To Keep the Oil Flowing: A Conversation on Carbon Trading

It is easy to see the uses for fossil oils other than as 'fuel'. Simply search and you will see that development of materials derived FROM such oils is seeing increases in development and research. I have provided links to National Agencies involved in such research, and shall not bother again here doing so.

You will find more discussion(s) at:-
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/348
and
http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312

There is no VALID reason in SCIENCE to consider at all possible a 'greenhouse effect' and so apart from air pollution, there are no other valid (in SCIENCE) considerations needed towards 'carbon'.

As it is that these 'experts' have not seemingly noticed what IS the actual 'natural system', and so there is little REAL consequence to any claims that such natural systems have been 'disrupted'.

This is a different situation that looking at the 'process' the 'experts' would 'opinion' exist, only to then claim are being 'interfered with' by 'carbon'.

There is NO 'proof', chilling or otherwise, of "Polar Amplification" or of any actual "UNNATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE", just a few individuals overly satisfied with inadequate numeracy and methodologies. For example, to bolster the 'carbon scare', the contrivance of an 'imposing name', "Polar Amplification", seems to be made with little regard to the 'Polar Regions' NOT 'reacting first', but in FACT acting in turn being LAST to show the effects of warming that began ~15,000 years ago, from when the snow cover began to move back from the edge of what is now just north of the State of Texas.

The major climate oscillation carries a 'faster' set of 'oscillators', which produce the 'irregular periodic' component seen in climate behavior. So we see a long term oscillation that 'climate' is presently in a 'trough of'. Within this 'trough' the 'dip' of the secondary oscillations produces 'glaciations'. Please refer to post in the links mentioned previously, and refer to the slide labeled "Four Geological Times of Glaciations" where you will see as 'blocks' those periods of climate being in the 'trough' of the long periodic oscillation, AND having the secondary oscillation 'dip' into a RECURRING 'glaciation event' within the time periods represented BY those 'blocks'.

There is however little KNOWN about the opposing climate condition TO the periods OF glaciation, that often contain an "Ice Age" (commonly considered a Glaciation of a majority of the Planet's surface), 'Turbulence' leaves few long term marks. It IS thought that these warm periods at the PEAK of the (minor) oscillation will be TURBULENT with altering STRONG weather patterning.

The Ice and Snow are gone from that region, but the warming cycle still continues. What we are observing AND measuring NOW is a 'peak climate' (on a secondary oscillation) rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water form its SOLID PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE tween glaciations.

It is just that NOW is the time this is seen and is NOT induced by any supposed 'greenhouse effect'.

It is that on the scale of 'periodicity' observed for 'climate', it is NOT POSSIBLE to VALIDLY produce a trend from only a few decades of data. Thus it is that those charts of 'temperature', and the NUMBERS incorporated, are only showing a 'tide returning', NOT 'unnatural warming'. There is NO valid reason to run from the 'sight' calling "Doom and Woe' is upon you all!" or "Beware the carbon!"

One million data points in the last 30 years is only defining a statistically insignificant time-frame of the overall climate oscillation, 100 Million data points in 50, 100 or 200 years, are of no more help in validating either model or opinion.

There is not any reason to think that the actual oscillation of climate has been in any way altered.

So far Humanity has managed, possibly, to produce alterations to weather patterning by rematerialing the planetary surface in sufficient manner to cause a redistribution of location and scale in the induction OF kinetic energy that is being added to the turbulent effects observed as 'weather'.

This is producing effects linked to PRESSURE which is a 'driving force' of weather patterning.

This link is seen in SCIENCE as relating the average KINETIC VELOCITY of a molecule (the expression of those molecules average KINETIC ENERGY) to PRESSURE, seen also in links to the measure of TEMPERATURE as seen in commonly known concepts of SCIENCE.

Thus, there is NO REASON anyone who DOES know SCIENCE to rail such concepts as being "those of Peter K Anderson" alone, or that such concepts need to be 'presented in papers' on an 'internet link' to be 'valid'. They are COMMONLY known AND used. Nor is the use or presentation of such concepts the production of a 'lie'.

What 'we' are seeing from those platforming 'Doom and Woe' are attempts to present 'out of context' their numeracy as references to 'absolutes'.

What 'we' are OBSERVING AND MEASURING is a 'peak climate' rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water from its Solid PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE.

What these few individuals think will happen at the opposite cyclic 'end' (the peak) of the irregularly periodic glaciations this Planet will produce, within the current Period of the Long Term Climate Oscillation is quite unknown, but that IS where 'Climate' is placed NOW.

Please refer to post in the links mentioned previously, and refer to the slide labeled "Four Geological Times of Glaciations".

When regarding this slide, realise that the 'blocks' seen in that 'chart' represent periods of time when glaciations reoccurred on a planetary scale, some being "Ice Ages" (when a majority of the planetary surface was "Ice covered").

The labeled points in that chart are, from right to left, 1 billion years AGO, 500 million years AGO, AND 'Today' (as part of the last '2 Million' years).

For the past 2 MILLION years, Ice has moved back and forth, melting then extending again. This periodic behavior extends well BEFORE '1970', has a periodic component MUCH LONGER than the 1970 to 2000 period, and beyond mentioning that 'ice is melting' perhaps a 'bit faster' there is nothing more to be validly mentioned of, or including, CLIMATE alterations.

HOWEVER, as I have mentioned, there is little KNOWN about the opposing climate condition TO the periods OF glaciation that often contain an "Ice Age" (commonly considered a Glaciation of a majority of the Planet's surface).

It IS thought that these warm periods at the PEAK of the oscillation will be TURBULENT with altering STRONG weather patterning.

This IS what is being experienced NOW, as this is NOW that such a PEAK seems to be upon the NATURAL CLIMATE oscillation.

It is NOT that seeing some ICE melting NOW means that ICE will NOT reform later. Water will FREEZE when it is 'cold enough' again. It is NOT even thought that all the ICE will melt.

Even if ALL the OCEAN ICE around the POLAR REGIONS does 'melt', the newly warmed sub-artic regions, verdant with streams and rivers, will take up much of the release to increase the proportion of FRESH LIQUID water available on a now EXTENDED verdant land surface.

So the ~3% of total Planetary water that is 'fresh' will see the alterations that there could be ~2% as LIQUID and ~1% as 'trapped' (including remaining Snow and Ice).

Sea levels will NOT need to be expected to RISE DRAMATICALLY as not ALL the 'melt' will remain IN the oceans, and we ARE only speaking of less than ~2% of ALL water available to being with being 'involved'.

What we are observing AND measuring is a 'peak climate' rebalancing of RELATIVE volumes of fresh water form its SOLID PHASE to its Liquid and "Gaseous" PHASE.

There is NO 'proof', chilling or otherwise, of "Polar Amplification" OR of any actual "UNNATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE".

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com

This is all coming across as the hysterical denials and fabrications of proof of a cornered junkie desperately denying that they have a problem, when to outside observers, the means and circumstances are perfectly obvious.

There is nothing special about 'carbon, and it is NOT 'carbon' in the atmosphere but CO2. There is nothing in SCIENCE to produce any link of 'carbon' to 'climate change', and never has such a link ever been validly produced. Hence the 'greenhouse platform' seems to consist of press releases of opinions made

This is False. "Carbon" is convenient shorthand used to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, CO2, CH4 etc. Probably it gets used sloppily on occasion but that doesn't mean that there's no link between "carbon emissions" and climate change.

The SCIENCE shows clearly that human-induced climate change is happening now. This is Fact not "opinion".

If anyone is producing only press releases of opinions, it's you, Mr Anderson. Your "theory" that you present at every opportunity is badly presented, ill-thought out, untested and factually incorrect. Stop foisting it on us.

It needs to be remembered that 'fossil oil' is not only used for fuel, and Humanity has become near totally reliant on 'fossil oil' derivatives to manufacture the materials incorporated into production for everything from hosiery to carpet, cloths to cars, and furniture to homes. Look for the word 'synthetic' and begin to realise, we cannot escape as some would like to OPINION, as rapidly as these few would like to opinion. It will take the better part of a century to totally divest Humanity of a need, be it direct OR indirect, for use of 'fossil oil' based materials, fuel or other.

The situation is that ALL the other products derived from fossil oils will STILL be needed, so the diffraction of fossil oils WILL continue, and so there WILL be fossil oil based fuel products, but maybe not in the same volume, which will be supplemented with bio-fuel oil volume and be combustible in present technology engine designs near immediately often with little other engineering alterations.

But back to the 'document', where the opening statement, 'the climate crisis..' leads down hill, and nothing seems to stop this mention within the rhetoric contained from that point onwards.

There is nothing special about 'carbon, and it is NOT 'carbon' in the atmosphere but CO2. There is nothing in SCIENCE to produce any link of 'carbon' to 'climate change', and never has such a link ever been validly produced. Hence the 'greenhouse platform' seems to consist of press releases of opinions made.

Tim Flannery is rather prone at 'turning a phrase', but there is not any 'climate doom and woe' to fear. The 'images' seem to be reminiscent of 'photo propaganda' from the Vietnam era (form all sides). There seems, in this 'document', to be certain expressions of a socio-political positioning involving an amount of 'anti-corporate' sentiment. This again has little to offer as a validation of unnatural climate alteration.

Carbon credits have not been seen as offering in their trade, any viable or valid remediation of environmental issues concerning actual air pollution even, let alone remediation of supposed 'unnatural climate change'.

All that "Kyoto" has produced in another fiscal venture, for profit by a few, not any actual 'environmental' effort. The document is only attempting to justify the fiscal process, which is all the 'conferences' post "Kyoto' have been, a marketing exercise.
The 'document' seems to be, in the end, an expression of ideology with an attempt to justify such.

To save time retyping, see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312
where you will see that it is infact the alterations to the planetary surface that are most capable of inducing the redistribution to kinetic energy induction, and so are leading weather patterning away from what some would call the 'normal'. The 0.6 degree 'rise so often heard is infact the residual kinetic energy remaining in the altered surface materialing, it is NOT this small rise that is 'powering' and 'observations' so far made.

Climate is presenting 'persistence' and NEVER permanence.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. These glaciations are seen to reoccur within irregularly occurring periods of varying length, see the last side below. This particular period of glaciations is already 2 million years old.

In the last glaciation (from which present climate is rising), there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation.

It is indeed that too much 'politics' is used in reference to 'greenhouse warming'. It is that after the 'greenhouse hypothesis' FAILED to be validated in its three attempts, it was run into the political arena, where it remains as a platformed ideology, still invalid in it's implementations of SCIENCE.

The natural oscillation of climate is well KNOWN, documented and realised as EXISTENT. It is NOT as yet shown that any substantial alterations to this oscillation have been made. It IS noted that additions of KINETIC ENERGY have been made to some events linked to Turbulence. This is recorded as a small increase in surface temperatures, a measure of retained intrinsic KINETIC ENERGY generation within the MATERIALS of the surface. This is link to the alterations OF the MATERIALING present, due to the activities of Humanity within the past 400 years and in particular in the last 100 years.

Is there 'compelling evidence' for this being 'the warmest period in the past 1000 years', the warmest its been for 5000 years with the highest rate of 'warming' for the past 10000 years with all this related to 'greenhouse concepts'? No not really, let us all think, ICE AGE, and consider when and why the ice retreated.

It should be realised that the climate is progressing out of a glaciation. In the glacial period, there was permanent snow, with dependant fauna (and I assume flora) somewhere just north of today's Texas, as example, at around 15,000 years ago. 'Texas' itself would have been grassed heavily with ample water from melt as the glaciation reverted to the present warming period.

Now, we have much marginal terrain (desert like) within the planetary 'equatorial region'. The 'temperate region' is heavily covered in photosynthetic mass (if you imagine the forests removed by Humanity to be present, for illustrative purpose). The 'Polar Regions' are now just warming.

This indicates to the MAJORITY (many of the other ~500 Million tertiary educated members of the public, and also those interested in looking at what is taught pre-tertiary level) in regard to natural climate alterations, that what we are seeing as effect is primarily the NATURAL progressions of the primary CLIMATE oscillation; again see http://www.climateimc.org/?q=node/312 for more detail.

If the overall oscillation was still upwards, there would be additive effects for the 'Positive secondary oscillator output' with the 'primary waveform'; this would also limit the 'subtractive interactions' effects as these would be working against the overall effect. You would see smaller periods of rapid rise into warmth with cooler periods in between.

If the overall oscillation was past peak and descending again, the 'secondary positive additions' would be 'subtractive' and the 'negative secondary additions' would be 'additive'. You would see rapid descent into mini cold period's tween small periods of relative 'warmth'. It is presently considered that the climate is in a warming period tween periods of cooling, or even glaciation.

The primary oscillation will 'carry' this mini (secondary) oscillation along, varying the extremes of the 'mini peaks and troughs' and the RATE of rise/decline between these shorter periods. You can reference any number of 'temperature' plots to note the symmetry of the 'wobble'.

This will be the case unless the primary oscillation is at a peak or trough, where the 'flatness' of the primary oscillator effect is made 'transparent' in effect, and we can see the secondary effects with greatest CLARITY.

Climate is never still, never has been still, and never will. It is Humanity that has labeled behavior and developed concepts relating to 'permanence' when perhaps the notion of 'persistence' would have been the better basis of definition.

There is little need to worry, there is no 'doom on the horizon', and the attempt to further hype the 'Kyoto marketing plan' is very much declining, just as did 'global cooling' woe 30 years previously.

Your's, Peter K. Anderson a.k.a. Hartlod(tm)
From the PC of Peter K Anderson
E-Mail: Hartlod@bigpond.com