Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Just remember not all climatologists agree about this either.

0 Replies

Quote:

You can't help but note an obsession, one track mind, or tunnel vision concerning CO2, but it is only one factor out of many, and may be far from the most important? Just my take on it anyway.

I agree with you Okie.

The problem lies in the fact that we are trying to understand what is basically a system so complicated that it cannot be understood by any single fact, figure, model. It doesn't follow observable trends as much as it should, chaos apparently plays a huge role in climate formation. This leads to the tendency for scientists to pick one aspect of the problem, and try to explain that aspect, because understanding the entire system is far beyond our current abilities.

This is the major reason why you don't see me arguing the numbers on here; there just isn't enough known by anyone to make a conclusive argument one way or the other. Not that I don't think that pollution and climate change are problems, I just don't think you have to get deep into the unknowable science to see that they are problems.

Look at it this way: imagine that we lived on a space station, with about a thousand people on it, and had a basically closed environment. Wouldn't you pay attention to the atmospheric life support system? Wouldn't it make sense to be proactive in making sure it doesn't screw up too badly? Because, the Earth is exactly that: our spaceship, with a life-support system that we know we can screw up if we don't manage it right.

Even if it comes at the expense of speed of expansion/development, we must consider the possible consequences of our environmental decisions. We don't have a backup if we screw it up! This isn't to say that we should live in caves, just make keeping the environment clean a high priority.

Of course, there are different ways to do this; I for example favor nuclear energy and space research/utilization, two industries that have a hell of a lot of profit tied up in them. Environmentalist Not Equal

anti-business or anti-progress per se, just anti- the way we have been doing business right now.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

parados wrote:

There is no study on the NOAA website that lists the numbers in the faked junkscience chart. Why is that okie? Should we trust a website that lies about its sources? The supposed link junkscience gives doesn't exist. I tried it.

Strawman Parados. Your critics are ridiculous.
Just take the link ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
And plot it and you'll see the graph of Junkscience. As with the offset difference with my graph it just might as well be to new calibration conventions (see what they say about background irradiance at NOAA site).

Next time you want to appear to have something interesting to say, please do a minimal homework before Evil or Very Mad

http://img314.imageshack.us/img314/3166/image1zx3.gif

0 Replies

mini,

I will admit I didn't look at the both sets of numbers in the 2000 Lean study. Why does your chart have 2 different radiances charted but the junkscience one only have one? Have you read the meaning from Lean concerning background?

You might want to learn what a "strawman" is before you use the term.
Please point out where I misrepresented your or okie's arguments.

But if we look at both Lean charts we see no increase in solar activity from 1971 to the present. Yet we have evidence of increase in temperature in that time period. What is the cause of that increase? Do you have anything to propose that isn't man made?

0 Replies

Steve 41oo wrote:

well much as you are entitled to your take okie, it doesnt have as much weight as the considered opinion of the worlds leading climatologists.

just my 2 cents.

2 cents would be too expensive ! And yes, the vapor intuition of Okie is more than correct since it influence clouds and hence albedo.
Here is what was said at the 4rth meeting SORCE by V. Ramanathan (one IPCC author) :

"The global average planetary albedo is about 29% (±2%). The albedo of the clear sky region of the planet is about 14% (±2%). Thus the presence of clouds enhances the albedo of a cloud free earth by about a factor of two. We also know that, while the atmospheric circulation determines the location and extent of clouds and water content, aerosols determine the size and number distribution of cloud drops and ice crystals. The aerosol properties are determined by the chemistry (e.g. oxidation of sulfur dioxide and organics) and the biology (dimethyl sulfide). All of these parameters including the aerosol concentration and composition undergo significant temporal (minutes to years) and spatial (meters to planetary scales) variations. Yet it is remarkable that our general circulation climate models are able to explain the observed temperature variations during the last century solely through variations in greenhouse gases, volcanoes and solar constant. This implies that the planetary albedo has not changed during the last 100 years by more than ±0.2% (out of 30%). This, seemingly improbable model generated hypothesis, has not been tested thus far. [...]
There is practically no theory for explaining how the cloudy sky albedos are regulated. Given this state of the field, and given the fact that clouds exert a large global cooling effect (about -15 to 20 Wm -2 ) we need a new approach to cut through the current impasse on this fundamental problem in climate dynamics."

0 Replies

Since you want to bring up the SORCE meeting let me quote Lean for you mini

http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/2006ScienceMeeting/abstracts/pdf/3_Lean.pdf

Quote:

For the past twenty-five years, space-based radiometers have continuously monitored
the Sun's total radiative output, unanimously detecting an 11-year cycle of amplitude about
0.08%, as a result of changing magnetic sunspot and facular features on the Sun's surface. An
array of empirical evidence suggests that climate responds to the solar activity cycle by some
combination of direct surface heating, indirect processes involving UV radiation and the
stratosphere, and modulation of internal climate system circulation patterns. Empirical data
also suggest longer-term Sun-climate associations but evidence for significant secular
irradiance change is ambiguous. Calibration offsets between the solar radiometers and in-flight
sensitivity drifts thus far preclude the direct determination of whether longer-term irradiance
trends are occurring in addition to the 11 year cycle. Simulations of the evolution of magnetic
flux on the Sun's surface suggest a secular total irradiance increase of order 0.08% during the
past three centuries, which is less than the increase of 0.2-0.4% inferred from earlier studies of
variations in Sun-like stars and cosmogenic isotopes. The Solar Radiation and Climate
Experiment (SORCE) commences a new generation of solar irradiance measurements with
much expanded capabilities.

It seems Lean is backing away from the 2000 background inclusive numbers.

0 Replies

Since we are all keen to get informations from both sides of the (poltical) spectrum,

- here's a report about a study which will be published by the Labour (left) UK government:

Study warns of stark costs of failing to counter climate change as leaders meet

- here's a report from a meeting of scientists, which is running alongside the Conservative party conference:

Extreme droughts will spread, warn forecasters

The Independent focuses on these topics as well:

The century of drought

Global warming devastates sea ice in Arctic Circle

0 Replies

parados wrote:

mini,
...
But if we look at both Lean charts we see no increase in solar activity from 1971 to the present. Yet we have evidence of increase in temperature in that time period. What is the cause of that increase? Do you have anything to propose that isn't man made?

Sorry, parawindos,
I have nothing simple and easy to believe for you. If you want something as such, just ask senator Gore.
And if you are not convinced that temperature is MORE correlated to solar activity than to CO2 over the many last decades, just have a look at the inconvenient-truth graph over here, page 5: http://www.iedm.org/uploaded/pdf/ianclark1105.pdf
Your conclusion parados ?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

It seems Lean is backing away from the 2000 background inclusive numbers.

Yes, but if in case you lost something in the conversation, I remind you that the 11 year cycle and its associated irradiation fluctuations is far from being the only influence of the sun on Earth's climate. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Minitax, very impressive graphs indeed. They illustrate with pictures what our side has been arguing here on this thread forever.

A couple of the graphs really impressed me, one being how water vapor can be used with computer models to enhance future projected temperature change dramatically, but without it, the change is maybe only a degree with only CO2.

The other graph that illustrates what should be obvious to everyone is the one showing the trends with or without Kyoto. It illustrates the point I've been arguing here from the beginning, that the solution to the problem, if there is a problem, does not begin to solve the problem. It makes little or no impact whatsoever. This points out another point argued with Parados, etc., that if a solution was actually enacted to stop CO2 production significantly, it would obviously have to be so draconian that it would virtually shut down the world and all the economies, thus throwing the entire world into a huge tailspin with all of its associated problems, wars, hunger, the list goes on.

0 Replies

Quote:

f a solution was actually enacted to stop CO2 production significantly, it would obviously have to be so draconian that it would virtually shut down the world and all the economies, thus throwing the entire world into a huge tailspin with all of its associated problems, wars, hunger, the list goes on.

There is no evidence that this is true. In fact, it could be the start of extremely profitable new industries.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Here is where common sense comes into play, Cyclops. All the evidence supports my assertion. Now, if you can come up with just one credible energy expert that has proof that the world can be weaned off of fossil fuels within a few years or even decades, then I am willing to listen. I will not accept pie in the sky ideas. They must be proven to be workable and they must be practical both in price and technology.

As you ponder this, try to visualize the millions of people being transported to work every day, the millions of industrial operations buzzing along every day, the millions of trucks, ships, airplanes, and trains transporting goods all over the world every day, as well as all the buildings, homes, restaurants, hotels, manufacturing plants and everything else being heated and serviced in every way every single day, then Cyclops tell all of us with a straight face that all of the energy to accomplish this can be weaned from fossil fuels very soon without a major catastrophic disruption in the economy.

0 Replies

Maybe you should ask Sweden. They even have the position of "Minister for Sustainable Development" in their administration. Here are some of his suggestions, published in the wake of Katrina last year.

(Sweden wants to be independent from fossil fuels by 2020. Sorry for the long copy/paste, but it contains many really interesting suggestions!)

Quote:

Sweden first to break dependence on oil! New programme presented

In recent weeks we have read about and anguished over the devastation in the United States. These natural disasters have also reminded us how vulnerable we are to the forces of the weather. A hurricane that puts a number of oil rigs out of action affects the availability of oil, the economies and the price of petrol around the world.

We have seen the consequences in every country. In light of the oil supply disruptions, the Swedish Government recently decided to allow withdrawals from the country's emergency stocks of petroleum products. The whole world is now dreading the problems brought about by dependence on oil. In a situation where President Bush speaks to the nation about using cars less - and where Ford and Toyota demand that the President takes steps to reduce dependence on oil - each and every one of us can see how the devastation created by the hurricanes rapidly changes the attitude towards fuel. It is as though the idea that oil is a finite resource is only now seriously having an impact on the debate. But there is reason to believe that this awareness will also remain on the agenda in the slightly longer term.

Climate change is the greatest and most important environmental challenge of our time. Most of the world's climate researchers agree that the Earth's climate system is changing - and in order to slow down these changes, emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced. The Government is therefore setting a new policy target: the creation of the conditions necessary to break Sweden's dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. A Sweden free of fossil fuels would give us enormous advantages, not least by reducing the impact from fluctuations in oil prices. The price of oil has tripled since 1996! Old oil price records are now being beaten at a rapid rate.

It is already a major competitive advantage for Sweden's industry and the economy that, by international standards, the country has such a small dependence on oil. Swedish policy instruments such as investment grants, norms for energy use, loans with interest subsidies and information drives have formed the basis of a conscious policy to gradually reduce oil use. Since 1994 the use of oil in the housing and services sector has decreased by 15.2 TWh. The use of oil in industry has remained largely unchanged - although industrial production has increased by 70 per cent! Measures to increase energy efficiency and to promote the development of district heating continue to be politically important tools. An increasing number of households are taking advantage of the benefits of district heating and heating pellets; car industry order books are being filled with hybrid and ethanol cars. This trend must be speeded up. The Government is therefore presenting a national programme against dependence on oil with the following main features.

. Tax relief for conversion from oil. It is unacceptable that many owners of single-family homes are dependent on oil for their heating and are thus hard hit by high oil prices. In the next few weeks I will be presenting a Government Bill on financial support for the owners of single-family homes and multi-dwelling buildings in order to encourage conversion from oil heating to renewable energy heating, beginning next year. The public sector must take the lead and set a good example. For some time now, therefore, special support has been available to libraries, public swimming baths and hospitals, for example, that become more fuel efficient by converting to renewable energy.

. More renewable energy. Oil and coal are finite fuels. The target must be that we base our entire energy supply on renewable fuels. The EU trading system represents an important step towards improved competitiveness in renewable energy at European level. In our country, renewable electricity has increased by approximately 4.5 TWh since 2002, not least by means of the green certificate system. We will give a longer term perspective on electricity certificates in a Government Bill to be presented next spring. The level of ambition has been set very high - by 2016, renewable electricity production will have increased by 15 TWh from the 2002 level. A directive to state-owned Vattenfall means the company will be responsible for major investments in renewable energy for the future. A new inquiry will submit proposals to the Government on how also agricultural production of renewable energy can be increased.

. Measures for renewable fuels. Breaking dependence on oil in the transport sector will be a great challenge and the Government therefore has an ambitious policy to increase the percentage of renewable fuels. For the individual, it will pay to choose an environmentally friendly car. Carbon dioxide neutral fuels will be cheap - they are exempt from both carbon dioxide tax and energy tax for a five-year period. Environmental cars will be exempted from the Stockholm Trial with environmental charges and will have access to free parking in some municipalities. Cars that are classified as a taxable benefit and run on environmentally friendly fuel will continue to enjoy tax relief. The Government will give priority to purchasing environmentally friendly cars. Sweden is also working actively in the EU for us to permit a higher blend of ethanol in petrol, a measure which would quickly have a great positive effect. The readjustment of the transport sector requires both international and national efforts with broad contributions by researchers, industry, users and the state.

. Research and new knowledge for a renewable society. Resources for energy research will now be increased substantially - the level advised in the budget amounts to some SEK 815 million per year. Next year the Government will therefore present a new Bill in this area. The purpose of these measures is to achieve more renewable energy production and more efficient energy use. Special research projects in areas such as energy use in built environments, biofuels, gasification of biomass, and commercialisation and risk capital provision may also be called for.

. Continued investment in district heating. District heating has increased radically in Sweden in recent years and the Government wants this trend to continue. The Government will thus offer clear financial incentives where biofuels and environmentally friendly heating will be economically advantageous. New money for climate investment programmes in all the municipalities in the country will also be significant in reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

Along with high oil prices and climate change, an increasing number of countries are recognising the problem with fossil fuels. Sweden has the chance to be an international model and a successful actor in export markets for alternative solutions. But this requires conscious investments - not a reactionary policy that obstructs the transition to alternative energy sources and investments in the environment of the future. Breaking dependence on oil brings many opportunities for strengthened competitiveness, technological development and progress. The aim is to break dependence on fossil fuels by 2020. By then no home will need oil for heating. By then no motorist will be obliged to use petrol as the sole option available. By then there will always be better alternatives to oil.

Mona Sahlin
Minister for Sustainable Development

0 Replies

There are countless plans to reduce dependence on oil, which by the way does not eliminate other sources of greenhouse gas producing energy sources. Your quoted plan for Sweden sounds good, but what evidence is there that it will work? We've had politicians here talking about weaning ourselves from foreign oil for decades, but the percentage of imported oil continues to grow.

The following graph does not show much improvement, if any, in the way of greenhouse gas emissions in European countries, including Sweden, since 1990.

The truth is there is no credible plan that can reduce greenhous gases by a very large percentage anytime in the near future.

http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=2166

0 Replies

Okie, I don't have time to write a long post right now, but I'll shoot this off real quick:

Just because something is difficult to do, doesn't mean it isn't worth doing.

Just because we can't see ourselves being 100% successful right away, doesn't mean we shouldn't start trying.

Ever eat a sandwich? A big one, like a foot-long sub? Let me ask you, do you eat that thing in one big bite, a gargantuan crushing of the teeth which is epic in proportion? No, you eat it in small bites.

Working for climate change is simliar. We don't have to have a grand plan for eliminating ALL emissions within a decade. We just need to make it a priority to start cleaning our act up, and do what we can now while making plans for the future. Even if it takes 50 years, it is better to start with the mentality sooner than later.

Advocating that we should do nothing, because we don't have a grand solution for the whole thing, is ridiculous. Imagine if you applied the same standards to the War on Terror.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I am advocating we do something, but I do not advocate the possibility of weaning ourselves totally off of oil until something else practical is available to replace it, and there is not at this point. You are correct it will be a slow process, I think driven by price and competition, supply and demand. To really reduce CO2 significantly, the slow process would have to be sped up drastically, so much so that such a changeover would cause economic upheaval. That is what I do not believe is necessary.

You, Parados, and others do not seem to grasp the obvious truth that if the CO2 problem is as serious as some claim, as Al Gore claims, the slow process of changeover to alternative energy sources, as the track currently is, it will not impact CO2 enough to avert impending disaster. Since I do not believe disaster is likely to happen at all, I therefore advocate a sensible and reasonable policy of transition, based on conservation, economics, and technology.

You on the other hand must somehow figure out what you really believe. If you believe the Al Gores of the world, the likely track the world is headed in is not sufficient, and not even near sufficient by orders of magnitude. You must somehow get your leaders into power so that they can do something very drastic and quick to avert the predicted disaster. So make up your mind. Is the problem as serious as predicted by some or not?

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
f a solution was actually enacted to stop CO2 production significantly, it would obviously have to be so draconian that it would virtually shut down the world and all the economies, thus throwing the entire world into a huge tailspin with all of its associated problems, wars, hunger, the list goes on.

There is no evidence that this is true. In fact, it could be the start of extremely profitable new industries.

Cycloptichorn

Hire a window breaker brigade. Send them throughout the country breaking as many windows as possible. It could be the start of "extremely profitable" new industries. More glass would be sold. More people would be hired to repair broken windows. It would stimulate the economy since people would strive to earn more money to buy window. With such a success, hire more windows breaker brigades and you'll suppress unemployment and make the economy work.

This metaphore had been used by Bastiat more than a century ago to denounce state interventionism which try to disguise insane reasonning behind sophisticated and over optimistic rationale. But it fatally ends up in a desaster, like the European application of Kyoto is ALREADY a disaster, now.
Want to try new social or economic experiences? But what if it went sour, like the communist experience or the green experience of DDT banning (which resulted in tens of millions of useless deaths)?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Maybe you should ask Sweden. They even have the position of "Minister for Sustainable Development" in their administration. Here are some of his suggestions, published in the wake of Katrina last year.

Sweden has a population density 6 times less than that of France or Italy, 8 times less than that of GB.
Sweden is a rather flat country 95% covered by forest whereas the forest coverage is about 30% for France, 15% for GB.
Sweden has plenty of hydroelectric or wood ressource. GB or Ireland has virtually none.
And you recommend to take the Swede example ?
In this complex world, a unique solution is a BAD solution.

0 Replies

Sweden has more forest than any other country in Europe, no doubts, but according to official figures it's just more than 50%.

0 Replies

miniTAX wrote:

old europe wrote:
Maybe you should ask Sweden. They even have the position of "Minister for Sustainable Development" in their administration. Here are some of his suggestions, published in the wake of Katrina last year.
Sweden has a population density 6 times less than that of France or Italy, 8 times less than that of GB.
Sweden is a rather flat country 95% covered by forest whereas the forest coverage is about 30% for France, 15% for GB.
Sweden has plenty of hydroelectric or wood ressource. GB or Ireland has virtually none.
And you recommend to take the Swede example ?
In this complex world, a unique solution is a BAD solution.

I gave Sweden as an example in response to okie's allegation that the world cannot be "weaned off of fossil fuels within a few years or even decades". Fact is: it's possible.

Depending on the region, you would have to use a different energy mix, of course. Take Germany (high population density): until 2020, the solar energy industry would be able to produce 37 percent of the electricity needed. Electricity from renewable resources accounts for 10,2 percent as of today. The amount of energy necessary for heating could be reduced by 90 percent. 25 percent of the electricity produced would no longer be needed.

And the list goes on and on. All the whining about how the US is addicted to oil, but is simply unable to break that addiction within even decades is just ridiculous and lacks any base in reality.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know