Latest IPCC Report: Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Will Require Leaving Most Remaining Fossil Fuels in the Ground

By Tom Yulsman | November 3, 2014 2:26 pm
fossil fuels

The Suncor refinery in Commerce City near Denver, Colorado. (iPhone photomosaic: © Tom Yulsman)

If humanity is to avoid dangerous impacts from climate change, we’re going to have to do something that seems almost unthinkable: walk away from the massive riches of fossil fuels still left in the ground.

For me, that’s the key message of the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, released yesterday.

The problem, of course, is that right now the world is headed in precisely the opposite direction.

While U.S. energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide were about 10 percent lower in 2013 than they were at their peak in 2007, and European nations are struggling to reduce their own emissions, huge growth in the developing world is helping to push anthropogenic emissions of CO2 ever higher.

Thanks to all of the carbon that the developing world has pumped into the atmosphere since the dawn of the industrial age, and the rising amounts from fast-growing nations like China, India and Brazil, climate impacts are already being felt around the world. As the IPCC put it:

Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.

fossil fuels

The coast of Southwest Greenland as seen from a passenger jet on Nov. 1, 2014. (Photo: © Tom Yulsman)

So it will take a dramatic change in course to prevent further climate impact. Already, these include warming of the atmosphere and oceans, changes to the global water cycle, melting of snow and ice (including the ice sheet in Greenland, seen in the photo at right), and rising sea level.

If emissions continue unabated, risks of other kinds of impacts will rise as well.

One of the most troubling could be impacts on agriculture. Already, climate change has slowed gains in the productivity of some crops, according to the IPCC. (For more about that, please make sure to read my climate story in Discover’s upcoming Year in Science issue.)

To limit dangerous interference in the climate system, governments around the world have agreed to limiting the rise in global average temperature to less than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, above the preindustrial level. To meet that goal, the IPCC says new emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning must not exceed 1 trillion tons.

To put that number in perspective, consider that total fossil fuel reserves contain about 4 trillion to 7 trillion tons of carbon, according to the IPCC. And fossil fuel companies are spending about $600 billion every year to find even more.

Nowhere is that feverish effort more obvious than along Colorado’s high plains not far from where I live. Oil production is booming here at the foot of the Front Range. Weld County alone, about a 45 minute drive northeast of Denver, has experienced a 34 percent increase in oil production in less than one year. As the Greeley Tribune put it a little over a week ago:

Total crude production across the state — of which Weld County is responsible for about 82 percent and growing — is headed toward last year’s record production, according to numbers from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. But analysts believe crude oil coming out of the Denver-Julesburg Basin will continue to topple historic flows and even double in the next five years.

Denver has been described as the Houston of the Rockies, a town that’s booming thanks in no small measure to fossil fuel companies that have set up shop here. We’ve even got our own large, odoriferous refinery that transforms 98,000 barrels of oil every day into gasoline, diesel fuel and paving-grade asphalt.

Don’t get me wrong. I know that for now we are dependent on those products, and that they are helping to drive economic growth here in Colorado. But if what the IPCC reported yesterday is true, we’ve got to get more serious about bringing on alternative energy sources quickly — and to steel ourselves for the necessity of walking away from the vast majority of the fossil fuel riches still left in the ground.

 

ADVERTISEMENT
  • http://againstjebelallawz.wordpress.com/ Enopoletus Harding

    The last period of more than two years Brazil was a “fast-growing” nation was in the 1970s. Let’s not delude ourselves about its potential for growth. It’s potential for greater pollution, however, is quite high, given that it follows import-substituting policies that encourage economic inefficiency.

    Also,

    There is only one study that the IPCC table lists with such an estimate, namely the bottom one, Roson and van der Mensbrugghe’s 2012 study. As the table shows, they estimated that a 4.9°C warming would cause a 4.6 percent reduction in global GDP.
    Uh oh! Remember from the table way in the beginning—the one with the gray shading—that the IPCC estimated a compliance cost of 4.8 percent of GDP in the year 2100 from our chosen policy. Therefore, if we relied on the one study that the IPCC lists to give us an estimate of the damages from the projected warming under RPC 8.5 by the year 2100, then we conclude that our policy can’t possibly be justified.

    http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/using-ipcc-defeat-un-climate-agenda/

    • Bill

      According to the Laws of Thermo-dynamics, if you see and increase in 8.5 degree Celsius, that means you’ve burned 8.5 degrees more fuel. Heat can’t be created, it has to come from a fuel with potential heat energy. Stop thinking of heat as a degree. Think of it as a degree of fuel. One degree of fuel when burnt, will give you one more degree of heat energy.

      Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will not make the sun burn more fuel and send out more heat warming the earth 8.5 degrees C.

  • Buddy199

    In Norway, the leader in renewable energy, the major sources of power are nuclear, hydro dams and carbon-producing biomass burning. Solar, wind and “other” are negligible and for a good reason: physics.

    Unfortunately, Greens are religiously dead set against nuclear and will block any attempts at building new Hoover Dams. Which leaves us singularly dependent on fossil fuels. Or adopting a Medeival pre-industrial lifestyle. They’re not really offering much of a solution after so vociferously defining the problem.

    • Gary Masters

      Geothermal can save the day.

      • Bill

        If you have any geothermal. The only geothermal hot spots in the continental U.S. is in Yellowstone National Park, and that won’t produce much energy.
        Iceland is sitting on top of a volcano and has a small population and a lot of geo-thermal energy to tap. Most of Iceland’s energy comes from geo-thermal from what I’ve read. But they are in a unique situation, not shared by any other nation on the planet. Wind and nano-dot solar cells are more promising in the US, and most of the world, than geo-thermal energy. Mos countries don’t have any geo-thermal hot spots to tap into.

        • Gary Masters

          I was thinking “warm spots” an most every here has ground temperatures in the 60’s and close if you go down six feet or more. Now it is not a conductive media so you need a large field but it can provide much more energy than a normal heat pump tha takes it from the atmosphere. It is a significant source of energy.

          • Bill

            Oh heat pumps, yeah I’ve read about those, Every home in America could install and underground heat pump. I’ve read they are pretty effective at cutting heating and cooling costs in the domestic sphere, however, I’ve never read of them being scaled up to industrial usages.

          • Gary Masters

            I would save nuclear for heavy industry. But as part of an energy program every bit saved from one area is a plus for others.

  • Gary Masters

    Great news. You win the lottery. But all the money has Richard Nixon on the face. OK> Live in the poor house. And you tell me there is no way to have clean coal or oil? None at all. Now I know you are no chemist.

    • Bill

      NO Gary you’re right. The French invented the FBC (Floating Bed Combustion), and PFBC (Pressurized Floating Bed combustion), furnace systems in the 1980’s. By pulverizing the high sulfur coal into a dust and adding pulverized calcium powder to the mix, chemically when heated, the calcium grabs onto the sulfur and becomes hard ash that does not rise up in the flue gas. These furnaces, without scrubbers to clean the flue gases, exceed the National limits put on sulfur emissions. But the environmentalists won’t push the tech because they don’t want us burning any coal, they want solar and wind.

      • Gary Masters

        That is new information to me and I appreciate it.

      • Hope Forpeace

        http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Scrubbers
        Why do you think grandfathered in coal plants don’t install scrubbers when they know the effect?
        Are wind and solar less pollutive than scrubbed coal?

        • Bill

          You’re right wind and solar are less polluting than coal, but right now they aren’t practical enough to replace coal and oil. Most of the worlds population lives in the north, at the same longitudes as Canada and Europe. These areas get low amounts of solar, and yet need huge amounts of electricity for industry and homes. Also wind is impractical because in most areas of the world they don’t get enough stable winds of a high enough velocity to create the power needed.

          Those areas that do get high stable winds are far from population centers,and present the difficult task of transporting the power. Which is very costly to do.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Inventing unconventional horizontal hydrofracturing was very expensive – government helped: “Funding from the Federal Government had a huge impact on the evolution of the industry,”
            http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/new_investigation_finds_decade
            We could have easily developed renewable energy instead. Liberals have been calling for this switch for decades. We could have easily made the switch by now.
            We are NOT too stupid or too poor to invent that new energy source and grid. We are too brainwashed by the industry that profits. Your answer is obvious proof.
            Your answer is – we are too stupid and too poor and we should continue as we are even if it ends the human species.
            You should think about that.

          • Bill

            When did I say ” Your answer is- we are too stupid and too poor and we should continue as we are even if it ends the human species.”

            A. You still haven’t told us what your college degree is in.

            B. The fact you have to lie about what I write is proof that you are stupid. Intelligent people make accurate quotes, stupid people make them up, like you do.

            C. YOU are the uneducated, non-scientist here, claiming that our energy use is going to cause human catastrophe, massive “crop failures”, via CO2 buildup not me. I have pointed out that like on Venus, if we continue to put CO2 into the air (Venus atmosphere is 95% CO2, and it is 50 kilometers thick, much thicker than Earth’s), we will block out the sun cooling the earth, just as it does on Venus, wherein the solar heat at the planet’s surface is almost -500 degrees Fahrenheit.

            Venus is NOT being warmed by its CO2, it is being cooled. Less heat reaches the surface of Venus than does here on Earth. A FACT confirmed by the Russian VERNIER landers which successfully set down on Venus’ surface.

            And remember, Venus is 2/3’s the distance from the sun the Earth is. It gets much more heat and light than we do, yet the CO2 is so efficient at protecting the surface fro the suns light an heat, the surface is icy cold when you factor out the heat created by the 90 atmospheres of pressure heat.

            In case you want to check my math, the Pressure/Temperature law formula is

            P1 x T2= P2 x T1

            That is: The starting pressure times the ending temperature is equal to the Ending Pressure times the starting temperature.

            You can double check the formula by googling the Law of Ideal Gasses.

            Of course, you prefer to be ignorant so I know you won’t, but I can only try to help you educate yourself, I can’t make you do it.

            I presume you know basic algebra and can do the math.

          • Hope Forpeace

            “When did I say ” Your answer is- we are too stupid and too poor and we should continue as we are even if it ends the human species.””

            “but right now they aren’t practical enough to replace coal and oil. ”

            That along with the rest of your comment which uses the status quo to show that staying on fossil fuels is our only path.

            The only reason we would stay on fossil fuels when we know they will end the human species is we are too stupid and too poor.

            What other excuse do we have?

            “We haven’t invented it yet so it’s not practical” is your basic answer. It must follow that we are too stupid to do so.

            Or we are too poor – we can’t afford to get off oil.

            Otherwise the answer is we are too immoral – we don’t care that our addiction to oil will end our species.

            One does not need a college degree to see this – You may have a college degree and you can’t see it – what is your degree in BTW?

            “YOU are the uneducated, non-scientist here, claiming that our energy use is going to cause human catastrophe, massive “crop failures”, via CO2 buildup not me.”

            UTTERLY ridiculous. I did not do any of the studies I cite. That’s inane and preposterous.
            What cites are you referring to? There are no such cites on this thread.

            But I do believe it’s possible you think the formula you post here debunks the science the IPCC report is based on.

            Is that true?

          • Bill

            So let me get this straight.

            You and your , I assume, high school education, quoted me as saying,

            “but right now they aren’t practical enough to replace coal and oil.”

            as meaning,

            “Your answer is- “we are too stupid and too poor and we should continue as we are even if it ends the human species.”

            but not as meaning,

            “but right now they aren’t practical enough to replace coal and oil.”

            You got a really good education in English from your high school didn’t you?

            Did you graduate top of your class?

          • Hope Forpeace

            You have quite a few errors in your own punctuation. I wouldn’t resort to nit-picking.
            If you can make the argument that renewables are not viable yet because we lack the knowledge and ability to make them viable – go ahead.
            I think if you give the matter some thought – you might realize we are perfectly smart enough and have plenty of resources to figure out how to replace fossil fuels.
            Obviously inventing the replacement takes knowledge and finances.
            In reality we are not short on either.
            Instead of inventing the way out of fossil fuels, government aided the nat gas Industry in inventing unconventional horizontal hydrofracturing.
            Why do we spend our $ on carbon energy instead of renewables?
            Isn’t that the heart of the matter? R n D and focus?
            We are not focused on getting off fossil fuels even though the warming they cause will end our species.
            You can see the hand of the profiting Industry there.
            If you have eyes to see.

          • Bill

            MY GOD!!!!!!!!
            You mean you actually understood that what I said was that solar and wind are not yet practical alternatives to replacing coal and oil in today’s society!

            So you were pretending to be really stupid eh?

            What other surprises am I in store for.

            No Derest Hope I am not actually saying that completely.

            Solar and wind do ahve the ability to replace some of our energy useage. the avereage home uses very little energy per square foot. As such, many homes in America can be taken off the power grid.

            But industry uses a great deal more than a home. And not all home are in sunny places, and even sunny places sometimes don’t get sun for days. What then?

            I understand you grew up watching STAR TREK, and other Sci Fi shows, but science is much harder than the crew of the Enterprise make is seem. The fact is, ignoring the non-sunny days, it may be that we might never be able to get much power from sunlight. The Nano-dot solar array may be the best we can do. WE don’t know yet of course, but you have to realize, eventually we will do with solar cells all that can be done. Science does have limits.
            We can only do so much before we run into the laws that make the cosmos work.

            Right now we can replace fossil fuels, but only on a limited basis, and that may never change.

            There is a difficulty all sciences face. The more advanced you take some aspect of science, the more difficult it is to go further. Finding easy solutions is, easy. but once you’ve found them you are only left with the difficult solutions to find. And the are not only difficult but they are very expensive.

            I didn’t take long for modern man to split the atom, but fusion is being a bitch to get right. Yet in the 1960 your STAR TREK generation was saying we’d have it licked before 1970’s were over.

            Science has already found the easy stuff. It is going to be much harder from now on to make major gains. Some things we want are also, we will find, impossible.

            Fossil fuel is an easy technology. We’ve already mastered it, and it meets our energy needs right now. So we invest in it. When there is an acceptable alternative, then we will start investing heavily in that.

            Businesses just want to make money, The oil industry is an oil industry, it is a PROFIT industry. They just happen to profit from oil, but they used to profit from coal, before that, from wood. Things change ad technology changes.

            There are companies profiting from soar and wind right now, and there will be more in the future, but without major gains in tech in those sectors, the profit margin will continue to be shallow. As such, not may people will want to invest their retirement savings in those industry.

            And let me end by pointing out, that man made pollution will cool the Earth not warm it.

            Regardless of what you want to believe, Venus is very cold, not very hot beneath it’s blanket of CO2.

          • Hope Forpeace

            “MY GOD!!!!!!!!”
            ‘you were pretending to be really stupid eh?”
            “No Derest Hope”

            Your puerile nonsense is very telling.

            Why are we still on fossil fuels, Bill?

            “Right now we can replace fossil fuels, but only on a limited basis, and that may never change.”

            My assessment of your answer – it’s too hard.

            Fossil fuels are easy and profitable.

            Is that close to your position on why we are still on fossil fuels?

            “man made pollution will cool the Earth not warm it.”
            And you still think yourself smarter than the latest science on this issue.
            Do you think all of the findings the IPCC report is based on are fake?

          • Bill

            Hope please don’t start acting stupid again.

            There are plenty of countries, like Japan, with little or no fossil fuels. These countries are desperate to find alternatives. The only practical alternative they have found is nuclear.

            If solar and wind could save Japan from being forced to import all there energy needs, don’t you think Japan would pioneer that technology?
            Don’t you think you’d be reading about how successful Japan has been in getting of importing all its energy?

            If getting off fossil fuels were possible Japan would do it. They aren’t because it cannot be done right now.

            Regarding the IPCC, they are politicians, and politicians lie, you must know that.

            If, as you and the politicians claim, putting CO2 into our atmosphere, in quantities like the planet Venus has, is going to heat our planet then explain why Venus is so cold?

            IF the Earth had the same 90 atmospheres of pressure the Earth’s temperature would be over 1,500 degrees, Venus isn’t even half that!

            If you were wright about CO2 then you could point your finger to Venus a planet with a 95% CO2 atmosphere 5 times thicker than the earths and say “See Venus is way hot.” But it isn’t hot.

            So let’s end your immature banter. You don’t know anything about what your talking about and obviously are incapable of learning being so old.

            If you wish to continue this then YOU TELL ME WHY IS VENUS SO COLD?

            Stop letting other people do your thinking, THINK FOR YOURSELF you zombie.

            I’m CHALLENGING YOU TO THINK!
            Will you accept the challenge?
            Can you think for yourself?

            Go online to NASA’s web site and write down all the temperature data on Venus.

            Then use the Pressure/Temperature law, to calculate the temperature of Venus at the Earth’s one atmosphere. Then calculate the Earth’s temperature at Venus’ 90 atmospheres of pressure.

            You’ll see when YOU do the math, and stop listening to other people, that the Earth is much hotter than Venus.

            So think for yourself for a change, and tell me how Venus can be colder than the earth with a 95% CO2 atmosphere, AND being closer to the Sun?

            You want to be taken seriously as an intelligent person, but you don’t think.

            Stop boring me, think for yourself and tell why, YOU THINK Venus is so cold even though it has a 50 km thick atmosphere of CO2, and is closer to the sun?
            Why is the Earth hotter than Venus?

            Answer that question!

            All the findings are not fake, most are, the rest are just wrong.

            Think for yourself, don’t accept.

            Why is the Earth hotter than Venus?

          • Hope Forpeace

            “MY GOD!!!!!!!!”
            ‘you were pretending to be really stupid eh?”
            “No Derest Hope”
            “Hope please don’t start acting stupid again.”
            “You want to be taken seriously as an intelligent person, but you don’t think.”
            “So let’s end your immature banter. You don’t know anything about what your talking about and obviously are incapable of learning being so old.”

            MY immature banter??

            Embarassing.

            Again, I asked you to present your argument with citation.

            Over punctuated ranting shouldn’t convince anyone whose paying attention.

            Especially not when your premise is an entire decades old scientific discipline is hooey because you have a theory about Venus…. that apparently thousands of scientists never thought of.

            Here’s a thought – why don’t you do a paper on your theory and have it peer reviewed? Since you have come up with the full refutation of greenhouse gas theory – why not make it public?

            How can I help you do that? I’d be happy to. Send me your white paper. I have friends that may be able to help you get it reviewed.

            You could send it to Carl Sagen and Neil deGrasse Tyson since they are under the hilarious impression that; “Venus’ dense atmosphere is mostly made up of carbon dioxide, with small doses of nitrogen and sulfuric acid. This composition creates a runaway greenhouse effect that bakes Venus to even hotter temperatures than the surface of Mercury, the planet closest to the sun.”

            Maybe you could help them realize how they have never thought for themselves and are “acting stupid again”.

            http://www.space.com/26077-cosmos-tv-series-venus-climate-sunday.html

            Stunning:

            “If you were wright about CO2 then you could point your finger to Venus a planet with a 95% CO2 atmosphere 5 times thicker than the earths and say “See Venus is way hot.” But it isn’t hot.

            So let’s end your immature banter. You don’t know anything about what your talking about and obviously are incapable of learning being so old.

            If you wish to continue this then YOU TELL ME WHY IS VENUS SO COLD?

            Stop letting other people do your thinking, THINK FOR YOURSELF you zombie.

            I’m CHALLENGING YOU TO THINK!
            Will you accept the challenge?
            Can you think for yourself?” Bill

            You clearly have a new way of defining “cold”:

            “Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system. Thick clouds blanket the planet, making temperatures reach more than 800 degrees Fahrenheit.”

            But, again, write up the white paper, more than happy to help you get it seen.

            “Regarding the IPCC, they are politicians, and politicians lie, you must know that.” Bill

            In fact, the IPCC includes hundreds of scientists, and is simply a collection of the latest perr reviewed science:

            From the Scientific American Article I sent you a few days ago:

            “Established in 1988 by the United Nations, the IPCC does no original climactic research. Its role is to review current science from around the world, then synthesize and summarize that data within comprehensive reports meant for policymakers.

            Such assessments typically take five to seven years to complete in a slow, bureaucratic process: Thousands of scientists from around the globe, working as unpaid volunteers, first sift through the scientific literature, identifying trends and writing a draft report. That draft is reviewed and thoroughly revised by other scientists. Then a summary for policymakers, condensing the science even further, is written and subjected to a painstaking, line-by-line revision by representatives from more than 100 world governments – all of whom must approve the final summary document.

            IPCC’s four assessments – massive, multi-tome volumes released in 1990, 1995, 2001 and 2007 – are considered the gold standard in climate science.”

            And so then we see why one who has made a valid assessment would go with the scientists:

            “All the findings are not fake, most are, the rest are just wrong.

            Think for yourself, don’t accept.

            Why is the Earth hotter than Venus?” Bill

            Venus temp = 800 degrees

            Earth temperature – 70 degrees

          • Bill

            Do the math Hope.

            You found out the average temperature of both planets, good for you, you were a bit off, but that’s okay. I didn’t think you’d do that much.

            Now go on line and read bout the Pressure/ Temperature law.

            Then get out a calculator, and do the multiplication to determine what the Earth’s temperature would be like if it too had an atmospheric pressure of 90 atm like Venus.

            Why are you so scared of knowing the truth????

            Do the math yourself so you know no one is lieing to you.

            Calculate the temperature of the Earth at 90 atm. I cold do it for you, but you won’t learn anything if I do simple math for you.

            DO the math, educate yourself so your not such a gullible chump.

            Ignorance is nothing to be proud of.

            Test yourself, try to be better than you are. I know you dont have a high I.Q. but even retarded children can learn IF they are pushed to learn.

            Don’t be afraid, do the math.

            Then tell me why is the Earth hotter than Venus?

            Finally, when you read about Venus, did you notice that it is the ONLY body in our solar system that is as HOT on the DARK side as it is on the side FACING the Sun?

            Venus’ surface, unlike the Earth’s surface, doesn’t get cooler when facing away from the sun. Meaning, the heat on Venus is not dependent upon the sun as it is on Earth.

            Why is that Hope?

            Also, did you read about the Russian landers and what they reported back about the amount of sunlight striking the surface of Venus?

            They measured less sunlight than hits the Earth.

            Why do you think that is?

            Venus is closer so it should get more not less sunlight.

            Why does the surface of Venus get less sunlight than the Earth?

            Think, don’t accept.

            If Einstein accepted we would not have Relativity Theory.

            Question! That’s how you learn.

            In 1982 at university I claimed that the Standard Model was wrong, and so too Einstein. Massless particles (The Higgs, the Neutrino, and the Photon) were impossible.
            They violated Mass Energy if it was true.

            It was so obvious to me that it was ridiculous to claim you could violate Mass Energy. But the Scientific Establishment said they did, even though they admitted there was no proof that Mass Energy could be violated.

            It took 13 years before we could detect the Neutrino’s mass. In 2012, the Large Hadron Collider detected the Higg’s mass.

            The only massless particle left is the Photon. Eventually we’ll build detectors that will measure Photon mass as well.

            Question Hope, don’t accept!

            Do the multiplication and tell me how hot would the earth be if it had’ Venus’ 90 atm of atmospheric pressure.

            Expand your knowledge, then think about it.
            You can do it. It’s been awhile since you were in school being challenged, but you can still think.

            Do the math and think about it. It is simple multiplication.

          • Hope Forpeace

            “I know you dont have a high I.Q. but even retarded children can learn IF they are pushed to learn.”
            “MY GOD!!!!!!!!”
            ‘you were pretending to be really stupid eh?”
            “No Derest Hope”
            “Hope please don’t start acting stupid again.”
            “You want to be taken seriously as an intelligent person, but you don’t think.”
            “So let’s end your immature banter. You don’t know anything about what your talking about and obviously are incapable of learning being so old.”
            “You want to be taken seriously as an intelligent person, but you don’t think.”
            “Stop boring me” Bill

            Grown ups pass people who use this sort of juvenile mockery off as a waste of time.

            I’m one of those grown ups.

          • Bill

            Stop making excuses for not educating yourself.

            Do the math.

            Go online and learn about PRESSURE HEAT.

            Then, do the math to find out how hot the Earth would be if it had 90 atm worth of pressure too.

            Then tell me, why YOU think the Earth is hotter than Venus.

            Stop making excuses.

            Do the work.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Send me the white paper, happy to have it reviewed for you.

            You can contact me here: AKProductions.tv

            In fact, if you have found a scientific theory that debunks greenhouse gas theory it is morally incumbent upon you to prove your theory and I would be more than happy to help you with that.

            Provided you behave like a grownup.

            Also – if you have such a theory – you could base a solid career on proving it – you really should do that. As I cited before, accomplished scientists seem to have come to an opposite theory when looking at Venus. I surely would not pit my knowledge of science against theirs:

            “Venus’ dense atmosphere is mostly made up of carbon dioxide, with small
            doses of nitrogen and sulfuric acid. This composition creates a runaway
            greenhouse effect that bakes Venus to even hotter temperatures than the
            surface of Mercury, the planet closest to the sun.” I’m sure you’d like to correct their errors here with us – watch the Cosmos segment and come back and deconstruct it for us – that would be fun.

            Explain how they erred …. if you’re correct, I’ll do a short film on you to help get the message out.

            As a media producer, I would not imagine I know enough about science to allow myself to disbelieve that basic principles of an entire discipline.

            BTW – Your online persona (illmannered 10 year old) doesn’t help your case. Drop it and I’m happy to help you get your theory reviewed. I’ve looked a bit and I found nothing like it in peer reviewed journals – these darn scientists must be pretty darn ignorant I guess. Lets help them out together! You have found a serious and incredibly relevant theory – lets get it out to the world!

            Getting a few people to see it here and there online does it and science no justice!

          • Bill

            Hope, like all men, I lie to wife.. all the time. It is how you have a successful marriage.

            I am not married to you, I don’t care what you like. You are nothing to me.

            When you say something stupid to me, because YOUR THINK YOU ARE SO SMART, and I am so stupid that I couldn’t possible know you’re lieing, it’s insulting.

            You say something stupid, I’m going to tell you you did. You don’t like that? Then don’t say stupid things. Don’t make up quotes and claim I said it!

            The one intelligent thing you have said is you’ll go with the majority on the issue since you have no education to evaluate the information your are getting.

            That is SMART, admitting you can’t evaluate the info. Problem with that is,the majority is usually right, except in SCIENCE.

            It is the mad dogs in science that find the new stuff, break open the new frontiers. The majority fight for the past, and oppose the future follow.

            Remember my 1982 paper. I said the Standard model was wrong, massless particle are impossible because they violate Mass/Energy Equivalence.

            The majority derided me, but the mad dog was right. Einstein was the mad dog once too. Remember reading for people being burnt for saying the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe?

            Relativity Theory wasn’t accepted until 1919, Albert wrote it in 1905!

            On average it takes 20 years for a new theories to be accepted.

            Only Darwin’s Natural Selection theory broke that mold.

            I’m sure you noted, in that article you cited with a link, D. James Hanson, NASA climatologist stated,”most” scientist accept greenhouse warming of the Earth.

            How much is that? 51% is ‘most” scientists.

            And why didn’t he say most climatologists?
            why scientists. Scientists with no degree in climatology aren’t really educated enough to understand climatology. Should you listen to them when they speak about something outside of their specialty?

            The MOST vocal opponents of man made global warming ARE climatologists.

            For instance, in that article, the author lied and said that sea rise was greater than predicted. Back in 1993 when the sun went into maxim, out satellites immediately told us the sun was rampping up. We knew immediately that the Earth was in for some serious heat. How long the maxim would last we didn’t know. It turned out to be four years.
            Once we started to get some measure on how much more heat and light the sun was giving off, we redid our heat estimates. The article said that sea rise was greater than estimates. NO it wasn’t. It was greater than the estimates we made before the maxim began, but not greater than the estimates we made AFTER the maxim began. The estimates made before the maxim began were no good now that the sun was hotter.

            The new projections based upon the sun’s current activity in 1979 did in fact predict greater melt-water, and increased sea levels.
            Contrary to the author’s opinion, we aren’t stupid. When the sun gets hotter, there is going to be more melt-water, and that will raise sea levels. It cannot be avoided.

            As to telling you, I’ve already told you where to go to get info and I’ve givein you the mathematical formula to do pressure heat calculation. I’m not going to do the math for you. You won’t learn if I give you information all the time. Google GAY-LUSSAC’S LAW
            and read about pressure heat.

            You’ve used a pressure cooker. Why do they cook faster than an ordinary pot?

            Gay-Lussac’s Law will tell you, and give you the formula to work out the math yourself.

            Deriding natural laws because I learned them in high school was another STUPID thing you said. I learned about Einstein in High school too, are you saying Relativity Theory is nonsense as well?

            Do the work and educate yourself.

            IF you arealy are a porducer, what would you think of ME if I started smart-mouthing off to you about HOW to produce a show, with NO education in television producing myself. Basing my expertise on a newspaper article I read?

            You’d think I was pretty stupid and insulting for implying that what you do is so stupidly simple any moron could do it.

            I’ll bet being a producer is a lot more complected than most people would think it is; isn’t it?

            If you really want to know, the Google “Gay-Lussac’s Law” and learn about “pressure heat”. Then, use his formula to calculate the heat the Earth would have if it had the same 90atm’s of pressure that Venus does.

            Then think about it, and tell me why is the earth hotter at 90 atm than Venus is, when it is closer to the sun.

            I’ll help you learn, but I won’t do the work for you. You won’t learn anything If I do your work for you.

            I’m not telling you to take what I say without question, I’m challenging you to prove it for yourself.

            I’ve given you the information now use it and learn.

            What is the temperature of the Earth at 90 atm?

            The Temperature in the Gay-Lussac must be in Degrees Kelvin. to convert from Celcius to Kelvin you just add 273 to your celcius temperature.

            Earth’s average temperature is 15 degrees C, so it is 288 degrees K.

            When you want to convert from degrees Kelvin back to Celcius, just subtract the 273.

            The 800+ temperature of Venus you referenced was it’s total heat not just its solar heat.

            When you speak of a Greenhouse effect, you are talking about solar heat, not pressure heat.

            That is how Sagan was lieing. He didn’t tell people that he was including Venus’ pressure heat in his projection.

            The Earth doesn’t have 90 atm’s of pressure, so the pressure heat on Venus cannot be had on Earth, therefore, the temperatures can’t. So, you have to ballance out the pressure differences between Earth and Venus so the only heat that remains is from the sun.

            Earth has 1 atm, Venus 90 atm. What is Earths temp. at 90 atm, and Venus at only 1 atm?

            It is not what Sagan and the IPCC have said.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Again, get that white paper done and stop using the discourse of a 10 year old.

            “I couldn’t possible know you’re lieing, it’s insulting.”

            And it’s “lying”, not “lieing” .. I only mention because you’ve made the same mistake over and over.
            No really – get that paper written – I’m lost on how that is a stupid concept.

            Also – it would be my vote that the admin of this board block you.

            I would think this is a place for civil discourse, not the unleashing of your personal attack fetish.

          • Bill

            Do the reading assignment and the math and stop making excuses.

          • Hope Forpeace

            I explained why it’s inane to ask a journalist to learn enough science to believe they can debunk an entire established scientific discipline.
            No non-scientists should ever believe they can debunk an entire scientific discipline with a limited knowledge of science.
            Now – YOU – on the other hand – have claimed some scientific background. The obvious route is for your to write up your theory instead of berating random people on the internet with it.
            Why do you want to keep the theory to yourself when it debunks an entire established scientific discipline? That makes no sense.
            How is humanity better served by you sitting around on the internet trying to get non-professionals to buy it?
            Write it up – I can seriously help you get it published. I’m dead serious. It you are correct obviously the world needs to know and I would help you make sure that happens.
            If I believed as a journalist I know enough science to disbelieve a scientific discipline practiced by thousands of scientists whose knowledge of the subject far weighs mine – I would be the idiot.

          • Bill

            I don’t expect that you will learn enough science to debunk man-made global warming. I only want to raise serious question in your mind, by having your learn KEY elements in debunking it, and so make you think more critically about it.

            You’ll learn nothing if you don’t earn it.
            I want you to do the math and think about what you get, and question.

            Why is reading up on ‘pressure heat’ too much to ask of you?

            Pressure heat is WHY Venus is so hot.

            And using Gay-Lussac’s law to calculate the temperature of the Earth at the same pressure as Venus, is not hard, it is only multiplication. You can easily do it on paper without a calculator, so why don’t you do it?

            I will help you learn if you want to but I won’t do the work for you.

            Tell me, what is the Earth’s temperature at 90 atm?

            If this topic is important to you, then do the reading and math.

            Knowledge you don’t earn, you won’t respect.

            Lots of scientist don’t support man-made global warming. What I know is not a secret.

            Do the math, then we’ll go on and discuss your oven and clouds.

            One step builds upon the next, and in the end, you are where you want to be.

          • Hope Forpeace

            One thing is for sure, if you what you are talking about is worth learning, I surely wouldn’t learn it from you. I’ve taken enough condescending one liners from you to last the rest of my life. You have the temperament of a conceited 9 year old.
            But again, why try to harangue people online with your theories instead of putting them on record?
            Why have the answer the world needs and keep it under your hat?
            That seems immoral to me.
            You know how to write a white paper. I’m lost on why you keep this to yourself if it debunks greenhouse gas theory – no science has done that in decades …. you have it – but you won’t write it up – WHY?

          • Bill

            I’m not criticizing Greenhouse gases and how they insulate. I’m just pointing out HOW thermal insulators work.

            Heat is Energy, the 1st Law of thermo-dynamics makes clear, you cannot create energy!

            If you want warmth, you have to burn a fuel. Even the sun burns fuel. Insulation doesn’t burn fuel, so how can it have a warming effect?

            Your blankets don’t warm you when you sleep, your body heat warms the blankets. But, because they are good insulators, they slow down how quickly your body heat radiates away from you.

            2nd law: In all enclosed systems, Entropy always increases.

            This means disorder, or decay if you will, always increases. We age, hot things get cool. Planetary orbits decay, and so in time, planets either drift off from, or spiral into, their suns. This is why the Earth has Ice Ages. They’ve only been happening for about 500,000 years. And the Ice Ages are getting longer and colder, because the Earth’s orbit is slowly decaying and we are get farther away from the sun with each Ice Age. In billions of years from now, the earth will drift off and that will be that, good by Mr. Sun.

            3rd Law: Heat moves from high concentration to low concentration. Heat goes from hot areas to cold, this is called thermal equilibrium. This is why the earth cools when it is turned away from the sun. At night the earth radiates its heat energy out into space because it is colder than the earth. But if there is a lot of cloud cover, the water vapor in the clouds absorbs the radiant heat and radiates it out sending some of it back towards the earth, helping to keep the ambient air temperature warmer, just like your blankets.

            Eventually all the heat will radiate into space regardless of the clouds.. You cannot stop entropy. Without more sunlight in the morning to rewarm the Earth, the heat will leave.

            During the day, however, the clouds do the opposite. Since the radiant heat during the day is coming in from the sun, the clouds block that sunlight from entering the atmosphere and warming the Earth. So cloudy days are cool days.

            YET all insulators in the atmosphere will do what water vapor does, they will radiate the sun’s heat back out into space during the daytime, they just don’t do it as well as water vapor and clouds do it.

            CO2, ozone, methane, all of them will block the suns rays from entering the atmosphere and so cool the Earth.

            And remember, the Earth will never have as much CO2 in the air as it does water vapor. Even if it did, water vapor is a lot more insulating than CO2, so if you removed all the water vapor and replaced it with an equal amount of CO2 by weight, you’d still cool the earth.

            Before the Earth can be warmed by the sun’s radiant heat, the radiant heat has to come IN THROUGH THE ATMOSPHERE. Any insulation in the atmosphere will keep that from happening and so cool the Earth.

            The sun sends in 30,000,000 times more heat than the Earth radiates out.
            So any insulating gas in the atmosphere will block out 30,000,000 times more heat than it helps keep in.

            Earth: big rock in space.

            Sun: big burning gas ball.

            Which is hotter?

            I’m criticizing Man-Made Global warming, not insulators.

            Look at it this way, if we put a 100% insulator around the Earth. What would the Earth be like then?

            All the heat given off by the earth would never leave the earth’s atmosphere, that’s true, but no sun light would ever enter as well. There would be permanent night!

            Would a 100% insulating gas create a runaway greenhouse effect, or would we be colder than Pluto?

            Permanent night would be very cold.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Again, Bill – it’s a super serious subject and I can’t understand why you refuse to share this knowledge? Now that you have run across me you have two choices – write up your thesis and let me help you get it reviewed – or I will take your thesis to be reviewed myself.
            A or b?

          • Bill

            Hope, everybody in science knows this. It is not news, nor is it thesis material.

            If I convince everyone that man-made climate change is impossible, because it would require an insulator that allowed the sun’s heat and light in, but not out of our atmosphere, what will happen?

            We in the Sciences collectively lie to the masses because it is the only way to get them to do the right thing. They are just too stupid to do it otherwise.

            Do you think, that the United States would actually be banning incandescent bulbs if they didn’t think there was this big climate emergency?

            Do you think they’d be just as interested in conserving energy without this popular emergency?

            Of having cars that go 40 mpg instead of 12 mpg, or of alternative fuel vehicles?

            I won my first chess tournament when I was 11 years old. All my life I’ve been taught to look ahead, see what the consequences to my actions would be.

            In the 2030’s the Ogalalla aquifer will hit its critical level. It will be nearly empty. It is below 40% of its watershed now, and having doubled the US population in less than 70 years, we are pulling water out of it at record pace.

            67% of all food grown in America is watered with its water. It will be gone in 30 years.
            We’ve been warning you people for over 30 years it was going to happen. No one listens. They won’t listen until the water is gone. THEN, when there is a crisis, then they will demand that Congress address the problem, but it will be too late.

            Man-made climate change is not real, don’t worry about it.

            Worry about what America will do when the Ogallala goes dry. How will we feed hundreds of millions of people. Where will their drinking water come from!

            IN the late 2020’s maybe, America will realize the water crisis that is ahead… maybe, Warn them about that. Problem is, the Democrats want to bring in more Mexicans who’ll vote democrat. The Democrats will never agree to stop immigration and send them home. They are potential voters.

            Americas lot is cast Hope. I fear for the future. The numbers of dead will be incredible. But this is the way of nature. Nature controls population with diseases, drought, and famine.

            Mankind never learns.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Huh .. didn’t see this 12 days ago.

            I’m really only interested in helping you get your white paper published.

            Your protestations here are silly –

            “Hope, everybody in science knows this. It is not news, nor is it thesis material.

            If I convince everyone that man-made climate change is impossible … ”

            Everyone knows – but you would have to convince them?

            “We in the Sciences collectively lie to the masses because it is the only way to get them to do the right thing. They are just too stupid to do it otherwise.”
            Scientists lie – you mean science is a lie.

          • Bill

            I do hope you were joking about Sagan? You do know he’s dead?

            However, since you brought him up.

            Back in 76, Sagan helped to found the CO2 man-made global warming fraud.

            He wrote that IF mankind kept putting CO2 into the atmosphere, then like Venus we would become as hot as Venus via the greenhouse effect. Of course the First Law of Thermo-dynamics makes that impossible. Venus gets more than three times as the intensity of sunlight and heat from the earth. As such the Earth could never get that hot.

            It’s like setting your oven to 350. Your burning 350 degrees of fuel, releasing 350 degrees of heat. The oven will never get to 351 degrees, because you’d have to burn one degree more fuel to raise the temperature in the oven.

            Thus, for the Earth to get as hot as Venus it would have to get as close to the sun as Venus is, ergo receive the same amount of heat from the sun.

          • Hope Forpeace

            Yes … it was an underhanded joke – Sagen.

            You’re sticking with Venus is colder than earth … OK.

            So .. waiting for the white paper and citation.

            I’m betting neither will ever appear.

            Again, I’m going with the science. You can have fun with your theory and let me know when your white paper is ready.

            “Back in 76, Sagan helped to found the CO2 man-made global warming fraud.”

            You can see why most of us just chuckle at this stuff.

  • Madison

    Is this a blog? or an article actually printed in a magazine?

  • Bill

    This whole idea is lunacy. If CO2 is an insulating gas, then, if we put it into the earth’s atmosphere, it will insulate the earth from the sun’s heat.
    Just like insulation in your home’s walls. It keeps the summer’s heat OUT of your house.

    Venus has 50km of 95% CO2 in its atmosphere. The solar heat of Venus is a chilling -560, or so, degrees F.!

    Venus is 2/3rds the distance from the sun the earth is, and yet the earth gets more sun light and heat than Venus does. This was verified by the two landers Russia put down on the surface of Venus.

    If we want to cool the earth, we should do like Venus, put MORE CO2 into the atmosphere to insulate the earth from the Sun’s heat.

    • Hope Forpeace

      Wow.

      So, Greenhouse gas science, which you call lunacy, shows that Co2 Traps heat INSIDE. Please read up on it before you attempt to comment in public again:

      http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

      • Bill

        Hope dearest, the Earth is NOT a SUN. The Earth is a rock, it does not produce heat!!! Thus, there is not HEAT “INSIDE”, it all comes from the sun, OUTSIDE our atmosphere.

        As your High School science teacher told you, the Earth gets it warmth from the Sun. The sun send 30,000,000 times more heat and light INTO the Earth’s atmosphere, than is reflected out by the earth’s surface. That means, the COOLING effect of insulating the Earth from the Sun’s heat will be 30,000,000 times greater than any warming possible from reflected heat.

        Also Hope dearest. CO2 in the atmosphere CANNOT MAKE THE EARTH WARMER.

        Remember the FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS that you learned in High School science class?
        Heat is Energy, and Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. THUS, in order to get warmth (heat), you must burn a fuel! Wood, oil, or gas. Just putting CO2 into the atmosphere does not burn a fuel, ergo, it cannot warm anything.

        Insulation merely slows down the rate at which you loose heat. You still loose heat, just not as fast.

        Rather than reading the lies the politicians at the UN are telling you, why don’t you reread your science textbooks, and quote them, to me!
        Or at least go on line and relearn the Laws of Thermo-dynamics, and the Law of Mass Energy Equivalence (E=mc2).

        Heat must come from somewhere Hope, you can’t create it.

        IF you don’t believe me then Hope I encourage you to not turn on your heater on this winter. You have insulation in your walls. IF insulation has a warming effect, then it should keep you warm without you burning heating oil, or gas, or using an electric heater won’t it?

        • Hope Forpeace

          “Hope dearest”

          The IPPC report is a collection of the latest science relating to climate change.

          You think you can debunk it with a high school science book.

          How cute that is. How precious. Priceless ignominy with vituperative icing.

          Go back to your high school science teacher and see if they believe you or the IPCC report. Go ahead, I’ll be right here, looking forward to hearing again from your cute little tiny self!

      • Bill

        Just out of curiosity Hope, what is your college degree in? Is it in science by any chance?

        If you have no degree or education in science, how do you know when people are lieing to you about something scientific?

        Believe it or not Hope dearest, you need to have an education IN Science to understand Science.
        Read up on the Laws of Thermo-dynamics. There are plenty of videos on-line to help you.

        You have no excuse to be ignorant.

        • Hope Forpeace

          “how do you know when people are lieing to you about something scientific?
          Believe it or not Hope dearest, you need to have an education IN Science to understand Science.”
          The snide condescension is priceless. The IPCC report is a simple collection of the latest science. I don’t have to be a scientist to know that.
          I just have to NOT be a conservative.
          Ignorance is thinking greenhouse gas theory is a hoax.

  • Gary Masters

    I lived on a cotton farm near Lubbock, Texas and knew the shorter growing season restricted our crop. Every warmer day between frost was a plus for us. Is warmer always bad for crops? I think NOT.

    • Hope Forpeace

      Please read the IPCC report. Massive crop failures easily offset any gains by a few crops here and there.
      Warmer IS bad for crops.

      • Gary Masters
        • Hope Forpeace

          Wiki .. cute. The IPCC report referenced is from 2007.

          It also speaks only to north America – the results on the poor in the 3rd world are also known:

          http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/

          “IPCC report says climate change is bad news for crops

          “models based on current agricultural systems suggest large negative impacts on agricultural productivity and substantial risks to global food production and security.”

          http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/04/ipcc-report-says-climate-change-is-bad-news-for-crops/

          • Bill

            Those estimates are only good IF rainfall doesn’t increase with the ries in temperatures as the Earth moves nearer to the Sun.
            The Earth has been going through ice-ages and inter-glacial ages before. Nothing new is happening.

            You should be more worried about over-population.

          • Hope Forpeace

            “The Earth has been going through ice-ages and inter-glacial ages before. Nothing new is happening.”

            Moronic Industry talking point.

            I’m sure you’re right – there is no evidence that man’s activities play any role.

            So glad you helped me disbelieve an entire scientific discipline in 2 sentences.

            Yes.. THAT moronic.

      • Bill

        There will be no massive crop failures. As the earth warms the rate of evaporation from the 5/8ths of the Earth covered with water will increase, increasing rainfall.

        Don’t you remember in high school science, when your teacher was talking about the last Inter-glacial age 125,000 years ago? Remember the pictures of the cave art the people left us from that time in Norther Africa?. It shows the African desert was covered in grass, and full of animals back then. It is a desert NOW, but it wasn’t THEN when the earth was much warmer.

        You need to evaporate water into the atmosphere before it can fall as rain. The more moisture evaporated, the more rain you’ll get falling down.

        WHY did the Director of the U.S. National Hurricane Watch Center say there was going to be a MAJOR hurricane hitting NEW YORK in 1998?

        Because he said, the North Atlantic El Ninio had switched, and now was bringing warm tropical water into the North Atlantic.

        That meant there would be more moisture in the air over the North Atlantic, which would allow hurricanes to refuel as they moved northward, and grow rather than rain out and shrink.

        Remember also, the driest desert on Earth is the South Pole! A desert isn’t hot, it just gets very little precipitation. It is so cold in the South Pole that water doesn’t evaporate into the atmosphere, so there is almost no precipitation at all.

        The more moisture in the air the deeper inland rain clouds can go before raining out. As temps rise evaporation will rise as well, and the African desert will be grassland again.

        Moire rain and longer growing season will lead to massive crop failures.

        Reread your high school science books again Hope. There is no excuse for ignorance.

  • Bill

    Regarding the IPCC report.
    Let me remind you, it says that all the warming occurring is man-made.
    This report contradicts all the earlier IPCC reports.

    The first report claimed that mankind was only responsible for a 3rd of the warming.

    The second report claims man was responsible for only 60% of the warming.

    So what is it?
    33%, 60% or 100%?

    Honestly now, everyone here, even Hope Forpeace, knows that twelve-thousand years ago the last Ice Age ended. And that ever since then, except for the occasional little ice ages (like the one that ran from the mid 1300, to 1855 AD), the earth has been gradually warming because the earth is moving towards it perihelion orbit around the sun (the Earth’s closest orbit). The Earth reached its Aphelion orbit (farthest orbit from the sun) Forty five-thousand years ago. In approximately 15,000 years from now, the Earth will be at its closet orbit to the sun, 4.1 million miles closer than it was 45,000 years ago. then the Earth will start to move away from the sun again, eventually sending the Earth into its next Ice Age.

    Now, we all learned this in high school. Do you really believe the IPCC report when it says all the warming is caused by mankind?

    That would mean the natural forces that create Ice Ages and Inter-Glacial ages have stopped!!!

    Do you really think mankind has stopped the Earth’s orbit around the sun from changing, and if so, could you tell me how we did it?

    Do you really think the Earth has stopped getting closer to the Sun?
    We aren’t going to get warmer if we stop burning fossil fuels?

    Will there really never be another Ice Age?

    These are the same people who said that the ice melt in the Arctic in 2012 was going to be a yearly thing, an that it was also caused by man made global warming. But then in 2013, there was record ice in the Arctic, 60% more than normal.

    These are the same people who said that 2012’s Hurricane Sandy was caused by man made global warming and would become a yearly thing. While 2013 saw the calmest hurricane season on record. No more Sandys since.

    These are the same people who claimed higher temperatures that never happened.

    Now they are saying in 100 years blah blah blah blah.

    They have never be right in their 1 to ten projections, how can you really think they are going to be right over 100 years.

    I’m a scientist, I live and die by the Scientific Method, which says, If your theories projections never happen, your theory is wrong.
    It is simple, if you guess right, the theory is right.

    Not once in the last 60 years, have any of their model’s been right about temperature rise. It was always far below what their models projected.

    If they had guess right then I wouldn’t be saying this, if your right, then your right, but they were wrong, and not just wrong, way off the mark wrong.

    I understand the uneducated like Hope, can be easily confused and tricked, but honestly. We cannot change the orbital dynamics of the Earth. You know that. Even in the Superman comics, Superman couldn’t do that.

    Over the next 15,000 years, the Earth will move closer to the Sun. The ice cap on Greenland, and much of the ice on the planet, will melt and seas will rise 20-22 meters. It did 125,000 years ago, and it will do it again.

    Then the Earth will start to move away from the sun, and in 70,000 years from now enter it next Ice Age.

    Nothing man can do can change this.

    If adding CO2 could warm a planet then Venus’ temperature should be in the 4,400 degree area, but it isn’t, is it?
    Instead Venus’ surface gets less sunlight and heat than the Earth does.

    That’s what insulation does, it insulates you from what is on the other side of the insulation. If the Sun’s heat and light is on the other side of the insulation, that’s what it will protect you from.

    • Hope Forpeace

      “They have never be right in their 1 to ten projections”
      “If your theories projections never happen, your theory is wrong.
      It is simple, if you guess right, the theory is right.”

      I’ll let Scientific American answer that – you could have found this cite yourself since you are so worried about IPCC theories:

      Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative/

      It’s a wonderful look at the musings of a climate change denier.
      But the fact the you believe high school science debunks the IPCC report is all I need to know.

      The IPCC report is simply a collection of the latest climate and related scientific peer reviewed findings.

      I’ll go with the findings of the experts.
      You go with your high school science book.

      • Bill

        In response to your general reference to the article reprinted in Scientific American in December 2012, which was originally published in THE DAILY CLIMATE which your linked with this link

        http://www.scientificamerican….

        The article reporting that man-made climate warming estimates were below what actually happened in past decades, I will respond to below. It is a lengthy response since it touches on so many areas of climate science. I’ll try to edit it down for brevity.

        P.S. I was paying $19,800 a year to attend university in the 1980’s Hope (that’s more than $40,000 in today’s dollars). You are getting my education for free, lucky you!

        Some of us worked hard to become this educated.

        1. The article was written in late 2012, before the record ice growth of 2013, which violated the conservative ice-melt estimates, making them very liberal estimates since there was auspicious ice growth in both the Arctic and Ant-Arctic the following year. There has been no ice melt in 2014 either.

        The cause of the record ice melt in 2012, but not afterwards, is there was record low hurricanes in the North Atlantic in 2013 and 2014.

        Hurricane winds blow warm Gulf Stream waters northward into the Arctic Circle. 2012 saw record hurricane activity ending with Hurricane Sandy which traveled all the way north to New York.
        [I mentioned why in another post, the North Atlantic Multi-decal oscillation (the North Atlantic El Ninio ), had reveres in the late 1990’s sending warm tropical waters into the North Atlantic increasing the amount of moisture in the North Atlantic allowing hurricanes to move northward without raining out before landfall].

        This record number of hurricanes pushed record amounts of warm gulf, and tropical water into the arctic circle which lead to record melting in the Arctic.

        2013 however, saw record low hurricane activity in the North Atlantic. It set the record for the calmest hurricane season ever. The first hurricane didn’t occur until late September 2013, making it the latest “First hurricane of the season” ever recorded by mankind. That hurricane was in the Gulf of Mexico, not in the North Atlantic, so it pushed no Gulf Stream water into the arctic circle and so there was no ice melt in 2013 at all, allowing record ice growth.

        2014 has also seen low hurricane activity in the North Atlantic.

        2. The conservative estimates referred to in the article are of ice melt estimates, and sea rise estimates from 1993, which were above estimates.

        I’ve already explained the ice-melt of 2012, now to the 1993-1997 Solar Maxim!

        As we all learned in high school, the sun’s output varies over time. It is not a 25 watt bulb. It gets hotter and cooler. Sometimes for long periods of time (the Little Ice Age, and the Medieval Warming Period), and sometimes for only a few years.

        Solar scientist reported that in 1993 the sun entered into a 1,000 year solar maxim. The sun’s output was the greatest that had been seen in a thousand years. (A smaller group of solar scientists said it was more of a 10,000 maxim).

        This solar maxim lasted for 4 years, and during this time we saw the Earth (not just North America, or Europe) experience unusually high temperature.
        These high temps bolstered claims of man-induced temperature increases. But of course we had nothing to do with the sun having a 4 year solar maxim. This solar maxim ending in late 1997 and since then we’ve have seen no such temperature highs across the globe. Though some highs were seen in areas in the years since.

        Opponents of man-made climate change have repeatedly used this falloff of temperatures after 1997 to claim that this proves that CO2 in the atmosphere had nothing to do with the rise in temperatures in the 90’s, since CO2 in the atmosphere after 1997 was just as high as before 1997.

        They were correct of course. The Law of Cause and Effect tells us, if you want to end the effect, you must remove the cause of the effect. If CO2 in the atmosphere cause the warming in 1993-97, then it should have never ended, since the CO2 is still there.

        The CO2 remained, but the heat waves of the 1990 didn’t, therefore, the CO2 levels had nothing to do with the temporary warming from the 1993 solar maxim.

        This 4 year period of high temperatures cause above average ice melt in the mountains and poles. This melting caused the sea’s rise.

        You’ll note also, the article says the sea rise stopped in “2006”. Yet, there is just as much CO2 in the air now as then, yet there hasn’t been any rise in sea levels since 2006 according to the article.

        The article also quotes James Hansen, a NASA climatologist who speaks about that rapid climate change has loaded the dice in favor of extreme weather.

        This is one of the common ways people are being lied to so I wish to also cover this as well.

        Many people talk of changes in the weather since 1980’s claiming that humans are causing this with CO2 emissions. This is a lie as all climatologist know.

        The key to understanding the changes since the 80’s is a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in 1972!

        The NOAA reported that, for the first time in human record keeping, the surface water temperature of the North Atlantic had risen!
        The southern Atlantic did not rise, nor di the temperature of the surface waters of any other ocean, it only happened in the North Atlantic. The reason for this is the N. Atlantic is the smallest ocean body and so warms up faster. Just like it takes longer for a larger pot to boil, the smaller N.Atlantic warmed up faster than its sister oceans.

        So what lead to this change?

        In 1853 we all know the Little Ice Age( L.I.A.) ended.
        This was a 500 year period of very unusually cold weather across the globe. For the first time in tens of thousands of years, glacier advanced rather than melted and retreated, while ocean temperatures fell across the globe.

        The last 60 years of the L.I.A. is called the Mauder Minimum! This period saw the coldest temperatures ever recorded by man, then, it ended!

        We know the reason for this drop in temperatures was the Sun entered into a solar minimum period in which it put out less heat.

        Galileo drew pictures of the sun spots he saw on the sun through his telescope. These drawings confirm the sun had very few sun spots, which indicate the low level of solar activity then.

        During the L.I.A. the Earth was getting closer to the sun and so should have been gradually warming. The sun however, wasn’t putting out much heat so rather than getting warmer, the Earth got colder.
        When the L.I.A. ended the sun’s intensity rose to levels higher than 500 years ago dumping 500 years worth of warming on the Earth all at once.

        The earth’s surface however, is 5/8th water, and the unusually cold oceans absorbed much of the warmth, as well as the greater amount of ice and snow that had accumulated during the L.I.A.. This extra cold, left over from the L.I.A., negated the warming the occurred after it ended. But during these years the oceans were warming up, slowly, but they were getting warmer. In 1972, the N. Atlantic reached its parity temperature. It was at the same temperature it would have been in if the L.I.A. had never happened.

        Since the N. Atlantic no longer had an excess of cold water, it stopped negating the gradual warming that had been occurring in the years after the L.I.A., and it started to noticeably warm too.

        Eventually all the oceans around the globe will reach their parity temperatures. It will take much longer though because they are much larger bodies of water.

        Since the N. Atlantic was no longer absorbing heat, the heat was able to rise more dramatically.

        This warming however, was predicted, it is according to statistical models, it doesn’t violate them.

        As the amount of cold water and ice and snow on the surface of the planet declines, the earth will see more rapid temperature rise. The heat will overwhelm the cold areas on the earth and the ice and snow that’s left will melt faster.

        I hope this helps some people more greatly understand what has been going on temperature wise in the North Atlantic and America.

        • Hope Forpeace

          Firstly, no matter what your education level, I have no respect for juvenile discourse. So you lost my respect at your comment 1.

          Also, if you’d like to be taken seriously, use citation.

          “There has been no ice melt in 2014 either.” Bill

          “Sea ice extent in October averaged 8.06 million square kilometers (3.11 million square miles). This is 850,000 square kilometers (328,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 long-term average of 8.91 million square kilometers” NSIDC

          “2014 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Sixth Lowest on Record”

          http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/september/2014-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-sixth-lowest-on-record/

          “since then we’ve have seen no such temperature highs across the globe. Though some highs were seen in areas in the years since.” Bill

          “2009: Second warmest year on record; end of warmest decade”

          http://climate.nasa.gov/news/249/

          Most of our warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years. Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.

          T.C. Peterson et.al., “State of the Climate in 2008,” Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.

          I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11

          http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

          http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

          “These high temps bolstered claims of man-induced temperature increases. But of course we had nothing to do with the sun having a 4 year solar maxim. This solar maxim ending in late 1997 and since then we’ve have seen no such temperature highs across the globe. Though some highs were seen in areas in the years since.” Bill

          “A team of computer modelers at the Lawrence Livermore Lab in California, led by Benjamin Santer, predicted that greenhouse gases would cause a particular geographical pattern of temperature change. It was different from what might be caused by other external influences, such as solar variations. The maps of observed changes did in fact bear a rough resemblance to the computers’ greenhouse-effect maps. “It is likely that this trend is partially due to human activities,” the researchers concluded, “although many uncertainties remain.”(43) Even before Santer’s finding was published, it impressed the community of climate scientists. An important 1995 report by the world’s leading experts (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) offered the “fingerprint” as evidence that greenhouse warming was probably underway. By 2006, when the warming had progressed considerably farther and the computer models were much improved, their judgment was confirmed. A thorough analysis concluded that there was scarcely a 5% chance that anything but humans had brought the pattern of changes observed in many regions of the world.(43a)” American Institute Physics

          http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

          I’ve read much of their work. I think I’ll go with their expertise, instead of your position which must be they are all lying?

          “If CO2 in the atmosphere cause the warming in 1993-97, then it should have never ended, since the CO2 is still there.”

          “Scientists have identified a number of factors—among them a temporary downturn in solar activity and more sun-blocking aerosol pollution—that at least partially explain why air temperatures have barely risen since the turn of the millennium. But recent research suggests that Earth is still taking in more energy from the sun than it’s letting out, to the tune of almost a 60-watt light bulb’s worth for every 100 square meters.”

          http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/11/where-global-warming-s-missing-heat

          The effect on our oceans is devistating:

          “Nearly all ocean dead zones will increase by the end of the century because of climate change, according to a new Smithsonian-led study.”

          http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ocean-dead-zones-are-getting-worse-globally-due-climate-change-180953282/#VdLDCsuZPBGFVmag.99

          “Climate change is not the only outcome of increased greenhouse gas concentrations. The oceans have absorbed a lot of the excess carbon in the atmosphere, reducing the impacts of climate change to date, but at a cost. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have led to an increase in acidity of ocean water, a process known as ocean acidification.

          Acidification has the potential to completely disrupt the ocean’s—and perhaps even the planet’s—ecosystem before climate change has a chance to do so.”

          http://daily.jstor.org/isnt-anyone-talking-ocean-acidification/

          “When the L.I.A. ended the sun’s intensity rose to levels higher than 500 years ago dumping 500 years worth of warming on the Earth all at once.”

          I find your position specious and uncited. Your basic premise renders the entire climate scinece discipline moot. I’m sorry – I’m just not going to buy it.

          “Solar scientist reported that in 1993 the sun entered into a 1,000 year solar maxim.” you, uncited

          Rough limits could now be set on the extent of the Sun’s influence. For average sunspot activity decreased after 1980, and on the whole,

          solar activity had not increased during the half-century since 1950″ AIP

          http://www.aip.org/history/climate/solar.htm#S5

          Why would I heed your position that an entire decades old scientific dicipline is basless over known scientific agencies who disagree? Why should I heed your uncited position over the cited findings of professionals? Every scientific soicety in existance disagrees with you:

          http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

          If you return, return with citation.

        • mpr24

          The issue isn’t just the warming, Bill. It’s the rate at which it is happening. Naturally, over thousands of years since the last ice age, the Earth has warmed. Yes, you’re right. But, we hit 1.0 degrees Celsius over normal in the northern hemisphere in October of last year, for the first time ever, and since then we have added another 1.0 degree, hitting 2.0 over normal yesterday.

          Regardless of whether or not you want to believe in climate change, or whether or not it’s man made, what is the harm in treating our planet better and finding new and innovative ways to exist? I’ll never understand the point of your arguments, because we should still stop treating our planet like crap.

          http://grist.org/climate-energy/global-warming-is-now-in-overdrive-we-just-hit-a-terrible-climate-milestone/?utm_content=bufferd3fa1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

          • Bill

            Hi mpr24. The “rate” of warming. Versus what?
            Paleo-climatologist have over six-hundred-million years of solid temperature data for the earth. When in the history of the earth are you comparing the current 0.3 degree rise per decade are you comparing this to? Did you even do something as simple as google the question “When did the earth see the greatest rise in temperature?”

            The Little Ice Age ended in 1855, the last major ice age ended 12,000 years ago. The earth will continue to warm for thousands of more years as the earth reaches its peri-helion orbit around the sun (closet orbit). It has all happened before, and left temperature records in the sedimentary layers of the earth. Nothing odd is happening today when compared to he the past 600,000,000 years. Are things different from 1855? Of course, the earth has warmed since then, there is less ice and snow to reflect sun heat back into space. Thus, the earth can warm faster now than then.

            Going in to and coming out of ice ages, the farther in you go the more rapidly the earth cools, and warms. As more ice ans snow build up, less and less ground is open to the sun, and the more ice and snow can absorb more heat from the atmosphere, which then takes heat from the oceans, cooling them down. Then, as the earth warms the opposite happens. Less and less snow an dice means not as much heat is absorbed, more ground opens to he sun and the rate of warming increases.

            When in the 600,000,000 year temperature history that we have available to us, does this not happen? IT is supposed to be warming faster now than before, and it will warm faster in 100 years from now as more ice and snow will be gone than is today. This is common sense, Don’t you think for yourself?

            Look into the 600,000,000 history of the earth and show me when this isn’t happening?
            I know it is happening, but it is supposed to.
            When Ice ages end, the earth warms, it is pretty simple, UNLESS you are some nutter claiming that there never were any ice ages, are you saying that?

  • Hope Forpeace

    In reality – we have the knowledge, ingenuity and resources to invent the new, clean sustainable energy source.
    We do not invent that new world – though not doing so threatens our existence – because Industry desires to maintain their profits.
    Pretty simple look at the dynamics of greed.

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+