It’s true the left beat people in the head with climate change to sell their message of The Evil American. And if we just turn the country over to liberals, actual worthy people, things would be okay.
But…
1 gallon of gasoline weighs around 6 pounds or about the same as a gallon of water or, 2 average sized textbooks or, a basket full of kittens. The United States uses 375,000,000 gallons per day or times 6lb. is 2,250,000,000 pounds of gasoline. Since I spent 18 years teaching science I keep thinking about all that weight on top of me. The principle of mass conservation implies that mass can’t be created or destroyed so in a reaction starting materials must be equal to the mass of the products. So by converting 2,250,000,000Lbs of liquid gasoline into gasoline combustion gas vapor, give or take the efficiency of the burn, the result is 2,250,000,000 pounds of gas vapor into the atmosphere. Or 1,125,000 tons or around the weight equivalent of 3 Empire State Buildings or roughly 2 Pentagons (not including the hot air) Around 5,500,000lbs is the most humans have ever been able to lift and that was by Industrial Steel Inc. (USA) and Buffalo Hydraulic (USA) on 23 January 2004.

That 2,250,000l,000bs times 365 days equals 821.25 billion lbs of gas vapor into the atmosphere. Small compared to the weight of Lake Erie, 762,000,000,000,000lbs. In 50 years however the gasoline vapor weighs more than Lake Tahoe, which is only a mere 39 trillion pounds compared to the 41 trillion pounds of gas vapor from the gasoline emissions.

Now in conclusion, if you are driving south from San Francisco on Highway 101 at evening rush hour leaving the elevated area around South San Francisco you can see cars bumper to bumper all the way to San Jose. After you have been teaching science to kids all day and there you are stuck in that traffic you ask yourself, “Why aren’t I being crushed?” and allow your eyes to grab a glimpse of the thickening smog.

Climate change is not really a science at all. It is a religion. Climate is always changing.
I have evaluated the present and historical data sets and I find it to be very meager and hopelessly inadequate to substantiate their claims. Please look at my several posts on LinkedIn and my website www.texanhomeenergy,com
Man Caused Climate Change is a fraudulent science designed to implement the governmental control of the energy sectors of our economy. Cap and Trade will give the government control of energy. If it succeeds we will have lost the last remaining vestige of our freedom.

Shaking my head, wondering how so many could be so gullible.

The whole history of the environmental movement is one phony emergency after another, made up to give government more power. This is just another, and there'll be plenty more.

The principle we need to follow is, "Extraordinary demands on other people require extraordinary proof." (With apologies to David Hume.)

So I think we all agree there are a lot of "serious" factors. Man's piddly little re-injection of CO2 is insignificant. While the wienie boys/girls are currently running a lot of things, my bet is on the producers to figure it out and adjust, adapt and overcome.

The cycles have also coincided with fierce creativity or dire calamity in relation to human beings. The Renaissance occurred during a warming period, the Dark Ages during a cooling period. People's energy is increased in warmer temps, stimulating the brain's activity. The whole cult of GW'ing though, is just a matter of control over the populace.

Climate change is the ten commandments of the environmentalist religion.

You may have a point, there may be some real science going on and internal battles.

I checked the NASA solar physics site to double check on something for a comment in this thread and was surprised to see the Maunder Minimum so prominent. "The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research."

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/Sunspo...

I watched a documentary that said the Amazon Rain Forest is an ecosystem that sustains itslef but does not effect any place else as has been assumed. The sea and sea life connect the globe more than any surface plants.

Yes. "Settled science" is an oxymoron.

Jan

Never is too comprehensive a word: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the...

rationaloptimist and wattsupwiththat both blog about the benefits of warming.

As you say, "Sadly it's probably going to be cooler." Our solar system is wiggling through the galactic plane right now - which seems to have triggered ice ages before.

Jan

Haven't you watched The Flintstones? Paleo-Hummers are just around the political corner!

Jan

Actually I was referring to solar cycles. It has long been observed that there was a linkage between Sunspots cycles and climate. William Herschel first observed that in 1801.

When sunspot activity is low, temperatures seem to be lower. No one is quite sure why, since the measurable intensity change isn't sufficient to change Svensmark postulates that lower activity allows more cosmic rays to strike the Earth and that that increases clouds and reflectivity. A recent experiment at Cern supports that.

Solar cycle 24 is the weakest in 100 years. So if the solar theory is valid we may be seeing 20-30 years of cooling -- which would actually BE bad.

I think you are spot on. If we encourage the use of carbon fuels as an intermediary step to re-developing nuclear power we are on the right track. There is enough carbon based fuel for the world for a century - probably for 2 centuries. The key is 'sweeping aside the regulatory agencies' so that we can move ahead.

The whole Copenhagen Consensus Center platform is directed at doing an end-run around the power structure that is at the heart of global warming - and its real raison d'etre.

Jan

A few more volcanoes in quick succession and you might be right about the cooler. Another Mini Ice age? More need for nasty ole fossil fuels and more haze for solar to fight it's way thruogh (thou hopefully some producers would realize the volcano hot spots can be tapped for heat and energy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature...

Nice chart of calculated temperature from core samples dating back 800,000 years.

Interesting that about 150,000 years ago it was warmer than now...and we are on the declining side. Big question, how much Human industry exists 150,000 years ago? Not sure they were driving Hummers around then.

This is one of the things that the AGW cult is so blind to -- warm is good. They want to blame a few degrees of potential warming (assuming it really happened) on all sorts of disasters.

Never do you see an article about the benefits of global warming -- which would probably outweigh the negatives, at least for a few degrees. Warmer is better.

Sadly, it's probably going to be cooler.

We did have a Manhattan style project to develop clean energy -- it was called the Manhattan project. Nuclear power is clean, proven, and non-polluting we need to upgrade reactor design and keep building.

I would like to see serious investigation of thorium reactors. They were a working option back in the 60's but not followed up on because we WANTED plutonium. Now, not so much.

If you really want low CO2 (and why do you hate plants?) go nuclear. It works.

At what cost? I have done some extensive research on this "renewable" stuff. The long and short boils down to one factor.

Currently, given current technology, approximate 15x more energy in creating these sources, that is ever "saved" by them. The energy and pollution costs to create one hybrid auto battery is well above that, not counting the hazmat suits you need to clean it up after an accident.

The is no doubt that the cleaner the energy is the better, pollution is bad, however the discussion is on 'MAN-CAUSED" global warming/climate change which is a bunch of hooey.

Changing the topic is not appropriate in a discussion on Man-Caused Climate Change. That is what the liberals do.

Good point, Snezzy. Any article that deals with global climate shifts in any accurate detail will talk about a change in weather patterns as one area becomes colder and drier and another area becomes warmer. You are right in that the global temperature is a mathematical fiction used for discussion. I mean: each layer of the ocean is a different temp, so you cannot even say that 'one spot, in the ocean is 22 degrees'...because 50' down it is something else.

One of the reasons I keep an eye on the icer news is that there is some indication that the Younger Dryas occurred very suddenly: Perhaps as little as 3 years, certainly as little as 30 years. (I think we are talking about a 15 degree drop in temp.) So while I am not an icer, if I am wrong and I have made a bad decision I will be very quickly in deep kimchi.

Jan

CBS had to admit this or lose their last viewers.

People die of the cold. In the United States today, people do not die of the heat--at least, not in such numbers.

Actually, both CO2 and temp for past ages can be estimated in soil and/or ice cores using captured air and pollen...I mean, we have two ice ages that are named for an alpine flower! So we are not completely without data.

However, that data shows that many of the recent past eras were warmer than we are today; many were colder. The theory that industrial CO2 makes that much difference to Earth is just another version of geocentricity - we want to think that we are more important than we are.

Jan, important enough

Nice, woodlema. Thank you.

Allowed? If not, this may unpleasantly alter her career path.

If NASA did in fact secretly endorse this 'slip' it could be the start of the disintegration of the academic-political-warmist-block.

Jan

Almost nobody seems to address what I would think is a fundamental question: Is there such a thing as a global temperature? If my mouth is at 104 Fahrenheit and my toes at 93.2, the average is 98.6, so I'm not running a fever, right?

Is an average of several temperatures itself a temperature?

I think that it is a false concept that is being sold to us for some purpose, perhaps as an article of faith for identifying and destroying nonbelievers.

Anyone have further thoughts?