The ice core graphs show the peak of the last interglacial about 3 degrees above ‘0′ , the interglacial before that at +2 C and the one before that at +3 degrees C from the mid 20′th century ‘0′. Again, here’s the site where I got that info:
http://www.daviesand.com/ Choices/ Precautionary_Planning/ New_Data/
The graphs look pretty clear to me. Present temperature is below previous peaks and we’re overdue for the beginning of the next ice age.
Gary

[JR: As I said in my post, the present temperature is below the recent peak (I just assert that your statement, as written, was wrong). We are overdue for the next Ice Age. That makes human activity and emissions all the scarier -- we've overwhelmed the natural cycles and were only at a fraction of the forcing we'll be at in a few decades.]

Are you saying these people made mistakes when they graphed their data? After all, most all them are making the same points about the CO2 problem as you do.

[JR: This chart doesn't have the recent warming on it, as noted previously.]

Of course water vapor feedback is strong and positive. My point is it’s a much stronger than CO2 and little is said about it compared to CO2. If it’s settled in the literature, what are some considerations for dealing with it?

[JR: We deal with the feedback by eliminating the original forcing, i.e. mitigation.]

I bring up water vapor because I forsee a time in the not too distant future when a wealthy desert country decides it can turn it’s desert green by building huge sea water evaporation systems off it’s shores. I’m thinking a power plant that does nothing but power a huge spray nozzle system. Heck, it might even be the USA off the west coast. I’ve read that there was about a 150 year drought in the southwester US about 1000 years ago during the nonexistent Medieval Warm Period.

Which is quite wrong? Is there a lot of discussion about water vapor and what to do about it or is it quite wrong that water vapor and clouds are not part of the IPCC’s computer models?

I’ll let the readers consider how much they’ve seen about water vapor vs. CO2.

[JR: Nice try. You wrote: "The present temperature is about 2 degrees C lower that the peak temperatures during the last 3 interglacial warming periods." Find a link to any set of data that supports such a statement or retract it. Please do find one that includes current temperatures.

As for water vapor, the matter is pretty much settled in the literature, as my readers know, since I've blogged recently, Study: Water-vapor feedback is “strong and positive,” so we face “warming of several degrees Celsius.” ]

Four things stand out on the graph:
1) The present temperature is about 2 degrees C lower that the peak temperatures during the last 3 interglacial warming periods.

[JR: Untrue. Link please.]

2) The rise in CO2 followed the rise in temperature but more noticeable is the fact that temperature decreased for hundreds and thousands of years while the CO2 stayed high.
3) The present warm period has gone on for longer than the last 3 warm periods and we’re due for the start of another ice age.
4) The earth’s temperature was continually making drastic changes long before mankind had any influence.

[JR: Why do people post this silliness? It changed when it was FORCED to change in the past by natural forcings. Now we are forcing the change.]

I see very little discussion about water vapor as a greenhouse gas but it’s huge compared to CO2. Water vapor’s infrared characteristics in the green house range of the spectrum overlaps CO2 and it exists in much higher concentrations. Imagine the banning of fountians and irragation. the draining of marshes and other measures to reduce water vapor. I can’t imagine that either. I think water vapor and clouds are not a part of the IPCC’s computer models.

[JR: Quite, quite wrong. You "see very little discussion about water vapor as a greenhouse gas" because you don't read this blog or the scientific literature. Nothing to flaunt!]

Andy Gunther and David B. Benson, do you think that Dr. Holdren would be adamant about prohibiting use of coal in the style of Hansen, or would he be willing to think about a combination of solutions that might accomplish this more indirectly? I am referring to a strategy that would cut the amount of heat energy needed by the whole of industrial and emerging society. This alternative has an associated requirement for adjustment, but the fundamental burden could be a lot more attractive than the prospect of very high priced electricity which seems inherent in proposals to ban or cap and trade coal usage.

Absolutely, the world is not ready to change the way we sit in cars.

My thinking is that if people are given the choice between changing the way we sit in cars or not riding in cars at all, then there will be an opportunity to sell my tandem concept. We are not there yet.

The Miastrada car could be an important way to attack global warming. It is fairly simple physics to understand how low frontal area and very low drag coefficient would make a huge difference in the basic demand for energy. The Aptera and other such radical cars offer similarly huge reductions in energy. I had thought that there was enough interest in solving the global warming problem that there would be sufficient motivation for people to consider changing to very radical cars. Then the relative merits of the different radical cars would be on center stage. Maybe there will be an era where there is a variety of radical cars to choose from. But this requires that there be a widespread sense of an urgent need to change. That has not yet happened.

Now I understand that the process will have to wait until we sort out a long list of false pretender solutions. I had thought that hard data and simple physics would have been more successful in showing many of the defects. There is truly a lot of misinformation and general misunderstanding standing in the way. Key examples of hard data that many seem to be unaware of are (1) coal power plants convert heat to electric energy at 33% in the USA, (2) the Prius gasoline engine has been measured by Argonne National Lab. to have an efficiency of 38%, and (3) coal puts out about 35% more CO2 than gasoline to make the same amount of heat. A truth that I consider self evident is that when there is a choice between power sources the one representing the best economic advantage will prevail over the long term. It is inconceivable that scientists capable of calculating the cooling rate due to the spectrum of radiated heat propagating upward, would not be able to see that batteries charged from the grid might not be a very good solution. If only they would take a moment to do the arithmetic.

Other impediments to what I consider to be real solutions are proposals to avert the disaster by limiting the CO2 using legal measures such a cap and trade for CO2 or outright banning of coal. My sense that these are flawed is tied to my sense of what the public will stand for, especially in hard times. I see varying degrees of improbability for the success of wind, concentrated solar, PV solar, or such in actually working on the scale needed. But we will have to work through these options also.

Perhaps I should be clearer about what I am doing. I am (1) designing and building a demonstration car, (2) gathering input that could influence design decisions still open, (3) trying to instigate some public anticipation for something better, and (4) trying to point out flaws in the long list of things standing in the way of incentivising the public to adapt to new car concepts. Comments on blogs like this are my means of moving forward with (3) and (4).

Where I can pick up thoughts and suggestions along the way the process moves more quickly. But I think I have plenty of time to build the demonstration car.

I’m just suggesting you try stepping aside from your current “conflicts” and try to see if any of the problems might be ones you are causing.

Truthfully, I can think of only three possibilities:

1) You have a flawed idea and aren’t listening to feedback about why your idea is flawed. (It could even be something as simple as being ahead of your time. Perhaps the world isn’t ready for tandem seating.)

2) You have a workable idea but you haven’t found a way to adequately present it to others.

3) You might be approaching your potential audience in a way that keeps them from listening to your idea. Flawed or wonderful.

I’ve spent a lot of time in academia and a a lot in the “private” world. I’ve seen people who have a bad idea and won’t accept that something is wrong.

I’ve seen people who have good ideas but very poor communication skills so that their ideas aren’t well understood.

And I’ve seen people who are so unpleasant that people just don’t want to listen to them. They never get an opportunity to tell their story.

Now, none at all of these might apply to you. I’m just suggesting that you might benefit by seeing if there is something you can do to improve your success.

I can cheerfully ignore your concern that I am a crackpot and that I should beware that security might be coming to get me.

The word “crusade” requires something more.

I am only trying to drive a sick friend to a hospital where he is scheduled for a complicated operation that is covered by insurance. I discover on arriving at his house that Joe is there trying to get him to get his legs amputated at a hospital that does not accept insurance. We are both confronted by a crowd of witch doctors promising cures in return for large cash donations.

At least please substitute the word campaign for crusade.

I am trying to be careful and short since my last got “moderated”. What are my chances with this one?