quote:

ORIGINAL: heartcream

quote:

ORIGINAL: pyroaquatic

We are nodes coexisting with a 5.9736 × 1024 kg node.

Tectonic plates slip under other plates. There is pressure coming elsewhere:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/04/28/geothermal-explosion-highlights-a-downside-of-a-leading-alt-energy-source/

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/01/geothermal_powe.php

As you can see we need more energy (for some reason). We need alternative sources. Perhaps-and this is just a theory-Human Kind can't help but to screw around in dirt. Nature screws back harder.

Yeah for sure. Everyone not aligned with Her vision of Herself needs to gerr off!

Mankind has been so ridiculously unconscious and dense promoting their stupid agenda that would be laughable if it wernt so farking damaging.

Be gone Earth haters!

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Did you just try and conflate the tiny little icelandic volcano to the krakatoa explosion?

No. I only suggested it as a reference to see the impact of nature, versus man, in the case of Krakatoa.

The information coming out of Iceland indicates this eruption will not be climate changing because the ash plume did not reach the height where it would have a global impact. As of now, it hasn't reached the level of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption let alone Krakatoa.

The carbon comment, on the other hand, was a disingenuous comment regarding the folly of man's influence versus natural occurrences. However, considering the positions provided by academic sources, it may be wise to increase man's carbon footprint to offset the eventual cooling consequences of future Krakatoa type eruptions likely to occur.

Or following a philosophy that man knows and has accounted for all natural variables and can influence the global climate by whim or deliberate effort, at the very least we should allocate a major portion of our economy to preventing future volcanic eruptions, equal to the effort being allocated to preventing global warming. A wise investment "for the children"; right?

How about following a philosophy of do as little harm as possible? How about applying the concept of unintednded consequences to 250 years of massive release of CO2?

Ken, how practical is it to assume alternative sources will provide enough energy to provide food, jobs and the needed transportation for 9 billion people? I would love to see the calculations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesopened

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
So much for "global warming"
This ash cloud will cool things off quite a bit.
And with all the tens of thousands of cancelled flights fuel prices will go down with all that jet fuel backing up in the system.

If volcanic and earthquake activity are cyclic and the earth's magnetic pole shifts like a pendulum, where is the credibility in assuming a linear global warming? The Planet will do what the Planet will do, nor all your sons and daughters, nor all your cap and trade will change it. I am reminded of the king (?) who went down to the sea to command the tide to halt. How feeble are we that we are tossed about so easily while Earth laughs. I sound like Sunday morning.

Are you suggesting that there is no global repercussions to pollution?  That it doesn't matter what we do, the Planet will be just fine?  If that's the case, let's just disband the EPA altogether.  It costs too much and they aren't really doing anything productive.

I don't think that's what I said, eyes. I think there are human repercussions to pollution. I don't doubt that foul air and chemical soaked water ways are unhealthy for humans, animals, and plants. I do not think the EPA is ineffectual in protecting living things in the short term and in limited locales.

However, Earth was here 5000 million years before humans arrived. Got along without us before we got here... gonna get along without us after we are gone. Hubris to believe we can alter the planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Did you just try and conflate the tiny little icelandic volcano to the krakatoa explosion?

No. I only suggested it as a reference to see the impact of nature, versus man, in the case of Krakatoa.

The information coming out of Iceland indicates this eruption will not be climate changing because the ash plume did not reach the height where it would have a global impact. As of now, it hasn't reached the level of the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption let alone Krakatoa.

The carbon comment, on the other hand, was a disingenuous comment regarding the folly of man's influence versus natural occurrences. However, considering the positions provided by academic sources, it may be wise to increase man's carbon footprint to offset the eventual cooling consequences of future Krakatoa type eruptions likely to occur.

Or following a philosophy that man knows and has accounted for all natural variables and can influence the global climate by whim or deliberate effort, at the very least we should allocate a major portion of our economy to preventing future volcanic eruptions, equal to the effort being allocated to preventing global warming. A wise investment "for the children"; right?

How about following a philosophy of do as little harm as possible? How about applying the concept of unintednded consequences to 250 years of massive release of CO2?

Ken, how practical is it to assume alternative sources will provide enough energy to provide food, jobs and the needed transportation for 9 billion people? I would love to see the calculations.

If we assume it will all be done in massive wind and solar farms they cannot do the job. However we have the technology to distribute power generation. Almost rvery roof of every structure could support solar panels and/or wind turnbines. If most structures generated a significant percenatge of the power they require (doable today) then the rest of the need could be met with a few large wind and solar installations along with a few peak demand natural gas power plants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Doable in the best of all possible worlds I agree but in reality I wonder if it would not become just another commodity like oil to be exploited. I am thinking that even at this late date a great portion of the world's people are without clean water (Africa and Asia especially) and there is some controversy over the commercialization of even local water sources. The same is true for the scarcity of food and medical care and defenses against disease. With those problems on-going I wonder how we could be optimistic that wind/solar energy and electrical generators could be available world-wide. I suspect it will all come down to available capital like everything else and the impoverished and darkened world will become more impoverished and darkened. Nor can I imagine the current rate of production can be maintained in the industrial world. But on the bright side, necessity is the mother of invention, tis said, so who knows * shrugs *

Regarding the 250 years of massive release of CO2 that concerns you .... it occurs to me we are 12,000 years into an interglacial period. I wonder why the glaciers began to melt 12 millennia ago when there was no industrial emission. Do you suppose something else is at play in the great warming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Doable in the best of all possible worlds I agree but in reality I wonder if it would not become just another commodity like oil to be exploited. I am thinking that even at this late date a great portion of the world's people are without clean water (Africa and Asia especially) and there is some controversy over the commercialization of even local water sources. The same is true for the scarcity of food and medical care and defenses against disease. With those problems on-going I wonder how we could be optimistic that wind/solar energy and electrical generators could be available world-wide. I suspect it will all come down to available capital like everything else and the impoverished and darkened world will become more impoverished and darkened. Nor can I imagine the current rate of production can be maintained in the industrial world. But on the bright side, necessity is the mother of invention, tis said, so who knows * shrugs *

Regarding the 250 years of massive release of CO2 that concerns you .... it occurs to me we are 12,000 years into an interglacial period. I wonder why the glaciers began to melt 12 millennia ago when there was no industrial emission. Do you suppose something else is at play in the great warming?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML
Doable in the best of all possible worlds I agree but in reality I wonder if it would not become just another commodity like oil to be exploited. I am thinking that even at this late date a great portion of the world's people are without clean water (Africa and Asia especially) and there is some controversy over the commercialization of even local water sources. The same is true for the scarcity of food and medical care and defenses against disease. With those problems on-going I wonder how we could be optimistic that wind/solar energy and electrical generators could be available world-wide. I suspect it will all come down to available capital like everything else and the impoverished and darkened world will become more impoverished and darkened. Nor can I imagine the current rate of production can be maintained in the industrial world. But on the bright side, necessity is the mother of invention, tis said, so who knows * shrugs *

Regarding the 250 years of massive release of CO2 that concerns you .... it occurs to me we are 12,000 years into an interglacial period. I wonder why the glaciers began to melt 12 millennia ago when there was no industrial emission. Do you suppose something else is at play in the great warming?

Actually the technology I'm talking about would be of great benefit to the developing world. Take vertical axis windmills suitable for mounting on roof toops. like this one:
http://www.urbangreenenergy.com/turbines.php?id=4

4Kw is a substantial portion of the power a US home consumes and would be sufficient for a multitude of power requirements in the developing world. if every commercial and industrial structure in the US had one or more of these on the roof along with solar panels where appropriate along with smaller quieter turbines on residential structures the US could drastically reduce our need to burn fossil fuels. Developing the industry to mass produce the turbines and panels would employ thousands or more of our neighbors.

As to the cycle of ice ages we may be in or just emerging from, we don't what caused them nor do we know whether another should be approaching or not. if a cooling cycle begins, and we'd have decades to see it coming, then burn some coal and cause some global warming but right now we have zero evidence for a return to the cold and we have overwhelming proof that the planet is warming. Our culture is absolutely dependent temperate climate agriculture. The warmer it gets the less land will be available for such agriculure and we simply won't be able to feed everyone as it gets warmer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

There is consensus that the most recent glaciation ended about 12k years ago. However there is little if any evidence one way or another whether another glaciation would occur if not for AGW.

As to the expansion of agriculture around the 1000AD was due to a warming that was not as warm as we are now. Temperatures are forecast to rise significantly for the rest of this century at least. this will definitely push the temperate climate zone needed for our agricultre towards the poles which means less arable land.