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

I'm sure that no-one has suggested solar power plants would equal nuclear or coal fired plants. Besides that, these plant don't deliver all the time their maximum output .... and don't work all days as well.

True, but their average 24/7 power output is generally above 90% of their maximum capacity - mostly because they are at their highest efficiency at full power. Wind and solar units are, of necessity, designed and rated at their peak power which is possible only at noon on a sunny day or when the wind is blowing steadily at unusually high speeds. There is a profound difference in the practical, real world meaning of the rated power output of these plants and conventional ones.

Walter, I think the biggest hurdle is to be able to build a practical storage system for electricity from solar and wind, on a very large scale. Until that happens, wind and solar are confined to providing only a small minority of generated power in the grid.

I think, building a practical storage system for electricity from any source would be great.

From the NCDC Climate of 2008 Annual Report

Walter - you know the catch on such quotes "years on record" aren't exactly equal to the lifespan of the planet....

As to the demented nitwits with pretentions to - inter alia - legal expertise, he / they turned tail and ran in shame from grotesque allegations they made on another thread - not the first time, and likely not the last, so they're going on ignore henceforth. If I HAD the alleged persistence, I would have pursued to subject, but I find that arguing with liars, and crazy liars to boot, is a waste of time:
http://able2know.org/topic/121661-2#post-3545297

Walter, A-AAGT has been decreasing over the last 4 years.
CAD has been increasing over the last 12 years, but SI has been decreasing over the last 9 years.

NCDC Climate of 2008
Annual Report
Year ... °C
1997 . 0.46
1998 . 0.58
1999
2000
2001 . 0.49
2002 . 0.56
2003 . 0.56
2004 . 0.53
2005 . 0.61
2006 . 0.55
2007 . 0.55
2008 . 0.49

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
1997 0.351
1998 0.546
1999 0.296
2000 0.270
2001 0.409
2002 0.464
2003 0.473
2004 0.447
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.405
2008 0.325

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

YEAR - CAD --- SI ----- A-AAGT
------- ppm -- w/m^2 -- °C
1998 367.61 1366.11 0.546
1999 368.59 1366.39 0.296
2000 370.33 1366.67 0.270
2001 371.83 1366.40 0.409
2002 374.45 1366.37 0.464
2003 376.71 1366.07 0.473
2004 378.23 1365.91 0.447
2005 380.78 1365.81 0.482
2006 382.55 1365.72 0.422
2007 384.60 1365.66 0.405
2008 386.20 1365.60 0.324

lican711nm--An excellent post. I fear, however, that some do not realize the meaning of your figures. Walter's source is, unfortunately, involved in "cherry picking" the years and I do hope that Walter realizes that we cannot speak only of a few years but must go back in time. In another part of Walter's link, we find the following- Note the words-DURING THE PAST CENTURY.


QUOTE During the past century, global surface temperatures have increased at a rate near 0.05°C/decade (0.09°F/decade), but this trend has increased to a rate of approximately 0.16°C/decade (0.29°F/decade) during the past 30 years. There have been two sustained periods of warming, one beginning around 1910 and ending around 1945, and the most recent beginning about 1976. Temperatures during the latter period of warming have increased at a rate comparable to the rates of warming projected to occur during the next century with continued increases of anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

END OF QUOTE

I have never heard a cogent explanation of the figures showing GLOBAL TEMPERATURE. My source indicates that GLOBAL TEMPERATURE increased 0.4 C from 1910 to 1940 but HAD NO GAIN from 1940 to 1980.

Assuming these figures are correct, I have never been able to find an explanation why there was no rise in the global temperature from 1940 to 1980. Surely, emissions of the putative villians-greenhouse gases--were much larger from 1940 to 1980 than the previous forty years.

Source-Tett, S.F.B.
"Causes of Twentieth Century Temperature Changes Near the Earth's Surface" NATURE 399:569-72

While this hasn't helped before, this might now help alittle to understand that the sun apparently has more impact on AAFT than CAD--but only if it were to be studied carefully!

It is a fact that during the specific 90 year period,
1908 to 1998, CAD increased, SI increased, A-AAGT
increased, and AAGT increased. It is also a fact that
during the specific 11 year period, 1998 to 2008,
CAD increased, SI decreased, A-AAGT decreased, and
AAGT decreased. Because of these facts, SI increases
and decreases--and not CAD increases and decreases--are likely to be the major causes of A-AAGT and AAGT increases and decreases.

{CAGT = CENTURY AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMERATURE,1901-2000, in °K
AAGT= ANNUAL AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE in °K
A-AAGT = ANOMALIES of AAGT = AAGT - CAGT in °K
SI = SOLAR IRRADIANCE in W/M^2
CAD = CO2 ATMOSPHERIC DENSITY in PPM}

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2008

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

CO2 Trend 1958-2008

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

They're saying that 90% of the U.S. including Fla. is below freezing right now..

And, at precisely the same time, gunga, Australia is experiencing a record heat wave, "the hottest week on record" they say, 7 days over 40 decrees C (104 degrees F) unprecedented in Adelaide (where my sister lives), and comparable over the rest of the populous parts of the country, not to mention six years of drought. Australia is comparable in area to the lower 48 of the U.S. and they're going thru the opposite of us, which is why it doesn't make much sense for you, or anyone else, to try to draw a global picture from the viewpoint of one country

Instead of the garbage you just posted, Monterey Jack, why don't you address the previous posts by Ican and me? You can't? I thought so.

Your blurb about anyone trying to draw a global picture from the viewpoint of one country is exactly what I addressed in my last post. I showed that global temperature between 1910 and 1940 rose while it stayed the same from 1940 and 1980.

Do you have an explanation for that?

Gungasnake--Notice that Monterey Jack never attempts to rebut Ican's data.

He can't.

You mean, it should be done like okie does it, just looking at one or a couple of months? Or like ican does it, a couple of years?

I mean, what can you do against the fact that the USA didn't start recording climate/weather data earlier than 1880?

Science does. If you bothered to do some research instead of acting stupid, you would find the answer.

Oh.. it's not an act..

Well, I guess no one can help you then.


But for others -
1. surface readings of the sun's radiation were reduced during that time period
2. Man made aerosols were in heavy use and were blocking radiation

Ican's data is not the problem. His conclusions are and they have been rebutted numerous times. He ignores the rebuttal and just reposts his silly argument over and over and over and over....

Our Sec. of Energy warns that immediate action is needed to curb global warming, and speaks of the dire consequences. One of the major results is drought, and what comes from this. Of course, we have O'Bill, our resident moron, who says there is no problem with water and that the country can easily bring in billions of immigrants. He labels as bigots those who disagree.

ENVIRONMENT -- SECRETARY CHU TELLS AMERICA TO 'WAKE UP' TO THE REALITIES OF CLIMATE CHANGE: In his first interview as Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu "offered some of the starkest comments yet on how seriously President Obama's cabinet views the threat of climate change." Chu told the Los Angeles Times that the nation is like "a family buying an old house and being told by an inspector that it must pay a hefty sum to rewire it or risk an electrical fire that could burn everything down." "I'm hoping that the American people will wake up," he continued. Chu also worried the nation doesn't yet recognize how great a threat global warming represents, saying, "I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen." One danger Chu highlighted in the interview was more frequent drought throughout the West, with major declines in the snowpack that waters California. In the worst case, Chu explained, "We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California. I don't actually see how they can keep their cities going." Chu described "public education as a key part of the administration's strategy to fight global warming" -- in addition to clean energy research, infrastructure, a national renewable electricity standard, and a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade system. Perhaps proving his point that Americans have yet to "wake up," right-wing climate-change-denial bloggers retort that the Nobel Prize-winning quantum physicist and energy expert can't be believed because he "isn't a climate scientist."

--americanprogressaction.org

He doesn't ignore the rebuttal. He disagrees with it and gives his reasons why.

I suspect that Okie citing a couple of months as an illustration or Ican citing a couple of years as an illustration isn't that much different that Walter posting one of his found articles citing anecdotal weather-related observations. Do you see a difference there?

I can go back and pull plenty of Okie and Ican posts stating that they both are of the opinion that a few years or fifty years or a hundred years is but a blip in climate trends/patterns for Planet Earth. On the other hand, those who are full steam ahead disciples of the "global warming will doom us all" hype, consistently refuse to consider the periods documented for Planet Earth when the CO2 levels have been much higher than now and the Earth was warmer than now long before any humans thought up an automobile or light bulb. As I recall they also didn't comment on periods in which CO2 was higher and the average temps were LOWER than now which should give at least pause for thought as to whether CO2 levels actually drives the average temperatures of the planet rather than being a side effect of climate changes.

It is also important to know how much, if any, effect anthropogenic CO2 production affects the climate as related to that occuring naturally (or anything else for that matter) before we start implementing major policy to control anthropogenic CO2 production.

So you say my link above is "a found article" with "anecdotal weather related observations".

That's really a strange observation, to say it politely. But I'm not an American nor a meteorologist or climate scientist.