Global Warming and all that stuff.

[Harpoon]

...Prior to that the Plains were a region that farmers crossed on the way to the west coast - on the legendary Oregon Trail, among others.

That's West Coast, Pardner.

 

[mhaze]

If I may include a brief political rant at this point -- what idiot decided it was a good idea to impact top soil and freshwater supplies to produce energy? Why grow biomass for energy on land that is capable of producing a food crop? It's not wise.

Naw, but turning stinking algae in useless wetlands coveted only by Greenpeace, turning that algae into fuel, that may have some merit.

 

[Schneibster]

Naw, but turning stinking algae in useless wetlands coveted only by Greenpeace, turning that algae into fuel, that may have some merit.

Hmmm, the United States Geological Survey disagrees with you. Quote: "Wetlands, or the lack thereof, were a significant factor in the severe flooding in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins in the summer of 1993." Perhaps you don't remember that; I sure do. Maybe you not wandering into the flood prevention area with bulldozers might be a good idea.

 

[Harpoon]

Wetlands and estuaries are too important (and protected) to mess with.

Japan and China grow kelp for food. I believe the Aussies also grow it as a food supplement.

But large scale marintine agriculture is still sci-fi. Nontheless, do sea plants serve as a sink?

Problems may be too large to overcome, (and it would be the long-term before sea agriculture could contribute anything significant) but my concern is the planet turning to an already burdened resource (top soil/freshwater) to feed its energy addiction.

 

[mhaze]

Hmmm, the United States Geological Survey disagrees with you. Quote: "Wetlands, or the lack thereof, were a significant factor in the severe flooding in the Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins in the summer of 1993." Perhaps you don't remember that; I sure do. Maybe you not wandering into the flood prevention area with bulldozers might be a good idea.

Yeah I figured I'd get some responses with that one. But we gotta use those dozers to get this job somewhere. Maybe that utterly worthless low lying skeeter infested place in Florida - what do they call it? Disneyworld? That'd do quite nicely.

 

[David Rodale]

Oh, and re: Svensmark, and cosmic rays being the cause of climate changes, see the following, written by one of the authors of the paper in question, and posted in the follow-ups in response to the RC article:

"Finally an opinion of my own: Press release or not, I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."

Yet another serious scientist whose research has been cherry-picked by the skeptoids.

Oh, and re: Svensmark, and cosmic rays being the cause of climate changes, see the following, written by one of the authors of the paper in question, and posted in the follow-ups in response to the RC article:

"Finally an opinion of my own: Press release or not, I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."

Yet another serious scientist whose research has been cherry-picked by the skeptoids.

I notice you didn’t highlight the word opinion. Nonetheless, he is exactly correct and honest; a gentleman who refused to be dragged into the slimy type of tabloid journalism RC has become known for. He’s not out to belittle the effect of CO2 et al, nor to overstate it. He didn’t even insult the RC author. What are you reading into his remark? The SKY experiment (done after the RC post) is evidence to support (verify) the hypothesis. Prior to that experiment the hypothesis was purely theoretical, which RC describes as “spin”.

Please provide experimental evidence to support the hypothesis of CO2 being the main climate driver. Also while you’re at it, I would like to know which of the several climate sensitivity (lambda) values of CO2 forcing presented by various “serious” scientists is correct. Which do you think is?

Maybe we can have a more serious discussion on solar/cosmic ray influence on climate. There is more to it than counting sun spots.

We have been inundated with dire predictions concerning methane production caused by basic human life sustaining activities, such as eating meat. Now that atmospheric methane (the supposed final death knell for life on earth) has stabilized to statistically zero increase, it looks like the models will once again need “correcting”; GIGO. Or shall we pass that slight miscalculation as an anomaly and hope the new prediction for methane belching will do us all in? Any comment?

 

[mhaze]

Oh, and re: Svensmark, and cosmic rays being the cause of climate changes, see the following, written by one of the authors of the paper in question, and posted in the follow-ups in response to the RC article:

"Finally an opinion of my own: Press release or not, I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."

Yet another serious scientist whose research has been cherry-picked by the skeptoids.

Schneib, I have seen quite a few of these types of one paragraph "disclaimers" in scientific articles. I wonder the following.

Perhaps it would be irresponsible NOT to make such an assertion? Let's consider this for a second. A scientist does some work on "something that can be studied" which by definition is going to be limited by the scope of his work (and his budget), to a time period, a geographical extent, etc. He does this work and reaches some conclusions. Then, he feels obliged to caution people against reading too much into it.

Where is the cherry picking? If one wants to look at the influence of cosmic rays on XYZ, then one goes looking at articles on that subject. The fact an article (or it's followup) has a disclaimer or a caution does not negate the effect of cosmic rays on XYZ autonomously does it?