How or Why we will reverse global warming

[Devil 505]

[Brooke]

I also like this graphic from a documentary narrated by Troy McClure:

[PJ_Godzilla]

There are a number of ideas as to what this all might mean.  Far from being a reassuring phenomenon it actually could be a sign of real trouble ahead.  See links below. 


http://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2015/03/east-antarctica-melting-could-be-explained-by-oceanic-gateways

Not very reassuring or calming is it?

In summary:

•   Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
•   Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
•   Currently there are significant observational differences between East and West Antarctic.

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/warming-seas-and-melting-ice-sheets

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/12/02/the_melt_rate_of_the_amundsen_sea_embayment_in_west_antarctica_has_tripled.html

Actually, the hysteria over Totten IS a good example, just not in ways some of the warmists might like.

It all started with a desire to "find the lost heat". The hypothesis is that, since we can't show an area decrease in surface ice, then there must be a thickness decrease - and the more widespread the better - to account for heat absorption to the environment. Enter the Totten study, which has been actually able to find isolated local glacial melting of the totten glacier.

Now, the cause of the Totten melting is still uncertain, and, despite repeated attempts to get a map of their area of observation,  likely localized... but, nonetheless, I've already heard claims that the whole Eastern Ice sheet could "go unstable" and that Totten itself, when it fails, will raise sea levels by 11 ft!!!!!

Whew! Better buy some inland Georgia property. It's about to be the new beach front.

NO. The postulation about under-shelf currents causing the local melting are not proven. It could well be subterranean geothermal activity. The evidence, meanwhile, that the Antarctic eastern ice sheet is jeopardized are gross exaggerations.

My recommendation to Australia and Austin, TX is that they go apply for funding ( a certainty) for a follow-on study to ascertain the extent and cause of the Totten local issue. You could also do a corollary study on whether or not the Totten local melting was being replaced/diminished/increased by snowfall in the catchment basin or not (another unknown that was very quickly put to self-serving speculation). That's what a scientist would do.

Meanwhile, about that property... it COULD be really prescient to buy property in Southeast Georgia. It MAY end up really valuable some day.

[PJ_Godzilla]

BTW, I'll save you my usual - the trap, that is. Why? Because I only do that when i'm looking to discredit someone. This is a friendly discussion.

So, why did I state that the cause of the local Totten melting was not established? Was I in denial?

No.

Here's a quote from a UC Irvine geo guy who is studying the Totten phenomenon:
"Until we have oceanographic data, showing that there is indeed warm water coming in that way, it remains a hypothesis," Rignot said.

Such data would include measurements of the salinity and temperature of the water in the area, which could show whether warm water is following the channel, or trough, at the base of the glacier, he said."

IE, causal link not established... and, let me further state, I think his hypothesis is poor, at best. You understand that they're postulating an AGW-rooted water channel in a location with known geothermal activity and implying that global warming is the cause for the melting (sneering italics mine)... You can stop wondering why people have developed a distrust right here, if it isn't apparent.

The worst part is that the grant money flowing from the stated concern is the primer for not only additional grant money but also for expanded political influence. My take: making a little money isn't a shameful thing. It's that second part - what I call "State Entrepreneurialism" that I find disturbing. 

[bustr]

The "state" finds it is always in the position to pick winners and losers based on "opinion" alone. The factor that the scientific rational the "state" is picking winners from is at this time only "opinion" matters not to the "state" or "states". The "opinion" supports what the "state" wants the outcome to be for themselves.

The scientists will keep producing that opinion and it's derivatives as long as they keep getting paid. Along with all the ancillary industries creating tools and equipment can also ply their trades and create new technology for the scientists to generate "opinions". And the "state" will help make their "opinions" mainstream by ignoring other "opinions" that do not support their goals. Many "states" have assumed a great deal of control over the lives of their citizens in a short period of time without a world war, by the canard of an emergency no one might see until 2100.

Between global warming and state interests in the outcomes of that research industry and the internet. The truth no longer matters for something that might happen by 2100.

[NatCigg]

a scientist will speak his mind. always has, always will.  some will be greedy but a scientist is just a scientist.  The politicians will speak to maintain votes, spend money and make policy to justify his position.  This global warming situation is scary because it is a runaway train when politicians are acting as scientists. A true scientist will admit the shortcomings of their knowledge, and hopefully refrain from causing undue harm to people.  although some scientists would like to see most humans go extinct to save a tree.  A middle road should be found, and I would guess it will be found, and is being found.  most likely a result of free world wealth and rights mixed with public regulation and education.

[ghi]

I like surfing  this website treehugger.com,  it's fun they bring up all kind of environmental friendly inventions and products but many are sick and useless. Today this off the grid (off pipe) toilet was presented,  looks like a regular one hooked to an oven with transparent door, so we can watch not to overcook our baked alaska.
It's time to bring composting toilets home"


http://www.treehugger.com/bathroom-design/its-time-bring-composting-toilets-home.html

[bustr]

And global warming reduction is so altruistic of an endeavor by governments and companies. It is about picking winners and losers. The opinions of scientists in accord with governments are noise to hide the actions of governments taking advantage of the opinions they like. And companies make a profit by leveraging the government rigged markets.

http://spectator.org/articles/64473/tesla%E2%80%99s-manipulated-market

[SysError]

(Here is Take Two).

Higher CO2 Impact on Crops

Short Version.

CO2 is Plant Food, More Is Good.
Climate change denialists and/or skeptics say that an increase in CO2 levels is not a bad thing.  For example they point out that CO2 is plant food and that if CO2 levels rise that increase will result in an increase in crop yields.

There is actually evidence for this point of view.   Indoor greenhouse laboratory experiments have for decades shown that an increase in CO2 does it fact result in an increased crop yield.  While results show a very wide range of results based on numerous factors, an increase of CO2 levels by ~ 200ppm (the CO2 value used by experiments varies) on average can result in about a 25% increase in crop yields.  There are other benefits from higher CO2 levels including more efficient water usage by plants.

Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE
http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2859.full

These factors, plus the ability of agro business to develop GMO plants for any eventuality, will mean that rising CO2 levels are nothing to be concerned about, and in fact, some go on to say that if CO2 levels were to rise then that would be a welcome development.


Increasing CO2 Will Increase Global Food Insecurity
Climate Change Believers say this view of increasing CO2 levels is overly simplistic, very misleading and ultimately dangerous.  Rises in CO2 levels, in addition to many other negative impacts, will bring about a sustained period of global food insecurity.

They first point out that even without Climate Change, the world needs about a 1% annual increase in rice crops just to meet current population growth.

Then they point out that the indoor greenhouse laboratory experiments, while conducted appropriately, are not realistic and that the data from open air experiments with increased CO2 indicate troubling findings.  Open air experiments, for example, while showing a very wide range of results based on numerous factors, point out that real world data shows the expected increases in crop yields are about 50% too high.  In other words, instead of a 25% increase in crop yields, the most one could expect if you only controlled for CO2 would be 12.5%.

Food for Thought: Lower-Than Expected Crop Yield Stimulation with Rising CO2 Concentrations
https://www.bnl.gov/face/pdfs/Long_2006.pdf



Other issues include:

•   Certain crops grown with increased CO2 levels are less nutritious.
Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Inhibits Nitrate Assimilation in Wheat and Arabidopsis
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5980/899.abstract

•   In some cases, where some plants exhibit promising bursts of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects are brief and short lived.
Plants Won’t Help Fight Global Warming As Much As We’d Thought; A long-running experiment has found that more carbon dioxide does not necessarily mean more plant growth
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/plants-wont-help-fight-global-warming-as-much-as-wed-thought-57646253/?no-ist=

•   The projections in possible crop yields do not account for the wide range of results based on simple factors.
Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0168192386900547

•   Related to this is that there will be severe challenges as current bread baskets degenerate (one case being the USA corn belt) while currently seasonally limited areas will see a vast improvement for crop growth  (one case being the area of the former USSR).
Prioritizing Climate Change Adaptation Needs for Food Security in 2030
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/319/5863/607.short

•   With rising CO2 levels we will see rising temperatures and that on balance we will see a collection of plants requiring more water to grow than now.
Maintenance of Leaf Temperature and the Optimisation of Carbon Gain in Relation to Water Loss in a Tropical Mangrove Forest
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/PP9880263.htm
A general relationship between CO2-induced reductions in stomatal conductance and concomitant increases in foliage temperature
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/009884729390047J

•   Also rising temperatures would favor the growth of the pest population.
Insects Take A Bigger Bite Out Of Plants In A Higher Carbon Dioxide World
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080324173612.htm
Anthropogenic increase in carbon dioxide compromises plant defense against invasive insects
http://www.life.illinois.edu/delucia/PUBLICATIONS/April%202008%20pub.pdf


There are many more issues that that come about with higher CO2 levels, (i.e. ozone issues), but I think that the above shows some of the concerns because of Climate Change.

What could all of this mean as far as say the pentagon is concerned?
 
DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change
http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710

The Pentagon & Climate Change: How Deniers Put National Security at Risk; The leaders of our armed forces know what's coming next -
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-pentagon-climate-change-how-climate-deniers-put-national-security-at-risk-20150212


Long Version.
Argh…..  above should do it.

[FLS]

That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.

I'm also encouraged that NASA finally figured out that while they put a man on the moon in the 60's they were unable to accurately measure temperatures on Earth. Those mistakes have been corrected and have eliminated the cooling trend that had climatologists worried about global cooling in the 70's.

[SysError]

That's convincing evidence that the military does what the commander in chief tells them to do.

I guess that that is why the CIA just stopped providing climate data to scientists.   
The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program

I'm also encouraged that NASA finally figured out that while they put a man on the moon in the 60's they were unable to accurately measure temperatures on Earth. Those mistakes have been corrected and have eliminated the cooling trend that had climatologists worried about global cooling in the 70's.

"Global cooling" in the 1970s was Time and Newsweek trying to sell copy.  I guess they got you to pick up a copy.

[FLS]

I guess that that is why the CIA just stopped providing climate data to scientists.   
The CIA Is Shuttering a Secretive Climate Research Program
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/05/cia-closing-its-main-climate-research-program


"Global cooling" in the 1970s was Time and Newsweek trying to sell copy.  I guess they got you to pick up a copy.

The CIA is not military. According to the link they stopped because they finished the study.

If you look at NASA temp graphs from the 70's they show the cooling.

[SysError]

The CIA is not military. According to the link they stopped because they finished the study.

If you look at NASA temp graphs from the 70's they show the cooling.

That is right I forgot!; The CIA does not have to do what POTUS says.  How silly of me.

The CIA's 'official' reason was that the funding period had come to an end.  The original link contained a little bit of info behind the real reason.  In short the CIA didn't want to put up with the hassle  that it was causing with its overall budgeting process .

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/17/climate-change-gop_n_6888656.html

It does looks as if the Pentagon can fill in the gaps for now.


The data that scientists are using today to study climate change goes back millions of years.  Not the case in the 70s.  The following vid does a good job in explaining the issue.   (Caution the following has not been approved by FoxNews for general viewing.) 

Qx DENIAL101x 4.4.4.1 Climate science in the 1970s



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_F6bq0l18Ng

[FLS]

The military culture of obedience to the potus is significantly different from the CIA's culture. In any case your link was irrelevant.

What does "millions of years" have to do with measuring temperature in the 60's and 70's. You just read the thermometer, wrote down the numbers, then 50 years later somebody changed them.

You post a lot of speculation but I lack the inexperience to be convinced by it.

[RTR]

The less ice there is, the more room to grow crops.
Nope sorry, if its too warm for ice in the polar regions it will eventually be to arid to grow crops in the south. Quit whining, cope.  Neanderthals coped better than the radical climate changers, makes ya wonder if a big die-off of whiny government-dependent progressives unable to cope with natural global heating and cooling cycles might be a good thing. Neanderthals adapted to their climate, but so did Cromagnon, and ergo us..coping has no bearing on significant change in short term.

PS:  The last time it was dramatically warmer on earth, when they were growing crops on Greenland, the polar bears did just fine. No...just no. As someone who has a little more up close and personal knowledge of Polar Bears I can assure you that their numbers are declining. They need pack ice to hunt. Polar Bears that summer in the north are on a minimal ration diet, They need to eat seals and small whales to survive. They only get access to that kind of food source when the ice is "in"...stop hunting them, they are having a hard enough time as is.  Try facts and geologic record Yes! for all! instead of emotional blabbering Yes...look in the mirror. if you want some ideas about what to do when things warm up a bit.  And maybe keep a spare jacket handy for the next cold cycle.

Lastly don't confuse sea ice in the south with continental ice...two different things. Warmer climates in the north and mid areas will bring larger sea ice in the south...not sure why most don't understand this. Snow in Minnesota doesn't mean global cooling.

Rant Off.

RTR