Global cooling

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Pointster. A quote from your article ..

'The temperature decrease is much smaller that the warming EXPECTED from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.'

I make no claim to be a scientist, but I would make three points.

1) What the I.P.C.C. EXPECTS to happen is, from past experience, not clear fact. There is room for reasonable doubt, not at the general direction (warming) which they take, but at their accuracy.

2) The Maunder minimum, IF similar in effect to that of the 16/17 hundreds. a not unreasonable supposition despite the apparent insignificant computer figures for the GLOBAL prediction, should still generate LOCALLY (i.e. large areas of Northern Europe and Siberia etc) a very cold spell of winters and cooler summers.

3) The Russian Academy, in their initial press release seemed to be saying that would be the case. Naturally, their main concern would be Northern Russia and Siberia.

My point is, however settled the science may be claimed to be, the consequences may be much more difficult to predict. I very much doubt had computers existed in the 15th century, they would have accurately portrayed what actually took place during the 'mini Ice Age.'

Rapidly rising CO2 amounts may well lesson the worst effects trhis time round, but that is not necessarily a given.

[J64TWB]

Did you guys know that every gallon of gasoline produces 20 lbs of C02?

I learned that 30 years ago. This week I produced 250 lbs in commuting to work and errands. Not including my other carbon footprint. Multiply by 220 million drivers this week in the USA. Big numbers. Now multiply by your lifetime. 1 driver. Now multiply by 1 billion cars on planet Earth. Now multiply by 6 generations of planet Earth drivers. Now multiply by 100 generations. A blink of the eye on this planet.

It seems impossible that a gallon of gasoline, which weighs about 6.3 pounds, could produce 20 pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned. However, most of the weight of the CO2 doesn't come from the gasoline itself, but the oxygen in the air.

When gasoline burns, the carbon and hydrogen separate. The hydrogen combines with oxygen to form water (H2O), and carbon combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide (CO2).

A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).

We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2!

Fascinating how a political ideology disses science and denies humans can have any effect on the balance or our planet. Deforest the planet, burn the forests, pollute the water, fu#k the polar bears, void the seas of all life with the biggest nets known to man, kill the sharks, hunt the animals and by all means DRILL BABY DRILL! I want my MTV and I want it now.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Frederick. You are preaching to the converted!

Catalytic converters, and sealed crankcase systems have been compulsory fittings on all European cars for many years. We have strict emission control laws, and CO2 output figures prominently figure in the car makers descriptions.

There are added tax incentives for 'clean' small cars such as my present 'super mini' (a Suzuki) which is one of the cleanest rated CO2 producing vehicles available, and which is road taxed at a very low rate. Furthermore, petrol and diesel fuels are taxed at a rate which, if applied in your country, would likely start a revolution!

I cannot comment on why your 'gas guzzling' cars are still allowed to get away with so willfully polluting our common atmosphere! (Especially in view of all the hand-wringing going on.)

[mrgybe]

[mac]

Doubtless a return to the sackcloth and ashes argument when you don't have a real one. Higher mileage, carbon fees, stimulate alternatives, healthy economy--lower profits for big carbon. I can see how it scares you.

[pointster]

[isobars]

Does "prudent" justify global reparations? A stifled economy? The federal government, via the EPA, OWNING and fining you thousands of dollars every day for that damp spot that forms in your lawn after a downpour? Being told what car you must buy? How long your showers can last? That your CO2-related obligation to the IRS and China supersedes your old mother's need for a Lasik treatment so she can see again?

I'll spare you the other ten pages of dictatorial BS the Left is DROOLING over if reelected.

Not going to happen? Much of that already has. Just one example: I stopped going to restaurants, stores, and theaters that kowtowed to Jimmy Carter's thermostat mandates in the 70s. We had to call ambulances for people who collapsed in our offices when we were prohibited the use of air conditioning until the temps IN OUR GOVERNMENT OFFICES hit 100 degrees ... in the 70s. A highly paid one-star-general-equivalent civil service engineer walked out, leaving this note on his desk: "I'll be back when my office gets back down to 72 degrees and stays there." And he cited regulations to back it up.

Just last week I phoned the engineering desk at the Rochester, Minnesota Mayo Clinic Doubletree Inn to see if there was any way I could turn down the room thermostat to a comfortable sleeping temperature. (If not, winter, a window, and a fan would be my solution, as I've done many times in many offices and hotels.) Bruce assured me that he could enter a special code to override the setting resrictions for up to 72 hours. Seems the limits were vestiges of the Carter administration, and that shower time constraints may be the next such blow.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Many thanks Pointster for your Solar Variability link. That, for me, is the best contribution yet, and gives need for thought from a non scientist such as myself.

One feels, instinctively (no Egyptian sun worshippers in family tree -as far as I'm aware) that the sun must be central player in our complex local climate patterns.

The consolation I draw from the geological record is that whatever potential catastrophy which 'hits' our planet (asteroid strike mass extinctions, extreme heat and CO2 level periods etc), it has a natural rebound ability, albeit over millions of years, owing to our 'Goldilocks' position relative to the sun.

When I studied geology in the 1950's, the big worry seemed to be a runaway greenhouse effect, as we now know happened on Venus. (It was thought to be perhaps inhabited in the 50's!) It never seemed logical to me that such could happen, in that in the earths 4 billion+ year history it would long ago irreversibly taken place. It didn't, so it can'T!

Once again, thanks for your input. I.m about to set off on a night mountain bike ride on my beloved Yorkshire Moors (a special study area of mine) and will probably end up atop my thinking and contemplation hill. (Shan't be short of subject matter this time!)

[mac]

There are, of course, ways that we can reduce our carbon footprint without reducing our standard of living. The current New Yorker tells of the Borkowski's, in Rutland Vermont, who got an energy makeover and reduced their winter energy use from 3411 kw hours of electricity and 325 gallons of fuel oil to 2856 kw hours and no oil at all. Doesn't sound exactly like sackcloth and ashes or giving up your car.

Shh, don't let it get around.

[nw30]

Another act of desperation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is Global Warming Causing More Shark Attacks?

Michael Bastasch
1:31 PM 07/01/2015

North Carolina saw six shark attacks in the course of just one month, so of course news media is trying to link the unusually high amount of bites to global warming.

National Geographic published a piece exploring the different factors possibly driving last month’s shark attacks. One of the five factors influencing shark attacks the news outlet listed was “global warming.”

National Geographic claimed that as “warming is expected to increase, it will likely bring more sharks farther north and entice more people to get into the water, which will lead to more bites.” The news outlet noted earlier on in its article that “[m]ost shark attacks in North Carolina happen when the water reaches about 80 degrees Fahrenheit (27 Celsius)” and that the “warmer weather has also brought more people to the state’s beaches and entices them to take a dip to cool off.”

Linking global warming to June’s spat of shark attacks in North Carolina was criticized by Cato Institute climate scientist Chip Knappenberger who cautioned against such claims.

National Geographic, however, did quote a biologist who cautioned against blaming man-made warming for the uptick in shark attacks. Frank Schwartz, a shark biologist at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, “says there’s too much natural variability in weather cycles to blame the recent shark attacks on global warming.”

Other shark experts, however, were more explicit about how global warming could impact shark attacks.

“It’s kind of a perfect storm,” George Burgess, the director of the International Shark Attack File at the Florida Museum of Natural History, told National Geographic and added that nationwide shark attacks are about normal for the year.

“Clearly global climate change is a reality and it has resulted in warmer temperatures in certain places at certain times,” Burgess said.

In the past, however, Burgess has said human beach activities are the main driver of shark attacks. For one thing, the population is increasing across the country and more people are going to the beach, especially during the summer time. That not only means more people in the water, but more people near baited fishing lines.

“Experts have theorized that all that bait and chum is attracting fish — and sharks,” ABC News reported. “Several of the recent attacks, including Friday’s attack on a 47-year-old father as he scrambled to get children out of the water, and two attacks on June 14 have occurred in close proximity to fishing piers.”


Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/01/is-global-warming-causing-more-shark-attacks/#ixzz3egQyfPxa