My understanding is that there is a positive feedback relationship between CO2 and temperature. If either one goes up, the other tends to follow. If for some unrelated reason the temperature rises, the sea temperature rises, the sea cannot hold as much CO2, CO2 is released from the sea to the air, which causes the air temperature to rise.

It works in the other direction too. If the temperature drops, the sea absorbs CO2, which causes the temperature to drop.

The Milankovitch cycles are one of the more common triggers that might start a swing in temperature. Changes in the Earth's orbit will start a temperature shift, but the amount of shift will be amplified by the CO2 change that results from the initial nudge. Thus, if the initial temperature swing is caused by an forcing factor other than CO2, there will be a lag where CO2 shifts slightly after temperature.

However, sometime the initial trigger is CO2. Some volcanoes will belch a lot of CO2. Human burning will belch a lot of CO2. In such cases, the CO2 will lead the temperature.

There are a lot of forcing factors. It's a bit simplistic to focus on only one or two in a given discussion, but it happens a lot.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I assume the the difference is singular vs. plural, since there are different types of light.

His "point" is that that CO2 has special light absorbing property which should allow heat in, but not escape.

Look, if you are going to pretend to understand the science could you at least try to pretend to use the vocabulary properly.

CO2 does not allow "heat" in. It does not absorb light at the frequencies that it is coming in from the sun. When that light is absorbed by water, soil, or photosynthesizers it is converted into other forms of energy, including heat. Eventually, the energy leaves our planet as light again only now the frequencies are much lower. Those lower energy photons can be and are absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules. When the molecules re-emit the photons, they do so in random directions which means some of this radiative heat energy gets sent back to the surface of the planet.

However, that does not explain why CO2 often seems to rise, while the temperature drops, while CO2 drops, and the temperature rises, which is probably why he answered my question with a question.

Is increased air temperature the only place thermal energy can "go" in our planet's thermal system? Is carbon dioxide the only factor that determines global temperature? Does your inability to answer the questions show everyone else that you are just full of hot air?

Got any other uninformed, denier claptrap to share?

-Joys of the internet. I don't Vandal would be a unique case, but again, I think he's (?) just using the plural.

Yeah, didn't catch the mistake in editing. Should have been spectrum.

...so after two paragraphs, you agree with me, after disagreeing with me. Homoglobal warming is short for anthropogenic global warming. Homo is shorter. Get over it.

It's also a "cute" way to denigrate the concept without having to actually address the facts by making an "innocent" use of a term that has a homonym that is often slang for gay bashing.

i don't buy it and I'm not interested in your deal to sell me the Brooklyn Bridge either.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-No. Operative word was "often" (which in hindsight, I'd modify to "sometimes"). That would mean that there is neither a consistent direct or indirect relationship between an increase in CO2 and a rise or drop in pressure. AS for that being "not true", you yourself seem to agree that if there is a relationship, that it a succeeding one, but that does not mean that there is any preceding one.

Man, is there any denier line you haven't swallowed?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Look, if you are going to pretend to understand the science could you at least try to pretend to use the vocabulary properly.

CO2 does not allow "heat" in. It does not absorb light at the frequencies that it is coming in from the sun. When that light is absorbed by water, soil, or photosynthesizers it is converted into other forms of energy, including heat. Eventually, the energy leaves our planet as light again only now the frequencies are much lower. Those lower energy photons can be and are absorbed by carbon dioxide molecules. When the molecules re-emit the photons, they do so in random directions which means some of this radiative heat energy gets sent back to the surface of the planet.

Nice work. Carbon dioxide allows sunlight in from the visible spectrum and absorbs infrared radiation, preventing its escape. It changes the balance of energy to favor a higher air temperature. Water vapor does much the same but with an even stronger effect, and as temperatures rise, the atmosphere can hold much more water vapor.

It's also a "cute" way to denigrate the concept without having to actually address the facts by making an "innocent" use of a term that has a homonym that is often slang for gay bashing.

Good work on a piece of work!

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Man, is there any denier line you haven't swallowed?

JDG sorts data based on his acceptance of the source as valid. We all do that, of course, so it's hard to criticize on that level. That the source is suitable to Mr Glick is enough. I hope the rest of us also demand that the material is, in fact, true. Being right for the wrong reasons is better than being wrong for any reason ... but not much.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

JDG sorts data based on his acceptance of the source as valid. We all do that, of course, so it's hard to criticize on that level. That the source is suitable to Mr Glick is enough. I hope the rest of us also demand that the material is, in fact, true. Being right for the wrong reasons is better than being wrong for any reason ... but not much.

Being right for the wrong reason is simple luck. Some seer who predicts both a July blizzard in Louisiana and the Kennedy assassination in 1963 lacked common sense on the first but was lucky (if we were unlucky) on the latter.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

JDG sorts data based on his acceptance of the source as valid. We all do that, of course, so it's hard to criticize on that level...

1) Your statement is false, although perhaps that's because your memory is, well, faltering.

You once observed this:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The WSJ has an axe to grind here... Try getting the data directly from the Social Security Administration or another government agency like the Bureau of labor Statistics or the Bureau of Economic Analysis...

....and you've done nothing but ignore the Trustees Reports, or invent cop outs which I prove to be bogus. Over and over again.

2) Care to illustrate your theory with the last time you did that?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Look, if you are going to pretend to understand the science could you at least try to pretend to use the vocabulary properly.

CO2 does not allow "heat" in. It does not absorb light at the frequencies that it is coming in from the sun...

-Very nice. The end result of which is something called the layman calls "HEAT."

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... Yeah, didn't catch the mistake in editing. Should have been spectrum...

-Correction: "Yeah, I didn't catch the mistake in editing, you did. It should have been spectrum."

So, I point out to Justin that your error was one of terminology rather than one of scientific understanding, put I'm ignorant and you're a know-it-all.

But thanks for acting like a pompous a$$.

Good theories result in good predictive models. Show me a model, based on homoglobowarming, which accurately forecast weather, allowing a reasonable level of variability. That would be, say, more accurate than an astrological prediction.

Until then, you're full of hot air.

So to speak.

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

... It's also a "cute" way to denigrate the concept without having to actually address the facts by making an "innocent" use of a term that has a homonym that is often slang for gay bashing...

-To which PBR replied:

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

... Good work on a piece of work!

...which sort of implies that he finds the term "homoglobowarming" offensive under all circumstances, and feels the need to point that out at all times, not just when he's arguing with someone he disagrees with.

Ahem:

http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...Global-Warming

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

To date nobody has a fully-satisfying explanation of the causes of the cycles within the Ice Age. About ten million years from now when Africa slams into Eurasia and thrusts the Mediterranean seabed into a range of mountains resembling the Himalayas, only broader and perhaps higher, we might have glaciation as far south as Raleigh, Dallas, and San Francisco... it only got as far as New York City, Louisville, and Seattle the worst so far.

That might be a good time to have colonized some other planet; there won't be enough to feed even the current cat population, let alone us.

...you didn't mention having a problem with the term back then. Huh. It's only now that you pretend to take offense.

Whatever.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Very nice. The end result of which is something called the layman calls "HEAT."

So, we should discuss the science of climatology but only use layman definitions? Straight out of the creationist/denier handbook. No thanks.

-Correction: "Yeah, I didn't catch the mistake in editing, you did. It should have been spectrum."

So, I point out to Justin that your error was one of terminology rather than one of scientific understanding, put I'm ignorant and you're a know-it-all.

But thanks for acting like a pompous a$$.

Says the guy who claims that visible light input to the planet from the sun is "heat".

Good theories result in good predictive models. Show me a model, based on homoglobowarming, which accurately forecast weather, allowing a reasonable level of variability. That would be, say, more accurate than an astrological prediction.

Show me who in the climatology sciences claims that climate and weather are the same thing. You do know that they are not the same thing right?

Until then, you're full of hot air.

So to speak.

So says the denier.

I find this disturbing.

Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting


WASHINGTON (AP) — Efforts to curb global warming have quietly shifted as greenhouse gases inexorably rise.
The conversation is no longer solely about how to save the planet by cutting carbon emissions. It's becoming more about how to save ourselves from the warming planet's wild weather.

http://news.yahoo.com/climate-talk-s...3BtaA--;_ylv=3

Originally Posted by Deb C

I find this disturbing.

Climate talk shifts from curbing CO2 to adapting

Well you should, but the political reality is that CO2 isn't being cut, while the scientific reality is that there will be consequences.

ETOM Quote of the Day:
“We're in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone's arguing over where they're going to sit.” - David Suzuki

Wow, I guess when a nation gets a full "dose" of nuclear power, it can make the decision to do the right thing. Good for them! Do Americans have to wait for their own Fukushima?

Originally Posted by Vandal-72

Man, is there any denier line you haven't swallowed?

He's got them all archived.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Wow, I guess when a nation gets a full "dose" of nuclear power, it can make the decision to do the right thing. Good for them! Do Americans have to wait for their own Fukushima?

Except that the power they are discussing for solar is peak capacity, which is rarely achieved and never at night. Solar is a surge source, and one on its own schedule. That doesn't make it bad, but it doesn't make it adequate either. Base load power is the holy grail of energy generation, and using intemittent sources as substitutes is a fool's errand. The only fully natural and reliable source that meets the definition of base load power is geothermal. Even tidal power is inadequate.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Except that the power they are discussing for solar is peak capacity, which is rarely achieved and never at night. Solar is a surge source, and one on its own schedule. That doesn't make it bad, but it doesn't make it adequate either. Base load power is the holy grail of energy generation, and using intemittent sources as substitutes is a fool's errand. The only fully natural and reliable source that meets the definition of base load power is geothermal. Even tidal power is inadequate.

Geothermal has the unfortunate quality of only being available to limited areas. IE those places where volcanic activity can be harnessed close to the surface. As such a different method is required--for that method I would propose nuclear fission.



Yes its been dumbed down for the average idiot.

From Avaaz. This is why we can't dither around saying we can't convert to renewable energy, and get on about doing it.

Dear Avaaz community,

Scientist Igor Semiletov has sailed the Russian arctic ocean for years checking for small plumes of dangerous Methane gas. He's mapped many of these meters-wide plumes, emitting gas 20 times more damaging to our climate than carbon dioxide. But on his last trip, as he came across the first plume, he couldn't believe it. It was a KILOMETER wide. A vast column of gas spewing into our atmosphere. He sailed on and found another a kilometer wide, and another, and another. Hundreds of them.

Scientists are investigating, but this could be what experts warned us about. As the earth warms, it creates many "tipping points" that accelerate the warming out of control. Warming thaws the Arctic sea ice and permafrost, releasing millions of tons of Methane gas, which massively accelerates warming, which warms the Arctic more, and so on. We spin out of control. Already this year -- storms, temperatures -- everything is off the charts.

We CAN stop this, if we act very fast, and all together. And out of this extinction nightmare, we can pull one of the most inspiring futures for our children and grandchildren. A clean, green future in balance with the earth that gave birth to us.

We have 30 months until the Paris Summit, the meeting that world leaders have decided will determine the fate of our efforts to fight climate change. It might seem like a long time - it's not. We have 30 months to get the right leaders in power, get them to that meeting, give them a plan, and hold them accountable. And it's us vs. the oil companies, and fatalism. We can win, we must, but we need to blast out of the starting gate with 50,000 pledges of support -- we'll only process the donations if we hit our goal. For the world we dream of, let's make it happen:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/30_month...eviCbb&v=25974

Fatalism on climate change is not just futile, it's also incompetent. The hour is late, but it is still absolutely within our power to stop this catastrophe, simply by shifting our economies from oil and coal to other sources of power. And doing so will bring the world together like never before, in a deep commitment and cooperation to protect our planetary home. It's a beautiful possibility, and the kind of future Avaaz was born to create.

Facing this challenge will take heart, and hope, and also all the smarts we have. Here's the plan:

1. Go Political: Elect Climate Leaders -- 5 crucial countries have elections in the next 30 months. Let's make sure the right people win, and with the right mandate. Avaaz is one of the only major global advocacy organizations that can be political. Charities can't be political because of the kind of tax breaks they get from governments, but we can. And since this fight will be won or lost politically, it could be at some points just us vs. the oil companies to decide who our politicians listen to.

2. Make Hollande a Hero -- French President Francois Hollande will chair the Paris summit - a powerful position. We have to try every tactic and channel -- his personal friends and family, his political constituency, his policy advisors -- to make him the hero we need him to be to make the summit a success.

3. Take it to the Next Level -- The scale of this crisis demands action that goes beyond regular campaigning. It's time for powerful, direct, non-violent action, to capture imagination, convey moral urgency, and inspire people to act. Think Occupy.


4. Out the Spoilers -- Billionaires like the Koch brothers and their oil companies are the major spoilers in climate change - funding junk science to confuse us and spending millions on misleading PR, while buying politicians wholesale. With investigative journalism and more, we need to expose and counter their horrifically irresponsible actions.

5. Define the Deal -- Even in the face of planetary catastrophe, 195 governments in a room can be just incompetent. We need to invest in top quality policy advice to develop ingenious strategies, mechanisms, and careful compromises so that when the summit arrives, a critical mass of leaders are already bought in to a large part of the deal, and no one can claim that good solutions don't exist.

We need 50,000 of us to pledge small donations to blast out of the starting gate on this plan. The amount doesn't matter as much as much as the choice - to hope, and to act:

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/30_month...eviCbb&v=25974

At the last major climate summit in Copenhagen 2009, we played a pivotal role in German and Japanese 'climate' elections, in shifting Brazilian policy, and in helping win a major global deal on financing, with rich countries promising $100 billion per year to poor countries to help them address climate change. Back then, Avaaz was 3 million people. After Copenhagen, we reflected that we needed to be a lot bigger to meet the challenge posed by climate change. Now, we're 22 million, and growing by 1 million per month.

Climate change is the ultimate global collective action problem, requiring cooperation from every government in the world. And Avaaz is the ultimate collective action solution, with millions of us united in common vision across every nation. This is our time, to build a world for our children that’s beauty matches our dreams. Let's get started.

With hope and appreciation for this amazing community,

Ricken and the entire Avaaz team


MORE INFORMATION:

Scientists Close in on the Cause of Arctic Methane Leaks (Climate Central)
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/s...ne-leaks-15090

NASA warns Arctic thaw could have huge impact on global warming (The Verge)
http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/12/44...rbon-emissions

Five Reasons We Need a New Global Agreement on Climate Change by 2015 (Switchboard NRDC)
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/js...a_new_glo.html

The Doha climate talks were a start, but 2015 will be the moment of truth (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...global-warming

Vast methane 'plumes' seen in Arctic ocean as sea ice retreats (The Independent)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...s-6276278.html

Note -- there is a debate in the scientific community about the scale and significance of the methane plumes, as there is about a number of alarming developments in climate science, and has been in the past about issues like the loss of arctic sea ice. As it has for decades, the scientific community as a whole is moving conservatively, slowly embracing a gradually more and more alarming consensus as evidence rules out other possibilities. But the vast majority agree, with many desperately trying to the get our societies to understand, that we are facing catastrophic threats unless we act.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Except that the power they are discussing for solar is peak capacity, which is rarely achieved and never at night. Solar is a surge source, and one on its own schedule. That doesn't make it bad, but it doesn't make it adequate either. Base load power is the holy grail of energy generation, and using intemittent sources as substitutes is a fool's errand. The only fully natural and reliable source that meets the definition of base load power is geothermal. Even tidal power is inadequate.

Solar plants and even solar panels and the grids they feed into have storage capacity and batteries. I don't get why the resistance from the "solar doesn't operate at night" and "intermittent sources" stuff. 100 sq mi of solar will meet our needs. That means even accounting for the sun not being out at night, etc. A grid can be fed from various sources; when one is not operating, others are.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

Geothermal has the unfortunate quality of only being available to limited areas. IE those places where volcanic activity can be harnessed close to the surface. As such a different method is required--for that method I would propose nuclear fission...

The original discussion was about Japan, which sits on volcanic islands Geothermal should be a no brainer there. On thorium as a reactor fuel, it's far from new, yet it never takes hold. The molten core technology has only been tried once, and not with thorium. In short, it's developmental, so no one is about to try it unless they need the technology, since uranium-based reactors have a long track record already. It's a case of victory by inertia.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Solar plants and even solar panels and the grids they feed into have storage capacity and batteries. I don't get why the resistance from the "solar doesn't operate at night" and "intermittent sources" stuff. 100 sq mi of solar will meet our needs. That means even accounting for the sun not being out at night, etc. A grid can be fed from various sources; when one is not operating, others are.

The simple answer is storage. We don't have it, and won't for a long time if ever. Worse, demand at night may rise as electric cars move into garages for recharge. We can't geo-shift either. Using sunlight in Australia to power the US at night, and vice versa, will never be feasible for so many reasons it isn't worth considering.

Where solar makes sense, we should use as much as we can. It may even have a place in a high-temperature bio-fuel cycle of some sort. If so, then it will be closer to base load. But for now and the forseeable future, it just isn't.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The original discussion was about Japan, which sits on volcanic islands Geothermal should be a no brainer there. On thorium as a reactor fuel, it's far from new, yet it never takes hold. The molten core technology has only been tried once, and not with thorium. In short, it's developmental, so no one is about to try it unless they need the technology, since uranium-based reactors have a long track record already. It's a case of victory by inertia.

In the case of Japan I would think that if geothermal energy was easily accessible, which on the islands which have the most population it isn't that the Japanese would have already been using it. They could perhaps build a giant geothermal plant on their northern most islands which have the most volcanic activity--oh wait that means they would have to run power lines across ocean and even if that were doable they'd lose half of the electricity anyway.

Instead they've gone the soild state uranium route for base line power. That in itself should indicate something since Iceland had gone fully geothermal by the 1960s when most Japanese reactors were built (and having been to Japan the Japanese have a certain suspicion of nuclear energy--you know having been bombed with atomic weapons and all).

As to liquid fluoride salt solutions, yes the technology is in its infancy. It would take some development but it would also be far safer than conventional nuclear power--which we know due to those experiments in the 1960s. The main reason it hasn't been developed--particularly in relation to thorium--is because by that time many new sources of uranium had been discovered in Africa.

As to inertia, we can look to the so-called green movements for blame. It certainly isn't the bourgeoisie, there is good money to be made building reactors, mining thorium (or perhaps even more profitable processing it from rare earth metal mining slag), processing the thorium and the fluoride, oh and lets not forget---selling the electricity generated.

Originally Posted by Kinser79

In the case of Japan I would think that if geothermal energy was easily accessible, which on the islands which have the most population it isn't that the Japanese would have already been using it. They could perhaps build a giant geothermal plant on their northern most islands which have the most volcanic activity--oh wait that means they would have to run power lines across ocean and even if that were doable they'd lose half of the electricity anyway.

Having spent some time there I can attest: all of the five main islands are volcanic. Doesn’t this look volcano-like to you? It’s Mount Fuji on Honshu, and a short drive from Tokyo. It last erupted in the 1700s



So why there isn’t more geothermal is a good question.

Originally Posted by Kinser79 ...

Instead they've gone the solid state uranium route for base line power. That in itself should indicate something since Iceland had gone fully geothermal by the 1960s when most Japanese reactors were built (and having been to Japan the Japanese have a certain suspicion of nuclear energy--you know having been bombed with atomic weapons and all).

Their attitude is an odd one. I rode through Hiroshima on a train with no Americans on board except the two of us traveling together. The people on the train noticed how uncomfortable we were to even be there, so they bought us oranges and beer.

Originally Posted by Kinser79 ...

As to liquid fluoride salt solutions, yes the technology is in its infancy. It would take some development but it would also be far safer than conventional nuclear power--which we know due to those experiments in the 1960s. The main reason it hasn't been developed--particularly in relation to thorium--is because by that time many new sources of uranium had been discovered in Africa.

Even a well understood and benign unknown is worse than any known quantity, even an undesirable one. Note: not my rule.

Originally Posted by Kinser79 ...

As to inertia, we can look to the so-called green movements for blame. It certainly isn't the bourgeoisie, there is good money to be made building reactors, mining thorium (or perhaps even more profitable processing it from rare earth metal mining slag), processing the thorium and the fluoride, oh and let’s not forget---selling the electricity generated.

Like I said: not my rule. I won’t defend the argument, since I find it stupid as well.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Having spent some time there I can attest: all of the five main islands are volcanic. Doesn’t this look volcano-like to you? It’s Mount Fuji on Honshu, and a short drive from Tokyo. It last erupted in the 1700s

I've been to Japan. Can't walk around the city of Tokyo without seeing Mt Fuji. That said, Mt. Fuji is dormant.

So why there isn’t more geothermal is a good question.

Not really, most of the volcanoes on the main Japanese islands excluding Hokkaido are either extinct, or dormant. So I'd say the reason geothermal isn't used is because there is low accesablity to it or no accessiblity to it.

Their attitude is an odd one. I rode through Hiroshima on a train with no Americans on board except the two of us traveling together. The people on the train noticed how uncomfortable we were to even be there, so they bought us oranges and beer.

I've found the Japanese to be a unique culture. They are considered to be a bit strange even by East Asian standards.

Even a well understood and benign unknown is worse than any known quantity, even an undesirable one. Note: not my rule.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Sometimes venturing into the unknown is necessary.

Like I said: not my rule. I won’t defend the argument, since I find it stupid as well.

I would say it is very stupid indeed. I cannot fathom for the life of me how it is some how "greener" to burn tons of coal and put all that crap into the atmosphere than it is to use fission power be it uranium solid state based, or any other type of fission reactor. The problem with electrical power is maintaining base load power. Other renewable sources (excluding hydro-electric which is limited to certain areas, and geothermal same thing) simply do not have that feature.

Is the technology itself dangerous? Yes. So are automobiles and air planes didn't stop us from implementing them though. In truth I would feel better powering cities with golf ball sized pieces of uranium or thorium than I would with burning tons and tons of coal. Though using LFTRs would be my preferred method. Who knows maybe would use them to decommission some of those old nukes laying about and power a city or two in the process.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

So why there isn’t more geothermal is a good question.

Why not ask one of them?

Solar thermal helps offset some of the issues with PV. Passive home heating and hot water production can be done in most places (yes, even Seattle in December) through decent design and construction practices. The production of electricity through solar thermal is perfectly feasible in warmer climes, and storage is built in. It also had the advantage of being less technically complicated than nuclear or solar PV.

Tom Murphy does a good write-up of it.