The Denial Industry

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Flubber


Huh-- My knowledge of plankton is a bit sketchy. Are you saying there is an easy and cheap way to reduce C02 emissions?

Easy & cheap yes. But you are of course messing with ocean ecosystems and oceanic chemisty. But no doubt iron fertilization would be a dramatic and easy reduction in CO2 if that is even required (and the jury is still out on that aspect).

Oceanic Iron fertilization

Wiki

[Flip McWho]

Earth headed for warmest point in a million years
26 September 2006


WASHINGTON: Earth may be close to the warmest it has been in the last million years, especially in the part of the Pacific Ocean where potentially violent El Nino weather patterns are born, climate scientists reported on Monday.


This doesn't necessarily mean there will be more frequent El Ninos – which can disrupt normal weather around the world – but could well mean that these wild patterns will be stronger when they occur, said James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

The El Nino phenomenon is an important factor in monitoring global warming, according to a paper by Hansen and colleagues published in the current Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

El Ninos can push temperatures higher than they might ordinarily be. This happened in 1998 when a so-called "super El Nino" helped heat the Earth to a record high.

What is significant, the scientists wrote, is that 2005 was in the same temperature range as 1998, and probably was the warmest year ever, with no sign of the warm surface water in the eastern equatorial Pacific typical of an El NiNo.

The waters of the western equatorial Pacific are warmer than in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and the difference in temperature between these two areas could produce greater temperature swings between the normal weather pattern and El Nino, they wrote.

They blamed this phenomenon on global warming that is affecting the surface of the western Pacific before it affects the deeper water.

Overall, Earth is within 1 degree C of its highest temperature levels in the past million years, Hansen and the others wrote. They noted a recent steep rise in average temperatures, with global surface temperatures increasing about 0.2degC for each of the last three decades.

Scientists attribute this rise to human activities, notably the release into the atmosphere of greenhouse gases – notably carbon dioxide – which let in sunlight and trap its heat like the glass walls of a greenhouse.

Human-caused global warming influences El Ninos much as it sways tropical storms, the scientists wrote.

"The effect on frequency of either phenomenon is unclear, depending on many factors, but the intensity of the most powerful events is likely to increase as greenhouse gases increase," they wrote. "Slowing the growth rate of greenhouse gases should diminish the probability of both super El Ninos and the most intense tropical storms."

Weak El Nino conditions were present this month in the tropical Pacific, and could strengthen to a moderate event by winter, according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which monitors the phenomenon.

In the United States, private forecaster WSI Corp predicted warmer-than-normal weather over the Northeast and Midwest for the rest of this year, spelling sluggish energy demand for the start of the heating season.

The warm outlook, after the mildest winter on record last year, is due to uncertainty over the El Nino – a warming of Pacific waters around the equator that can drive weather patterns around the globe, WSI Corp said.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3809598a12,00.html

Have no idea myself how applicable that is here but there it is anyways.

[Solly]

How can you compare 1000 year resolution data with 5 year averaged data?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe



Easy & cheap yes. But you are of course messing with ocean ecosystems and oceanic chemisty. But no doubt iron fertilization would be a dramatic and easy reduction in CO2 if that is even required (and the jury is still out on that aspect).

I haven't read your links yet but for something to be an easy solution it cannot cause a worse problem that the one you are supposedly trying to solve. messing with ocean ecosystems doesn't exactly sound desirable.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes. But on the other hand if you're gonna go off half cocked and say definitively that CO2 is the root of all evil might as well go in for a pound. In for a penny in for a pound (of iron sulfate) as it were.

(ohh some of the expected side benfits beside increased planktonic growth is the expected increases in fish populations. But again this is all merely suppositional at this point)

Seriously though good science is where it all needs to start.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Yes. But on the other hand if you're gonna go off half cocked and say definitively that CO2 is the root of all evil might as well go in for a pound. In for a penny in for a pound (of iron sulfate) as it were.

Huh The most I said was

Despite this I don't believe that our current levels of emissions are desirable and finding ways to reduce man caused greenhouse gas emissions are desirable. You can see my thread on CO2 injection to see one small measure that can help.

While I don't think that we know enough about the impacts , put bluntly I do worry about our current emissions levels and trends in countries like India and China that could see much higher emission in future.

I have never ever said "CO2 is the root of all evil" ever so I don't know where I went off half-cocked.

Are you saying that there are no negative implications from CO2 emissions at current levels. I bet you can't. I bet the most you can say is the science is uncertain.

heck I'll put it simpler and back in the exact same terms as my quote

1. Do you think our current level of CO2 emissions is desirable?

2. Do you think that finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be desirable?

[self biased]

summary?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Not directed at you Flubber. I wasn't implying you to be a wack job, man is the root of all evil nutter.

Sorry for the confusion.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Not directed at you Flubber. I wasn't implying you to be a wack job, man is the root of all evil nutter.

Sorry for the confusion.

If I were a "man is the root of all evil nutter", it might conflict with my job as a lawyer for an oil company

I didn't think toy were aimed at me BUT you were responding right after one of my posts

[Flubber]

Oh and that iron seeding idea seems decent. It may not reduce CO2 levels that much but increasing growth of stuff that can become fish food sounds promising. Some more small to medium scale trials seem warranted.

Small measures like that can hekp.

Ogie-- were you in the thread where I talked about CO2 injection methods in the oil industry. The bottom line is that CO2 is great for increasing oil production when injected into reservoirs and the oil industry is actually willing to pay to get CO2. he only hitch is that it must be relatively pure and most emitters don't emit anything near a pure form

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

But if you want me to answer your two questions in a freindly way sure love to. (And I really do mean it I wasn't trying to be dismissive to you)


Q1. Do you think our current level of CO2 emissions is desirable?

Honestly don't know. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere certainly means better CO2 fertilization for plant life. A good thing. The obvious question that I am agnostic on is whether there is any impact to warming as a consequence and to what extent.

Q2. Do you think that finding ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be desirable?

Certainly just as an insurance policy is prudent measure finding means to reduce CO2 would likewise be good policy. Implementing those actions though might not be a good thing and add cost and or have negative effects inof themsleves. Case and point my tongue in cheek "in for a penny in for a pound statement" or the deletrious effect on plant growth by reducing CO2 or the wasted resources etc. etc. (obviously I await from others the obligatory look at all the waste the US does in military matters alone. ZOMFGG!!!11!! IRAQ etc.)

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Flubber
Oh and that iron seeding idea seems decent. It may not reduce CO2 levels that much but increasing growth of stuff that can become fish food sounds promising. Some more small to medium scale trials seem warranted.

Small measures like that can hekp.

Ogie-- were you in the thread where I talked about CO2 injection methods in the oil industry. The bottom line is that CO2 is great for increasing oil production when injected into reservoirs and the oil industry is actually willing to pay to get CO2. he only hitch is that it must be relatively pure and most emitters don't emit anything near a pure form

Don't know that I was in that thread. I am vaguely familiar with ground well injection but I would never presuppose your expertise onthe matter working for BIG OIL and all. Linkie?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Don't know that I was in that thread. I am vaguely familiar with ground well injection but I would never presuppose your expertise onthe matter working for BIG OIL and all. Linkie?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157749

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe

Certainly just as an insurance policy is prudent measure finding means to reduce CO2 would likewise be good policy. Implementing those actions though might not be a good thing and add cost and or have negative effects inof themsleves. Case and point my tongue in cheek "in for a penny in for a pound statement" or the deletrious effect on plant growth by reducing CO2 or the wasted resources etc. etc. (obviously I await from others the obligatory look at all the waste the US does in military matters alone. ZOMFGG!!!11!! IRAQ etc.)

I look at our Planet as one that seems to have a pretty good ecosystem and climate for humans. Anything that could threaten that is a major worry. So I'm in the camp that would change our atmosphere as slowly and little as possible on the very simple "don't mess with stuff that ain't broke" idea.

There appear to be solid reasoning behind the idea that additional CO2 in the atmosphere can cause increased temperatures. I don't know the extent that it has happened or how much it will happen but if there are relatively easy methods to avoid finding out in very very very bad ways that there are HUGE impacts, I'd like us to take those methods.

And Ogie there's lots of waste. I drove to work today when there was a perfectly good bus doing a fairly close route. Waste is rampant across Western society and in principle I agree we should cut consumption. Buit in practice I don't know that I want to give up our second automobile or wait for a bus on a cold winter's day

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Flubber


There appear to be solid reasoning behind the idea that additional CO2 in the atmosphere can cause increased temperatures. I don't know the extent that it has happened or how much it will happen but if there are relatively easy methods to avoid finding out in very very very bad ways that there are HUGE impacts, I'd like us to take those methods.

No doubt there is any number of schools of thought that say increased CO2 means increased temperatures. There are any number people though that say even if temperatures do indeed rise the resultant is moderated and more than offset by increases in cloud cover caused by warming and the reflectance they provide. Increased precipitatoin is also a good thing aiding plant growth by the way as well.

Then there are those who say no appreciable warming could ever be attributed to CO2 concentrations of 200 ppm to 400ppm levels. Despite miles of path length for the IR to pass through.

I say at present I have no real basis to opine on the matter but am skeptical of any who say the debate is closed. Thats truly the way of close minded idots akin to the characterization of the dogmatic creationistas the other side likes to tar and feather their opponentry with.