Gas prices in 2012? At least $4?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

Goats made it stop raining? As it is, the dry cycle for the Sahara seems to be ending, and it might well be turning back into a savannah within our (at least, my) lifetime.

Yes, it's primarily down to goats, rather than climate cycles. Start with an arid grassland, similar to the remmnant of the prairies of North America. They're composed of grasses & other deep-rooted plants, which form a sod which conserves water, so that the community is able to subsist on little rainfall. Break down that sod, by overgrazing (or by plowing, as in the US "Dust Bowl"), and it shifts to dry dirt. Even if the overgrazing is stopped, the former plant community has a difficult time re-establishing itself, especially when every scrap of vegetation is pounced on by herders & their cattle.

Our current, global climate isn't even as high as it was speculated to be during the Cretaceous Period.

Yet. What you're forgetting there is the lag time. The Earth's a big place, and takes a long time (in human terms) to warm up. We haven't seen anywhere near the full warming that will happen due to past CO2 additions, and won't for decades yet.

As for the similarity to the P-T extinction, it's not the lava, which is pretty irrelevant (unless you happen to be under it, of course). It's the fact that the eruptions happened in a place where there were extensive coal beds, thus setting off a coal-burning episode similar to what humans are doing.

[Ladogaboy]

I'm sorry, I still don't buy the goats. Comparing the savannah that once occupied the Sahara to the American Great Plains is a bit of a stretch. Humans were introduced to North America at a time when the animals were no longer equipped to deal with that kind of a pack hunter. The bison were about the only ones who were, and that is why the Europeans saw such a homogenous ecosystem when they arrived. And the Dust Bowl was the result of killing off the buffalo (which had been eating the grasses in much the same way as goats) and poor plant-based agricultural practices. And if you want to say that climate had little to do with it, then, by that logic, the American Great Plains should still to this day look more like the Great Sandy Desert... but it doesn't. The Sahara savannah had none of those factors. If anything, it would have appeared most similar to South central Africa, where the animals are VERY well equipped to deal with pre-modern humans.

And, yes, that is one theory that I have read about the P-T extinction as well. The time period over which that occurred doesn't seem definitive, though. Bringing it back to modern times, how much of the CO2 output and levels in the air has to do with the plant life and vegetation that has been lost due to deforestation and other issues (i.e., human over population)?

[redpoint5]

I want to thank the moderators for allowing this thread to continue despite some strong emotional reactions and the drift from the original topic. Keeping the dialogue going in a respectful way is important in making informed opinions and having them tested by other points of view.

Originally Posted by jamesqf

No, it's not. It is intended as an accurate description. If it is to be banned because it is considered insulting by some, why is not the misuse of the word "skeptic" to describe the same people - which we true skeptics consider equally insulting - also banned?

I notice a post using the insulting term "warmist". Others have used the insulting term "climate alarmist". So why not equal treatment for everone? Or are you just pushing your own prejudices?

I'm not really for the banning of any language because we should be mature enough to not let these words get under our skin. The words themselves have no meaning except those given by the speaker. I could use any word as an insult to others, but might use another just as a harmless descriptor.

I've been guilty of resorting to insult on forums before, but if our goal is really to inform and to shape the opinion of others, then resorting to insults is a sure way to turn people off.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I'm sorry, I still don't buy the goats.

(Sigh) How can I get it across to you that what you buy or don't buy really doesn't matter? You may not buy the fact that the Earth isn't flat, but that doesn't change its shape.

Bringing it back to modern times, how much of the CO2 output and levels in the air has to do with the plant life and vegetation that has been lost due to deforestation and other issues...

Basically none. There are several different ways to figure out where the excess CO2 comes from, and they all agree. A fairly complicated on involves measuring isotope ratios in the CO2. Because fossil fuels have been buried underground for tens or hundreds of millions of years, all the short-lived isotopes like C14 have decayed to stable forms. So when the fossil fuel is burned, that creates a deficit in those isotopes in the atmosphere. Do some math, and you can figure out how much of the CO2 comes from fossil carbon.

The easy way is just to look up figures for annual fossil fuel production from some source of economic data, like the CIA World Factbook. Apply a little knowedge of chemistry, do some math, and you come up with a number for how much atmospheric CO2 should have been increased from burning that fossil fuel. Then you compare the number you get with the actual increase, and see if it matches. And it does*. If you're ambitious, you could do this for a number of years, and find it still matches.

*Actually the CO2 generated by burning fossil fuel is somewhat larger than the observed increase. This is due to factors such as some of the CO2 dissolving in ocean water.

[suspectnumber961]

Industry Plan to Save Us From Global Warming a Nightmare, Not a Dream | Truthout

By ignoring global warming, the U.S. is painting itself (and the world) into a corner. But now the fossil fuel industry has prepared an escape for us. You may not have heard of it, but the escape is called "carbon capture and storage" or CCS for short. It has never been tried on anything like the scale needed to limit global warming, so it's a colossal experiment with the future of civilization at stake. More on that in a moment, but first let's look at the corner we're in:

The chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA) recently said, "The world is perfectly on track to 11 degrees Fahrenheit increase in temperature, which is very bad news. And everybody, even school children, [but not weiny-heads] know this will have catastrophic implications for all of us."

We face unprecedented tornadoes like the one that ripped away much of Joplin, Missouri on May 22, 2011.

Parts of our Southwest (and Mexico) are now dryer than the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, with irregular snow pack in the Rockies disrupting water supplies and reducing crop yields. By all accounts, the future of water in the Southwest is grim.

Drought-induced insect infestations are destroying forests across the western states and mega-wildfires are increasing on every continent except Antarctica.

Record floods disrupted the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys during 2011, not to mention Biblical floods in Australia, India and Pakistan where tens of millions of people were displaced.

And we're just in the early stages of climate chaos. As the song says, "You ain't seen nothing yet."

..................

Don't know the details, but there are some SANE countries with serious energy programs...like Germany...and some Scandinavian countries?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by suspectnumber961

"You ain't seen nothing yet."

While we hear a deafening chorus of croaking frogs, all saying "What a great hot tub this is! Everybody come jump in!"

[sheepdog 44]

Originally Posted by Ladogaboy

I'm sorry, I still don't buy the goats. Comparing the savannah that once occupied the Sahara to the American Great Plains is a bit of a stretch. Humans were introduced to North America at a time when the animals were no longer equipped to deal with that kind of a pack hunter. The bison were about the only ones who were, and that is why the Europeans saw such a homogenous ecosystem when they arrived. And the Dust Bowl was the result of killing off the buffalo (which had been eating the grasses in much the same way as goats) and poor plant-based agricultural practices. And if you want to say that climate had little to do with it, then, by that logic, the American Great Plains should still to this day look more like the Great Sandy Desert... but it doesn't. The Sahara savannah had none of those factors. If anything, it would have appeared most similar to South central Africa, where the animals are VERY well equipped to deal with pre-modern humans.

Just on this point:
I would say that millennial long Climate change would be the major factor. Over the time span it can turn plains into desserts and back again. However there is a very valid point that animals can have a significant effect between transitions of grassy or scrub land into desserts. I saw a documentary years ago that i can't recall about an invasive mouse like species i believe in australia. They would eat the seeds of the plants and burrow into the ground disrupting the soil. Of course without natural predators things get out of hand. And year after year you get miles of the ecosystem collapsing into desert. Eradicating the animal saw a rebound of the grassy scrubland into its natural range.

Small things like that can have a big impact on emergent species in transition zones. And the difference between zones will dramatically affect water and temperature. Any foriegn thing that does something unatural to the environment can do this, be it livestock or agricultural practices. I doubt killing buffalo contributed to the dustbowl in any meaningful way over the way it was farmed. However even the buffalo had their place in the health of the plains and predators. Also the plains are not a transitional zone into you get far into the west.

[user removed]

No solutions, just repetitive claims of the doomsday scenario, which has been predicted since the Roman Empire, yet we are still here.

I live very near the ocean, in fact my brother lives about 20 feet from tidal water. WE have seen 7 inches of sea level increase in the last 80 years, measured precisely.

Wild claims about "unprecedented weather events" just "don't impress me much". Actually they have the opposite effect and actually decrease credibility of the claimants.

The worst hurricane to hit the tidewater area was 1649 with Chesapeake Bay water levels increasing by 15 feet. The worst in the last hundred years here has been a little over half of that amount.

When every thread on this fuel economy forum is hijacked and turned into an attempt to overwhelm the natural scepticism of rational people, then you do nothing to promote your position.

Without any practical solutions that involve rational steps to mitigate the issues with increasing carbon levels in the atmosphere, I find no point in following the endless babbling. I also don't appreciate the waste of bandwidth and the level of arrogance it seems some might think is necessary.

I come here to talk about an idea I developed for over a decade, and to try to help people with problems using 60,000 hours of EXPERIENCE. A potential solution to the problem. Facts gentlemen, and a COST EFFECTIVE alternative to the status quo.

If all you have to add is the same old conclusions repeatedly, ad nauseum, you risk making this whole forum irrelevant.

You will not change a single persons mind. You might if you actually had any ideas of how to solve the problem, that people of modest means could actually implement.

Show the average person SOLUTIONS and they will follow credible guidance, especially if they can do so and save money as well as be more energy conscious.

If you have no solutions then you risk irrelevance with the incessant drivel.

Do I think the globe is warming?
Yes.
Do I believe humanity is a contributing factor?
Probably.
Do I think incessantly repeating the same position will have any positive effect?
Absolutely not.
Do I think solution oriented innovations that are rational and cost effective are the pathway to reversing the trend in climate conditions?
Absolutely.
That's the basis of my IDEA to offer a better way to utilize the same amount of energy.
A cost effective pathway to greater efficiency.
Ignored.

Last post in this thread here.

regards
Mech

[CigaR007]

This notion of simply doing more with less will eventually sink in. You cannot force it. People must come to the conclusion on their own. Constructive criticism is key here.

[TheEnemy]

Sometimes the claims by those supporting human caused global warming really stun me.

A while back on another form a person and I spent some time calculating how much of the warming since the 1970’s we were responsible for. Mind you our calculations have an absolutely huge amount of uncertainty but we felt that our calculations were more accurate than the ones the IPCC gave us.

By our calculations we are responsible for only 60% of the warming since the 1970’s.
A model I saw a couple of years ago put us at 50%, they even did an Error^2 calculation on a reverse regression on past data, which showed their model was 60% accurate. Even looking at their output over actual data showed theirs as being much more accurate than any other model I have ever seen. Unfortunately I have never been able to find their links since then.

Anecdotal evidence: If we were responsible for 97% as the IPCC claims then the 11 year solar cycle should not be able to cause a decrease in temperature (0.1% variance in output), but yet with the last solar minimum temperatures decreased.

State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2011

Last year tied with 1997 as the 11th warmest, as a La Nina year
2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest as an El Nino year.

As far as wilder weather, so far scientist have NOT been able to correlate an increase due to global warming as there is a huge amount of noise in the data that they still fell into the range of “normal” as far as natural disasters go.

On computer models, I use computer models at work. They are good as far as giving a basic idea as to what should happen. But still we give a wide margin for error when we actually run a test. They are good tools as far as telling you what and where to look, but often in the climate science field what the computer spits out is taken as gospel.

Then as Old Mech stated there are the Doom and Gloom forecasts with little to no supporting evidence.

If you tell me you want me to reduce energy usage to
1. reduce total emissions
2. reduce our dependence on foreign oil
3. save money
Then great I can support those positions

But if I am told I HAVE to because of global warming then my human nature is going to kick in and I will resist changing.

Sorry about the wall of text, hopefully it is not too rantish.