California Energy Commission Awards UCR $1M Grant for Waste to Synthetic Fuel Facility Using Steam Hydrogasification and Reforming Process
California Energy Commission to Hold Public Workshop on $46M+ in Grants for Biomethane, Medium-and Heavy-Duty Advanced Vehicle Technology, and Alt and Renewable Fuel Infrastructure

Copenhagen Diagnosis Released, Detailing Accelerating Indicators of Climate Change In Last Three Years

by Jack Rosebro

A team of 26 climate scientists from Australia, Austria, Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States have published the “Copenhagen Diagnosis”, an interim synthesis report on developments in climate change science from mid-2006 to the present day. The report points out that many key harbingers of climate change “are occurring at the high end or even beyond the expectations of only a few years ago."”

Although the report is not an official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document, many of its authors have served as lead authors of IPCC Assessment Reports in the past, and most of them have authored or co-authored seminal papers on climate change.

The rationale [for the report] is two-fold,” the authors explain. “First, this report serves as an interim evaluation of the evolving science midway through an IPCC cycle: IPCC’s AR5 (Fifth Assessment Report) is not due for completion until 2013.” The most recent peer-reviewed papers evaluated by the authors of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) were published in mid-2006. Work published after then will be evaluated by the IPCC during the AR5 authoring cycle, which is just getting underway.

Second, and most important, the report serves as a handbook of science updates that supplements the IPCC AR4 in time for Copenhagen in December 2009, and any national or international climate change policy negotiations that follow.” In this sense, the report models itself on the efforts of Working Group 1 in the IPCC’s Assessment Reports, presenting no new data on climate change, but instead gathering and synthesizing existing scientific literature, and noting trends that have been confirmed by multiple sources.

Recent and significant climate change findings cited in Copenhagen Diagnosis include:

Emissions. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2008 were nearly 40% higher in 2008 than in 1990. This is roughly equal to the most severe emissions scenario yet considered by the IPCC, even though that scenario (A1, Fossil Intensive) was originally calculated as a reference baseline, absent any efforts towards emission reduction such as the Kyoto Protocol.

Concurrent with increased greenhouse gas (GHG) levels—now deemed higher than at any point in time in the last 800,000 years—the ability of natural oceanic and terrestrial carbon sinks to absorb CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere appears to be deteriorating, having likely decreased by at least 5% in the past half century, although inter-annual variability is large.

The degradation of natural carbon sinks amplifies the effects of climate change,

producing the same net effect on atmospheric concentrations of GHGs as increases in greenhouse gas emissions. Some specific carbon sinks, such as the Southern Ocean, appear to be slowing their carbon uptake much more rapidly than the global average, and some natural GHG sinks may be undergoing processes which will transform them into carbon emitters.

Following a decade of relative stability, for example, the atmospheric concentration of methane (CH4), a potent greenhouse gas, began to rise inexplicably in 2007. Although deteriorating permafrost has been observed in Russia, Sweden, and Tibet, the precise source of the increase has not yet been identified.

As permafrost melts and the depth of its active layer deepens, organic material begins to decay. If the surface is covered with water, methane-producing bacteria break down the organic matter. Such bacteria cannot, however, survive in the presence of oxygen; if thawed soils are exposed to air, carbon dioxide-producing bacteria participate in the decay process. Both events amplify the effects of warming temperatures by releasing greenhouse gases. The likely magnitude of such a positive feedback, which is considered to be a potential tipping element, is unknown.

Cd-emissions
Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion, 1980-2010, as compared to baseline scenarios used by the IPCC to project business as usual emissions. Click to enlarge.

It is now estimated that if global emission rates could immediately be stabilized at present-day levels, just twenty more years of business-as-usual emissions would give a 25% probability of warming exceeding 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, even if society could achieve zero emissions after 2030.

To stabilize climate, a decarbonized global society-with near-zero emissions of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases-would now have to be reached well within this century in any case. Many of the most up-to-date emissions reduction scenarios require a decline to zero carbon or carbon negative levels by 2050 to limit warming to no more than 2 ºC.

Surface temperatures. Recent global temperatures demonstrate human-induced warming: temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.19 °C per decade for the past quarter century, in close alignment with modeled predictions based on projected greenhouse gas increases. In addition to a warming limit of 2 ºC, many scientists consider an increase of 0.20 ºC per decade to be a “rate of warming” limit beyond which many ecosystems will experience a reduced ability to adapt.

Cd-temps
Annual variability and averaged linear trend of global surface temperatures, 1980-2008. Source: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS) Click to enlarge.

Although natural, short-term fluctuations are occurring as expected—for example, temperatures were higher in 1998, the record year for temperatures so far, than in 2008—“there is no indication in the data of a slowdown or pause in the human-caused climatic warming trend” that underlies annual or decadal variability.

For example, a La Niña climate pattern was active in 2008. Such a pattern can normally can be expected to reduce average global surface temperatures. At the same time, solar output was at its lowest level of the satellite era, which would normally be expected to create another temporary cooling influence. Absent any anthropogenic warming, these two factors would typically be expected to make 2008 temperatures among the coolest since record-keeping began. However, 2008 was the ninth warmest year on record. “This underpins the strong greenhouse warming that has occurred in the atmosphere over the past century,” write the authors.

Cd-solar
Anthropogenic and solar variability influences on global temperature changes, 1980-2009, and (projected) 2009-2030. Click to enlarge.

Atmosphere. Worldwide air temperature, humidity and rainfall trend patterns now “exhibit a distinct fingerprint that cannot be explained by phenomena apart from increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations”. Atmospheric temperatures have maintained a strong warming trend since the 1970s (~0.6 °C), consistent with expectations of greenhouse induced warming. Each year of the present decade—2001 through 2008—has been among the top ten warmest years since instrumental records began.

“The 2007 IPCC Assessment... states clearly that without substantial global reductions of greenhouse gas emissions we can likely expect a world of increasing droughts, floods and species loss, of rising seas and displaced human populations. However, even since the 2007 IPCC Assessment the evidence for dangerous, long-term and potentially irreversible climate change has strengthened.”
—Met Office, UK, 24 November 2009

This week, the UK’s Met (Meteorological) Office projected that unless an exceptionally cold spell occurs within the next month, global 2009 temperatures will be higher than 2008, making 2009 one of the five warmest years since records began around 150 years ago. 2010 will bring with it the influence of El Niño ocean currents, and the Met office estimates a 50% chance that next year will see record average global temperatures.

Cryosphere. A wide array of satellite-based as well as direct ice measurements “demonstrate beyond doubt that both the Greenland and Antarctic ice-sheets are losing mass at an increasing rate.” Melting of glaciers and ice-caps in other parts of the world “has also accelerated since 1990”; and the contribution of the cryosphere—the portions of the Earth’s surface where water is frozen’to global sea-level has increased from 0.8 millimeters per year in the 1990s to 1.2 millimeters per year today. Many non-polar glaciers are critical sources of drinking water and hydropower.

Cd-cryo
Mean modeled Arctic sea-ice area, range of modeled Arctic sea-ice, and observed Arctic sea-ice area, in millions of square kilometers. Click to enlarge.

In particular, summer-time melting of Arctic sea-ice has accelerated in a manner that no climate model had predicted, with the area of sea-ice melt during 2007, 2008, and 2009 was about 40% greater than the average prediction from IPCC AR4 climate models.

Ice shelves, which connect continental ice sheets to the ocean, are also in flux, with the Antarctic Peninsula seeing 7 major collapses over the past 20 years. Shelf weakening has also been observed in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas, indicating a more widespread influence of atmospheric and oceanic warming than previously thought. The collapse of ice shelves often contributes to an accelerated destabilization of ice sheets to which the ice shelves were once attached.

Oceans. Upwards of 80% of the warming created by the emission of manmade greenhouse gases are now stored in the world’s oceans. Satellite data shows recent global average sea level rise (3.4 mm per year over the past 15 years) to be approximately 80% higher than past IPCC predictions. This acceleration is consistent with a doubling in contribution from melting of glaciers, ice caps, and the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets.

By 2100, global sea level is likely to rise at least twice as much as the Working Group 1 of the IPCC AR4 had projected just two years ago. If emissions continue to rise unabated, sea level rise may well exceed 1 meter, with an estimated upper limit of around 2 meters sea level rise, by 2100. The relative inertia of oceanic mass ensures that sea levels will continue to rise worldwide for centuries after global temperatures have been stabilized. Several meters of sea level rise must be expected over the next few centuries, regardless of any emissions reductions that may occur during that time.

Ocean acidification and de-oxygenation, both of which are amplified by warming, are also contributing to a decline in the ability of large swaths of the oceans to support marine life. The increase in heat content of the upper ocean between 1963 and 2003 is estimated to be approximately 50% higher than previously estimated, a calculation that is consistent with observed sea level rise during the same period of time.

Resilience. Recent studies suggest that the disruptive effects of climate change may be greater than anticipated at just 2 ºC of warming, and one aspect of climate change that has been particularly difficult to estimate is the ability of a given ecosystem to recover from, or adapt to, a given change in equilibrium.

More than a dozen vulnerable tipping elements in the climate system (e.g. continental ice-sheets, Amazon rainforest, West African monsoon, thermohaline ocean circulation cycle) could be pushed towards abrupt and/or irreversible change if warming continues along a business-as-usual trajectory throughout this century. Here, the authors invoke the precautionary principle: waiting for higher levels of scientific certainty could mean that “some tipping points will be crossed before they are recognized.”

At a press conference announcing the release of the report, co-author Richard Somerville of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California acknowledged the difficulty of reconciling scientifically documented trends with political goals and media chatter:

There’s an urgency to this that is not political or ideological, but scientific. There are, for example, no liberal or conservative theories of, for example, ocean circulation. There is simply a theory of ocean circulation... A Galileo comes along one every hundred years or so [to successfully challenge science], but most people who think they are Galileo are wrong.

—Richard Somerville

Resources

  • I. Allison, N. L. Bindoff, R.A. Bindoff, R.A. Bindschadler, P.M. Cox, N. de Noblet, M.H. England, J.E. Francis, N. Gruber, A.M. Haywood, D.J. Karoly, G. Kaser, C. Le Quéré, T.M. Lenton, M.E. Mann, B.I. McNeil, A.J. Pitman, S. Rahmstorf, E. Rignot, H.J. Schellnhuber, S.H. Schneider, S.C. Sherwood, R.C.J. Somerville, K.Steffen, E.J. Steig, M. Visbeck, and A.J. Weaver: The Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009: Updating The World On The Latest Climate Science. 24 November 2009: The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC), Sydney

  • Met Office: Climate Science Statement, 24 November 2009

Comments

Arne

I was wondering: did the Easter Islanders have scientists?

ejj

Uhhh what political party do Arnold Schwarzeneggar, Lindsey Graham & John McCain affiliate with? They are republican AGW believers.

arnold

ejj,
Clearly there are good or shall we say 'emotionally intelligent'(E.Q. (good book)) people in all political persuasions and countries in all walks of life. You are right that it is too simplistic to claim the moral ground based on any particular belief.

The casual observer however has to make decisions and calls on character and will naturally make personal judgements that include a persons associates.
For reasons of simplifying a super complex set of parameters. I stand and rely heavily on this first line of defence as it works well enough and life is short.

I'll say again office politics do not change the business per say. Most of us don't like the idea of infighting let alone the corruption of science. The later however will in all cases lead to career termination.
That is a very high bar seldom seen in the 'real world'.

Doesn't seem to apply to politicians and there is a community acceptance or expectation of deceptive politicians.
The expectations of the behaviour of Climate and all scientists are *note* not the same as politicians.

In that your reply didn't answer the question did any question the invasion of Iraq under a false pretense of weapons of mass destruction,(not biological) but regardless - as they didn't exist (either) on the second occasion that is after 9/11.

Can you then apply the same reasoning to after the event that is "Did anyone complain even at this late stage?"
The answer I was looking for was NO!

Well yes actually there is a high level (parliamentary) report now underway in the U.K.

Will anyone be held to account? At that level, unless the scapegoat is already chosen - NO.

Mark_BC

I haven't had a chance to go through those emails in great detail but from what I have seen they aren't very convincing for the following reasons:

-Almost all of use use hyperbole at some point when speaking in confidence. Often times I use satire in which my meaning is the complete opposite of what I wrote. Taken out of context it could be misleading.
-I'm sure there are some quite revealing emails in existence from the Bush administration and the oil industry and how it funds denier websites. They just haven't been hacked.
-Scientists are naturally going to try to shield themselves when their normal discourse of disagreement and discussion (the foundation of the scientific method), in the case of climate science, is hijacked by deniers and paraded around the blogosphere as evidence of the weakness of the evidence. No .... actually .. it's evidence of how the scientific method works.
-Some of the words used by the scientists have different meaning than the out of context emails may suggest. "Trick" is apparently a term they use for a legitimate statistical technique.
-Does it change the science? From what I have seen, not at all.

I'll look into them more though.

Mannstein

Anne:

If you question the science you're akin to a holocaust denier in some circles.

Incidentally, Greenland was once green when the Norsemen settled there and the sky didn't fall.

No pun intended.

ejj

"In that your reply didn't answer the question did any question the invasion of Iraq under a false pretense of weapons of mass destruction,(not biological) but regardless - as they didn't exist (either) on the second occasion that is after 9/11." - Arnold.

Arnold you're forgeting all about Scott Ritter. But if you go through the list of politicians whose quotes I posted (and don't forget CIA Director George "It's A Slam Dunk Mr. President" Tenet & Colin Powell), how was anyone really going stop the invasion of Iraq?

"Doesn't seem to apply to politicians and there is a community acceptance or expectation of deceptive politicians. The expectations of the behaviour of Climate and all scientists are *note* not the same as politicians." - Arnold

That remains to be seen...but there's been a good start in Australia "Climategate: five Aussie MPs lead the way by resigning in disgust over carbon tax" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

Mannstein

Anne:

If the science is so rock solid why did these "scientists" have to resort to dirty tricks to further their agenda? Do they maybe have something to hide?

Perhaps they are fooling you.

Mark_BC

"If the science is so rock solid why did these "scientists" have to resort to dirty tricks to further their agenda? Do they maybe have something to hide?"

"trick" is a slang word they use for valid statistical technique they use to pull out trends.

ejj

Mark - you need to go to Australia & tell those MP's they shouldn't have resigned! http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aussie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/

Mark_BC

From your link: "Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy"

I welcome the evidence implicating Gore, and the impartial reviews which should hopefully reveal if this affects the science at all, or is simply more fodder for political mudslinging.

Arne

mannstein

"Incidentally, Greenland was once green when the Norsemen settled there and the sky didn't fall. "

Ah, the "it happened before so no harm will be done if it happens again" fallacy.

Tell me, if a comet is on a collision course with Earth, do you go around shouting:

"we must not try to avert the impact. Thousands of comets have struck the Earth before. The last one wiped out the dinosaurs to make way for the mammals and, utlimately, us. Comets: you call it armageddon, we call it life!"

Arne

mannstein

"If the science is so rock solid why did these "scientists" have to resort to dirty tricks to further their agenda?"

Come on, these are not dirty "tricks". The word 'trick' is used as much as I (a software developer) use the term 'hack' for any quick and effective solution to a problem. Do you want to lock me away as a dangerous computer criminal for that?

The published emails are not all of it, it is just a selection that was released. Many of the emails are replies to other emails. Why don't we get to see those? Do these hackers have something to hide? Are we dealing with hackers who have an agenda? No, let's not indulge in conspiracy theories. Without evidence we must assume the hackers' honorable intentions are above suspicion.

The most in-depth analysis I have seen so far is the replies posted by 'nonhomogenized' here

I do not expect you to change your mind over it, but at least keep a grain of skepticism and accept that any out-of-context message is interpretable. Even more so if it concerns a medium as informal as email.

Arne

mannstein

"If the science is so rock solid why did these "scientists" have to resort to dirty tricks to further their agenda?"

Come on, these are not dirty "tricks". The word 'trick' is used as much as I (a software developer) use the term 'hack' for any quick and effective solution to a problem. Do you want to lock me away as a dangerous computer criminal for that?

The published emails are not all of it, it is just a selection that was released. Many of the emails are replies to other emails. Why don't we get to see those? Do these hackers have something to hide? Are we dealing with hackers who have an agenda? No, let's not indulge in conspiracy theories. Without evidence we must assume the hackers' honorable intentions are above suspicion.

The most in-depth analysis I have seen so far is the replies posted by 'nonhomogenized' here

I do not expect you to change your mind over it, but at least keep a grain of skepticism and accept that any out-of-context message is interpretable. Even more so if it concerns a medium as informal as email.

Arne

ejj,

That commenter is really smart to link a political dispute over climate tax to these hacked emails to attract some extra attention.

He speaks of "pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots". This guy must be good.

Arne

"Perhaps they are fooling you."

You no why I know the denialists are wrong? Lord Monckton. The mere fact that that clown, who is an ex-politician, is touting himself as an expert on climate and being taken seriously in denialist circles is all the proof that I need.

I this posted before in this thread, this guy thinks climate models are a failure because they did not predict warming on Pluto or changes in the Sun.

And no, the fact that he spent his life as a politician does not mean that he couldn't do so. Science should speak for itself. Well, let's let this science speak.

Look at the first graph. A period of 6 years? Is he really doing that, building an argument on a 'trend' in 6 years of temperature data?

And then he goes on to say a bit further down: "Since the great majority of the incoming solar radiation incident upon the Earth strikes the tropics, any reduction in tropical radiative forcing has a disproportionate effect on mean global forcings. On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models".

He simply divides the CO2 forcing by three with nothing more than a few words as justification. No calculation on why it is 3 rather than 2 or 4 or 0.8. Arbitrarily picking numbers is not science. But who cares? Monckton says it is so, that's all the proof I need.

Monckton: that's all the proof *I* need.

Reel$$

Climategate now returns 2.3M search results. Media put fingers in ears. Australia poised to kill Emissions tax. Obama in panic over failed global warming campaign. SNL rips Obama track record. Moonbot tells Dr. Phil "resign" before your stench poisons the whole movement. Sorros hires Hill and Knowton damage control.

Bones stares. "It's dead Jim."

Reel$$

Preceding aside. I am not worried about collusion to terminate certain journals, editors of journals, or emails that deal with FOI requests. If these people can't see it our way - they don't deserve to live. It's jus bizness, okay??

ai_vin

Incidentally, Greenland was once green when the Norsemen settled there and the sky didn't fall.

Greenland was not anymore "green" than it is now nor has ever been since they got there. Denialists often point to the Norsmen beening in Greenland as proof the world was once warmer than now and then claim they left because it got cold again. So let me ask; if they were forced out of Greenland because it got cold why weren't they forced out of Iceland too?

The truth is most of Greenland is covered by an ice cap that's been there for 110,000 years so calling it "green" is a stretch of the imagination. There are some protected fjords along the south coast that are ice free and this is where the Norsmen settled.

Here's the fun part: these settlements in Greenland were farther south than the Norsmen settlements in Iceland and the north of Norway. If the so-called "little ice age" didn't force the Normen out of these places why would it force them out of Greenland?

The answer is they weren't forced out of Greenland by a change in the climate, the settlements failed because of economics. The Greenlanders were dependent on trade; boats from Europe brought in iron and other goods that they traded with the Dorset people in northern Canada for marine mammal ivory. The problems started when the Church, the main buyer for the ivory, found other things to worry about and got worse when the Dorset were wiped out by the Thule people. The boats stopped coming so the Norsmen had no iron to spare for trade and the Thule decided to just kill the Greenlanders too and take what they could.

Arne

ai_vin

How dare you waste our fun with facts! I like the Hollywood version of history so much more.

If you think about it, it's actually pretty sad how anecdotes have taken the place of evidence.

arnold

reel$$,
If you wish to use science fiction as the basis for discussion then fine ,but who should take it seriously?

Quote you:
"Preceding aside. I am not worried about collusion to terminate certain journals, editors of journals, or emails that deal with FOI requests. If these people can't see it our way - they don't deserve to live. It's jus bizness, okay??"

I'm looking everywhere but no reference to terminate
Can you help?

here we see the word 'delete':

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll *delete* the file rather than send to anyone.

here we see the word 'rid':

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they " *rid* themselves of this troublesome editor.”

here the word 'ousted' :

"If you think that (Yale Professor James) Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official (American Geophysical Union) channels to get him *ousted*."

This is good, as I looked the word "Ousted"
that you probably refer to not
*terminate* are you thinking of the darleck from BBC's Dr Who?

From the Maquarie dictionary (the page still open from this morning)

oust 1. to expel from a place or position occupied 2. Law to eject dispossess.
[AF ouster remove, from L(atin) obsare be in the way protect against]

ouster 2. Law (formerly) wrongful dispossession of real property.

next Quote you:

"Climategate now returns 2.3M search results. Media put fingers in ears. Australia poised to kill Emissions tax. Obama in panic over failed global warming campaign. SNL rips Obama track record. Moonbot tells Dr. Phil "resign" before your stench poisons the whole movement. Sorros hires Hill and Knowton damage control.

Bones stares. "It's dead Jim."

:All the way from the antipodes
I can tell you that the political party in question has had a number of resignations from the shadow cabinet and is trying to dump it's leader who was just reaffirmeed on the previous day.

If they are successful and we will know next Tuesday Australian time, that will make three leaders in 18 months.
They certainly are in disarray and the leadership are keen to honour an Emissions Trading Scheme agreement in time for Copenhagen As Agreed.
The former Govt - Ex President Bush's "Man of steel" (at the time in the white house during 9/11), lost in an overwhelming landslide to the current 'greener' Govt that supported and ratified Kyoto. As their first act.

And this is relevant -how?

sulleny

It has been very entertaining watching the enlightened run as fast as they can from ClimateGate. Most pathetic is the media - who are so caught in the headlights they pretend to have never heard the word.

Meanwhile billions of human beings inform themselves via citizens networks and LOL at dispirited "leaders" attending the Danish junket. Invaders have no clothes?

Henry Gibson

Perhaps it was tens of thousands of years ago or perhaps it was a few millions of years ago or perhaps both when the earth's air was hotter. The oceans have been hundreds of feet lower within the last 100,000 years. The mediterranee was nearly dry at times in the past when the Atlantic could not get in. Forty years ago people were predicting a nuclear winter and then Pinatubo and other volcanos exploded and proved that the earth could be cooled off. There was also extensive cooling about 1600 when the Baltic sea froze and the artists made famous pictures of the Dutch skating. This was likely caused by other volcanos.

CO2 levels are increasing in the air, and any predictions of what the results are cannot be accurate because all the variables are not known.

The nearly forgotten flu epidemic of WWI, WWI and WWII and the Oil War that started about 1970 have all made major disruptions in the lives of billions of people and shortened the lives of many millions.

It might be useful for the human race to do something about CO2 in the air, but perhaps the human race is the worst infestation that has ever been inflicted upon the ecology of the earthand should be removed.

Just as several colonies of the americas failed, the first colonies on the moon will be uncertain, but it is now obvious that the human race can colonize it. Materials from the moon can be shot with electromagnetic accelerators from the surface of the moon to the earth or earth orbit and this material can be used to accelerate other materials and people from earth orbit to the moon within a few years very few materials will need to come from the earth.

People have always been radioactive and nuclear reactors can supply much food and energy to the colonists at far less cost in area and materials than any form of solar energy.

Reactors could explode with impunity on the moons surface with no air or water to contaminate. Solar storms already bathe the surface of the moon with radiation so deadly that an exploding nuclear reactor could not compete. Tons of materials including uranium fall on the moons surface every day and many more billions of tons exist in the minerals.

Instead of nations on the moon, there would be cave systems and politicians fighting for power over the people.

After the Moon colonies require no shipments from earth, any population remaining on earth can go to the moon and finally leave the earth alone.

The enslavement of the natural animals of the earth, such as cats and dogs and the like, can be ended for no other animal will be allowed on the moon in slavery to the will of man. There will be of course an almost complete natural extermination of most kinds of dog and cats, but this would be the natural cruelty of nature rather than the unnatural cruelty of man which enslaved these creatures.

It is time for the mediteranee to dry up again and man to be absent from the surface of the earth. ..HG..

arnold

I'm with you on this Henry,
It's not the cats and doge that are a problem, its people.
Politicians to the moon? well yes, mostly.
But more than anything, I want to know how you can stop the clock like that?
I mean 47 posts over a little gossip!

I like one half of my animal friends am a non vegetarian animal libertarian.

I figure if my existence offends, then I can learn to enjoy offending (some)

regards Arnold.

ToppaTom

By the way, arnold and HG, which planet are each of you from?

Account Deleted

The fact that "we can't account for lack of warming for the moment" just means that we should take carre of the environment and still try our best at combatting climate change in whatever way we can.

http://cop15.ecoseed.org

The comments to this entry are closed.