Climate doctors say 'feel the pain'...
It's worth looking at some of the international ramifications of the conclusions of the UK's official climate advisers - reported on Monday - that the country needs a "step change" in ambition if it's to achieve government targets on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
It's worth it because the UK has been one of the developed world's champions when it comes to curbing emissions, having cut greenhouse gas output by about 16% since 1990.
So here's the rub: if the UK has been relatively successful but is still being told it has not done enough - and told that by its own advisors, the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), rather than by green campaigners - what does that say about everyone else?
According to UN data, the UK stands in bronze medal position behind Norway and Germany (among OECD countries) in the table of emission slashers, and at opposite poles from back markers such as Spain, Portugal, Greece and New Zealand, which have all seen emissions rise by more than 20% over the same period - 50% in the case of Spain.
(I'm using here UN data up to 2006, the last year for which comparisons are readily available - it's likely that the recession will have made every nation's figures a bit lower, but is unlikely to have changed the overall picture.)
In large part, Germany and the UK have cut emissions through chance. German re-unification forced the closure and refurbishment of old, inefficient industry in the former Soviet sector, while the advent of North Sea gas (combined with some other domestic political concerns) in the UK prompted a large-scale transition from coal to less carbon-intensive natural gas.
A point that this week's CCC report brings out is that most UK reductions since the "dash for gas" have been achieved in greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide.
Government figures show that methane release is down 53%, mostly from cleaning up landfill practices. Nitrous oxide (NOX) emissions have been cut by 47% - most of that reduction occurring in a brief blitz in the late 1990s when emissions from production of adipic acid - a precursor to nylon and other polymers - fell dramatically.
The CCC pegs this as a problem because, clearly, you can't keep making cuts here for ever. We've seen with the Montreal Protocol that when an industry comes on side with a policy initiative, changes can be made rapidly: this is what happened with nitrous oxide in the chemical industry in the late 1990s.
But methane and NOX emissions from agriculture have proved less tractable. And even if you could eliminate all methane and NOX emissions overnight, you can only make double the carbon cuts achieved already with these gases because their emissions have already been halved.
By comparison, carbon dioxide emissions from power stations - closely tied to economic performance - have risen slightly from the late 1990s when the "dash for gas" ended.
If landfill methane and industrial NOX were "low-hanging fruit" that the UK has now picked, other nations are in a similar situation.
France already has a low-carbon portfolio of electricity generation because of its long-standing reliance on nuclear energy.
Germany's high recycling levels leave it with fewer possibilities than the UK in terms of cutting landfill emissions.
And when it comes to the EU as a whole - still the main political driving force in global moves to agree a new climate treaty - the biggest greenhouse gas reduction of all has come from the former Soviet bloc's economic meltdown in the years after 1990, which is unlikely to be repeated.
The Committee on Climate Change makes the point that if the UK is to go much further in reducing its greenhouse gas footprint, it now has to begin making serious cuts in carbon dioxide emissions from every sector of society - housing, industry, power generation and transport.
The size of the "step change" they're advocating can be seen from the words used by chief executive David Kennedy, talking about making energy use in the home more efficient across the country.
Rather than just "sending low-energy lightbulbs though the post or targeting pensioners for cavity wall insulation" - a phrase that he managed to utter without sounding dismissive - a nationwide plan was needed, he said, that would go from street to street transforming the nation's housing stock.
The graphs of forecasts show no carbon savings from loft or cavity wall insulation beyond about 2015, because every cavity wall and loft in the country would have been done by then.
The UK government says that it is already planning a "step change" though the Low Carbon Transition Plan that it published in June.
Opinions are divided on how well that plan stacks up against government targets, and in particular against the pledge to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 34% from 1990 levels by 2020.
Like other European nations, the UK's main emission-cutting tool is the EU-wide carbon market, aimed at incentivising companies to change their ways and penalising those that do not.
If a new treaty is agreed at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen in December, it is certain to contain measures aimed at developing a global carbon market.
The idea is that carbon prices should then drive emissions downwards worldwide. The market will channel clean development money to countries that need it, and levies on trading are likely to be used to raise funds to help the poorest nations adapt to climate impacts.
The CCC's conclusion is that the market alone cannot deliver the scale of carbon cuts that the UK has signed up to - a "step change" away from reliance on the market and towards greater direction and greater regulation is a must, it says.
The EU as a whole is signed up to a 20% cut from 1990 levels - a 30% cut if there is a global agreement.
Japan has pledged 25% by 2020; Australia and the US could yet end up adopting targets that require significant and rapid action to achieve, even if they don't look terribly ambitious in the eyes of campaigners when related to 1990 levels.
Japan's emissions now stand 6% above 1990 levels, partially because it plucked its own low-hanging fruit - energy efficiency - in response to the oil crisis of the 1970s.
As a few recent analyses (including one from the World Resources Institute) have shown, the degree of "ambition" shown in the pledges of developed nations in the lead-up to the Copenhagen summit are not enough to bring carbon cuts of the 25-40% scale that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests are necessary to "avoid dangerous climate change".
The conclusion from the CCC's report provides part of the explanation.
For most countries, a "step change" in ambition would require a "step change" in policies - policies that would, for most, mean making the first painful bites into the nether regions of national carbon emissions.
A little wincing at the prospect seems to me entirely natural.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~52~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
For "step change" read "more taxation". Once again we in the UK are going to be penalised when the rest of the world won't do a damn thing. If Britain went back to medieval levels of CO2 emissions it wouldn't change the overall planetary situation one bit so why do we have to be taxed and hounded by politicians who want us to go back to a horse and cart while they continue to fly to junkets everywhere first class ? Caledonian Comment
Complain about this comment
This is where I feel that I can contribute. The public transport system in Britain is not reliable even in the city. All major cities should have regular, dependable transport systems to get people to and from work. This is not going to happen through 'competition.' For example, bus companies competing for their place in the public transport sector will only regularly service popular routes. The competing companies try to squeeze out each other to dominate the honeypot service routes. Bus companies also chose to remove bus services from certain routes because they are not profitable and they do it without ANY communication with their users. There is no visible sign of this activity because the companies keep their old signs in place and leave no traces of what they are doing. People as a result loose their jobs or have to change job because there is no longer a service to get them to work. Government policy is weak on protecting bus and coach services but relatively strong in maintaining train services. The bus companies load their fines onto their transport users by putting up fares. The workers of bus companies are unfairly treated and low paid. The staff turnover of drivers is high and many of them are almost non English speaking.
If the government wishes people to leave their cars at home and use public transport then they must ensure that what they offer is reliable, affordable and clean. Many people start to use public transport and are put off when the bus does not turn up after half an hour of waiting, they are late for work as a result and they face the possibility of loosing their job. All major bus stops must have a shelter, must have an electronic real time communication system, must have alternative options if a bus fails to turn up.
I live in a city and can expect to wait 20 minutes without any communication for a bus that might not turn up. This is unacceptable. Within the last month I have had to wait 3/4 of an hour for a promised bus that never arrived followed by a second promised bus that never arrived.
Complain about this comment
Can you shed any light on why the Government has shown no interest in getting the country's houses properly insulated as a matter of urgency? It seems to me it would be win-win-win-win: lots of employment and savings in fuel, CO2 and, for voters – I mean, householders – money.
Likewise installing condensing boilers. Simply giving householders a partial grant to get it done themselves gets us nowhere, as many people will calculate that the payback time may well be longer than they are likely to live in that house – and then when they move they may well be faced with having to replace a boiler all over again. (I've just had my old boiler replaced out of a sense of public spirit - I will not recoup the cost before I move house, and nor will it have increased the value of my house, I'm told.)
Complain about this comment
Once you have dished out the loft insulation, the energy efficient light bulbs and the cavity wall insulation where do you go from there to improve energy efficiency? Where do you go from there to employ the people who have supplied these items? Where do you go when you have sold your capacity to make windmills to some other country? Where do you go to provide grade A efficiency appliances to people who are no longer employed and no longer have disposable income to afford upgrades? Where do you go to house people in energy efficient buildings when they can no longer afford to move?
I know I am only talking at a domestic level but looking at the graphs you have supplied, show me that the domestic consumer is large part of the problem. What does the green and yellow line 'other' represent?
Complain about this comment
This all seems to require magic. Unless an alternative fuel is developed the rest is simply a continuation of the same. The coal/oil distribution systems are in place and the vested interest will defend the continuation as long as profits are to be had. The political process is an accumulation of weak and corrupt individuals dependent on contribtions from those to be regulated. Don't forget the financial mess and the role played by the political class. They let it happen. If you trust them in any way you are simply a fool. Coal and oil distribution systems leave undeveloped countries at a disadvanage in the world economy. They will become more involved as China and India develop a middle class and the captialist seek cheap labor. Although nuclear as used by France provides the advantage of energy independence the issue of what to do with the waste remains unsolved and the underlying fears of terrorist attacks on plants. Most of what is being discussed is a delaying game until some new energy can be brought on line. The vested interest of coal and oil will drain every profit possible and their hired protectors, the governments will gladly mislead the people of each country into believing that they are doing something different. The proposals are that people should modifiy their lifestyles and use less engery so not to place the industrialist in a bind and make the current resources produce profit for an extended period of time. None of this is going to work so the best thing is to concentrate on is an alternative. A viable alternative will also create opportunities in the developing world. Most governments and energy providers live in fear that an alternative will appear that is not controlled by current energy interest.
Complain about this comment
A simple question:
Does the change in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere precede or follow an increase/decrease in global temperature?
This is quite important, isn't it? If CO2 increases after an increase in global temperature there cannot be a causal relationship, can there? I have yet to see any convincing research that shows that an increase of COS precedes an increase of temperature. The research shows that when the globe is warmer there is more CO2, but which comes first? If there is no causality or the causality is the other way round there is no value in controlling CO2 - is there?
Rather we should be planning for the consequences of global warming - something that we are not doing so far as I can see - instead we are trying to reduce CO2 with no (valid) evidence that CO2 levels are causal.
Can anyone answer this?
Complain about this comment
Let's hope we have some more global warming - then we won't have to heat our homes so much. There's a nice bit of negative feedback :)
All this talk of loft insulation etc will make no discernible difference. The only significant step would be to build more nuclear power stations.
Complain about this comment
@John_from_Hendon #6
For the last 800,000 years CO2 increases have always lagged behind temperature changes. There is empirical evidence to show this and the lag of CO2 is undisputed.
Alarmists claim once temperature has started to rise and CO2 is released, the additional CO2 amplifies the warming. There is no empirical evidence to prove CO2 raises temeperature significantly once concentration has reached around 200ppm.
Climate sensitivity is the key. Alarmists tell us sensitivity is high, but observational evidence tell us sensitivity is low.
A recent report tells us CO2 levels are estimated to be “highest in 15 million years”.
“During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today,” Tripati said. “Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount.”
“We can now have confidence in making statements about how carbon dioxide has varied throughout history,” Tripati said. In the last 20 million years, key features of the climate record include the sudden appearance of ice on Antarctica about 14 million years ago and a rise in sea level of approximately 75 to 120 feet.
Obviously, the authors of the report don't mean these events happended at the same time, but it seems odd that CO2 levels at 400ppm sustained for 6 million years can produce both the sudden appearance of ice in Antarctica and 75 - 120 feet of sea rise.
Complain about this comment
To Richard Black:
I had already seen your excellent article on 'step change', and I am looking forward to commenting. But it's Thanksgiving here today, and I'll content myself with reading this day.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
#8. MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"For the last 800,000 years CO2 increases have always lagged behind temperature changes. There is empirical evidence to show this and the lag of CO2 is undisputed."
Of course I actually knew this, but as the sequence is the planet gets hotter THEN CO2 goes up how come that we are supposed to believe that the level of CO2 CAUSES the planet to get hotter? I have read the Science article and all that it shows is that at a time when the planet was hotter CO2 levels were higher that does not show that higher CO2 levels CAUSED a hotter planet. It shows that when the planet is hotter there is more CO2.
I have other concerns about the papers explanations about the handling of data and error bounds, but the most curious aspect is the considerations of the relative importance of Antarctica breaking away from South America enabling the cold circulation to become established which in turn kept Antarctica cold that allowed the building of the ice caps on what was formerly a temperate tree covered continent. (It does not see logical to me to argue that the ice caps was formed before the circumpolar current was set up.)
My concerns are about CAUSALITY in relation to CO2 and global warming. If the position is (as you point out the research shows) that the sequences is: 1. get warmer THEN 2. CO2 rises - it is therefore illogical and scientifically unsupported to suppose that by lowering CO2 THEN the planet will cool. This is a causality problem! The evidence shows that when we are warmer the CO2 level THEN rises.
Complain about this comment
Milankovitch cycles
"Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and a seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", in Science, 1976,[3] did the theory attain its present state."
Hays, J.D.; Imbrie, J.; Shackleton, N.J. (1976). "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages". Science 194 (4270): 1121–1132. doi:10.1126/science.194.4270.1121. PMID 17790893
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_theory
------------
Global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
- Manysummits, Calgary -
PS: "The power of instruction is seldom of much efficacy, except in those happy dispositions where it is almost superlous."
- Edward Gibbon
PS #2: Beware of the disturbed personality.
Complain about this comment
@John_from_Hendon #10
how come that we are supposed to believe that the level of CO2 CAUSES the planet to get hotter?
Because that's what the IPCC says. Come on John, get on board ;)
As far as i am aware, there is no empirical evidence to show CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. I have asked for evidence many times on these pages, but nobody, including Richard Black (in fairness, he is a journalist, so only reports the facts impartially), has been able to show empirically. One or two people have tried, but have then either not bothered to respond to my answer or just moved on. It seems their faith holds no bounds.
With regards to Antarctica, I do recall seeing a reconstruction of the continents when Antarctica was joined, which showed ice caps over Antarctica. I will try to find the image.
Causality is all the alarmist have, but i recall somebody also found causality between the price of an american stamp and rising temperatures, so perhaps they have something ;)
Complain about this comment
PS #2: Beware of the disturbed personality.
John Forbes Nash Jr
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon:
Initial rises in atmospheric CO2 *do* lag behind the initial rise in temperature in the palaeoclimate record. No-one disputes this. But whatever the forcing agent in each prehistoric period of warming (the Milankovitch orbital cycles being an important example), the CO2 released in the initial warming persisted for centuries - long enough to cause further warming in a positive feedback cycle (because it is an extremely good absorber of infra-red radiation or "greenhouse gas") until the climate stabilised in a new state.
Contrast this to water vapour, which contributes more in absolute terms to the greenhouse effect, but whose atmospheric half-life is so short (of the order of a week) that if we could somehow instantaneously remove it all from the atmosphere, it would diffuse back to reach its previous level within two months, well before its removal could cause any long-term changes to climate.
In other words, although CO2 was a feedback in palaeoclimate record, it can be a forcing agent if large quantities are emitted, because it stays in the atmosphere so long *and* is such an effective greenhouse gas. And we are emitting large quantities of it very rapidly in geological terms. It stands to reason that this will lead to warmer surface temperatures.
That is how I understand it...
Complain about this comment
Find me a deep cycle battery that will last 25 years in normal house temp, between say 17c - 25c that will vent the gases with a tube for say 50GBP and lower cost 80 watt solar panels say 50GBP to fit inside my south facing bedroom. Then I can power my small TV, laptop, recharge small appliances and have my low energy table light on. Why should anyone spend about 500GBP on said equipment when the battery will last 2 - 5 years?
Sure many could make a large box paint it black with copper tubing and glass on top but who wants to work out how and then do the plumbing?
Make it all feasible and cost effective.
Complain about this comment
Most people who are serious about tackling climate change have already done quite a bit to insulate their houses and there's not much more they can do. I've insulated my loft way beyond what is advised; I've dry-lined my walls with insulation (they're solid, so cavity wall insulation is not an option); I've lagged all my pipes with the thickest insulation I can buy; and I've replaced all my windows with the latest double glazing. I've got solar thermal heating for my hot water and a ground source heat pump for my space heating. My lighting is all either CFL or LED. My energy bills are very low. I've even encouraged neighbours to improve their insulation -- and helped them install it. So there's not much further I can go.
The problem is that most of the people left who need to insulate their houses either don't care or can't afford it. When I say 'don't care' I don't mean that they can't see that they would make savings; it's just that they don't intend to stay in their current houses long enough to make it worth their while to improve insulation or update with a new condensing boiler -- the payback period is just too long. Add to that that most plumbers and builders aren't interested in installing insulation; there's no money in, it usually can't be seen, and they still get paid even if they do a poor job.
The government need to come up with meaningful incentives to encourage people to adopt every means possible to improve their homes, maybe with some sort of scheme whereby you aren't allowed to sell a house unless it meets certain efficiency standards -- and access to a no-interest loan to finance improvements, repayable when you sell the house.
Complain about this comment
"Of course I actually knew this, but as the sequence is the planet gets hotter THEN CO2 goes up how come that we are supposed to believe that the level of CO2 CAUSES the planet to get hotter?"
Umm, basic physics that can easily be demostrated in the lab, or the rather obvious fact that the Earth isn't an iceball that it should be without greenhouse gases keeping it insulated, or the surface temperature of Venus that should be over a hundred degrees lower than it is if CO2 didn't cause warming?
Complain about this comment
manysummits,
I am only a youngish granny who is terrified of heights, who came last in sports at school, who was too short to jump over the hurdles. However I did climb an army tower and I did absail down it, in an attempt to conquer my fear. You and your friends sound famous, are you, should I ask for your autographs? A tibetan monk once come to supper at my house with his translator and group. He was very nice and taught my children a tibetan chant. The man's name was Geishela Lunthrop. I really didn't believe that you are blogging from so far away. davblo from Sweden, you are so lucky to be near a meteor crater like that. From childhood, I have had a bit of an obsession for collecting rocks and fossils, which we have plenty of on the south coast of Britain. I have a large ammonite which took me 2 days to dig out and wrecked the tools in the process. I live in a place called Hampshire and I have no claim to fame that can be proved.
Complain about this comment
JRWoodman,
It sounds as if you have worked really hard to reduce your carbon footprint. What is a ground source heat pump? Condensing boilers are very good but I did have problems with mine when it was first put in. The seal is made of very friable material and has to be handled very carefully. The boiler men had to re do the seal a couple of times before it was satisfactory. How affordable are roof solar panels now? I think many of us would get them if they were cheap enough and if they were easy to install.
Complain about this comment
1. At 4:19pm on 12 Oct 2009, CaledonianComment wrote:
For "step change" read "more taxation".
2. At 4:44pm on 12 Oct 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
This is where I feel that I can contribute. The public transport system in Britain is not reliable even in the city
Richard Black writes:-
A little wincing at the prospect seems to me entirely natural.
Lets try to put these three comments together. I'll start with the transport one.Seems appropriate at present because Auckland is now into it's 6th day of total public transport (buses) chaos.
It is simply a matter of economics.
No company be it public owned or local government or state is going to pump funds into an enterprise that doesn't return a profit or at least break-even. The ratepayers in Auckland already subsidise public transport to a significant degree . An example of "more taxation"
Some people HAVE to use public transport (like SENSIBLEOLDGRANNY) some people choose to use public transport but the fact is that far too many people choose NOT to use public transport. They can come up with all sorts of reasons why they should continue to use their cars. Trying to persuade them to change their habits is like getting blood from a stone.
It just doesn't work.
So what's the alternative? Force people to use public transport!
In 1986 I returned to New Zealand from the UK via Singapore. At that time, the CBD was declared a "NO GO ZONE"
To enter this zone required either
(a) FIVE persons in the car or
(b) A very expensive permit or
(c) be prepared to risk an even more expensive fine.
As a result, public transport was excellent, cheap and (I understand) reliable.
Draconian you may say but then the Singapore Government never did anything by half-measures
Now consider all the other benefits of this policy.
Less private transport in cities means less congestion on the roads, less land and property devoted to parking but probably most important of all, less POLLUTION. Not to mention of course LESS taxation, no need for subsidies (in fact the service beside being cheap actually made a profit)
That of course brings us to Richard's last sentence!
Just imagine the whinging and wincing! What Western style politician is prepared to give up his/her future prospects and promote such a policy. And I don't consider the London experiment as coming within coooey of the Singapore policy.
But...............remember what happened in Beijing in the lead-up to the Olympics! What would have been the outcome if they hadn't adopted their "clean-up-the-atmosphere" policy then?
Complain about this comment
#17. ch21ss wrote:
"CO2 CAUSES the planet to get hotter?
Umm, basic physics that can easily be demonstrated in the lab"
Sorry, I don't think so, and the lab is not the planet.
You have to provide heat and then the CO2 level gets higher. That is the heating CAUSES higher CO2 not the other way round and also the experiments are unable to reflect the influence of other potential causes.
All that we have from actual physical evidence is that when CO2 levels have been higher the planet has been warmer. This does not PROVE that CO2 CAUSES warming.
Personally, I would like to see more money spent, and consideration devoted to, living with a warmer planet rather than fictitious physically unsound projects('Clean Coal' - oh yes!!!!) to cut back CO2 (which is anyway only one of the many possible gaseous aspects of a warmer world - many of which are far more likely 'culprits'.)
Improving fuel efficiency is valuable in its own right and not just because of spurious claims that by changing a light bulb we will conquer global warming! My fear is that we are concentrating our efforts on the wrong things, because of the lack of a real and proven causal relationship.
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie #18: "I live in a place called Hampshire..."
"Hampshire was the departure point of some of those later to settle in the east coast of what is now the United States, in the 17th Century, giving its name in particular to New Hampshire."
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie, and anyone who was following on the previous blog post...
Concerning CO2, water vapour; car exhausts, fizzy drinks and boiling kettles; I just realised you wrote in #96: "For those of us who doesn't drive (what a brilliant analogy davblo2), I think we are learning, from your good explanations."
Just in case you missed a subtle point here. Those explanations I gave (#90 and #92) were not analogies. They were the real thing. Real CO2, real H2O, real air, real hot and cold, real physics; climate science in miniature.
I hope you can appreciate the difference.
All the best; davblo2
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Don't get hung up on the causality thing. Peter Barber is right: CO2 can both lead and lag temperature. In climatology parlance, it can act as both a feedback and a forcing depending on circumstances. Paleoclimate studies indeed suggest that it has lagged increases in temperature from external forcings such as solar irradiance on some occasions in the Earth's geological past (Milankovitch cycles), while leading temperature at others (such as the eruption of flood basalts proposed as mechanism for the End-Permian extinction).
Paleoclimatology is complex and full of uncertainty and, in my opinion, has way too much influence in the climate debate. It's too easy to argue it both ways. And of course, if you're being disingenuous in your arguing you can use the uncertainty to your advantage.
If you accept the basic physics of radiative transfer, understand the characteristics of the CO2 molecule (and the other so-called GHGs), can follow Tyndall's work on atmospheric science (done in C19th before computer climate models and paleoclimate studies of course), can tell the difference between a feedback and a forcing, and have an appreciation of the broad timescales on which the relevant cycles work (carbon cycle, hydrological cycle etc) then that's all you need to see why increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere might cause a rise in temperature. For it *not* to cause a rise in temperature requires some outlandish and unlikely science. Not saying it's impossible of course, just something to be highly sceptical about...
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon #21: "You have to provide heat and then the CO2 level gets higher. That is the heating CAUSES higher CO2 not the other way round..."
What has caused the increase in CO2 levels over recent decades?
Did something "provide heat" or did we burn lots of fossil fuel?
Did you read Peter Barber #14 which was directly addressed to you?
He explained how increased CO2 levels can be and "effect" of some other driver, and also a driver itself.
In the current situation we have pre-empted nature by causing an un-natural rise in CO2 level; there is nothing to say that CO2 cannot now be a driver of change itself.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
* 21. At 10:58pm on 12 Oct 2009, John_from_Hendon wrote:
#17. ch21ss wrote:
"CO2 CAUSES the planet to get hotter?
Umm, basic physics that can easily be demonstrated in the lab"
Sorry, I don't think so, and the lab is not the planet.
Hi there John....very true....on both counts!
Are there any (laboratory) experiments that you can refer to that disprove this theory though? If so I am sure we would all like access to them then we can stop this argument right here and now.
BUT on a global scale.......surely we are actually in the process of carrying out just such an experiment! Unfortunately the results won't be available tomorrow.
SO..I wonder if you have considered the consequences if the results prove the AGW team right some thirty odd years down the track.
I suspect that you have come to realise that none of our current generation (50 and over) are likely to be around if and when that happens.
As I and others have said before, one way or another, I personally don't think it's a very sensible risk to take.
Complain about this comment
The CCC is right to talk about step changes and more regulation, keeping a high carbon price etc but is still wedded to the principle of 'making more things solves everything' and neither seem to address the need for carbon rationing or comparable radical tax/ETS reform, nor the embodied emissions of imported goods.
The CCC has exceeded expectations for something led by industry-leaning appointments, but gives the nod to the Government's new coal-fired power station plans and has equivocated over airport building. Its amateurish, muddled thinking was attacked by no less than the Tyndall Centre last month.
Complain about this comment
Excellent blogging !!!
Glad to see we have some more scientists contributing their climate science understanding.
It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the "Anthropocene" [Paul Crutzen] is in many ways more comparable to past periods of volcanic greenhouse 'events' - shall we call them, the most serious appearing to be the greenhouse extinction events of the last 600 million years, than to glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene.
Prior to the Pleistocene (last ~ two million years - see Wikipedia), it is theorized that the primary climate forcing agent was CO2 from flood basalt volcanic emmissions or something of like effect (methane clathrates CH4...), to simplify perhaps a bit too much. Milankovitch Cycles would still have been affecting climate, but the volcanic or like emmissions mentioned above would conceivably have overwhelmed them.
The Pleistocene and Holocene, on the other hand, up until the advent of the "Antropocene" circa late 1700's to mid 1800's, is the glacial and interglacial age in which the primary climate forcing agent was probably orbital variations (Milankovitch Cycles) which varied the insolation at various latitudes as well as, to a lesser extent, globally averaged values in received irradiance. Here CO2 fluctuated between ~ 180 ppm in glacial events to ~ 280 ppm in interglacials ( the latest being the Holocene).
I'm not sure if this is helping or hindering understanding?
Here is a link to 'climate forcing agents', which may also cloud the picture, or help clear things up??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Climate_forcing_agents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_forcing
---------
The point being that if one is not a specialist in climate science, an awful lot of work and thinking and investigating will be required if one is to come to a reasonable understanding of the situation. This is not possible or practical for many or most of the population, I presume?
If it is not practical or possible, then one is thrown back on deciding who to believe, which I really don't think is as tough as some bloggers make it seem.
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
This article refers to reduction in emissions resulting from better control of land fill activity. Does anyone know, what is the impact on emissions from constructing large rubbish incinerators ? This "alternative to land fill" seems to be part of both Labour and Conservative policy... indeed large sums of money are being awarded to councils who are planning to build massive incinerators. Surely this runs against the logic of recycling, which is so effective for other countries but so appallingly badly managed in the UK. I am very worried about plans currently being bulldozed through by one dictatorial councillor in my area to build an enormous incinerator which will have such a huge appetite for rubbish to burn that truck loads of rubbish will be imported from several surrounding counties to be burned... just to fulfill the business case for building it. That surely cannot be right. Whatever happened to the logic of handling things locally and on the small scale ? Is incineration really a valid answer ?
Complain about this comment
Two points:
Firstly, the CCC is not independent; it is a bunch of mainly economists who know nothing about climate science.
Secondly to ch21ss @ #17. You say "Umm, basic physics that can easily be demostrated in the lab, or the rather obvious fact that the Earth isn't an iceball that it should be without greenhouse gases keeping it insulated, or the surface temperature of Venus that should be over a hundred degrees lower than it is if CO2 didn't cause warming?"
I don't think you know much about basic physics or how easy it is to reproduce the earth's atmosphere in the lab. CO2 doesn't cause warming. The energy from the sun in the form of electromagnetic energy causes the earth's surface to warm. For an energy balance, the earth's temperature (surface and atmosphere) is at a value such that the outgoing radiation (IR) equals the incoming radiation (mainly short wavelength) - see Stefan's Law. Given this, it is easy, using the Perfect Gas Law, to calculate (knowing that the pressure at the earth's surface is 1 bar) what the average temperatures up the atmosphere and at the earth's surface are. So-called "greenhouse gases" do not keep the earth insulated. The vacuum of space is the insulator. Everybody who understands basic physics should know that. You don't use a gas to insulate a thermos flask and the most effective double-glazing systems use a vacuum (although it is difficult to maintain a vacuum in glazing systems).
The gases in the atmosphere do not insulate the surface; rather they transfer energy from the earth's surface up through the atmosphere to where it can most easily be radiated to space (however, some is directly radiated from the surface through the atmospheric window) by a combination of convection together with absorption and emission of IR.
Quoting Venus and CO2 is equally wrong according to basic physics (BTW, where did you learn your basic physics?)
Complain about this comment
@mattymed #24
Paleoclimate studies indeed suggest that it has lagged increases in temperature from external forcings such as solar irradiance on some occasions in the Earth's geological past (Milankovitch cycles), while leading temperature at others (such as the eruption of flood basalts proposed as mechanism for the End-Permian extinction).
My understanding is there is a causal link between flood basalt events and mass extinctions, but no empirical evidence, although i won't swear to this. Suggestions for the extinctions are climatic cooling from sulphuric acid aerosols, greenhouse warming from CO2 and SO2 gases, acid rain and dissolved sulphur, and sulphuric acid aerosols formed from sulphur volatiles (largely SO2) are injected into the stratosphere. Indirect effects include changes in ocean chemistry, circulation, and oxygenation.
Didn't the major flood basalt events take place when CO2 levels were already higher than they are today?
Flood Basalt Episode Age (Myr) Stratigraphic Boundary Age (Myr)
Columbia River 16 ± 1 Early/Mid-Miocene 16.4
Ethiopia 31 ± 1 Early/Late Oligocene 30
North Atlantic 57 ± 1 Paleocene/Eocene 54.8 Deccan 66 ± 1 Cretaceous/Tertiary 65.0
Madagascar 88 ± 1 Cenomanian/Turonian 93.5
Rajmahal 116 ± 1 Aptian/Albian 112.2
Serra Geral/Etendeka 132 Jurassic/Cretaceous 142
etc
Complain about this comment
@manysummits #28
Glad to see we have some more scientists contributing their climate science understanding.
Interesting you make the assumption that people supporting your stance are scientists and those that don't support you have a "disturbed personality" or did your PS2 #11 mean something else?
Complain about this comment
@PAWB46
Venus is actually quite a good model to demonstrate CO2's inability to cause significant warming. The atmosphere is almost all CO2 and yet CO2 absorption bands are still not 100% saturated.
Complain about this comment
Look, debating CO2 or not here is the basic reality the UK faces. You have wind and nuclear and conventional energy.
Solar is not a viable option right now because the UK weather is prohibitive and (as with most of Europe) is too far north anyway. You could probably make limited use of solar-thermal systems for water heat since the efficiency is FAR higher when the energy is already in the form needed.
Nuclear is your best bet. Thorium based molten salt reactors are essentially foolproof and cannot be made to melt down. There is enough Thorium available for 8 billion people to use as much electricity as the average US citizen (about 40megawatts/day, total output averaged over the whole population)...for 100 years! I think we'll have the kinks worked out of fusion or other sources by then.
Much of the of the world can make some significant use of solar, especially solar-thermal. Quite frankly it sickens me to listen to green morons babbling on about unimaginably expensive, over-engineered, high tech solutions when we've got simple systems like forced-air solar that LITERALLY cost just as much in its basic form as putting a normal covering on your roof (ZERO costs when building new structures) and adding a fan. My parents got much of their heat from this type of system in a house they built in the 70's!
The newer adsorption air conditioners are even efficient enough to get most of their input energy from unconcentrated solar. Imagine the savings in using a virtually free energy source (unlike photovoltaics which cost more than mains power) like solar-thermal to provide 50%+ of our HVAC and water heating energy.
And again on the subject of photovoltaics (for places other than the UK)...GET THE HECK OVER IT! It's an idealistic pipe dream for right now. It also creates a secondary problem of requiring expensive backup systems. If all of you environmental freaks would stop demanding that all solutions completely avoid conventional fuels we could actually make progress with something FUNCTIONAL.
Since solar-thermal electric plants are still the most efficient, only a great fool would build anything else. Interesting side effect of using solar-thermal...we can just burn fossil fuels for "backup power" and use the same subsystems for converting heat to electricity. No batteries or exotic systems needed for backup, just power when you need it and ACTUAL reductions in carbon because the system functions well enough that people have a reason to use it.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #30: "...!!!..."
Once again, pseudo-science and obfuscation.
You say "So-called 'greenhouse gases' do not keep the earth insulated. The vacuum of space is the insulator. "
Come on. A thermal insulator is something which resists the flow of heat. Since the greenhouse gases stop the IR from the ground radiating directly into space I think most would agree it's valid to call them an insulator. You are just playing with words.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2, et al
i thought, 'For those of us who don't drive,' was the analogy. You are explaining science to the non-drivers (non scientists) ; )
It is very important that us non-drivers understand what you are saying or at least have access to learning that helps us understand what you are saying. You may be also inspiring a future generation of scientists while blogging here. We all may learn to drive yet!
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #30: "to ch21ss @ #17."
You say..."I don't think you know much about basic physics..."
You say..."Everybody who understands basic physics should know that."
You say..."BTW, where did you learn your basic physics?)"
For someone who present psuedo-science You are rather insulting.
/davblo2
PS. You made a mistake...
You said...
"You don't use a gas to insulate a thermos flask and the most effective double-glazing systems use a vacuum (although it is difficult to maintain a vacuum in glazing systems)..
Double glazing with air as the medium works pretty well as an insulator. Why do you think that is?
Complain about this comment
May I ask you all to put which country you live in next to your blog name? It helps build up a clearer picture of where we are all from in this united nation of blogland.
Complain about this comment
More of the same.
Silly ideas to cut emissions a few percent by going back to the dark ages. And of course.....
Tax, Tax, Tax, Tax
How long will it take before we move on and start developing non-fossil energy sources which provide emmissions cuts, energy security and some sort of quality of life?
Obviously if our electricity is made by nuclear, tidal, biomass etc etc then it makes little difference what kind of light bulb we use.
Fairly obvious really - makes you wonder what the REAL agenda is.
Complain about this comment
@1 How can you justify, 'for "step change" read "more taxation"? The article did not once mention taxation. It was merely offers a fairly concise summary of the status quo, and argues that little more can be achieved without regulatory measures without proceeding to say what these might be.
It is your kind of vaccuous comment that devalues comment fora of this kind. If you are going to make an observation kindly restrict yourself to the material at hand, not that which your imagination conceives of along the way.
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #33: "Venus is actually quite a good model to demonstrate CO2's inability to cause significant warming."
What is your source of information about Venus' atmosphere?
Wikipedia just says...
"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F)."
/davblo2 - Sweden
Complain about this comment
To davblo2:
I do not give pseudo-science; just the basic physics.
To correct you:
"Greenhouse gases" prevent some (not all as you imply) of the IR radiating directly to space from the earth's surface. Much IR goes directly from the surface to space through the atmospheric window. You use semantics. The atmosphere cannot be described as an insulator, just as you would not describe a single-brick wall in a house as an insulator. An insulator provides a high resistance to heat flow (generally taken to mean by conduction or convection).
I did not make a mistake. I told you that a vacuum would be best in double-glazing and that it is difficult to maintain such a vacuum. Air or other, better gases are used for this reason. The reason gases they provide good insulating properties is that the air gap is kept small so that convection is minimised and heat transfer occurs by molecular collision. Convection occurs freely in the atmosphere, hence the atmosphere provides poor resistance to heat flow.
Complain about this comment
oops, just noticed the misprint in my previous post...the average US citizen uses about 40 kilowatt hours per day :D
Complain about this comment
9. At 6:46pm on 12 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:
it's Thanksgiving here today, and I'll content myself with reading this day.
11. At 7:40pm on 12 Oct 2009, manysummits wrote:
Short day?
38. At 08:47am on 13 Oct 2009, sensibleoldgrannie
Not keen. It might encourage some that the principles of emerging truth require the BBC to hand over the names off UK-based folk who do not follow certain groups' dogma for the purposes of re-educational incarceration.
Complain about this comment
Taxing people for CO2 emissions - basically slapping tax on electric and tax on gas would work if the economists are to be believed. The hitch right now with insulation grants is that they don't apply to 'awkward' installations - chalet bungalows etc. I want to improve the insulation in my home - its cold! - but it is going to be a hard slog.
The current grant system also has a reputation for increasing the price of the insulation etc by the amount of the grant - this needs to be stopped.
We really need cleaner electricity generated here - it doesn't help that nobody wants wind turbines anywhere nearby. It was stunning to go abroad this summer and see how the other countries do it. Lots of wind turbines - lots of solar on houses.
Clean power generation - and storage - are the way to go. We may need to arm twist councils - sure we don't want turbines in areas of natural beauty but as the country in the EU with the most wind and sea renewables (solars never going to work for us here) we ought to be taking the lead and not sticking our head in the sand.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #42: "the atmosphere provides poor resistance to heat flow."
We have been through all this before; and you are deliberately trying to confuse.
The atmosphere doesn't have to provide resistance to heat flow. The greenhouse gasses do that.
The greenhouse gasses stop the escape of SOME OF the energy as IR from the ground.
The greenhouse gasses act as an insulator. They resist the flow of (SOME OF) the escaping energy.
That energy is forced to escape by convection to the upper atmosphere.
That convection route up through the atmosphere takes time and is POOR in terms of energy transfer rate compared to direct radiation.
The atmosphere insulates by taking time to transfer the energy up to the upper levels.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
davblo2: Don't believe wikipedia. The atmosphere on Venus is mostly CO2 and is about 60 times as dense as earth's atmosphere, with no water to speak of (to radiate IR to space). Apply the Perfect Gas Law with the sun's input and you get a hot planet.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #42: "...just as you would not describe a single-brick wall in a house as an insulator. An insulator provides a high resistance to heat flow"
I think you are hung up on magnitude.
If a "single-brick" wall was all you have to protect you from the weather I'm sure it would merit being called an insulator.
There are perfect conductors and perfect insulators (at least conceptually) and in between many imperfect conductors and imperfect insulators. The term we use depends often on the context and what you are comparing it to.
The atmosphere and greenhouse gasses keep us warm. In that context they merit being called insulators. You can call them poor insulators if you like. That doesn't change the effect they have.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #47: "Don't believe wikipedia"
Why do you think I ask for a reference?
PAWB46 #47: "Apply the Perfect Gas Law with the sun's input and you get a hot planet."
If you really understand what you are saying, maybe you could explain it to the laymen who are reading this instead of trying to blind them with meaningless scientific sounding statements.
PAWB46: "...with no water to speak of (to radiate IR to space)."
Just out of interest; maybe you could explain why the energy from the surface would need water (in the upper atmosphere I presume) to radiate it as IR into space. Maybe it can't radiate out from ground level. Is something stopping it doing that? What would that be?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
JunkkMale,
I doubt very much that our lives are secret. Why would an authority bother to ask the BBC to hand over our details when they can take it anyway?
MangoChutneyUK,
Thanks for being a gentleman ; )
I must admit the other remark did hurt as it was out of context and could be misinterpreted.
PAWB46
I found your observation very interesting. Why then, is the gap in a double glazing panel so wide? A triple glazed unit becomes a very large heavy object. Why has double glazing technology not moved forward to match the science or has it?
jon112UK
'REAL agenda'? Pray, tell us more, we are all agog ; )
I read up on the idea of tidal power as a possible for the UK and was disappointed by all of the negative aspects of it. They want to build a tidal power station on the River Severn, it would sit just under the water so that there would be some flow over the top for marine traffic (fish and boats)
I like the sound of the Thorium nuclear option but what about the waste?
The army have developed, and are using PORTABLE incinerators, which appear to be very effective in also providing useable energy. Any thoughts on that?
We will probably end up with a mixture of coal fired power stations, geothermal energy, anaerobic digester energy, nuclear energy and an up grade of the CHP generator. Unless we all resign ourselves to the dark ages we will have to get real and accept power options which are compatible with manufacturing capability and domestic need.
Complain about this comment
Richard..
NOx emissions relate to nitrogen oxide gases which are produced by industry and are not produced by soils including nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and nitric oxide (NO). The problems of SOX and NOX are quite different to greenhouse gas emissions.
Whilst these gases are toxic and therefore considered pollutants, nitrous oxide (N2O) is the only greenhouse gas with a global warming potential (GWP) 298 x CO2 and is produced by soils and hence agriculture where denitrifying bacteria convert nitrate (NO3) in fertilizer to N2O and dinitrogen (N2).
Complain about this comment
I think it worth note that scientists and climate bodies do pay too much attention to CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases as being the main cause for climate change without acknowledging or at the very least publicising the other factors affecting climate change.
as blogged here CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases act as a type of insulator slowing the escape of IR heat from the surface forcing it to escape the atmostphere in the form of convection.
But the question needs to be asked "is this the sole cause of climate change" ... I think not
as heat reaches the earth from the sun in the form of Radiation, and that heat escapes the earth by being reflected off the earths surface and the remainder by convection. Doesn't the increase in Urban civilisation therefore reduce the reflective surface of the earth, concrete (roads, parking areas, buildings) being a heavy absorbtion for heat energy?
and the other point to make is alot of assumptions are made that the sole source of climate change is from the suns heat energy... Well what about other sources of heat energy? Are we not heating all of our homes? are we not burning fossil fuels to create energy? with all of this burning and heating are we not producing our own heat source adding to the accumulated heat in the atmostphere.
It has to be pointed out that I am sure these points are minimal in comaparison, but all factors should be taken into consideration.
Complain about this comment
Tap in scholar and energy options and you get better quality research material. Princetown is looking for bright young people. The Scholars in the Nation's Service Initiative application closes on Nov 2nd 2009.
cmi princetown.ed is a good place to look for academic information about carbon mitigation. Robert Socolow, professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering is involved with the Carbon Mitigation Initiative and has research funding from BP and Ford and working with Stephen Pacala an ecologist, what more could anyone want? The oxyfuel pilot project in Schwarze Pump Germany is one of their investigations. (I expect BP want a return for their money of how to get lots of lovely CO2 as cheaply as possible).
Complain about this comment
I have 270mm loft insulation. To increase the thickness to current standards will cost me about £200. The Govt. calculator told me that insulating my house will save me £7.50 A YEAR. I work out that it'll take about 25yrs to recover the cost, hardly worth it. But, in order to qualify for the grant to install solar panels for heating or electricty, I have to have insulated my house to the current standard. Then because, I have to use Govt. approved fitters & suppliers (who unsurprisingly charge 2x as much) it costs me the same to buy a comparable system elsewhere without the grant. All this grant seems to achieve is 1) keep the price of the equipment & labour artificially high by reduction of the competition 2) deter the innovative products from coming on to the market because they don't "qualify" for the grant (which is so oversubscribed, the funds available monthly are allocated within 2 hours of them being released) This Govt. is killing the industry and spoiling the market by paying this kind of "lip service" to green technology
Complain about this comment
#50. At 10:43am on 13 Oct 2009, sensibleoldgrannie wrote:
"The army have developed, and are using PORTABLE incinerators, which appear to be very effective in also providing useable energy. Any thoughts on that?"
If you Google QinetiQ and or Pytec (which you may already have done) you will read all about this in somewhat greater detail.
But you are quite right in that there are major steps forward being taken, many in the infancy stage at present
Just one small point, the term "incineration" is usually applied to an uncontrolled form of combustion, a little like the old open-fire places that used to exist particularly in older homes and were a significant cause of "smog" in London. As such the term conjures up " Very Dirty Power" in the minds of many. High temperature pyrolysis, and anaerobic pyrolysis in particular is a much cleaner combustion, a little like comparing an Austin 7 with a modern BMW.Unfortunately, most people don't appreciate the difference and so condemn the technology as totally unacceptable.
When we come to learn that there are limitations to "recycling" and we still need to find ways of getting rid of all the excess rubbish that we create, this technology is another viable option.
Complain about this comment
"It's worth it because the UK has been one of the developed world's champions when it comes to curbing emissions, having cut greenhouse gas output by about 16% since 1990."
That reduction accounts for the amount of Industry that has moved abroad. Moving emissions else where doesn't solve the problem. We are importing more now, but these products are causing more emissions else where. This is why only a global comprehensive deal will do. Climate change a global problem and it will take a global effort to resolve it.
Complain about this comment
I thought to comment on the Richard Black article below, upon which the current blog is based. First, a few key excerpts:
UK 'needs step change' on climate
By Richard Black
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8300048.stm
"Lord Turner is absolutely right to say that we need strategic government[my emphasis] as well as dynamic markets to deliver on our low carbon energy plans," said Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband."
"We've stuck with the market for a long time - we don't think we can stick by it any more," said Mr Kennedy.[executive director of the Committee on Climate Change]"
"Will current market arrangements and the EU Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) deliver? In our view, we don't think so," said chief executive David Kennedy."
"WHAT IS THE COMMITTEE ON CLIMATE CHANGE?
Independent body established under the UK's Climate Change Act of 2008
Functions as official adviser, including recommending carbon budgets
Monitors progress towards targets and reports annually to parliament"
(from the 'step change' article)
"Lord Stern, who led the 2006 government-sponsored review on climate change economics, said the committee's report was "a fine piece of work, which should be supported across the political spectrum and will enhance the UK's role in fostering global understanding and agreement".
------------------------
Manysummits:
It seems to me clear that David Kennedy, the executive secretary of the Committee on Climat Change, is speaking from the heart here, and that the changes he wants are the type of 'sea-change' which is required. He appears to have the support of Ed Milbrand and Lord Stern.
The 'sea-change' is no less than the taking back of the government by the people, and the end of dependence on laissez-faire free market economics, i.e., unfettered deregulated everything.
I remember from here in Canada, Albert Jean de Grandpre, the top dog at the once might Bell Canada.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._Jean_de_Grandpr%C3%A9
He once said that a big utility like Bell Canada should not be deregulated - that there was a definite place in a free markey economy for ownership and regulation by government. I am paraphrasing, as it was decades ago that I read this.
Since then, I have watched his type of thinking go disregarded in the quite literally 'mad rush' to a completely unfettered economy.
I was oce a businessman, as well as a geologist, and even a stockbroker for a year. In my opinion, this 'mad rush' has been an unmitigated disaster - empirical proof being the recent collapse of the financial system worldwide, which only a fool would think resolved.
The current 'wars' (B1's vs Kalishnikovs) in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the long list of 'adventures' in manipulating the world at our command, is in my mind further proof of the complete and utter folly of our way of life.
We are making rich a very few, at public expense, and disguising it as democracy in action, wrapped in the flag.
We are being taken for a ride.
If you read the Richard Black 'step article' closely, I think you can discern the realization of what I have just said in the tone and words of Mr. Kennedy.
Now comes the test - who will carry the day?
- Manysummits, Calgary -
Complain about this comment
RE:thorium reactor waste
85% is cold within a decade, the rest within 400 years. Something most people don't get is that the volume of nuclear waste is tiny compared to coal fired plants, especially with molten salt thorium reactors. Let me point out that that 100 year supply of thorium consists of about 1.2 million tons of thorium while every year in the US (grabbing figures from wikipedia) coal fired plants produce 125 million tons of fly ash per year!
In an extremely ironic twist...some coal's fly ash actually contains so much uranium and thorium that if it was used with breeder reactors the fly ash would have a greater fuel capacity than the coal it came from! (but of course...normally we'd just dump this waste in landfills)
In the end all we really have to do is wait until the waste "cools" (the short-lived components decay after a decade), seal it in a thick, welded container for transport and store it deep underground in geologically stable structures. The only way for the waste to get out from such deep structures is for it to literally be blasted out by a freak geologic force or meteor strike...each of which would have to be so incredibly violent that the nuclear waste would be a trivial secondary concern.
I'm also a fan of incinerators. Its technically a form of recycling (to electricity or heat) that doesn't require that the individuals making the trash to sort it. If the trash is flammable it burns...100% compliance, no enforcement or special bins required. As for the source of the bulk of the trash (usually paper products)...I'm not sure about Europe and the UK but here in the US we have 24 million acres of tree farms to produce our paper pulp, lumber, etc.
Complain about this comment
Tap in ICTP on google and you get some interesting info such as 2/3rd oil consumption in the USA is from transport and that 1/4 GHG is from transport. Should we be doing more about transport?
Complain about this comment
@grumpy-mike #26
Are there any (laboratory) experiments that you can refer to that disprove this theory though?
Setting aside the fact that it is up to the AGW believers to prove their hypothesis, not sceptics to prove the hypothesis is wrong or even suggest alternatives, CERN are about to start experiments on a possible alternative mechanism - cosmic rays. The CLOUD experiment is trying to test the theory put forward by Svensmark and articulated in the book "The Chilling Stars"
see http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/
BUT on a global scale.......surely we are actually in the process of carrying out just such an experiment! Unfortunately the results won't be available tomorrow.
SO..I wonder if you have considered the consequences if the results prove the AGW team right some thirty odd years down the track.
The AGW team have been telling us there is a problem for 30 odd years, but still there is no proof other than in the climate models. You'd think after 30 years of research we would know something wouldn't you?
As I and others have said before, one way or another, I personally don't think it's a very sensible risk to take.
I don't think it is a sensible risk to "solve" something that doesn't appear to be a problem by geo-engineering
@manysummits #28
The point being that if one is not a specialist in climate science, an awful lot of work and thinking and investigating will be required if one is to come to a reasonable understanding of the situation. This is not possible or practical for many or most of the population, I presume?
It's really not as difficult as you think, manysummits, start with the question "Under atmospheric conditions, is CO2 capable of raising the temperature significantly?" and work around that. Nothing else really matters.
@davblo2 #41
What is your source of information about Venus' atmosphere?
Wikipedia just says...
"The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of over 460 °C (860 °F)."
Don't rely on Wiki, it's a good place to start, but remember anybody can edit pages there.
My understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected, is:
1 Venus is closer to the sun, which makes it much hotter and prevents formation of oceans due to excessive evaporation
2 Venus suffered a traumatic collision in it’s early days, which causes it to rotate very slowly and parallel to the ecliptic. This makes for long afternoons (thousands of hours long) which get extremely hot.
3 Because the water vapour has been unable to form, there has not been any negative feedbacks to prevent over heating
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #41
Apologies, I didn't answer your question:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/venus-unveiled/
The issue of "saturation" of the absorption of infrared by CO2 has been discussed previously on RealClimate, but it turns out that even with 92 bars of CO2 in the atmosphere, Venus is not saturated throughout the infrared spectrum.
It's from RC, so it must be correct ;)
Complain about this comment
Kriss_blogger #52: "a lot of assumptions are made that the sole source of climate change is from the suns heat energy... Well what about other sources of heat energy? Are we not heating all of our homes? are we not burning fossil fuels to create energy? with all of this burning and heating are we not producing our own heat source adding to the accumulated heat in the atmosphere."
I though that was worth looking into.
Googling around for some figures I came up with the input from sunlight being about 3 x 10^21 Joule/day (allowing for only about 25% reaching the ground) and based on daily consumption of oil, we'd be generating about 4 x 10^17 Joules/day. That's not allowing for nuclear, but then we probably don't burn all the oil derivatives anyway.
So the ratio is very roughly 10,000 more energy arriving as sunlight than released by burning of oil. So we'd be down at the 0.01 % level in terms of adding heat.
I looked for similar figures for corroboration and found a site "Getting to grips with the amount of energy" where they list some similar numbers.
One way I've seen it described is to say that more energy reaches the ground in sunlight in one day than we use in one year.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #61: "The issue of "saturation" of the absorption of infrared by CO2 has been discussed previously on RealClimate, but it turns out that even with 92 bars of CO2 in the atmosphere, Venus is not saturated throughout the infrared spectrum."
Thanks for the link.
The part you quote continues...
"There is a narrow window region in the vicinity of 1 micron wavelength, which allows the surface to be observed in the infra-red."
So it seems you are all misunderstanding the meaning of saturated and it's implications.
We know CO2 only absorbs IR of certain wavelength. There are IR views of Earth from satellite which use them.
There is nothing special about being able to see through Venus' atmosphere with 1 um radiation. No one ever said that CO2 should absorb 1 um radiation.
According to the information I found, CO2 absorbs IR at 2.1, 2.6, and 4,1 um, and then from about 14 to 20 um and upwards... (not sure how far).
Your comment at #33 is invalid.
Do you need more explanation?
/davblo
Complain about this comment
my #63: cont'd
I see a bit got lost in the editing.
The 5th paragraph in my last comment (#63) should read...
"We know CO2 only absorbs IR of certain wavelength. There are IR views of Earth from satellite which use the IR wavelengths which are not absorbed ('IR windows')."
Complain about this comment
It's grotesque and staggering stupidity for the CCC to talk of road pricing when cars (not overall transport, cars) add so little to CO2 emissions. Why should I give up my car when I have to pay so much for it? It's Alice-in-Wonderland stuff. If it wasn't so expensive then I'd find it easier to let go, but as I'm paying thousands of pounds a year for it then I'm going to use it even more - to justify its existence! Why can't the government see this, or do they want me to do exactly that becasue without my motoring taxes they would have to raise income tax? One big scam.
Complain about this comment
Returning to Causality: Why I was interested in examining causality of CO2 in Global Warming is that we as a planet have only limited resources to deploy and I am not sure that deploying them to reduce our CO2 emissions at a huge cost in time, effort and money is the optimal way to use our resources.
This requires value judgements that balance human life, happiness and the life of the rest of the planet. Have we got the balance right? Is it a optimal way to deploy our limited resources to try to limit CO2? (when doing so may have no impact on global warming)
Rather I wonder if we should not plan and prepare for the effects of climate change. To my mind, looking at it scientifically, should we not attempt to evaluate likely success verses expenditure and the overall benefit to the planet and not just engage in endless (and possibly fruitless) attempts to look for technical solutions so that we in the west can maintain our profligate lifestyle? (Now where is my copy of Small is Beautiful!)
This is not a moral question it is about the scientific evaluation of the likely successes against the costs and benefits of other ways of using our lives. Like it of not we are not able to control the planet and its weather or even forecast it very successfully. Our very limited understanding of the way out planet works is so defective that we risk doing the wrong thing!
Planetary Engineering is what we are attempting - but we are essentially still totally ignorant of what to do. We are guessing, and there is a very high probability that our guesses are wrong. We know people and animals need food and to grow food we need fresh water and soil and sunlight. We also know we need to get out of the rain and keep reasonably dry and warm to survive. We also know though we can swim that we are unable to survive in water for very long.
I think we should concentrate on ensuring that our planet can support its plants and animals first, before we 'waste' money and our other limited resources on tinkering with things that we do not actually understand and worse still do this tinkering, whilst billions of our fellow creatures starve, drown, freeze, boil etc. when we could have saved them by properly focussing our abilities. We should treat the planet as a whole! (Now where did I see that before!)
Complain about this comment
sensibleoldgrannie at 10:43am #50
You say "I found your observation very interesting. Why then, is the gap in a double glazing panel so wide? A triple glazed unit becomes a very large heavy object. Why has double glazing technology not moved forward to match the science or has it?"
The answer is that the gap is not wide - it may appear wide, but that is probably an optical illusion. The gap is (should be) sized as a best compromise. It needs to be small to mimimise convection which is a very effective heat transfer route, but large to minimse thermal diffusion through the gas. That is why triple-glazing is used; two small gaps to minimise convection, but twice the air thickness to minimise thermal diffusion.
Complain about this comment
davblo2 #48
You say: "I think you are hung up on magnitude." Very true, CO2 is a trace gas with a very narrow IR spectrum - thus negligible effect compared to H2O.
"The atmosphere and greenhouse gasses keep us warm." Not true. The sun keeps us warm. It is water vapour (latent heat) and clouds (they act somewhat similar to a greenhouse) that have the biggest effect on keeping us warm(ish) when the sun has set.
Complain about this comment
Here is a simple question:
What guarantee is there that if CO2 emissions are lowered (by how much) then the planet will not warm up (or indeed cool down)? (Or what is the probability?) Isn't this the problem with Planetary Engineering?
I know a bit about asymptotics as a technique for examining the almost imponderable and impossibly complex, but I don't see any way of actually evaluating the question that is likely to give a valuable answer. (I can cope with 'simple' questions such as how to minimise the noise heard at the ground of counter rotating turbo prop aircraft propellers - at least in theory - don't ask me to show you the maths it takes many many pages or rather crafty fluid mechanics.)
The planetary engineering problem is many times more complex and the number of variables and their relationships are far too numerous. But we are guessing that we understand it well enough to say 'lower CO2' - perhaps we should raise CO2? (for a cooler planet.) How sure are we that our guess is right? (Particularly when we are not even sure of the causality?)
Complain about this comment
Hats off to the Committee on Climate Change. They've managed to stop the climate from changing at all over the last 10 years.
In the face of rising CO2 emissions and more and more skepticism among the public, their heroic efforts have helped global surface temperatures to stay steady and ocean heat content to dip slightly.
Well done chaps - you can go home now proud of this achievement.
Complain about this comment
PAWB46 #68: "....!!!..."
(a) You quote my general comment about insulators and then compare CO2 and H20. That's not a logical progression. Then you say "trace of" = "insignificant". I guess you think trace gasses couldn't affect the ozone either.
(b) You go back to your "when the sun has set" argument. I thought we already agreed there's more potential for loosing energy on the day side than on the night side; since the ground and air are warmer.
We have (had) a fairly stable equilibrium. We have been kept "cosy" by sun & atmosphere. We are insulated from too-much/too-little heat. The most important consideration is what changes can occur to disturb that equilibrium. Maybe you could focus on that.
You obviously think that adding CO2 has no disturbing effect. What would upset the balance?
Complain about this comment
Jack_Hughes_NZ #70: "...stop the climate from changing at all over the last 10 years."
That's just a downturn in a natural cycle which happens to overlap the AGW warming effect.
If you are into natural cycles, maybe you can tell us which one this is. It seems to run with a 60 year period and successive peaks have been at...(deg C anom)
Peak in 1880 at -.25
Peak in 1940 at 0.0
Peak in 2000 at +0.4
Can you spot the trend there?
Here is the graph "Global Temperature Record"
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #63/64
Your statement about the absorption bands is about right and you are correct that CO2 can only absorb light of a certain wavelength, and for all intents and purposes the wavelengths are saturated. This means any additional CO2 in the atmosphere simply can't catch any more light, because, unless the sun puts out more light, there is none available. We know the sun is not putting out more light, because we have measured it.
Take a window
Without a window blind, the window lets through 100% of the available light
Add a blind and the amount of light coming through is reduced considerably.
Add another blind and the amount of light coming through is reduced further
Add another and the amount of light coming through is reduced a little bit more
Add another and the amount of light coming through is reduced a little but it starts to become unnoticeable
Carry on doing this, but no matter how many blinds you add, a little light will still get through
This is how CO2's ability to raise the temperature works, hence the logarithmic curve and diminishing return.
#33 is valid
Arrhenius greenhouse equation states:
"the temperature increase from the concentration "C" of a greenhouse gas equals "B.ln(C/C0)" where "B" is a constant and "C0" is the original concentration."
which essentially means the greenhouse effect becomes weaker at higher values of "C", so as I have said repeatedly, CO2 is incapable of causing any significant warming
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #72
Don't forget these are the adjusted figures not the raw data, which has unfortunately been lost. Surfacestations.org has documented problems with 80% of US weather stations. Many of the weather stations were in green fields, but over time have been surrounded by tarmac, air conditioning etc, quite a few are actually at airports, even at the end of runways.
How have these problems affected the data?
We will never know
Complain about this comment
More information on the poor state of the temperature data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/13/how-bad-is-the-global-temperature-data/#more-11650
(please don't comment on the source, just comment on the science - thank you)
Complain about this comment
go here and click on any part of the world. This will bring up a listing of the countries data and the dates when the station was running. Note how many ceased after 1990:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #73: "Take a window"
I don't like that analogy.
Think about...
You can increase CO2 concentration until 100% absorption (within the band) just occurs before the IR from the ground reaches space. Then you could say "saturated".
If you then go on increasing the concentration the total absorption will occur at decreasing altitudes.
How low is that altitude now? I don't know, do you?
The lower it is the further the absorbed energy has to travel by convention to get to the upper atmosphere to escape.
I also understand that the absorption band broadens as the concentration of CO2 increases.
The final escape of energy to space from the upper atmosphere is by IR again. This has to be able to "get out". The more CO2, the higher that escape layer will be. More to find out there.
"Blinds on windows" just isn't near enough.
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
Hi Davblo ! Hi bloggers !
Good point about these natural cycles. I wonder if any of the AGW team's computer simulations predicted this flatlining of global temperatures beforehand ? Predicting something afterwards is not usually called predicting.
Did they know the size and direction of the natural cycles - or even know about all of them ? Maybe there are some unknown unknowns in the climate.
It really starts to look more and more complex, the more we discover. Too complex to make any sensible predictions about anything. Remember the barbecue summer ? Well it's toast now.
I think the AGW team is suffering from group-think and also following the Texas sharpshooter fallacy
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #73: "Arrhenius greenhouse equation"
Googled and found...
"The Discovery of Global Warming": "The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect"
Looks to be worth a read. Historical.
A sample...
"The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet's temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature."
The links on the right lead to even more interesting information...
/davblo2 [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Bloggers tell Archbishop:
"Shut up and go to the barbers!"
Dr Rowan Williams said that families needed to respond to the threat of climate change by changing their shopping habits and adjusting their diets ...
Dr Williams also said that the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions meant looking at attitudes to travel. He had tried to have a “flight-free year” last year - but failed by accidentally getting on board an aeroplane which was taking off
Very long interview with the Archbishop - interesting that he can talk for so long without any mention of words like 'God' or 'Jesus'...
Complain about this comment
#79 cont'd...
There wasn't a URL at the end; so nothing is missing.
Spooks?
Complain about this comment
# 60. At 1:31pm on 13 Oct 2009, MangoChutneyUKOK wrote:
"I don't think it is a sensible risk to "solve" something that doesn't appear to be a problem by geo-engineering"
Actually, Mango, once again we are in total agreement but it may be we differ on the definition of "geo-engineering"
Some of the "geo-engineering" proposals I have seen offered as possible solutions are purely not-so suttle requests for more money to fund research. Carbon "trees" planted on main highways, ships pumping high velocity water sprays into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with whatever. All these fall under the title "geo-engineering" to me and in no way have I ever supported what I consider to be risky experiments with nature. Please don't link me with anything like that!
Neither do I consider emission trading schemes to have any practical value unless you happen to be one of those people who make fortunes out of "Futures Trading".
Development of processes to "clean-up coal", other means of supplying and /or conserving energy in this energy hungry world do not fall into my definition of "geo-engineering".Eliminating traffic congestion and the resulting pollution in cities sounds like an excellent idea also.
However, speaking from experience I have great faith that science/technology is moving slowly but surely in the direction that will reduce the harm to the environment that mankind has previously ignored.
If the fear of "Climate Change" shakes people out of their lethargy and is a "driver" in that context this may not be strictly honest but as the saying goes "All's fair in love and war"
However, harping on about proof is fine provided both sides play by the same rules. If you want to ask them to produce conclusive proof then you must be prepared to do the same.The way I see it, neither side will produce conclusive proof on this topic one way or the other.
Complain about this comment
The issue of man-made climate change has two separate threads. First is the science which is the primary focus of all these notice boards. The second thread is human psychology and how we, as a species, adapt to change.
Some years ago, I went up the Jungfrau mountain in the Alps. It’s only about 13,600 feet high or, say, two and a half miles. At the top we were told the air pressure was 0.65 atmospheres – Quite a drop I thought from ground level. We were struck at the top, by how much effort was needed to walk one hundred metres as the air was thinner. A guy I worked with was sent to Chile to work on a gold mine in the Andes. It was at 16,000 feet or three miles. He was brought down after a few days with severe anoxia and was quite sick.
So the breathable atmosphere (or ‘life support’) for most of us is less than three miles thick! Say the width of a medium sized town. Outside of that is the cold dark vacuum of space.
We know that the population of the world was 1 billion in 1800, 2 billion in 1900, 3 billion in 1960, is currently 6.7 billion and will be 9 billion in another 40 years. Each person is consuming accelerating quantities of goods and services and the majority of that energy comes from fossil fuels, which when burnt, release their stored carbon back into that very thin atmosphere above us as CO2. Much of this CO2 has been released over the last 200 years and yet it took 360 million years to ‘scrub’ it out of the atmosphere in the form of trees.
For the reasons above nobody can surely be suggesting that it’s business as usual!
So to human psychology. We’re good at denial and anger and, let’s face it; nobody wants to give up all these modern conveniences. Acceptance is going to be hard for us but it could also be fun to change old habits. CG Jung said ‘The fate of the world hangs by a thin thread. That thread is the psyche of Man’.
Complain about this comment
#83. At 00:22am on 14 Oct 2009, soveryodd wrote:
......
Welcome to this discussion. In my humble opinion, a very worthwhile contribution. So refreshing to read something other than the pro and anti AGW teams monopolising the discussion.
Look forward to more from you.
Complain about this comment
#79 Davblo2
"The Discovery of Global Warming" book is well worth a read. It gives you an excellent perspective on the history of climate change research right from the discovery of greenhouse gases and all of the controversy that sceptics think is relatively recent. I think many will be surprised at the research going on 50 or 100 years ago and how much more we know now. Sceptics should definetly read this book if you want to know why the scientific community support anthropogenic GHGs as the primary cause of recent climate change.
Complain about this comment
Planetary Boundaries Update - from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (recent):
"FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf:"
"Diouf told the 300 experts gathered at the Rome-based agency that agriculture faces the challenge of climate change, which is increasing extreme events like floods and droughts. The effects of climate change could reduce output by up to 30 percent in Africa and up to 21 percent in Asia, he said."
- Google: (UN: Agriculture investment must increase 5-fold, AP)
Main points:
1) Five hundred percent increase in agricultural investment in developing countries required to ensure adequate food supplies by 2050.
2) World population still projected to be 9.1 Billion by 2050.
3) World food output will have to increase by seventy percent by 2050.
- Manysummits -
PS to davblo2:
I've got that AGU special report on Water Vapor in the Climate System, and will be reading it today, hopefully. Thanks again!
Complain about this comment
seasambo #85: "Sceptics should definetly read this book..."
I second that.
Here is where it starts...
"The Discovery of Global Warming"
One point worth noting. In the section where he answers criticisms from reviewers he says....
"One point that several reviewers mentioned, and which I must concede, is that neither the book nor the Website says enough about European developments of recent decades. ... When I was writing it, the divergence between the US and Europe was not as strong as it has since become."
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@Jack_Hughes_NZ #78, re "flatlining of global temperatures"
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/04/what_goes_up_must_come_down.php
"the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."
Complain about this comment
@davblo2 #77
I'm guessing you are referring to Weart, when you talk about decreasing altitude, but Weart, whilst originally trained as a physicist is actually more of a scientific historian - not meant in a bad way, I think his history of global warming is interesting and worth reading. He should update it to take into account events after 2001, which from recollection is when his history stops - please correct me if i am wrong. Wearts doesn't mention effect of the CO2 layer doesn't depend on its density distribution as a function of altitude, but only the overall, integrated "thickness" which is why Weart's ideas about the altitudes are irrelevant
The greenhouse effect gets weaker as the absorption of the appropriate spectral lines gets saturated
and the overall greenhouse effect from several gases is smaller than a simple sum if their spectra overlap
@grumpy-mike #82
Glad we agree on somethings :)
However, harping on about proof is fine provided both sides play by the same rules. If you want to ask them to produce conclusive proof then you must be prepared to do the same.The way I see it, neither side will produce conclusive proof on this topic one way or the other.
Sorry Mike, the scientific process doesn't work that way. The proponents of a hypothesis need to put up the evidence. People who disagree merely have to to show it's wrong.
However:
I have shown on several occasions that all things being equal, CO2 is incapable of raising temperature significantly.
I have shown the logarithmic curve that shows a diminishing return for each extra CO2 molecule
I have shown observational evidence that climate sensitivity is low not high as assumed by the climate modellers
I have shown the AGW signature, predicted by the climate models, is missing
As far as i can recall, nobody has ever produced empirical evidence, to show that CO2 is actually causing the warming. Where is the evidence?
Complain about this comment
There's an interesting article on Icecap, which i can't link to here, because it's a pdf, but go to icecap@
http://www.icecap.us/
and scroll down to "They said it". Look on the right hand side at "CO2 Driven Global Warming is Not Supported by the Data"
1. How does the linear warming in the last century of 0.44 deg C/100 years, shown above, compare with the linear warming two centuries ago?
2. Is the oscillating anomaly in the last century, after widespread use of fossil fuels, unusual?
3. What is the current trend in the mean global temperature anomaly?
Global cooling by 0.71 deg C from 1878 to 1911, for 33 years.
Global warming by 0.53 deg C from 1911 to 1944, for 33 years.
Global cooling by 0.48 deg C from 1944 to 1976, for 32 years.
Global warming by 0.67 deg C from 1976 to 1998, for 22 years.
It was unfortunate that the maximum of the oscillating anomaly occurred in 1998 near the end of the last century. This was just a coincidence. At the end of the last century, if the oscillating anomaly had been at its minimum, as in 1911 with an oscillating anomaly of -0.33 deg C, there would not have been any significant change in mean global temperature (0.44 - 0.33 = +0.11 deg C) in the last century.
Science is about the data. Science is not about consensus or authority.
The linear global warming of the last century was similar to that of two centuries ago.
CO2 driven global warming is not supported by the data.
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
further explanation of CO2 warming here which i think you will find interesting:
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Big_warming-little_gas.html
Complain about this comment
MangoChutneyUKOK #89: "I'm guessing you are referring to Weart, when you talk about decreasing altitude..."
No, I deduced it myself. Do you think I'm wrong?
/davblo2
Complain about this comment
@davblo2
read the links, mate, and let me know what you think
Complain about this comment
@ andrew_gillett #88
Thanks for the link. This was written in April 2009 - so I don't think it counts as a prediction of the flatlining this century.
I think his point is that there is short-term noise on top of a long-term signal. And that sometimes the noise can drown the signal for a few decades.
The problem with this is that the earth has been cooler than now and it has also been warmer than it is now. If you just draw a line between the ice age and today it looks like a warming trend. If you draw a line between the medieval warm period and today it looks like a cooling trend.
If you superimpose lots of sine waves with different wavelengths and then cherry-pick a short period you can find any 'trend' you like.
And just to mention it again: none of the climate models predicted this flatlining beforehand. This suggests that the modelers do not know enough to build a working model.
The climate ... will produce periods of a decade or two [of cooling]
This is not science. Ten years - or maybe twenty - or maybe a bit more ... or a bit less - or maybe something...
Now just imagine if any branch of real science had this amount of vagueness: water would be "maybe H2O or could be H4O" - 'g' would be "maybe 9.8 or maybe 19.6" - the sun would be "between 93m and 180m miles away - we're not sure".
Complain about this comment
ch21ss:
"the surface temperature of Venus that should be over a hundred degrees lower than it is if CO2 didn't cause warming?"
The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 times greater than the earth's atmosphere. That is the primary reason for the intense heat. It's a pressure cooker there.
Peter Barber:
Carbon dioxides warming effect is logrithmic. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the less warming effect it has. As a commenter mentioned earlier, the first 200ppm of CO2 warms the atmosphere the most. It can be likened to insulation. You put the optimum amount of insulation in your house; anymore is wasted.
Complain about this comment
@Jack_Hughes_NZ 94
"This was written in April 2009 - so I don't think it counts as a prediction of the flatlining this century."
I don't know if anyone did predict the so-called (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/) flatlining. The second graph at the link in my first post shows the kind of variation being discussed occurring in the 20th century, so if flatlining did occur, it wouldn't necessarily be a surprise even if the exact timing hadn't been predicted in advance.
"Ten years - or maybe twenty - or maybe a bit more ... or a bit less - or maybe something."
Natural variation is, as the name suggests, variable.
@Fnfcst 95
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm ("Is the CO2 effect saturated?")
Complain about this comment
#96 and #94
You may want to have a look at this story published on 30 April 2008.
The headline was: "Improved climate predictions suggest a reduced warming trend during the next 10 years"
The opening paragraph was: "During the last decades, temperature maxima were regularly broken. A new study to be published May 1st in the international science magazine “Nature” suggests that a reprieve may be expected over the next decade, as natural climate variations may temporarily offset the long-term warming trend. This result was obtained by researchers from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences (IFM-GEOMAR) in Kiel and the Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Meteorology in Hamburg."
More details about the expected apparent cooling are given and then the article goes on to say:
“ “ Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period, “Wood said in an interview. “Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.” “
The scientific article from Nature referred to is: Keenlyside, N. S., M. Latif, J. Jungclaus, L. Kornblueh, and E. Roeckner, 2008: Advancing Decadal-Scale Climate Prediction in the North Atlantic Sector. Nature, 453, 84-88.
The news article quoted above can be found at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aU.evtnk6DPo&refer=worldwide
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS