I'll reserve judgement as well.

Bush is purely political. Period.

If true, I would view it slightly differently:
Bush is about to get religion on his legacy

That being the case, when I see some action out of him, free of strings and free of additional tax dollars to oil companies (to encourage behavior that they should be held to in the first place)....then and only then will I back him in his actions.

It will be real easy to tell whether his actions represent a token gesture to be spun into positives for his legacy or real and effective action on the issue.

You've done way way waaaay too much to inhibit progress on the enviornmental front. Time is up Bush, do something or get the f**k out of the way.

Glad McCain's massively for a policy change in this direction. It gives the GOP all that much less cover to continue the status quo -- and that's a good thing for the country.

Although, dammit, I *still* wish Gore would be drafted by the Dems to harness the pent up desire for change in a grassroots crusade ...

Bob

Say and do are are not the same thing. When your appoval ratings are in danger of slipping into the twenties, you look for any wind to get into your sails. It's probably all bullshit.

I'll take a wild guess and say Bush will stick to his template he's used on issues he's hostile to or doesn't really care about. In the SOTU he'll say a bunch of lines that makes it seem like he's taking bold, decisive, and drastic action to solve climate change, but in reality he will do little to nothing.

Anybody who trusts The Guardian is a fool.

Google "The Guardian Lies" - 1.3 million hits. One of the first hits is an interesting article by Alan Dershowitz about a story in The Guardian.

Anyone who trusts Frequency Kenneth on media criticism is an even bigger fool :)

oBo

Given Bush's startling ineptitude and the GOP's basic corruptibility, I'd really rather not have this administration trying to come up with any large scale response. Remember Medicare Part D? Remember No Child Left Behind? It would be something along those lines.

Georgie boy, don't be doing us no favors.

If Dubya really wants to do something in this area, how about firing most of his EPA industry-friendly appointments? How about eliminating all those subtle rule changes to weaken environmental enforcement? If he really wants to help here, that'd be the place to start, not with some grand implausible program a la the Mars mission.

killjoy said: I'll take a wild guess and say Bush will stick to his template he's used on issues he's hostile to or doesn't really care about. In the SOTU he'll say a bunch of lines that makes it seem like he's taking bold, decisive, and drastic action to solve climate change, but in reality he will do little to nothing.

You're exactly right. I'm still waiting for the mission to Mars, the moon, and the hydrogen powered cars he talked about in years past.

I'm just glad to see the terms of the debate changing ... I expect *nothing* from Bush himself -- but this will give holoc-- er, global warming deniers that much less *cough, choke* breathing space.

And that, overall, is a good thing.

Bob

Let me guess.

Switchgrass ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells? Millions of dollars more for alternative energy research?

As alternative energy vehicles stand up, fossil fuel vehicles will stand down?

Paying oil companies for the CO2 injections they already conduct to enhance oil recovery in depleted reservoirs?

"conservation is a personal virtue" bumper stickers?

Of course, he could vigorously frame it in terms of national security and propose some national goals ... but I doubt we're gonna see many prime-time piggies flying out of his butt, either ...

This is one issue that the Moustache of Understanding (I *love* that name) is *dead right* about.

Bob

The Guardian did mess up an interview last year with Noam Chomsky. Their edits made it appear as if Noam denied certain historical genocides.

To their credit they apologized and retracted the article.

The Guardian?

It's the Washington Times of the UK

maccabee:

Where do you get *that* from? The Guardian is owned by a large charitable trust.

It also has a fairly strong reputation as a voice of the center-left.

Bob

Who knows, the dude might follow through on this one. Weirder shit has gone down.

Add to the Bush change of heart, the recent meetings of Exxon-Mobil with environmentalists and their reported disavowal of global warming skeptics. I'd say the conversion of neither Bush nor Exxon-Mobil is voluntary, but the practical acknowledgement that the world has moved beyond them. After all, Frank Luntz, Pat Robertson, millions of evangelical Christian environmentalists, and multiple corporations who have finally figured out that the coming change wasn't going to be good on their bottom line make it hard for Bush to hold on to the fantasy that we can wait until every study and scientist 100 years from now agree that human causes of global warming are indisputable.

You can bet that if we didn't have such warm weather in the Eastern US last month and early this month that there would be a lot less interest in this. Never mind that global warming is about considerably longer trends than any particular season's weather, and about planetary, not local, temperatures. It's politics -- the warm weather has gotten people talking about GW who wouldn't know a greenhouse gas if it bubbled out of their drink.

Color me massively skeptical.

Results 1 - 10 of about 117 from washingtonmonthly.com for color-me -comment.on

This construction was too precious the first time. Move on, writer.

If you want a clue as to what to what to expect from SOTU, have a look at how Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, handled his own greenhouse about-turn speech recently. Grudging recognition that climate may be shifting, and a few vague measures that basically amount to 'more of the same'- a committe or two, more research, and assistance to the big end of town. No changes to energy markets to shift consumer behaviour, efficiency measures or mandated renewables targets. As John Howard seems to have got away with this approach, it's likely to set a model for GWB.

And gee, don't some people hate the Guardian- wouldn't be because its predictions on Iraq have proven correct, would it?

Start with an assumption that GWB is fundamentally a stooge for Texas oil interests. Then, crank in the knowledge that oil interests are acknowledging global warming. It follows that GWB--a man who has never figured things out for himself-- will finally acknowledge that global warming is happening.

He'll advocate a conservative, free market approach to global warming. Perhaps a voluntary "cap on emissions," making the tax cuts permanent and attacking Iran.

Let me guess.

Switchgrass ethanol and hydrogen fuel cells? Millions of dollars more for alternative energy research?

As alternative energy vehicles stand up, fossil fuel vehicles will stand down?

Paying oil companies for the fuyinji injections they already conduct to fuyinji recovery in depleted reservoirs?

"conservation is a personal virtue" bumper stickers?

Frequency Kenneth, i did Google "The Guardian Lies" as you suggested, and I came up with nearly a million hits that had more to do with the crap movie "The Guardian" than with the newspaper of the same name. In fact, I couldn't see one relevant post that wasn't written by a wingnut with an axe to grind. All the best.

Please. 'Global Warming' is out. This simplistic tag fails to adequately describe the scope and magnitude of the consequences we're facing.

The accepted usage among the scientific community is 'Global Climate Change' - whether preceded by 'Catastrophic' or not.

Re the absurd folly of corn-based ethanol:

World May Be Facing Highest Grain Prices in History
Lester R. Brown

www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2007/Update63.htm

[snip]
'If the EPI estimate is at all close to the mark, the emerging competition between cars and people for grain will likely drive world grain prices to levels never seen before.'
[snip]
'In addition, easily 200 ethanol plants were in the planning stage at the end of 2006. If these translate into construction starts between January 1 and June 30, 2007, at the same rate that plants did during the final six months of 2006, then an additional 3 billion gallons of capacity requiring 27 million more tons of grain will likely come online by September 1, 2008, the start of the 2008 harvest year. This raises the corn needed for distilleries to 139 million tons, half the 2008 harvest projected by USDA. This would yield nearly 15 billion gallons of ethanol, satisfying 6 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs. (And this estimate does not include any plants started after June 30, 2007, that would be finished in time to draw on the 2008 harvest.)

This unprecedented diversion of the world's leading grain crop to the production of fuel will affect food prices everywhere. As the world corn price rises, so too do those of wheat and rice, both because of consumer substitution among grains and because the crops compete for land. Both corn and wheat futures were already trading at 10-year highs in late 2006.

The U.S. corn crop, accounting for 40 percent of the global harvest and supplying 70 percent of the world's corn exports, looms large in the world food economy. Annual U.S. corn exports of some 55 million tons account for nearly one fourth of world grain exports. The corn harvest of Iowa alone, which edges out Illinois as the leading producer, exceeds the entire grain harvest of Canada. Substantially reducing this export flow would send shock waves throughout the world economy.'
[snip]
'With corn supplies tightening fast, rising prices will affect not only products made directly from corn, such as breakfast cereals, but also those produced using corn, including milk, eggs, cheese, butter, poultry, pork, beef, yogurt, and ice cream.'
[snip]
'They also argue that the U.S. distillery demand for corn can be met by expanding land in corn, mostly at the expense of soybeans, and by raising yields. While it is true that the corn crop can be expanded, there is no precedent for growth on the scale needed. And this soaring demand for corn comes when world grain production has fallen below consumption in six of the last seven years, dropping grain stocks to their lowest level in 34 years.

From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive demand for fuel is insatiable. The grain it takes to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol just once will feed one person for a whole year. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest to ethanol would satisfy only 16 percent of U.S. auto fuel needs.

The competition for grain between the world's 800 million motorists who want to maintain their mobility and its 2 billion poorest people who are simply trying to survive is emerging as an epic issue. Soaring food prices could lead to urban food riots in scores of lower-income countries that rely on grain imports, such as Indonesia, Egypt, Algeria, Nigeria, and Mexico. The resulting political instability could in turn disrupt global economic progress, directly affecting all countries.'
[snip]

author is Lester R. Brown is President of the Earth Policy Institute

MsNThrope:

I *knew* there was a reason I always broke out in assymmetric shudders whenever rdw when off on another of his ethanol tears ...

Cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass of *gasp* industrial hemp is really the only way to go.

BTW, on the subject of your moniker, have you ever read Florence King's With Charity Towards None, her amusing survey of misanthropy and misanthropes?

Great takes on Dian Fossey (she of the gorillas), Ayn Rand, Ty Cobb, Irving Berlin, Celine and Ambrose Bierce, among others ...

Bob

of *gasp* = or *gasp*

The future (if indeed there is an industrial future) belongs to not burning bioproducts- not wood, charcoal, coal, oil, natural gas, ethanol or anything else. It belongs to renewables and to improved capacities in things like fusion power. All the rest is just getting us to a post-carbon civilization. If the market decides the time to switch as opposed to reason we could well drive over the cliff.

You suppose that Bush will acknowledge the earth is not flat soon, as well?

Ah, Kevin.

Still voicing that "global warming" canard, eh. So what do you think? US should join Kyo-NO? Europe and Japan can't even meet their Kyoto obligations. Its a pipe dream.

Now you want to economically hamstring the US with huge socialistic command controls to ration gasoline? You guys are nuts.

The fact is that there is a lot of uncertainty about global warming. The climate has changed throughout the earth's history. Were there dinosaurs emitting CO2 back in the day? Plus, it was even warmer during the Middel Ages.

Global Warming is likely a huge boondoggle. Climatologists have discovered it's a cash cow, and are pushing this onto all the media outlets to up their grant monies and fame.

America needs cheap oil to continue its high standard of living. No wonder you want to take that away.

"Remember how last year we were addicted to oil?Remember the sweeping changes Bush proposed to deal with that? Me neither." - Kevin

Let me remind you of a few:
$10 billion spent on reasearch including $250 million on bioenergy.

$3400 tax credit on the purchase of a hybrid vehicle

A 10 cent per gallon tax credit on ethanol fuel use which resulted in a 1.6 billion gallon increase in ethanol fuel

100 Etahnol refineries now operating with 40 more coming on line between 2007 and 2008

900 stations now selling E85.

Just FYI

egbert the brain damaged kitten:

"Middel Ages ... "

*snickering helplessly*

Bob

Jay:

Read MsNThrope's (duly sourced) post above.

Ethanol from corn isn't remotely the answer ...

Bob

I am confused. The environment is evil I hate clean air, but Bush might be supporting it. Must support everything the jackass proposes. I am entering a time-space loop or something. My head hurts. But I should make a statement on this...

AL---"No Comment!"

"Ethanol from corn isn't remotely the answer ..." - rmck1

Did I say it was THE answer?
I merely pointed out some real progress made in the last year to address our reliance on oil that Kevin was unable to find.

Revamping our economy to be more dependent on renewable energy sources will take decades, this is just one years progress, and it takes someone completely partisan to not acknowledge that fact.

Jay:

Did you read what MsNThrope posted?

Ethanol from corn is *counterproductive*.

Bob

I don't expect Bush to do much to fight global warming. But if he commits to caps in his SOTU, I also don't expect him to stop congressional action on the matter either. He may water it down--I expect him to, in fact--but he won't stop something from getting in place. And I think getting things started now is more important than waiting a few years for the perfect plan, which isn't going to be perfect then, either.

allen claxton:

I essentially agree. I think the symbolic value of Bush dropping his insistence that the jury's out and we have to continue to study it (the position which egbert's post serves as an apt caracature of) is extremely important in itself.

It just strips away that much cover from energy-state GOP legislators ...

Bob

Jay -

Where are you getting that figure of $10B for energy research?

I know Bush proposed to increase that budget to about $7B for 2007, but that would be getting back up to where it was 25 years ago. Not all that figure is geared toward fighting Global Warming.

Also, many states had hybrid tax breaks in place before last year.

I think your list is a lot less impressive than you're trying to make it sound. We need to get much more aggressive on this issue.

The big news this week was that Exxon was going to stop funding all the anti global warming groups that were really nothing but a front for Exxon.

They have given up. All the money is drying up for the fake scientists, so there will be less of a media interest in contacting Exxon backed "scientists" for balance.

Ethanol does decrease CO and hydrocarbon emissions significantly and therefore improves air quality in urban areas. It's also one of the few automobile fuels that allows us to forget about global environmental problems when properly imbibed.

In comparison to other oxidant additives (like MTBE) it is not easily recognized as an anthropogenic contaminant in surface water and groundwater. This increases the effective life of gasoline storage tanks before replacement.

that should be "safely forget"

As far as symbolic gestures go, I'd be thrilled if all the presidential as-large-as-possible SUVs went to the crusher. We drive too damn much, in cars that are too damn large. I think it's interesting that we have turned walking and cycling into things to do for exercise, but not for transportation.

On the other hand, Bush is not exactly the poster child for safe cycling; he's had what, 2, or 3 publicized scrapes in six years? (Or am I counting the Segway mishap as a bicycle wreck?)

B:

Don't get me wrong; I have no problem with ethanol as a fuel *per se*. The best thing about the current ag-state ethanol subsidies is that it will at least force our car manufactures to start offering flex-fuel vehicles, and that needs to happen pronto. I have little problem with Brazil's sugar cane ethanol program.

But the problem with corn is that 1) it's a monoculture which therefore requres irrigation and lots of petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticides to grow, and 2) that it's a food crop, the widespread use of which in fuel is going to drive up world grain prices.

We need some crash programs to efficiently harvest switchgrass, which is a weed-like grass which grows virtually anywhere with little cultivation required. Industrial hemp is also an ideal cellulosic crop for ethanol production.

Bob

He can say whatever's politically helpful to him now, having already essentially accomplished his real goal, which was to make sure nothing significant happened on the issue during his eight years in office. Keep talking, keep researching, keep doing nothing...

That's the whole idea of Luntz's "climate change" framing and the deniers' tobacco-company-style "there's no proof" FUD. They know they can't avoid the issue forever, but they can delay as long as possible, while the profits keep rolling in for a few more quarters, a few more years... and by then, it'll probably be someone else's problem anyhow.

Maybe, just maybe, we are now reaching that next stage, where Philip Morris finally admits that cigarette smoking causes cancer... (Meanwhile, they can let the Democrats fight amongst themselves. OK, you guys believe in global warming so much, YOU take on Detroit and John Dingell, and call me when you're done...)

Of course, the delay makes it a much bigger problem, and much harder to solve. But when have Bush & Co. ever cared about that?

Another sign that Bush is losing it. I wonder if he'll find a text in Revelation to justify his new stand.

Not all energy state senators are Republicans. The two Dems from Montana, for instance, are pushing hard for coal burning technology that would sequester the CO2. One way to do this is to mix the gas with water and pump it into the underground layers formerly permeated with oil and natural gas, now depleted.

In effect, this creates underground soda pop bottles. You cap the bottles, if necessary, with ground freezing techniques. It turns out to be remarkably inexpensive to keep deep layers frozen once they solidify.

By far the cheapest way to sequester a lot of CO2, however, is to encourage the Chinese and the Mongolians to keep kicking up a lot of dust with their agriculture and livestock. Dust contains iron, which falls out over oceans and greatly fertilizes algae, the bottom rung of the food chain, to mix metaphors. The only problem is that the Southern hemisphere oceans are the ones really starved for iron but Australia and South Africa are practically the only nations down there kicking up any dust.

Beyond that, Bush may be "getting religion" on the man-caused global warming thing so late in the day because he mainly wants to cut petroleum imports and cushion the day when the Middle East blows totally to hell. Unilateral American cuts in consumption, even the most severe, are unlikely to slow very much the global growth in demand for petroleum.

And beyond that, not all the world's climatologists, especially in Russia and China, believe the "man-caused" warming dogma in the first place. The analogy is fitting to the dramatic cuts in production and release of CFC's, which were touted as the sole cause of Antarctica's famous ozone hole. The level of CFC's found in the upper atmosphere has plummeted dramatically in recent years.

But the ozone hole is still with us, acting about like it always did since we first started paying attention to it in the 1970's. Likely cause--the hole had nothing to do with CFC's in the first place, despite all the fine theory. CFC's may genuinely be a threat to ozone, but the hole we were looking at may not have been an effect of CFC's as much as other factors, like cooler stratospheric temperatures, which were also being measured until the dogmatists started fiddling with the data because they didn't like what it showed.

Climates normally vary, a lot. The claimed global temperature rises of the last century are not at all out of the pattern of other periods of "global warming" that have taken place for unknown reasons for thousands of times.

While here in Seattle in 2006 Al Gore promised us that global warming would soon bring us heat and drought. What we have been getting is record rain and near-record cold. Go figure.

Mike Cook:

Lovely morning to you. Ever so nice to hear a self-professed defender of Intelligent Design lecture us all about all those nasty scientific "dogmatists" out there ...

Takes one to know one, I guess :)

Other than that, interesting stuff about iron in dust which serves to fertilize ocean algae. Didn't know that ...

Bob

Damn, this Allan Holdsworth CD is beautiful ... The Sixteen Men of Tain, from last year. Every record he makes just keeps getting a little more profound and poignant.

The title refers to North English scotch making.

Bob

he's going according to his script

all these sudden mea culpas will ameliorate the long term impression that he acted against the best advice of others

he's had what, 2, or 3 publicized scrapes in six years?

Just to prove I have nothing better to do, I count 5 scrapes, 3 of them bicycle related.

January 2002-pretzel
June 2003-segway
May 2004-bicycle, steep incline at ranch
July 2004-bicycle, flips over handlebars on bicycle ride with AP reporter at ranch
July 2005-bicycle, collides with police at G8 while trying to wave

But these are just the ones where he injured his face or had an accident with a reporter present.

In 2006 Cheney shot a friend in the face and a mishap prone Presidential trip to Hawaii included 2 motorcycle accidents in the motorcade, 1 dead police officer, three injured police officers, and an aid hospitalized from injuries sustained in a mugging.

"Ever so nice to hear a self-professed defender of Intelligent Design lecture us all about all those nasty scientific "dogmatists" out there ...

Takes one to know one, I guess :)" - rmck1

You'll notice Mike that they are unable to refute your assertions (ie: climatologists of Russia and China and the global demand for petroleum) so they take personal shots. It's the Democratic way.

Have we yet to hear the apologies from this group extended towards the Duke LaCrosse players?

B:

Book 'em Danno -- Christ on a crutch.

Bob

Jay:

Who here has said Word One about the Duke Lacrosse players?

Sheesh, you should move to the southern hemisphere. Maybe all that dust you're kicking up would help the depleted ocean algae.

Bob

Bob, I found a blurb in Science Daily from 2003. Biologists from the Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research have demonstrated that desert dust promotes the growth of algae.

They published in a psychology journal. Make of that what you will. I would not deign to comment in specifics on a scientific study without hard-copy of the original study and peer review findings; and margin notes.

Bob,

The comment above on ethanol included some deadpan humor. I agree that we can't simply grow our way out of our problems if we insist on dragging 250 million 2 ton chunks of steel around everywhere we go.

I didn't think it sounded quite right to be tickled about algae growth in our overfished oceans, and I was right. Iron-rich desert dust leads to algae blooms and fish kills.

that's the journal of phycology (study of algae).

(*blushing and going to make coffee*)

Globe:

Well, algae is a chlorophyllic (right word ?) organism, so it *will* sequester atmospheric CO2, at the expense of fish or no ...

Which only goes to show ya once again -- the environment is an interdependent system.

Bob

It doesn't really matter what Bush "thinks" on the issue. He can no more take effective action on carbon emissions than Nouri al-Maliki can crack down on Shiite militias. The people who put him and keep him in power don't want it. Any Bush initiative towards a carbon tax or emissions trading would make it no more than two doors down the hall before being dirempted into a study group on potential legislation seconded to an independent commission staffed largely by oil-industry appointees, eventually resulting in a recommendation for a voluntary program to encourage schoolchildren to plant more trees.

brooksfoe:

The way you put that made me laff ...

Although the essence of what you're saying is about as funny as malignant melanoma.

Bob

Well, then we have to get into the difference between biologic carbon and geologic carbon, and I have already demonstrated that four hours sleep and no coffee, with eyelids that feel like sandpaper do not render me fit to get into it.

I'm flipping back and forth from the online classroom so I'm otherwise occupied, but I have made a mental note about pursuing this further at another time.

But before popping out again: Cattle production is an environmental nightmare. Cow waste kills streams, it takes a thousand gallons + of potable water to produce one pound of meat. Cattle erode topsoil and create silt runoff into waterways. Advocating more livestock production is insanity.

Those climate scientists and their rock-star lives. Carted from one palatial conference to another in limosines and private jets. Rubbing their hands together, thinking "Man, this is better than selling dope." All their Nobel bling around their neck, beautiful RA's in skimpy camp short wiggling their butts in time to the music. Ah, fame and respect is wonderful, no wonder why BUSHchump wants to get aboard.

Neal:

"Nobel bling ... skimpy camp shorts ... "

Man, if I had a cuppa cawfee, it'd be all *over* the monitor right now.

What a fucking hysterical riff on eggplant the brain damaged kitty's post :)

Bob

jay: It's the Democratic way.

"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee." --Conservative commentator Ann Coulter

mike cook: near-record cold.

Last year was the warmest in the continental U-S in the past 112-years, according to the government's National Climatic Data Center. - Wash. Post 1/10/07

I can't take anyone serious who points to a season in a region and says "See? You guys are wrong!"

It just begins from a point of such abject ignorance I can't dumb-it down enough to reach them.

It was 72 here last week -- the highest temperature ever recorded for that day in January in this neck of the words. Or *any* day in January, no doubt.

Bob

Not that that's prima facie proof of global warming or anything, but just sayin' ...

Bob

bg,rs: It just begins from a point of such abject ignorance I can't dumb-it down enough to reach them.

true dat..

"...It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins..." - Benjamin Franklin

neck of the words ... cute Freudian typo. I guess on a blog, that would be true, wherever you reside in physical space :)

Bob

Can't refute any of my points, so you just issue adhoms.

Mike Cook had a very instructive post above, and NO ONE addressed his points.

Nice echo chainber you got around here.

This is bullshit. Bush is only going to say some words that he thinks will help his legacy. Next thing you know, he will be calling himself the "Green President."

egbert:

There's nothing to say. First of all Mike -- silly as he can be sometimes -- has a science education and doesn't reject global warming out of hand the way you do.

Secondly, *Bush* is, as Mike says, "getting religion" on the issue. He's going to talk about it in the SOTU. That means no more "global warming needs more study" talk. You know -- all the crap in your ridiculous post, the president himself is going to refute.

Third, if you don't wish your posts to have us in hysterics, try a modicum of proofreading.

You can do better than "Middel Ages," for crying out loud. That was almost as good as "dignaty" the other day :)

Bob

We could much more easily and efficiently grow hemp for biodiesel than we could corn for gasahol, but political interests are in the way. Hemp is cheaper to grow, low maintainence, etc. Check out http://www.hempcar.org/. I rode in the Hemp Car a few years ago, and it ran very well.

egbert:

"Echo chainber???"

*rolling eyes, snickering s'more*

Bob

Algae are photoautotrophs and do convert atmospheric CO2 and/or disolved HCO3- into organic carbon. This is the first step in carbon sequestration (the organic carbon still has to find it's way into the deep ocean and into sediments before being converted back into CO2.

In moderation, a flux of nutrients is also a good thing for fish. However, under eutrophic conditions algal blooms can overload the system with organic matter resulting in enough microbial decay to cause oxygen depletion. In addition, blooms of particular algae can load the water with toxic secondary products (i.e. the vertebrate nerve toxins of dinoflagellates) that wipe out the fish before oxygen is depleted.

Algal response to nutrient inputs depend upon the environmental setting. Generally, dead zones related to oxygen depletion lie along continental margins where windshear-related upwelling and nutrient laden rivers have the largest effect. Toxic algal blooms are tied to the ecology of specific species of dinoflaggelates and haptophytes and are more localized along continental margins.

The first paper Globe referenced focused on cold oligotrophic high latitude settings where increased algal productivity has minimal negative impacts on fish and people. Research on ocean fertilization for the purpose of carbon sequestration generally focuses on regions which currently have very low algal productivity. I think the newer research shows that such on operation would be fairly complex and could not achieve the amazing results researchers once thought.

BTW, if you want to keep track of global warming you should be looking at record high minimum temperatures and a decreasing diurnal temperature range. This is where the largest changes have occurred in the developing instrumental record. Greenhouse gases inhibit radiant cooling at night and should make cloud free nights significantly warmer if you live long enough.

egbert is the trailer park version of al...

without the wheels..

Global - You are not advocating that I forego that giant New York Strip that my wife is thawing for dinner tonight are you? I may need some of that glue that was being discussed last night...

Unpleasant facts:

1) Our current economic system is based on 'structural over-consumption'.

2) Due to 'legacy' genetic programming and the domination of religous systems we are also in a state of 'structural over-population'.

Any increased effeciencies in 'small-scope' issues like CO2 emissions are ultimately doomed unless numbers 1 and 2 are addressed.

3) Due to the 'structural' nature of problems 1 and 2, they cannot be addressed.

The result is that the 'big issues' will only be addressed by catastrophic events... likely to come in the fairly near future.
Bummer, that.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I do embrace the "slow food" philosophy.

Color me massively skeptical

Me too, but the only good thing about ideologues is that their “beliefs” rest upon sand, thus there is always the possibility that they will suddenly shift abruptly toward a more sensible approach.

I agree with those commenters above who note that Bush is not likely to shift dramatically (Phlip, yes, it’s probably all politics) but if he becomes less of an impediment, that will be something. We need so badly to start doing more right now.

I recently purchased a copy of An Inconvenient Truth to pass around to people who would at least be willing to watch it. The movie is not perfect, of course, but it does attempt to focus on science. I applaud every such effort.

It's part of our trip to Mars. Remember that? Bush wants to combat global warming on Mars.

B:

Thanks for answering my question; that was quite informative.

Bob

craigie: Bush wants to combat global warming on Mars.

i thought that's where the wmd's were?

I rode in the Hemp Car a few years ago, and it ran very well.

Paah, the Hemp Car is old technology! Cheech & Chong had one in "Up in Smoke" back in the '70s.

As for Bush--What do they say, Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me 400 times, I'm a fucking idiot.

Red Girl--
Your comments concerning cattle production are on the mark if you accept the idea that beef must be produced using the industrial feedlot business plan presently in use. On the other hand, if beef production went backwards and a more organic business plan is followed, the environmental damage is much less. This would mean fattening cattle on grass, reducing chemical inputs into the 'finishing process' for beef cattle, and higher prices for beef. On the plus side, it would mean that more beef would be produced locally by real family farmers instead of agri-business and consumers would be able to eat a steak without wondering how much damage that T-bone had done to the environment. This holds true for much of our nation's current food production plan: we are conditioned to believe that the corporations that now control agricultural production have the consumer's best interest at heart. Truth is that they live on government subsidities which squeeze small local producers out of the market. We're left with frankenfoods, an ongoing demise of family farms, and over twenty billion in subsidities to corporate agriculture. I think you've mentioned buffalo burgers in previous posts--not a bad idea really--buffalo don't take kindly to being stuffed into feedlots. Maybe what we need are some cows with the same independant spirit...closing those industrial feedlots would be step one in reducing pollution caused by agriculture.

Yesterday, poor Mike Cook, the rdw of the Northwest, was lamenting that he was out of work. However, his efforts with the Federal Way School Board, in his area south of Seattle, must have paid off. They have suspended any showing of "Inconvienent Truth" in any school within their district on the grounds that it would be "too controversial".

Good work for ignorance, Mike C. Still surprised that you received even one vote in your district - Must have had all the school board votes rolled into one.

sparky - Thanks for your post on the relative methods of cattle production and you are right. Here in Phoenix, there are several stores that sell certified free range beef. My guess is that this is the case in most locales. This type of husbandry effectively returns the cattle production cycle to normal evolutionary food chain status. Not completely of course, due to the fact that the herd density will, by necessity, result in some overgrazing; but this can be substantially overcome by advanced and intelligent ground planting. The added bonus is that the meat is far superior. The downside is the significantly higher cost; but that is appropriate as a regulation on a finite resource. I would not want to speak for Global, or the others here, but my guess is that this model may more comport with her point of view. It makes the purchase more difficult, due to limited purchase point stores and at a higher cost, but if everybody bought only free range beef, and demanded that their local stores sell the same, a lot of progress could be made. The poulous has the power, we have to exercise it.

I'm skeptical we'll see real change as well. BUT, Bush needs a massive shift in the conversation; he's needs to take some of the focus off Iraq. If he did make this his signature issue, that would be motivation. "lookie over there. A bright shiny object!"

"Poulous" should read "populous" in last post. Got to get new glasses, lasik or some kind of eye relief...

Freder Frederson: I know, it is fun to make fun of a hemp-powered car, but: in serious terms, it works very well and the whole project would be great for the environment.

Hasn't Bush proposed some sort of alternative fuel measure in *every* SOTU? Swatting at the flies of global warming ain't gonna cut it Mr. Bush. Call me a skeptic but he's just playing dress-up, He's a War President, He's a Space (off to Mars bitches!) President, He's an Environment President, etc.

Hemp powered cars - Not to mention idling on Lover's Lane" while inhaling the exhaust.

And to all of you Archer-Midland-Daniels folk, your checks will be electronically transferred.

Fighting global warming involves both building a broad based political coalition involving hunters as well as providing answers that will solve the problem without damaging the economy, such as giving tax credits to gas stations to place E85 ethanol pumps and to states and cities to build nuclear power plants. An international treaty may work to bring down global emissions, but the flaws of the Kyoto Treaty, such as its failure to include any emissions cuts from China, the number two polluter of the globe, must be addressed.

At the mere mention of the Kyoto Treaty, a Klaxon horn has sounded somewhere in Chester County, PA - Schaife has alerted their operative on Drexel Hill to provide his obfuscatory commentary once again - Dimwit, rises from his Bed of Ignorance and stumbles and bumbles towards the keyboard - Don't forget Eurabia and Clinton, woot.

I'm guessing my car could run pretty strong on Colombian Gold or some decent Thai stick, but it would probably forget where it was going and have to stop frequently because of the munchies...

Paul! You go turn three circles and say "netoow eb enog" on each revolution. The last thing we need on a serious discussion thread is his spamming the thread with his feedback loop and telling us global climate shift is actually desirable because his heating bill is low this winter and supply side will save us anyway.

Isn't he getting dangerously close to "charlie" territory?

By that I mean, I just prefer the threads readable, that's all.

BGRS,

That banning of "An Inconvienent Truth" by the Federal Way School Board was in the Seattle papers. The Times and the P/I. Wouldn't want the kiddos to learn anything at school, when they can receive all they need to know from MTV at home. This sounds like one of those Pat Robertson school boards. Remember after his run for President, he decided to use Ralph Reed and build a grass roots by going after the take over of school boards?

Egbert,

Global Warming is likely a huge boondoggle. Climatologists have discovered it's a cash cow, and are pushing this onto all the media outlets to up their grant monies and fame.

So tell me Eggs, how many actual climatologists have you spoken with on the issue? Being married to one, I can tell, without reservation, these people take the issue very seriously.

Go out, talk to a few (its pretty easy via email and lots of them love to engage in conversation in the topic) then get back to us.

Until then, quit proudly displaying your absolute ignorance on the issue. It is quite clear you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Notwithstanding the stupidity of asking the Chinese and Mongolians to kick up dust to feed the algae - That dust is bringing increased levels of Mercury to the Pacific Northwest. Our cities rely on snowfall in the winter to provide runoff for our reservoirs. We really need more Mercury in our snow and rainfalls.

sorry, hit post too soon.

The climate has changed throughout the earth's history. Were there dinosaurs emitting CO2 back in the day? Plus, it was even warmer during the Middel Ages.

Why, oh why would anyone display their absolute, complete and willful ignorance on an issue so proudly?

Seriously bro, its time to get educated feel free to drop me a line, I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

For now, start atRealClimate.org

If you think that climate research is the way to fame and fortune, our family would be more than happy to swap salaries with yours any day of the week. :)

Forgive me for ignoring Mike Cook's post above. I only got as far as his livestock dust kicking theory of asian sandstorms. I do have a few comments on his later statements.

The analogy is fitting to the dramatic cuts in production and release of CFC's, which were touted as the sole cause of Antarctica's famous ozone hole. The level of CFC's found in the upper atmosphere has plummeted dramatically in recent years.

Effective equivalent chlorine in the atmosphere has "plummeted" about 7% since it began dropping in 1994. Some compounds with short half lives (trichloroethane) have dropped dramatically. Others like CFC-12, CCl4, and CBrClF2 have remained fairly constant or have continued to increase slowly. Replacement refrigerants (HCFC's) have increased significantly. They have a short half life but they still carry Cl to the stratosphere.

But the ozone hole is still with us, acting about like it always did since we first started paying attention to it in the 1970's. Likely cause--the hole had nothing to do with CFC's in the first place, despite all the fine theory. CFC's may genuinely be a threat to ozone, but the hole we were looking at may not have been an effect of CFC's as much as other factors, like cooler stratospheric temperatures, which were also being measured until the dogmatists started fiddling with the data because they didn't like what it showed.

Ozone depletion has actually largely stabilized (compared to rapid drops in the 1970's and 1980's) and is expected to slowly gain ground through the end of this century. A drop in the 1990's is attributed to the introduction of 30 million tons of aerosols into the stratosphere by Mount Pinatubo. These particles provide sites for the surface catalyzed destruction of ozone at high latitudes. Yes, stratospheric cooling (predicted to increase due to the action of greenhouse gases) could increase ozone depletion.

The causes of ozone depletion are not controversial. We are just still in a period of generally low ozone due to anthropogenic chemical production. Stratospheric weather patterns will result in variable ozone depletion from each winter to the next and the system will be quite susceptible to volcanic injections of aerosols for the next 50 to 100 years. A Tambora sized eruption during this period could cause a lot of problems.

The earth is a series of interrelated ecosystems and of course there are subtle shifts over time. True, cycles of cooling and warming have occured in the past. The difference is the rate of change as it is currently being experienced and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is unprecedented. And we have the ice core samples to prove it.

Feh.

Paul, the dust is actually pretty clean and comes from the gobi desert (the only role livestock play is eating too many plants and exposing soil/causing desertification). It's the primary source of phosphate for the older soils on Hawaii.

The mercury starts it's journey in a gas state and comes from chinese industry.

Both provide Oregon with nice sunsets but I think they might not peak during the same time of year.

GW will admit its a problem just before he leaves office; after he and Dicko have filled there trust funds the past 8 years, better to leave their 'made no sacrifice in Iraq' children tax-free. Wouldn't want them to have to pay for any of the occupation...

egbert wrote:
> The fact is that there is a lot of uncertainty
> about global warming. The climate has changed
> throughout the earth's history. Were there
> dinosaurs emitting CO2 back in the day? Plus, it > was even warmer during the Middel Ages.

In fact, climatologists have painstakingly calculated the "forces" that control climate. They are detailed in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, v1 ch6 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm).

These calculations show that anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing is the largest factor driving today's climate.

Egbert, are there calculations here with which you disagree? If so, please present your disagreements, and please provide your own calculations and numerical results for all of the climate forcings.

I'm sure you are able to do this, since you seem so sure that climate science is "uncertain."

---will now agree a cap on emissions in the US

Oh yeah, the "cap policy", whereby companies trade in order to keep right on with global warming emissions.

The cap policy is a Repug deal for big oil that is EXACTLY like all the other deals for Big Pharma, Big Oil and the Bush’s stupid Social Security privatization schemes.

In other words the "cap policy" is a crap policy SO WHY WOULDN'T BUSH WANT THE CAP POLICY? ExxonMobil came up with cap policy, why wouldn't Bush just love it.

AND Kevin Drums knows this, WHY wouldn't Bush okay the Kevin? The cap policy is just another corporate giveaway just like every other policy that comes out of Repug/GOP government. Its not designed to help anyone out but BIG OIL.

Don't play stupid with us Kevin.

The cap policy is not intended to help global warming -NOPE, just another bunch of BS, and its why Bush seem concerned with Polar Bears, PLEAZZZE, only you know he's not really concerned at all with Polar Bears. Bush only talks out of his ass, everyone knows that.

Bush has shit to sell and Kevin wants to buy it.

James E.Hansen, top NASA scientist, who has been with NASA since 1967, said that the Bush administration tried to stop him from speaking out since he gave a lecture in 12/05 calling for prompt reductions in greenhouse gases linked to global warming and cited clear-cut dangers from delay in curbing carbon dioxide.
He said he was warned of "dire consequences" of such statements after giving a speech at the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco 12/6/05, and after releasing data showing 2005 as the warmest year in a century.

P.S. I found an impressive looking home page for the Bush administration environmental record at cooperativeresearch.org

Fact: All of the sound scientific data points to anthropogenic climate change. Not one singe peer-reviewed article casting doubt. Not One.

after releasing data showing 2005 as the warmest year in a century.

Ha! I caught you guys at it again. The other day you said 2006 was the warmest year on record. And a while back you said it was 1998. Next year you'll say it was 2007.

Can't keep your story straight. Flip floppity, flip flop flap.

I should have known Globe would be on one of her favourite hobbyhorses : Secular Animist take note.
The faux BSE scare has taken range fed beef from north of the border off the market. I think of Alberta as Texas North : the numbers of cattle destroyed and farms/ranches likewise has been incredible.
While the corn subsidy is a known train wreck ( do you have any idea how much ethanol Brazil could supply from cane ? ) there are other things to consider.
http://www.ev1.org/ posts a note on Chevron's purchase of battery tech that would make electric vehicles much more practical ( it's more than halfway down the page ). That patent cost Toyota a bunch in U.S. courts which found them in violation : and halted their production of electric vehicles.
http://ergosphere's January post deals with the corn debacle. Much more interesting is the Nov 25 post which outlines a system to wean the U.S. away from oil.

Sorry. That's http://ergosphere.blogspot.com/

Oh god - don't get me started on corn...What an environmental nightmare that crop is. It depletes soil and requires chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides that cause waterway killing runoff. It has a shallow root system so it is detrimental to top soil. It is energy intensive to plant, pamper along and harvest.

sock puppet: It was back in December, '05 and January, 06 that the acclaimed scientist reported 2005 as warmest in a century. You just blow by the facts, right? There is new information in January, 07. You didn't catch me at all.

1998 was the warmest on record. Until a subsequent year broke the record. And so on and so forth. Duh.

What I meant to say is corn is one of the largest-footprint crops.

You guys know your arguing with a sock-puppet, right?

Book recommendation on this subject: The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon.

Another book recommendation: Ice by Mariana Gosnell.

...Bush is about to get religion on global warming..

I took little_grape to DC over the holidays. Kinda hard to Dubya to deny temperatures are rising when the trees on the White House lawn are beginning to bud.

from 4/06 by Juliet Eilperin: Employees working for the Nat'l Oceanic Atmosphere Admin.
along with a US Geological Survey Scientist working with a NOAA lab,
said in interviews over the past year that Bush administration officials have chastised them
for speaking on policy questions, removed references to global warming from their reports,
news releases, and conference web sites, investigated news leaks and sometimes urged them
to stop speaking to the media altogether.
Research scientists say they are required to clear all media requests--something they did not have to do before 2004.

Yeah, you'll all be laughing when Bush makes his next SOTU from Mars, bitches.

If I thought there was a prayer of exiling the little moron to Corsi - er Elba - er Mars - that's it - Mars - I would volunteer my time to work on the mission.

Can you imagine what Pauling or Asimov would have to say about the stifling of science if either of them was still alive?

Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. --Isaac Asimov

Frank Lautenberg, dem. sen. of NJ--retired now, I believe, said in Nov. 06 he was informed that the inspector generals for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun "coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration censorship
and suppression of federal research into global warming."

So that's two federal agencies looking into attempts to block government scientists from freely speaking and censoring/altering their research!

P.S. Bushgreenwatch.org seems like a good watchdog site

I'm reluctant to believe this administration has any real intent of suddenly going green. The record indicates otherwise.

n briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.

Well, I didn't close the tag properly (probably typed a ".") but the link works. Sorry for shouting in red.

I'm probably the only person here who reads the papers from World Resources Institute, but they are doing a lot of solid work in alternative energy. Check th