Water remaining, world’s largest pool, filled with enough gold to "pay" to fix Global Warming?

Additional details.

First I was going to use the price of all the oil in the world to compare, but when I priced all of BP's known reserves @ $150/barrel, even that only came to 20% of the $45T price to "fix" global warming sited in the article.

So, this market is asking the question...If you wanted to finance the cost of fixing global warming, where would you deposit this money? No bank is large enough to hold it, and frankly no currency would accomodate it. BUT, if you converted the $45T price to gold, tons and tons of gold, and then made a "deposit" where would you put it? There is no vault large enough, but if you put it in the world's largest swimming pool; http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-509718/Try-making-splash-worlds-largest-swimming-pool--1-000-yards-long.html. THAT would have enough capacity. So, assuming you dumped $45 Trillion worth of gold bricks into this pool, how much of the water, the original capacity of 66 million gallons, would still be left in the pool? I've helped you a bit by placing original odds to match the displacement of water at CURRENT price of gold. So the variable here will be the fluxuation in the price of gold, the higher it goes, more water will remain in the pool, if it goes down, the reverse will be true.

this is a funny question. but, uhm, why don't you just ask what the ounce of gold will cost?

@ kruijs

Bks I'm trying to illustrate the magnitude of what $45Trillion looks like. Global Warming is presumably one of the most newsworthy items anywhere today but this was the first time that I read anyone's forecast about what they thought it would take to resolve it. Before the entire planet decides to commit all of our resources to this, perhaps we should be certain. I'm all for diversity in power, less polluting, etc. but $45T? It's an absurd amount of effort. Put it another way... if the entire human race alive today took jobs at the current US minimum wage, had no deductions, worked 40 hours / week and donated 100% of their earnings towards this effort, they would have to work from Jan to well into July to hit this mark.

sry, im too lazy to calculate this now... if all numbers would be in metric system it would be easy...

Of course it takes money to fix this 'problem', it's nothing more than a modern day tithe.

Look at all the 'green' stuff around you, it's all designed to get your green.

A tithe? the GWP (gross world product) is $65.61 trillion (2007 est.), [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/xx.html] How can global warming cost 69% of the worlds value to fix? I don't think it's worth fixing at that price.

The problem is that everyone bemoaning the fate of the world due to global warming are basing their assumptions on a bunch of computer models that disagree with one another and have failed to predict anything accurately. Global temperatures haven't risen since 1998, and seemed poised for a decline. Anyone claiming the "science is settled" regarding global warming needs to gain a better understanding of what science is: theory, hypothesis, experiment, proof. The global warming crowd have a different agenda: theory, hypothesis (unprovable for a long period of time), justify funding increases.

I say let's use their crazy arguments agains them. For instance, the power company where I live always includes "global warming" propaganda with their bills... how we are supposed to alter our life styles, and make "earth friendly choices". I want to tell them that sending bills through the US Postal system is very unfriendly to the environment and probably contributes to global warming too! Same for taxes and fees imposed by the government, and bad laws. In fact, I KNOW that this law imposed by the California Supreme court to decree same gender marrages is going to make the ENVIRONMENT REALLY HOT for those who get involved!

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

Al Gore doesn't seem too worries about global warming! LOL

For those of us who don't want to use a calculator, that is almost 20 times the average household use....

@notable - it's ok for Algore to waste energy... he buys bogus carbon credit offsets as penance.

Yeah carbon credits are another scam layer over the global warming/climate change scam layer, which in turn is over the "create unsubstantiated models for grant money" scam layer...

These people have no shame

The correct answer to this challenge is that its not going to cost anywhere near 45 trillion USD to 'fix' global warming, because the premises upon which such an estimate are based are badly flawed.

For instance:
a) the IPCC predictions for warming over the course of the 21st century predict that we will consume ten times more oil than the Peak Oilers claim is in the ground, in total. Whats more hilarious is that both Peak Oil and 'anthropogenic' Global Warming are theories invented and promoted by the Club of Rome, a group of european based malthusian socialists (though people like Paul Ehrlich, Donella Meadows, and Fritjof Kapra are among them) whose true goal is a one world global socialist state controlled economy. "Theories" like Global Warming and Peak Oil are mere propaganda meant to push governments toward the ends they desire. If you think this is crazy talk, look at where the europeans that have instituted energy taxes are spending the money raised: not on carbon sequestration, but on welfare state socialist bureaucracies. They want the US to volunteer to hobble itself with similar laws so europe can compete economically with the US. Why else would the group promote two mutually exclusive, contradictory, theories as absolute scientific proof?
b) Its all about the sunspots: global climate tracks to changes in sunspot counts for the past 400 years, since Galileo first started counting them in 1610, to the present era. While CO2 levels are a lagging indicator (i.e. CO2 levels go up AFTER warming happens, not before, ergo CO2 doesnt cause global warming), sunspots are a leading indicator. Look up terms "Maunder Minimum" and "Dalton Minimum" in wikipedia. Why do sunspots matter now? Firstly, the 20th century saw the highest solar maximums in recorded solar astronomic history (since 1610), and particularly the last 30 years of the 20th saw every solar maximum peaking at historic highs, which obviously resulted in the measurable global warming of about a half degree C.
c) Solar Cycle 25 is now being predicted by NASA solar astronomers to have such a low sunspot count that astronomers are predicting the resulting global cooling will range from 1.5-2.0 C between 2018-2029, and cooling could persist for another 11 year solar cycle beyond number 25, as these sort of Minima tend to come in pairs or more. This means the globe will likely be significantly cooler from 2018 to 2040. If you think the globe warmed a lot in the 20th, it will cool four times more within a decade or so. Once the solar cycles return to normal (if they do quickly, keep in mind the Maunder Minimum lasted over a century, and there are no signs that the coming solar minimum wont last as long) it will take decades to warm Earth up again.

So, it wont cost us a cent to 'fix' global warming, we can sit back and watch nature do what it always does: change climate to a greater degree than humans ever could. It really speaks to an incredible degree of hubris for people to think the human race can really disturb a global climate like that. I realize many people are used to ideas like "nuclear winter" and like to disasturbate about how evil the human race is and were going to destroy ourselves, but really, 99% of disasters in this world are natural disasters that we have absolutely no way to prevent or replicate ourselves.

intlibber, you're funny!

good burlesque presentation of what the world experiences to be an arrogant US-American!

Thanks!

@ intlibber

Nicely written, thank you. Perhaps my secondardy intent with this market has become more transparent, I also agree that there is a mountain of hubris on this issue and that far too many people are eager to rol over and surrender their liberty, wealth, lifestyle choice at the altar of GW.

@intlibber - WOW... You put some serious research into GW... thanks for sharing!

@intlibber - not all of us who were born in europe think Americans are arrogant :-)

I apologize for kruijs comment, if it offended.

You know, I have really beaten the books trying to ascertain what effect, if any, humans have on the GW 'theory'/'fact', whatever. I must confess that not having the proper collegiate degrees leaves me overwhelmed. So, with that in mind, I present to you, my laymans findings.

Have you ever watched the rain fall on any 'black-top', cement, or other man-made edifice after a long day of sunshine? What did you see?

I see alot of misting. Call it steam, call it whatever. But, that same rain falling on a non-man-made, natural piece of earth, does not emit such great amounts of this 'steam'.

With all the man-made thoroughfares, parking lots, buildings, etc., it is very hard for me to comprehend that man is NOT adding to the 'warming effect'. That 'steam' rises up to add to the current cloud cover, and therefore, and logically, extends the amount of moisture in the atmosphere. So, one hundred years ago, we simply added a few tons of moisture to the already saturated air. This air, consequently takes longer to dry out, and therefore precipitates more rainfall than mother nature intended.

Nowadays, the amount of 'additional atmospheric moisture' rising into the atmosphere 'must be' artificially extending the lifespan of any given storm.

If this is not an example of humankind interfering with mother nature's 'natural' course, that I am truly baffled.

Can anyone shed light on this microcosm of thought?

I'm lost.

@cognos, I don't have the answer for you, but I know that we used to be told that an acre of corn gives off 4,000 gallons of water per day in evaporation.

You know all the morning fog that you can get from time to time in agricultural areas? That comes from moisture evaporating off of the ground too. So there is a lot of evaporating going on, and much of it is natural.

@congos...now roads and parking lots are destorying the climate? i'm in the same boat as you, i'm not college educated. i agree with intlibber. man can't destory the atomsphere if he tried. i've said it before and i'll say it again. man can't predict the weather acculately for 7 days...why would anybody think they can tell what the weather will be in 5, 10, 15, years from now let alone 100? GW is another wacky idea to give govt more control over people imho. have a nice day.

@congos..i'm guessing your not an old guy. i've ask alot of older folks about weather/GW. it was alot warmer when they was younger than it is now. i would say there was less paved roads-parking lots at the time. try asking sevarl granny-grand pa's and see what they tell ya. i can only go by the old folks in my area. it's not a very "sienctific" way to prove nor disprove global warming, but it can't hurt.

One of the MANY things I appreciate about this site is the give and take of ideas and a forum that validates that I'm not crazy... @ dieseldog & cognos, I have a related observation. During the lifetimes of those who came before us tornadoes, hurricanes, wildfires, hailstorms, etc. assailed the planet, often in isolated, non-populated areas, or if there were people about, it was not instantly evident to everyone. But, younger generation has a frame of reference for near global, instantaneous reporting capabilities. Natural competition amongst news organizations to break sensational stories causes all bad news to be showcased prominently. So, to a younger observer, it could easily seem like Things Are Worse now than before, the alleged Good Old Days. I think the Philosopher Billy Joel touched on this with his excellent essay in the form of a music video - We Didn't Start the Fire!
Here is a link to this video: http://video.yahoo.com/watch/218972/876412

Shout out to my father that brought this original idea to mind when pointing out a small tornado twisting across an open prairie during a road trip when I was young.

Hey guys! I didn't want to offend anybody.
I thought it was a parody, sorry, if I was misunderstood.
And I do not think every American is arrogant. But I recognize arrogance behavior when I see it - which is not restricted to Americans.

Actually, GW does not mean that it gets hotter. Don't mix that up. It just means that average temperatures will rise by some few degrees. And that has an massive impact on world climate.

As for the studies you refer to: Just like all studies, these are influenced by the expectations of those who mandate them. You must consider: Who mandates the studies telling the GW ain't a problem? Who mandates the studies telling the GW is a problem? Who of them has more power and money?

Please do not tell that people could not influence global climate even if they wanted to. Someone of you remember 9/11? The day on which no airplane flew over America? It was discovered that these condensation trails of modern jets do actually influence the weather.

Just a small example.

And something else: "We didn't start the fire!"
But it is burning our (yours and mine) house which is burning. I think I'd try to extinguish that fire, no matter how large it is. If it was only to make sure my children can still live there.

@ kruijs

Thank you for your comments, I always appreciate your input.

My contention is not that the planet may not indeed be warming up, many indicators point that way. Is it valid, prudent and reasonable to expand the options for energy? To conserve, to not be excessive or wasteful? An enthusiastic yes to all of these! Am I convinced that man's behavior radically and irrevocably alters the global climate and that we can easily reverse it? Of this I'm less convinced.

Re 9/11 of course it will remain vivid in my mind forever, as it will for most Americans, ask anyone of my generation and they can tell you exactly where they were when they got the news, just as the previous generation could tell you what they were doing when they received the news about JFK being shot and killed.

I was a guest in the Marriott that fell two weeks to the hour before it collapsed, the after effects crippled my industry (airlines) and the skies were free of planes for the better part of a week. My personal employer had 92 planes languishing in Canada idling with thousands of people taken in and comforted by gracious Canadians in the Maritimes who suddenly had many multiples of their town's populations expanded for the week. Mork, and my other HD friends, we will always remember these kindnesses you extended to us.

My question rather is meant to stimulate thinking, so I ask you... Do YOU think it's reasonable that the entire planet should commit the majority of our wealth, time, energy, resources and effort towards this singular goal, OR do you think that it is perhaps more prudent for everyone to be considerate, thoughtful, deliberate and measured in their lifestyle choices? A recent trend that seems very ominous to me is that many people are willingly abandoning their own free will and choices on the altar of GW and not carefully considering what unfettered government control will result in, an unavoidable trampling of individual liberties and the sovereignty of nations if major decisions are simply accepted in the name of this perceived planet killing threat.

I’ve tried to examine a variety of sources on this matter and one thing I’ve noticed is that if you did deep enough through ice layers, mud, rock strata or tree rings, you come away with a very profound impression that our humble planet is not static, but rather that it lurches from periods of warm and cooling, and even the magnetic poles, something we tend to think of as permanent have themselves shifted over time.

Kruijs, I’d love to here you additional thoughts on this matter, do you at least agree that the enormous amount of $45,000,000,000,000.00 is an absurd metric for this issue?

@ valor

thanks for your response. And, yes, of course everyone does remember 9/11. I was just a little provocative in my wording.

To answer your direct questions:
Q: "Do YOU think it's reasonable that the entire planet should commit the majority of our wealth, time, energy, resources and effort towards this singular goal"
A: I think those on this planet with largest wealth and largest energy consumption should commit a measurable amount of their wealth, time, energy, resources and effort towards this mankind deterministic goal.
So my opinion is neither your IF nor your OR part of the question but something in between.

And I agree that the enormous amount of $45,000,000,000,000.00 is an absurd high metric, but I cannot say whether or not it is absurdly too high for this issue. Maybe we should express the amount in Zimbabwean Dollars? hehe.

I recall the dying bees http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_Collapse_Disorder about two years ago, which is probably a result of GW. Consider the work bees are performing (pollination) which makes agricultural possible. This work is estimated $15 billion annually in crop value. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080626/ap_on_go_co/sick_bees
Think about all those species extincting before we even know them! Think about all those missed opportunities to find new substances and possibilities for adoption in health care, food supply or energy production or construction. I hope you all know that penicillin is produced by fungus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penicilin , just an example.

I assume we can not "fix" GW at all. But we must deal with it.

Krujis, I am not the arrogant one. I think it is incredibly arrogant for some people to think that we mere humans, whose total energy budget globally is a tiny fraction of 1% of the solar energy that hits the planet, who to date have been completely incapable of starting or stopping a single tsunami, hurricane, tornado, draught, earthquake, or major flood, yet theres this small group of scientists (3,000 supporting the IPCC reports, vs the 30,000 who have disputed it) claims we are somehow completely changing the entire planetary ecosystem ourselves. THAT is arrogance.

The idea that climate should remain the same in perpetuity is also an arrogant opinion of the GW proponents. The only constant in nature is change. Climate is always changing. In the late 18th and early 19th century, which was during the Dalton Minimum (ya, low sunspot counts for 30 years) they had supercold winters, weak summers. You may have read in your history books about how cold it was at Valley Forge during the American revolution. That was the first year of the Dalton Minimum. It was not til the late 19th century that the Earth came out of a period that began in the 13th century called the 'Little Ice Age". The LIA was what killed off very vibrant and prosperous viking communities in Greenland (which was called greenland because in the middle ages it was much greener than it is even now) and made the stories of Lief Ericson and Eric the Red settling in the new world into myths.

Now, was there warming in the late 20th century? Yes there was, but it was NOT human caused, it was caused by long term and consistent high sunspot counts in every solar cycle, something we have not seen in recorded history.

As for the IPCC, the predictions of future CO2 emissions are not the only thing thats faulty. You may have seen in Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" a chart claiming to show warming that looks like a 'hockey stick'. This was produced by a fraudster named Michael Mann, whose software has now been proven to put out junk data, as some statisticians fed white noise data into it (thats random data) and out popped the same hockey stick that Al Gore claims is 'proving' the evidence of global warming since the 19th century. This means no matter what data you put into the software, a hockey stick comes out: hence its a fraud.

the dying bees a few years ago was due to a fungus.

The only real environmental problems we have in this world are caused by too many people. The only way to solve this is by STOP HAVING KIDS. Stop sending foreign aid to countries whose problems come from too many kids. At most, send em condoms, birth control pills, and sterilization kits.

Oh and Euthanasia too isn't a kids anime fan club. Encourage your baby boomer parents to strongly consider it to do their part for the planet.

Oh, heres another "inconvenient truth": Fully half of the CO2 being released by all countries in this world is coming from underground coal fires. If you truly believe that CO2 is at fault here, the easiest solution to 'fixing' your problem without impacting the economy, would be to launch a global campaign to put out undergound coal fires. These are typically in long abandoned mines, most of which happen to be in China, but many are in the US, Germany, and other locations.

While truly fascinating, I wish someone here would have given me the volume of gold per ounce rather than the well written dissertations on global warming. It has made for great reading - as much as my fragile ADD plagued mind could handle, anyway.

volume of gold per ounce can be deduced from its density

http://www.hubdub.com/m10139/Will_the_North_Pole_be_ice_free_at_any_point_in_2008

Watch the postings on this prediction. Looks like the arctic is nowhere near as ice free as the MSM is trying to make us believe.

I think there is really no amount of gold that would "fix global warming", so i am voting to fill the pool. The reason is that to "fix" global warming would require getting the atmosphere, oceans, etc. (all the places where CO2 and other greenhouse gases including cloroflorocarbons (which replace freon, and are even worse for greenhouse warming , but not for ozone so they are now used - ugh), to be removed somehow.. This would mean filtering the entire atmosphere, as well as the oceans (which have now gone acidic to the point of corals being bleached - animals dying), so it would really require world wide plants to sequester all the chemicals that have fouled our atmosphere and oceans.. I do not think that if we hired everyone in the world to undertake this task (and paid them in gold) there would be anywheres enough gold in the pool to do it.... so, the pool would be overfilled..

The problem is like trying to put the genie back in the bottle, or closing pandoras box, once it has been opened, or unringing a bell -- it cannot be done.. Time is irreversible, due to the chaotic spread of entropy... If one opened an inkwell into the ocean, how much would it cost to recover all the ink once it has spread throughout the world? Again, it would be more than the swimming pool.

lol bigken1, suggest reading the rest of the comments. you act like CO2 is some sort of poison or toxin.

btw there are worldwide plants that sequester CO2, its called oceanic plankton, and seeding plankton blooms with iron is one proven method for sequestering massive amounts of CO2 cheaply and easily, even if CO2 was actually causing climate change (CO2 increases are lagging behind temp increases, not leading them, so its not scientifically supportable that CO2 is causing warming). Scientific proof requires that effect follow cause, not the reverse.

"CO2 increases are lagging behind temp increases, not leading them, so its not scientifically supportable that CO2 is causing warming"
the "so its not scientifically supportable that CO2 is causing warming" part is soo wrong.
question: do you know what a catalyst is?
question: do you know the principle of a domino effect?
(you should know when you are a proponent of nuclear energy)

Hi intlibber,
LOL too... Sorry, wish I were wrong, but this is not so. CO2 has bands in the IR, that reflect the earth's IR, and act like a blanket that diminish the energy output from the Earth, into space. This same effect goes on, on venus, and is responsible for its excessive temperature. Could write more, but so much has been written that you need to read. If you want to discuss with me, happy to do so...

I must say, though, that I was mislead by the title of this question into thinking it had something to do with the price of "fixing global warming"... as such , i think it is misleading. Its settlement deals only with the price of gold (unrelated to the cost to fix global warming).So, we are keeping one variable constant, but not the other. That is not the way to carry out calculations... x/y = constant/y ? I do not think so.

@bigken1 - but wait, there's hope! You are wrong :-)

Feel better now? Humans are not responsible for the vast majority of CO2 out there. Never have been, as long as there are volcanos, and so forth, which is pretty much forever...

Hope I helped. could write more, but I there has been so much already written that you need to read...

@notablenotices: lol

but still, intlibber is wrong.

Another picture:
does someone know the "jenga" game?
http://www.albertelli.com/photoarchive/Random_2003/tn/lawn_jenga0002.med.jpeg

Now if nature were a giant jenge game - like this:
http://faculty.nmu.edu/ims/images/leaning%20Tower%20of%20Pisa/108-0809_IMG.JPG
only even much-much larger.

Now imagine the mass of such a jenga tower, the number of blocks, the height - everything just too large to understand for humans.
And still, removing just one single block might destroy the balance within this tower and the whole tower loses halt and falls apart.

I know this result may not be this dramatically within earth climate. But I just try to give you another view on the "human can't influence" thing - which is just caused by lack of knowledge/insight/understanding, or worse, by ignorance and arrogance (I do not assume you personally are either that way).

@ bigken1

Admittedly the wording of my question was curious and I used it as a 'hook' to generate interest, but the quotations around the word "pay" and the background inofrmation I believe explain the point I was trying to make.

thanks all for comment. Valornhonor - your question certainly stirred my interest! I am coauthor of a book dealing with climate change.. so, i feel i know something about question... Wish my, and the majority of physical scientists - Ph D., were wrong, then we wouldn't need to worry about problem.. Nevertheless, the CO2 has increased about 25% in 50 years, and other gases (see http://www.aip.org/history/climate/othergas.htm) also contribute about equally to co2, so there are a lot of greenhouse gases that are contributing to the greenhouse effect.. well, this is not a good place to lecture on, but there are respectable sources (suggest texts) dealing with climate change... also consider general planetary atmospheres so one can understand generally how the climate of any planet is governed by its atmospheric constituents....(it really makes it relatively simple)...

bigken1,
Then please explain to the readers how astrophysicists have now observed global warming increases on every planet in the solar system. Warming on other planets cannot be caused by human beings. CO2 increases are an effect of solar forced warming. While the increases in CO2 may be contributing to the warming, most of that CO2 is not manmade, its being outgassed from tundra, the ocean, etc.

HI Intlibber,

I do not understand your statement. Different planets have different amounts of their own type of greenhouse gas.The terrestrial planets (the inner ones) have negligible internal energy from gravitational contraction, and although their cores can remain hot from radioactiivty, their atmospheres are in general radiative balance with solar radiation. This means that they radiate an energy = to that from the sun falling on the planet. This only means that at a level in the atmosphere (for those that have atmospheres) where tau~ 1 (the optical depth~1) , the have a blackbody radiation temperature governed by the stefan boltzmann law... This is about 30 K cooler than the surface of the Earth.. The extra heating comes about by the properties of the radiation and convection effects (meteorology) within the earth's atmosphere. for those planets (e.g. venus) that have a LOT of greenhouse gases, the planetary atmosphere can be incredibly hot..(ave about 750 K!), due to greenhouse warming. for planets with little atmospheric greenhouse gases (like Mars) the atmosphere is a lot cooler (-63 C).. so, I am not sure what you are talking about with regard to warming from mankind on other planets...

I agree that the tundra, oceans etc. are playing a role in co2 atmospheric carbon balances, etc... also some of the other comments made (about underground coal mines and fires being a bad thing).. so there is no disagreement with a LOT of what is being said.. the whole problem is very complex and there are many issues -- population growth of course....

@bigken1 - Karl Marx authored a book on economics...

It is obvious that climate changes - dramatically too, without human help. We know there were several ice ages, and that there have been times when vineyards were cultivated in Greenland - now that is a climate change!

Then there is the famous case of the frozen mamoth in Siberia that was found with warm weather herbs in it's digestive system.

We can agree, I think, that the sudden change in the climate did not have anything to do with homo sapiens driving SUVs around! To believe this human induced global warming stuff seems to require a Ph.D and an accute sense of when to turn off deductive reasoning.

Reading the comments on this market I created are like taking an extension course on climate change theory! Thanks you bigken1/notablenotices/intlibber, etc. for all of your insights. I'm wondering if this will get to 100 comments by settlement date?!

lol bigken1,
The point being: given that astronomers are observing warming on every planet in the solar system RIGHT NOW, this means that every planet, including Earth, is being warmed by something OTHER than anthropogenic CO2. So what is it? One only has to look at the solar cycles since the beginning of observations in 1610 to see that the latter half of the 20th century has seen the biggest solar maximums AND the longest uninterrupted chain of high solar maxima, since Galileo started observing sunspots. Given that low sunspots = cool sun and high sunspots = hot sun, it becomes abundantly clear to anybody with any rational faculties, who is not religiously committed to some political agenda, where the warming is coming from.

notablenotices,
You are exactly right. In 5000 BC there were hippopotami living in the Thames river in England. In 1200-1300 AD, Icelanders settled Greenland, where they farmed, herded, produced wine, and even had a Bishop sent from Rome to serve them. Then began a period of massive global cooling known as the Little Ice Age, which exterminated the settlers in Greenland, and was caused by the Wolf Minimum, continued by the Sporer Minimum, and was extended by the Maunder Minimum, where fewer than 100 sunspots were seen over a century of observation. This period of three severe and extended solar minima has not been repeated since.

In the 1770s the world was so cold that the Hudson River froze so solid that huge cannons captured from Fort Ticonderoga were shuttled across the ice to be moved to Charlestown to take part in the Battle of Bunker Hill, and the canals of Amsterdam had regular frozen solid since the time of Louis the XIV, who was known as The Sun King, as it appears his 85 year reign coincided with most of the Maunder Minimum, when the sun was unblemished by sunspots, and was large, redder, and cooler.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

The last extended minimum, the Dalton Minimum, lasted from 1790 to 1820 and was noted by extremely bitter winters globally as far south as the middle east, florida, north africa, etc.

Now, as for global warming, bigken1, you still need to overcome another serious challenge to the claims of the IPCC report: the source of sufficient carbon. The IPCC report is making projects about the amount of various fossil fuels consumed over the 21st century to justify its projection of a 6 degree warming. The problem is that they are claiming we will consume more than 10 TIMES more oil over this century than the Peak Oil theory proponents claim is even in the ground. Without this oil being present, then we wont be burning oil that does not exist, and we will instead move more quickly to a nuclear, wind, and solar driven economy, and we wont see 6 degrees of warming.

Now, the hilarious thing is the anthropogenic global warming theory was created and is promoted by the Club of Rome and their disasturbationist malthusian socialist allies, who ARE ALSO THE ORIGINATORS OF THE PEAK OIL THEORY. Please explain how you can reconcile these two mutually contradictory theories put out by the same people while magically creating 10 times more oil to make your global warming fantasies come true.

Hi all,

I agree that low sunspots equals cool sun (and "little ice ages"), etc IN THE PAST, but all these effects did NOT OCCUR with mankind changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, so the current variability may NOT be predictable by simply extending the past natural climate history into the future.. (this is not too complex to understand, but has not been totally elucidated. ). .

Intibbler , I agree with your little ice age material. actually, I am a solar physicist, so should like the Sun to be responsible for all the climate change... (but although i think it has been related to some of it in the past- as you point out (I AGREE WITH ALL THAT), do not believe this guarantees this does so in the future)...

Just imagine a function, say z, governed by 2 other functions , say z=x+y, with all three being functions of time, and lets say that x=sine t and y= 0, except for t>0, where y = 10.. Now, for times <0 z is a sine function, but for t> 0 because of the discontinuity y and z jump up by 10.. Mankind has introduced (within ~ 50 years which is short interval on climate change) a jump in the chemistry of its atmosphere.. Not so difficult to understand.. As gore says "an inconvenient truth"...

hi folks,

here are some sites for books that clarify how climate models should be run...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

if we could do it with some common ground, progress might be made...

there are numerous ohter sources, but it is good to start from something good.
ken

There is a lot of research that shows that CO2 follows temperature change, and is not a causing factor. Here are some links:
http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791v1

Also, Lord Christopher Monckton's "Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered" is worthwhile reading..

thanks notablenotices,
I shall look at them... Here is a site that provides info on climate change --
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change

It says (amonst other things) :
Fossil fuels

Carbon dioxide variations over the last 400,000 years, showing a rise since the industrial revolution.

Beginning with the industrial revolution in the 1880s and accelerating ever since, the human consumption of fossil fuels has elevated CO2 levels from a concentration of ~280 ppm to ~387 ppm today.[7] These increasing concentrations are projected to reach a range of 535 to 983 ppm by the end of the 21st century.[8] It is known that carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 750,000 years.[9] Along with rising methane levels, these changes are anticipated to cause an increase of 1.4–5.6 °C between 1990 and 2100 (see global warming).

Temperature change can act to increase warming too, as when temperature increases, the air holds more water. Water itself (water vapor) is a greenhouse gas. This is one of the reasons why greenhouse warming is such a big problem (that the equations are non-linear - meaning there is a "vicious circle" kind of behavior involved. - that an addition to warming causes more warming etc. etc.). There must eventually be some kind of limit, but there is also a phenomon called "a runaway greenhouse effect" . this is what Venus has. It is when the radiation from the top of the atmosphere is so strong, that the bottom of the atmospheric temperature is no longer limited by radiation from the whole atmosphere. This happens when the gas is "optically thick " in the the infrared. It means that there is, essentially, no connection between the temperature of the planet and the blackbody radiation temperature of a black body in radiative equilibrium between the sun and outer space.
As long as the plane still radiates a significant amount from the ground directly to space, there is some attachment to radiative balance, but as less and less radiation goes directly from ground to space, the more it becomes "runaway". Once runaway, the planetary temperature can fluctuate even more dramatically due to various perturbations or fluctuations. All the chaotic weather events we have been having, I fear, are somewhat due to this kind of thing (but i do not know).

thanks notablenotices,
Firstly, my last paragraph in the above comment is simply my own - NOT FROM THE WIKI site. sorry, i just wanted to add some comment.
I looked at your two sites, and shall look for your book. I see nothing there, that relates directly to whether the current warming is manmade. Just because natural variability acts one way (with a temperature change showing up first), does not mean that CO2 fluctuations induced by manmade fossil fuel burning cannot induce the same kind of temperature change.. Not sure why one wishes to hold on to the past, as if every future event must be identical to previous history from natural variability, when it is clear we are doing something quite different to the natural behavior of the Earth's cycles. (we are initiating the change), not the Sun, nor volcanoes, etc.
I presume the difficulty some people have in believing human-induced climate change has to do with wishful thinking. If not, then tell me what.
I also think it is helpful, for those with a scientific bent, to examine so-called "energy balance climate models" or " one-dimensional climate models." They track the incoming and outgoing radiation and give a clear picture of how such changes as co2 doubling would affect the temperature of the earth, or solar radiation changes, etc., etc. they are also a lot easier to understand than GCMs (global climate models or general circulation model) - which model the entire earth. Here is a good site for these models -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_model

@biken1
Thanks for that link too.

What concerns me the most is that there are no stated goals, such as consensus as to what temperature it should be and why, what ranges of various gas concentrations are safe and why, etc.
But both Barack Obama and John McCain agree that it is a big problem and want to spend our money and use our resources to "fix" it, before there are convincing guidlines and definitions.
I feel robbed everytime I look at the amounts I pay in taxes already, if you know what I mean. So I want clarity - more than ambitious governement programs!

hi notablenotices
There are 2 points, I guess you are addressing now.. One is the scientific question and the second is the political aspects or response to the climate situation and what to do / how much etc.

With regard to the scientific question, I feel the majority of climate scientist do believe climate warming is real. The exact extent of the warming, and even more importantly, the effect upon species, secondary effects upon weather, etc. etc. are even less well known. So, scientifically, there are varying degrees of knowledge... but the basic overall climate warming is understood theoretically, and observational support seems to be there.. Biological effects are less well known.

With regard to political responses, this is problematic, as people are generally out for themselves, and it is always easier to pollute (like throw one's garbage over the neighbor's fence) than recycle it, and/or get rid of it responsibly, so with global warming, most countries, the US in particular, are taking various self-serving stances.. (We won't agree, until all these other countries agree, etc. in terms that are favorable to us).. So, the politicians also have a vested interest, driven by lobbying, big oil money, etc. to simply ignore the problems, and/or pay off some self-serving scientists to raise questions about the whole effect, etc... As a consequence many, many people have stuck their heads in the sand for far too long.

There are a number of "solutions", some mentioned -- putting iron in the oceans to help marine organisms to grow and thus recapture CO2 and convert it to o2, etc. But , we are running out of time, as there are various feedback effects, wherein warming creates more warming, etc. -- the vicious circle ideas I mentioned...

The problems of population, war, etc. etc. are all in there thrown in too. so, it is a very stubborn complicated problem. I doubt very much, that global warming would wipe out all of life on earth, but it could bring down our current civilization, and/or change things drastically, so as to make it very, very different, like entering another "dark age" period, for hundreds of years or more, until thing somehow get back to normal, if they ever do... who knows?

This was hardly a news item "begging" to be turned into a market, given that there is no element of chance associated with it in any way. What it was was a news item you felt like posting verbal flatulence about, so you managed to turn it into a confusing and difficult to calculate gold market instead.

When I thought the site was about betting and not various people displaying their verbal flatulence, but I'm starting to get the impression I was incorrect.

*** Bks I'm trying to illustrate the magnitude of what $45Trillion looks like. ***

Did it any point occur to you that this is not the purpose of this site, and that there exist approximately Avagadro's number of other sites to which you can post such information and opinion?

@ markc

Welcome to the site, I hope you've enjoyed your first few days here, although as I read through your comments on various markets you seem rather ... angry.... I'm tempted to quote one of the most famous tag lines of the summer..."Why so serious?"

Seriously, this site benefits from careful scrutiny and varied opinions, absent this how could a news prediction site possibly function? I look forward to what I anticipate will be many future comments about my markets illuminating errors or inconsistencies as you see them.

Thank you for the two questions that you have posted thus far, like f_o_f I'm looking forward to your future questions which I'm confident will be airtight and void of biases, opinions or pontifications of any kind!

Again, welcome!

bigken1,
I dispute your claim that most scientists believe that climate warming is real, or more specifically, that anthropogenic global warming is real. While the IPCC has 3,000 scientists in support, a group of 30,000 scientists recently signed a petition contesting the claims of the IPCC. Furthermore, the primary 'evidence' for AGW is Dr. Mann's much discredited "hockey stick chart" (which you may have seen in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" as his primary evidence). Mann and the other AGW proponents are now getting caught committing rather significant academic fraud in trying to shore up the hockey stick, now that two statisticians have proven that Mann's software fraudulently produces hockey stick charts out of random noise.

While there has been warming in the latter 20th century in concert with a historically unprecedented series of unusually high solar maxima, this warming has all been neutralized in the past year and a half and we are back to temperatures typical of the 1870's. Solar astronomers are now predicting solar cycle 25 (coming around year 2018) will be the lowest sunspot count since the Dalton Minimum of 1790-1820, which also not-so-coincidentally coincided with a period of global cooling on the order of 1.5-2.0 C. The Wolf Minimum, the Sporer Minimum, and the Maunder Minimum are all extended periods of extremely low sunspot counts and an expanded, cooler, slower rotating sun which resulted in much cooler earth from the 1300's up to the early 19th century. These are indisputable scientific facts. While 3,000 leftist scientists may support the IPCC, there are over 30,000 objective scientists who do not.

Also bigken1, the industrial revolution began long before the 1880s. It was already in full swing in Britain by the 1850's, and here in the US by the 1860's, where the Civil War's barbarity was exacerbated by our industrial power being used to manufacture more and more weapons capable of maiming and killing more men who were still using pre-industrial napoleonic combat strategies.

However, even back then, warming began BEFORE CO2 started to increase. As previously stated, CO2 is always a lagging indicator, which you as a self proclaimed scientist must admit is therefore not a cause of warming, but an effect of warming. While it may be possible that CO2 is providing somewhat of a feedback mechanism, you, nor the other AGW proponents, have yet admitted or demonstrated what the original warming is from. The main reason you refuse to do so is because it is something we humans can do nothing about: the sun. While the industrial revolution began decades before the 1880's, what DID begin in the 1880's was a drastic increase in solar irradiance and solar maxima peak amplitudes (i.e. a lot more sunspots, indicating a hotter, more compact and active solar magnetic field).

Prior to the Little Ice Age, grapes were cultivated in Greenland, wine was made, among other crops considered typical of relatively temperate climates. Rome even sent a Bishop to tend to the dioscese of Greenland. All the ice the AGW chicken littles crow about is ice formed since then, during the LIA.

This brings up good questions about whether warming might not be a bad thing. Warming in the tundra and steppes of Canada and Siberia means much more arable land for cultivation, which in this day and age is a good thing given historically high food prices. This will also mean more precipitation in the middle east, which could mean the return to the historic climate there that gave it the name "The Fertile Crescent".

The reverse, cooling, is not so great an idea. Global cooling makes for crop failures, famines, starvation, disease, and war.

Well valornhonor, I really liked you batman quote!!! I have been laughing ever since..

intlibber, maybe we can agree to disagree. I am not sure all your numbers or statements are totally accurate, and arguing about exactly when faint signals started when indeed the industrial revolution did start early, but it was not much of anything. Plus, I am not, nor have I been saying that the SUN did not do anything before the recent increase in CO2 . I am a solar physicist, and agree that the Sun did do somethings!! (but now, i believe its normal role has been surpassed by mankind's changing the atmospheric chemistry). The sun can do a lot, as its long term variations can last for centuries . Climate can respond to weak signals if they are long term (secular) changes.., which the Sun does very well. But mankind's influences have been so great, they can influence climate from a shorter time period.. that's it.

WOW, I am surprised that my word is taken so forcefully. No people who really know me respect my word so much. I said "that's it", and no one has said another word... hmmm. I am going to have to try this at home..

Hey everyone, as valor said, "why so serious"?

On a non-serious note about global warming and the effect on the environment blah blah... If I am doing my calculations correct... Gold would have to be over $5,000 on day of close for the pool to not be completely filled... 66,000,000 gallons converts to 8,448,000,000 oz. If at the time of close gold was at say $800 that would mean completely filling the pool would only be around $7 Trillion... Where exactly did the %s on the predictions come from??

disregard previous comment... I was using liquid oz not troy oz and displacement...

In any case, there is no obvious way that gold could be used in any real way to fix global warming, so the question is
really a case of mathematical manipulation about the price of gold that has little to do with global warming.

Ok - I've done a dry run for settling this question, because it's a while since I did high school math ... I need some proofreading please!

If it were settled today, the price of a troy ounce of gold is $765.
To calculate how much gold it would cost to 'fix' global warming, it's $45 trillion divided by $765, which is 58,000,000,000 troy ounces = kilograms.

To calculate the amount of displacement, we need to know the volume of this weight of gold; volume = mass/density, density of gold is 19300kg/m. So the volume of 1 kg is = 1/19300 = 0.0000518. Times by the total amount of gold is 0.0000518 x 58,000,000,000 = 30,044,000 metres cubed.

Worlds largest pool is 66 million gallons, which converts to 250 million litres.
So, the displacement is 250,000,000 - 30,044,000 = 219,956.

Then work this out as a percentage of the original.

I think my decimal points are off though ... HELP PLEASE!!