I like the argument that environmentalism is warmed over calvinism:

We humans are flawed and evil (destroyers of the planet, virus, whatever the greenies say)

But we can achieve redemption (sustainability)

Through sacrifice (lower standard of living, less mobility)

And hard work (manual tools, walking)

But we don't really know who is saved (make it through the dieoff resulting from environmental overshoot)

These conclusions follow obviously from those who accept the premises (dude? you don't believe in AGW?)

And isn't it better to live a good life and be wrong about God with no existence than live a selfish life and find God and hell to be true? (isn't it better to make sacrifice now, all we suffer is a cleaner planet anyway, but if we're wrong, it'll be hot and fiery on earth)

So yeah, I am skeptical of AGW.

Originally Posted by The Rani

So I think I get it now. GW is a necessary part of the argument because a doomsday scenario is the only thing serious enough to justify (in the general American mind) the COST of using other energy sources. Still sounds like scare tactics to me. And it won't work. We will only change our behavior when it gets to the point that it's economically beneficial, like it already has in India.

And I have to be amused that somehow on this thread I have gone from being called an anti-environmentalist to a tree-hugger. Doublespeak, anyone?

Ah, sounds like your in the process of evolution .

Originally Posted by Mikebert

All of these can be readily removed from coal emissions for less than the cost of renewables. So if these things really were a problem, then I imagine all our coal power plants would use existing clean coal technology.

OK, we both know about the conservation of matter. So if we scrub the SO2 out, then where do we put it or the by product from scrubbing at?
Next, where do we put the mercury ? I don't know of a safe place to put that stuff. I'm not so conerned about fly ash, since it can be made into concrete and the like. So, in leaving the CO2 question out, folks can of course apply tort law if needed to seek redress for any negative effects.
That would of course apply to a nuclear plant. If some I-131 gets released, then tort law is OK for that as well. As long as every energy source has an even playing field, I'm OK with the whole situation.

Coal can be used cleanly for less than the renewable alternatives. It can also be mined without raping the land. But to do so costs more than not doing them--but LESS than replacing coal with a renewable.

Does it? Like a good scientist, I need the info. Please go and find the requisite studies and get back with me.

So obviously, if GW is not an issue, then oil and gas will be replaced by clean coal (if you want to vote for that) that is mined without raping the land (if you want to vote for that). If enough people really voted against dirty coal and raping the land, then it wouldn't be happening. So if it is happening then that is because people don't care about H2SO4 or Hg in the air or raping the land, except for perhaps "tree-hugger" types like yourself and the Rani.

It's most likely a matter of time. My guess is that some equivalent of the Cayhouga river catching fire will suffice in changing the mindset. Of course, nobody gave a flip about using rivers as sewers until that happened. Likewise with Hg and H2SO4, I don't know what the tipping point will be. My guess is that something will occur. As for the tree-hugger remark, it's not really apropos. Actually, I do care about ground level O3, since it really interacts bad with my allergies. I'm just taking my option and move away from the locale (Houston) where this just causes me grief. As for Hg, I really don't want to be near this, since it's toxic and I don't know of a nice way to make it go away.

The only thing that makes coal not a solution to oil and gas shortages is GW. You have to sequester the CO2 to use coal if GW is a concern and that adds enough to the cost to make conservation the most profitable approach to energy shortage. It is conservation that makes alternates feasible by accomodating very expensive energy prices needed to make alternates make financial sense.

I guess that's because people really want to use energy sources that don't add CO2. You yourself are into whatever the what poeple want argument.

Know this if you get nothing else from this post. At $3 gallon NOTHING will ever replace gasoline. If gas has to cost this much, get used to walking because that's what you will be doing if you want to phase out oil use but insist on maintaining that price level.

What are you talking about ? To clarify, I don't care what gasoline or any fuel source costs. Since fuel prices are a market function, I couldn't care less. Did you write this post while you were half asleep or something ? The only thing in regard to price is that displaced costs get added to it. An example is imported oil. The price per barrel should have the costs of defending the source added on. So, in the case of your clean coal option, as long as the price of its displaced costs are taken into account, I have no issue.

If gas can cost $10 a gallon, then it is easy to replace gasoline with something else.

Well, duh

The idea that we can replace $3 gas with $3 of something else that will give the same service as a gallon of petrol is a pipe dream.

You're being redundant. Again, I've never implied that. I don't know what the cost of energy inputs is. I'll just keep using my CFL's and low input model for the pecan orchard. So in closing, I just don't give a flying fuck about the price of gasoline. For all I care, it can be $30.00/gallon

Originally Posted by antichrist

I like the argument that environmentalism is warmed over calvinism:

We humans are flawed and evil (destroyers of the planet, virus, whatever the greenies say)

But we can achieve redemption (sustainability)

Through sacrifice (lower standard of living, less mobility)

And hard work (manual tools, walking)

But we don't really know who is saved (make it through the dieoff resulting from environmental overshoot)

These conclusions follow obviously from those who accept the premises (dude? you don't believe in AGW?)

And isn't it better to live a good life and be wrong about God with no existence than live a selfish life and find God and hell to be true? (isn't it better to make sacrifice now, all we suffer is a cleaner planet anyway, but if we're wrong, it'll be hot and fiery on earth)

So yeah, I am skeptical of AGW.

The analogy only works if you're comparing Calvinism to the more extreme elements of the environmental movement. Most people who care about this issue don't give it a supernatural or superstitious quality.

Since human activity has hurt the planet in other ways (eradication of species, denuding of the forests, damage to the ozone layer, pollution of our air, land, and water), I remain open to the possibility that global warming is a phenomenon for which we may indeed be responsible to some extent.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

OK, we both know about the conservation of matter. So if we scrub the SO2 out, then where do we put it or the by product from scrubbing at?

The byproduct is gypsum, a perfectly ordinary and harmless mineral.

Next, where do we put the mercury? I don't know of a safe place to put that stuff.

How about recycling it? Mercury has a number of applications. It isn't particular harmful as the native metal in alloys (it is used in tooth fillings for example).

Originally Posted by antichrist

I like the argument that environmentalism is warmed over calvinism:

We humans are flawed and evil (destroyers of the planet, virus, whatever the greenies say)

But we can achieve redemption (sustainability)

Through sacrifice (lower standard of living, less mobility)

And hard work (manual tools, walking)

But we don't really know who is saved (make it through the dieoff resulting from environmental overshoot)

These conclusions follow obviously from those who accept the premises (dude? you don't believe in AGW?)

And isn't it better to live a good life and be wrong about God with no existence than live a selfish life and find God and hell to be true? (isn't it better to make sacrifice now, all we suffer is a cleaner planet anyway, but if we're wrong, it'll be hot and fiery on earth)

So yeah, I am skeptical of AGW.

You are confusing the views of the "Deep Green" luddite types that replace Calvin's God with an anthropomorphized Mother Earth (without realizing it of course, when I point that out to them they get indignant). Not all Greens are like that. I myself an a Technogaian, so is Robert Reed.

Originally Posted by Odin

You are confusing the views of the "Deep Green" luddite types that replace Calvin's God with an anthropomorphized Mother Earth (without realizing it of course, when I point that out to them they get indignant). Not all Greens are like that. I myself an a Technogaian, so is Robert Reed.

I would expect there to be factions and schisms within the movement. Protestantism is like that.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

The byproduct is gypsum, a perfectly ordinary and harmless mineral.

It is. No disagreement on that. Oklahoma in places is covered with selenite.

Btw, I do have to call you on something I missed earlier. You need to refrain from using ad-homs like "tree hugger" and the like". I deem name calling a sign of intellectual emptiness.

So this leaves the actual topic of the thread, which is the hypothesis of global warming. So, we need some definitions to keep things straight and properly aligned when discussing a scientific topic IOW , all need to be on the same page. Thusly:

Green house gas. A chemical which exists in the earth's atomosphere which is transparent to visible light, but opaque in the infrared spectrum. The effect of said chemical is to impede the escape of infrared radiation from the earth. The most common greenhouse gases are CO2 and H2O.

Global warming: A scientific hypothesis that impeded escape of infrared radiation by the action of greenhouse gases results in a net rise the earth's temperature. The are models which suggest that global warming is a current phenomena. The question is if the models are correctly reflecting scientific reality. I admit I don't have a full grasp of that facet to satisfy my scientific acceptance test.

Temperature: A measure of infrared radiation. The more infrared radiation, the more assorted atoms jostle about, causing expansion in solids and liquids. An example of this is water expands when heated. Another is the jostling melts solid water, aka. "ice".

Climate Change. A hypothesis that the incrased retention of infrared radiation alters the earth's climate as an independent mechanism.

Clean Coal technology: The processing of coal or the emissions thereof to remove noxious chemicals such as SO2 and Hg. I leave it up to Mikebert to tell me if it also iinvolves the removal of CO2 emissions, since I don't know the details here.

Anthopological alterations to the earth. Human technology has progressed to the extent that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale. The ozone holes which exist on both poles are due to widespread release of CFC's. This proves with high confidense that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale.

How about recycling it? Mercury has a number of applications. It isn't particular harmful as the native metal in alloys (it is used in tooth fillings for example).

Fair enough. It can go into CFL's as well. So , it's over back to you to correct and/or add to what I've written. As is the case for all scientific writings, they should be peer reviewed. I'm taking The Rani's advice and am putting on my cusper hat here. Boomers usually have enough self esteem/confidence that they can take whatever criticisms of their writings are and make the requsite adjustments. Of course it's probably easier for you, since cusperdom has its downsides. Phasing between generations is hard work at times.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Btw, I do have to call you on something I missed earlier. You need to refrain from using ad-homs like "tree hugger" and the like".

I believe you used the term in a previous conversation in which you were calling for expansion of conventional coal plants and nuclear facilities despite what the tree huggers (or some other even more derogatory name) say. I was pointing out that you now sound a lot like these same tree huggers. In that previous exchange I was taking the tree hugger position, and in this one it is reversed.

Green house gas. A chemical which exists in the earth's atomosphere which is transparent to visible light, but opaque in the infrared spectrum. The effect of said chemical is to impede the escape of infrared radiation from the earth. The most common greenhouse gases are CO2 and H2O.

Global warming: A scientific hypothesis that impeded escape of infrared radiation by the action of greenhouse gases results in a net rise the earth's temperature. The are models which suggest that global warming is a current phenomena.

No measurements indicate that global warming is going on.

Temperature: A measure of infrared radiation. The more infrared radiation, the more assorted atoms jostle about, causing expansion in solids and liquids. An example of this is water expands when heated. Another is the jostling melts solid water, aka. "ice".

No, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter. It is not a measure of IR.

Climate Change. A hypothesis that the increased retention of infrared radiation [i]by increasing levels of greenhouse gases[/b] alters the earth's climate as an independent mechanism.

Clean Coal technology: The processing of coal or the emissions thereof to remove noxious chemicals such as SO2 and Hg.

Anthropomorphic alterations to the earth. Human technology has progressed to the extent that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale. The ozone holes which exist on both poles are due to widespread release of CFC's. This proves with high confidence that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale.

I'm taking The Rani's advice and am putting on my cusper hat here. Boomers usually have enough self esteem/confidence that they can take whatever criticisms of their writings are and make the requsite adjustments. Of course it's probably easier for you, since cusperdom has its downsides. Phasing between generations is hard work at times.

I'm only two years older than you. We are not that far apart.

Originally Posted by The Rani

But you're very different generationally, in my opinion. I have lots more in common (generationally) with Rag than with you.

I doubt you do, because most of these generational stereotypes don't really exist. Another poster point this out quite convincingly some time ago.

I think that avoiding the "tree hugger" term is probably a good idea.

I used it in favor of Ragnoroks's term "NIMBY/bird brain birdkill folks", which I think is a bit more inflamatory. Treehugger describes the position better.

Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean by it? Just curious, not offended or anything.

I'm surprised you don't know. A treehugger is one who places the welfare of the environment in general (or some particular aspect of it) ahead of human welfare. The classic example was the snail darter controversy.

You referred to strip mining as "raping the earth." This is a strongly moral statement that implies that "the Earth" has rights which can be violated. Furthermore you are implicitly asserting that these rights supercede the rights of the landowners and the mineworkers who would suffer economic loss if strip mining were stopped (as it should be if it is morally equivalent to rape). Your statement implies a greater love (desire to hug) for the natural world (e.g. trees) than the miners whom you are comparing to rapists. This makes you a tree hugger. It's an accurate term and not really derogatory to those who do not have sympathy for the miner's side of the story.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I believe you used the term in a previous conversation in which you were calling for expansion of conventional coal plants and nuclear facilities despite what the tree huggers (or some other even more derogatory name) say. I was pointing out that you now sound a lot like these same tree huggers. In that previous exchange I was taking the tree hugger position, and in this one it is reversed.

If that's the case, then that wasn't the intended message I meant to convey. To reiterate, I'm energy source agnostic. As for perjorative adjectives they're OK in dereferencing a particular group or inanimate nouns, but I don't use them to dereference anyone with whom I have a disagreement with. That is to say, I must follow that rule I apply to others, lest I become a hypocrite. Like I mentioned earlier, I am a moderator on a mailing list, so obviously I have to follow my own rules to maintain credibility.

Hopefully, the above clarifies things a bit.

I wrote earlier:
Green house gas. A chemical which exists in the earth's atomosphere which is transparent to visible light, but opaque in the infrared spectrum. The effect of said chemical is to impede the escape of infrared radiation from the earth. The most common greenhouse gases are CO2 and H2O.

Global warming: A scientific hypothesis that impeded escape of infrared radiation by the action of greenhouse gases results in a net rise the earth's temperature. The are models which suggest that global warming is a current phenomena.

Mikebert clarifies with:
No measurements indicate that global warming is going on.

I need a bit more input. Measurements of what? From this thread, there's references to the current average temperature, polar/glacial ice melting, and sea level changes. I can certainly discount hurricane activity since the fine folks at Colorado State University have given a detailed picture of why we're having more hurricanes now. An example is I do not attribute Katrina as a result of GW.

I continue on with:
Temperature: A measure of infrared radiation. The more infrared radiation, the more assorted atoms jostle about, causing expansion in solids and liquids. An example of this is water expands when heated. Another is the jostling melts solid water, aka. "ice".

Mikebert clarifies with:
No, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in a sample of matter. It is not a measure of IR.

Thanks. I'll clean that up. Is there a measure for IR? I'll go and Google for kinetic energy so I can add that as a node.

I continue on with
Climate Change. A hypothesis that the increased retention of infrared radiation by increasing levels of greenhouse gases alters the earth's climate as an independent mechanism.

Clean Coal technology: The processing of coal or the emissions thereof to remove noxious chemicals such as SO2 and Hg.

Anthropomorphic alterations to the earth. Human technology has progressed to the extent that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale. The ozone holes which exist on both poles are due to widespread release of CFC's. This proves with high confidence that humans can alter the earth on a broad scale.

Do the other terms I used above make sense? Is there any more cleanup needed? The member read out shows your occupation as chemical engineer. My guess is that you've had thermo classes in college. My degree is in computer science, but it was in the engineering college. Thermo wasn't really part of getting a B.S. in Comp. Sci. The "real" engineering degrees did require some classes in thermo. Just think of the things I wrote as nodes in my logic tree in regard to the climate change hypothesis. The intent is to clean up my logic tree, so to speak. I know it sounds strange, but INTP's which is denoted in my .sig go off and do stuff like that all of the time. If there's some sort of error in detail (a node) it has to be discarded as bad data. It's the "garbage in/garbage out" sort of thing.

Mikebert states:
I'm only two years older than you. We are not that far apart.

OK, you're also a cusper. Just curious, is phasing between prophet/nomad as much a pain in the ass for you as it is for me?

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

If that's the case, then that wasn't the intended message I meant to convey. To reiterate, I'm energy source agnostic. As for perjorative adjectives they're OK in dereferencing a particular group or inanimate nouns, but I don't use them to dereference anyone with whom I have a disagreement with. That is to say, I must follow that rule I apply to others, lest I become a hypocrite. Like I mentioned earlier, I am a moderator on a mailing list, so obviously I have to follow my own rules to maintain credibility.

I went an checked. You actually called people opposing windmills because of bird kills as NIMBY/bird-brained bird-kill folks. Treehugger is a more general and more accurate description of what you were describing. In particular you were angry that these folks would put the right to life of birds above he right of people to have electric power available at reasonable cost. Calling strip mining raping of the land--implying that the miners are rapists) as Rani does, or opposing sulfate emissions because it damages forests and lake life (as you did) are both examples of the same class of position as the bird kill folks (putting the natural world/wildfile ahead of human interests). They all fall under the treehugger umbrella.

I need a bit more input. Measurements of what?

Average temperature using thermometers and other instrument that measure temperature.

Thanks. I'll clean that up. Is there a measure for IR? I'll go and Google for kinetic energy so I can add that as a node.

IR is a kind of light and it can be measured using a spectrometer, a device that splits up light by wavelength (like a prism) and measures he intensity of the light (like a photomultiplier) at each wavelength.

OK, you're also a cusper. Just curious, is phasing between prophet/nomad as much a pain in the ass for you as it is for me?

Nah. I took a fairly nomad approach in my early life, setting financial goals at 17 to be met by the time I was 40 (which I did). When I finished my PhD in 1988 and started work in Kalamazoo MI I set a specific goal have having a life put together within three years or I would find a job in Milwaukee (my hometown). At three years I was married, a step father, foster parent, and Big Brother and was well settling into my job which I enjoyed.

Today my step daughter is in med school, my adopted daughter is living outside of our house. She has made a mess of her life, but is now willing to use effective birth control so she won't have any more kids beyond the two she has. She is not a suitable parent and one child is with the paternal grandmother and the other (they had different fathers) is with us. We plan to have he one with us adopted into a good family early next year.

Other than this, our life is pretty good and pretty low risk. Over the last decade I have had time to explore all sorts of things that interest me (like financial, economic and historical cycles and now global warming) sand in doing this stuff some of what one would call Boomerness comes out.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I went an checked. You actually called people opposing windmills because of bird kills as NIMBY/bird-brained bird-kill folks. Treehugger is a more general and more accurate description of what you were describing. In particular you were angry that these folks would put the right to life of birds above he right of people to have electric power available at reasonable cost. Calling strip mining raping of the land--implying that the miners are rapists) as Rani does, or opposing sulfate emissions because it damages forests and lake life (as you did) are both examples of the same class of position as the bird kill folks (putting the natural world/wildfile ahead of human interests).

I think it's a matter of degree. I oppose sulfate emissions when they mess with other folks' stuff. H2SO4 as we both know is a strong acid. To clarify a bit, it's only a problem when it screws up a person's property or means of living. I'll be off to my father's orchard in 5 years. In my case, sulfate emissions aren't that big a deal, since the soil is actually alkaline from CaCO3. So sulfate sources most likely won't do much harm, do to the nature of the soil. Now, if there were a lack of CaCO3, then sulfate emissions would make a mess. The only time I'd make a stink about, say if a coal plant were to be sited is if I were downwind and didn't get money to move elsewhere. I would put that under more of a property rights issue, not a NIMBY thing. I grew up only 4 miles from an oil refinery as well. Here, I know the smell of H2S, but I never made a stink about that thing. After all, we need the products of the refinery, and the H2S levels were below the hazard level. So here, I just shrugged the thing off. So to clarify, acid rain , to me is only a problem, when it screws up people's property or means of making a living. Bird kill, to the best of my knowledge doesn't have that effect. If there's nitrates, I'd be glad to have those land on my property. They're fertilizer for free. I'd place acid rain with what my dumb ass neighbors do. When they don't check the mesonet and spray 2-4D and it drifts onto my trees and screws them up, I get annoyed. I'm OK with 2-4D as long as it doesn't make a mess of things. In fact , we use Roundup to control our own weeds. We mix it with oil, not water, so it won't drift and screw stuff up.

Average temperature using thermometers and other instrument that measure temperature.


IR is a kind of light and it can be measured using a spectrometer, a device that splits up light by wavelength (like a prism) and measures he intensity of the light (like a photomultiplier) at each wavelength.

The above works for me. They can probably be used to test the global warming hypothesis. Perhaps an array of thermometers or satellites can be used to track what, if anything is going on. Measure CO2 and the results of the IR/ temperature in a suitable number of locales and track the results. Since theres such a variance due to other factors, then some sort of means to locate any independent effect would be needed to work the hypothesis. FWIW, I think it's the variance which is making this GW thing so controversial. The observed results (melting ice) for example. Is this withing the variance or not. I don't know.

Nah. I took a fairly nomad approach in my early life, setting financial goals at 17 to be met by the time I was 40 (which I did). When I finished my PhD in 1988 and started work in Kalamazoo MI I set a specific goal have having a life put together within three years or I would find a job in Milwaukee (my hometown). At three years I was married, a step father, foster parent, and Big Brother and was well settling into my job which I enjoyed.

Wow, similar to what I did. I started work at 13 as a paper boy, then at 16 worked at the newspaper office. I saved the money for a house down payment. At 25 I had the 20% to put down and paid the 15 year mortgage off in 8 years. This was in the 1980's and the interest rate was 10%. Oklahoma had no jobs. Oklahoma's climate is pretty off putting to a lot of folks. So there's not much besides agriculture, Indian casinos, and a few places with manufacturing. I had to relocate to Houston. (Very nasty climate, but there are jobs here.) I sold my house 2.5 years ago because of this whacky real estate situation. Besides, I'll be moving back to be with family in Oklahoma at 50. I figure I have enough $ saved up that I can live confortably on dad's pecan orchard. There's a small farm house there. It's just getting to the point in middle age where big city life with traffic, noise and such are starting to grate.

Today my step daughter is in med school, my adopted daughter is living outside of our house. She has made a mess of her life, but is now willing to use effective birth control so she won't have any more kids beyond the two she has. She is not a suitable parent and one child is with the paternal grandmother and the other (they had different fathers) is with us. We plan to have he one with us adopted into a good family early next year.

That sounds like my youngest sister in both ways. She finally grew up and is now a nurse. Earlier, she managed to marry 2 drunks and had 2 nephews, one from each drunk. My parents had to pay out to keep a roof over her head. They did it for the nephews' sake. She's sort of married now with her 3rd husband. They're married but live in 2 separate houses. Strange...
She has the job thing down, but other obligations I learned at age 16 like filing a tax return by April 15th still elude her.

Other than this, our life is pretty good and pretty low risk. Over the last decade I have had time to explore all sorts of things that interest me (like financial, economic and historical cycles and now global warming) sand in doing this stuff some of what one would call Boomerness comes out.

Err umm... I've been screwing around with of course the global warming thing. The other one is growing mushrooms (no, not the "funny ones". ). I've turned one of my bathrooms into a mushroom farm. I have 2 5 gallon pails with coffee grounds. The oyster mushrooms I planted in the grounds are fruiting. I also have 2 bags of hay with pink oyster mushrooms that came in yesterday. They should fruit within 14 days. I also have a Reishi mushroom thats doing quite well. When I head up to Oklahoma, I'll be planting mushrooms on the farm as well. Essentially, I'm adding an extra step to the compost process I've been using. Instead of just putting pecan shells and other crap into the compost heap, I'm going to use them to grow mushrooms. I still get the compost, but I get a bonus of edible mushrooms with the new method. I suppose "getting back to the garden" in a literal sense would qualify for Boomerness on my end.

Originally Posted by The Rani

It was a metaphor Mike. But thanks for the explanation. It's a good demonstration of how people can jump to the wrong conclusions based on limited information.

Yes it's a metaphor. Metaphors are used to convey a great deal of meaning in a small package. Your use of an (apparently) inappropriate metaphor is a good demonstration of how sloppy use of language can convey the wrong information.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think it's a matter of degree. I oppose sulfate emissions when they mess with other folks' stuff. H2SO4 as we both know is a strong acid. To clarify a bit, it's only a problem when it screws up a person's property or means of living.

I see. I was wrong, the treehugger descriptor doesn't apply to your position. Sorry for the mistake.

Perhaps an array of thermometers or satellites can be used to track what, if anything is going on.

Yes they can and it's been done. Where you you suppose the data in all those graphs Bob posts comes from?

Measure CO2 and the results of the IR/ temperature in a suitable number of locales and track the results.

Been done too--see Bob's graphs.

FWIW, I think it's the variance which is making this GW thing so controversial. The observed results (melting ice) for example. Is this withing the variance or not. I don't know.

Actually the dispute is not over whether temperatures and CO2 are rising or that CO2 can cause higher temperatures. The question is whether it is CO2 or something else that is the principal cause of the current warming. If CO2 is the principal driver then curtailing CO2 emissions would moderate rising temperatures and this might be worth doing. If CO2 is not the principal driver then curtailing emissions (an expensive proposition) is not worth doing.

That sounds like my youngest sister in both ways. She finally grew up and is now a nurse. Earlier, she managed to marry 2 drunks and had 2 nephews, one from each drunk. My parents had to pay out to keep a roof over her head. They did it for the nephews' sake. She's sort of married now with her 3rd husband. They're married but live in 2 separate houses. Strange...
She has the job thing down, but other obligations I learned at age 16 like filing a tax return by April 15th still elude her.

Yes, when I tell my story I find that I am far from alone. Lots and lots of my peers have dysfunctional relatives.

The other one is growing mushrooms (no, not the "funny ones". ). I've turned one of my bathrooms into a mushroom farm. I have 2 5 gallon pails with coffee grounds. The oyster mushrooms I planted in the grounds are fruiting. I also have 2 bags of hay with pink oyster mushrooms that came in yesterday. They should fruit within 14 days. I also have a Reishi mushroom thats doing quite well. When I head up to Oklahoma, I'll be planting mushrooms on the farm as well. Essentially, I'm adding an extra step to the compost process I've been using. Instead of just putting pecan shells and other crap into the compost heap, I'm going to use them to grow mushrooms. I still get the compost, but I get a bonus of edible mushrooms with the new method. I suppose "getting back to the garden" in a literal sense would qualify for Boomerness on my end.

A scientist I knew in grad school was working on cultivating Shitake mushrooms on sawdust and other wood waste. I don't know what became of his research.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Just think of the things I wrote as nodes in my logic tree in regard to the climate change hypothesis. The intent is to clean up my logic tree, so to speak. I know it sounds strange, but INTP's which is denoted in my .sig go off and do stuff like that all of the time. If there's some sort of error in detail (a node) it has to be discarded as bad data. It's the "garbage in/garbage out" sort of thing.

I'm another INTP, so that I understand. Mike cleaned up a few things I was tempted to clean up in your terms dictionary. The remaining problem I have is that you are over simplifying the system, in my opinion. I'll make another attempt at a simple verbal model functional enough for lay discussion.

The Earth is not a closed system. Energy comes in, primarily in the form of visible sunlight. Energy goes out, primarily in the form of IR radiation. The warmer an object gets, the more radiation it produces. (Get a object hot enough, the radiation moves from the IR spectrum to the visible spectrum. Thus, an object can will first get 'red hot,' then 'white hot' as it is heated.) If there is more energy coming in than going out, the Earth will get warmer. If there is more energy going out than coming in, the Earth will get cooler.

There are many factors that can change the amount of energy coming in or going out. Any single one of them is fairly straight forward. The problem is balancing the relative importance of each of them. The 'Fundamental Mechanisms' or 'forcing factors' include...

• Variations in intensity of the sun's light.
• Greenhouse gasses absorbing IR radiation leaving Earth, converting light energy to heat energy in the process.
• Soot from factories and/or volcanoes stimulating cloud formation, causing incoming energy to be reflected back to space.
• Variations in Earth's orbit and in the angle of the Earths axis relative to the solar system's ecliptic.
• Glaciation, the forming or melting of white ice which reflects energy back into space.
• The position of the continents, which among other things can enable or block the formation of polar ice.
• The position of the Solar system within the galaxy, which can effect the amount of cosmic rays, which can effect the amount of cloud coverage.

One observation is that the climate is always changing. Even setting aside man made effects, there are 11 year variations in solar sunlight intensity, constant shifting of the Earth's orbit, volcanoes emitting soot and CO2, etc... There is no 'normal.'

A second is that there is no single dominant effect. Attempts to focus on any one forcing factor will leave out far more than they include. One might with some reasonable accuracy say that solar forcing dominated the 50 year time span from 1900 to 1950, and that man made emissions dominated from 1950 to present. Still, if one really wants to understand climate change, one shouldn't try to focus in on one element to the exclusion of all others.

But if one cares only about the current question, the alleged human caused global warming via greenhouse, one can dismiss factors which change with glacial slowness. Oops. Sorry. The glaciers are melting too fast to be dismissed. One can eliminate factors that move orders of magnitude slower than glaciers. The continents don't move significantly in a period of centuries. The Earth's orbit doesn't significantly shift. The sun's position in the galaxy is essentially the same.

To me, the single most important data set is pan evaporation. In order to judge how much to irrigate crops, farmers measure how much moisture evaporates into the atmosphere. Thus, they put out pans of water, and sees how much evaporates. If one has the associated temperature and humidity data, this is a pretty darn good measure of how much energy is coming in. The pan evaporation data includes the combined effects of variation in solar strength and the amount of cloud cover, and thus both soot and cosmic ray factors. Thus, if one collects the farmer's data, one has a huge data base saying less light is reaching the Earth's surface than 50 years ago. Global dimming is measurably present, at least at latitudes where farmers are irrigating crops.

And yet, while less light is getting into the system, the temperature is going up. Thus, the net reduction in energy coming in is definitely being offset by other factors. There are two major candidates. Polar ice is measurably melting, reflecting less energy back into space. Greenhouse gasses are measurably increasing.

Of these two factors, glaciation acts as an amplifier of other factors. If temperature is going up, glaciers melt, which pushes temperature up. If temperature is going down, glaciers spread, which pushes temperature down. As the temperature is currently going up, this implies that the greenhouse effect is at present more potent than the combined global dimming effects as measured by the pan evaporation data.

As an INTP, this seems to be the simplest reduction of the system possible for a basic understanding. Increasing greenhouse effect holding outgoing IR radiation push towards warm. Incoming energy variations whose net effects can be picked up by pan evaporation are pushing towards cold. Glaciation amplifies the effects of the difference between the above two. Then there are the very very slow effects that can be discarded when making forecasts over a period of decades or centuries.

The primary 'skeptic' arguments are that recent warmth is caused by increased solar strength, or by changes in cosmic ray intensity resulting in less cloud cover. Thus, the warming is allegedly caused by more energy reaching Earth. Thing is, both solar strength and cosmic rays can be directly measured. The direct data shows both these allegations by the 'skeptics' to be false. Also, if either of these factors or both in combination were driving global warming, the pan evaporation data should show more energy reaching Earth, not less. The pan evaporation data is conclusive in saying global warming since 1950 is not caused by additional energy coming in. That leaves something holding heat in, or tin foil hat stuff.

The next step, making things just a bit more complicated, would be including the temperature triggered 'tipping point' factors. As permafrost melts, it will release methane, a greenhouse gas. This is already starting to happen. If the global climate gets about 2 degrees C warmer, the Antarctic ice cap has historically melted, which historically has caused another jump of 4 or 5 degrees C.

Thus, the G8 is proposing a goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C. Thus, the setting of this altruistic goal without making a commitment to actually make it happen could be construed as playing with fire. They are right on the hairy edge of losing the Antarctic ice cap. It is sort of climate brinksmanship.

On the other hand, the sun has been near the maximum output for a while. It is apt to start down at some point. We also haven't had a really big volcanic soot storm in a while. (Mount Saint Helens was small stuff in comparison to some of the historical explosions.) Some mountain or another could blow up, giving us a few cold years. There are definitely unknown factors that could come into play. It just seems irresponsible to count on it.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I see. I was wrong, the treehugger descriptor doesn't apply to your position. Sorry for the mistake.

No prob.

Yes they can and it's been done. Where you you suppose the data in all those graphs Bob posts comes from?

Hmmm... I clicked on Bob's website and didn't see the data. I'm sure it's around someplace, but I don't know where to access the information.
Perhaps either Bob or yourself can tell me where it is.

Actually the dispute is not over whether temperatures and CO2 are rising or that CO2 can cause higher temperatures. The question is whether it is CO2 or something else that is the principal cause of the current warming. If CO2 is the principal driver then curtailing CO2 emissions would moderate rising temperatures and this might be worth doing. If CO2 is not the principal driver then curtailing emissions (an expensive proposition) is not worth doing.

Thanks. That clarifies the discussion point.

A scientist I knew in grad school was working on cultivating Shitake mushrooms on sawdust and other wood waste. I don't know what became of his research.

The substrate ("mushroom food") is correct as long as it's not softwood, like pine or cedar. He just has to sterilize it in an autoclave and then seed it with spawn (mushroom mycelium). This can be easy or hard. Making your own spawn is a real chore since you need to have a "clean room" with HEPA filters and all that stuff. I just buy my spawn for now. I just started growing the things this year, so I'm doing the easy stuff first for practice.
First, I bought some spawn and seeded some used Starbucks coffee grounds as such:

http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...3Image0006.jpg
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...cks_Oyster.jpg
(The yellowish piles in the second photo are the beginnings of the actual mushrooms.

Next,
http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...ket_oyster.jpg
Being the ever curious INTP I am, I wondered what would happen if I planted some stems of oyster mushrooms I bought the store would do. The more agressive strains tend to make a bunch of fuzz in the store containers. They'll eat the dead parts of themselves while in storage. From the picture, it appears that I can just plant the things in used coffee grounds and they'll take off. (The white stuff on the bottom right is where they took off. )

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm another INTP, so that I understand. Mike cleaned up a few things I was tempted to clean up in your terms dictionary. The remaining problem I have is that you are over simplifying the system, in my opinion. I'll make another attempt at a simple verbal model functional enough for lay discussion.

<snip for brevity>
Don't sweat it. My interest in this subject lies in a functional aspect of farming. A simple example is I can choose cultivars of pecan trees which are suited to a certain climate. So, if (on average) the climate of where my farm lies shifts, then I need to adjust which cultivar to select based on that. I'm sure, I'll graft the nodes you've outlined onto mine. Like I mentioned to Mike I'm no expert on this topic, but as a farmer, the results thereof are of course important.

As an INTP, this seems to be the simplest reduction of the system possible for a basic understanding. Increasing greenhouse effect holding outgoing IR radiation push towards warm. Incoming energy variations whose net effects can be picked up by pan evaporation are pushing towards cold. Glaciation amplifies the effects of the difference between the above two. Then there are the very very slow effects that can be discarded when making forecasts over a period of decades or centuries.

FWIW, don't sweat the post length either. The subject of climate change hardly lends itself to a soundbyte like discussion.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Hmmm... I clicked on Bob's website and didn't see the data. I'm sure it's around someplace, but I don't know where to access the information.

Perhaps either Bob or yourself can tell me where it is.

Yes. I haven't put up a global warming page on my own site. I've lots of other stuff, but haven't felt inspired to do a global warming thing yet.

Most of the images I pull in are from Wikipedia's Global Warming Art collection. If you follow the images back to the Wiki articles that reference the images, you will find decent reviews of the orthodox global warming position.

If you visit the a good local garden center, they may also have temperature zone charts intended to suggest what plants belong in what climate zones. Alas, there is an ongoing controversy, resulting in at least two versions of the charts. The government charts are based on averaging out many decades of climate, and thus do not show as much warming effect as some of the private gardening organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png

We could be facing temperatures as warm as those from 5.5 to 3 million years ago. That would mean no arctic sea ice in the summer and the Greenland ice sheets would melt, that would take a while.

You have to remember rises in temperature aren't uniform, for example the tropics do not warm up very much, while the polar regions warm up a lot.

Originally Posted by Tristan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ate_Change.png

We could be facing temperatures as warm as those from 5.5 to 3 million years ago. That would mean no arctic sea ice in the summer and the Greenland ice sheets would melt, that would take a while.

You have to remember rises in temperature aren't uniform, for example the tropics do not warm up very much, while the polar regions warm up a lot.

IIRC, the Greenland ice core taken a little while back demonstrates that the CO2 level bounced between 180 and 290 ppm for the past 600,000 years (which is as far back as the ice core went). Once the Holocene got fully settled it bounced around in the 260's up until the Industrial Revolution. Around 1870 it started to rise, and really picked up after 1950. Today it stands at 390 ppm and rising fast.

Present theory as I understand it states that the CO2 level has been dropping long term since 40 mya when India slammed into Asia and the South Pacific plate slammed into South America creating the Himilayas and Andes respectively. This increased surface area leading to more carbon scrubbing of the atmosphere.

Since we entered the current Ice Ages period around 1.8 million years ago, I would think it's safe to assume that CO2 levels dropped below a critical threshold at that time allowing the Milankovitch cycles to dominate our climate. Since the Pleistocene up to 600,000 years ago remained within the a pretty stable range, it's not outlandish to assume it was in that range for the entire epoch (i.e., up to 1.8 mya).

Therefore, it seems entirely reasonable to me to assume that we now are experiencing CO2 levels not seen since the time frame you mentioned above -- i.e., prior to 1.6 mya.

Your link about sediment cores is very interesting. Thank you for that.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

IIRC, the Greenland ice core taken a little while back demonstrates that the CO2 level bounced between 180 and 290 ppm for the past 600,000 years (which is as far back as the ice core went). Once the Holocene got fully settled it bounced around in the 260's up until the Industrial Revolution. Around 1870 it started to rise, and really picked up after 1950. Today it stands at 390 ppm and rising fast.

Before the industral revolution humans activity contributed an extra 20 ppm of CO2 into the amosphere, like clearing forests, livestock, farming.

Present theory as I understand it states that the CO2 level has been dropping long term since 40 mya when India slammed into Asia and the South Pacific plate slammed into South America creating the Himilayas and Andes respectively. This increased surface area leading to more carbon scrubbing of the atmosphere.

That is pretty much present theory, mountain building takes carbon out of the amosphere, they recently discovered the first major freezing of antartica back around was a result of dropping C02 levels not sea current changes.

Originally Posted by Tristan

Before the industral revolution humans activity contributed an extra 20 ppm of CO2 into the amosphere, like clearing forests, livestock, farming.



That is pretty much present theory, mountain building takes carbon out of the amosphere, they recently discovered the first major freezing of antartica back around was a result of dropping C02 levels not sea current changes.

CO2 levels and global temperatures were both decreasing throughout the Eocene (the result of the formation of the Himalayas and Rockies IIRC), resulting in some glacier formation on Antarctica. Then at the end of the Eocene Antarctica separated from South America and ice cap formation accelerated rapidly. When the ice sheet reached the sea it starting the chilling of the deep ocean and thus triggered the abrupt shift from a Greenhouse to an Icehouse climate at the end of the Eocene.

So both the decrease in CO2 levels and tectonic changes played a part.

I've just come across a couple of articles of interest how the drastic warming of the earth's climate to around 13C warmer than today, might have been caused by a massive increase in methane, ozone and nitrous oxide levels, while CO2 levels were about the same as today. In the past 200 years methane levels have doubled.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210163439.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...258655,00.html

Originally Posted by Tristan

I've just come across a couple of articles of interest how the drastic warming of the earth's climate to around 13C warmer than today, might have been caused by a massive increase in methane, ozone and nitrous oxide levels, while CO2 levels were about the same as today. In the past 200 years methane levels have doubled.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1210163439.htm
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...258655,00.html

The Science Daily article mentions features the "Late Paleocene Thermal Maximum (LPTM)." This is shown on the Wiki climate charts as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). These are just two names for the same event, a very warm period causing the extinction event at the Paleocene Eocene border.

The temperature got much warmer before the methane held in clathrates on the ocean floor released. That is not apt to happen again without another 10 degrees C of warming or so. However, a large release of methane from thawing tundra permafrost is already starting to happen at current temperature levels. The concern for gasses other than CO2 should be real.