Releasing co2; Producing palm oil produces more co2 than it is supposed to save, and that is just at the production stage. The destruction of peat forest in S.E. Asia for palm oil production.
"Since the areas occupied by oil palm plantations on peatland in Malaysia and Indonesia are huge, in the order of 420,000 hectares for the former and 2,800,000 ha for the latter, the combined 25 year life cycle co2e emissions are enormous and in the region of 3,220 Mt co2e."
Aren't enviro-mental solutions just magical? God save the IPCC.
Anecdotal; "As for that dreaded greenhouse gas, CO2, atmospheric levels of which now exceed 400 parts per million (ppm), it is important to note that paleological records show that every time CO2 levels have exceeded 300 ppm there has been an ice age. Every time — without exception."
That is 400ppm in places. Don't forget the average living room has 600ppm, that's why houseplants do so well.
Unreliability of models; "The result is that CGM results ~ over predict the extent of glaciers today, and under predict their extent at the last glacial."
Arctic meltdown; "Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,"
While climateers are spending public funds by the million to cause panic about alleged over-temperature and ways to keep the planet cool, totally useless co2 control being of note, is any research being done on ways to keep the planet warm in the event of the next ice age besetting us? If you are barmy enough to believe co2 drives warming, more co2 would appear to be the answer. History lends no credence to co2 driving warming or cooling at any anthropogenically achievable level. Nor significantly affecting warming at levels less than 4 digits per mil. The oceans are the principal driver of both warming and cooling, these are affected by cyclical changes in insolation, sub sea tectonic and volcanic activity and southern ice. We can't affect the geological activity but we can affect insolation. The removal of sea ice increases the area of open water available to absorb the Sun's benefit. This has a knock-on effect of increasing the release of water vapor and oceanic co2 that in turn drives biomass production. Increased biomass absorbs more sunlight, causing increased IR levels. Arctic sea ice is relatively irrelevant, it is a symptom like co2, not a driver. The major player in the ice age game is Antarctic sea ice. Reduction in Antarctic sea ice is strongly believed to have terminated the last ice age. (tic) The US air force has earthquake bombs. A few dozen or more in the right place, probably the eastern ice sheet is the weakest and the most effective, would do the trick. That area of sea ice affects more than just the Antarctic, at the tip of S.America the flow of water from the Pacific interfaces with the Antarctic circumpolar current, this has a cooling effect on the Pacific current, larger for more ice and vice versa, which then travels along the Americas' east coast to the N.Atlantic.
That is a manful way to deal with climate, satisfying the need to drop bombs while using that need to preserve. Instead of this prissy co2 thing.
Or we could increase tourism there. I imagine a few years of major tourism and all its side benefits, pollution, litter, urbanization and all, would have a similar if less dramatic impact as bombing, but much less satisfying.
We are not in a position, relative to the Sun, to favor a major ice age. Tilt, thought to be a major cause, is mid range at around 23.5 deg, this favors oscillation between warm and cool periods driven by factors other than orbital variation. A little ice age may be in the offing and it may already have begun. All the indicators point to cooling very soon. Increased tectonic and volcanic activity, increased water vapor, reducing solar activity, more variable weather, warmer oceans, major areas of land uplifting, creeping insanity in PC climatology, politics and the media. Even so we have been enjoying an unprecedented climatically stable few years. The calm before the storm perhaps. My amateur prediction stands at 2012 being the turning point but that may prove to be a late guesstimate. Duration probably around the same as the 18-20th c. LIA if temperatures fall enough, otherwise a few decades as in the 1940s through to the 70s.
To have any significant effect on air temperature, co2 concentration needs to be around 10 times higher than today's level for warming or less than 100ppm for cooling, the effect being indirect, namely through biomass volume in the oceans as well as on land. More reading on the topic can be found at Iceagenow, Climate of the Past, Ohio State Research News, (but read in conjunction with this graph, the 'low' co2 levels mentioned
were c. 4000ppm),Earth Observatory,
Global Warming
Physorg, (Sun did it)
Physorg, (Co2 didn't).
Ozone is a greenhouse gas. If the ozone hole closes over Antarctica, it could lead to meltdown flooding New York to a depth of 4 Km. Top that for BS anxious Al.
Proponents don't mention it except to say the human made gases that allegedly destroy it are agents of doom. NOAA for example (bottom of their page) say nothing about its warming properties. As the ozone hole has shrunk dramatically despite China's best efforts, I think it is worth a closer look.
Solar proton bursts cause the formation of nitrogen oxides that destroy ozone. 1859 was a mega event. 1989 was another, but smaller. No one knows how long recovery takes from such events nor their frequency. The weather causes it to vary according to the WMO, and "electrons raining down" are another influence. Volcanoes apparently play a part as does temperature, cold kills ozone. Oh yes, human produced gases - have 6 times less influence according to Pope et al's findings and thus you have another protocol founded on wrong hypotheses with us catching the blame-cost. No doubt including the cost of obligatory junkets.
The ozone hole affects warming in that it is a GHG, it absorbs radiation. Absent some and radiation is freer to escape to space, reduce the overall thickness and it is a big aid to cooling. But it is better to have the protection from ultraviolet and 'suffer' a bit of warming as a consequence. Even so, a managed hole over the pole would appear to be a good thing in view of the present alleged warming. CFCs now appear to have an insignificant role with regard to ozone but it is not a good idea to have unnatural chemicals floating around, we don't know what other effects they can have in the long term.
Some good news to add to Rudd's reversal, Brazilian forest clearance is down 20 percent. But as always, the greenies desperate as ever for humanity to be guilty as hell put salt in the sugar.
