As one of the “still interested” public I hope these general statistics may help discover facts.
In this latest discussion I have only heard the problems with CO2. Can we add increased release of Methane to the equation? As I understand it, methane is much worse than CO2, though of shorter duration. The problem is that methane release increases with GW as the permafrost in certain areas is melting and will immediately release “trapped” methane but worse, new methane will be released as frozen fauna also begins to thaw and rot, releasing a continual increase formation of methane which will then replace the short duration of added GW by an ever increasing continual release of methane.
Moreover, as I understand it, methane also converts with CO2 as a by-product. Are we counting that into the CO2 dispersion?
Below are some “real time” statistics of human activities and projected results, which show the current state of the world’s human and energy resources. IMO, it presents a sobering picture.
Energy (@ present)
263,510,471
Energy used today (MWh), of which: info
213,442,321
- from non-renewable sources (MWh) info
50,068,150
- from renewable sources (MWh) info
1,967,443,956,873
Solar energy striking Earth today (MWh) info
56,391,937
Oil pumped today (barrels) info
1,204,318,639,825
Oil left (barrels) info
14,337
Days to the end of oil (~39 years) info
1,135,495,988,438
Gas left (boe) info
59,763
Days to the end of gas
4,377,048,418,705
Coal left (boe)
150,933
Days to the end of coal
Methane
Remember some years back when radar screen was used on subjects on the internet, the screen showed what subjects were getting hotter and had more interest and what was getting colder and had less interest on the internet.
I wish we had that radar screen on Climate Change. The Methane is of great interest right now and is at the center of the radar screen. There are several theories that just came out about methane and the heating and warming of the earth.
My understanding is that the main interest is that when the earth reaches the climate cycle peak. The earth is warmer, and Methane being frozen is warmed then released into the atmosphere in great amounts. And maybe this change in atmospheric gases could be the factor that causes the earth to cool in ten thousand years and once cold the methane is frozen again. To do something like that would require vast amounts of the gas. And that is what is being claimed, that there is vastly amounts of Methane frozen on earth. And the scientists have to figure out how the Methane cools the earth instead of heating it like the accepted thinking is today.
You want to ride that fine line Mike, where you accept the consensus but you have some particular problem with it, so you try to claim that some part is missing or inaccurate or even not yet in the consensus. If you can show that is true, then show it. But what you are doing is picking some element, like ice cores, and claiming that has match up with something else or somehow the whole thing falls apart. Really, I can’t tell what you’re trying to say. Instead of mixing science with AGW talking points, just stick to the science.
As far as valid scientific evidence, I would have to say that those guild lines are established by the IPCC. The IPCC recognized in 1995 that humans did have some effect on the earth’s climate. And in the last report recognized that greenhouse gases played a role in holding the earth’s heat. But did not name it as the driving force and did not address the carbon lag.
The last IPCC report stated humans are driving climate change with 97 percent certainty. Your comment about when the IPCC recognized the role of greenhouse gases is so misinformed it needs no comment.
You want to ride that fine line Mike, where you accept the consensus but you have some particular problem with it, so you try to claim that some part is missing or inaccurate or even not yet in the consensus. If you can show that is true, then show it. But what you are doing is picking some element, like ice cores, and claiming that has match up with something else or somehow the whole thing falls apart. Really, I can't tell what you're trying to say. Instead of mixing science with AGW talking points, just stick to the science.
You ask me what my criteria for valid scientific evidence was. And the line I am trying to stay on is the working with what the IPCC agrees on and back the scientists in their quest to answer the carbon lag.
The big questions that are in being worked on and are in disagreement are.
Where are we in the climate cycle? Near the Peak, at the Peak, past the Peak?
What is the cause of carbon lag?
We know the climate cycle moves up and down in trends. Where are we in the trend?
How can it take 100,000 years to heat and only 10,000 years to cool?
Now take those four questions and fined a common factor. The only common factor is the 100,000 climate cycle. Now the best data so far on the climate cycle is the ice cores.
Now, I am not trying to solve the warming problem. I just have to have enough understanding of what is going on to comprehend the findings and reports.
Example, I could claim that my barbecuing on the weekend is the cause of Global Warming. Would I be wrong? I am adding carbon to the air. Now all l have to do is claim that 20M people barbecue on the weekend and it is a major cause of Global Warming. There, we have solved the cause of Global Warming.
But, does the barbecuing pass the Ice Core test? Maybe if the Flintstones were barbecuing in the past climate cycles.
As far as valid scientific evidence, I would have to say that those guild lines are established by the IPCC. The IPCC recognized in 1995 that humans did have some effect on the earth’s climate. And in the last report recognized that greenhouse gases played a role in holding the earth’s heat. But did not name it as the driving force and did not address the carbon lag.
The last IPCC report stated humans are driving climate change with 97 percent certainty. Your comment about when the IPCC recognized the role of greenhouse gases is so misinformed it needs no comment.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Yes, humans are effecting the climate, if not throw the whole AGW away.
Now, DarronS, are you saying that the humans are the main cause driving the temperature up. If so, who were the humans that were the driving force for the last one million years? The natural climate cycle patterns have not changed in the last million years.
Now according to your post #20. All we have to do is wait 800 years for the carbon put in the air today to react. According to that math the carbon from the industrial revolution has not yet taken affect.
Now I agree with the IPCC that the humans are changing the climate. But no one has agreed on how much. Yes the humans are contributing to added warmth in the natural climate cycle. Take all the people off the earth and the earth will still warm in the natural climate cycle warming as it always has in the past.
I do like you using the IPCC reports. So let’s review that information and see if we can come to an agreement on what the IPCC is saying.
Now I agree with the IPCC that the humans are changing the climate. But no one has agreed on how much.
This is not true. Ninety-seven percent of the world's climatologists agree that mankind is causing the current warming trend, yet you spread the lie that "no one has agreed on how much."
Yes the humans are contributing to added warmth in the natural climate cycle. Take all the people off the earth and the earth will still warm in the natural climate cycle warming as it always has in the past.
Actually, computer models run without mankind's CO2 emissions show we'd be in a cooling trend right now if we weren't dumping billions of tons of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. You are wrong again.
I do like you using the IPCC reports. So let’s review that information and see if we can come to an agreement on what the IPCC is saying.
Then read the IPCC report instead of regurgitating denier talking points.
Now, DarronS, are you saying that the humans are the main cause driving the temperature up. If so, who were the humans that were the driving force for the last one million years? The natural climate cycle patterns have not changed in the last million years.
This is why there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you. Any intro science website or PBS special will answer this question, so I can tell you haven't done any research. If you have, you have only looked at providers of information that are deliberately trying to confuse. Causing confusion is much easier than creating clarity.
That there is currently a strong link between human generated carbon releasing and global temperature does not mean that humans are required for global climate change. There are many ways nature releases carbon. Are you familiar with volcanoes?
Try this site]
Now I agree with the IPCC that the humans are changing the climate. But no one has agreed on how much.
This is not true. Ninety-seven percent of the world's climatologists agree that mankind is causing the current warming trend, yet you spread the lie that "no one has agreed on how much."
DarronS, you forgot to add your data. Let me help you out, climate is measured in degrees. You forgot to include how many degrees the humans have added to the natural climate cycle. I am sure you just overlook that item, so please add that data on the subject we are talking about. How many degrees did these climatologists say the humans warmed the earth? You say that 97% of the climatologists agree on how much warming is taking place. Let's have the numbers.
Yes the humans are contributing to added warmth in the natural climate cycle. Take all the people off the earth and the earth will still warm in the natural climate cycle warming as it always has in the past.
Actually, computer models run without mankind's CO2 emissions show we'd be in a cooling trend right now if we weren't dumping billions of tons of known greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each year. You are wrong again.
Yes, thank god for the CO2 warming, otherwise the Global Warming backers would be more embarrassed. A trend does not change the direction of the climate cycle, cooling trends are balanced by warming trends but the natural climate cycle is the mean temperature of all the trends. Nice try, but I am not going to let you have that one.
I do like you using the IPCC reports. So let’s review that information and see if we can come to an agreement on what the IPCC is saying.
Then read the IPCC report instead of regurgitating denier talking points.
Reading and understanding the reports are two separate things.
Reading and understanding the reports are two separate things.
I think that is Darron's point.
Precisely. Climate scientists agree on how much mankind's contributions have heated the planet. Mike won't acknowledge that. Climate scientists even predicted the amount of warming 20 years in advance.
Now, DarronS, are you saying that the humans are the main cause driving the temperature up. If so, who were the humans that were the driving force for the last one million years? The natural climate cycle patterns have not changed in the last million years.
This is why there is no point in trying to have a discussion with you. Any intro science website or PBS special will answer this question, so I can tell you haven't done any research. If you have, you have only looked at providers of information that are deliberately trying to confuse. Causing confusion is much easier than creating clarity.
That there is currently a strong link between human generated carbon releasing and global temperature does not mean that humans are required for global climate change. There are many ways nature releases carbon. Are you familiar with volcanoes?
Try this site]
Yes, I agree with you. Volcanoes are a cause of global climate change. And we can use that argument. But that leads to another problem. We now have to figure out how we can show that volcanoes erupt in 100,000 year cycles over and over again like clockwork.
Doesn’t a website like that make you mad? It treats people like babies. Did you send in a donation? Spin and twisting data to get people’s interest. Getting donations and promoting their film “Chasing Ice."
One way to get clarity on the subject is to forget about the human factor. Don’t use the ninth cycle, just use the first eight climate cycles. Study the charts and you will see that the carbon always follows the warming of the earth buy several hundred years. In these cycles there were super volcanos and meteors hitting the earth. Yet the climate cycles continued. The items like super volcanos that caused ice ages were balance over the thousands of years and the climate cycles stayed on course.
Mike, I now understand your ignorance is deliberate. Keep fooling yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.
Thank you for that bit of wisdom, I will now sleep better.
Your just a little upset that I ask for numbers that you claimed existed and were unable to produce.
I am glad that I can entertain you. But I would like it better if you would contribute facts and just try for once stepping down from that throne of judgment and viewing the data from other people’s viewpoints.
As far as valid scientific evidence, I would have to say that those guild lines are established by the IPCC. The IPCC recognized in 1995 that humans did have some effect on the earth’s climate. And in the last report recognized that greenhouse gases played a role in holding the earth’s heat. But did not name it as the driving force and did not address the carbon lag.
The last IPCC report stated humans are driving climate change with 97 percent certainty. Your comment about when the IPCC recognized the role of greenhouse gases is so misinformed it needs no comment.
Oh, my. Where to begin. Yes, humans are effecting the climate, if not throw the whole AGW away.
Now I agree with the IPCC that the humans are changing the climate. But no one has agreed on how much. Yes the humans are contributing to added warmth in the natural climate cycle. Take all the people off the earth and the earth will still warm in the natural climate cycle warming as it always has in the past.
I do like you using the IPCC reports. So let’s review that information and see if we can come to an agreement on what the IPCC is saying.
Not trying to go off-topic, if we know and are in agreement that human activity is contributing to GW, why are we not concentrating on possible solutions.?
I recently have been interested in the use of commercial Hemp as a climate friendly, extremely hardy, low maintenance, and best of all the most versatile alternative crop, which can provide an enormous range of environmentally friendly products.
Best of all, it is a voracious CO2 scrubber and, unless used as fuel, can sequester enormous amounts of CO2. 1 acre of hemp will sequester as much CO2 as 4.1 acres of trees, with the added benefit that Hemp matures in 4 months, while it takes a tree 20 years to mature.
The more I read about this low THC "weed" , the greater my admiration for this traditionally despised product in the US. Several other countries have vibrant industries based on the unique qualities of this plant.
For starters, below are a feww links to "commercial hemp" sites which may peak yuor interest;
The potential of hemp for paper production is enormous. According to the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, one acre of hemp can produce 4 times more paper than one acre of trees! All types of paper products can be produced from hemp: newsprint, computer paper, stationary, cardboard, envelopes, toilet paper, even tampons.
FACT: THERE IS NO TREE OR PLANT SPECIES ON EARTH CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AS MUCH PAPER PER ACRE AS HEMP! HEMP IS NUMBER ONE!.
http://www.nemeton.com/static/nemeton/axis-mutatis/hemp.html
and this site is espcially interesting as to the uses of Hemp in a range of industries.:
http://1st-ecofriendlyplanet.com/tag/environmental-benefits-of-hemp/
and of course Wiki has several pages dedicated to the neutral history and qualities of Commercial Hemp. Check it out!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp
Not trying to go off-topic, if we know and are in agreement that human activity is contributing to GW, why are we not concentrating on possible solutions.?
There has been a lot of interest in low THC hemp. But the news has been talking about CBD hemp as a treatment for certain neurological conditions, including seizures and Huntington’s disease. I have been following this because a couple of doctors want me to help them grow some under California’s Medical Marijuana laws. I don’t know if that will happen, but I am behind the use of hemp. I have read where hemp may be one of the first plants that man domesticated. And China was known as the land of hemp and mulberry.
I had no idea that hemp removed CO2 like that or could produce so much paper. You got some good points and data here.
I have been collecting data for a possible book on growing marijuana in southern California. I will add you’re data to my data bank. Thanks.
I have been helping the marijuana labor union get up and running. And helping the marijuana farms in the area to standardize the processing methods.
Over a month ago I was helping the dispensary open the Marijuana Farmer’s Market in Los Angeles. We got a lot of news coverage. The farms were burning all the plant except for the flowers. I wanted to see if there was a market for the shake and leaf, called the Luffa. So I put a heavy pound in of Luffa into a two gallon Ziploc bag. Because it was too much for a one gallon bag.
The stuff coming off the high desert is really dry and has no moisture at all. So you got to mentally picture this big two gallon bag on the counter at the Farmer’s Market with a $75 dollar price tag displayed in the center of the bag in big letters. And then behind the bag on the wall was a sign that said, “One ounce $5.00". The one ounce was only for leaf use for cooking. Again I wanted to see if there was a market.
None of the dispensaries in Southern California sell Luffa or leaf. They want to stay with the higher dollar products. But I proved that the people want Luffa and leaf.
I gave away a lot of product to people in wheelchairs and in pain. They really were happy to see the prices at the farmer’s market and to be able to talk directly to the farmers.
The news coverage picked up on that bag and I heard from friends all the way from the east coast about how cheap weed was in California at the Farmer’s Market.
I sure have gathered a lot of insider’s information for the book. And a lot of good stories, but gathering information and writing it are two different things. I like to see interest in the product, it motivates me. Thanks again.
@ Mike Yohe,
If you have access to Youtube, type in “commercial hemp” and you can find several good lectures on the beneficial uses of commercial hemp.
Mike, I now understand your ignorance is deliberate. Keep fooling yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.
Thank you for that bit of wisdom, I will now sleep better.
Your just a little upset that I ask for numbers that you claimed existed and were unable to produce.
Conversation gets frustrating when someone does the very thing they are complaining about.
Mike, I now understand your ignorance is deliberate. Keep fooling yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.
Thank you for that bit of wisdom, I will now sleep better.
Your just a little upset that I ask for numbers that you claimed existed and were unable to produce.
Conversation gets frustrating when someone does the very thing they are complaining about.
OK, Lausten this is for you. To bring you up to date on my thinking.
I will try and explain a couple very basic ideas that I think I see different than you and the others on the blog.
First we all agree on most of the warming points, except a few points about the CO2.
We all agree that the CO2 helps warm the planet.
But, Al did not cover the carbon lag and lead the people to believe that the carbon was the driving force of Global Warming, right. Why would Al do this?
Many of the scientists pointed that out and said that carbon, while it works well as a warming blanket and in helping create and hold heat it only does so only when the earth is warm and therefore cannot be the main driving force behind Global Warming.
So now there was a disagreement in Al’s theory about the driving force. Pick your side.
Then money in the form of grants came in and pushed Al’s theory. The reason for this was to get the carbon credit laws in place. The new trillion dollar windfall for Al’s group moved forward and laws started being passed.
This trillion dollar windfall program not only wanted to tax every U.S. citizen but to also make big businesses help fill their pockets too.
Now most big business were no problem, that is because there is so much money involved in these programs from the taxpayers and government that big business can actually make money on the carbon. Even the coal companies could invest in new energy and get some of the billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money that the government was giving away for new clean energy projects.
Money was pouring into the education business and grants were being passed out for the stupidest ideas you ever heard of as long as it backed Global Warming.
But then we had a bump in the road. A couple of America’s big business guys for some stupid reason got all patriotic, didn't care about the money and told the congressmen that they were handing out bags of money on a theory that may not be correct and in the overall picture of things, it may not be in America’s best interest.
That’s when America proved that higher education does not always include common sense.
One would think that this problem could quickly be fixed by reviewing the facts. But that didn't happen because it got political.
My reason for wanting to bring up the basic facts is simple, as far as myself, I am not going to be around to even have to worry about the Global Warming. But I am doing this for my grandchildren and great grandchildren who will have to live under the laws and policies that are being passed today.
Back to the basics.
To me it seems so simple for the following reasons.
If the driving force of Global Warming was carbon, then the climate cycles would follow the amount of carbon in the air, right? Is that not what you claim?
And since the amount of carbon in the air can greatly vary with super volcanoes, meteor impacts and ice ages there could be no climate cycles, right? The ice cores would show the earth temperatures that followed the amount of carbon in the air and there should be no cycles.
Therefore carbon is not the driving force behind Global Warming. It is a greenhouse gas and has to follow the rules of the science of gases.
What the ice cores show us is that when the earth warms, a few hundred years later the carbon in the atmosphere will increase. Therefore it is the warming of the air that controls the amount of carbon in the air. That is until mankind came along and started pumping tons of carbon into the air.
That’s it, I do not buy carbon as the driving force for earth’s climate.
I do buy it as a greenhouse gas. And as all greenhouse gas help hold heat and help create a little heat. It does affect the weather in small ways.
How much affect does greenhouse gases have? Well Al’s group said that whether greenhouse gases are the driving force or not, it does not matter. The greenhouse gases will heat the earth to a point that will cause big trouble on earth. And the only way to stop and reduce the greenhouse gases is to pass more carbon credit laws.
And Al’s group made a prediction of what would happen to the earth if the greenhouse gases were not stopped by the use of carbon credits. And it was not good.
Well, now ten years have passed and Al’s predictions have failed. The earth has heated a little, as would be expected in the natural climate cycle. Al’s scientists who backed the carbon credits as the saver of the world are running around pointing under rocks saying there’s little bit of the missing heat over here and a little bit over there, and maybe a bunch hidden in the waters.
So now Al’s predictions were off, is the world safe from Global Warming? No, not at all. We are in very serious trouble. But not from carbon Global Warming, but from the earth’s natural Climate Cycle. Don’t get me wrong, carbon is still going to contribute to the heating, but let’s step up and take a look at the bigger picture.
Earth’s is heated by the 230 trillion horse power worth of energy that is hitting us all the time from the sun. Climate is controlled by how much of the heat is trapped on earth and does not go back into space.
The 230T is not constant and varies with the Milankovitch cycles. This causes the earth’s climate to form cycles that match the Milankovitch cycles of 100k years. Proven by the ice cores.
Our climate is all about the distance from the sun and how the earth captures the heat with pollution, ice, plants, oceans and atmospheric gases. This capture of that energy is what keeps the earth’s temperature fairly constant.
So this brings up the question. What is the standard natural climate cycle? What should we expect at the warmest peak of the natural climate cycle? Which by the way almost all the scientist agree that the earth is reaching or has reached the peak of the natural climate cycle.
On this point, several scientists have claimed that the past peaks have caused the extinction of some species of animals. If true, then we have not yet reached the peak.
So, is there going to be an extinction phase at the end of climate peak? We don’t know at this time.
Next big question. So what if we got lied to and taken down the rosy path of political BS. The scientists still say that by cutting carbon we will be helping stop the greenhouse heating. And the warming effect of greenhouse gases does affect the weather. So, let’s not dwell on how we got here and just look at moving forward.
OK, I agree on that.
So, what is the next steps we should take?
How about building a good solid base for science to work from. We can start by answering the question that should have been answered years ago about the carbon lag?
Why?
Because that will settle once and for all that the driving force behind the natural climate cycles is the sun and not the carbon.
What good will that do us?
Once we understand the past natural climate cycles and how much heating and damage took place at the peak of the past cycles, we will have a base line on which to build our defense to the upcoming extinction phase of the cycle.
Isn’t that what we are doing with the carbon credits, helping force people and companies to cool the earth?
No, I think carbon credits is more about the money than the earth. The IPCC only can make suggestions that follow the political format.
We need to establish past history of the climate cycles, fully understand what is going to happen at the peak of the cycle. Then formulate a timetable of actions to take.
Please, give an idea of what you think those actions could be?
OK, it all depends on the timeline we have to work with. Is it decades, centuries or several thousand years?
We could do things like having all the jets in the world fly at heights that cause jet trails during the daytime. That is supposed to reflect a lot of heat back into space.
If the data shows that the protein supplies will be in trouble. Then we need to start stock piling vast amounts of protein. After all the United State feeds a lot of the earth’s population. And we don’t know how long the extinction phase of the cycle may be.
But we do know that modern man has survived that last two climate cycles. DNA at this time does not have enough data to calculate the affect the climate peak had on mankind in the last cycle peak.
You get the idea.
Money was pouring into the education business and grants were being passed out for the stupidest ideas you ever heard of as long as it backed Global Warming.
But then we had a bump in the road. A couple of America’s big business guys for some stupid reason got all patriotic, didn’t care about the money and told the congressmen that they were handing out bags of money on a theory that may not be correct and in the overall picture of things, it may not be in America’s best interest.
That’s when America proved that higher education does not always include common sense.
These should be easy facts to confirm and provide evidence for. Please do so. Or shut up.