[ennui2]

He's got another AGW film coming out.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... ood-927190

This is the point I've been making:

So many climate docs have passed through cinemas and aired on TV, it's impossible to believe that lack of information is the obstacle to change in public policy.

In other words, stop blaming the MSM. We've met the enemy and it's us.

[SumYunGai]

He's got another AGW film coming out.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review ... ood-927190

This is the point I've been making:

So many climate docs have passed through cinemas and aired on TV, it's impossible to believe that lack of information is the obstacle to change in public policy.

In other words, stop blaming the MSM. We've met the enemy and it's us.

Speaking of an inconvenient truth, I am afraid I have to strongly agree with you on this.

I first learned about runaway global warming in 1980 in my Freshmen Bio 104 class. I realized then that there was nothing we could do to stop it. I don't know why anyone still thinks otherwise.

[GHung]

" I realized then that there was nothing we could do to stop it. I don't know why anyone still thinks otherwise."

Doesn't mean there isn't a lot we can do to adapt to it, like stopping coastal development, making our current systems, especially energy, more resilient and distributed, and actually admitting where we are. Of course, that will likely only happen on an individual and more local level, at least until Miami goes under. My first recommendation, nationally, would be to decommission all nuclear plants currently at/near sea level; get the fuel the hell out of there.

[Plantagenet]

The main thing we should do is cancel the sham Paris Accords and return to the negotiating table to get a binding UN climate change treaty that requires CO2 and CH4 emissions reductions.

Global Warming is like a planetary disease. We have to cure the disease thats causing the symptoms---not just treat the symptoms.

[ROCKMAN]

"...and return to the negotiating table to get a binding UN climate change treaty that requires CO2 and CH4 emissions reductions." And that won't happen for the same reason it hasn't happened so far: the vast majority of the fossil fuel consumers won't accept it. And the vast majority of the world's politicians won't force them to for fear of not getting reelected.

IMHO knowledge of climate change has never and will never be a determinant factor when it comes to fossil fuel consumption. Consider all the verbiage about climate change put out in the last 10 years and CO2 levels continue to increase today. And lots of strong words promising to change the trend but nothing done yet to SIGNIFICANTLY change the course.

And again my favorite brag: Texas has become one of the biggest wind power generators on the planet and will significantly reduce our projected GHG emissions. And also has underway the largest CO2 sequestration project ever constructed in the world.

And neither effort was made to "save the planet". They are simply good business plans. IMHO folks should redirect their efforts trying to educate the world about CC and focus on ways to achieve the same goals that would be acceptable to the general public.

[Plantagenet]

"...

And again my favorite brag: Texas has become one of the biggest wind power generators on the planet and will significantly reduce our projected GHG emissions. And also has underway the largest CO2 sequestration project ever constructed in the world.

And neither effort was made to "save the planet". They are simply good business plans.

I hate to puncture your favorite brag, but the sole purpose of the CO2 demonstration sequestration project is to save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions.

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

Stopping Global Warming is not going to happen, because - even if burning FF's is accelerating the warming - the whole process will continue with the natural warming that underlies any possible man-made warming component. The warming will continue until the Climatic Optimum - the peak interglacial temperature - is reached.

Add to that the fact that we are completely dependant upon FF's to grow food via mechanized agriculture, and that "stopping GHG emissions" is tantamount to starving something like 5 billion people. It's not going to happen, not ever.

Now I don't want to indulge in yet another of those verbal duels where the AGW fanboys invent direr predictions in a futile effort to convince others that we have to abandon FF's. We will stop using oil when there is no more oil. We will stop burning coal when the remaining coal can't be gotten economically without petroleum fuels.

The oceans are going to rise about 10 meters everywhere, and a quarter of the world's population - or more - will be displaced. That will still happen from natural causes, even if any possible manmade contributions from AGW are gone, it'll just happen more slowly if there is any truth to the AGW theory, but it will still happen. The shifting of Temperate and sub-Temperate climate zones Northwards will continue. We may or may not blow up the surface of the planet with nukes in the struggle to survive, certainly at least the madman in North Korea would do that in a heartbeat rather than relinquish power. Certainly the majority of the Middle East's population will move out of that region, as the present day Tropics turn into deserts.

It's gonna happen regardless. Most of the humans are gonna die, regardless. "...as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end."

Time to abandon AGW angst, and make long term plans to survive. The Chicken Little plan, where you run around screaming "The world is warming! The world is warming!" is not useful, rewarding, or appropriate. We know those things already, and have made the conscious decision that stopping the burning of FF's is a price we are not willing to pay. If you don't know these things, it is because the rest of us find AGW fanboys tiresome.

So - if you live less than 100 feet above mean sea level - where are you moving to? Will you or will you not accept Muslim refugees from the ME? Will you or will you not accept Anglo refugees from NYC? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Newfie]

So - if you live less than 100 feet above mean sea level - where are you moving to? Will you or will you not accept Muslim refugees from the ME? Will you or will you not accept Anglo refugees from NYC? Inquiring minds want to know.

Well....
Our land in Newfoundland is about 35'ASL, but there's plenty of land up the hill. My grandfathers house is about 75ASL. And our property in NS, 186 acres, runs from 65' in the valley up to about 500'

I have no desire to accept refugees from the ME, NYC, or elsewhere.

Things are gonna get nasty, life will be cheap. I intend to sell mine dearly.

One needs to be realistic and pragmatic. PC will quickly drop away when folks get hungry.

So while we have these resources we also have put boats which gives us mobility, flexibility, and a way to trade.

I think SHTF happens before SLR causes me problems. More likely there will be a financial system collapse. Since we have converted our some of our wealth into physical assets we have some protection for on market forces.

But the initial source of doom is almost immaterial in the long scale. Once things start downhill the will likely be a general collapse. Then we will have all kinds of refugees, and hunger, and violence. So our greater asset is our distant, remote location. Humans will be greatest danger to each of us.

What was your point?

[KaiserJeep]

My whole point was that everybody needs to put themselves into the proper category. There are, broadly speaking, three:

1) AGW fanboys, whose entire life revolves around (figuratively) screaming "The world is warming! The world is warming!".

2) Cornucopians, who say "The world is not warming, and I'm planning a BBQ at the beach!".

3) Those who have made or are making plans to survive, adapt, and adjust to inevitable changes.

Some people progress through the earlier phases until they reach acceptance, and end up in category 3. Many others get hung up on the idea that we can save the current climate, sequester the carbon, halt the glacial cycle, and preserve the status quo forever.

Most people however, simply ignore the whole topic of CC. That's making the bet that when the SHTF, they can adapt then. I'm thinking that with so many people in that last category, it's not a good bet.

[Hawkcreek]

1) AGW fanboys, whose entire life revolves around (figuratively) screaming "The world is warming! The world is warming!".
2) Cornucopians, who say "The world is not warming, and I'm planning a BBQ at the beach!".
3) Those who have made or are making plans to survive, adapt, and adjust to inevitable changes.

I got ready for this little speedbump many years ago. So I guess this puts me in category # 3.
But I still see nothing wrong with # 1 once in a while. It isn't a bad thing to tell the dumbasses that bad things are coming, even if MOST of them don't listen.

[Synapsid]

KaiserJeep,

Interglacial high temperatures have been at the beginning of the interglacials. Different names have been used: Hypsithermal, climatic optimum, altithermal, maybe others.

The general pattern has been one of rapid temperature increase (with increased concentrations of CO2 and methane lagging a bit) after the end of the glacial phase followed by overall cooling, (and CO2 and methane dropping) with ups and downs, and eventually new ice sheets growing on northern North America and NW Eurasia (Europe to those who live there) after something on the order of ten thousand years. This interglacial has been different at least in part because CO2 and methane didn't keep dropping like they did in former interglacials; we are implicated in that, it seems.

And now temperatures keep climbing like we're trying to return to the Pliocene. We don't have a good analogue in the past for what's going on now.

[KaiserJeep]

Of course we have an analog for the present cycle:

...the peak interglacial of 400,000 years ago greatly resembles this one. That there have been three interglacials that are as you describe since then, does not mean the cycle we are in is unprecedented.

These prior four cycles only represent those for which we have relatively precise derived temperatures from tree rings, ocean sediments, and ice cores. The fossil record has at least 260 Ice Ages in it, but fossil derived temperatures are much less precise and the data is sparse, we can't even tell if the cycle we are in is best described as "typical" or "atypical".

[Plantagenet]

Of course we have an analog for the present cycle:

...we can't even tell if the cycle we are in is best described as "typical" or "atypical".

Actually thats not quite right.

If you look at the lowermost of the plots in your graph you'll see a plot of insolation through time, "0" being the present.

Note that at time "0" insolation is relatively low, but global ice volumes are low while global temperatures are high.

That is definitely "atypical".

About the only way we can get a warm earth with minimum ice volumes at a time of low effective solar insolation is to have lots of CO2 in the air----and that is consistent with anthropogenic greenhouse warming due to human CO2 and CH4 emissions, with the CO2 emissions accelerating since the mid-1800s.

In fact, the low current insolation should produce another ice age, but some scientists think we just narrowly missed it thanks to human-caused greenhouse warming.

nature-insolation-ice-ages-inception

CHEERS!

[ROCKMAN]

Planty - "...hate to puncture your favorite brag, but the sole purpose of the CO2 demonstration sequestration project is to save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions." You seem a tad more confused today then usual. Off your meds again? LOL.

First, our CO2 sequestration project is not a "demonstration project" - it's the largest COMMERCIAL sequestration project ever designed in the entire world. Commercial because it would not have been economical to build if the CO2 wasn't being injected into a 70 year old oil field to recover some of 150 MILLION BBLS OF RESIDUAL OIL it contains. The pipeline alone will cost $400 million. IOW one of the primary goals of the project is to produce more oil that can be burned and thus create more GHG.

Second, the other reason project is to allow Texas to mine and burn even more of our huge lignite reserves. The plant producing the CO2 runs 3 NG burners and 3 coal burners. The state and the feds have battled for years over our emissions.

Yeah, that's right, Texas is all for " saving the planet". That's why we produce more oil/NG then any other state. That's why we burn twice as much coal as the #2 state. That's why ports on our coast are major exporters of not just coal but refinery products made from about 1 BILLION BBLS OF OIL per year. That's why as of 2014, the 27 petroleum refineries in Texas had a capacity of over 1.8 BILLION barrels of crude oil per year and accounted for 29% of total U.S. refining capacity. That's why Texas produces 656 million tons of CO2 per year compared to the #2 producer, CA, at 364 million tons per year. IOW 80% more then those west coast greenies. In fact Texas produces 12% of the CO2 generated by the entire country.

BTW our wind power industry is PROFITABLE. Were it not there wouldn't be one damn turbine in the entire state. Nonprofit environmental groups haven't chipped in one f*cking penny. LOL.

Yep, that's us Texans: doing all we can to save the f*cking planet. So everyone let's hear all the big thank you's to us "longhorn greenies", my choice for our new nickname. LMFAO!!!

[Hawkcreek]

Planty - "...hate to puncture your favorite brag, but the sole purpose of the CO2 demonstration sequestration project is to save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions." You seem a tad more confused today then usual. Off your meds again? LOL.

First, our CO2 sequestration project is not a "demonstration project" - it's the largest COMMERCIAL sequestration project ever designed in the entire world. Commercial because it would not have been economical to build if the CO2 wasn't being injected into a 70 year old oil field to recover some of 150 MILLION BBLS OF RESIDUAL OIL it contains. The pipeline alone will cost $400 million. IOW one of the primary goals of the project is to produce more oil that can be burned and thus create more GHG.

Second, the other reason project is to allow Texas to mine and burn even more of our huge lignite reserves. The plant producing the CO2 runs 3 NG burners and 3 coal burners. The state and the feds have battled for years over our emissions.

It would seem that "sole purpose" is negated by the addition of two more purposes - that of recovering more oil, and mining and burning more coal.
But maybe sole doesn't mean what it used to. If the end result is sequestering more CO2 than you produce, kudos to Texas. But I kinda doubt it.

[KaiserJeep]

We out to take that sequestered carbon, add steam, and make liquid hydrocarbon fuels with it.

You know, so we can burn them and replenish the diminished carbon levels in the atmosphere, necessary to stimulate plant growth.

[Synapsid]

KaiserJeep,

What on the charts are you referring to?

[KaiserJeep]

KaiserJeep,

What on the charts are you referring to?

I was talking about the interglacial that started about 420,000 years ago and lasted until about 380,000 years ago. It seems to resemble the first half of the interglacial we are presently experiencing, which started in the Pleistocene. We'll know for sure in another 20,000 years.

[Synapsid]

KaiserJeep,

The EPICA and Vostok curves both show the whole extent of marine-isotope stage 11 (MIS 11), the interglacial centered roughly at 400 000 years ago, but only the very beginning of the current interglacial--it's scrunched up at the top of each curve, over against the right side of the diagram. The scale doesn't allow us to see it, and it's very short compared to the time span of MIS 11 so we can't compare them.

In terms of the Milankovitch factors that control the glacial/interglacial cycles, I believe MIS 11 is considered one of the interglacials most similar to the one we're living in, but temperature, sea level, patterns of marine productivity, ice volume and other things differed quite a bit from present. That's why I said we don't have an analogue for our modern interglacial. MIS 11 might come closest, though.