"No one wants to leave the house"

Michael J. Bentley (13:28:44) : site wind turbines IN Gore’s house
Don’t know about wind, you could fill an armada of hot air balloons.
Pamla Gray — “I see a Bond movie coming with the bad guy being pulverized by a wind turbine.”
Nat’l Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation did something like this.
George E. Smith (10:34:49) : Tip velocity. Mach 1 is about 1100 f/s. With a 300 ft diameter, you’d need over 1 r/s. Big guys don’t spin that fast, although the video clip seems a lot faster.
Solar is good. Makes Barley and Hops grow. Add water and yeast.
Ric’s containment vessel has to take first prize in this thread.
(sad part is OSHA may mandate them…)

Due to the complexity of the climate, with so many factors that science has not yet fully explained every single process, it is difficult for a coherent picture to emerge from which we can firmly conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that there is Human-Induced Global Climate Destabilisation (H-IGCD). If it were the case, we wouldn’t be having this debate. But that is not to say there aren’t any indications.
So let’s tackle this controversy in three different ways.
1) For millions of years, the Earth’s climate has fluctuated, cycling from ice ages to warmer periods. But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast. Ever since the industrial revolution began, amplifying our demand for energy, we have used carbon-based fossil fuel to satiate that demand. The increasing consumption of carbon-based energy from industrialised and developing nations causes an increase in the burning of fossil fuel; an increase in carbon emissions; an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping more of the sun’s radiated energy as heat; intensifying the natural Greenhouse Effect.
The majority of climate scientists agree upon the concept of GCD primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, and post-industrialisation emissions of green house gases having an impact on the climate cycle and environment. And the idea that H-IGCD will continue and worsen if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. Just pause for a second and think, if you had a horse race and every major betting agency was saying, put your money on that horse, would you do it (just keep it simplistic)? Well, with every major institute in the first world betting on H-IGCD, ask yourself: “Which seems like the smarter bet on which to wager the world?”
The H-IGCD is the effect of the intensified Greenhouse Effect superimposed upon the normal climate cycle. We have the average increase in temperature (Global Warming), but it is not a uniform Global Warming (hence Climate Change). The Climate Change affects different regions in different ways (H-IGCD). So it’s not the degrees of temperature that matters per se, but the fact that such a quick change in the global average temperature is like throwing a wrench into the climate system. Should it reach a tipping point, the products of the process of H-IGCD will fuel the process; such as increased temperatures melting ice sheets, which increases the size of the ocean, causing more heat to be absorbed into the climate, further melting the ice sheets. The evidence for this is certainly compelling.
So, what are these indications?
-Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations.
-Rate of Warming: The rate of average global temperature increase is particularly evident in three ways I will share.
First off, temperature graphs show the cyclical change – yet H-IGCD is evident, with the cycle of our time being abnormal:
*“Temperature reconstruction – linear trend for from AD 1000 to 1850,” showing the change in trend since industrialisation: http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/fig2-20.htm
*And even more striking, the “Temperatures over the last 1.35 million years” showing the abnormal warmth and warming of our time:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1.35Myr.small.jpg
Secondly, the Polar Ice Caps are melting in unprecedented ways. It is now a common theory for the Arctic Ocean to be ice-free in summer by 2040. I have a link which shows how the minimums have dramatically changed.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/2007_Arctic_Sea_Ice.jpg
Finally, Coral. Although coral reefs have been around for millions of years, the reefs are formed of the corals themselves, which have life estimates of only a few thousand years. Therefore, as climate has gone through its cycle, coral have been able to evolve to deal with changes in temperature. But now, however, it appears, the climate is changing too rapidly for them to evolve:
Bleaching is where the corals turn white due to a change in the ocean temperature, exceeding that which they can handle. If the temperature returns to normal, they recover. If not, the coral dies. In this way, coral are like a bellwether, sensitive instruments that detect subtle changes of temperature, reflecting both the ocean and overall climate conditions.
The first coral bleaching on record occurred in 1979. Since then, there have been six events, each of which has been progressively more frequent and severe. In the El Niño year of 1998, when tropical sea surface temperatures were the highest yet in recorded history, coral reefs around the world suffered the most severe bleaching on record. 48% of reefs in the Western Indian Ocean suffered bleaching, while 16% of the world’s reefs appeared to have died by the end of 1998. 2002 was even worse: 60 to 95 per cent of individual reefs of the Great Barrier Reef suffered some bleaching, while reefs in Palau, the Seychelles, and Okinawa suffered 70-95% bleaching. One quarter of the world’s coral has already been lost.
-9/11: Yes, I’ll get to it further down.
Global Dimming is basically the antagonist of Global Warming. Both are caused by emissions. Green House Gas Emissions trap heat and result in Global Warming. Other emissions, which are more evident, damage the health of us and the environment, but reflect heat from earth, resulting in Global Dimming. Due to the emissions, Global Warming had the edge, and we detected the GCD as a result.
We detected those emissions affecting our health first, and thus reduced them first. This reduced Global Dimming, and therefore contributed to Global Warming.
Airplane vapor trails are a form of Global Dimming. This is where 9/11 becomes a proof of Global Warming. For three days post-9/11, all flights were grounded. For those three days, no airplane vapor trails were produced. For those three days, the average temperature was 1 degree Celsius warmer than other days. This may not sound like much, but 6 degrees colder is the difference between now and the last ice age, when the Ice Sheets extended as far south as London. It’s a huge amount of warming.
This is just some of the evidence that I find most persuasive. The problem we have is that our knowledge of climactic processes is never 100% complete, but while we debate whether or not our actions are significantly affecting the climate, we are at the same time running the experiment. The billions of people in the world and the technology we use to sustain that population might be having an impact on the planet. And it is also conceivable that we might not be able to recover from the consequences of those impacts. No matter the outcome, we have a stake in it.
2) Why not change the focus? No one is perfect, so our choices carry a risk if that choice turns out to be a mistake. Given that, which risk would you rather take for H-IGCD? Listen to the activists and take big action now, risking the possible harm to the economy that the skeptics warn us about; or listen to the skeptics and don’t take action, risking the possible destruction and upheaval that the activists warn us about. The bottom line is which is the more acceptable risk? The risk of taking action, or not taking action?
You might say that the choice is a false one, for the changes in the climate we see are, in fact, not H-IGCD, but part of the climactic cycle (perhaps an extreme part in that cycle, but part of it none-the-less). Are you infallible? No. Could you be wrong? Yes. So the question, which is the more acceptable risk, still applies.
The best way to present it to you is in the form of a box divided into quarters.
* http://www.kheper.net/topics/civilization/four.gif
*Have one of the two rows represent: H-IGCD – True (T), and the other: H-IGCD – False (F).
Here we can acknowledge that we are far from absolutely certain, or rather far from in agreement, about H-IGCD. All reasonable people should be able to admit to the possibility that they might have a mistake in their understanding of reality.
*Have one of the two columns represent: Significant Action Taken – Yes (Y), and the other: Significant Action Taken – No (N).
Obviously, these represent what actions we take.
*So we now have a grid with four boxes, each box representing a different, plausible future.
We can now compare these four basic possible scenarios side-by-side, by considering what each of those futures might look like. To determine this, we consider the consequences of the two factors that we are bearing in mind, on the envisioned future, from the perspective of a realistic pessimist.
Future #1 (F, Y) – Economic cost, no positive benefits: Wasted money in unnecessary investment, opportunity cost of investment, possibly increased taxation, burdensome regulation, inutile bureaucracy, possible costs and problems of replacement technology (from carbon-based technology), retardation of third-world economic development. For the purposes of contrast let’s take it to the extreme, and go so far as to imagine draconian regulation causing massive lay-offs, sparking a recession, spiraling into a global depression which makes the 1930s look like a cakewalk. =(
Future #2 (F, N) – Didn’t take action, but didn’t need to: we made the right decision, no big economic consequences, continued relative prosperity; sure we had some problems but H-IGCD wasn’t one of them. Everyone celebrates – the skeptics because they were right, and the activists because it wasn’t the end of the world after all. =D
Future #3 (T, Y) – We took action, and it was a good thing too: the doomsayers were right, we still have the economic cost, but it was money well spent as it allowed as to counteract H-IGCD; it still happened but we managed it so everyone’s ok with that because we saved our bacon. It’s a different world, but it’s livable. Our actions were insurance for the survival and well-being of the human species. =)
Future #4 (T, N) – We have granted the extreme in every other scenario, and we should here too, and in that case it gets kind of ugly: economic, social, political, and environmental catastrophes on a global scale – a disaster scenario; and the more of these you consider in conjunction, and the greater degree to which we imagine these semi-independently-occurring variables, the more severe the prediction. At the extreme we have an intense situation that makes Al Gore look like a sissy who sugar-coated the bad news, with chain reactions in which problems induce or aggravate other problems:
Crises ranging from sea-level rise affecting mainland coasts, coastal countries, and river banks, rivers drying up as glaciers melt, changes in wind and sea currents affecting regional microclimates and ecosystems, massive seasonal droughts alternating with wide-spread floods, more intense and more frequent hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, lightening storms, blizzards, and forest fires, expansion of desertification, crop failures from climate change, the breadbaskets in Russia, the US, India, and China converted to dustbowls, extinctions and food chain disruption (vegetation can’t adapt to new conditions, animals migrate, keystone species die, habitats drastically alter, predator-prey balance shifts), population displacement (from coasts and river banks, or from areas which can no longer sustain life), south-ward and north-ward migrating of insects (mosquitoes and locusts) as regions’ climates become able to accommodate them, increased forests fires, deforestation, forest burning, forest death (either from climate change beyond what they can tolerate, or insect plagues), spread of famine and epidemics, warfare over scare resources (compounded by, in certain cases, pre-existing tensions), technology failure (particularly energy such as power grids failing due to weather extremes), and economic collapse from consecutive crises, etc. =(
Take your pick, mix it up, consider what could induce or intensify another problem, and consider the problems to differing degrees of severity. I actually find it rather interesting to ponder the possibilities.
Obviously this awfully oversimplifies the complexities. But we can say that the future will fall roughly into one of those four boxes. The debate is about trying to predict which row the future will fall into, which we can’t know for certain until we actually get there. What we can know, because we determine it by taking significant action or not, is which column the future will fall (Y/N) into (or rather which column it won’t). Therefore we can eliminate the risk of one of the columns. It’s like buying one of two lottery tickets. Then we sit back and wait for what the Laws of Physics deal out as a result of our pick.
This grid attempts to isolate the risk to help us decide what the optimal action to take is. One way or the other we are taking a risk, so which risk is more acceptable? As we can only control which column the future land in, the risks associated with the columns are: (F, Y) for column (Y) – acting when we didn’t need to; and (T, N) for column (N) – not acting when we needed to. Interestingly, the risk (T, N) incorporates the general risk of (F, Y), but with some added bonus features. So the risk is the cost of a mistake, either through deliberate choice or by default of inaction (especially if we’re too busy debating the rows).
The flaw to this logic is that the same grid argument can be made for any possible threat, no matter how costly the action or ridiculous the threat – the infinite cost of the last square on his grid. Even giant mutant space hamsters. It’s better to go broke building a bunch of rodent traps than to even risk the possibility of hamster chow right? Not quite. The grid by itself allows us to make a decision based on uncertain knowledge by changing the question from ‘are we humans affecting the climate,’ to the superior question, ‘what’s the wisest thing to do, given the uncertainties and the risks?’ To make the logic of the grid more applicable to reasonability, we take into consideration the factor of probability. With this risk management, we need a sense of how likely each row is – an estimate of the certainty of occurrence.
Waiting for us to gain an even greater understanding of the climate, on which to base a decision, doesn’t avoid the risk; as it is the same as choosing column (N) – which is where we sit right now. This is where the risk of row (T) is increased, or rather made more tangible. There is, of course, the evidence indicating H-IGCD cited above. On top of which we can take recent or concurrent events: for example, prolonged droughts in Africa and Australia, the seemingly delayed seasonal rains in Africa’s Okavango Delta, the flooding in Venice, heat-deaths in Paris, abandonment of sled-hunting in Greenland due to seas not freezing over, Chinese desertification and sand storms, the frequency and severity of major hurricanes this year – Bertha (July), Gustav (August), Ike (September), Omar (October), Paloma (November) – with the 2008 hurricane season (5) breaking 2005’s record (4) of having the most major hurricanes in the 6 months of hurricane season, the accelerated melting of the Chorabari Glacier which feeds the River Ganges in India, etc. Finally we can add that whilst there will almost always be disagreement by dissenting scientists on some scientific issue, we must regard the stance of professional organizations – the more prestigious, the weightier their statements; as they’re staking their reputations on it (which they want to uphold, not tarnish with inaccuracy); from which we have a consensus.
With organisations like the NAS and the AAAS having both issued statements calling for immediate, significant action in response to H-IGCD, by curbing and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, (along with the indicators cited), we can adjust the size of row (T) based on the relative probability. Think of row (T) as, now, larger than row (F) – in other words, push the line dividing the two rows in the direction that makes row (T) larger. Now the probability of (T, N) has increased, and thus the risk of (T, N) is greater than (F, Y) not just in terms of likelihood, but in damage as well. Unfortunately, our default (inaction) carries the greater risk. And with the projected rate at which this is occurring we’re talking about this plausibly occurring within a relatively short span of time – not abstract grandchildren, but you and I.
Instead of guessing at rows, we are faced with choosing between the columns, and the arguments lead to the same inescapable conclusion: when faced with uncertainty about our future, the only responsible choice, the only defensible choice, really the only choice is column (Y), in order to eliminate the risk of (T, N) as a possibility; because the risk of not acting significantly outweighs the risk of acting.
It seems odd that the lack of absolute certainty is holding us back. After all, we buy car insurance over smaller stakes in less probable scenarios. We buy car insurance without being certain we’ll crash or have an accident, because we want to make sure that if it does happen we don’t end up broke. To most, this is enough of a risk (along with the statistics of car crashes) to justify the action of purchasing car insurance. Yet we seem to be insisting that every scientist interviewed agree on H-IGCD, holding out until we understand the physics, and debating the finer points of climate science instead of discussing risk management.
Why should this matter anyway? Well, this isn’t about the planet – it will still be here a century or two from now, and it can always rehabilitate itself; it’ll do fine on its own. Whether we humans will be here, our wellbeing, and the state of the environment that we need to sustain us, is what we are concerned with. Every single other issue (from the Rainforests, to pollution, from toxic waste, to government waste, from immigration, to diplomacy, from human rights, to abortion) pales in comparison to the worst of H-IGCD coming to pass. It trumps everything else because if the worst were to happen, we’ll be so busy dealing with the fallout, that all other human concerns will seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Therefore it needs to be our priority.
The positive thing is that there’s a lot reasons to be believe that we can fix this problem, and palliate the risk, without even reducing our standing of living, if we act quickly.
3) I feel it would be negligent not to mention the arguments that mitigate the risk of column (Y). I.e. taking significant action as if H-IGCD were true is more appealing regardless of weather H-IGCD is true or not.
The American Energy Institute did a detailed study of the likely outcome of offshore drilling for their Annual Energy Outlook 2007 Report, and concluded that the effects of offshore drilling on production and oil prices would not be felt until 2030. Not to mention that rigs and oil pollute. But, and this is probably the biggest thing, the huge cost of drilling investment, could just as easily be put toward a green economy. After all, it will not replace oil in the absolute near future, but, as we need to eventually, we should start now.
The last three global recessions – in 1974, 1980 and 1991 – were all triggered by an oil shock. Even if companies drill more oil or access it more quickly, there wouldn’t be enough, most experts agree, to have a significant effect on prices. We need to move to green energy, and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (close to pre-industrial levels) by 2050.
Government incentives for alternative energy production (subsidies for solar and wind, regulations on emissions) will facilitate the transition. We can’t drill our way to energy independence, the U.S. consumes almost a quarter of the world’s oil but has less than 3% of the world’s known oil reserves. And most of those reserves are in fragile ecosystems where endangered species reside, species that we can’t be sure aren’t keystone species (species on which an ecosystem is particularly dependant); such as Polar bears in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
The bigger issue is strategically: The economy of the future can not be relying on oil and coal. We need to reduce our dependence on carbon-energy dramatically. In terms of foreign relations (given most oil reserves are held elsewhere i.e. supply), a green economy, green energy jobs, energy independence. That is why we should invest in Renewable Energy. We don’t want to encourage further oil and coal development when it firstly won’t have any impact for years, and, more importantly, when these are the energy sources that have lead us down the track to H-IGCD and pollution.
Aside from the environmental and human health factors, the opportunity cost of investing oil is not worth it. We could just as easily invest in a green economy. If we invest in green tech, independent organizations have concluded we will create millions of jobs and stand to gain billions which will strengthen the economy, increase energy independence, and fight H-IGCD. Several institutes that I can name which endorse this are the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI), Center for American Progress (CAP), World Energy Efficiency Agency (WEEA), and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDA), etc.
The comparative economic viability comes from the fact that green is more efficient, thus cheaper in the long term (paying for its investment); the jobs that will be created; that long term oil supplies are diminishing, and short term oil supplies are not secure; that drilling is ineffective as concluded by AEI; that the amount of offshore oil around America is relatively insignificant and accessing it would provide no returns for decades; and that investing in a green economy is not only more cost-effective, it is beneficial to the environment and the health of species including our own.
Cutting CO2 emissions (and maintaining our current lifestyle) is cheaper than, say, building new coal plants – screwing in CFL lightbulbs, ratcheting up appliance standards, boosting car fuel-economy, recycling the heat wasted from power plants – in Craig, Colorado, one plant was losing two-thirds of fuel energy as heat. The United States could cut of its carbon emissions and actually save money, while satisfying our energy needs. The reduction of emissions required can be achieved at a very low cost to our economy: the cost of not achieving the reductions, at national and global level, will be far greater.
We require government regulations and investment because the changes we can reasonably expect from consumers are not enough. Policy matters when it comes to going green. Given the benefits of going green, we will have better chances of both enacting environmentally friendly, green economic policies, and producing international pressure for similar action IF there is interest and ability to use that potential.
The best way to inspire interest is to inform people of this information. The only way we get into column (Y) is through policy change, and that will come about when enough people demand it. We need nothing less than a change in our culture itself. Using our power to persuade others will generate this change. Understanding these arguments helps increase public demand for column (Y). So I’m asking you, whom I’ve never meet, but who’s fate I’m still tied to, to make it part of our thinking and our conversations. Anything less, intentionally or not, is tantamount to choosing column (N).
Err on the side of caution. If it’s row (F), then the solution to the problem row (T), that I believe is real, is at least a benefit. If the sceptics are wrong, their proposals are jeopardising the well being and survival of all the species on Earth, through pollution and H-IGCD exacting a widening human and financial toll. In other words, I can afford to be wrong. Hopefully this helps ends the debate. How humanity ends up, well, that’s up to you and me. This is likely to be the greatest threat that humanity has so far faced. Think that’s overblown? Maybe; but are you so certain that you’re willing to bet everything? We only get to run this experiment once. Think it won’t happen? That’s the risk you’re taking.

“Due to the complexity of the climate, with so many factors that science has not yet fully explained every single process…”
Really, isn’t the science settled anymore?
As for the rest of the bible length post – it would be better bound in leather and clutched to your chest like the ‘scripture’ it is.

Stephen, a herculean effort to present a balanced view.
However, I think that many, if not most of the readers of this blog are probably well aware of the landscape of climate change debate.
Also, your risk analysis grid fails on essentially the same grounds as Pascal’s Wager (on which it is based, I suspect) – the uncertainties are not confined to the scientific evidence for AGW, but are inherent in whatever actions we may take (including no action).
Most human actions are undermined to to some extent by the law of unintended consequences, and the larger the action (and with CO2 reduction, we have actions proposed that are, well, unprecedented in scale), the more powerfully the law applies.
One example. The wholesale rush to biofuels has come about, at least in part, as a response to fears about AGW. Oxfam (hardly a hotbed of fervent ‘denialism’) tell us that the biofuels rush has resulted in 100 million more people in poverty, and a further 290 million whose already marginal livelihoods are in danger.
Inaction may carry risks, but those risks are unquantifiable, whatever Hansen may say, and the human impact is not expected to be felt for some decades.
Action is causing real problems on a large scale right now.
The subject of this blog posting, wind turbines, demonstrates the problem on a smaller (for now) scale.

Stephen it would seem that recent events look a lot like future #1 and if you look close you will see that it hasn’t warmed for a few years. Maybe its time to take another look at your position.
Matt

@Stephen Fisher (16:53:20) :
What is your physical evidence that
1. Man made emissions of CO2 cause global warming? and
2. That the warming caused by said emissions will be catastrophic?
Evidence please.

“But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast.”
Incorrect. Climate recovered from the little ice age over a period of about a century. Such changes in climate are not unusual nor are they unprecedented. The change from the last glacial to the Holocene happened in apparently a shorter period of time and was a much greater change in climate. Climate can, has, and shall make great changes over short periods of time. We can now pretty much dispense with point number 1 but not before I mention that I did get a chuckle out of “Secondly, the Polar Ice Caps are melting in unprecedented ways.” The fact that Earth even HAS ice caps is an anomaly over geological time. Earth generally has never had ice at the poles until the past couple of million years and a few periods here and there.
And I might remind you that there has been NO warming for the past 10 years and rather dramatic cooling over the past couple of years. So I think we can dispense with the rest of the text you posted. It isn’t a matter of “believing” anything, the data shows that there simply isn’t any warming.
It was fun to read, though.

Stephen,
Why don’t you just open your own site and then you can provide a link to your “material” for anyone interested in actually reading it all.

“But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast. Ever since the industrial revolution began, amplifying our demand for energy, we have used carbon-based fossil fuel to satiate that demand. The increasing consumption of carbon-based energy from industrialised and developing nations causes an increase in the burning of fossil fuel; an increase in carbon emissions; an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping more of the sun’s radiated energy as heat; intensifying the natural Greenhouse Effect.”
I disagree with the temperature rising unusually fast, and I disagree with the intensifying of the natural greenhouse effect.
This has not be proven, at least to my knowledge, and is, in fact, what people want to debate.
“The majority of climate scientists agree upon the concept of GCD primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning, and post-industrialisation emissions of green house gases having an impact on the climate cycle and environment.”
Please back this up. I don’t believe there is any evidence that “the majority of climate scientists agree” on this point at all.
I’m not going to challenge all of the rest of the points in your somewhat lengthy post because I believe that your first three paragraphs are flawed.
JimB

Er, ahem; Stephen. Reality check time.
Yes, the climate changes. No, we as a species have little or no global influence on climate. If I may quote your own examples to briefly take your rather over long post to task as some small proof of this assertion.
“-Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations. “
Insofar as proving that CO2 production lags, not leads temperature rises. Here’s a clue; look up ‘outgassing’ as pertaining to the carbon cycle.
Polar ice caps melting
An ‘ice free arctic’ was found in the report of a Chinese fleet in 1276. Large leads in the Arctic ice pack are historically well documented. Reports of massive ice shelf collapses have been recorded throughout the 17th, 18th & 19th century as hazards to navigation. Pre SUV and mass transportation.
Coral bleaching
Has been most often proven to be caused by local pollution events. For example nitrate pollution and increased sedimentation from intensive agriculture sources and a surfeit of Golf courses (For similar reasons). Over fishing can also be legitimately pointed out as one of the culprits. Ring any bells?
Yes, we need to control pollution, deforestation and overfishing; but prattling on that it’s all about CO2 rather diverts important attention from more vital environmental issues. The precautionary principle you propose re CO2 does not even come close to addressing key environmental issues.
Solar, Wind, and other ‘renewable’ energy will not keep us warm in the current cooling cycle of the Earth’s climate, however long it lasts. Properly planned and implemented, Nuclear, gas and coal can provide enough energy for our needs; or would you rather have people freezing to death because new power stations were not built in time? Until some clever chap cracks Nuclear Fusion or another ‘clean’ energy source that is.
I know none of the above is ‘peer reviewed’ but all the requisite information is readily accessible if you would care to read a little maritime history and do a little basic mathematics. Oh, and might I entreat you to winnow your prose down to size? Brevity being the soul of wit, to quote Shakespeare . On that note, that’s quite enough from me. TTFN.

Stephen (16:53:20) :
-Studies of ice cores show a correlation of carbon dioxide levels with temperature variations.
*”Temperature reconstruction – linear trend for from AD 1000 to 1850,” showing the change in trend since industrialisation:
Should it reach a tipping point, the products of the process of H-IGCD will fuel the process; such as increased temperatures melting ice sheets, which increases the size of the ocean, causing more heat to be absorbed into the climate, further melting the ice sheets. The evidence for this is certainly compelling.
I fail to understand why you people keep recycling obsolete data.
Ice cores show warming precedes CO2 increases by about 800yrs.
Manns’ hockey stick has no credibility.
There is no tipping point. If there were, we wouldn’t be having this debate.