Peak Oil News and Message Boards

"I live in Australia and spend lots of time in Europe, neither here nor there is any warming. "

Why don't you visit the alps and ask them about the retreat of the snowcaps.

Here is an article from half a decade ago. You are grossly ignorant. That's an observation, not an ad hom.

An Idea On How to Mitigate Global Warming

Move here - it's 38 F right now an it's almost MAY!

Completely normal for MN.

Best solution, require short distance flights to remain below 25,000 feet and require long distance flights to fly at or above 40,000 feet. Contrails almost disappear, no more contrail pollution or global dimming caused.

Do they see signs of the old forest when the glaciers retreat or is that all in the debris the glacier pushed forward?

Econ101 wrote:Do they see signs of the old forest when the glaciers retreat or is that all in the debris the glacier pushed forward?

It all depends on how quickly the glacier encroached on the forested area and how long the glacier has been on it. It takes decades of grinding forward over an area to strip away the preceding era soil layers, it literally moves at a glacial pace

There are a few sites where a recently advanced glacier has gone into retreat revealing wooden debris from prior forested slopes, but it does not happen very often.

Econ101 wrote:Do they see signs of the old forest when the glaciers retreat or is that all in the debris the glacier pushed forward?

Glaciers are flowing forward even when they are retreating. Land under the flowing part often gets scoured down many metres into the bedrock. "Old forest" remains would be a very tiny fraction of of glacial deposits found hundreds of km away.

I live in a glaciated valley that has filled with deposits about 100m deep.

I've been reading some of Guy Mcpherson's work about how we will be extinct by 2030, due to global warming.

I thought that this solution to global warming that I thought of my still have some merit, even if it needs to be tweaked.

In hindsight I see there are two benefits from permanent ionization of the atmosphere,

1) increased global dimming due to increased cloud particulation, which in turn reflects light into space, thereby decreasing planet temperatures,
and
2) The elimination of a great deal of cloud vapor. The unwanted side effect would be drought, the benefit however, would be less water vapor means less global warming, as 75% of global warming from greenhouse gases is due to the increased water vapor in the atmosphere, which in turn acts as a greenhouse gas.

This wouldn't be the most ideal world to live in. A darkened world with increased drought and lots of lightning. But, it would be better than dying from drought due to global warming, or dying from overheating. Or dying from hydrogen sulfide gas being released by hydrogen sulfide gas producing bacteria in the ocean.

This is better than going extinct I think.


Anyway, what does everybody think?

I think we should just subsidies the hell out of wind and solar, right down to individual installations. Set a goal to eliminate half the motor vehicle transportation. Consolidate the human population into new efficient mega cities. Change the world's diet and last, but not least, go Chinese with " one" child families.

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but as far as I know, the methane hydrate problem, the runaway global warming problem has gotten started, and that could potentially lead us to extinction.

At this point, even though overpopulation is a huge problem, that most other problems stem from, the global warming/climate change problem is really the number one threat to both humanity and to the rest of life on this planet.

This particular solution, the one I'm proposing isn't ideal. It's a last ditch effort to save ourselves from going completely extinct, and taking most complex life with us. The good part about this solution though, is that with the positive ions stored in containers, some day, if humanity ever got the greenhouse gas levels down, then the climate could go back to normal, as all they'd need to do is release the positive ions(slowly to prevent mass explosions).

Of course it would take the biosphere much longer to recover and adjust to higher precipitation and humidity levels.

just showing it is a small world after all , what with Fukushima radiations supposedly affecting California now we have smog from China also. Maybe we will see soon One World government as somebodies problem is now everyone's problem. Here is link
http://news.yahoo.com/california-gettin ... 55042.html

Yes, this is happening today. It was also happening 8 years ago when I was still commuting to work. There are seven Western states that often fail to meet Federal EPA air quality standards, and pollution blowing over the Pacific amounts to a significant portion of the problem.

As for one world government - no, not ever.

And this is the same issue that has led Texas to building the largest GHG sequestration project on the planet. The feds have been threatening to force Texas to shut down some of its coal-fired power plants since the pollution is drifting east over La. It's based on that concept of interstate pollution that the feds were claiming the authority to control coal consumption in Texas. This would have led to the Mother of All State's Right battles in the courts IMHO. I suspect the feds are happy that Texas is trying to prevent that future battle: it would be an very ugly affair regardless of who came out on top.

haha, they might threaten secession from the US like they once did.

ROCKMAN wrote:And this is the same issue that has led Texas to building the largest GHG sequestration project on the planet. The feds have been threatening to force Texas to shut down some of its coal-fired power plants since the pollution is drifting east over La

Since winds are generally prevailing westerly (coming from the west) in the U.S., how, pray tell, does a significant percentage of Texas pollution drift over L.A.?

When I try to Google this, I get that multiple hits that L.A. is the most polluted city in the U.S. (no surprise there), but no obvious links blaming Texas.

Is this the same kind of argument you make in your incessant AGW denial, by chance? Do you have meaningful attributions/links, or is this just your personal opinion?

Edit: I initially forgot to add the following links:

Prevailing wind map links:

http://hint.fm/wind/

http://maps.howstuffworks.com/world-pre ... ds-map.htm

Outcast_Searcher wrote:Since winds are generally prevailing westerly (coming from the west) in the U.S., how, pray tell, does a significant percentage of Texas pollution drift over L.A.?

I think in this case, LA = Louisiana.

La (between So and Ti musically, is also Lousiana, whereas L.A. is "la la land" in California.

LA => Lower Alabama (Mississippi doesn't count for much). As for the "states rights" thing, there's already precedent; multiple states sued TVA for emissions violations. They won. Some of that money is going to farm programs ( sulphur emissions acidifying soil and water; stuff like that). They didn't sue Tennessee, but it's the same principle.

BTW: I just got approved for my high tunnel (greenhouse) grant from this pool of money; keeps the Rockman's acid rain off of my garden

I wonder if the parts were made in China. What goes around comes around, eh?

Outcast - "Is this the same kind of argument you make in your incessant AGW denial". Are you off you f*cking meds again? LOL. Or have you ever read a single word in any of my dozens of posts where I readily acknowledge AGW? Son, it might be time for you to seek some professional help.

Maybe it's your f*cked up neural pathways that make you see dots between the "L" and the "a". Either that or as the great Texas comedian Ron White has said: "You can't fix stupid." LOL.