Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Mikemcc]

Neither of us have any idea what the paper says. Is that not clear? All we know is what some writer produced.

And we know from the recent banning of the Green politician from wikipedia for changing all the "warming" articles to favor his political slant, no rational person would accept a second hand opinion on this subject.

Then read the paper! aleCcowaN actually provided you with a link to the paper as published.

 

[macdoc]

Canadian researchers 'see' how to capture CO2

October 28, 2010 Enlarge
University of Calgary researchers (left to right) George Shimizu, Simon Iremonger and Ramanathan Vaidhyanathan with an image of a CO2 capture material that allowed them to "see" how CO2 was bound, a key step towards designing better materials. Credit: University of Calgary
The ability to keep CO2 out of the atmosphere to help prevent climate change is a global issue. The challenge is to use materials that can capture the CO2 and easily release it for permanent storage. Researchers at the University of Calgary and University of Ottawa have provided deeper insights to CO2 capture by "seeing" the exact sites where CO2 is held in a capture material. Their discovery, published in prestigious journal Science, will allow scientists to design better materials to capture more CO2.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-canadian-capture-co2.html

 

[macdoc]

SNE 2060 – can we build nuclear power plants fast enough to meet the 2060 target?

Posted on 25 October 2010 by Barry Brook
The nuclear scenario I describe here requires around 10,000 GWe of nuclear capacity by 2060, to replace most of our current fossil fuel use. (For further justification of this 10 TW target, read this TCASE post.) My next step is to look critically as some of the critical underpinning assumptions — uranium supply and build rates. Now, as was the case for the previous question (are uranium resources sufficient?), I’m not the first to try to provide an answer on possible build rates. So, before I add my say on the matter, I’ll quote from two other sources.

more

http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/10/25/2060-nuclear-scenarios-p4/

 

[macdoc]

Study: Global warming is driving increased frequency of extreme wet or dry summer weather in southeast, so droughts and deluges are likely to get worse

October 28, 2010

A new study by a Duke University-led team of climate scientists suggests that global warming is the main cause of a significant intensification in the North Atlantic Subtropical High (NASH) that in recent decades has more than doubled the frequency of abnormally wet or dry summer weather in the southeastern United States.

The NASH, commonly referred to as the Bermuda High, is an area of high pressure that forms each summer near Bermuda, where its powerful surface center helps steer Atlantic hurricanes and plays a major role in shaping weather in the eastern United States, Western Europe and northwestern Africa.

​

That’s from the Duke University news release for a new study in the Journal of Climate.
In a September 2009 post, “Hell and High Water hits Georgia,” I noted that, “as climate scientists have predicted for a long time, wild climate swings are becoming the norm, in this case with once-in-a-century drought followed by once-in-a-century flooding.” And in fact, the flooding was more like a once in 500 year event.
Now a team if scientists has quantified the rise in extreme wet and dry summer weather — and finds global warming is likely the main cause. The release continues:

http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/...in-southeast-droughts-and-deluges/#more-35909

 

[aleCcowaN]

Neither of us have any idea what the paper says. Is that not clear? All we know is what some writer produced.

And we know from the recent banning of the Green politician from wikipedia for changing all the "warming" articles to favor his political slant, no rational person would accept a second hand opinion on this subject.

Who is those 'we' you named? Maybe you use to cite papers you have not read or even you have no idea about. If you care to comment something about the article content we can continue on it. I have to give some credit to that article about the climate in my part of the world.

By the way it's still pending Switzerland + glaciers + warm.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Upon what do you base your assertion that there exists "nothing that will replace our coal powered energy needs"?

Fair enough
I should have said "nothing now" or "nothing ready" to replace what we will lose. There are some that want to immediately close down our power stations, I would not have a problem with that as long as we have something with which to replace it.

The first step is not to close existing coal plants but to stop the new ones. After all new construction and planning is ended, then we can work on replacing and decommissioning the existing power plants.

And again, I agree.

But this came up because China is apparently filled with green virtue. The reality looks a lot different when they are opening the huge numbers of huge coal fired power stations in the next five years.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I've not heard of this either, and I take an interest in archaeology. There was Otzi (the Ice-Man) of course, but that's old news and there was never any suggestion that he was living up there. High Alpine valleys were never lived in permanently until very recent times.

I read something recently about prehistoric artefacts emerging from retreating ice in Canada, but again no suggestion that their owners were living there. The items may even have been laid down on existing ice and melted their way down, in the way that dark objects on ice or snow are known to do.

The real news from retreating ice will be when it no longer reveals ancient tree-lines, but of course that won't be news. An absence of stuff happening only ever features on the Sports pages.

On the glacier/archaeological side they are trying to exploit a shoe, many arrows and other items found recently in Norway. One of this bloggies I read the other day claimed something like "how the h* did a shoe get down the glacier". Another blog told Otzi lived in warmer times -maybe he died in the avalanche of ice occurred during "The Day After Yesterday", an amazing timing to get oneself printed in history-. Our forum member Matt Giwer will certainly provide the examples of glaciers retreating and showing signs of human habitation. I remember one case I read many years ago in times when AGW was a topic for specialists and the public concern was a nuclear winter and the memory of "the year without a summer". Were those warmer times in the area? Surely not. There is a more recent case, but I still wait for the other party to substantiate the claim with proper locations.

 

[Trakar]

Fair enough
I should have said "nothing now" or "nothing ready" to replace what we will lose.

Even with these qualifications, there are arguably alternatives, especially for China and most "Western" industrialized nations. NG, nuclear, and a vast array of alternative energy systems.

There are some that want to immediately close down our power stations, I would not have a problem with that as long as we have something with which to replace it.

Who are these people and where is their perspective being put forward in this thread?

And again, I agree.

But this came up because China is apparently filled with green virtue. The reality looks a lot different when they are opening the huge numbers of huge coal fired power stations in the next five years.

Most nations plan energy strategies for the next decade (or so) and construction generally takes time. Plants that are due to come online five years from now are parts of plans that most likely were formulated and approved (in the bureaucratic morass that is China) a decade or two ago, and are just now approaching fruition.

Given a magic wand things might be different but lacking that, there is a lot to be encouraged about with regards to China's moves to develop and deploy significant pilot programs for solar, wind, and alternative energy systems. China isn't alone, and in fact, US and Western leadership in most of these technologies are head and shoulders above other's efforts thus far, but the gap is closing, and other's efforts and proposals often exhibit an ambition and drive toward large scale implementation that make the closing gap and recalcitrance of some western energy companies and their political allies seem like backsliding incompetence. Currently, I still prefer US made turbines, motors, solar cells, and controller units, ...but we aren't ramping up to produce these for a world market and some others are. It won't be long before these are better and more cheaply manufactured by others. We are at a cross-roads and we can either take advantage of the opportunities we are presented with, or we can continue to watch as others do so.

 

[macdoc]

Arctic narwhals reveal climate-model errors

• 17:09 29 October 2010 by Gaia Vince
• For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

Narwhals diving nearly 2 kilometres below polar ice have revealed that climatology models used for the Baffin bay region – which links the Atlantic and Arctic oceans – underestimate winter ocean temperatures there by as much as 1 °C.
The new data gathered from narwhals tagged with a temperature-depth gauge and satellite transmitter - a package around the size of a deck of cards - show that earlier warming between Greenland and the Baffin Islands of Canada has continued over the last decade.
They provide the best winter temperature measurements yet for this biologically important part of the Arctic Ocean, and add to a body of data showing that ocean temperatures around the world are warming.
The Arctic mammals, known as "sea unicorns" thanks to their single long tusks, also transmitted measurements for the winter layer of surface water that shields sea ice from the warmer waters below. On average The thickness of this layer of water, or isotherm, varies throughout the region, but the narwhal data show it to be 50 to 80 metres thinner than the climatology models, according to Kristin Laidre of the Polar Science Center at Washington University in Seattle, and her colleagues, who carried out the study.
A thinner isotherm allows faster turnover of warmer waters from below, which speeds ice-melt. The process is self-perpetuating: as ice melts, the ocean absorbs more heat and melts more ice, and so on. Ice-free summers

"Their findings indicate that the transfer of atmospheric heat into the oceans may be higher than we thought," says climatologist Walt Meier of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, who was not involved in the study.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19658-arctic-narwhals-reveal-climatemodel-errors.html

 

[CapelDodger]

Most nations plan energy strategies for the next decade (or so) ...

Some nations leave everything that's bought and sold to the private sector, and so have no energy strategy at all. That can be left to the free market.

As can their politicians.

 

[Trakar]

Some nations leave everything that's bought and sold to the private sector, and so have no energy strategy at all. That can be left to the free market.

As can their politicians.

Which nations are you thinking of here?

 

[Bill Thompson]

From your answer it follows that you think that the Earth 650 millions years ago and the Earth present day are relevant to the evolution of our Solar System, and nobody suggested the opposite. What still remains unexplained are these two fragments: "why what happened here 650 millions years ago is more important than what happened in Mars 650 millions years ago?", and "why both (Earth and Mars 650 mya) are relevant to anthropogenic global warming nowadays?"

I know that what can change will change and the flow of the eons will continue, but that doesn't seem to be the point of this thread. Your answers suggest that you regard climate variation in our time as part of a change being "a constant process" and that warming "could be good". No clear about what is causing it and if it must be allowed to cause it and why.

What I gather is that warming is produced by the addition of individual behaviours and it is producing damage to our common environment what requires common actions to solve or prevent it. Within that context, the role played by the "eternal course of time and deal of change associated to it" is just unlinking that individual behaviours and their consequences from any collective responsability. Sort of "my behaviour produces consequences, but those consequences are somewhat inevitable because similar things have happened and will happen ... besides, it could be good ... so I continue to behave the same way and I'll reject vehemently any policy tending to restrain or tax my behaviour".

Sorry I have not kept up here.

Can you clarify something? What are you talking about specifically when you say " 650 millions years ago"? Ice ages have happened a few thousand years ago, not hundreds of millions of years ago.

There was a mini-ice age in the 1700's in fact.

The last major ice age happened with mamoths walked the earth, not dinosaurs.

So what is up with your "650 millions years ago" comment?

Again, sorry I have not kept up here.

========

Let me add a new topic. We have evidence that global cooling kills off animals and leads to extinction. But, apart from massive volcanic eruptions and a comet slamming from the Earth, has there ever been evidince that global warming has led to mass extinction?

In fact, the opposite is true. Off the top of my head I can think of a prime example. Life on the Amazon is more abundant and diverse than any other place on Earth.

========

In response to some persons comment, "can you provide evidence that global warming would be good for all people": Can you provide any exmaple that any thing is ever good for all people?

 

[CapelDodger]

Which nations are you thinking of here?

I'm not one to point the finger.

Nations which do have an energy strategy include France and Germany. The UK does in theory (there's even government Department of Energy and Climate Change http://www.decc.gov.uk/) but it's hard to discern exactly what the strategy is.

Russia has a strategy which involves energy, but it's not an energy strategy as such. In that strategy energy is a means, not an end. Which goes some way to explaining why European nations mostly do have an energy strategy, I think.

 

[Matt Giwer]

Changing the input data invalidates the use of statistics

I gave a rather clear example of why this is true with the coin toss example yet I see no response nor any decline in using the predictions based upon changed input data, e.g. CRU data.

Why is this?

 

[aleCcowaN]

In response to some persons comment, "can you provide evidence that global warming would be good for all people": Can you provide any exmaple that any thing is ever good for all people?

I'm sorry, but searching for "can you provide evidence that global warming would be good for all people" only produces your post. So, what exactly were "some persons comments"? Let me help you in this. You may have forgotten your post (#418). Read it again, there are no quotations, links or references there. It's a nice piece of essay, your personal essay. You opened that essay with the rhetorical question

Could Global Warming be a Good Thing?

You later declaimed about the perils of an ice age (not clear -I suppose purposely- if any ice age like Little or just the Snowball an the like) and you added

Preventing that from happening again would be a good thing.

To end up your well formatted speech with a consideration including

I am wondering if this is just another change that will happen to the Earth for our long term benefit.

and as part of that consideration, you finished the speech with:

Changing the planet so that there will never again be an Ice Age is to our benefit. Freeing up more land for the production of food and perhaps ending world hunger is also to our benefit.

Maybe you forgot to continue with "would" and writing "would be to our benefit", but you finished the essay with two bold assertions, "is to our benefit" and "is also to our benefit". You were asked to provide figures and deepest studies to support those claims. Some three days later you ceased to debate here and, now you are claiming that more than one person -please, identify them with name and proper quotation- are raising the bar for you to prove that?

Please, answer those legitimate questions and substantiate with more than an essay your assertions, citing whatever scientific work which might back it. You also have in these fora more than 10,000 post about (A)GW, so you might find easily more serious material towards your assertions ... or not.

 

[Meed]

Take for example a test of the heads to tails ratio of the flip of a fair coin. Statistics requires the fair coin else statistical analysis does not apply.

Not true. Statistical analysis is the same either way.

If in the process of recording the test results of heads and tails one does not use the actual results but decides a head should have been a tail for other reasons statistics is no longer a legitimate tool.

Not true. Statistics is the same tool as it was before.

So also it is with temperature data. One can only apply statistics to the raw data. Anything other than the raw data and statistics is inapplicable.

Not true. Raw data, adjusted data or medium-well data... statistics is equally applicable.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Matt Giwer
Take for example a test of the heads to tails ratio of the flip of a fair coin. Statistics requires the fair coin else statistical analysis does not apply.

How would you EVER know if it's not a "fair coin" then......

•••••

2010 Is Now Tied For Hottest Year on Record (So Far)
by Matthew McDermott, New York, NY on 09.16.10
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (science)

New NOAA temperature data has been released including August temperatures and this year's record-setting global trend continues: "For January-August 2010, the global land and ocean surface temperature of 14.7°C tied with 1998 as the warmest January-August period on record. This value is 0.67°C above the 20th century average." August itself went down in history as being among the warmest recorded as well.

Looking at combined global land and ocean surface temperatures, August 2010 was the third warmest on record, with August 1998 still holding that title and August 2009 coming in second. Last month global average temps were 0.6°C above the 20th century average. Just looking at land temperatures, August 2010 was the second hottest recorded, behind 1998, with temps running 0.9°C above average.

The northern hemisphere summer as a whole was the second warmest on record, global average temperatures (combined land and ocean surface) were 1.0°C above average. Again, 1998 here too holds the record.

TreeHugger readers in the eastern half of the US should be reassured that the severity of this summer's heatwaves was as bad as you thought: NOAA reports that the biggest variations from normal average temps occurred in the the eastern part of the contiguous US, across eastern Canada and much of Europe. Northwest Africa and parts of Asia 2also experience markedly higher temperatures than normal. Cooler-than-average conditions prevailed across southern South America, central Russia, and most of Australia.

For the year as a whole to date, the warmest temperature anomalies were observed in Canada, the northern part of the United States, southern Greenland, Africa, southwest Asia and the tropical portions of the North Atlantic Ocean. Cooler than normal temperature anomalies occurred across Central Asia, the non-equatorial eastern Pacific Ocean, and the southern oceans.

NOAA has much more update climate data for this time period (precipitation changes, sea ice changes, more) and more detail on the info above: State of the Climate | Global Analysis | August 2010

 

[Trakar]

I'm sorry, but searching for "can you provide evidence that global warming would be good for all people" only produces your post. So, what exactly were "some persons comments"? Let me help you in this. You may have forgotten your post
(#418).
Read it again, there are no quotations, links or references there. It's a nice piece of essay, your personal essay. You opened that essay with the rhetorical question...

You later declaimed about the perils of an ice age (not clear -I suppose purposely- if any ice age like Little or just the Snowball an the like) and you added...

To end up your well formatted speech with a consideration including...

and as part of that consideration, you finished the speech with:...

Maybe you forgot to continue with "would" and writing "would be to our benefit", but you finished the essay with two bold assertions, "is to our benefit" and "is also to our benefit". You were asked to provide figures and deepest studies to support those claims. Some three days later you ceased to debate here and, now you are claiming that more than one person -please, identify them with name and proper quotation- are raising the bar for you to prove that?...

Please, answer those legitimate questions and substantiate with more than an essay your assertions, citing whatever scientific work which might back it. You also have in these fora more than 10,000 post about (A)GW, so you might find easily more serious material towards your assertions ... or not...

Careful there you smooth-talking south american devil! I'm not gay, but that nearly brought on a swoon!

Ultimately, I am more curious as to the relevence of Mr Thompson's statements of faith to the issue of human influenced global warming? It's been a while, and I thank you for the up-thread link to his former interaction, I'll head back and see if I can refresh my memory.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Climate change: evidence from the geological record

A statement by the Geological Society of London

November 2010

Climate change: evidence from the geological record

50 references + background reading

 

[CapelDodger]

Sorry I have not kept up here.

Neither have I ...

Let me add a new topic.

... so I'll stick to that.

We have evidence that global cooling kills off animals and leads to extinction.

So we do, if you're referring to an enhanced rate of extinction. Extinction itself is a constant process, on all scales. Global changes in environmental conditions enhance the global rate. That naturally applies to warming and cooling alike.

But, apart from massive volcanic eruptions and a comet slamming from the Earth, has there ever been evidince that global warming has led to mass extinction?

Mass extinction, well that's a special rate. The End-Permian is generally attributed to global warming caused by the eruptions in Siberia over millions of years. Why should that example be exempt?

Comet-impacts having a warming impact is new to me.

If current global warming (which is caused by burning fossil-fuels) turns much of the Amazon basin into savannah there will be a definite mass extinction. Humanity caused a lot of mini-extinctions well before the 1700's but we're only now getting into our swing.

In fact, the opposite is true. Off the top of my head I can think of a prime example. Life on the Amazon is more abundant and diverse than any other place on Earth.

Savour that moment. It's because the Amazon environment has been relatively stable through many ice-ages, being far from the poles and mostly governed by geology. The Sahara has been with us just as long - at least as warm, but not famous for its biodiversity.

In response to some persons comment, "can you provide evidence that global warming would be good for all people": Can you provide any exmaple that any thing is ever good for all people?

Do let us know how the change works out for you. It could be good, after all.