[QUOTE=ewmayer;364646]...the area in which I grew up, Akron OH. ...[/QUOTE]
Ah, must have gone to high school with Jim Jarmusch? ;-)

Meanwhile, in my current home state:

[url=science.time.com/2014/01/23/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/]Hundred Years of Dry: How California’s Drought Could Get Much, Much Worse[/url]: [i]Scientists fear California's long-ago era of mega-droughts could be back[/i]
[quote]Californians need to be ready, because if some scientists are right, this drought could be worse than anything the state has experienced in centuries. B. Lynn Ingram, a paleoclimatologist at the University of California, Berkeley, has looked at rings of old trees in the state, which helps scientists gauge precipitation levels going back hundreds of years. (Wide tree rings indicate years of substantial growth and therefore healthy rainfall, while narrow rings indicate years of little growth and very dry weather.) She believes that California hasn’t been this dry since 1580, around the time the English privateer Sir Francis Drake first visited the state’s coast:
[i]
If you go back thousands of years, you see that droughts can go on for years if not decades, and there were some dry periods that lasted over a century, like during the Medieval period and the middle Holocene [the current geological epoch, which began about 11,000 years ago]. The 20th century was unusually mild here, in the sense that the droughts weren’t as severe as in the past. It was a wetter century, and a lot of our development has been based on that.
[/i]
Ingram is referring to paleoclimatic evidence that California, and much of the American Southwest, has a history of mega-droughts that could last for decades and even centuries. Scientists like Richard Seager of Columbia University’s Lamont-Dohery Earth Observatory have used tree-ring data to show that the Plains and the Southwest experienced multi-decadal droughts between 800 A.D. and 1500 A.D.[/quote]
The apparently mega-drought-induced demise of the Anasazi Chaco Canyon culture is one of the examples detailed in Jared Diamond's [i]Collapse[/i].

[QUOTE=ewmayer;365453]Meanwhile, in my current home state:

[URL="http://science.time.com/2014/01/23/hundred-years-of-dry-how-californias-drought-could-get-much-much-worse/"]Hundred Years of Dry: How California’s Drought Could Get Much, Much Worse[/URL]: [I]Scientists fear California's long-ago era of mega-droughts could be back[/I]

The apparently mega-drought-induced demise of the Anasazi Chaco Canyon culture is one of the examples detailed in Jared Diamond's [I]Collapse[/I].[/QUOTE]
Paraphrasing Putin (the fact that global warming would be very good for Russia, because will result in better living conditions and more farming land in Siberia), I would ask if this drought would bring some prosperity to Sahara? :cmd:

I don't know whether the correlations are even known. The Sahara is supposedly responsible for the Amazon rain forest (because nutrient-bearing dust gets blown across the Atlantic), but the Pacific is a lot wider and the American deserts a lot smaller.

California is rich enough to use desalination to water its people, but losing the agriculture in the Central Valley would be sad. However, it looks as if there's non-trivial drought over into the Great Plains and the mid-west, and losing the agricultural surpluses from there would be significantly bad for inhabitants of the planet as a whole - the US exports twenty-seven megatons of wheat a year, enough to feed a half-billion people.

The correlations are "well known" - I tried to keep myself educated in this domain, hehe, for example, since I found out that the huge part of the Asian deserts are due to the Himalayan chain (which stops the clouds on its eastern side, the clouds can't fly so high to pass over the mountain) my biggest dream is to buy a lot of very cheap desert land in the Gobi or Tibet, and then drill a tunnel through the Himalaya to bring moisture... :razz:

On the other hand, the part with US keeping the whole planet off dieing from thirst was unknown here, but it is somehow expected to be true, now, after you said it. US is still a big and sound economy (large part of my money are in US dollars right now!) despite of what other people say, or what fun I make about it, here or there.

On the other other hand, the story with the Saharan sand flying to Amazon, if true, can't explain why the water in the equatorial Atlantic is scarcer in nutrients compared with the tropical (north and south) water there (remember: the biggest fishing banks in Atlantic - the fish grow where smaller fish grow, which in turn grow where the plancton grow, etc... - are not at the equator, but at the tropical African shore, for example).

Mod. Note: I would like to move t his thread to the Science subforum where it belongs (political ramifications of GW notwithstanding) - any objections?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;365483]Mod. Note: I would like to move t his thread to the Science subforum where it belongs (political ramifications of GW notwithstanding) - any objections?[/QUOTE]

None here, but I am not one of the heavy posters.

[QUOTE]However, it looks as if there's non-trivial drought over into the Great Plains and the mid-west, and losing the agricultural surpluses from there would be significantly bad for inhabitants of the planet as a whole - the US exports twenty-seven megatons of wheat a year, enough to feed a half-billion people. [/QUOTE]Maybe we need to cut back on the acreage devoted to animal feed. Please note that I say this from the standpoint of an omnivore. However, eating less meat would be good for me, so higher meat prices would not be a total negative.

EDIT: Obviously, though, the drought scenario would have serious repercussions for all foods, animal or vegetable.

[QUOTE=LaurV;365464]The correlations are "well known" - I tried to keep myself educated in this domain, hehe, for example, since I found out that the huge part of the Asian deserts are due to the Himalayan chain (which stops the clouds on its eastern side, the clouds can't fly so high to pass over the mountain)[/QUOTE]

Here some links: Wikipedia [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalaya#Impact_on_climate]indicates[/url] the Himalayas have had their predominant effect on the north-south monsoonal dynamics in central Asia:
[quote]The Himalayas have a profound effect on the climate of the Indian subcontinent and the Tibetan plateau. They prevent frigid, dry Arctic winds blowing south into the subcontinent, which keeps South Asia much warmer than corresponding temperate regions in the other continents. It also forms a barrier for the monsoon winds, keeping them from traveling northwards, and causing heavy rainfall in the Terai region. The Himalayas are also believed to play an important part in the formation of Central Asian deserts, such as the Taklamakan and Gobi.[22][/quote]
With respect to the Sahara, Wikipedia [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara]indicates the 41-kyr earth-tilt variation cycle as the major culprit[/url], at least in the more recent (order of 1 Myr, compared to 10s of Myrs for the Himalayan uplift) period marked by quasiperiodic waxing and waning of ice ages. This says the monsoons in that region were actually locally induced by large air masses heated over N Africa:
[quote]The climate of the Sahara has undergone enormous variations between wet and dry over the last few hundred thousand years.[15] This is due to a 41000 year cycle in which the tilt of the earth changes between 22° and 24.5°.[16] At present (2000 AD), we are in a dry period, but it is expected that the Sahara will become green again in 15000 years (17000 AD).

During the last glacial period, the Sahara was even bigger than it is today, extending south beyond its current boundaries.[17] The end of the glacial period brought more rain to the Sahara, from about 8000 BC to 6000 BC, perhaps because of low pressure areas over the collapsing ice sheets to the north.[18]

Once the ice sheets were gone, the northern Sahara dried out. In the southern Sahara though, the drying trend was soon counteracted by the monsoon, which brought rain further north than it does today. [b]In this period, there was still a monsoon climate in the Sahara. Monsoons form by heating of air over the land during summer. The hot air rises and pulls in cool, wet air from the ocean, which causes rain. Thus, though it seems counterintuitive, the Sahara was wetter when it received more insolation in the summer[/b]. This was caused by a stronger tilt in Earth's axis of orbit than today (24.5 degree tilt vs the 23.4° tilt today[16]), and perihelion occurred at the end of July around 7000 BC.[19]

By around 4200 BC, the monsoon retreated south to approximately where it is today,[9] leading to the gradual desertification of the Sahara.[20] The Sahara is now as dry as it was about 13,000 years ago.[15] These conditions are responsible for what has been called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory]Sahara pump theory[/url].[/quote]

"Global Warming Science Is Not Overheated"
[url]http://www.thestreet.com/story/12438497/1/global-warming-science-is-not-overheated.html[/url]

Moderately NSFW (It's not TV it's HBO)


[YOUTUBE]cjuGCJJUGsg[/YOUTUBE]

[url]http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/06/02/4154075/climate-change-skepticism-could.html[/url]

Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?
Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?

The majority is not necessarily right.
Even if no conspiracy was involved.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-obamas-flawed-cap-and-trade-um-pay-pollute-emissions-plan.html]Gaius Publius: Obama’s Flawed Cap-and-Trade, Um, Pay-to-Pollute, Emissions Plan[/url]

The author generously "gives Obama points for trying", but as the piece details, the proposal is so wildly loophole-riddled and unintended-consequence-guaranteed that it would be useless at best, and very likely make things worse, by letting the same crooked TBTF banks which are busily profiting from [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0]commodity-price-jacking-via-warehousing-scammery[/url] to now rig the resulting "carbon trading" faux-market. To call the proposal mere congressional-election-year base-pandering hot air is entirely too kind.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;375084][URL="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-obamas-flawed-cap-and-trade-um-pay-pollute-emissions-plan.html"]Gaius Publius: Obama’s Flawed Cap-and-Trade, Um, Pay-to-Pollute, Emissions Plan[/URL]

The author generously "gives Obama points for trying", but as the piece details, the proposal is so wildly loophole-riddled and unintended-consequence-guaranteed that it would be useless at best, and very likely make things worse, by letting the same crooked TBTF banks which are busily profiting from [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?_r=0"]commodity-price-jacking-via-warehousing-scammery[/URL] to now rig the resulting "carbon trading" faux-market. To call the proposal mere congressional-election-year base-pandering hot air is entirely too kind.[/QUOTE]Isn't this off-topic for a thread about the scientific evidence for global warming, not to mention off-topic for any thread in a "Science & Technology" subforum?

Seems more like "Mystery Economics" to me.

Not all topics fit neatly into the purview of any single thread. Life is messy that way sometimes.

Since the discussion is of Climate Change, and since Human Emissions are a/the dominant factor driving it, it seems that efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are effectively part of the input to the overall equation. Hence, this is a good place to present this commentary.

There is no similarity
 

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?[/QUOTE]
97% of [b]climate[/b] scientists accept the fact that Earth is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific surveys of published scientists, and surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I think the most illuminating of these surveys was by Stephen Schneider, who reported not only percentages who agreed with the basic propositions that the Earth is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, but also compared the scientific achievements of those who understand the scientific consensus versus those who dispute it. It turns out that the few practicing scientists who reject the scientific consensus are markedly less published and less cited by their peers. In summary, they are the least competent in their field.

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?[/QUOTE]
No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375133]No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.[/QUOTE]

I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?

Only time will eventually tell.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?

Only time will eventually tell.[/QUOTE]

Now that's an interesting thought! Equating Fux Noise with the Holy Office, forsooth!

Another aspect of the latest "bold climate change proposal" from the Dear Leader:

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/obamas-climate-plan-leaking-methane.html]Obama’s Climate Plan is Leaking Methane[/url]

It only takes a very small percentage of the methane produced to leak unburned into the atmosphere - and fracking is a notoriously methane-leakage-prone technology, in addition to being a polluter of groundwater - to entirely negate any CO2 reductions resulting from the "cleaner burning", since CH4 is a roughly 20x more potent greenhouse gas molecule-for-molecule than is CO2.

Do you mean if you reverse the roles that davar55 assigned?
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.

It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day.[/QUOTE]

Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?

Definitive Proof
 

:razz:

So what this says is global warming is a good thing ...

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375159]Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?[/QUOTE]

The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.

Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropomorphic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.

But, sadly, we as a species are still mostly driven by "money".

And there is a lot of money to be made by converting Carbon into Carbon Dioxide (and Methane, etc...).

I have long thought that fracking for natural gas, and releasing large amounts of methane in the process, could well neutralize, or worse, any reduction in carbon emissions derived from burning it instead of coal.

I also stand by my previous statement; that [QUOTE]efforts, successes, and failures of policies to control emissions are effectively part of the input to the overall equation.[/QUOTE]

Are sociology, psychology, political science, and anthropology superstitious claptrap? The sciences of humans who will make the decisions regarding climate change are at least as important as the physical sciences, in terms of results.

By the way, I believe this thread started out with the title "Global Warning: hoax or real threat?" (approximately, if my memory serves) which it held for some years. Admittedly even back in 2007 this was a rather silly title, but it did reflect the widespread popular notion of the time that the science behind human-activity-aggravated climate change was flawed and even fraudulent. A glance at the very first post in this thread reveals its original intellectual level.

The thread's location was the Soap Box until very recently.

Just thought I'd point this out because it seems to show how the nature of a discussion topic can change over time. This topic, which is of enormous importance to all of us and our future generations, is certainly, and belatedly, changing.

[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/marshallislands/10883294/World-War-Two-skeletons-washed-from-Marshall-Islands-graves-by-rising-seas.html[/url]

Whatever the confusion such title changes may cause, this latest one seems appropriate. This is one topic like no other where science, politics and economics certainly clash with each other.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;375318][URL]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/marshallislands/10883294/World-War-Two-skeletons-washed-from-Marshall-Islands-graves-by-rising-seas.html[/URL][/QUOTE]
If only the Marshall Islands were a stronger world economic force...

anthropomorphic means in the shape of man
 

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for clarifying that it's the physical scientists studying the climate who you see in the role of Galileo. I wholeheartedly agree.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropo[b]gen[/b]ic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.[/QUOTE]

I know that around the same time that at Frank Luntz's advice they stopped saying "global warming" and switched to exclusively saying "climate change" because focus groups showed that the latter term biased participants against recognizing that the phenomena are problematic, the Bush administration illegally interfered with the publication process but Dr. Hansen eventually prevailed and the politicos dropped that issue with a whimper.

Regarding supposedly interrelated topics, scope of the thread and its recent name change, there is absolutely no "political and economic evidence" [b]of[/b] climate change. There are political and economic [b]ramifications[/b] of policy decisions, but the [b]evidence[/b] of global warming is all physical science. There are also political, economic, psychological, and social contributors to each individual's opinions about and understanding of the facts, but none of these alter what the facts really are. When the title was "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence," the clear message was that this is about the facts which physical science tells us about global warming.

The recent name change re-frames the topic in a manner that happens to be preferred by petroleum and coal industry communications experts because it blurs the distinction between the physical facts and the much more arbitrary social factors, politics and economics; and because it allows them to cynically manipulate findings from the social sciences, especially psychology, to discourage low information voters from dealing with the facts at all. Again, all the [b]evidence[/b] comes from physical science.

As long as the word "evidence" remains in the title, the terms "political" and "economic" are simply non sequiturs.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;375347]But what would there still be, anno 2014, to [I]discuss[/I] in a purely scientific thread about global warming,[/quote]There are still many scientific aspects yet to explore.

Example: the only-a-couple-of-weeks-ago report about the West Antarctica ice sheet's apparently being in an unstoppable slide. Previously, it had been thought that a "sill" would keep it in place.

[quote]given that most of us are not practising climate change scientists?[/QUOTE]Forums like this are where we non-pros can learn/discuss what the pros are finding.

New research into effect of air conditioning in the United States.

[QUOTE]Because the cities are getting hotter as the climate changes, residents are increasingly investing in aircon systems − which discharge heat from offices and apartment blocks straight into the city air. And the vicious circle effect is that cities get still warmer, making air conditioning all the more attractive to residents.

According to scientists at Arizona State University, the air conditioning system is now having a measurable effect. During the days, the systems emit waste heat, but because the days are hot anyway, the difference is negligible. At night, heat from air conditioning systems now raises some urban temperatures by more than 1C, they report in the [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/%28ISSN%292169-8996"]Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres[/URL].

At present, 87% of US households have air conditioning, and the US – which is not one of the warmer nations – uses more electricity to keep cool than all the other countries of the world combined. To keep the people of Phoenix cool during periods of extreme heat, air conditioning systems can consume more than half of total electricity needs, which puts a strain on power grids.
[/QUOTE]Full press article:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/09/air-conditioning-raising-night-time-temperatures-us[/URL]

[QUOTE=Nick;375398]New research into effect of air conditioning in the United States.

Full press article:
[URL]http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/09/air-conditioning-raising-night-time-temperatures-us[/URL][/QUOTE]The manifesto of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party prepared for a general election here some time back expressly considered this issue. To combat global warming they were going to require that all new buildings have aircon mounted on the outside of the structure.

Sorry to re-introduce politics into the discussion but I believe that innotative ideas like these should be given a wider audience.

It was the [URL=http://mrlp.blogspot.co.uk/2008/10/monster-raving-loony-party-unofficial.html] 2008 manifesto[/url]

[QUOTE=xilman;375401]The manifesto of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party prepared for a general election here some time back expressly considered this issue. To combat global warming they were going to require that all new buildings have aircon mounted on the outside of the structure.[/QUOTE]

And refrigerator doors are to be left open 24/7, yes? By way of doing my little part, whenever I get an ice coffee at my local java joint I make sure to ask for an extra scoop of ice to "fight global warming:.

Here in the SF bay area we're inmidst of one of the typically 2-3 hot spells per year where I actively seek out AC, not having it at home. This year with the ongoing historic drought in CA, though, it's already the 3rd major 3-4-day hot spell since we first touched 100F back on 30 April.

Allegedly the multimonth global climate models are pointing to ~70% odds of an El Nin~o this coming winter - we could really use the above-normal rainfall that usually brings.

====================

[url=http://desmogblog.com/2014/06/07/study-dismisses-geoengineering-quick-fix-global-warming]Study Dismisses Geoengineering Quick Fix For Global Warming[/url] | DeSmogBlog

[QUOTE]and the US – which is not one of the warmer nations – uses more electricity to keep cool than all the other countries of the world combined[/QUOTE]
They never stop amazing me in their belief that they are the bellybutton of the Earth... I would advance a more realistic number, like 20% or so. Even less...

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/gaius-publius-clean-natural-gas-methane-lobby-help-write-epa-clean-power-plan.html] Gaius Publius: Did the “Clean Natural Gas” (Methane) Lobby Help Write the EPA “Clean Power Plan”?[/url]: [i]Obama’s energy plan ignores methane as a greenhouse gas. That reflects the Administration and EPA buying into Big Oil and “clean energy” propaganda so as to permit more fracking.[/i]
[quote][Quoting an analysis by Dr. Robert W. Howarth, Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology at Cornell University]
[i]Early in the Plan (page 19), the focus on carbon dioxide is justified by stating “CO2 is the primary GHG pollutant, accounting for nearly three-quarters of global GHG emissions[1] and 82 percent of U.S. GHG emissions.[2] [b]These statements do not accurately reflect the most recent and best science on this topic.[/b]

Footnote #1 refers to the [out of date] IPCC (2007) report and is based only on comparing methane emissions and carbon dioxide emissions on a 100-year time scale. In the more recent IPCC (2013) synthesis, the IPCC explicitly states that “[b]There is no scientific argument for selecting 100 years compared with other choices[/b],” and that “The choice of time horizon …. depends on the relative weight assigned to the effects at different times.”

Because the short-term dynamics of the climate system are far more responsive to methane than to carbon dioxide (UNEP/WMO 2011; Shindell et al. 2012), [b]comparing methane and carbon dioxide on shorter time scales is essential[/b] if we are to avoid warming the Earth to temperatures that greatly increase the risk of tipping points in the climate over the coming 15 to 35 years (see Howarth et al. 2014 and references therein).

At these shorter time scales, the IPCC (2013) states that the global emissions of methane are actually greater than (slightly, for the 10-year time frame) or 80% of (for the 20-year time frame) those of carbon dioxide in terms of their influence on global warming; [b]at both of these shorter time scales, carbon dioxide is responsible for less than half of global GHG emissions, not three-quarters.[/b]
[/i]
The Plan, Dr. Howarth concludes, is blind to methane and should be revised with methane in mind.[/quote]
Lots more good stuff in there on the EPA likely drastically underestimating methane emissions from various sources.

Whodathunkit? The near-exclusive focus by policymakers on CO2 until recently appears to have been seriously misplaced. And dramatically increasing CH4 emissions - as public policy embracing “Clean Natural Gas” will surely do - stands to increase AGW much more than simply continuing on the current upward trajectory of CO2 emissions/atmospheric-concentrations would, dire as the latter scenario is.

The whole methane situation gets really discouraging. The industry is a scary juggernaut here in Illinois. They are set on fracking and strip mining all they can get their claws on of the Southern Illinois, Shawnee National Forest area. Closer to Chicago, it seems that there is no stopping a fracking sand quarry right next door to Starved Rock State Park. Some of the most beautiful parts of the state are set to become sacrifice zones, like West Virginia.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;375551]< snip >

The near-exclusive focus by policymakers on CO2 until recently appears to have been seriously misplaced.[/QUOTE]No, not misplaced at all.

1) CO[sub]2[/sub] is present in the atmosphere in greater quantities than methane, by a greater ratio than the ratio of greenhouse effect per molecule of methane to that of CO[sub]2[/sub]. The same is true if restricted to only the anthropogenic emissions. Thus, the warming effect of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] exceeds that of anthropogenic methane.

2) Reduction of anthropogenic emissions of CO[sub]2[/sub] is a much bigger task than the corresponding reduction on anthropogenic methane. Devising and implementing methane emissions reduction policies should be a bit simpler after those for for CO[sub]2[/sub] are successfully in-place or on their way to be. Of course, there's no requirement not to proceed with both (and also other lesser-known greenhouse gases)

It's true that leakages from the recent surge in fracking have increased methane emissions by a greater ratio that CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions have increased over the same time period, and so methane now deserves urgent attention, but to say that previous focus on CO[sub]2[/sub] was "seriously misplaced" has no justification.

[quote]And dramatically increasing CH4 emissions - as public policy embracing “Clean Natural Gas” will surely do - stands to increase AGW much more than simply continuing on the current upward trajectory of CO2 emissions/atmospheric-concentrations would, dire as the latter scenario is.[/quote]Can you cite any scientific study or modeling results to quantify that "much more" contention?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;375641]No, not misplaced at all.

1) CO[sub]2[/sub] is present in the atmosphere in greater quantities than methane, by a greater ratio than the ratio of greenhouse effect per molecule of methane to that of CO[sub]2[/sub]. The same is true if restricted to only the anthropogenic emissions. Thus, the warming effect of anthropogenic CO[sub]2[/sub] exceeds that of anthropogenic methane.[/QUOTE]I am fairly sure you are right at present, though I haven't investigated in detail.

However something which concerns me greatly is that there is a large amount of near-surface methane which is kept out of the atmosphere primarily because it presently resides in cold areas. Methane clathrate at the bottom of cold and relatively shallow seas and methanogenesis in rotting tundra are the principal worries.

[b]If[/b] climate warming releases any significant amount of this methane we may be in for interesting times. Note that the Arctic appears to be warming faster than average at present.

[QUOTE=xilman;375647] However something which concerns me greatly is that there is a large amount of near-surface methane which is kept out of the atmosphere primarily because it presently resides in cold areas. Methane clathrate at the bottom of cold and relatively shallow seas and methanogenesis in rotting tundra are the principal worries.
[/QUOTE]Climatologists have been well aware of these dangerous feedbacks since the beginning of warnings about AGW effects. (Search skepticalscience.com or other AGW-scientific sites for 'tundra', 'clathrate' and "methanogenesis" for examples.) That's why it would be so valuable to keep the temperature rise as low as possible by taking measures to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions as effectively as possible, as soon as possible, and as much as possible.

Alarmism in the service of accurate realistic warning about a potential genuinely dangerous situation is no vice. :)

[url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/06/risky-business-climate-report-little-late-denialists.html]“Risky Business” Climate Report: Paulson, Bloomberg, Rubin, Schultz Late to Combat the Denialists[/url]
[quote]Those who have been involved in trying to raise awareness of the risks of global warming might have to repress a “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts” response to a [url=http://riskybusiness.org/uploads/files/RiskyBusiness_PrintedReport_FINAL_WEB_OPTIMIZED.pdf]new, accessible, and well written report on the probable impact of climate change on the US[/url]. The effort, called “Risky Business” has Hank Paulson, Michael Bloomberg, and Thomas Steyer, retired chairman of Farallon Capital, as co-chairs, with its other committee members including Bob Rubin, George Schultz, Henry Cisneros, Gregory Page (the executive chairman of Cargill), Donna Shalala, and Olympia Snowe. In other words, when Hank Paulson looks like the best of a bunch, there’s reason to be cautious.

Yet there is a lot to welcome about this development. This is a well-funded, hugely connected and respected bi-partisan group that intends to galvanize efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions. It represents a long-overdue split in the elites. The Kochs and other denialists have succeeded in stymieing action by raising doubts about the origins and dynamics of climate change. The report is meant to demonstrate that the US is long past having the luxury of debating whether global warming is happening, and that a sober look at the seriousness of the outcomes says we need to do something, pronto.[/quote]

Crater in Siberia may have formed in a methane explosion
 

[url]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/16/1314501/-Mysterious-Siberian-Crater-Found-at-End-of-the-World-May-Portend-Methane-Climate-Catastrophe#?[/url]
Excerpt:[QUOTE]Russian experts have ruled out speculation that meteorite impact might have caused the crater. The crater was certainly not caused by a meteorite because it has no central crater but instead has a deep hole. Meteorite impacts have far too much energy to leave an open hole. (Note: I studied meteoritics for my first year of graduate school.) Likewise any other extraterrestrial source would have far too much energy to leave an open hole. The impact site would be filled with ejecta. It doesn't appear to be a sink hole because the hole is surrounded by a rim of ejected material. Genarally, sink holes don't have elevated rims because they are produced by collapse of surface material into a preexisting covered hole. The ejecta appears to have been produced by an explosion. This crater formed in one of Siberia's largest natural gas producing regions. Permafrost in this area is melting in response to the rapid warming of the Arctic. The most likely cause of this crater is a methane explosion.[/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_26355983/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air]Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air[/url]:
[quote]IVANPAH DRY LAKE, Calif. (AP) — Workers at a state-of-the-art solar plant in the Mojave Desert have a name for birds that fly through the plant’s concentrated sun rays — “streamers,” for the smoke plume that comes from birds that ignite in midair

Federal wildlife investigators who visited the BrightSource Energy plant last year and watched as birds burned and fell, reporting an average of one “streamer” every two minutes, are urging California officials to halt the operator’s application to build a still-bigger version.[/quote]

Wind turbines are notorious bird killers, too.

(For that matter, so are housecats, but large wind+solar installations tend to impact higher-flyers, e.g. raptors and migratory birds.)

[QUOTE=ewmayer;380732][URL="http://www.contracostatimes.com/environment/ci_26355983/emerging-solar-plants-scorch-birds-mid-air"]Emerging solar plants scorch birds in mid-air[/URL]:


Wind turbines are notorious bird killers, too.

(For that matter, so are housecats, but large wind+solar installations tend to impact higher-flyers, e.g. raptors and migratory birds.)[/QUOTE]

This might be an argument for parabolic trough collectors instead of tower designs.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/09/oil-back-global-warming-president-presides-drill-baby-drill-america.html]Oil Is Back! A Global Warming President Presides Over a Drill-Baby-Drill America[/url]

2013: CO2 grew at fastest rate since reliable record-keeping began
 

[URL]http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/09/09/1328282/-Carbon-dioxide-concentrations-grew-at-the-fastest-rate-since-reliable-global-records-bagan[/URL]

[QUOTE]The volume of carbon dioxide, or CO2, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, was 396.0 parts per million (ppm) in 2013, 2.9 ppm higher than in 2012, the largest year-to-year increase since 1984, when reliable global records began.The WMO also reports that methane levels grew has grown at about the same rate for the last five years, reaching 1824 parts per billion. [/QUOTE][QUOTE]We need to wake up and realize that we are not doing anywhere near enough "to keep global warming with 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit), which is the goal the scientists and the U.N. set as the maximum amount of global warming our planet can endure without moving into a range that will great vast additional dangers and disruptions to our current environmental conditions.[/QUOTE]

‘Monster’ Fracking Wells Guzzle Water in Drought-Stricken Regions
 

[URL]http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/24/fracking-wells-guzzle-water/[/URL]

I've spent time in places like Atascosa. If the water table gets sucked out of reach, there's gonna be some dead cows. Of course, agriculture of all sorts dies, since it depends on irrigation.

[QUOTE]The [URL="http://ecowatch.com/news/energy-news/fracking-2/"]fracking[/URL] industry likes to minimize the sector’s [URL="http://ecowatch.com/2014/02/18/trading-water-for-fuel-fracking-crazy/"]bottomless thirst[/URL] for often-scarce water resources, saying it takes about 2-4 million gallons of water to frack the average well, an amount the American Petroleum Institute describes as “the equivalent of three to six Olympic swimming pools.” That’s close to the figure cited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well.

But a [URL="http://www.ewg.org/research/monster-wells"]new report[/URL] released by Environmental Working Group (EWG) located 261 “monster” wells that consumed between 10 and 25 million gallons of water to drill each well. Among the conclusions EWG teased out of data reported by the industry itself and posted at [URL="http://fracfocus.org/"]fracfocus.org[/URL] is that between April 2010 and December 2013, these 261 wells consumed 3.3 billions of water between them, a average of 12.7 million gallons each. And 14 of the wells topped 20 million gallons each.But a [URL="http://www.ewg.org/research/monster-wells"]new report[/URL] released by Environmental Working Group (EWG) located 261 “monster” wells that consumed between 10 and 25 million gallons of water to drill each well. Among the conclusions EWG teased out of data reported by the industry itself and posted at [URL="http://fracfocus.org/"]fracfocus.org[/URL] is that between April 2010 and December 2013, these 261 wells consumed 3.3 billions of water between them, a average of 12.7 million gallons each. And 14 of the wells topped 20 million gallons each.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]EWG also found that 2/3rds of the monster wells were in areas suffering from extreme drought, including 137 of the ones in Texas.
“Like almost all of the Lone Star State, Atascosa County, south of San Antonio, is in a severe and prolonged drought,” said EWG. “Last year, the state water agency cited oil and gas exploration and production as a factor in the dramatic drop of groundwater levels in the aquifer underlying the Eagle Ford formation.”
[/QUOTE]

EDIT: I know this is tangential to the topic, but it does involve some of the causes of climate disruption. Burning fossil fuels, with lots of methane escaping raw during fracking and production, has to play some role in these patterns of extreme drought.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/12/obama-administration-muzzling-climate-scientists.html]Obama Administration Muzzling Its Climate Scientists[/url] | Naked Capitalism

"It's not 'muzzling' -- it's 'enhanced messaging management'," said an administration spokesman. /sarc

[QUOTE=ewmayer;105457]The issue is not whether global warming is occurring, it is to what extent it is the result of human activity.

When earth came out of the last ice age, that was global warming (and of a scale and rapidity that utterly dwarfs the present-day going'-on), too. And there were only a few tens of thousands of people on the planet at that time.[/QUOTE]

"Climate change" versus "global warming" - we have to well define the first to be able to determine whether
the latter is true. Only then, as you point out, can we focus on the extent of our involvement in it.

Sorry about bringing up the past as in this old post, but I'm behind on this hot discussion topic.

From earlier in this thread:

[QUOTE=davar55;375059]Where does the figure "97% of scientists" come from?
Wouldn't Galileo have been facing 99% intimidation?
The majority is not necessarily right.
Even if no conspiracy was involved.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375133]97% of [B]climate[/B] scientists accept the fact that Earth is warming due to human emissions of greenhouse gases, according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific surveys of published scientists, and surveys of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I think the most illuminating of these surveys was by Stephen Schneider, who reported not only percentages who agreed with the basic propositions that the Earth is warming and human greenhouse gas emissions are the cause, but also compared the scientific achievements of those who understand the scientific consensus versus those who dispute it. It turns out that the few practicing scientists who reject the scientific consensus are markedly less published and less cited by their peers. In summary, they are the least competent in their field.
[/QUOTE]
Depends on in whose evaluation.
[quote]
No. Public opinion meant nothing in Galileo's day. What he did face was an oppressive theocracy which had no regard for his opinion, nor for the opinions of his peers -- neither peers defined as fellow scholars, as above, nor even the general populace. The comparison you offer is absolutely irrelevant.[/quote]Nope. An individual or small minority might be right on any controversial issue.

[QUOTE=chalsall;375153]I don't entirely agree.
It could be argued that what is currently "public opinion" (well done Murdoch!) was the same thing as what happened during Galileo's day. And who turned out to be correct?
Only time will eventually tell.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375159]Who do you see playing a similar role to Galileo?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=petrw1;375164]:razz:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=davar55;375173]So what this says is global warming is a good thing ...[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;375224]The honest scientists who are presenting their evidence and their interpretation of same for peer review.
Many have had their funding cut, and/or are forbidden to publish their research if it supports the anthropomorphic argument for climate change. Both situations have happened in Canada, and probably elsewhere.
But, sadly, we as a species are still mostly driven by "money".
And there is a lot of money to be made by converting Carbon into Carbon Dioxide (and Methane, etc...).[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Reed_Young;375358]Thanks for clarifying that it's the physical scientists studying the climate who you see in the role of Galileo. I wholeheartedly agree.
[/QUOTE]
Not everyone else does.
[quote]
I know that around the same time that at Frank Luntz's advice they stopped saying "global warming" and switched to exclusively saying "climate change" because focus groups showed that the latter term biased participants against recognizing that the phenomena are problematic, the Bush administration illegally interfered with the publication process but Dr. Hansen eventually prevailed and the politicos dropped that issue with a whimper.
Regarding supposedly interrelated topics, scope of the thread and its recent name change, there is absolutely no "political and economic evidence" [B]of[/B] climate change. There are political and economic [B]ramifications[/B] of policy decisions, but the [B]evidence[/B] of global warming is all physical science. There are also political, economic, psychological, and social contributors to each individual's opinions about and understanding of the facts, but none of these alter what the facts really are. When the title was "Global Warming: The Scientific Evidence," the clear message was that this is about the facts which physical science tells us about global warming.
The recent name change re-frames the topic in a manner that happens to be preferred by petroleum and coal industry communications experts because it blurs the distinction between the physical facts and the much more arbitrary social factors, politics and economics; and because it allows them to cynically manipulate findings from the social sciences, especially psychology, to discourage low information voters from dealing with the facts at all. Again, all the [B]evidence[/B] comes from physical science.
As long as the word "evidence" remains in the title, the terms "political" and "economic" are simply non sequiturs.[/quote]In what sense are the politics/economics of this issue not relevant to the scientific validity issue?
Scientists are people, and people are economic and political if nothing else !

[url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/west-virginia-school-board-alters-climate-change-education-standards/[/url]

[URL="http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/05/06/11291/organic-carbon-burial-fjords-absorb-huge-amounts-of-carbon-and-could-help-combat-man-made-climate-change/"]Fjords, next to forests, might be our last hope in reversing climate change[/URL]
[QUOTE]Fjords take up only 0.1% in the biosphere’s ocean surface but it shockingly accounts to 11% of the natural carbon in plants, soil, and rocks, which get buried in sea deposits annually after being washed off the land by the river.
/.../
Fjords are good in absorbing carbon dioxide because they are deep, accept heavy flows of carbon-rich water from rivers, and have still, oxygen-starved waters in which organic material sinks without being broken down by bacteria.

According to the study that observed fjords around the world in Nordic nations, Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Chile, New Zealand and Antarctica, fjords soak up approximately 18 million tons of carbon a year.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;391272][url]http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/12/west-virginia-school-board-alters-climate-change-education-standards/[/url][/QUOTE]

Old King Coal was a merry old soul...

[QUOTE=only_human;401828][URL="http://www.esbtrib.com/2015/05/06/11291/organic-carbon-burial-fjords-absorb-huge-amounts-of-carbon-and-could-help-combat-man-made-climate-change/"]Fjords, next to forests, might be our last hope in reversing climate change[/URL][/QUOTE]

Have you heard the old joke...

A PhD was professing that while many languages were logically consistent with double positives resulting in a negative, the English language showed no such examples.

"Yeah. Right..." was heard from the back of the classroom....

[QUOTE=chalsall;401936]Have you heard the old joke...

A PhD was professing that while many languages were logically consistent with double positives resulting in a negative, the English language showed no such examples.

"Yeah. Right..." was heard from the back of the classroom....[/QUOTE]
I picked it mainly because of the use of "fjords." The anaerobic sequestration doesn't sound that implausible as that might also be true for peat bogs and perhaps even in accumulated stores of clathrites. Although this is a single study, the stating of an actual estimate and also the disproportionately small area versus a larger influence and being new information to me, made the article punch above its nominal weight.

Sure the title is grandiose but at least it appears to be upbeat without obvious drumming for funding. That plus the use of "fjords" got the dread parrot ross' squawk of approval.

[QUOTE=only_human;401939]The anaerobic sequestration doesn't sound that implausible as that might also be true for peat bogs and perhaps even in accumulated stores of clathrites.[/QUOTE]

Please forgive me. I am interested in this domain.

But...

Fjords are relatively small. They could consume 1,000% of their mass in carbon and not really make that much of a difference.

[QUOTE=chalsall;401942]Please forgive me. I am interested in this domain.

But...

Fjords are relatively small. They could consume 1,000% of their mass in carbon and not really make that much of a difference.[/QUOTE]
Well maybe the math doesn't fly, I'm just a parrot after all. I mostly try to stay out of the way of people getting work done while I crow over a shiny tidbit or two.

[QUOTE=chalsall;401942]Please forgive me. I am interested in this domain.[/quote]

But not enough to do even a tiny bit of reading or arithmetic, it seems.

[quote]Fjords are relatively small. They could consume 1,000% of their mass in carbon and not really make that much of a difference.[/QUOTE]

How about we do some simple back-of-the-envelope-style order of magnitude estimation? The wiki entry on fjords lacked total-area/volume data, so let's take the area number from the article:
[quote]Fjords cover only 0.1 percent of the world's ocean surface but account for 11 percent of the organic carbon in plants, soils and rocks that gets buried in marine sediments every year after being washed off the land by rivers, it said.[/quote]

Total earth ocean surface is ~70% of total surface area. Convenient mnemonic for earth size is that constant-longitude (i.e. great circle) distance from either pole to equator is almost exactly 10000 km. (From hereon '=' will mean 'approximately equals'). So R = 6370 km, thus ocean area Ao = 0.7*4*Pi*(6370 km)^2 = 357 million km^2.

We can argue about average depth of fjords and shape, but based on the Wikipedia description of various fjords, an average depth of 100 m seems reasonable, in the 'if anything on the low side' sense. That gives a total fjord volume estimate Vf = 0.001 (fraction of total ocean surface) * 0.1 (avg deoth in km) * Ao = 35,700 km^3, with a total water mass of 35,700 Gt. (since 1 m^3 of water has mass very close to 1 metric ton, 1 km3 similarly weighs roughly 1 Gt).

Now compare to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere]annual anthropogenic CO2 emissions[/url]:
[quote]Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[/quote]
Thus earth's fjords would in fact need absorb less than 0.1% of their water-weight annually in CO2 to entirely soak up human-caused emissions.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;401950]But not enough to do even a tiny bit of reading or arithmetic, it seems.

...

Thus earth's fjords would in fact need absorb less than 0.1% of their water-weight annually in CO2 to entirely soak up human-caused emissions.[/QUOTE]

I very much enjoy being called out when I speak out of my ass and am probably wrong. Truly. :smile:

My response was "gut". The number's didn't seem to make sense to me, and it seemed a bit like a "Climate change denial" article. "Don't worry about burning carbon sequestered millions of years ago; it will happen again Really Soon Now!"

I'm very happy to be proven wrong. I, certainly, will be reviewing the article in question, and the numbers, over the weekend.

[QUOTE=chalsall;401986]I very much enjoy being called out when I speak out of my ass and am probably wrong. Truly. :smile:

My response was "gut". The number's didn't seem to make sense to me, and it seemed a bit like a "Climate change denial" article. "Don't worry about burning carbon sequestered millions of years ago; it will happen again Really Soon Now!"

I'm very happy to be proven wrong. I, certainly, will be reviewing the article in question, and the numbers, over the weekend.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps I am more averse to people talking out of their nethers than I should be, because that connotes methane emissions to me, and CH4 is a much more potent GG than CO2. OTOH since you were doing so metaphorically, I should probably take my aversion to the literalists - maybe a protest outside a local Mexican food establishment?

I suspect even an annual CO2 uptake of 0.1% of water mass is very large by biological-productivity standards, but that seems at least not completely out of the range of possibility, and anyway we don't need fjords to suck up all the human-emitted CO2, just some appreciable fraction. Of course I'm still in the "first, best option is to reduce our emissions of the stuff via green tech and population-boom-curbing" school, but there are powerful industrial/financial, political, religious and social institutions aligned against such eminent sensibility.

[URL="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-point-of-no-return-climate-change-nightmares-are-already-here-20150805?page=7"]An alarmist article[/URL]. I've not studied it or the reliability of the reports its summarizes to be able to decide whether it's justifiably alarmist.

o [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/31/obama-can-rename-mount-mckinley-denali-but-he-cant-stop-its-loss-of-ice/]Obama can rename Mount McKinley Denali — but he can’t stop its loss of ice[/url] | WaPo

o [url=http://grist.org/article/hey-burning-man-your-desert-party-sucks-for-the-rest-of-us]Hey burning man, your desert party sucks for the rest of us[/url] | Grist

"Burning Man] will spew a minimum of 49,000 tons of greenhouse gases. How much is that? About the same that the nation of Swaziland (population 1.2 million) produces in a week. [That] does seems like a lot just to get naked in the desert and talk about your chakras. Ironically, Burning Man’s single most important tenet, according to every Burner ever, is leave no trace."

However, the more meaningful metric of wastefulness is how much *more* said amount of GG emissions is relative to what those folks would be responsible for in a less wretchedly-excessive context - the article goes on to note that the average BM participant will emit ~2x the US per-capita average in CO2 during the event, factoring in emissions due to traveling to and from the venue. Harder to say is how that compares to the rest-of-year average for the average BM [strike]wankerish poseur[/strike] participant - sure there is probably an above-average fraction of Tesla owners represented there, but [a] Teslas are not really 'green' when one factors in the supply-chain pollution (including at the downstream end - those huge batteries are eco-nasties compared to disposal of a conventional IC-engine car) and electricity-generation pollution, and [b] there is probably an above-average fraction of Tesla owners represented there, as well, a sort of bong-smoking wannabe-hippie analog of the Davos conference. So in the end BM may actually represent a net reduction in GG output for said participants taken as a group.

[url=www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/what-exxon-knew-about-climate-change]What Exxon Knew About Climate Change[/url] - The New Yorker
[quote]Everyone who’s been paying attention has known about climate change for decades now. But it turns out Exxon didn’t just “know” about climate change: it conducted some of the original research. In the nineteen-seventies and eighties, the company employed top scientists who worked side by side with university researchers and the Department of Energy, even outfitting one of the company’s tankers with special sensors and sending it on a cruise to gather CO2 readings over the ocean. By 1977, an Exxon senior scientist named James Black was, according to his own notes, able to tell the company’s management committee that there was “general scientific agreement” that what was then called the greenhouse effect was most likely caused by man-made CO2; a year later, speaking to an even wider audience inside the company, he said that research indicated that if we doubled the amount of carbon dioxide in the planet’s atmosphere, we would increase temperatures two to three degrees Celsius. That’s just about where the scientific consensus lies to this day. “Present thinking,” Black wrote in summary, “holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical.”[/quote]
An NC reader [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/links-91915.html#comment-2493640]adds some context[/url]:
[quote]The beauty of that article by Bill McKibben is that at the bottom of that page from the New Yorker is an ad:

Support Keystone XL. (Learn more)

To support America’s energy security, you see.

Bill McKibben is the person who made the Keystone XL pipeline not just a celebrity, but the sole focus of heightened publicity and attention about OMIGOD oil. He was successful for a couple of years in keeping the Keystone XL pipeline in the headlines (got himself arrested protesting against it in front of the White House), with no attention being paid to 1) the numbers, which showed that coal mining and combustion contributed far more to CO2 emission than did all the oil from Canada’s oil sands even if the entire amount were mined and burned (which is not possible); and 2) the continuing expansion of the pipeline systems carrying oil from Canada (mostly from the oil sands) into the US, to the point that Keystone XL became increasingly less and less important; and 3) the completion of the southern part of Keystone XL (no Federal approval necessary since it doesn’t cross a national border) and put online at the beginning of this year, carrying 400 000 barrels of oil a day by February, mostly from Canada, to the US Gulf Coast refineries that buy it.

I’ve thought for a couple of years now that McKibben serves as what Lenin called a useful idiot, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if CEOs of coal companies had made sure that checks had been sent regularly to support 350.com, the effort McKibben had founded with the aim of protesting against the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

McKibben has a new topic now, I guess, legitimate and important but, um…what about Keystone XL? After all that hoo-haw?[/quote]
Not to mention the proliferation of deadly oil-carrying rail-tanker disasters, in the absence of pipelines serving the needed corridors - yes, the lesser of 2 evils is still evil, but if the choice is shipping via pipeline vs rail tanker, I'll take the former very day of the week. Of course just learning to use less of the stuff should be humanity's top priority.

[url=www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/09/with-shells-failure-u-s-arctic-drilling-is-dead.html]With Shell’s Failure, U.S. Arctic Drilling Is Dead[/url] | naked capitalism

This book was recommended to us today: [url]http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/[/url]

It looks interesting!

:uncwilly:

[URL="http://mynewsla.com/weather/2015/11/01/hottest-socal-october-ever-by-4-degrees/"]Hottest SoCal October ever, by 4 degrees[/URL]
[QUOTE]Unofficial readings of 95 degrees were recorded on two days at normally-cool Malibu.

The average high temperature last month at the official Downtown Los Angeles measuring station, at USC,was 75.6 degrees, 7 degrees warmer than the next-hottest October, back in 1983, which also was an El Nino year.

Twenty-five days last month saw highs of 80 or above at USC, which set another record. And on seven nights last month, the mercury downtown did not drop below 70, and yes, that’s another record.

At LAX, next to the Pacific Ocean, the average high was 74 degrees. That’s 8.1 degrees above the previous record October, in 1958.

Burbank was even hotter: its October average high was 76.2 degrees, 9.3 degrees above the record set in 1991.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;414550][URL="http://mynewsla.com/weather/2015/11/01/hottest-socal-october-ever-by-4-degrees/"]Hottest SoCal October ever, by 4 degrees[/URL][/QUOTE]
We are not believing, endorsing, or promoting in any way the "global warming" propaganda, but we have to mention a fact, the Oct 2015 [U]was[/U] the hottest October in the last 15 years since we are in Thailand and leaving in the same place. We can prove it with personal records from our thermometer (we have one outside, which records the stuff, personal design).

The difference was quite big, because we felt it also at the shower heater. Actually, we first "felt" it, then we checked the thermometer, to make sure. Our heater has a knob to adjust the electric power (this is cheap stuff, you can buy everywhere, you don't adjust the water's output temperature, but the input power, in fact not even that, you only adjust the phase-cut timing for the AC voltage wave) and this knob has an "yearly" cycle, this means it is at minimum in April, when the water from the pipe is already "too hot" to waste electricity on it, and we start turning it up in May, when the rains start, going a little bit up periodically (weekly?), if we feel the water cold, in such a way that at the end of November it reaches the maximum. We like our water warm in a "very narrow temperature range", and other enemies in the house never use our bathroom/shower - we are kinda Al Bundy related to this subject:razz: well... whatever, you got the point. We have a few tons glass fiber water tank, i.e. not sensitive at all to sharp changes in the climate, like day/night, sun/shadow, and a house pump which supplies a constant flow, so the shower temperature only depends on the applied power and some average temperature of a longer period (the fiber tank is a good insulator), and not on the water flow, air bubbles, or such. So the "knob" is quite "reliable".

We usually start turning the knob down end of December, as the water coming from the pipe gets a bit warmer, and the shower gets too hot for our skin. We turn down the knob quite fast (almost daily) in Feb-March, such as in April is again at its minimum point (i.e. no heating).

This year we didn't have to move the knob up at all in October, and in fact we moved it down, such as now is pointing in the direction where, during other years, was pointing during August. Also the rain was visible less than other years, this October.

OTOH, that means nothing, two and three years ago we had the "coldest November" in 15 years (+9°C, in the morning, other years were usually 12, seldom 11). And this year's April was one of the colder (but not the coldest) in 15 years, with no day over 45°C (other years we have seen 48 in the shadow, during midday April - the hottest month of the year). Of course, the "colder" thingies never got mentioned in the press.

[QUOTE=LaurV;414589]We are not believing, endorsing, or promoting in any way the "global warming" propaganda, but we have to mention a fact, the Oct 2015 [U]was[/U] the hottest October in the last 15 years since we are in Thailand and leaving in the same place. We can prove it with personal records. OTOH, this means nothing, two and three years ago we had the "coldest November" in 15 years (+9°C, in the morning, other years were usually 12, seldom 11). And this year's April was one of the colder (but not the coldest) in 15 years, with no day over 45°C (other years we have seen 48 in the shadow, during midday April - the hottest month of the year). Of course, the "colder" thingies never got mentioned in the press.[/QUOTE]Did you notice any differences in snake activities during either temperature extreme?

[QUOTE=only_human;414590]Did you notice any differences in snake activities during either temperature extreme?[/QUOTE]
No, but they go out when the rains start, as the water fills their holes, I assume.
See that I "capitally" edited that post already, with more details, didn't see your crossposting.
Told you never quote me in the first 20 minutes after the post :razz:, sometime I edit and completely change the meaning, because the initial English doesn't get out as I would like it to, from my fingers.

[QUOTE=LaurV;414597]No, but they go out when the rains start, as the water fills their holes, I assume.
See that I "capitally" edited that post already, with more details, didn't see your crossposting.
Told you never quote me in the first 20 minutes after the post :razz:, sometime I edit and completely change the meaning, because the initial English doesn't get out as I would like it to, from my fingers.[/QUOTE]
I have always liked your posts in any form and wish I had a decent reason for my many post-post decisions and revisions before the taking of a toast and tea.

[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/09/scientists-alarm-snakes"]Snakes declining at alarming rate, say scientists[/URL]
[QUOTE]Scientists in five countries across three continents report they found "alarming" declines in snake numbers after monitoring 17 populations in a variety of habitats – something they believe could be part of a global phenomenon.

The paper reports 11 of the population groups "declined sharply", while five remained stable, and one showed a very weak sign of increase. Many of the researchers in the UK, France, Italy, Nigeria and Australia also found evidence of "population crashes" – a sudden decline followed by no sign of recovery – a trend which would make the survivors more vulnerable to being wiped out by further pressures.

"All the declines occurred during the same relatively short period of time and over a wide geographical area that included temperate, Mediterranean and tropical climates," write the authors. "We suggest that, for these reasons alone, there is likely to be a common cause at the root of the declines and that this indicates a more widespread phenomenon."

Although the paper stresses there is no proof of the cause of the losses, the researchers say they "suspect" loss or deterioration of habitats and declining prey are among the main problems faced by snake populations. They believe that all the immediate threats have climate change as a common cause.

"The main importance of these findings is that snakes are top predator within the habitats they are found in and as such play a potentially important role in the functioning of many ecosystems," said Chris Reading of the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, who led the research. "For example they play an important role in pest control – small rodents [like] rats and mice - in areas such as paddies and sugar cane plantations."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]The authors note that six of the eight species showing which "crashed" had small home ranges, sedentary habits and relied on ambushing prey rather than actively seeking it out. "These patterns fit the prediction that 'sit-and-wait foragers may be vulnerable because they rely on sites with specific types of ground cover, and anthropogenic activities disrupt these habitat features, and ambush foraging is associated with a suite of life-history traits that involve low rates of feeding, growth and reproduction'," they add.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;414598][URL="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/09/scientists-alarm-snakes"]Snakes declining at alarming rate, say scientists[/URL][/QUOTE]
Ha! Snakes are very well adapted predators, and very stubborn. Paraphrasing a known scientist, when he was asked about the future of the cockroach, in a documentary which was showing how a fragile creature the cockroach is (an it is, for example it didn't evolve at all in 400 millions of years, or whatever, and only a small change in temperature or even a smaller change in soil pH, could wipe out whole populations), he replied something like "I would not bet against a creature which saw the dinosaurs coming and going".

[QUOTE=LaurV;414608]Ha! Snakes are very well adapted predators, and very stubborn.[/QUOTE]Anecdotally, [URL="http://www.azcentral.com/story/entertainment/people/2015/11/01/alice-cooper-paid-for-snakes-travel-first-class/74937962/"]Alice Cooper paid for his snakes to travel in first class.[/URL]
[QUOTE]The 67-year-old star, who is known for draping his pet snake around his neck when he performs on stage, takes his little slithery companion with him everywhere but has admitted he once lost a former snake down the toilet.

He explained: ''I did lose a former snake, Yvonne, a 12ft-long boa, in a hotel in Knoxville, Tennessee.

''I put her in a bath tub overnight as she loved to swim but in the morning she had gone down the toilet.''

But, despite being thrown into panic when he realized she was missing, Alice was reunited with Yvonne a few weeks later when she slithered up the piping in another room.

He added to the Daily Telegraph newspaper: ''She eventually emerged two weeks later in a different bathroom, having survived off sewer rats in the plumbing.''[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=only_human;414550][URL="http://mynewsla.com/weather/2015/11/01/hottest-socal-october-ever-by-4-degrees/"]Hottest SoCal October ever, by 4 degrees[/URL][/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/34694767"]Hottest November day: In pictures[/URL]Not quite up there in the same league as SoCal but 22.4C (72.3F) is unheard of in these parts for November. It would be quite respectable for a day in July or August.

[QUOTE=LaurV;414589]OTOH, that means nothing, two and three years ago we had the "coldest November" in 15 years (+9°C, in the morning, other years were usually 12, seldom 11). And this year's April was one of the colder (but not the coldest) in 15 years, with no day over 45°C (other years we have seen 48 in the shadow, during midday April - the hottest month of the year). Of course, the "colder" thingies never got mentioned in the press.[/QUOTE]

When are you going to stop prattling and learn some math? The sarcasm in your last sentence is totally misplaced.

While the full solution of the Navier-Stokes equation remains a millennium problem, some aspects of it
(and climate models in general) are well known. In particular it is known that an increase in MEAN
temperatures is also accompanied by an increase in VARIANCE. So we get [b]both[/b] an increase in
average temperatures AND an increase in the size of the tails.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414662]While the full solution of the Navier-Stokes equation remains a millennium problem, some aspects of it (and climate models in general) are well known.[/QUOTE]

Yes, but would perfect prediction not also require perfect initial inputs to the model(s)? Which, almost by definition, are not possible.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414662]In particular it is known that an increase in MEAN temperatures is also accompanied by an increase in VARIANCE. So we get [b]both[/b] an increase in average temperatures AND an increase in the size of the tails.[/QUOTE]

Yes. This is why it is now generally referred to as "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming".

The question which seem to be most outstanding in this current debate (in the scientific community, the business community, and the politicians) is is this human caused, or a regular cycle over which we have no control?

I personally don't know. But my gut tells me that introducing more energy into a system (by, for example, capturing more solar energy by releasing C0[SUB]2[/SUB]) is much easier (and possibly folly) than moving heat out of controlled environments (which also takes energy) in order to keep humans alive.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414662]When are you going to stop prattling and learn some math? The sarcasm in your last sentence is totally misplaced.

While the full solution of the Navier-Stokes equation remains a millennium problem, some aspects of it
(and climate models in general) are well known. In particular it is known that an increase in MEAN
temperatures is also accompanied by an increase in VARIANCE. So we get [B]both[/B] an increase in
average temperatures AND an increase in the size of the tails.[/QUOTE]

The term "Global Warming" has become something of a liability because of widespread lack-of-understanding/deliberate-distortion. Some have suggested, and I have adopted "Climate Disruption" or "Climate Chaos" as being less susceptible to confusion or contortion.

[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/climate-change-could-have-a-significant-impact-on-our-economy/"][B]Climate change could have a significant impact on our economy[/B][/URL]

[QUOTE]Climate change may have many economic impacts, including loss of crops, changes in water supply, increased incidence of natural disaster, and spikes in health care costs related to infectious diseases and temperature-related illnesses. However, hard evidence about the effects of climate change on economic activity has been inconsistent.


A new paper published in [I]Nature[/I] takes on the ambitious task of connecting micro- and macro-level estimates of climate costs. The study finds that climate change can be expected to reshape the global economy by reducing average global incomes roughly 23 percent by the year 2100. This study is important because it solves a problem that has existed in prior models of climate change effects on economics: discrepancies between macro- and micro-level observations. This study presents the first evidence that economic activity in all regions is coupled in some way to global climate. The study also sets up a new empirical paradigm for modeling economic loss in response to climate change.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=chalsall;414666] is this human caused, or a regular cycle over which we have no control?[/QUOTE]
Who cares? :razz: You all underestimate the life, and the nature in general, which has a huge capacity to survive, to adapt, to regenerate. See Chernobyl, where all "scientists" not longer than 30 years ago were predicting that nothing will grow there anymore, for ages. Sparrows are making nests in the reactor's lid...

More carbon dioxide? Let it come. The green algae and plankton is just waiting to thrive. Few square kilometers of that consumes daily what humans produce yearly. Species disappearing? Who cares? Thousands of species disappear daily with or without humans.

You guys put too much importance and power on humans. Maybe it is a way to feel important and powerful, but worst you can do is just like a fart in a swimming pool... :razz:

With or without you, the life goes on...

[QUOTE=LaurV;414672]With or without you, the life goes on...[/QUOTE]

I actually resonate with that strongly. Life will survive, no matter what we stupid humans do.

But... I value humans for their unique intelligence (and their opposing thumb, and their use of electricity)...

Two points:

First, I don't think it is fair that the underprivileged are disadvantaged by the wealthy. We live in air-conditioned homes and offices, eat food shipped half way around the world for our enjoyment, buy and use products manufactured by those who make 1 / 10th to 1 / 100th of us per day. We don't seem to give a crap about what it takes to work in very unforgiving situations.

Second, shortly the AI's will take over. Water cooling anyone?

(Just to be clear, this post is meant to be funny, and serious, at the same time.)

[QUOTE=chalsall;414675]I actually resonate with that strongly. Life will survive, no matter what we stupid humans do.

But... I value humans for their unique intelligence (and their opposing thumb, and their use of electricity)...

Two points:

First, I don't think it is fair that the underprivileged are disadvantaged by the wealthy. We live in air-conditioned homes and offices, eat food shipped half way around the world for our enjoyment, buy and use products manufactured by those who make 1 / 10th to 1 / 100th of us per day. We don't seem to give a crap about what it takes to work in very unforgiving situations.

Second, shortly the AI's will take over. Water cooling anyone?

(Just to be clear, this post is meant to be funny, and serious, at the same time.)[/QUOTE]

The planet isn't in danger. WE ARE. The possibility of a recede is real.
Loss of living space as coastal cities flood. Diversion of economic resources to handle
flooding; resources that would be better used elsewhere. Loss of crops as we get more frequent and
systemic droughts. Loss of habitats for fish as the seas warm up. Disruptions in the food chain.
Direct deaths from extreme weather. Inability of those without economic resources to adapt.
etc. etc.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414678]The planet isn't in danger. WE ARE. The possibility of a recede is real.
Loss of living space as coastal cities flood. Diversion of economic resources to handle
flooding; resources that would be better used elsewhere. Loss of crops as we get more frequent and
systemic droughts. Loss of habitats for fish as the seas warm up. Disruptions in the food chain.
Direct deaths from extreme weather. Inability of those without economic resources to adapt.
etc. etc.[/QUOTE]

Note also that these are conditions that can lead to widespread war. 'Can', not 'will'.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414679]Note also that these are conditions that can lead to widespread war. 'Can', not 'will'.[/QUOTE]

A very interesting and important point. I sincerely ask you:

Would you agree that the economics of war might suggest profit to those providing arms?

[QUOTE=chalsall;414681]A very interesting and important point. I sincerely ask you:

Would you agree that the economics of war might suggest profit to those providing arms?[/QUOTE]

Of course.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414679]Note also that these are conditions that can lead to widespread war. 'Can', not 'will'.[/QUOTE]
Not only can these miseries lead to war, conflict can have a seasonal preference for warmth:
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/26/war-spring-taliban-afghanistan-fighting"]Why war has spring in its step[/URL]
"The timing of the Taliban prison escape reminds us that war and springtime have been linked in art for centuries"

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;414662]When are you going to stop prattling and learn some math? [/QUOTE]
We know this song, already, by heart. But you know, it doesn't pay. Prattling pays much better :razz:

Now you (general you) know why I posted in the beginning of this thread that I don't talk about the subject. I don't want to break any hearts here... :smile:

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman]Of course.[/QUOTE]
Bingo!

(edit: I really think some people here [U]have to[/U] read "Stand on Zanzibar").

[QUOTE=LaurV;414734](edit: I really think some people here [U]have to[/U] read "Stand on Zanzibar").[/QUOTE]

Is it available as an ebook? [wink]

Looking on Amazon I find it *IS* available as an Kindle ebook. Plus 95 versions of bits on atoms.

A completely tangential thought:

Perhaps we (read: Mersenne Forum) might form a sub-forum within which participants might give recommendations for books in separate threads, and why they are recommended?

The recommender would then continue to interact with the readers in their started thread.

Comments and/or thoughts?

[QUOTE=chalsall;414848]Is it available as an ebook? [wink]

Looking on Amazon I find it *IS* available as an Kindle ebook. Plus 95 versions of bits on atoms.

A completely tangential thought:

Perhaps we (read: Mersenne Forum) might form a sub-forum within which participants might give recommendations for books in separate threads, and why they are recommended?

The recommender would then continue to interact with the readers in their started thread.

Comments and/or thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Would this have a broader field than the SciFi thread, then? I am all for anything which encourages reading.

Covering the deserts with solar will also change the climate
 

[URL="http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/11/changing-the-earths-climate-by-covering-the-deserts-with-solar-panels/"]"But the effect is small compared to greenhouse warming."[/URL]


[QUOTE]Currently, the Earth's inhabitants are, on average, consuming about 17.5TeraWatts of power. It's estimated that an aggressive rollout of solar panels could generate at least 400TW, and possibly much, much more. But that would involve paving over a lot of the Earth's surface with solar panels, in many cases covering relatively reflective sand with dark black hardware. Could this have its own effects on the climate?


The answer turns out to be remarkably complex. That's in part because the panels don't simply absorb the energy of the light—a fraction of it gets converted to electricity and shipped elsewhere. A team of US and Chinese scientists decided to account for all of this and found out that massive solar installations would cause changes in the climate, but the changes would be minor compared to what we'd see from continued greenhouse gas emissions.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=kladner;414873]Would this have a broader field than the SciFi thread, then? I am all for anything which encourages reading.[/QUOTE]

That was my thinking.

Anyone who considers a book worth sponsoring would stand up and say something like "I recommend this book. These are the reasons... Please let me know if you have any questions and/or comments.

This can be anything from a fiction novel (including SciFi), a textbook, or a sacred text etc.

And, then, the sponsor of the book would answer any questions raised, or moderate those answering.

Perhaps a dangerous experiment. But, then, pushing the envelope often results in progress.... :wink:

[QUOTE=kladner;414879]"But the effect is small compared to greenhouse warming."[/QUOTE]

A subtle but important point. Thank you for raising it.

A modern solar electrical panel is at best 20% efficient. But even assuming 100% efficiency, that energy is going to be moved somewhere else to do work. At the end of the day, almost all the solar energy absorbed is going to be released back into the system as heat.

Welcome to thermodynamics...

This is not necessarily a bad thing. Humans inhabit a relatively small landmass.

Even if we measurably change the "albedo" of Earth, it will probably be less impactfull than changing the Earth's ability to retain heat.

I could be wrong, of course....

Since I'm relativisticallly new to this thread, let me express my views by asking some questions about climate change;

Is Climate Change a Problem or NOT?

Can global warming or cooling correct itself without any human counteractionary intervention?

Is there any reason to believe that dangerous extremes will actually be attained?

How do we know that second order projections won't contradict the first order warning signs?

Is there any real reason to be worried about it?

Just some questions I have. They are just for demonstration purposes, not expecting any specific conclusions,
nor do they seek detailed information or documented evidence. Just soliciting a short overview of opinion.

Have you read this thread?

:razz:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;415355]Have you read this thread?
:razz:[/QUOTE]

I know I deserve that, but it's a long long thread.....

[QUOTE=davar55;415354]Since I'm relativisticallly new to this thread, let me express my views by asking some questions about climate change;[/QUOTE]

Go for it. I'm not a scientist, but I'll take "first bat".

[QUOTE=davar55;415354]Is Climate Change a Problem or NOT?[/QUOTE]

1. Nobody knows. And it can mean different things to different people.

2. Those living close to the equator already suffer a great deal of ambient heat, raising water, and storms.

3. Those living close to the north pole are eagerly rubbing their hands, and staking claims.

3.1. North-West Passage, anyone?

[QUOTE=davar55;415354]Can global warming or cooling correct itself without any human counteractionary intervention?[/QUOTE]

Sure. Absolutely no problem.

It might get too hot and/or too cold for too long for /most/ life to survive.

But some will. Almost certainly.

[QUOTE=davar55;415354]Is there any reason to believe that dangerous extremes will actually be attained?

How do we know that second order projections won't contradict the first order warning signs? [U][B]Is there any real reason to be worried about it?[/B][/U]

Just some questions I have. They are just for demonstration purposes, not expecting any specific conclusions,
nor do they seek detailed information or documented evidence. Just soliciting a short overview of opinion.[/QUOTE]

If I may please reflect the question...

If there was a chance you might be within an object more massive than you travelling at high speed which decelerates rapidly. Would you be better off strapped to the more massive object (travelling at the same speed) or not?

[QUOTE=chalsall;415361]3. Those living close to the north pole are eagerly rubbing their hands, and staking claims.
[/QUOTE]
That is literary what Putin did, when asked by a journalist, rubbing his hands and said something along the lines "waaa... so much fertile land in Siberia becoming good for agriculture"...:smile:

I'm enough of a scientist to know what's reasonably sure and what's uncertain.

Climate Change refers to global warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, there are others.

The increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are certain, it's easy to measure accurately.

The Earth has warmed significantly since significant greenhouse gas release started. Exactly how much it has warmed is harder to say, temperature varies from year to year due to weather, volcanic eruptions, etc. And regional effects are less certain.

What other effects it may have had are harder to say. It may have caused the climate to become more variable as well as warmer but that's not sure.

Predicting what will happen in the future after further releases is very uncertain. It's unlikely to be good news, but hard to say how bad it could get.

Chris

[QUOTE=chris2be8;415560]I'm enough of a scientist to know what's reasonably sure and what's uncertain.

Climate Change refers to global warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas, there are others.
The increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are certain, it's easy to measure accurately.
The Earth has warmed significantly since significant greenhouse gas release started. Exactly how much it has warmed is harder to say, temperature varies from year to year due to weather, volcanic eruptions, etc. And regional effects are less certain.
What other effects it may have had are harder to say. It may have caused the climate to become more variable as well as warmer but that's not sure.
Predicting what will happen in the future after further releases is very uncertain. It's unlikely to be good news, but hard to say how bad it could get.
[/QUOTE]
Sensible answer.
Why is it unlikely to be good news, even if we take only minor positive actions to deter climate change?
Isn't it more than possible that climate change will improve humanity's lot? That's my opinion,
but I'm open to other opinions.

[QUOTE=davar55;415574]Sensible answer.
Why is it unlikely to be good news, even if we take only minor positive actions to deter climate change?
[B]Isn't it more than possible that climate change will improve humanity's lot?[/B] That's my opinion,
but I'm open to other opinions.[/QUOTE]

Tell that to the people who are currently mass-migrating from North Africa. Part of the underpinnings of the Syria debacle are drought and crop failure. Certainly, there are political/human rights motivations, as well. However, political crises are often driven by human crises such as failing food supplies. The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution"]French Revolution[/URL] provides an example:[INDENT]"The [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution"]causes of the French Revolution[/URL] are complex and are still debated among historians. Following the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War"]Seven Years' War[/URL] and the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War"]American Revolutionary War[/URL],[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#cite_note-4"][4][/URL] the French government was deeply in debt and attempted to restore its financial status through unpopular taxation schemes. [B]Years of bad harvests leading up to the Revolution also inflamed popular resentment[/B] of the privileges enjoyed by the clergy and the aristocracy."
[/INDENT]Interestingly, the first article linked in the quotation above, cites the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#Deregulation_and_hunger"]deregulation of the grain markets[/URL] as a contributing factor to popular turmoil. While control of the markets was reestablished, the "Little Ice Age", induced by a massive Icelandic eruption, caused continued shortages of food in the lead-up to revolution.[INDENT]The fear of famine became an ever-present dread for the lower strata of the Third Estate, and rumors of the "Pacte de Famine" to starve the poor were still rampant and readily believed.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#cite_note-Doyle121-31"][31][/URL] Mere rumors of food shortage led to the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9veillon_riots"]Réveillon riots[/URL] in April 1789. Rumors of a plot aiming to destroy wheat crops in order to starve the population provoked the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fear"]Great Fear[/URL] in the summer of 1789. The hunger and despair of the Parisian women was also the original impetus for the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_March_on_Versailles"]Women's March on Versailles[/URL] in October 1789, they wanted not just one meal but the assurance that bread would once again be plentiful and cheap.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#cite_note-Soboul155-32"][32][/URL]

The two years prior to the revolution (1788–89) saw meager harvests and harsh winters, possibly because of a strong [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o"]El Niño[/URL] cycle [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#cite_note-33"][33][/URL] caused by the 1783 [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laki"]Laki[/URL] eruption in [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland"]Iceland[/URL].[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#cite_note-34"][34][/URL] The [I][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age"]Little Ice Age[/URL][/I] also affected farmers' choices of crops to plant; in other parts of Europe, peasant farmers had adopted the [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato"]potato[/URL] as its [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_crop"]staple crop[/URL].[/INDENT]While our current global situation is moving in the other direction, too warm can be just as devastating as too cold. (The Laki eruption not only cooled the northern hemisphere, it blanketed northern Europe with a toxic "dry fog" comprised of sulfur oxides and fluorine gas. People, crops, and livestock were killed.)

We saw a chart once that showed how removing the tetraethyl lead from gasoline caused a dramatic decrease in the amount of lead in the air. (The chart showed a sharp rise from about nothing in 1920 to a peak around 1970 or so.) This is encouraging to us because it shows that (over time) we can make a difference, even for something as big as global warming.

A corny story: [url]https://eventsforchange.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/the-starfish-story-one-step-towards-changing-the-world/[/url]

[SIZE="1"](We like corny stories!)[/SIZE]