind your own business when it concerns personalities. And don't be presumptious and attempt to lecture me again or I'll tell you in a nice way to go fuck yourself and I don't like doing that here. It don't sound nice and I'm a very pleasant fella.
There is consensus amongst recognized scientific organizations regarding global warming. Amongst climatologists, it is not controversial that we are causing global warming. I wont bother to come up with facts regarding CO2 levels, etc. I am not a climate expert, but have participated in oceanic research, and know that the models are too complicated reason by subjective arguments, and I dont have time to begin learning the real thing. Please dont claim that there is a conspiracy amongst climate experts. They just dont do it.
But there is a conspiracy to deny climate change. Many scientists have been given incentives from industry and from governments to deny climate change. ExxonMobil is one of the companies that pay organisations to deny global warming. This has been well documented, and you are invited to follow the money to see how Exxon Mobil funds climate deniers:-
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
MiMi - So the 650 000 year old ice cores from Antarctica showing that CO2 is higher during the opening of the Anthropocene (that's the period we are just entering), higher than any other time in the preceding 650 000 years are FICTIONAL?
The fact that Antarctica is shedding MASSIVE ice bergs the size of Rhode Island is 'inconsequential'?
What about the quote from BUSH'S OWN CLIMATE SCIENCE ADVISOR that humanity "Is on a greased slope to hell" when it comes to Climate Change? Is that taken out of context?
What about the satellite imagery that is showing that the Arctic is melting hundreds of times faster than even the worst predictions of the climate scientists? Are those images all 'Photoshopped'(tm)?
Sure, go ahead. Support Bushco's insane plan to drill ANWR.
It's gonna be a laugh watching the rigs sink into the methane laced muskeg that was once 20 000 YEAR OLD PERMAFROST!
wcdevins- "MiMiCcs - I'm not sure where you are seeing "recovery" from the sea ice news article. Someone said yesterday you've got to learn the difference between weather and climate. The loss of Arctic and Antartic ice continues down a scale humanity has never before witnessed."
From the image it is clear there is more ice in 2008 than 2007 in the Arctic.
Climate vs Weather. Absolutely correct, but the AGW supporters will make a big deal about a single weather event, single season, single year or even decadal changes. In 2007 when there was less ice it was a big deal.
In 30 years, the Northern Hemisphere has seen Global warming. In the previous 30 years, it was cooling. Over 130 years, the temperature has increased 0.6 deg C despite CO2 increasing 280 ppm to 280 ppm. These are facts.
In 1940, Arctic temperatures were as warm as in 2003. We do not have sea ice exent measurement data before 1950. Satellite measurements go back only 30 years.
Over the last 30 years, sea ice in Antarctica has increased by as much as Artic sea ice has decreased. The western Antarctica, especially over the peninsula has warmed, and there is less ice. Most of the ice is in the east. The peninsula accounts for 2% of Antarcticas area. There are active volcanoes in the region.
"The loss of Arctic and Antartic ice continues down a scale humanity has never before witnessed."
Before the last 50-100 years, I am pretty sure the Anatarctic sea ice was only observed by Penguins. In the Arctic, the Vikings in Greenland during the Medieval warming period may have seen an ice free Arctic in the summer, but they were pretty happy about the warming. They had to leave when the little ice age came in 1650-1700 due to solar sunspots took a vacation. Maybe we can ask Santa (Sorry, I forgot thats a myth)
The problem with climate is you have to recognize that about every 100,000 years we have an ice age, followed by a period of 12,000 years of warming, and then a repeat. We do not have much data past 50 years. The data we have beyond this has very wide error bands. The level of understanding of many sciences that make up the "climate science" is low. Grant money goes to the scientists whose articles and research support AWG. Corporate government and corporations, and the elites foundations determine who gets the grants.
Cosmobilly - Earth is the only home we have.
And no amount of Star Trek (tm) brand techno-fetishism is gonna change that. Even IF (and it is a mighty HUGE friggin' IF) there are other planets out there in the big black that are suitable for human habitaion, we have no way to get to them. The technology does not exist, outside of sci-fi novels and TV shows.
And no amount of 'gee-whiz-ain't-American-ingenuity-great!' gushing of praise for how damn smart we think we are is going to change that.
Hell, we can't even do a manned mission to the moon any more. The last heavy lift booster capable of that is lying on it's side in Florida waiting for a hurricane to turn it into so much scrap metal. Not to mention that the heavy lift launch facilities are rusting decommissioned hulks.
No, what we have to do is bite the bullet, admit that play time is over, and start to behave like a responsible society and THROW THE DAMN TECHNO-TOYS AWAY!
John Atcheson's article is not reality? Haaa Haaa Haa, and Atcheson is in total agreement with Michael J. Benton. You are out of touch with reality. Those current temps you posted are not germane to the issue, so forget it.
If the Arctic is not warmer, why is it thawing so rapidly, have you seen the satellite photos of the Arctic recently? Why does the NOAA, NASA, every climatic scientist state, that the Arctic will be TOTALLY ice free within three to five years. ___ Where have you been? You have now proven your lack of common sense and you are making a fool of yourself. There is no use attempting to reason with you Presence. ~BYE~.
KEM, I've tried to reach out to you with respect to your tone and logic before. I suspect you to be an older yet very opinionated man. I suspect you often felt under-appreciated during your productive years, and now wish to be more important than you actually are. I don't mean to be critical, but you post ad nauseam on this forum and you can become quite abrasive when others disagree and challenge you. I've no doubt you will mutter the words asshole to yourself when thinking about my comments now. And I've no doubt that a few of your forum friends will come to your defense, but wiser folks should realize when another is trying to be helpful. You are clearly a passionate and intelligent person, but you do yourself no favors when you call others names.
Mostly, I agree with you KEM, but as somebody who has been around scientists from NOAA and NCAR, I can tell you quite unequivocally that those scientists share one very frustrating trait - they rarely if ever draw hard conclusions from the data. It is often infuriating how they hedge, preferring to be very careful about not infusing their own subjectivity or inferring conclusions not actually supported by the data. Everyone here cold do well not to read more into scientific analyses then are actually there.
For the deniers and doubters, it is important to understand that virtually nobody in the scientific community draws conclusions from either models or past geologic history or even quantity of data. Models are merely tools, the past only a clue, and data always subject to further scrutiny and verification. Data not verifiable by other scientists is as good as no data. And consensus is not helpful when you realize how many times mainstream science has erred in the past.
Common sense needs to be applied to the discussion of global warming (which is perhaps not the best term to be using). First, it is an indisputable fact that humanity is affecting the composition of both the atmosphere and the Earth's crust. We are rearranging untold tons of mass and flora, and species are becoming extinct at a far more rapid rate than new ones are emerging. Whatever the hopes and intentions might be, this all amounts by and large to a human experiment for which we cannot be certain of the long term effects. Common sense should have us err on the side of caution, to realize that we have far more to lose than to win if we do nothing and are wrong.
Common sense should have us seek harmony and balance with nature, to revere that which sustains us, and to be very careful in being too presumptuous about things for which we cannot be certain.
The "deniers" can be very dangerous, and KEM nailed it when he asked how they might want to explain to their children and our children why they/we didn't do anything when/if we had the chance. Why, if we had the warnings and knew something was happening did we chose to do nothing? Why? To sustain our own greed and status quo, future generations be damned? The fact that the deniers never respond to that, nor care enough of their and our children to heed the concern with caution rather than abandon, speaks volumes as to the nature of their souls.
As the human population explodes exponentially, we cannot afford to be cavalier about the exploitation of our home. But if someone knows of a nice clean green water-rich planet for us to go to, and can actually get us there, then please go ahead and be recklessly irresponsible and exploit all the resources you want. Any wisdom about frugality and not being wasteful certainly need not apply.
Kem:
Once again in your 2:12 post, there is not empirical evidence that the increase in methane was caused by tundra thaw. The jist of the article was it may be caused.
I would expect a response of this graph:
This is a historical graph of co2 levels for millions of years.
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
Ya know what ~SIGURDUR11~? I'm tired and tired of replying to an obtuse denier. So this will be my final reply to you, unless you respond intelligently to the links I posted about global warming and the methane gas issue. I'll return tomorrow.
Polluted air has a dual effect of warming the atmosphere and therefore slightly cooling the earth, as particles absorb sunlight and that curbs the amount of sunlight that reaches the ground. (Global dimming) That may then tend to reduce the average temperatures on occasion but warmer atmosphere will serve to mask the actual global warming, leading some to mis-inform and underappreciate the magnitute of anthropogenic warming. Any who cannot see what is occurring with their own eyes and understand it, is beyond help.
Ref your 1:32 post.
This is a hypothosis, and not a reality.
Here are the temps from the Arctic from one station. You can puruse the site to see others. The arctic is not warmer today.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/frobishr.gif
That article was about ONE lake in Alaska. and they don't know why the methane was boiliing out. They are assuming. Many lakes in Alaska thaw every summer but methane "boiling" out is not normal at all. The water temp is warmer than it should be.
There are now areas off the coast of California where methane is boiling out from the ocean depths also.
There are now hundreds of once frozen for millions of years lakes in the far northern areas of the Arctic, which are spewing methane gas and it is because they are ice free. No one went up there with heaters and melted the ice, it melted due to "global warming". It has never done so for millions of years.
You have any arguments about the other two links I posted, which I have already told you were posted at 1:32 and 2;12pm and which are the ones that I have been discussing here. You won't discuss those, you obtuse denier. That link you just talked abuot was not the ones I referred you to and you know it.
You are just wasting yours' amd my time here. You don't want to have a decent and fair debate, you want to attempt to prove that I'm wrong and it's not my opinons that matter, It's those of the scientists I quoted.
From spectro-analisis readings, scientists have well proven that the amount of Co2 in our atmosphere has risen dramatically ever since humanity began the industrial age and fossil fuels were then used far more than ever prior to that time and the Co2 in our atmosphere has risen annually since then.
We may be breathing Co-2 at this moment that was emmitted by Henry Ford's first automobile. Once Co2 is emmitted, it will stay in the atmosphere for more than a hundred years. We humans are putting more Co2, (a known Greenhouse gas) into our atmophere than nature can handle and that is why mankind is causing the current global warming.
Average world temperature is not the issue, as it has not risen a degree in the past 200 plus years. That is not the point or the problem. The Greenhouse effect is the problem and excess Co2 in the atmosphere is causing the atmosphere to heat and global warming is the result and anyone can see the effect of that by observation of Greenland, the Arctic, Antartica and all of the melting glaciers in the world.
"It is unlikely that this methane plume was related to permafrost thaw," said Walter, adding that the methane boiling out of the lake was more likely related to natural gas seepage.
Kem:
I looked at the methane seepage. Did you miss this quote from Walter?
What do you attribute the sudden drop of .7C in temp in the past year?
Kem - SIC 'EM BOY!
~SIGUDUR~ I didn't post the link you say I posted.
~ARTMUSE4~ Who cares what you appreciate? Some people are asking to be insulted, by being ignorant and obtuse about humanity's most serious issue and starting childish arguments that purposely detract from the issue.
As a current resident of Japan who has lived in Spain and has a lot of friends, students, and colleagues from various countries around the world, I feel safe to assert that the U.S. is the only place in the world where anyone is wasting their breath arguing the science of climate change. Here in Japan--at least at the level of lip service--it's all climate change all the time when it comes to media discussion as well as product development and advertising. Whether enough will ever be done even in non-denial societies, or what exactly should be done is a big question; but, the facts of climate change themselves?
What is it about the U.S. that makes it so special? Beats me.
(Special is a cypher because I don't appreciate the insults that fly around here.)
The links I referred to were posted (July 20th at 1:32pm and 2:12pm.) They are well detailed about the "methane gas threat" and how MAN MADE global warming is causing that threat and the answers to your questions are in those articles. So don't tell us that you saw nothing there but meetings.
"Looking" at them won't hack it sonny, read em and attempt to understnd how important they are. Then if you "scientifically" disagree let us all know why and show us some credible reasons why those authors are wrong. Tah tws my request and if you cannot do that, you are proving you are a bullshitter denier. Do it right.
I have not had a chance to look up replys to your questions, so don't give me the crap that I refuse. My links are already there, waiting for you to argue.
Kem:
Please refute this.
Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Print E-mail del.icio.us 513 comment(s) - last by plowak.. on Mar 14 at 12:01 PM
Recipient E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address
Sender E-mail Please enter a valid E-mail addressPlease enter a valid E-mail address
Please input the letters/numbers that appear in the image below. (not case-sensitive)
Please enter the characters in the image below.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year.Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.
Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
Kem:
I looked at your links....I saw something about meetings but no substance on the http://climateconvergence.org/ link.
The other link didn't open so I cannot address the validity of said link.
I have provided you with an abstract from
the Royal Meteorological Society which you have not responded to.
I kinda get a kick out of your answers. You call questions spin? I call them questions being a theorem hasn't been provided for proof of any of the models.
You also won't address the climate trend of the past 18,000 years. I do believe it has been warming during that period of time. Were man's emissions the cause of 18,000 years of warming? I do think not.
And yes, Bently was a mis spelling of Benton. Or a brain fart, take your pick.
~SIGUDAR11~ You also should be advised before you continue to make a fool of yourself, that a Washington Post article, of (July 18, 2008,) states that our "EPA" WARNS US, that Global Warming is a major threat to humans. So you are arguing with the EPA, the National Geological Society, NASA scientists and prize winning scientists who are highly regarded and respected by their peers, among others. __ Rave on.
Oh, do not forget to tell us all with your raving, why ~Benton~ and ~Atcheson~ are wrong about the methane threat.
Well I was typing my post where I asked you to address the links I had posted and your questions to me posted before I was finished typing. Address the links I posted long ago here, and then I'll respond to your questions.
I see you have posted on 13 threads here at C/D ~Sigudar11~. You are a global warming denier in the respect that you do not admit humanity is the cause of our current problem. You cannot deny that.
You are mouthing the Neocon spin on the issue here. You are now going to attempt to get "scientific" with us, but the links you provide do not prove anything, they just tend to confuse the issue.
BTW, who is ~BENTLY~? That was not an accidental mis-spell, you don't even know who I was quoting and you say there are huge numbers who disagree with him. Ha haa haa you are full of crap and it gives you away for the fraud that you are.
I note that you haven't provided me with a model that has been proven via theorem, or at least close to accurate.
Also, you have failed to address the temp trend of the past 18,000 years.
Tell ya what genius science person, you address the links that I posted and fully explain why ~Drs. John Atcheson~, ~Michael Benton~ and the NOAA are wrong, and I'll reply to your BALANCE question.
BTW, I have not offered MY "humble opinons" on this subject smart ass. I have quoted those two men and the NOAA and there are many others who are highly qualified on the issue who could be quoted and who fully agree with them. ___ Hit it Namaste.
Kem,
I do have a few questions:
1. What has happened during the past 18,000 years?
2. Do you read discenting views on global warming? The models have not accurately predicted what has been happening.
3. I will find the fellows who refute Bentley's paper. They have also written peer reviewed papers.
4. If you will notice, I am not attacking you as a person. I am sure you are a fine person who is passionate about man being the cause. So be it, that is your right. I am discussing the scientific validity of climate change, not weather change. Climate change occurs over 1,000's of years as we both know. There may be many more drivers of climate change, which is showing up in the models being wrong, that were not accurately assesed when writing the models. I think that we both have to agree that Global Warming being caused by man is a theory as of yet as scientific proof is lacking to prove the theorem. Show me one model that has been accurate.....ok?
Ah that last link won't open anymore. Anyway, these deniers may own a coal mine.
The first Norse settlers of Greenland, had small settlements along the southern coast and most left after one year and migrated to Vinland, as the climate was far too severe for any decent raising of livestock or farming.
Presently Greenland has large areas ice free which have been ice bound for millions of years, so stop the bullshit ~SIGUDUR11~.
Abstract
We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 Climate of the 20th Century model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data. Copyright © 2007 Royal Meteorological Society