Global Warming Update: Hell Freezes Over!

[piscator]

It's not "a" Marxist, it's "many" Marxists. The good news is that I see them and will respond appropriately when the time is right.

[pErvinalia]

Oh is it irrelevant?? - you brought up the subject of writing skills- something you clearly know little about.

To be honest, I have grave doubts about your claimed qualification.
In fact, I have doubts that you're old enough. You converse like a schoolboy.
I said that your post was stupid, and you seem to thing that's to do with your writing skills.
No, it's to do with your post, and your silly remark about the use of a .
If you don't know the difference, you really don't know much at all.
How old are you, really?

He's apparently not as old as you are in the sense that you seem to have no concept of shame and embarrassment. You keep posting these ridiculous little rofl screeds like they address anything. Instead of spending your time doing that, why don't you learn about some science?

[macdoc]

oh no agism - I wonder if MM is Japanese.

....mm..you're a caricature of the agw denier.

Take some advice....learn some science...or continue to get dissed.....deservedly.

•••

I see you are bothering the patient posters at Skeptical Science...
amusing reading....same old tripe from you tho...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argumen ... t=186&&a=7

doug_bostrom at 08:19 AM on 23 October, 2010
Mistermack, it's probably worth pausing at this moment to evaluate whether it's worth your time pursuing an argument here, or more specifically which argument might be fruitful. In fact you might better spend time learning more about this subject before commencing to disagree because that way you could be more selective in your disagreements and be more generally useful. I only say this because your post at #156 is taking on the classic "throwing a cheesecake underwater" profile.

Gee that was three years ago....no improvement apparent

[pErvinalia]

He's an old white conservative. There won't be any improvement. They are incapable of learning new things and/or accepting that they might be wrong about something.

[macdoc]

His internet history is rather "illuminating".....

I feel sorry for the guys at SkeptSci..

[macdoc]

Welcome to the Anthropocene...

At least two people are dead after a bizarre mix of weather across the country spawned everything from tornadoes to ice storms to record-setting warmth.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/22/us/winter ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[mistermack]

His internet history is rather "illuminating".....

I feel sorry for the guys at SkeptSci..

That was three years ago. You could go back twenty years ago, I held the same opinion.
And that is that people were hugely overstating the case.
Since then we've had huge increases in carbon production, and fuck-all climate change.
The facts on the ground have been supporting my case for nearly twenty years. And counting.

That conversation at skepsci would be over your head, Macdoc, but some things never change.
They pontificate over there, and try to impress each other with links and snippets. But when you test them with a question, the limits of what they actually know jump off the page. They were talking about feedback loops, and didn't actually have a clue how feedback works.

And just like people on this site, when they get stuck, after displaying their ignorance, they fall back on the old ''learn some science'' bollocks.
I long ago learned that that is the stock response, when people get shown their own ignorance.
It's funny.

[macdoc]

despite the fuckwits on the right...

Moving to a carbon neutral civilization regardless of whinging from the fossil fuel interests as Sweden is

Sweden Prepares to Lead EU on Climate

Kalmar

The Swedish city of Kalmar is replacing most of its fossil fuel-fired furnaces with “cogeneration” plants, which burn sawdust and timber waste from the surrounding wooded region.
Sweden's low-carbon transformation is on display in the coastal, industrial city of Kalmar.

The city of 60,000 is replacing most of its oil, gas, and electric furnaces for district heat with "cogeneration" plants, which burn sawdust and timber waste from the surrounding wooded region. Publicly owned cars and buses have switched to burning either biogas made from waste wood and chicken manure, or an 85 percent ethanol blend from Brazil.

[HILITE]Kalmar has become a model for what all of Sweden hopes to achieve. The Nordic country plans to be carbon neutral - releasing zero net carbon emissions - by mid-century, according to Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren. [/HILITE]

"If you can see the resources you have, you can really make the opportunities," Carlgren said during an event at the Swedish embassy in Washington, D.C., on Monday. "It's not written in the resources. You have to see it in your mind."

Sweden is positioning itself to become a regional leader in fighting climate change as it takes over the presidency of the European Union in July. Sweden will lead the EU when international climate negotiators meet in Copenhagen in December to discuss a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol.

"Clearly it is the presidency speaking for the EU," Carlgren said. "Therefore, we will really try to represent the EU in the climate process."

The European Union agreed on its latest climate policy in December. By 2020, member states must cut greenhouse gases at least 20 percent below 1990 levels (or 30 percent if other industrialized countries make comparable commitments), increase renewable energy to 20 percent of total energy production, and reduce energy consumption 20 percent by embracing greater energy efficiency.

Sweden has long implemented one of the most progressive energy policies in Europe. The national government enacted one of the world's first carbon taxes in 1990. Ministers announced further ambitions last week through a plan that would increase renewable energy production to 50 percent by 2020, transition the Swedish vehicle fleet to fossil fuel independence by 2030, [HILITE]and reach complete carbon neutrality by 2050[/HILITE].

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6039

[MrFungus420]

It freezes over almost every year, it's only about 60 miles west of Detroit.

[pErvinalia]

Mac, burning forests isn't a solution to global warming. It adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The only benefit these biomass generators might have (if they are using the ultra high heat catalysing process that I've forgotten the name of) is efficiency. Which is a good thing, but it's not a green technology.

[macdoc]

You are incorrect....biomass is part of the natural carbon cycle - not mined fossil carbon.

Most of the biomass would oxidize anyways releasing carbon just on a different time scale.

The use of biomass in heating systems is beneficial because it uses agricultural, forest, urban and industrial residues and waste to produce heat and electricity with less effect on the environment than fossil fuels.[1] This type of energy production has a limited long term effect on the environment because the carbon in biomass is part of the natural carbon cycle; while the carbon in fossil fuels is not, and permanently adds carbon to the environment when burned for fuel (carbon footprint).[

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass_heating_system

Certain types of trees are very fast growing but there is an almost endless supply of wood and other agricultural waste ( think sugar cane for instance ).

Scientists from Tulane and the University of New Hampshire using NASA satellite data calculate that Hurricane Katrina killed or severely damaged 320 million large trees in Gulf Coast forests. The damaged trees subsequently released large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere—the equivalent of 60-100% of the net annual carbon sink in all US forest trees. Why?

Because dead trees no longer photosynthesize and can't store carbon. Plus, dead wood is consumed by decomposers whose communities grow in keeping with the bumper crop, and who then "exhale" large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

so leaving thousands of tons of decomposing wood and agricultural waste to rot is not a great approach - using it in a high efficiency wood pellet furnace is.

While nuclear and solar would be better yet - bio-mass is a very legitimate approach to reducing carbon and one which Sweden employs extensively.

[pErvinalia]

Fair enough. Although, I would have thought much of that carbon would have become fixed in organisms and soil biomass, with less being oxidised to the atmosphere. Perhaps the difference is too small to worry about.

[macdoc]

Organism breath in oxygen and breathe out C02 just as you do.

Peat bog and some other anoxic environs sequestered welll...that'a a big fear about the tundra - release of the carbon stored there as it dries out.

By planting trees we speed up forest regrowth and carbon uptake and using things like agricultural waste is ideal.

Bottom line we don't really have a problem without the fossil load we've injected.

[Warren Dew]

Mac, burning forests isn't a solution to global warming. It adds CO2 to the atmosphere.

Indeed, deforestation is a bigger issue for CO2 release than transportation fuels.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-warming

[Seth]

Mac, burning forests isn't a solution to global warming. It adds CO2 to the atmosphere. The only benefit these biomass generators might have (if they are using the ultra high heat catalysing process that I've forgotten the name of) is efficiency. Which is a good thing, but it's not a green technology.

That's an interesting question that I tried posing to some scientists a few years ago for an article. They couldn't answer whether it's better to burn down the dead and dying forests or to allow them to decompose. My take is that since the products of decomposition, primarily methane, have 17 times the impact on high-altitude atmospheric carbon than the products of combustion, which are primarily carbon monoxide and particulates, that burning the forests would do the most to prevent GHGs from reaching the upper atmosphere. Carbon monoxide, unlike methane, is heavier than air, as are the solid forms of carbon found in ash and particulates, which quickly settle out of the atmosphere.