COMMITTED EMISSIONS: Existing fossil fuel infrastructure may not emit enough CO2 to cause catastrophic climate change but new infrastructure will need to include technologies that capture CO2, like the one pictured here, to avoid dangerous global warming.
Image: © David Biello
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations. If we content ourselves with the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure we can hold greenhouse gas concentrations below 450 parts per million in the atmosphere and limit warming to below 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels—both common benchmarks for international efforts to avoid the worst impacts of ongoing climate change—according to a new analysis in the September 10 issue of Science. The bad news is we are adding more fossil-fuel infrastructure—oil-burning cars, coal-fired power plants, industrial factories consuming natural gas—every day.
A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions".
That assumes life spans of roughly 40 years for a coal-fired power plant and 17 years for a typical car—potentially major under- and overestimates, respectively, given that some coal-fired power plants still in use in the U.S. first fired up in the 1950s. Plugging that roughly 500 gigatonne number into a computer-generated climate model predicted CO2 levels would then peak at less than 430 ppm with an attendant warming of 1.3 degrees C above preindustrial average temperature. That's just 50 ppm higher than present levels and 150 ppm higher than preindustrial atmospheric concentrations.
Still, we are rapidly approaching a point of no return, cautions climate modeler Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who participated in the study. "There is little doubt that more CO2-emitting devices will be built," the researchers wrote. After all, the study does not take into account all the enabling infrastructure—such as highways, gas stations and refineries—that contribute inertia that holds back significant changes to lower-emitting alternatives, such as electric cars.
And since 2000 the world has added 416 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants, 449 gigawatts of natural gas–fired power plants and even 47.5 gigawatts of oil-fired power plants, according to the study's figures. China alone is already responsible for more than a third of the global "committed emissions," including adding 2,000 cars a week to the streets of Beijing as well as 322 gigawatts of coal-fired power plants built since 2000.
The U.S.—the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases per person, among major countries—has continued a transition to less CO2-intensive energy use that started in the early 20th century. Natural gas—which emits 40 percent less CO2 than coal when burned—now dominates new power plants (nearly 188 gigawatts added since 2000) along with wind (roughly 28 gigawatts added), a trend broadly similar to other developed nations such as Japan or Germany.
But the U.S. still generates half of its electricity via coal burning—and what replaces those power plants over the next several decades will play a huge role in determining the ultimate degree of global climate change. Coal-burning poses other threats as well, including the toxic coal ash that can spill from the impoundments where it is kept; other polluting emissions that cause acid rain and smog; and the soot that causes and estimated 13,200 extra deaths and nearly 218,000 asthma attacks per year, according to a report from the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group. "Unfortunately, persistently elevated levels of fine particle pollution are common across wide swaths of the country," reveals the 2010 report, released September 9. "Most of these pollutants originate from combustion sources such as power plants, diesel trucks, buses and cars."
Of course, those are the same culprits contributing the bulk of greenhouse gas emissions. Yet "programs to scale up 'carbon neutral' energy are moving slowly at best," notes physicist Martin Hoffert of New York University in a perspective on the research also published in Science on September 10. "The difficulties posed by generating even [one terawatt] of carbon-neutral power led the late Nobel laureate Richard Smalley and colleagues to call it the 'terawatt challenge'."
That is because all carbon-free sources of energy combined provide a little more than two of the 15 terawatts that power modern society—the bulk of that from nuclear and hydroelectric power plants. At least 10 terawatts each from nuclear; coal with carbon capture and storage; and renewables, such as solar and wind, would be required by mid-century to eliminate CO2 emissions from energy use. As Caldeira and his colleagues wrote: "Satisfying growing demand for energy without producing CO2 emissions will require truly extraordinary development and deployment of carbon-free sources of energy, perhaps 30 [terawatts] by 2050."
See what we're tweeting about
125 Comments
Add CommentThe overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the MWP deniers, such as the IPCC, US EPA and the UKs MET Office, will never admit the existence of the MWP because it means that their religious-like belief in AGW is exposed for the steaming pile of junk science that it truly is.
In total, climate change is complex and not well understood.
But this part is simple.
Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator.
In the past, the Earth was warmer than it is today; before the social and industrial advances that have made modern people the healthiest and most prosperous in history. MWP deniers want us to believe that plant friendly and life giving CO2 is a bad thing to better advance their meglomanical desire to both boss around the developed world and further impoverish the poor while pocketing a lot of taxpayer money along the way.
Useless, misguided attempts to control carbon are not the answer to the ever changing climate.There is only one answer to changes in climate that has ever worked for humanity.
That is adaptation.
One of the many links to the overwhelming Paleoclimate evidence of the global nature of the MWP is below.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
The medieval 'warm period' was not warmer then today- neither was the 'Minoan'. I suggest you check the graph as supplied by the NOAA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The medieval warming period was NOT as warm today
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislets refrain from political agendas and non science babble
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html
The calculation is revealing. It only indicates that we need to redouble our efforts. http://jdbapat.blogspot.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today." - KookFart
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst: The medieval warming period wasn't a global phenomenon, it was a regional warming.
Second: It didn't produce global temperatures that were greater than today.
Third: Even if it did it would not alter the fact that a doubling of CO2 will raise the global surface temperature by 2 to 4'C
Forth: Your source of information is a well known propaganda site funded by the Carbon Industry.
With 57 nuclear reactors being built around the world, another 140 ordered and a further 150 proposed for 2020, the process of shutting down carbon is under way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA worldwide investment in 10000 mass produced nuclear reactors paid for by ending expensive fossil fuel use, would eliminate most air pollution saving millions of lives annually, end the global warming/ peak oil problem within a ten year time frame, provide a huge job producing boost to the economy, and require only a small part of our industrial capacity.
The US would need 2500 gigawatts of mass produced nukes at $2500B financed by the $800B paid every year into the coffers of Big Oil/Coal for their deadly products.
Currently Asian nukes are under $1.5B/Gw and 1.5 cents a kwh and AECL and Westinghouse are predicting less than half that for their new mass produced Gen 3+ units. Our current nuke operating cost is 2 cents a kwh less than coal or NG.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-leverages-learning-curve-cost.html
Public power giant TVA has announced it is replacing its coal plants with nuke at its current less than 5 cents a kwh cost for new nukes despite the enormous and soon to change millstone the NRC represents to American nuclear.
In the US, like FDR's TVA and Bonneville, Obama needs to start a giant public power nuke corporation charged with replacing all of America's coal plants on site with a single national license.
As we convert to nukes, NG electricity and heating applications would immediately convert to nuclear electricity. The freed up gas would be available to make CNG, methanol, DME (propane), and synfuel transportion fuels as we transition to nuclear produced synfuels and electric vehicles.
Call it the nuclear Picken's plan.
Nuclear has the support of fascists and deniers even Repugs as well as a significant percentage of progressives. Fascists,deniers, and Repugs work very hard to shut down renewables. Only nuclear is politically possible.
This is ticket to the Dems success in the midterms
The 30000 American's who die every year the coal to nuclear conversion is delayed would appreciate our speeding up efforts.
So, if all of humanity immediately departed Earth for some New World, how long would it take for the global temperature to return to preindustrial levels?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI was kinda hoping to at least find the answer to the question posed by the title...
Shifting to renewable form of energy will reduce not only CO2, but heaps of pollution and other unkown eniro-impacts. This is a win-win situation and is commonse more than any scientific argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry for the typo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShifting to renewable form of energy will not only reduce CO2, but heaps of pollution and other unknown environmental impacts. This is a win-win situation and is commonsense more than any scientific argument.
I really don't think that humanity is up to the job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur entire civilization is totally dependent on petroleum products and latest evaluations put peak oil at about 4 years and by about 2050 a mere 10% of oil will remain.
We are between a rock and a hard place with global warming on one side and oil depletion on the other. Our societies are on the verge of collapse and I really doubt that a few windmills are going to stave off the inevitable.
Enjoy every day.
@jtdwyer -
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a good question, but (I suspect) rhetorical.
We have a lot of data and some good indications of where things are going, in a general sense. However we can never know everything or exactly what will happen, if lowered to a sufficient level of detail. For example, can we ever predict global climate down to a molecular or atomic level? No.
One of the things we do not know is what the latency period is for CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses), how fast vegetation would rebound without humans and numerous other significant factors that would contribute to C02 and climate regulation.
What we do know, or at least strongly suspect, is that human-kind will not act decisively until there is a major, unmistakable catastrophe. By that time it may be too late to prevent further significant damage, due to the aforementioned latency period.
Then there are also the "unknown unknowns" ...
And while we are at it let us not forget all of the methane being released from the thawing permafrost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have opened Pandora's box and now we are going to reap the whirlwind.
Enjoy the ride.
ps. And Oh! We are currently in the midst of an unmistakable catastrophe and it's call Mass Extinction.
Records of late-Holocene East Asian winter monsoon in the East China Sea: Key grain-size component of quartz versus bulk sediments
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this......The core record spanned 2100 years, and three periods of change in EAWM strength were identified. A period of increased EAWM strength prior to 1520 cal. BP was followed by a period of weakened EAWM strength from 1520 to 720 cal. BP, which is consistent with the Sui-Tang Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period. This is followed by a period of slightly increased EAWM between 720 and 220 cal. BP, which corresponds to what is called the Little Ice Age...........
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VGS-4YB5M4C-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F06%2F2010&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_origin=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1456408846&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=33c20ddf3f878859aa0bf854e211a0d7&searchtype=a
Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe stability of floating ice shelves is an important indicator of ocean circulation and ice-shelf mass balance. A sub–ice-shelf sediment core collected during the Austral summer of 2000–2001 from site AM02 (69°42.8'S, 72°38.4'E) on the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, contains a full and continuous record of glacial retreat. The AM02 core site is 80 km south of the floating ice shelf edge and contains a 0.5-m-thick Holocene surface layer of siliceous mud and diatom ooze of marine origin. Core data are supportive of sub–ice-shelf circulation models that predict the landward flow of oceanic water, and prove that the landward transport of hemipelagic sediments occurs beneath floating ice shelves over distances of at least 80 km. An increase in sea-ice–associated diatom deposition in the upper part of the Holocene suggests that a major retreat of the Amery Ice Shelf to at least 80 km landward of its present location may have occurred during the mid-Holocene climatic optimum.
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/127
The Amery Ice Shelf retreated 80 km from its 2001 position during the mid-Holocene climatic optimum.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo any of you warmists care to explain how that happened during an era when human caused global warming was impossible?
Could you also explain why that means it was colder then than it is now?
Orkneygal--are you trying to say that the enormous amounts of greenhouse gases that humans are pumping into the atmosphere are having no effect on the biosphere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCertainly there have been numerous mass extinctions and one of them may of been caused by too many plants sucking up mass amounts of CO2 and causing a global cooling.
However this current mass extinction is caused by us.
Also keep in mind that Volcanoes also release CO2 and that massive volcanoes release massive amounts of CO2.
Sometimes it's a volcano and sometimes it's an existing life form that is doing the damage.
Regardless, we are on our way out of this very ancient biosphere.
Brief but intense---very intense.
Yes, we absolutely need Nuclear Power to replace coal power. We also need to increase research into replacements for petroleum. Transition of rail networks over to electric, powered by safe reactors would be a good step. Solar and Wind, though they are the popular solutions, are not realistic. Both have heavy environmental costs. Neither will provide the bulk power that is needed to run society. All options need to be on the table.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is not competitive with coal, primarily because of legal costs. The legal costs roughly double the cost of a nuclear fission plant. And it is still almost cost competitive.
Replace Nuclear fission plants with nuclear fusion plants as soon as it gets working. But don't hold your breath. Fusion has been 20 years away from commercial reality since 1937. the latest estimates are that it is now only about 20 years away.
Space solar, if it ever gets done might be a good option, but on Earth solar and wind will never be more than a small contribution.
Bio-fuels have already caused famine in several countries that depended on the US for food. Now we burn food, and don't even save any oil in doing so.
Hydro is max'd out in the US.
"Clean Coal", by injection into the ground of CO2 is going to be a problem for generations. Guess what folks, The ground leaks. Especially at high pressures. Microscopic cracks connect eventually to the surface. You are not solving the problem, you are only delaying it.
Planting forests will sequester CO2, but only for about 20 years. Then, if you don't cut the trees down and bury them, followed by replanting, the benefit stops. Burning the trees/weeds just puts the gasses back into the air. The forest land also reduces the available land for other uses, like towns or farms.
There are really few options that will work.
Yes, we absolutely need Nuclear Power to replace coal power. We also need to increase research into replacements for petroleum. Transition of rail networks over to electric, powered by safe reactors would be a good step. Solar and Wind, though they are the popular solutions, are not realistic. Both have heavy environmental costs. Neither will provide the bulk power that is needed to run society. All options need to be on the table.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNuclear is not competitive with coal, primarily because of legal costs. The legal costs roughly double the cost of a nuclear fission plant. And it is still almost cost competitive.
Replace Nuclear fission plants with nuclear fusion plants as soon as it gets working. But don't hold your breath. Fusion has been 20 years away from commercial reality since 1937. the latest estimates are that it is now only about 20 years away.
Space solar, if it ever gets done might be a good option, but on Earth solar and wind will never be more than a small contribution.
Bio-fuels have already caused famine in several countries that depended on the US for food. Now we burn food, and don't even save any oil in doing so.
Hydro is max'd out in the US.
"Clean Coal", by injection into the ground of CO2 is going to be a problem for generations. Guess what folks, The ground leaks. Especially at high pressures. Microscopic cracks connect eventually to the surface. You are not solving the problem, you are only delaying it.
Planting forests will sequester CO2, but only for about 20 years. Then, if you don't cut the trees down and bury them, followed by replanting, the benefit stops. Burning the trees/weeds just puts the gasses back into the air. The forest land also reduces the available land for other uses, like towns or farms.
There are really few options that will work.
Between ostrich in the sand naysayers and doomsday pessimists let us hope there are bright minds and international support to solve perhaps the most important problem humanity has ever faced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBetween ostrich naysayers and doomsday pessimists let us hope that there are also bright minds and international support to solve perhaps the most serious problem that humanity has ever faced.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So, if all of humanity immediately departed Earth for some New World, how long would it take for the global temperature to return to preindustrial levels?" - whatever
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt depends on how close you want to get, since the relaxation would be roughly log(n0- nt).
As a practical matter the Residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 400 years. plus or minus 80 years.
If C is the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in gigatonnes, then a good aproximation is...
dC/dt = - (C-600)/(2*RT)
Where C is the starting concentration of CO2 in gigatonnes and RT is about 400 years. The 600 is the starting amount of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere.
-dC/(C-600) = dt/800
-800 * ln(C-600) = (K + t)
if we set t= 0 when C = 1200 then K = -5118
So if the CO2 levels double and we want to remove half of the excess from 1200 to 900 Gigatonnes then we have...
1558 - 800 * ln(900-600) = 554 years
If we wish for the level to fall back to 800 Gigatonnes then we have
5118 - 800 * ln(800-600) = 879 years
If we wish for the level to fall back to 700 Gigatonnes then we have
5118 - 800 * ln(700-600) = 1433 years
Temperatures will fall in rough proportion <provided> that the climate is not pushed into another a region where it orbits another chaotic attractor. I.E. the Climate has not transitioned to another mode trough a "tipping point".
Tipping points would include such things as a release of methane from the ocean floor, or the collapse of sea ice in the north, dramatic reduction in the albedo of glaciers, destruction of large swaths of forest due to drought or fire. insects, etc.
You might note that all of these things are currently underway.
Dancertiffy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is no evidence that CO2 emissions are significantly affecting the biosphere with the possible exception that plant growth is improving.
In AR4, the IPCC claimed that the signature for greenhouse gas warming was a "hot spot" over the tropics due to the specific forcing signature. Neither satellite observation nor radiosonde profiles can find it.
So, the empirical evidence show that their is no impact of the "enormous" amounts of plant friendly, ocean cleansing CO2.
It's the data that counts, not opinons.
The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008
"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07
"Our entire civilization is totally dependent on petroleum products and latest evaluations put peak oil at about 4 years and by about 2050 a mere 10% of oil will remain." - Dan
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPossibly not. However it is becoming much easier to consume less fuel as time passes.
My yearly consumption of gasoline is equivalent to 312 liters. My yearly consumption of electric power is 3 megawatt hours.
And my yearly consumption of natural gas is 400 m**3
And every year, it gets a bit smaller.
The next step is to reduce my consumption of natural gas. I know I can half the current value.
At that point though, things begin to get difficult. Just a few minutes ago I estimated that for about $1000 I can move to all LED ligthing powered by solar, for a savings of .15 megawatt hours per year.
If I was a little further south I could do some solar hot water for a savings of about .5 megawatt hours per year.
Sorry, but without consideration of methane in the equation, I do not see how one reach this conclusion. It's unknown, the amount of methane that has been released from previously sequestered sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that the Arctic locally has elevated methane levels and is a driving factor as to why warming is happening there - I wish there was data back up what I suspect, but there's been precious little study of that.
There have been reports of suspected methane releases from permafrost areas and from the ocean floor. One needs to consider this knock on effect of a gas that is 70 times more active as a GHG in the short term relative to carbon dioxide.
We don't have a handle on it.
I wouldn't be making forecasts without taking methane into serious consideration.
vendicar9 - Thanks you very much: exactly what I was hoping for. I for one will not be checking your analysis, which seems quite reasonable to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, very generally based on your estimate (presuming of course that atmospheric GHGs do increase the average global temperature), if humanity simply reduced its emissions of GHGs as much as possible it would take several hundred years to accomplish a desired correction.
From this I conclude that it is reasonable to suggest that there are really only four potentially viable corrective actions that can be taken to provide long term survival of humanity:
1. Significantly reduce the human population, preferably through some humane and voluntary methods.
2. Significantly reduce the average GHGs released into the atmosphere by each person.
3. Implement a safe, reliable and effective method of sequestering GHGs from the atmosphere.
4. Develop and implement global strategies for the orderly migration of large population groups, generally inland and towards the polar regions.
So much for everyone adopting the comfortable American middle class lifestyle - including middle class Americans. Uncomfortable survival may be achievable if all of the necessary adjustments are somehow quickly implemented.
shpilk - Don't worry about making forecasts: they won't be called into serious question for many years, anyway. Actual validation of climate model results would take decades, if any validation were seriously attempted.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisvendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are inventing you estimates of atmospheric CO2 residence time.
Shame on you.
According to IPCC AR4, the residence time of CO2 cannot be estimated based upon the current state of the art. However, they do suggest that the upper maximum is 200 years.
Observational data, mostly from the results of atmospheric nuclear weapons testing of the 1950's suggests that it may be as low as 5 to 20 years.
Why do you exaggerate so frequently. You know do it despite knowing that you will be caught out every time.
Go to your room and redo your calculations based upon the observational data of 5 to 20 years.
.....During the Last Interglaciation (LIG) Earth was warmer than at any time in at least the past 250,000 years, with global temperatures 0–2 1C above present.....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://chubasco.fis.ucm.es/~montoya/cape_lig_qsr_06.pdf
Explain that warmistas. I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Anarctica snow pack retreat in the absence of AGW.
Dr. James Hansen, the leading climate scientist and spokesman of NASA now has determined that 350 parts per million of carbon is the level to maintain our present climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe feedbacks of ice melt, acidic ocean waters, plant and animal movement, were a factor in this change.
So, we may be planning our changes on false imputs.
I don't think we should do anything to lessen the CO2 in our atmosphere, but we should lessen the CO1 - the dirty part of CO2.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those environmental people who believe we are on a course of no return and extinction, and for those anti-environmental people who believe that all the pollution we are putting into the environment is actually cleaning up the environment - realize this.... we have always had very dirty and thoughtless people on this planet and we have always had clean freaks. There is a reason there are more "very dirty people" today than ever before who wants to leave the environment as it is than there are "very clean people" who wants to clean up the environment so everything will look sparkling and clean. The reason, I believe, there are more dirty minded people than there are clean minded people is because, "It just may be time for us humans to put ourselves into extinction." If that theory is not true then the "cleaning freaks" would out-number the "dirt freaks" and our environment would look and smell much cleaner.
For those of us, like me, who is not a "clean freak" or a "dirt freak" and know that there is not a damn thing you can do to change neither of these two other kind of people..."sit back and enjoy the ride, it would be a short one."
'Humanity has yet to reach the point of no return when it comes to catastrophic climate change, according to new calculations'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho did these calculations and who is paying them? This question must be answered to validate the document.
I agree with Orkneygal except that I believe the natural warming cycle is due to slide into another little ice age, which may be an abrupt-onset ice age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, the answer is a long, long, long time jtdwyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-much-global-warming-are-we-willing-to-take
In short: "The average temperature of the planet for the next several thousand years will be determined this centuryby those of us living today."
So, when all the scientists said we'd reached the tipping point they were wrong. But on everything else they're right. Until they're wrong the next time. But then they'll still be right on everything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, the question: How many times do the environmentalists need to be wrong before we stop listening to them?
Answer: Forever, because it isn't about facts or science; it's about a tool to guilt you into surrendering control of your life to a bunch of self-righteous king-men.
"The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas carbon dioxide"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWater vapor it the main planet-warming gas in our atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a trace gas essential for plant life.
michaeljones - You stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Dr. James Hansen, the leading climate scientist and spokesman of NASA now has determined that 350 parts per million of carbon is the level to maintain our present climate."
I'd presume that this is a change in even Dr. Hansen's prior assessments.
IMOP, the climate is simply too complex for us to model effectively. Validation or demonstrable proof of any model would require decades monitoring the predictions of an unaltered model with actual results. If anyone is actually attempting to correctly validate any climate model we won't know until it's successfully completed. Unvalidated models are simply unproven and unreliable.
I have no doubt that we do not have any reliable, quantified, future climate estimates for use in our critical planning. Regardless of the qualifications or stature of any prognosticator, I will not expect any accurate predictions. It's time to reduce the intensity of bickering over indeterminable minutia.
It can be reliably concluded that the global climate is significantly warming and that our survival depends on the responses and adaptations of the entire human population.
While I understand that it is natural for scientists and engineers to attempt to precisely estimate critical factors, at this time it is most critical that humanity quickly reach some general consensus regarding our situation and our necessary reactions.
dbiello - Thanks. IMO this message should be more clearly communicated. Otherwise I expect commercial enterprises will proudly solve the world's problems by selling us all electric vehicles, so we can get on back to our BBQs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf all of humanity left, the exhaust from all the rockets would cause the global warming to accelerate to catastrphic levels and most life would probably not recover....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow, if humanity suddenly forgot how to make fire... that might give the world some hope!
Gary,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's not true. The high cost of renewables can be seen simply looking at the tariffs required to get the investments made. The only developed country I know that has low carbon emissions is France, which gets 10% of its power from hydro and 80% from nuclear and has very high fuel taxes.
The Germans have made a big push into renewables and their solar power efforst are generally regarded as a floop - $50 billion for 1% of German energy consumption.
Renewables are also stochastic, which means you have to lot of conventional power plants as back up.
Does anyone take into consideration the natural global warming cycle? We are currently emerging from a mini-ice age.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal warming is a natural occurrence, but I must admit that we are helping it along with our carbon emissions. The real problem is not stopping the warming, just reducing our current exacerbation of the situation.
Geologic and biological data from the emeinan-sangamonian interglacial clearly shows this tipping point concept to be false. Global temperatures were far warmer than today with a near disappearance of arctic ice. There was no global catastrophe of any kind. In fact the biodiversity seen in that age was greater than any other time in the last 50k years. Yes we are long overdue for developing alternative sources of energy. However, hyping potential disaster that may never occur will ultimately damage this effort. You can not tell conditional falsehoods to the non-scientific public and not ultimately pay a price for it. The price will be they stop listening to us on all aspects of the problem.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we have used half of the earth's oil then there are 1 Trillion barrels left. If the price per barrel averages $100, that is $100 Trillion dollars of business that has yet to be done. They're not going to let us force them to leave that $100T in the ground.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a technology standpoint humanity is definitely up to the job. Capitalism is not.
ssm1959 - When you say that global temperatures were clearly warmer than today, I guess that you're eyeballing the charted averages derived from ice core samples representing hundreds of years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe temperature now seems to be stabilizing at higher levels than have ever been experienced by any significant population of modern humans and likely all other existing species as well.
That there was no record of global disaster 130,000 years ago could have something to do with the biodiversity: the global population of humans at that time was likely something less than 1 million. Today there are nearly 7 billion humans occupying much of the coastal lowlands. Or perception of what constitutes disaster may now be somewhat more sensitive.
I expect that if the global human population soon falls below 1 million the biodiversity will increase significantly, but the insufferable elimination of 7 billion people may be considered by those who experience it to be a catastrophe.
The current discussion is pointless, considering the enormous amounts of energy the Sun is wasting on our planet every day. The reason it is not harvested is that enormous investments have been made in coal and petrol, and influential forces want to protect those. Besides, the investments already made they are so far 'cheaper' than solar energy. Let me remind of another disaster prophecy. In the seventies it was predicated that around 1995 the world's supply of silver would be dwindling due to the increasing use of silver in photography. Nowadays Kodachrome is a discontinued product, but is that for a lack of silver? The innovative capacities of the human mind will be put to the test, but also those conservative forces that only want to preserve the status quo. Individuals will suffer, as always, unfortunately, but the predicted total collapse will simply not happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrafowler - The climate's apparent emergence from the little ice age happens to coincide with the increase of the human population from perhaps a few millions to nearly 7 billion along with enormous industrial development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not safe to presume that global temperatures are 'naturally' rebounding from a little cold spell, discounting the effects of 200 years of dramatically increasing carbon emissions (burning fuels graduating from wood, coal, oil and gas).
The more likely case is that it is the dramatically increasing human population burning an increasing amount of more condensed carbon fuels that is producing the increasing temperatures.
So they are going to build nukes for less than NG plants? Not likely.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes the warming, cooling has other factors than CO2/GHG's. But it's effects are still there, just on top of the other ones.
That we are warmer is a fact. Fla is losing land mass as the sea gets higher I've watched happen over the last 45 yrs personally with beaches, homes and islands disappearing and the Everglades shrinking. Where is a lot of the CO2 going? The ocean where it's becoming more acid , hurting sea life.
Crops, animals, pests have moved 300 mile north as the globe has warmed in the last 45 yrs. Ask any long term farmer.
Next the NW passage is opening up to shipping now because the Arctic ice
has retreated so far. The tipping point will be when the Tundra melts releasing massive CO2/Methane which has already started and sea CO2/Methane gets released from higher water temps.
As for coal, oil world supplies is limited, Oil only another 30 yrs before it's too expensive to burn and coal about the same. China only has 30 yrs worth, US much more but most of the world doesn't have that much and we likely won't let our land be destroyed so others can burn ours.
The article misstates NG CO2 a NG powerplants are 50% more eff than coal plants, thus that less CO2.
Facts are RE can handle the future energy needs and at $2k/kw for solar, wind now for homes, buildings and dropping or kinetic hydro soon means they will always be cheaper than any form of power with the utility price mark ups, even if their energy was free.
Facts are it's no more expensive to build a home, building that makes it's own and it's EV's power than homes, building cost now. Ev's will soon cost less to buy as they are far more simple and battery prices are dropping fast. The Nissan Leaf driven 40miles.day pays for itself in 8-10 yrs in gas savings alone plus will have a high resale value. This is the future to stop big corps from raping us, making our own energy. There is no energy shortage, just a short term shortage of the equipment to make, catch, use it.
The problem is not technical, but political.
All very interesting, but if have regulated ourselves to carbon based fuels, why don't we insist on more efficient power sources? The emissions released represent wasted energy, poor technology. Put money where it will do some good for all, not in the pockets of opportunists and grant money oriented "scientists"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
All very interesting, but if have regulated ourselves to carbon based fuels, why don't we insist on more efficient power sources? The emissions released represent wasted energy, poor technology. Put money where it will do some good for all, not in the pockets of opportunists and grant money oriented "scientists"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
Nuclear power.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDancertiffy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease review the history regarding the predictions of the demise of petroleum reserves. You will find that disaster has been just around the corner for the last 80+ years. By definition, we are always on the verge of running out because current reserves are defined by our ability to find and access them. This is determined by our current state of technology. For example we say that all the easy oil has been exploited. However, if we could ask those oil producers from the 1930's if getting that oil was in fact "easy", they would have a very different view. The differential between the technology available to the effort required to find and develop reserves does not change. The Bakken field in North Dakota, the largest contiguous deposit in North America to date, is a perfect example. The find was not new. People knew there was some oil there since the 1980's; the issue was could it be developed in a cost effective manner. In the 80's and 90's the answer was no. Today the answer is yes. This balance between technology and our ability to develop the resource will remain far into the future. One hundred years from now those people claim to be on the brink of running out too and will believe that we had the "easy" oil
ssm1959....very true....the question is does burning(releasing) of millions of years worth of stored co2 affect the climate.....from what i've read it does/will......
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi think its fun(not) to see the main power plant in my area is going to start "sequestering" co2 and pump it into the ground...should be real interesting when the co2 leaks out and kills all their employees as well as the people surrounding the power plant...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWayne Williamson - I'm no geologist, but as I understand all methods of sequestration require some chemical reaction with minerals to provide any stability. Hopefully your local experts won't just be pumping CO2 into the ground, but I wouldn't bond their work. As you say, it could be a real disaster.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs I understand, even gases sequestered within minerals can likewise be release by chemical processes involving heat and/or water, for example. That why I refer to the need to develop safe and reliable methods of GHG sequestration.
Just a question to Vendicar9: do you have a reference that clearly shows that C02 Science is "a well known propaganda site funded by the Carbon Industry"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is something even better Gary Noel: Reducing pollutions reduces CO2 also. And think about this: you don´t even have to convince people of
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the best part is still to come: even those people and countries which don´t believe in AGW-theories want to reduce pollutions - so why not use a road that already is there?
To jtdwyer: Is there any (good) reason whatsoever why the temperature should return to preidustrial level?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJarmo-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't expect Vendicar9 to respond to your request for a reference. That is not how those people work. They toss out non-sequiters mashed up with ad hominem attacks.
It is all they can do, since they have no facts to back up their specious claims.
Their goal is to deflect examination of the facts and exposure of the truth. They hide behind inuendo.
Notice that the claim they are funding by the Carbon Industry (whatever that is) is not the same as saying the that the vast library of peer reviewed technical papers supporting the exisitance of past warmings is bogus. They can't say that because it is pattently a falsehood. So they try to distract the weak minded with their nonsense.
Mass extinction? The myth about extinction caused by AGW is simply not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_extinction_event#The_Pleistocene_or_Ice_Age_extinction_event
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is settled:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExtinction is the rule in nature, and it´s rate varies a lot.
The "holocene extinctioin rate makes it one of many minor extinctions, there has also been app. 13 major ones.
The extinction rate is not accelerating - and in fact, higher temperatures are not a danger to most species - colder temperatures are.
Orkneygal has a point, albeit the warmer climate part is countered by Sleepership.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease keep the discussion going, as long as facts are properly verified.
(btt1943)
I'm still waiting for one of the warmistas to explain how the Antarctic Ice Shelf retreated more than 80 kilometers during the mid-Holocene climatic optimum proves that it was colder then than today.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday's gentle, life friendly warming is trivial compared to those of the past, when human activities could not possibly have been a factor.
Just to put some simple numbers into this, in order to get an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, what do we need? Well a 50% improvement in energy efficiency and a 50% reduction in the share of fossil fuels for energy production would just about do that. Given that we have forty years to get there, those are well within the levels that can be achieved by normal engineering development. All that is needed is the economic framework to create the requirement. This is actually a non-issue it's not a challenge to our way of life, or a plot to make Al Gore world dicatator. People really need to calm down and get on with it. Or, in words now well known here in Britain "Keep Calm and Carry On"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI strongly support the nuclear alternative, as suggested by contributor sethdayal above, but call attention to the integral fast reactor, developed by the US but never put into production. It has many advantages over existing nukes. It produces less hazardous waste and can even be fed reprocessed radioactive waste. See the excellent blog by Steve Kirsch available online (just google Steve Kirsch blog).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrkneygal - What is certain is that in past periods of global warming there were not going on 10 billion people crammed into coastal communities, drinking nonreplenished potable water, surviving on the depletion of seafish and highly optimized agricultural production.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe worst thing that could happen is an ice age, but a little global warming blip over the next thousand years will hardly be noticeable in the ice cores. However, it will most likely dramatically reduce our little group by several billion poor suffering souls.
It will certainly improve biodiversity, as the tree frogs and many other species will recover nicely!
Perhaps in the future, some alien geologists will identify our tiny, thin layer of iron rich carbon in the rock strata and attribute it to an asteroid impact...
Forlornehope - So, if we could reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050, how long would it take to return to preindustrial levels of atmospheric GHGs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't GHGs still be increasing?
Wouldn't the temperature still be rising???
Numbers can be meaningless.
Orkneygal,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour question is irrelevant. No one can tell you who, or how many killed �tzi, but we have pretty good knowledge that Nathuram Godse killed Ghandi.
Or, you might take a wild guess that the current degree of warmth has been going on for a handful of decades and the mid-Holocene climatic optimum lasted for thousands of years, and it takes a while to melt that much ice.
On topic, the short answer to the question is: less than if we keep building them.
What a fraud global warming is. No one will debate it in an open forum. The only time it has been put to any legit test is in England where the court found it to be full of lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOMG co2 is poisoning us, stop letting that crap come out of your mouth. commit hari cari for the good of the planet.
Unfortunately, CO2 emissions are a two-edged sword -- warming and ocean acidification. The latter is likely more important and already observed in the northern Atlantic, where phytoplankton are increasingly unable to build/maintain their carbonate skeletons.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorldwide, these creatures are decreasing in number by about 1%/year. They form the base of the oceanic food chain for all sea animals. They provide all other life with about 40% of our oxygen.
If they fail, we all fail, and more quickly than due simply to climate change. We must remember that the world is more complex than our simplistic current knowledge. A conservative view would say not to add tens of gigatons of CO2 per year to an atmosphere, when we know about half of it ends up in the oceans as carbonic acid. When that capacity is saturated, a whole new chemstry experiment will begin on earth. Saturation is, in fact, near at hand.
We indeed were warned about this in 1896 & 1905 by Nobelist Svante Arrhenius. He & others gave a pre-oil-age warning, so would be flabbergasted by our situation today.
It does no one good to take a narrow view, as the Science piece does, because we're already very deep into a large experiment in earth's chemistry. For example, N2O is far worse a greenhouse gas and increasingly emitted from farming & fertilization. It's also take n over as the dominant ozone-layer killer.
Bottom line is, we've waited too long to have easy solutions and we must stop burning anything we can ASAP.
www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/ (esp. p53)
http://tinyurl.com/2a7lswe
"Carbon neutral" & "biofuels" are false hopes. Low power-density sources, such as wind & wave are also of little long-term use, while consuming vast stretches of natural areas we'll need just for food. The next 3 billion folks will need arable land & water equal to all Brazil by 2050.
The 2/3 waste heating from burning anything in engines goes directly to global warming, even if no CO2 is emitted, etc.
So, our future depends on: a) stopping hydrocarbon burning in engines; b) improving all energy efficiency (we now waste >50%); c) using distributed, local (not desert) solar on existing structures; and d) achieving safe nuclear power.
We already achieved d) 40 years ago, and hopefully will restore funding to complete that very successful R&D (discontinued because it couldn't make Cold War bombs)...
http://tinyurl.com/25mgqkd
www.thoriumenergyalliance.com
Also see The American Scientist, July-August 2010. We've already wasted more time than we had.
Dr. A. Cannara
650-400-
Re: jtdwyer
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<i>"So, if all of humanity immediately departed Earth for some New World, how long would it take for the global temperature to return to preindustrial levels?</i>
The consensus of understanding of the carbon cycle is that long term carbon sequestration would return CO2 concentrations back to "normal" interglacial levels in several thousand years.
CO2 has an atmospheric residence on the century-to-millenia timescale.
Enjoy the warm weather.
My question is totally relevant and your attempt at deflection proves you can't answer it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould that because you are fearful of the truth. The truth being that the most recent, hospitable and gentle warming has nothing to do with human activites.
Reality is a bi___. The problem is comfortable ignorance, as indicated by some of the head-in-sand comments here. If someone really wanted to "debate in an open forum", then they'd study the data & reports by thousands of scientists getting mediocre pay, & attend the many public conferences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, there's a more direct way to assess folks' sincerity -- betting $. I offered the 'famed' First Viscount Monckton of Blenchley a chance to make it big & help support his inherited lands, but he wouldn't take the bet, so he really isn't sure at all of what he gets paid to say around the world (and on Fox News) that there's no man-made global climate (and other) problems.
So I'll repeat a similar bet here -- I'll put $5000 over these next 5 years, $1k./year, that 3 of those 5 years will be internationally recognized as warmer than any of the 8 years preceding this 2010. You think there's no warming? Ok, maybe you can make 5 grand. But, if all those 'scheming' scientists are right, you may lose 3Gs or more. Put up or...
See, betting against generally honest folks, like scientists, but with folks like businessmen & politicians often ends up being what's called a Pascal Wager. Can you say Bernie Madoff? Pascal, a father of probability & statistics, knew that we're often tempted by big payoffs, even if our chances are minute -- as in lotteries. The Mafia numbers racket pays better than state lotteries. Well, betting against human-induced climate & other problems is a Pascal Wager, because of the great volume of real data supporting it, despite the great payoff some folks see in not having to do anything uncomfortable to change their behavior or resource exploitation. If they're right, they'll continue as is -- the win.
But, if they're wrong, well we already see what happens when 'minor' food & climate problems occur, as in China, Russia & Pakistan just this year. If the ocean food chains collapse, if flooding removes many millions from their homes, or if droughts continue to expand, as in the southern hemisphere, well Katrina & this year's tragedies will seem as peanuts.
It's not conservative to risk all one's assets on a single wager that goes against reality. That's why Monckton didn't accept an offer of a retirement villa on the Maldives, on condition he could never leave or be rescued as the seas encroach. He may think others are dumb & exploit them, but he's not.
The famous warming & cooling periods referred to here, and by those who wish to mislead us, are little compared to the overall cycles -- e.g., the Milankovich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ignorance behind use of the recent warm & cool periods is just what a carnival con man does -- moves the pea while you're not looking. In this case, the pea being hidden is data. Earth's climate undergoes forcing by several known sources, like its solar orbit, precession, ocean oscillations and sunspots.
Indeed there was a warming period around 1100CE and a Little Ice Age around 1600. Monckton spends a great deal of time in his misleading 'lectures' on these. However, like the carney con, he tries to keep his audience ignorant of two large influences on our climate: sunspot activity (11-year cycle) and the oceanic cycles, like El Nino in the Pacific. Taking just CO2 emissions, El Nino, sunspots & volcanism (cooling) into account, yields a match to observed temperatures over the decades for which we have data.
So again, I offer anyone the $5k wager from 2010-2014 -- 3 of those years will be internationally warmer than any of the 8 before 2010. Put up or at least check the sunspot record...
The problem isn't global warming by man's actions, it's man's ignorance due to a human nature of valuing personal comfort over effort & responsibility. Same reason why we settle for obesity. Ma Nature doesn't care what we do.
Call to bet or get more info... 650-400-3071
Science article is optimistic if you've read Ramanathan and Feng who worked a temperature increase of 2.4 deg if we maintain 2005 levels and clean up the atmosphere of the cooling aerosols presently in our atmosphere, and 2 of the 2.4 degrees would be with us by 2100. Long term feedbacks such as decreasing albedo was not taken into account. We were at 380 ppm in 2005. Carbon dioxide with the IPCC A2 scenario: 75% will last 1,800 years, 25% last over 5,000 years (A. Weaver, U. of Victoria). We will have to live with whatever level we rise to for some time. It's understood by scientists that we, with some difficulty, can adapt to a 2 deg rise. A 3 deg rise in world mean temperature will guarantee catastrophic warming due to the frozen methane hydrates on the ocean floor warming and releasing the methane (James Hanson)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a shame politics killed the fast, or breeder reactor back in 1994, when the U.S., the leader in R&D at the time was ready to build a demonstration plant. Clinton/Gore adminnistration not only cut the funding, but had everything dismantled. Al Gore does not believe in nuclear, even though it's our best shot at going carbon free.
So far our leaders/politiians have done little aside from talk. Action must start soon or humans will just be a blip in earth's history.
DrAlexC-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the warmists in charge of the databases continuously "adjusting" data to support their political agenda and provide "proof" of continued warming, only an ignoramous would take your bet.
Jones, Hansen, et al and their running dogs are committed to making every year warmer, damn what the thermometers say.
The biggest nonsense is Hansen's claim that most of the NH warming he claims is happening in the high Arctic, with not a thermometer anywhere to justify his claims.
Why don't you propose a bet based upon UAH satellite data or Argos sea buoy data as a more believable alternative?
@sethdayal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSwitching to nuclear is hardly an eco-friendly solution, but I won't even bother with that. It's no surprise that deniers consider nuclear a reasonable comprimise. The denial backers will still be in control of nuclear, but a decentralised system of solar, wind, etc. would be out of their control.
The denialists will cling to their delusions until Miami is under water. It's a cult, a religion to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know the value of the above study, since China is building two coal plant every week.
The denialists will cling to their delusions until Miami is under water. It's a cult, a religion to them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know the value of the above study, since China is building two coal plant every week.
The entire article was pointless sense the basis of the analysis is without merit in the real world. The Article stated:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"A team of scientists analyzed the existing fossil-fuel infrastructure to determine how much greenhouse gas emissions we have committed to if all of that kit is utilized for its entire expected lifetime. The answer: an average of 496 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere between now and 2060 in "committed emissions".
The world will by no evaluation remain static relative to energy use. Countries that currently use less energy per square mile, or per person than developed countries will continue to build power plants, and purchase automobiles at a rate of increase much, much higher than in the west. Unfortunately, most of these countries are also producing additional people at an alarming rate.......which IS the real long term problem
@Aacme- since you do not seem to like nuclear power (even 4th generation?) how do you believe electricity should be generated world wide??? Being againest everything simply will not work either
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@acne
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith the same level of thought and knowledge that goes with denier junk science concocted now at the denier shop at Big Oil, acne spews the usual distributed solar/wind claptrap.
When such fools can answer the question of how their solar rooftop provides them "distributed" energy in the middle of January in a 2 week snowy weather regime, I'll start listening.
The public accepts that sewerage needs to be taxed so that it can be made harmless before discharging into downstream drinking water supplies. So why doesn't the public accept that greenhouse gases need taxation and therefore treatment to prevent climate change. Carbon tax is not bad for the economy, as the money is immediately redistributed in the form of clean technology grants. 'Biomass pyrolysis' is the only future solution to our energy needs, and will be massively applied when carbon tax adjusts energy costs to realistic environmentally acceptable levels. Look at 'Biomass Pyrolysis' on Wikipedia to see how to get out of the climate change trap! The technology is ready.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseco steve-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCO is a pollutant and emitters should be taxed.
CO2 is a trace element necessary to sustain live. CO2 is a plant friendly, ocean cleansing material that MAY have the added benefit of slowing the onset of the next Ice Age. It can hardly be called a pollutant in the same sense that sewage or CO are.
@eco-steve- Taxing CO2 is a bad idea on many fronts
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Taxing CO2 in the United States is harmful to the US economy as compared to other economies worldwide. Growth in worldwide CO2 emissions will come from sources other than the US, and a US tax will not prevent that at all.
2. Since 98% of CO2 is naturally emitted (not by man) and since natural CO2 emissions also vary over time (which we do not yet understand fully) a US CO2 tax will have virtually no practical benefit
3. Government can do more practical things to lower CO2 emissions if that is desired, and those things would also benefit the US economy. If the government standarized the design of an "acceptable nuclear power plant" and then cleared the administrative red tape that makes these facilities take so long to be built and so expensive as a result of time delays, then we would cut fossile fuel use and employ Americans in building these facilities. Build 200 4th generation nuclear plants in 6 years!
And what is the carbon footprint of the concrete, steel, and rare earth elements needed to make wind turbines? Isn't it true that a nuclear power plant uses 1/3 the concrete and steel for an equalized amount of electricity generated by a nuclear plant? Which then is more efficient?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA Chevy Volt costs $41,000 but the gas version cost $17,000. Why? Because it takes much more resources to make. Why isn't that included in environmental studies.
The article predicts increasing CO2 to 450 ppm will increase global temp. by 2C above pre-industrial level. What is the margin of error of this forecast? It's probably many times larger than plus or minus 2C making the forecast moot. Climate models are unreliable. Read Dr. Patrick Frank
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01resources/climate_of_belief.pdf
To make a definite claim that earth is warming (or cooling), one must have accurate global temp. data. Only in 1850 that humans began compling global temp. data. Hence, any argument for or against global warming and its correlation with CO2 before 1850 is speculative.
In analyzing temp. data, one must consider the margin of error. Read this scientific paper from CRU (climategate fame). Look at Fig. 12 bottom chart in page 21.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3_accepted.pdf
It shows global temp. data from 1850 to 2005 with the margins of error. Taking these into consideration, note that we can definitely say there is warming (positive anomaly) starting only in 1990. But we cannot definitely say that earth is warmer or cooler in 2005 than in 1850 because the anomaly in 1850 is plus or minus 0.6C while in 2005 it's plus 0.1C to 0.4C.
DrAlexC
Atmospheric greenhouse effect was postulated by Arrhenius in 1896 and subsequently falsified by other scientists. Read Dr. Gerhard Gerlich and Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
I support global warming! Not the theory, I want higher global temperatures. I also support nuclear plants because they are the cheapest solution for energy. My employer has a NG plant and 2 wind turbines. The wind turbines break down a lot and cost about 4 times per kwh what the NG plant does. The NG plant costs about 3 times per kwh what coal does.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it odd how with massive enviro disasters, the rate of world hunger reported by the UN has dropped significantly?
"Do any of you warmists care to explain how that happened during an era when human caused global warming was impossible?" - Okniegal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGosh... I guess it's because there is more than one factor influencing regional and global temperatures.
YaThink?
Apparently not.
The period you mention, has global temperatures approximately 0.2'C warmer than today at it's peak. If global temperatures were currently at their peak, your comparison would have some validity.
However global temperatures are not at their peak, and in fact will not peak as long as excess CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere at a rate that is greater than it's removal.
Further, current rates of emission are such that when continued over the next 90 years, global temperature will rise about 4'C +- 1'C or so.
Beyond that the warming continues as long as CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere.
So which is greater denialist? 1'C or > 1'C
Can you figure that much out?
"There is no evidence that CO2 emissions are significantly affecting the biosphere with the possible exception that plant growth is improving." - Orkniegal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo bleaching corals?
No acidifying oceans?
No pine beetle infestations destroying thousands of square miles of northern forests?
No reduction in Polar Bear numbers?
No increasing desertification?
etc.
etc.
etc...
Tell us more Mrs. Quacktard.
"Explain that warmistas. I'm still waiting for an explanation of the Anarctica snow pack retreat in the absence of AGW." - Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem to be working under the false presumption that Anthropogenic factors are the only source of climate change.
They aren't. Although they are the primary source of climate change at present.
In the past the primary driver of climate has been variations in the orbital and rotational parameters of the earth. Cycles that are many tens of thousands of years long, and which are entirely predictable.
Solar output has also been implicated in past climate change, and since the modern era the sun's output has been measured and found to be falling during the current period of extreme warming.
There are other factors as well, such as the concentration of other trace gasses - notably methane - in the atmosphere, But these too can be largely ruled out as the cause of the current warming because again, the effects of these gasses are known and their concentrations have been measured for decades.
The IPCC chapters on attribution provide all the information you will denialist fools will never read.
"You are inventing you estimates of atmospheric CO2 residence time." - Orkniegal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 10e4 years is in
start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several
hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if
the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a
single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a
sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior
of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of
300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single
exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to
choose.
http://www.princeton.edu/~lam/TauL1b.pdf
August 22, 2003
What is the value of τL?
The short answer is: τL ≈ 400 years, plus or minus 20%.
This value is arrived at by studying all the available published
IPCC global warming calculations for “stabilized’ scenarios.
"When such fools can answer the question of how their solar rooftop provides them "distributed" energy in the middle of January in a 2 week snowy weather regime, I'll start listening. " - Idiot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you will have to rely on battery power until you go out and brush off them solar collectors.
You know. Like you brush a path clear for your car.
Or are you too lazy to do that too?
"What a fraud global warming is. No one will debate it in an open forum" - GoofBall
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn science, the debate is done in the scientific press.
That debate is over... Your side lost.
"You are inventing you estimates of atmospheric CO2 residence time." - Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResidence Time of Atmospheric CO2
Harvey S. H. Lam
(http://www.princeton.edu/∼lam)
August 22, 2003
"What is the value of τL?
The short answer is: τL ≈ 400 years, plus or minus 20%."
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 110,
Fate of fossil fuel CO2 in geologic time
David Archer
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Received 26 July 2004; revised 7 March 2005;
"A mean atmospheric lifetime of order 10,000 years is in
start contrast with the ‘‘popular’’ perception of several
hundred year lifetime for atmospheric CO2. In fairness, if
the fate of anthropogenic carbon must be boiled down into a
single number for popular discussion, then 300 years is a
sensible number to choose, because it captures the behavior
of the majority of the carbon. A single exponential decay of
300 years is arguably a better approximation than a single
exponential decay of 30,000 years, if one is forced to
choose. However, the 300 year simplification misses the
immense longevity of the tail on the CO2 lifetime..."
"CO2 is a trace element necessary to sustain live. CO2 is a plant friendly, ocean cleansing materia" - Orkniegal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDung is plant friendly too. It is plant food, after all.
Pollution: Definition from Biology Online...
"The change in the environment caused by natural or artificial input of harmful contaminants into the environment, and may cause instability, disruption or harmful effects to the ecosystem."
By the biological definition, CO2 is clearly a pollutant.
"1. Taxing CO2 in the United States is harmful to the US economy as compared to other economies worldwide." - KloogFart
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently the atmosphere is an external dumpsite for corporate and consumer waste. Taxation provides a means of putting a price tag on the utilization of that global commons, and a means to remove that unpriced externality in a manner that conservative economists have demanded.
"Growth in worldwide CO2 emissions will come from sources other than the US, and a US tax will not prevent that at all." - KloogFart
That is playground logic. Teacher. Johnnie doesn't have to eat his lunch so I don't have to eat mine either.
The fact is, the U.S. is the second greatest emitter of CO2 on the planet, and emits CO2 at an unsustainable rate. That rate must be reduced by approximately 80% to 90% over the next 100 to 150 years.
"2. Since 98% of CO2 is naturally emitted" - KloogFart
The <excess> flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is 100% anthropogenic (produced by man).
"3. Government can do more practical things to lower CO2 emissions if that is desired" - KnoogFart
Government has two means of promoting action. It can either do so via the marketplace through taxation or through the law through regulation.
Are you saying that you prefer government regulation of CO2 emissions over the taxation of those emissions in persuit of their reduction?
"If the government standarized the design of an "acceptable nuclear power plant" - KnoogFart
What? Place restrictions on the marketplace?
That is pure communism.
Or so say the Republicans.
"then cleared the administrative red tape that makes these facilities take so long to be built and so expensive as a result of time delays", then we would cut fossile fuel use and employ Americans in building these facilities. Build 200 4th generation nuclear plants in 6 years!" - KloogFart
A population of 7 billion people consuming energy at U.S. rates will require the construction of approximately 100,000 1 Gigawatt nuclear reactors world wide.
If this is to be achieved over the lifetime of a power plant - currently 50 years (lets say 100 to be nice), then 1,000 1 GW reactors will have to be completed per year.
Currently there are 450 world wide.
Japan thinks it can produce such plants at a cost of 2 billion per gigawatt, although it has never done so.
That would put the construction cost at 2 trillion per year. Forever.
Iran will need 300 of those reactors.
"Jones, Hansen, et al and their running dogs are committed to making every year warmer, damn what the thermometers say." - Orkniegal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOdd that several independent global temperature data sets compiled by different groups of scientists in different countries, all show the same warming.
You must believe that it is a global conspiracy among the worlds scientists.
Hmmm... Which to believe. Global conspiracy among all of the worlds scientist, or the Kook Fart ranting of a Whack Tard Denialist called Orkneygal?
Decisions.. Decisions.
"The extinction rate is not accelerating" - jarmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpftiFBrckhaI_mtTA15UzqTfubg
BARCELONA (AFP) — Half the world's mammals are declining in population and more than a third probably face extinction, said an update Monday of the "Red List," the most respected inventory of biodiversity.
Bird extinction rates far worse than realised
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9472-bird-extinction-rates-far-worse-than-realised.html
Extinction Rate Across The Globe Reaches Historical Proportions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm
"A Chevy Volt costs $41,000 but the gas version cost $17,000. Why?" - Part of that is the battery cost. But largely it is due to the manufacturer pricing the product so that they can suck as much money from the consumer's pocket as possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso a lot of engineering has to into making a product as unreliable as American Cars, which are designed to fail and provide a new sale for the Corporation.
"since you do not seem to like nuclear power (even 4th generation?) how do you believe electricity should be generated world wide??" - Captain Sisco
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a fan of Nuclear power, but wonder how you intend to safeguard the 100,000 nuclear reactors that will be needed to provide a 7 billion person population with U.S. levels of energy?
Do you plan to do it on Faith alone?
"The myth about extinction caused by AGW is simply not true. " - Jarmo
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what makes you think that documents describing a past extinction event preclude the ongoing anthropogenic extinction event?
Poor Kloog.
"Please review the history regarding the predictions of the demise of petroleum reserves. You will find that disaster has been just around the corner for the last 80+ years" - Kloog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell no it hasn't.
U.S. reserves died out pretty much exactly as estimated. As are global reserves.
Have you been an idiot all your life?
"Does anyone take into consideration the natural global warming cycle?" - Kloog
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYup. You know them scientists are much smarter than you are, and have thought of the obvious thank you.
"We are currently emerging from a mini-ice age. " - Kloog
The ice age ended 12,000 years ago and after an initial temperature spike, temperatures on average have been falling ever since. Until now.
That pattern is typical of interglacials.
What is the source of your brain damage?
"IMOP, the climate is simply too complex for us to model effectively."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour opinion is worthless.
Science was created as a means with dispensing with opinions.
"Just a question to Vendicar9: do you have a reference that clearly shows that C02 Science is "a well known propaganda
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissite funded by the Carbon Industry"?" - Whomever
Start here:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
And then follow the dirty careers of the lying Idso family.
"Geologic and biological data from the emeinan-sangamonian interglacial clearly shows this tipping point concept to be false." - Doofus
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe rapid onset of glaciation and de-glaciation rather than a slow and gradually smooth transition to these periods prove the tipping point concept to be true.
It is astonishing the stupid things that Denialists will say to defend their corrupt and immoral world view.
"Don't expect Vendicar9 to respond to your request for a reference." - Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReferences have been provided.
We know that yours are to carbon indsustry funded shill sites, that are run by well known liars.
And that is why they are never published in the peer reviewed scientific press.
"Notice that the claim they are funding by the Carbon Industry (whatever that is) is not the same as saying the that the vast library of peer reviewed technical papers supporting the exisitance of past warmings is bogus" - Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are one foncused little girl. Only a truly confused little girl or a dishonest little girl, would construe that anyone has said there has been no past warming.
@vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"When such fools can answer the question of how their solar rooftop provides them "distributed" energy in the middle of January in a 2 week snowy weather regime, I'll start listening. " - Idiot
"I guess you will have to rely on battery power until you go out and brush off them solar collectors. "
"You know. Like you brush a path clear for your car.
Or are you too lazy to do that too?"
Two weeks on battery power with 10% of the daily sunshine available in June. You are either an idiot or you are such a wacked solar nut that paying a two bucks a kilowatt hour for an oversized home solar/battery plant seems like a good idea to you. How many folks would you kill falling off their icy snow covered roof with their snow shovel as a parachute?
Actually the cost of mass produced gen 3 nukes is projected at $1B/Gw and is currently $1.5B/Gw on current Chinese reactors not the already Japanese $2B/Gw your grade school research skills were able to uncover.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/08/china-leverages-learning-curve-cost.html
Future growth would likely use the DMSR, basically a simple tube filled with a molten salt, projected at 25% of the cost of a conventional Gen III reactor. The 10MW MSR test reactor which ran for almost ten years without a hitch in the seventies, was essentially a DMSR.
Using IEA's 2035 estimate we would need 23000 nukes to replace fossils. If we further assume that transition would come with efficiency improvements, electric vehicles, and a lot of cogen that could maybe cut to 15000 nukes or 600 a year well within the worlds recession depressed unused industrial capacity. With mass production, the cost of $600B annual using Gen 3's is less than 25% what the world spends on fossils. With DMSR's the cost reduces to $200B.
Assuming the worlds population stabilizes and the third world moves to US energy use towards 2100, new energy needs would easily be met by continuing the 600 nuke a year build pattern.
Without the extremely likely breakthough in dirt cheap fusion, I would assume that long before then, DMSR's or similar would make up almost all new nukes production poweringthe world for the next few hundred years on existing nuke waste.
How to protect the thousand or so new Gen III reactors - physics makes them failsafe. Look up TMI - barely even scatched the reactor vessel.
The ultracheap DMSR's are already failsafe.
How would you supply the equivalent of 60K nukes. Rooftop solar and batteries?
Has anyone mentioned that the nuclear power industry has never ever been profitable without huge government subsidies and intervention?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan we all imagine what kind of costs if the nuclear power industry had to say decommission and provide security for its own product? No please do not imagine that,
@vendicar9
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou wrote- "how you intend to safeguard the 100,000 nuclear reactors that will be needed to provide a 7 billion person population with U.S. levels of energy?"
My response- It is the responsibility of the country building the nuclear plants to safeguard them. It is not the responsibility of the United States to fund or safeguard what other countries do.
I wrote- "Growth in worldwide CO2 emissions will come from sources other than the US, and a US tax will not prevent that at all."
You stupidly wrote- That is playground logic. Teacher. Johnnie doesn't have to eat his lunch so I don't have to eat mine either.
The fact is, the U.S. is the second greatest emitter of CO2 on the planet, and emits CO2 at an unsustainable rate. That rate must be reduced by approximately 80% to 90% over the next 100 to 150 years.
My response- It is 100% correct that growth is CO2 emissions will not come from the US but will come from other sources. You believe that US released CO2 needs to be drastically reduced (here you state by 80% to 90% You would stupidly damage the US economy as compared to any other economy with absolutely no evidence that there will be ANY benefit. Can you show any evidence of what would happen if all human released CO2 were eliminated? My proposal to replace current US facilities with 4th generation nuclear electrical generation plants would be good for the US economy and the environment. The US should concern itself with what we can, and let other countries work their own issues.
You wrote- "2. Since 98% of CO2 is naturally emitted" - KloogFart
The <excess> flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is 100% anthropogenic (produced by man).
My response- what I stated was correct. Nearly all of CO2 is naturally generated. There are variances over time in the amount generated by nature. Those processes are not yet fully understood. Here is an example http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=soils-emit-carbon-dioxide
Your belief that 100% of CO2 flux is due to humans is probably due to you not understanding the calculations behind what is called the Suess effect. Most who parrot what you write have no idea of the basis of those calculations and that they have huge margins of error and can not accurately lead you to the conclusion written by you.
"The article predicts increasing CO2 to 450 ppm will increase global temp. by 2C above pre-industrial level. What is the margin of error of this forecast?" - lard
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"climate sensitivity is likely to be in the range of 2 to 4.5�C with a best estimate of about 3�C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5�C. Values substantially higher than 4.5�C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values" - IPCC - Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report
"It's probably many times larger than plus or minus 2C making the forecast moot." - lard
Why wallow in self imposed ignorance, when the IPCC reports are at your fingertips?
firstly, I agree completely with Dancertiffy. We're not up to the job.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecondly, I am wondering if these guys took into account the accelerating release of methane from the permafrost as the as the ice melts at the poles.
Sometimes I think that even the scientists 'just don't get it'.
Data Analysis of Recent Warming Pattern in the Arctic
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMasahiro Ohashi1) and H. L. Tanaka2)
1) Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba
2) Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba
Abstract:
In this study, we investigate the mechanism of the arctic warming pattern in surface air temperature (SAT) and sea ice concentrations over the last two decades in comparison with global warming since the 1970s.
According to the analysis result, it is found that the patterns of SAT and sea ice before 1989 are mostly determined by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in winter. In contrast, arctic warming patterns after 1989 are characterized by the intensification of the Beaufort High and the reduced sea-ice concentrations in summer induced by the positive ice-albedo feedback.
It is concluded that the arctic warming before 1989 especially in winter was explained by the positive trend of the AOI. Moreover the intensified Beaufort High and the drastic decrease of the sea ice concentrations in September after 1989 were associated with the recent negative trend of the AOI. Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.
http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_1/_article
Authors Commentary
According to our result, the rapid warming during 1970-1990 contains a large fraction of unpredictable natural variability due to the AO. The subsequent period of 1990-2010 indicates a clear trend of the AO to be negative. The global warming has been stopped by natural variability superimposed on the gentle anthropogenic global warming. The important point is that the IPCC models have been tuned perfectly to fit the rapid warming during 1970-1990 by means of the ice-albedo feedback (anthropogenic forcing) which is not actually observed. IPCC models are justified with this wrong scientific basis and are applied to project the future global warming for 100 years in the future. Hence, we warn that the IPCC models overestimate the warming trend due to the mislead Arctic Oscillation.
“The overwhelming paleoclimate evidence from around the globe is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today. (...) Since the world was warmer when CO2 levels were lower, CO2 cannot be the earth's temperature regulator.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmm, the climate skeptics really don’t seem to get it. True, the planet has been warmer, such as in the pre-dinosaur time of the giant roaches, dragonfly and centipede (more oxygen too, to be fair). The point is that current Global Warming. Along with generalized chemical pollution, GM is the first inescapable sign of Malthusian super-population, which was averted from food production a few decades ago. We are simply depleting too many resources.
If the world population was of only one billion, we could have coal power. The fact is we need to reform our industrial processes and energy matrix (or, simply, continue to evolve in technology) and eventually curb our incessant growth (which will require mass catastrophes - or several generations with many old people and few kids).
We were supposed to be better than locusts. That is the point.
Peace and Brotherhood,
Mark
I wonder if anybody actually read comments posted here. If so I think more would have looked up 'Biomass pyrolysis' on Wikipedia, and realised that fossil hydrocarbons are also biomass, so the energy future of the planet is the Pyrolysis of hydrocarbons. The result is pure hydrogen for our energy needs and coke for landfill, eliminating the need for expensive CCS. Ask energy companies why they haven't invested in this.....and you will find out that they would earn less money!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf mountain-top coal mining is so terrible for the environment and only accounts for a small percentage of coal mined; then why not hust outlaw it altogether?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheck out proSeed and let me know your thoughts: http://proseedjournal.blogspot.com/
Daryl Dworkin DFDCapital
@Orkneygal, "MAY have the added benefit of slowing the onset of the next Ice Age" how exactly would it do that? I guess you trust the science when it works for you but disregard it and invent conspiracies when it doesn't. You openly lie that there is no scientific evidence to support AGW but then make off handed comments about increased CO2 being life friendly, good for plants and the oceans without providing any evidence and in fact contradicting all existing evidence. What gets me about the debate is not the difference of opinion but the low moral character of the deniers who lie, misrepresent science and use every fallacy in the book to advance their agenda. If you really had obvious science to support your claims you would be able to point us to your published paper. As it is the best you can do is post half truths here. It is clear that the only thing you have to contribute is disinformation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt looks like ducks and geese are showing up early this year in Washington (hunters report) which is a sign of early cool weather in Alaska and Canada.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this#1 Re. Orkneygal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor the readers, she states:
<blockquote>the Roman Warm Period and the Minoan Warming were synchronous, world wide and much warmer than today.</blockquote>
Roman and Minoan are collocated regionally. They are not worldwide.
To illustrate this ask yourself this: Is Rome and Minoa also located in Canada, Africa, China, Australia, Russia, The Antarctic, The Arctic, Polynesia, Norway, and Brazil?
Or are they only located in the Mediterranean?
—
<b>Fee & Dividend:</b> <a href="http://www.climatelobby.com/">Our best chance</a> - <a href="http://www.climatelobby.com/fee-and-dividend/">Learn the Issue</a> - <a href="http://www.climatelobby.com/">Sign the Petition</a>
<b>A Climate Minute:</b> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlzQ1i2caj4">Natural Cycle</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi3ERes0h84">Greenhouse Effect</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czRDS3jTM4o">Climate Science History</a> - <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rp4m2Xs1iv0">Arctic Ice Melt</a>
co2 global warming, carbon foot print, the big lie, co2 is plant food. the sun is clamate change its all about taxing energy, steal more of the working mans moneies thats all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are serious problems with global warming 'science'. In Figure 2.4 of AR4, 1.6 W/m^2 median AGW is offset by 1.2 W/m^2 ‘aerosol cooling’, 0.5 direct, 0.7 indirect via clouds. The former is probably nearer 0.3: the latter is imaginary because the equation used to predict it [Hansen and Lacis, 1974] is plainly wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt assumes a single optical process, diffuse scattering, when there’s a boundary effect which you can observe shielding the interior of dark rain clouds. Much greater for larger droplets, it’s strongly affected by pollution which reduces droplet size.
An upper estimate is that a change from 15 to 5 micron droplets reduces the 'shielding' by a factor of 10 so polluting a non-absorbing cloud with initial albedo of 0.7 would allow 60% more energy through, another AGW.
Because that warming is indistinguishable from GHG warming, net CO2-AGW could be zero, the key proof of which would be constant atmospheric IR optical depth. There's some evidence of this.
Also, 'cloud AGW' is self-limiting which might account for the cessation of global warming in 2003 according to ocean heat content. As for the cause, I suspect Asian industrialisation, the ‘Asian Brown Cloud’.
Some in climate science may realise the problem. Soon after experiment showed no evidence of 'cloud albedo effect' cooling, the originator of the idea, Twomey, was given a prize: http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sgg/singh/winners4.html
The science in the article is wrong: there's no 'reflection'. Also NASA claims in other literature 90% albedo yet Twomey's partially correct theory predicts a maximum of 50%.
No professional would publish such incorrect science yet the ‘reflection’ idea is widely believed. I conclude the CO2-AGW hypothesis has no direct evidence, there's another possible cause of AGW, self-limiting and reversible, and there are doubts about competence and/or honesty in the discipline.
Say hello to the Koch boys for me Orkney.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOrkneyGal is also a wellknown propaganda site supported by the Carbon industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou totally ignore surface solar and wind, to name only two. Twenty years ago personal computers were few and far between, and very expensive. Look at them now. With a slight push in that direction, and a cessation of Carbon funded propaganda, that could happen to alternative technologies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem has not been technical for a long time. It has been that the conservative interests running the world fear change, because they may not run a changed world, and have invested billions preventing that change.
Market theory would have them out in front, developing the new technology to remain dominant. Sadly, Market theory has proven to be hogwash.