No global warming since 1995?

[Furcifer]

@GreNME- Just a quick thought because using this phone to write a decent response is labour intensive.

Our current infrastructure sees us wasting huge amounts of fuel. The grid has to have the capacity to meet peak demands, usually around 6PM when people get home from work, turn up the heat, put dinner in the oven and watch the news on TV. The net result is hundreds of power generating stations firing up for short periods of time for the sole purpose of meeting peak demand. The start up and more importantly the shut down of these plants are grossly inefficient. Commercial and industrial users have been penalized for over peak usage for years. More recently residential customers have begun to be rewarded or penalized for similar usage. This is a good step towards conservation and responsible use.
The benefit of electric cars is two fold. Not only do they reduce carbon emissions from the tail pipe, but they reduce emissions at the generating plants themselves. Most charging will occur on off peak periods. This means generating stations will move from peak production to continuous generation. The net result of which is better efficiency and less carbon per kilowatt hour.

All of this should happen ina relatively short period of time. Within the next 5 years we should see several manufacturers offering fully electric cars. There's no doubt in my mind this will contribute greatly to the reduction of green house gases.

In a round about way this brings me back to one of my other favourite topics GM. GM is a key part in restoring the economy and bringing the electric car to market. Already in Michigan a large manufacturer of batteries (the name eludes me) has set up shop and hired a 3rd shift. All of the signs indicate the demand for electric vehicles will far exceed the number of batteries available. Having a strong automotive sector in North America is essential in securing the manufacturers to produce them. The GM bailout was key in doing this.

I guess what I'm saying is the Obama administration has done just about everything possible to ensure a reduction in green house gases on a level unprecedented in history. He's subsidized alternative energy, he's offered incentives for the use of biofuels, he's made credits available for clean coal, he's encouraged nuclear, he's got old vehicles off the road, he's put money towards highspeed rail and he's somewhat ensured the first electric vehicle comes to market. I'm not sure what more he can do? I'm not sure what more we can do. I honestly believe what we are doing here in North America is more than our part to reduce carbon emissions.

As for the rest of the World we can only hope they do their part to do the same. Europe already leads the way in reducing carbon emissions. We're simply in no place to lecture China or India. The best we can hope for in our technology helps them reduce their emissions and they see the benefit in doing so. That goes for any of the countries going through a period of industrialization.

Since I'm going on like I am I might as well comment on the farming issue. I'm really not sure what the effects on global warming would have in other countries. I think it's an interesting consideration. You'd have to take a look at what temperatures we could expect to see, what's currently being grown, what could be grown there, what lands would be lost and what lands would be gained. I think the shear size of Canada and Russia must represent huge gains in farming land. Not only that but the climates are ideal for the production of corn and wheat. I'd be surprised if an increase in global temperature would have a negative effect on the production of these essential starches. As far as I know the real problem is effectively distributing the produce from the areas where they are plentiful to the areas they are scarce. I honestly believe it's as simple as running highspeed rail to and from Winnipeg. It's just a matter of infrastructure.

Which once again Obama has pledged to implement during his tunure. I had no intention of getting all political in this discussion, but in the course of exploring this topic I've been led to these conclusions. The Obama administration is doing some very good things. At least I think so. What do you think? Am I drawing too many conclusions? Am I overlooking something? Maybe I'm just being too optimistic.

 

[Furcifer]

I was fairly woo once too, long ago. Its not where you were, its where you are.

I'm new to this so what am I? Am I a denier? A short run down is I see the increase in temperature, I don't know how that compares to previous increases but I know it pales in comparison to previous decreases (currently), I'm not convinced it will continue without bound if we do nothing but I know we need to something, I'm not certain a slight increase will be bad or good it could go either way. And I'm not sure what more we can do to help with the problem of carbon emissions.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, I was talking to DC.

 

[Megalodon]

I think I may have gone too far OT for this thread already. The issue of whether or not there has been an appreciable increase in temperature since 1995 isn't clear.

 

[GreNME]

I was fairly woo once too, long ago. Its not where you were, its where you are.

I'm new to this so what am I? Am I a denier?

I would say you currently sound like someone cautiously answering questions and listening to the answers, recognizing the core issues and working on a decision as you get more information. Lots of people prefer to think that they take a skeptical and logical approach to the issue, and on the whole I would have to say so far that you seem to really be taking a skeptical and logical approach without being incredulous and harping on the same question without regard for the answers you're given.

As for your thoughts in the post prior to the quoted text:

I think you're correct that electric cars will be a major driver (no pun intended) toward more efficiency in our consumption, and it's my hope that projects underway in Israel (mentioned earlier, now with linkage) will add to that and create a replacement economy of subsidy that companies can buy into and try to cash in on-- not just charging during non-peak hours, but also have "changing stations" not too different from gas stations where batteries become a type of commodity item in an applicable way similar to gasoline now (there's a TED talk with Shai Agassi that explains what I mean). There are other ideas out there as well, and some can be found (without the highly-charged arguing like what appears in the rest of this thread) at places like LivingClimateChange.com. If you're interested in finding out how much practical and inventive though has been going into actually addressing the reality instead of arguing over the urgency-- which is what your questions seem more focused and geared toward-- then you can check that site out or look for others like it. The good news is that unlike the impression that these climate change threads give, that the argument is a constant back and forth with no one getting anywhere, there is real and workable movement taking place, and there are people and companies who want to innovate-- not just because it's the right thing to do, but because there is huge potential for growth and profit from an economic perspective.

So I say go ahead and keep asking what you're asking, and if you're connected to the power production or distribution industry then keep an eye out there as well. There are loads of potential answers being vetted right now, and over the next few years some of these proposals are going to start seeing some implementation that will help to inform you (and all of us) on what works versus what doesn't, and we'll start to see areas where the innovative ideas today are going to turn into the innovative applications a few years from now.

 

[easycruise]

He is trying to get the best 'signal' out of a very 'noisy' system. He is wondering if the noise over water is less than the noise over land. What is wrong with that?

I am smelling an attempt to get to a pre-determined conclusion and perhaps ignore all opposing evidence?

Do you want to fund very expensive temperature recording stations across the arctic? The scientists are already stand condemned for spending what they do now on research. They have to make do with what they can. If the funds aren't there, the research is limited to what they physically have.

That sounds ridiculous considering all the grant money floating around. And the fact that there are over 1,600 climate scientists on the Federal payroll (source-UCS) Surely the cost of weather station is a drop in the bucket.

He is looking at a very noisy system, and stating that he thinks he could have detected the anthropogenic signal 30 years earlier using sea temperatures instead of land temperatures. He is looking for a signal, because there is a physical reason for doing so, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases warm the climate. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is on it's way to doubling. You seem to have a preconceived bias that he should not be looking for a signal that should be there on the basis of the physical properties of the CO2 gas.

Wait. I thought that historically temperature increase precedes CO2 increase? But then they invented "forcings" to explain that away? Yes/No?

And if he doesn't find evidence then no study gets published? The "luck" he mentions is that if he finds it, he gets published? So, does that mean that all we get in the way of published studies are ones that are proponent for AGW? I'm having trouble with his comment on "luck"

And if the work is, as you say, "often tedious and unrewarding", so what? Boo-Hoo. That's the career they chose.

 

[Megalodon]

That sounds ridiculous considering all the grant money floating around. And the fact that there are over 1,600 climate scientists on the Federal payroll (source-UCS) Surely the cost of weather station is a drop in the bucket.

Congratulations! You have just shown you have no idea what you are talking about.

The cost of a weather station in Antartica is not a drop in most buckets, and definitely not in the bucket of any scientific organization.

But thanks for playing.

 

[Furcifer]

@GreNME- I've heard of similar proposals related to battery exchange programs. They were actually proposed very early on because they are the obvious solution to extending range. I wish I could open the link but I'm currently limited, but I promise to do so. I think it's an interesting solution. My personal thoughts before I read the link are that the cost and fragility (is that a word?) of the batteries might make this approach prohibitive. In addition, I also suspect the manufacturers will want to retain some proprietary hold on them. For shape, capacity, warranty etc. I'm not sure we've progressed to that communal level yet in society.

But I speak without actually looking at the link. Perhaps these questions have been addressed, or perhaps they have no merit at all. I'll hold my tongue for now, better to remain silent and thought the fool then to keep on posting and remove all doubt

Honestly I think I've remained pretty skeptical on this issue. I've prepared myself for the reality that we've screwed up, and we've screwed up large. Even then, I'm not certain the problen is that monumental we can't overcome it. I'd be personally disappointed if we've past that point, but I'd remain content in my knowledge I've done my part. If you think I'm kidding I'd point you to the fact that I was a Vegetarian for 7 years as well. So I've got that going for me on my deathbed

 

[GreNME]

@GreNME- I've heard of similar proposals related to battery exchange programs. They were actually proposed very early on because they are the obvious solution to extending range. I wish I could open the link but I'm currently limited, but I promise to do so. I think it's an interesting solution. My personal thoughts before I read the link are that the cost and fragility (is that a word?) of the batteries might make this approach prohibitive. In addition, I also suspect the manufacturers will want to retain some proprietary hold on them. For shape, capacity, warranty etc. I'm not sure we've progressed to that communal level yet in society.

Well, I'll let you absorb more of the explanation by Agassi when you have the opportunity to view the video in the TED talk link, but basically it's taking a concept not unlike how cell phones are subsidized through service plans and replaceable (or upgradeable) parts already, in terms of economy to the consumer. For the producer(s), the economic value would be that of a constantly growing and improving consumable market, which (for the free-market-minded) should also help to drive further innovation while instituting actionable changes with what's available now as a foundation. This will obviously be a goldmine for battery producers, but since their charging stations are going to require power lines to work-- and because of the growing number of subsidies for alternate energy production-- the probability is that this model will be quite profitable for power companies as well, while promoting an infrastructure that more responsibly and efficiently makes use of the energy sources we have available.

But I speak without actually looking at the link. Perhaps these questions have been addressed, or perhaps they have no merit at all. I'll hold my tongue for now, better to remain silent and thought the fool then to keep on posting and remove all doubt

Actually, those questions are at the heart of the issue that Agassi and others are trying to address, so they're perfectly valid questions. The video is only 18 minutes long so there's a lot of broad description of their plans. The actual website for Better Place, the company Shai Agassi is running for the EV program I mentioned, has more links in it and information located there, if you're interested. For demonstrable examples of the EVs in use and the infrastructure being built, though, those will probably be a year or more before we're seeing them in action.

Honestly I think I've remained pretty skeptical on this issue. I've prepared myself for the reality that we've screwed up, and we've screwed up large. Even then, I'm not certain the problen is that monumental we can't overcome it. I'd be personally disappointed if we've past that point, but I'd remain content in my knowledge I've done my part. If you think I'm kidding I'd point you to the fact that I was a Vegetarian for 7 years as well. So I've got that going for me on my deathbed

I think skepticism is fine. It's incredulity that's the problem, and I don't think you've displayed any on the subject. You seem to already have an understanding of the challenges facing the power grid in North America (let alone the world), so you're at least able to look at it with some informed perspective. I don't think the argument as to whether or not we've screwed up is a useful one anyway, despite that being a main factor in the wider debate that is taking place. I don't even think it's a matter of screwing up in the first place-- we use what works when we find it, and if we find there are negatives that require improvements or alternatives, the logical choice is to move toward the improvements and alternatives. I think we're at a point where most of the industrialized world needs to start moving toward the improvements and alternatives, and the biggest constraint right now is a useless argument over a point that doesn't change the reality of our need to move anyway, and increasingly seems to be wrapped up tightly in partisan politics more than anything else.

When you have the opportunity, I'd be interested to know what you think of the links. I'm in no rush, so don't worry that you're on a deadline for an opinion for me.

 

[I Ratant]

I am smelling an attempt to get to a pre-determined conclusion and perhaps ignore all opposing evidence?
...

.
The "pre-determined conclusion" is the local variation in temperature. These are fact.
He is attempting to eliminate the "noise" from the data, to see where the data is trending.
It's a common scientific practice, to determine what is to be tested for, and how to do that with the least amount of extraneous information, and determine what instrumentation can give the needed information.
Controlling the known variables.
If the result are still "noisy", there's something else lying in the data.
Find it, get rid of it.

 

[lomiller]

Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period. [Not necessarily — what about “natural internal variability” as well as other sources of “natural influences”?

Internal variability is the normal variation in global temperature from one year to the next. Its effect approaches zero when you start looking at multi-decadal trends.

This response also assumes that we know all the modes and magnitudes of internal variability and pathways—both qualitatively and quantitatively—by which the sun, for instance, affects our climate.]

All the known forcings have been examined. While it’s true some unknown forcing may be discovered tomorrow that turns all of climate science on it’s head, it’s about as likely as some new fossil being discovered tomorrow that turns all of evolution on it’s head.

The amount of energy it takes to create a climate trend is unimaginably large. (On a yearly basis the current 0.2 deg/decade warming trend is comparable to the energy of the asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs.) The notion that such incredibly massive amounts could come from something we don’t notice is not very likely.

 

[lomiller]

Wait. I thought that historically temperature increase precedes CO2 increase? But then they invented "forcings" to explain that away? Yes/No?

You thought wrong. Whether CO2 leads or lags depends on the initial cause of the warming. More specifically CO2 only leads warming when there is a release of CO2 that wasn’t already in the carbon cycle. Generally CO2 lags warming for natural events, CO2 leads warming when some other agent is involved. (Sometimes volcanoes sometime the rise or fall of some organism that alters the carbon cycle.)

But then they invented "forcings" to explain...

The concept of forcing arises from feedback theory and has been used in applications well beyond climate change for a very long time.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Congratulations! You have just shown you have no idea what you are talking about.

The cost of a weather station in Antartica is not a drop in most buckets, and definitely not in the bucket of any scientific organization.

But thanks for playing.

How much would it cost?
You have just made a fairly blunt insult without a shred of evidence.
So how much would it cost and what is the budget of a typical organisation?

 

[mhaze]

xx

 

[mhaze]

How much would it cost?
You have just made a fairly blunt insult without a shred of evidence.
So how much would it cost and what is the budget of a typical organisation?

I'm siding with Megalodon on the narrow issue of Antarctica = hard.

Putting anything in Antarctica is really, really difficult and expensive.

Really. Cost? Here's my WAG per year

- 0.5M/year robot station including teams to dig it out couple times a year. 3M+ manned station coastal, 10M plus if way inland.

Postscript: Odd, looks like Easy made assertion about Arctic temperature station cost, Megalodon answered about Antarctic station costs. Big big difference there, of course. Lots of ways to get to places in the Arctic by different means.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Fair enough
I would have no clue, but it seemed an off the cuff insult.

 

[easycruise]

I'm siding with Megalodon on the narrow issue of Antarctica = hard.

Putting anything in Antarctica is really, really difficult and expensive.

Really. Cost? Here's my WAG per year

- 0.5M/year robot station including teams to dig it out couple times a year. 3M+ manned station coastal, 10M plus if way inland.

Postscript: Odd, looks like Easy made assertion about Arctic temperature station cost, Megalodon answered about Antarctic station costs. Big big difference there, of course. Lots of ways to get to places in the Arctic by different means.

Does it really matter whether Arctic or Antarctic in the grand scheme of things? 1,600 federal climatologists. Take 7 of them @ $75,000 salary. That's more than your estimate of a $500K Antarctic robot station. Lay off just 7 of the 1,600 scientists and buy a weather station. You got much more accurate data and don't need to do sloppy "extrapolation" of temps.

Lay off just 10% of the 1,600 and you got $12 million to purchase a bunch of robotic stations. Besides, this Obama admin doesn't seem to be concerned about the cost of anything. Heck, with the recent NASA cuts (Constellation), just redeploy that saved cash into weather stations!

If you want to put harsh restrictions on economic activity due to the seemingly minute global increase of 1 degree F over the last 100-150 years, the least we can do is get accurate readings and not do this extrapolation BS.

 

[Megalodon]

Actually I have to apologize to easycruise. I misread the post, and he was talking about the arctic, not antarctic.

Not that it improves that much.

We are talking about the more isolated places on earth, with sparse population and inclement weather. In the arctic you have also the small problem that the ice moves around.

 

[Megalodon]

Does it really matter whether Arctic or Antarctic in the grand scheme of things? 1,600 federal climatologists. Take 7 of them @ $75,000 salary.That's more than your estimate of a $500K Antarctic robot station. Lay off just 7 of the 1,600 scientists and buy a weather station. You got much more accurate data and don't need to do sloppy "extrapolation" of temps.

First, who is going to do the work those 7 are doing?
Second, are you going to UPS the station to it's site?
Third, when the station gets buried under the snow (say, in the second week after deployment) who is going to dig them out?
Fourth, during the long, long winter, who is going to maintain the station?
Fifth, how are they going to reach it?
Sixth, whose toes are you stepping on when deploying the stations.

The Arctic ice moves around, Antarctica is strictly managed by international agreement.

Lay off just 10% of the 1,600 and you got $12 million to purchase a bunch of robotic stations.

And who is going to do the work of those 160 climatologists?

If you want to put harsh restrictions on economic activity due to the seemingly minute global increase of 1 degree F over the last 100-150 years, the least we can do is get accurate readings and not do this extrapolation BS.

So your problem is politics mixed with a lack of understanding of how science works. You seem to be under the impression that science is run with abundant funds, and that everyone that gets a degree has a cushy place waiting for them, and are thus expendable.

Maybe that's how it works in the US, but I doubt it. It is not even close to what goes on in Europe.

 

[Furcifer]

@GreNME- wow, what I've read so far is very interesting. I see the program has been in Ontario for a year. I suppose it's been limited to Toronto and maybe Ottawa? I know I haven't see it down here in Windsor (although there was a shout out for us in the article). I wonder what is taking so long to implement? I see they have been working in conjunction with several manufacturers including Nissan. I just saw Nissan is launching their EV soon, the ad ran during the Olympics yesterday. We need the EV today.
It's cool how they mentioned Ontario's plan to end coal by 2014. I'm not sure how on schedule that is. I know we run a surplus here in Ontario so we do have the capacity. There are 3 more cogen plants being built, hopefully more to come. They should be deciding on what type of reactors are going to be built in the near future. This province should be pretty damn green in the next 5 years. Who wants to buy some carbon credits?