Only thing missing is an AGW bible.

[lawrocket 3]

Well, in NOAA's defense, the winter prediction was no worse than their projections for the 2013 Atlantic hurricane season. The winter prediction may have actually been an improvement over the hurricane forecast.

On the plus side, these modelers provide a reasonable baby step aspiration for accuracy that climate modelers can aspire to. Then again, these NOAA boys also aren't real scientists. The NOAA guys are saying they got it wrong instead of what real scientists do. If they were real scientists, the NOAA boys would be saying, "Our projections were dead on. The winter heat is not missing - it just got stored in the earth's mantle. And the hurricanes were there, too, only they were found in the ocean off the Grand Banks as shown by the buoys. No, the data you are referring to is unscientific - the lack of hurricanes wasn't peer reviewed, making it unscientific. It hadn't been scienced yet but has been scienced now. After we scientists scientifically scienced the readings to be scientific and comport with science in the usual and customary scientific manner, the scientific results were stunning. This is the beauty of science - it shows that what unscientists think happened can be completly wrong! Scientific scientists scienced the hell out of the unscientific buoy readings and we scientifically showed that 5 major hurricanes occurred and there should have been forty named storms, which made 2013 the most extreme year in history for hurricanes. And if science has anything to say about, which we will ensure, next year will be even worse. And the extreme heat that most of North America faced this year will be nothing compared to the future."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

The only thing that will keep the earth from continuing to warm up would be one of the caldera eruptions like Toba occurring.
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/toba-indonesia-75000-years-ago

Population collapse anyone?

[lawrocket 3]

There's more than one way.

Pinatubo actually did a good job for a couple of years. Krakatao also was remarkable for what it accomplished.

The easiest way to geoengineer a cooler climate is to put sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. We can do exactly what Tambora did for global temperatures for a few billion dollars and a few KC-135s. It's a pretty simple and cost effective way to punch global warming right in to mouth.

The potential problems with recreating Tambora would be things like global famines and starvation due to crop failures and the like (turns out our food actually likes warmth, water and sun), acid rain. But if global warming is a threat to billions, one would think on balance it's worth it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Stumpy 284]

lawrocket

The easiest way to geoengineer a cooler climate is to put sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere.

Chemtrails!!!

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[turtlespeed 220]

lawrocket

There's more than one way.

Pinatubo actually did a good job for a couple of years. Krakatao also was remarkable for what it accomplished.

The easiest way to geoengineer a cooler climate is to put sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. We can do exactly what Tambora did for global temperatures for a few billion dollars and a few KC-135s. It's a pretty simple and cost effective way to punch global warming right in to mouth.

The potential problems with recreating Tambora would be things like global famines and starvation due to crop failures and the like (turns out our food actually likes warmth, water and sun), acid rain. But if global warming is a threat to billions, one would think on balance it's worth it.

You can't do that though.
It would take away all the alarmists have to alarm people about.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***There's more than one way.

Pinatubo actually did a good job for a couple of years. Krakatao also was remarkable for what it accomplished.

The easiest way to geoengineer a cooler climate is to put sulfur aerosols into the atmosphere. We can do exactly what Tambora did for global temperatures for a few billion dollars and a few KC-135s. It's a pretty simple and cost effective way to punch global warming right in to mouth.

The potential problems with recreating Tambora would be things like global famines and starvation due to crop failures and the like (turns out our food actually likes warmth, water and sun), acid rain. But if global warming is a threat to billions, one would think on balance it's worth it.

You can't do that though.
It would take away all the alarmists have to alarm people about.

Its too bad all the deniers do not get out more... " I don't see none of that global warmin stuff.. it's always hot down hear in the Bible Belt" .

May you live in "interesting" times.

[lawrocket 3]

Jeanne:

If global warming is the biggest threat we have and can be canceled out for $20 billion a year, why not do it?

Serious question. Is the threat of mitigation worse than the threat of global warming?

Is it that global warming ISNT the biggest threat?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

Jeanne:

If global warming is the biggest threat we have and can be canceled out for $20 billion a year, why not do it?

Serious question. Is the threat of mitigation worse than the threat of global warming?

Is it that global warming ISNT the biggest threat?

How much do you need to change our planet before our species finds it difficult to adapt. We evolved under different conditions than our offspring will need to adapt to.
You do realize that we are currently in one of the great extinction events... on a global scale.

[lawrocket 3]

Amazon

***Jeanne:

If global warming is the biggest threat we have and can be canceled out for $20 billion a year, why not do it?

Serious question. Is the threat of mitigation worse than the threat of global warming?

Is it that global warming ISNT the biggest threat?

How much do you need to change our planet before our species finds it difficult to adapt.

We can knock off 3 degrees next year quickly.

Again, I ask - why not cancel it out if we can? We can STOP that extinction level event in its tracks.

Do you support actually stopping it by next year? We can REVERSE it. Do you support that? Yes or no.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

lawrocket

******Jeanne:

If global warming is the biggest threat we have and can be canceled out for $20 billion a year, why not do it?

Serious question. Is the threat of mitigation worse than the threat of global warming?

Is it that global warming ISNT the biggest threat?

How much do you need to change our planet before our species finds it difficult to adapt.

We can knock off 3 degrees next year quickly.

Again, I ask - why not cancel it out if we can? We can STOP that extinction level event in its tracks.

Do you support actually stopping it by next year? We can REVERSE it. Do you support that? Yes or no.

I can just picture the reactions of Tea Party politicians who have been bought and paid for by our favorite brothers, flopping around on the floors of the Houses of Representatives of all those red states and in Washington DC in apoplectic fits if that was even suggested.



That argument is a non sequitur, it would never happen until the planet smacks our species up side the head and starts eliminating us in great numbers... and by then it will be too late.

As long as the Friday night football game is played, and TV is on with Honey Boo Boo to mollify the weak of mind... blissful ignorance will reign supreme across much of this country. Murica

[turtlespeed 220]

Amazon

*********Jeanne:

If global warming is the biggest threat we have and can be canceled out for $20 billion a year, why not do it?

Serious question. Is the threat of mitigation worse than the threat of global warming?

Is it that global warming ISNT the biggest threat?

How much do you need to change our planet before our species finds it difficult to adapt.

We can knock off 3 degrees next year quickly.

Again, I ask - why not cancel it out if we can? We can STOP that extinction level event in its tracks.

Do you support actually stopping it by next year? We can REVERSE it. Do you support that? Yes or no.

I can just picture the reactions of Tea Party politicians who have been bought and paid for by our favorite brothers, flopping around on the floors of the Houses of Representatives of all those red states and in Washington DC in apoplectic fits if that was even suggested.



That argument is a non sequitur, it would never happen until the planet smacks our species up side the head and starts eliminating us in great numbers... and by then it will be too late.

As long as the Friday night football game is played, and TV is on with Honey Boo Boo to mollify the weak of mind... blissful ignorance will reign supreme across much of this country. Murica

Hi John, I see you avoided answering a strait forward yes or know question again.

Oh wait, its you Jeanne.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

You go ahead.. I bet you take orders well.

I bet you ain't seen none of that climate change stuff so it ain't a happenin..

[lawrocket 3]

Let it be known then that you're in favor of global warming and catastophic climate change. Rather than actually doing something to reverse it, you'd rather make people stop doinng something and hope it works.

There is a strategy that costs in excess of 1,000 times less (add all costs together and we're looking at in excess of 10,000 times less) and will work in excess of 100 times more quickly (no climate scientist thinks that it'll take less than a century of cutting carbon emissions to have any effect) and is guaranteed to lower the temperature of the planet.

Yet Jeanne won't support it. Why? I don't know. I can only think that she doesn't consider an extinction type event to be important enough to actually fix quickly and in a relatively dirt cheap manner.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[turtlespeed 220]

lawrocket

Let it be known then that you're in favor of global warming and catastophic climate change. Rather than actually doing something to reverse it, you'd rather make people stop doinng something and hope it works.

There is a strategy that costs in excess of 1,000 times less (add all costs together and we're looking at in excess of 10,000 times less) and will work in excess of 100 times more quickly (no climate scientist thinks that it'll take less than a century of cutting carbon emissions to have any effect) and is guaranteed to lower the temperature of the planet.

Yet Jeanne won't support it. Why? I don't know. I can only think that she doesn't consider an extinction type event to be important enough to actually fix quickly and in a relatively dirt cheap manner.

Its difficult to let go of all that brain washing.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,447]

What is this strategy?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

Injecting sulfur aerosols in the lower stratosphere. It's estimated that something like a pound of sulfur aerosol can cancel the effect of a few hundred thousand tons of CO2. It's the sulfur aerosols from volcanoes that are a primary mechanism cool the earth after volcanic eruptions.

The idea isn't even new. It's just always shot down because of perceived threats like possible acid rain, ocean acidification, uglying of the skies, etc.

We've actually got the technology to do it. And it will cost maybe 20 billion dollars to cause the coldest year in the last 30 years.

IT's sad to me that this isn't seriously discussed. Would John Kerry support doing something about global warming? Absolutely. How about actually cooling the earth by next year? No way.

Meaning that there is more to global warming than just trying to stop it. We CAN stop it. Flat. And cheaply. But the strategy is seen as costlier than letting global warming go on, for some reason.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[airdvr 210]

There isn't enough money to be grabbed up with that strategy.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[JackC1 0]

lawrocket

IT's sad to me that this isn't seriously discussed.

Swallow the spider to catch the fly...

[lawrocket 3]

airdvr

There isn't enough money to be grabbed up with that strategy.

I can't help but consider that possibility. I point to the number of people who point to global warming as the gravest threat to humanity.
"Okay, let's do something."
"YEah. We need to stop using fossil fuels."
"That'll cost tens of trillions of dollars and probably kill millions as energy is not available to them."
"At this point, no cost is too great. We have to do anything we can."
"Well, how about putting sulfur aerosols in the lower stratosphere? It'll cost twenty or thirty billion, use a few KC-135s and we can lower the earth's temperature within a year."
"What? Do you have any idea the effect that will have on the environment?"
"Well, you said no cost is too great. We can deal with the aerosols, and they'll precipitate in a few years with a cooler climate. This is way less cost than warming."
"That's not the cost I was talking about."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC1 0]

"CO2 is becoming a problem"
"no problem, lets just pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to block out the sun."
"But the sulphur dioxide is turning to sulphuric acid which is reacting with calcium carbonate in rocks and releasing lots of CO2."
"No problem, we'll just release lots of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere".

[lawrocket 3]

JackC1

"CO2 is becoming a problem"
"no problem, lets just pump sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere to block out the sun."
"But the sulphur dioxide is turning to sulphuric acid which is reacting with calcium carbonate in rocks and releasing lots of CO2."
"No problem, we'll just release lots of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere".

Okay, then. So the sulfur dioxide will be a bigger problem than human extinction. Or is the atmospheric sulfur worse than what we're facing right now and in the future?

I'm actually putting it out there as a response to jeanne's rhetoric. If we're facing extinction and a few tons of sulfur aerosols can stop it, then it is pretty obvious that it is a strong solution.

But if global warming will be slight and within the realm of easy adaptation, then it's a strategy where the risks outweigh the benefits.

I think you've hit the nail on the head: it's eliminate carbon at all costs. Not saving lives or the earth. Which is fine, so long as people are honest about it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

turtlespeed

***Let it be known then that you're in favor of global warming and catastophic climate change. Rather than actually doing something to reverse it, you'd rather make people stop doinng something and hope it works.

There is a strategy that costs in excess of 1,000 times less (add all costs together and we're looking at in excess of 10,000 times less) and will work in excess of 100 times more quickly (no climate scientist thinks that it'll take less than a century of cutting carbon emissions to have any effect) and is guaranteed to lower the temperature of the planet.

Yet Jeanne won't support it. Why? I don't know. I can only think that she doesn't consider an extinction type event to be important enough to actually fix quickly and in a relatively dirt cheap manner.

Its difficult to let go of all that brain washing.

Its interesting to watch the straw man circle jerkin goin on here...... but go ahead.. its fun to watch you guys twisting

[JackC1 0]

lawrocket

I think you've hit the nail on the head: it's eliminate carbon at all costs. Not saving lives or the earth. Which is fine, so long as people are honest about it.

And you've missed the point entirely. Here's another example that maybe you'll get; although I don't hold out much hope for that.


"Doctor help, I have emphysema"
"Give up smoking"
"No"
"OK if you won't give up the thing which is causing your problems All I can do is give you some pills that might help"
"These pills make me drowsy"
"here's some pills to keep you awake"
"Now I can't sleep"
"OK, try these sleeping pills"
"These pills are making me fat"
"Try these slimming pills"
"But now I have no energy"
"here's a stimulant"
"Now my liver and kidneys are failing"
"That's because you've taken too many drugs. You have 3 months to live and there's nothing I can do."
"I should have given up smoking."
"yes you should"

[lawrocket 3]

That's one perspective. Interestingly, you chose something (emphysema) that can't be reversed. Once it's there, it's there, and the only treatment is prevent further destruction. Why don't we go with something that is a bi more on point:

"You've got lung cancer. It's small and confined to only a small region. But it's a disaster and will kill you."
"So you will take it out, then?"
"No. Stop smoking."
"I know. I shouldn't have been smoking this past few decades, but if I stop smoking the cancer is still going to be there. It's like CO2 - even if we stop now the stuff we' have to wait a couple hundred years to see the effects of that kind of smoking cessation according to the status of the consensus science. So I'd actually like to have options that will actually treat the cancer."
"Stop smoking. That's the only treatment that I will tolerate."
"Come on. A lumpectomy, biopsy it and make sure the margins aren't involved and I'm clear."
"It's not that easy. You could end up with an infection or a bleed from the procedure. In fact, the anesthetic can kill you. The harm you'll suffer from the lumpectomy will leave an ugly scar. But the worst part it, you'll think it's okay to just keep on smoking."
"What? You won't treat me unless I stop smoking?"
"That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I won't treat you at all. Then I will blame smoking when you die."

---

I have a term for that - misanthropy.

Should the person stop smoking? Yes.

Should there be something done about carbon pollution? Yes.

Should there be absolutely no other mitigation plan considered other than, "stop carbon pollution?" No. There should be other options discussed.

Should a doctor not prescribe antibiotics even though it can lead to yeast infection?

Should pharmacies stop selling cigarettes because they also sell booze?

"Hey, doc. Figure it out?"
"Yep. It's gonorrhea."
"SO it's treatable."
"Well, there are treatments for it, but stop having unprotected sex."
"Okay. So you can give me something?"
"No. Antibiotics would fix it, but that leads to other problems..."

I understand the thinking as well as anybody. I got myself off of blood pressure medications by changing what I put into my body to begin with. I'm all for avoiding treatment.

" And in a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction." – John Kerry.
"Mr. Secretary of State. For $20 billion, we can defuse that WMD."
"No. Not expensive enough. And I'm not losing this issue by fixing it."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JackC1 0]

Quote

Interestingly, you chose something (emphysema) that can't be reversed. Once it's there, it's there, and the only treatment is prevent further destruction.

It's interesting because it's apt. Once CO2 is in the atmosphere, it's damned difficult to remove. So for all practical purposes the problem is irreversible. Only a complete moron would want to do nothing until the options left are so drastic they could only ever be a last resort.

Like I said, you miss the point. Deliberately I think.