This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Climate Change: Summary of Current Science
Cap and Trade, Global Warming, and Climate Change all have significant implications for we humans. The following analysis was done by Cato scholar, Andrei Illarionov, formerly Vladimir Putin's chief economic advisor. As an economist he studied the available literature and synthesized the current state of the scientific evidence on climate change and global warming. It is significant in that the "solutions" coming out of Copenhagen are really political in nature and not necessarily based on the best science or the best economics.
For the record, I believe in climate change and global warming, as the science suggests. The issue is the extent and impact of human behavior ("anthropogenic factors"). I think the scientific evidence presented by Illarionov and Cato, as well as the Competitive Enterprise Institute is pretty good.
I will also refer you to RealClimate.org which is run by four climatologists, and who have excellent resource materials. I will not comment on their objectivity or accuracy because I am not a climatologist. So, you can compare some of their data to those that Illarionov and Cato present. I checked a few and there is some agreement on the data, but perhaps not the overall view of things.
I will say that much of what is written about global warming and climate change is bunk. I think that it is the latest movement around which people who hate capitalism and free markets gravitate toward. And I am skeptical about the political solutions offered, especially those coming out of Copenhagen. My guess about Copenhagen: nothing major will happen.
A Few Notes On Climate Change
By Andrei Illarionov
December 11, 2009 at 5:33 pm
As the Copenhagen Climate Conference is taking place, it is appropriate to clarify once again what is more or less accurately known about the climate of our planet and about climate change.
Obviously, a brief post can not substitute for detailed studies of professionals in a variety of scientific disciplines – climatology, atmospheric physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and economics. However, a short post can summarize basic theses on the main trends in climate evolution, on its forecasts, and on its actual and projected effects.
1. The Earth’s climate is constantly changing. The climate was changing in the past, is changing now and, obviously, will be changing in the future – as long as our planet exists.
2. Climatic changes are largely cyclical in nature. There are various time horizons of climatic cycles – from the annual cycle known to everyone to cycles of 65-70 years, of 1,300 years, or of 100,000 years (the so called Milankovitch cycles).
3. There is no fundamental disagreement among scientists, public figures and governments about the fact that the climate is changing. There is a broad consensus that climate changes occur constantly. The myth, created by climate alarmists, that their opponents deny climate change is sheer propaganda.
4. Current debate among climatologists, economists and public figures is not about the fact of climate change, but about other issues. In particular, disagreements exist on:
- Comparative levels of modern day temperatures (relative to the historically observed),
- The direction of climate change depending on the length of record,
- The extent of climate change,
- The rate of climate change,
- Causes of climate change,
- Forecasts of climate change,
- Consequences of climate change,
- The optimal strategy for human beings to respond to climate change.
5. Unbiased answers to many of these issues are critically dependent on a chosen time horizon – whether it is 10 years, or 30 years, or 70 years, or 1000 years, or 10,000 years, or hundreds of thousands or millions of years.Depending on the time horizon, the answers to many of these questions may be different, even opposite.
6. The current level of global temperature in historical perspective is not unique. The average temperature of the Earth is now estimated at about 14.5 degrees Celsius. In our planet’s history there have been few periods when the Earth’s temperature was lower than the current – in the early Permian period, in the Oligocene, and during periodic glaciations in the Pleistocene. For most of the time during the last half billion years, the air temperature at the Earth’s surface greatly exceeded the current one, and for about half of this period it was approximately 25°C, or 10°C higher than the current temperature. Regular glaciations of cold periods during the Pleistocene era lasted for approximately 90,000 years, with a low temperature of approximately 5°C below that of the present, alternated by warm interglacial periods (for 4,000-6,000 years) with temperatures of 1-3°C higher than at present. Approximately 11,000 years ago the last significant increase in temperature began (of approximately 5°C), during which time a huge glacier, that covered a considerable part of Eurasia and America, had melted. Climate warming has played a key role in humanity’s acquisition of the secrets of agriculture and in its transition to civilization. Over the past 11,000 years there were at least five distinct warm periods, the so-called “climatic optima” when the temperature of the planet was at 1-3°C higher than at present.
7. The focus of climate change depends critically on the choice of time horizon. In the past 11 years (1998-2009 years) global temperature was flat. Before that, in the preceding 20 years (1979-1998 years) it increased by about 0.3°C. Before that, during the preceding 36 years (1940-1976 years) the temperature fell by about 0.1°C. Before that, for the preceding two centuries (1740 – 1940 years), the overall trend in global temperature was mainly neutral – with periodic warming, followed by cooling, and then again warming. Over the past three centuries (from the turn of 18th century), the temperature in the northern hemisphere has increased by approximately 1.3°C, from the trough of the so-called “Little Ice Age” (LIA) during the years 1500-1740 years, followed by the contemporary climatic optimum (CCO), which started around 1980. During the three centuries preceding the LIA, the temperature in the northern hemisphere was falling compared to the level it was during the medieval climatic optimum (MCO) in the 8th – 13th centuries. Depending on the chosen time frame the long-term temperature trend has a different trajectory. For periods of the last 2,000 years, the last 4,000 years, and the last 8,000 years, the trend was negative. For periods of the past 1,300 years, the last 5,000 years, and the last 9,000 years it was positive.
8. The rate of contemporary climate change is much more modest in comparison with the rate of climatic changes observed earlier in the history of the planet. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) describes the increase in the global temperature by 0.76°C over the last century (1906-2005 years) as extraordinary. There is reason to suspect this temperature value is somewhat overstated. However, the main point is that previous rises in temperature were greater than those in the modern era. Comparable data demonstrate that the increase in temperature, for example, in Central England in the 18th century (by 0.97°C) was more significant than in the 20th (by 0.90°C). The climatic changes in Central Greenland over the past 50,000 years show that there were at least a dozen periods during which the regional temperature increased by 10-13°C. Given the correlation between changes in temperature at high latitudes and globally, those shifts in temperature regime in Greenland meant a rise in global temperature by 4-6°C. Such a rate was approximately 5-7 times faster than the actual (and, perhaps, slightly exaggerated) temperature increase in the 20th century.
9. The rate of current climate change (the speed of modern warming) by historical standards is not unique.According to IPCC data, the rate of temperature increase over the past 50 years was 0.13°C per decade. According to comparable data, obtained through instrumental measurements, a higher rate of temperature increase was observed at least three times: in the late 17th century – early 18th century; in the second half of the 18th century; and in the late 19th century – early 20th century. The centennial rate of warming in the 20th century is slower than the warming in the 18th century that was instrumentally recorded and slower than the warming in at least 13 cases over the past 50,000 years that were measured by palaeoclimatic methods.
10. Among the causes of climate change in the pre-industrial era there were hardly any anthropogenic factors – due to modest population size and mankind’s limited economic activities. But the range of climatic fluctuations and their rate and peak values in the pre-industrial era exceeded the parameters of climate change recorded in the industrial period.
11. During the industrial age (since the beginning of the 19th century) climate change is believed to be under the impact of both groups of factors – of natural and of anthropogenic character. Since the rate of climate change in the industrial age is so far noticeably smaller than at some time in the pre-industrial age, there is no basis for the assertion that anthropogenic factors had already become as significant as natural factors, even less for the assertion that they overwhelm natural factors.
12. Factors of anthropogenic climate change are rather diverse and can not be confined to carbon dioxide only.Mankind impacts local, regional and global climate by constructing buildings and structures, heating houses, industrial and public premises, by logging and planting forests, plowing arable land, damming rivers, draining and irrigating lands, leveling and paving territories, conducting industry, issuing aerosols, etc.
13. There is no consensus in the scientific community on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change. Some scientists believe that it is crucial, others believe that it is secondary to other factors. There are also serious disagreements on the nature and direction of possible causality between concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and temperature: some researchers believe the former causes temperature to rise, others argue the opposite – that fluctuations in temperature cause changes in carbon dioxide concentration.
14. Unlike carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2) is harmless to humans; in contrast to aerosol, a harmful and dangerous substance, carbon dioxide does not pollute the environment. It has neither a color, nor a taste, nor a smell. Therefore, popularly used photos and videos showing factory chimney stacks emitting smoke and cars emitting exhaust to illustrate carbon dioxide are just misleading – CO2 is invisible; what is visible in those images are pollutants. It should also be noted that the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has a positive impact on the productivity of plants, including agricultural crops.
15. The relationship of the concentration of carbon dioxide to climate change remains a subject of intense scientific debate. True, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past two centuries increased from 280 parts per million of air particles in the early 19th century to 388 particles in 2009. It is also true that the global temperature in that period rose by about 0.8°C. But whether these two factors are connected is unclear. The dynamics of CO2 concentration did not correlate well with the expected changes in temperature. The significant and rapid increases in global temperature during the interglacial periods of the Pleistocene, during the Medieval Climatic Optima, in the 18th century, were not preceded by an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. In the industrial age, an increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere was not always accompanied by a rise in global temperature. In 1944-1976 CO2 concentration increased by 24 units – from 308 to 332 particles, but the global temperature fell 0.1°C. In 1998-2009 CO2 concentration increased by 21 units – from 367 to 388 particles, but the global temperature trend remained flat. In the first half of the 1940’s the decline in the concentration of carbon dioxide by 3 units (as a result of the massive destruction caused by World War II) did not prevent the global temperature to rise by 0.1°C.
16. So far global climate models demonstrate their limited effectiveness. The complex nature of the climate system is not reflected adequately enough in the global climate models whose use has recently spread around the world. The projections developed on their basis in the late 1990s through the early 2000s predicted the global temperature to rise by 1.4-5.8°C till the end of the 21st century with a 0.2-0.4°C increase already in the first decade. In reality during 1998-2009 the temperature was flat at best.
17. Forecasts of global climate change made at the beginning of this decade by Russian scientists (from the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, the Voejkov Main Geophysical Observatory) predicted a fall in the global temperature by 0.6°C by 2025-2030 in comparison with a temperature peak reached at the end of the 20thcentury. So far the actual temperature for the last decade has not risen.
18. Implications of climate change for human beings differ greatly depending on their direction, size and rate. An increase in temperature leads as a rule to a softer and moister climate, while a decline in temperature leads to a harder and drier climate. It was a climatic optimum in the Holocene period with temperatures 1-3°C higher than today that greatly contributed to the birth of civilization. Conditions for people’s life and economic activities in warmer climates are usually more favorable than in colder environments. In warmer climates there is usually more precipitation than in drier areas, the cost of heating and volume of food required to sustain human life is lower, while vegetation and navigation periods are longer, and crops’ yields are higher.
19. Methods “to combat global warming” by reducing carbon dioxide emissions suggested by climate alarmists are not only scientifically unfounded in the absence of extraordinary or unusual changes in climate during the modern era. Such measures, if adopted, are especially dangerous for mid- and lower income countries. Those measures would effectively cut those countries off the path to prosperity and hinder their ability to close the gap with more developed nations.
20. The impact of all anthropogenic factors (not only CO2) on climate is unclear when compared with factors of nature. Therefore, the most effective strategy for humanity in responding to different types of climate change is adaptation. That approach is exactly the way that humans have reacted to the larger-scale climatic changes in the past, even though they were less prepared then for such changes. Now mankind has greater resources to adapt to lesser climate fluctuations and it is better equipped for them scientifically, technically and psychologically. The adaptation of humanity to climate changes is incomparably less costly than other options being proposed and imposed by climate alarmists. Human society has already adopted to climate change and will continue to do so as long as economy and society are vibrant and free.
Andrei Illarionov is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity. From 2000 to December 2005 he was the chief economic adviser of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Illarionov also served as the president's personal representative (sherpa) in the G-8. He is one of Russia's most forceful and articulate advocates of an open society and democratic capitalism, and has been a long-time friend of the Cato Institute. Illarionov received his Ph.D. from St. Petersburg University in 1987. From 1993 to 1994 Illarionov served as chief economic adviser to the prime minister of the Russian Federation, Viktor Chernomyrdin. He resigned in February 1994 to protest changes in the government's economic policy. In July 1994 Illarionov founded the Institute of Economic Analysis and became its director. Illarionov has coauthored several economic programs for Russian governments and has written three books and more than 300 articles on Russian economic and social policies.
»
- Econophile's blog
- 11333 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
It's entirely unintended but every effort to make more efficient use of any fossil fuel extends the economic life of the resource.
So increasing CAFE standards actually permits accepting oil imports at even higher prices than could be tolerated before.
////
By comparison, due to political considerations, spent nuclear fuel is not reprocessed. The amount of energy value trapped in this 'waste' is vast. Because of our marginal burn-up of fissile Uranium there is already concern that any ramp-up of nuclear power -- as proposed -- is going to face critical fuel shortages very quickly.
Inefficient use collapses the economics of the resource.
////
I'd really buy into Peak Oil but for the fact that so much acreage is politically off limits. When the Caspian was opened up to western oil new 'elephants' were promptly found. When Iraq let big oil in, new reserves doubled the national estimate.
Since Russia and China and others don't permit best practices in oil exploration or extraction who can say when Peak Oil will be reached?
As for volcanic carbon dioxide emissions: every estimate I've ever seen places them way beyond those of man.
Well articulated thoughts NZ.
I would only add two possibilities:
1. This could be just another plot trying to divide two sides - pitting analytical / driver personality types against emotional / amiable personality types as the left/right or democrat/republican hegelian false choice illusion is fading.
2. I have noticed significant use of non sequitir arguments whereby a proponent of AGW says something true like we are polluting the environment (not specific to CO2) and we are using up resources (not related to CO2 or global warming) but then conclude that AGW must exist and we must combat global warming with no premises that support the arguments conclusion. For those that don't know here is the definition: Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.
The truth for those that have open minds is that the owners of the largest banks (central banks and TBTFs are one in the same) own the world, they own a significant portion of the shares of many multi-national corporations including the large oil corporations. The owners of big oil, big corporations, and big banks influence government by lobbying/bribing politicians and sponsoring their campaigns.
To say that we can believe AGW when Goldman Sachs and JPM are behind a cap and tax scheme, or to say that we can't believe the AGW skeptics because of big oil (and vice versa) is equally ignorant because they are both owned by the same people. This is the same as the false left/right paradigm. Beware black/white binary choices presented by the same people.
Divide and Conquer
One must know where the real enemy resides.
Hmm I didn't know ZH is doing censorship... interesting
Yup, noticed that too here... some of my posts were removed for no reason...
Yeah, that CAPTCHA kills me too
It's good to hear ZH's voice of sanity in the mass AGW pointless hysteria. AGW is an unproven theory not fact, and this theory is convenient for the parasites to demonstrate their false irreplaceability, distract the public from being robbed blind and for some to profit handsomely. For one instance I feel sympathetic to oil lobbies fighting off this BS. As a physicist, I like this online lecture disproving most AGW pivots: http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/
It's good to hear ZH's voice of sanity in the mass AGW pointless hysteria. AGW is an unproven theory not fact, and this theory is convenient for the parasites to demonstrate their false irreplaceability, distract the public from being robbed blind and for some to profit handsomely. For one instance I feel sympathetic to oil lobbies fighting off this BS. As a physicist, I like this online lecture disproving most AGW pivots: http://videolectures.net/kolokviji_singer_nnha/
Quoting Illarionov on climate change (economics, etc.) is like quoting GWB on Italian poetry of the 15th century.
Frankly I'm beginning to feel that whether the AGW/Climate Change arguments here do or don't exist are irrelevant, save in their obvious political/economic potential to create a supposed solution that won't work (carbon markets). I still believe that Peak Oil/Peak Water will render most of this discussion moot long before either side can gather enough data together to prove unequivocably that there is a problem.
We're in a mode right now where our current petroleum based economic operating system is coming up against its upper limits, inducing energy shocks which in turn serve to both incentivise dangerous speculation and provide a means for the kleptocracy to siphon what little is left of the collective middle class wealth to the financial elite (and those who don't believe that the ultimate cause of the 2008 crash is peak oil and declining EROEI needs to seriously study up on the subject).
Carbon sequestration and climate markets don't significantly limit the use of oil by the largest, wealthiest consumers, but it does mean that they can effectively take advantage of declining power output ahead of the average person - who will likely feel the pinch in sustained high unemployment, diminished wages, then as the decade progresses spot shortages of gasoline, rationing of oil products, and the increasing unreliability of the electrical grid. To me, GCW provides a means to justify the imposition of such rationing.
I'm not denying de-glaciation or global warming patterns, but I also find it significant that the base timelines involved are short; our ability to accurately measure most of the key "indicators" of global warming extends back less that a hundred years, and many cases less than fifty. In the 1970s the key concern was global cooling, in the mid 1990s the concern was an inversion of the Atlantic Conveyor, leading to a potential "flip" of the Gulf Stream and the sudden imposition of extreme cold throughout much of Eurasia and North America. In the last decade, as solar activity has declined (to the current VERY quiescent sun), global temperatures have generally either leveled or dropped in places - not uniformly, but enough that most of the extrapolations being made from the 1990s datasets are now appearing too high.
By an increasing consensus of those climatologists who are staying out of the debate, we're probably in for a forty year cooling trend after hitting a peak in 2003-5. This means that even if the AGW types are in fact correct, we're likely to have a counterveiling trend for some time, though by 2080 things could get exciting as we hit the next peak with global warming adding in. However, by all indications, the next five to fifteen years could have a far more significant impact upon our ability to produce carbon dioxide. By the time 2080 rolls around, we may be in a position where either we have perfected non-carbon energy technologies (watch what happens with the ITER fusion reactor in Europe between 2015 and 2024), or we're essential back to 1850s technology and civilization has dramatically collapsed at least once.
a message to the pro-AGW crowd, from an old 1980's environmentalist:
YOUR SIDE IS THE PIGS
flush the fuzz out, my friends, then we can talk about the science.
"this machine kills fascists"
Here is all you need to know about CO2 caused global warming:
Carbon is a lagging indicator. Increasing/decreasing carbon levels lag increasing/decreasing temperatures by ~800-1200 years (it varies a bit).
Check it out, look at the graphs, espcially the peaks and valleys to see which comes first (chartists will find this easy).
Yes Virginia... The entire premise of CO2 caused global warming is FALSE ON IT'S FACE.
If your really feel like torturing yourself, try reading some of the explanations out there how carbon can lag temperature, but still be the cause of temperature changes. If we could hook up a turbine to capture a small portion of the resulting wind from furious hand waving this nation could be energy independent.
I watched ABC World News tonight, for the first time in months. They did a long story about the glaciers melting in Bolivia resulting in the destruction of the highest altitude skiing area in the world, as well the water supply for the nearby villages. It was a touching story. Evo Morales demanded money. There was no mention of Climategate.
The fuckers won't go quietly into the night, it could be -100 outside and they would still chirp about heatwaves. The criminals need to be defeated. Some days I just ask myself "How can these lies just go on and on?" and I have no answer. This is how Fascism and Communism killed millions by have millions believe in lies. Fight this shit! Damn you Algore, you bovine turd!
I watched ABC World News tonight, for the first time in months. They did a long story about the glaciers melting in Bolivia resulting in the destruction of the highest altitude skiing area in the world, as well the water supply for the nearby villages. It was a touching story. Evo Morales demanded money. There was no mention of Climategate.
The fuckers won't go quietly into the night, it could be -100 outside and they would still chirp about heatwaves. The criminals need to be defeated. Some days I just ask myself "How can these lies just go on and on?" and I have no answer. This is how Fascism and Communism killed millions by have millions believe in lies. Fight this shit! Damn you Algore, you bovine turd!
Right on. Now they've even captured the protestors. Notice how the mainstream only reports on protestors who call for more action on climate change legislation?? What bullshit is that?? There is no room for independent journalism anymore. Even CFR run NPR and PBS are toeing this big turd.
I fear Climate Change and Polution have been inappropriately mixed together.
When I see the news of Copenhagen intending to save us all, and yet I walk into Sam's club and they no longer sell incandescents only mercury fill fluorescents, then I know there is clearly a problem. And when I purchase those fluorescents, they have no reasonable useful life. And each time I approach the service desk at Sam's and ask why they no longer sell non toxic incandescents bulbs they look at me like I'm an idiot for even considering their use, and they confirm their entire staff knows they no longer sell such bulbs.
I literally had to stop eating fish as my mercury level was getting close to the need for medical intervention. Having stopped eating my favorite food (fish) for years, and performing detox, my mercury level is down around the detectable limit. I found out about the problem when my nails wer not growing correctly and had thyroid problems for which the Dr's wanted to destroy part of my thyriod.
I had to go well outside "modern medicine" to find the linkage to mercury poisioning due to fish.
We humans can adapt to "Climate Change", but not polution. And my life experiance suggest the two are not so linked as today's media wants us to beleive.
Then we have depleted uranium being spread around the middle east setting the stage for the entire planet to become uninhabitable at any temperature hot or cold. Our genetics just will not adapt that fast to this toxin as births in the middle east are demonstrating.
Thus I find it impossible to beleive anything I'm told about Climate change. For to many obvious inconsistancies.
When I see incandescent light return to the shelves of Sam's club, and an end to massive biosphere poisoning by DU, then I might start listening to governments stories about Climate change ... Hypocracy has a way of making one tune out and say no to everything.
Someone please let me know when it's safe to eat fish again, or let me know how carbon credits will mean I can eventually eat fish again ... And why DU in fish will never be a problem. Thanks.
thank you for your post. extremely well said (although i would prefer the day when LEDs are also sold at sam's club, but that's me).
I agree with LED lighting. I see such lighting available for verious OEM uses, but the cost is still very high. Fortunately many industries are embracing it for many reasons.
LED is still a "dirty" product, but at lifetimes around 50 years, it's very clean in a time relative sense.
Again, I suggest flourescent are serving as a barrier to the growth of LED lighting (consumer independence). However in this case I think that scam is going to lose.
Give it a few more years and I think LED lighting is going to be at "the tipping point". The last problem to be solved is that LEDs are very directional by the nature of their design. So we'll not see a single LED that replaces a light bulb. You need lots of LEDs "on the surface of a sphere" in order to replace a bulb, thus LED "lights" need to be very cheap in order to make that hundreds on the "sphere" cheaply to replace a standard bulb (meet current consumer expectations of what a light bulb is expected to do, radiate light in all directions). This is pure cost issue, and it will happen fast, espicially given that light bulb will last for 50 years ....
"The last problem to be solved is that LEDs are very directional by the nature of their design."
edit : not for long --
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/lighting/exhibitions/newyork2009.htm
now all they have to do is to convince customers that a light bulb is a 50 year asset instead of a disposable one. maybe they could offer a 7-10 year guarantee?
In the absence of knowing what the global temperatures would have been without an anthropogenic component, it appears yet difficult to assess whether current changes are man-made.
I lean towards the latter because I don't think the hole in the ozone layer was caused by natural factors...but correct me if I'm wrong.
True, climates and ecosystems fluctuate naturally.
But to me the question is whether we, as humans, are fouling our collective nest faster than we can recover from once we see the error of our ways. Adulterated temperatures is but one way of fouling the nest.
Also troubling, more so than climate change, are the myriad 'solutions' being offered - these will simply create worse poblems in due time. Create a second stink to mask the first one (and forget that then you have two). I don't think mindful living has a healthy substitute, but on this too I can be corrected.
Greed and carelessness work against us, but maybe they are inherent factors necessary to activate the natural culling of overly concentrated populations.
Everyone knows about the Titanic, but learnt we did not.
We are living through the Great Recession, and learning now we do not.
(Inversions in English must be handled carefully - otherwise infelicities of style we would get. The verb at the end of a sentence could be put, but only rarely. A. McCall Smith)
Very depressing, but we'll compensate with quantity for quality...
Undecadent
A friend clued me into something that made the ozone hole
people froth at the mouth. Freon is CCl2F2. Two Cl and 2 F. There are many sources of atmospheric Cl. Vulcanism is a big source. There are very few sources of
atmospheric F. And F reacts energetically with any Ca to form solid and insoluble calcium flourite and thus tends to be strongly removed in the lower atmosphere. There fore since Freon is breaking down in the upper atmosphere and releasing the Cl that destroys the Ozone the C and the F should also be present. The spectroscopic adsorbtion bands of both F and Cl are easy to observe. The concentration of F in the upper atmosphere implied that Freon was responsible for .003% of the Cl. The data was quickly buried and never referenced again. Everyone knew that Freon was extremely stable and required high intensity UV to force degradation so it must be a stratospheric phenomenon. Late it was discovered that 'dust' containing Ca and metals in the presence of moisture would photochemically degrade Freon. The resultant CaCl2 and CaF2 washed out with the rain. OOPS. Replacement
is ~10% less energetically efficient. Looks like we need a nice big war. Nothing focuses the mind on reality like someone trying to kill you. And wasting resources on philosophy is un-patriotic.
Freon
"Climate change" is an irrelevant distraction from the real problem, which is that there are TOO MANY DAMN HUMAN BEINGS ON THE PLANET.
And that is the real agenda, according to a recent Canadian newspaper calling for the implementation of the one child policy in China.
Do us all a favor RA (the sun god I believe), and kill yourself if you believe the number of humans is too high - you sound like scrooge - and "deplete the surplus population". Perhaps this is a property rights issue, who is more deserving of life on the planet?
Reduction of the ability for developing countries to access and use resources (through CO2 limits) would be a death sentence for millions and reduce the population.
This is what the malthusian luciferians want. We could fit every person on earth comfortably within the land mass of Australia, however non-renewable resources could be limited due to scarcity. From a national security perspective, I am sure the question was how can we use our lower sized and more aged population as a strategic advantage or their higher population numbers against them - or it will challenge our super power status.
By the way, that piece you did on explaining the details of Liesman's statement on EUC would suggest you had some form of personal involvement (just speculating) - I can't believe anybody would do that much apologetic work to explain how Liesman came up with his EUC figure.
Wrong, plenty of land, more like too many damn humans are centralized on this planet. Why? Think about it, hmmmmm.
yeah I heard that too, India China Indonesia, never been there, but who the fuck do they think they are, having kids and stuff. maybe we should go over there, and kill a bunch of them, remind them who's runnin the show. maybe we'll earn some carbon credits in the process.
agreed...btw...climate change will take care of that :)
This goose quotes Realclimate as a source of unbiased, informed information. Good Grief, the worlds gone to pot.
RC is a political advocacy site. It was established by FatAlbert & his crimeslime twin M Mann to cover their arses after the Hockey stick was statistically proven to be fraudlent, an invention.
The so called climate scientists on that site are more like censors. Try getting a thread going that disputes their religious dogma and you will not get it through.
By the way the Russian science minister was here in OZ 2-3 years ago and was quoted as saying AGW is a crock of shyte. The only reason putin likes the tax is obvious to anyone who watches empires crumble in debt.
regards (we're cooling. check the hurricane level in the US over the last 3 years.)
yes we are in a short term cooling trend
the warming of the planet will not happen in a straight line
btw there are natural events that can and may counter act AGW
we have seen a record low solar output in the last 2 years virtually no sun spot activity for an unusually long period
and the unpredicatable swing back to an ice age related to the milankovitch cycle is due in the next 1000 years or so
its all complex with everything at stake
Mock wrote "yes we are in a short term cooling trend"
We are. And have you read what Trenbleth (one of the main AGW guys) says in private about that (another gem from Climategate)? He admits that the AGW models cannot account for that trend AND THAT THE FAILURE TO DO SO IS A "TRAVESTY." Trenbleth used the word "travesty," not me.
Do you really want to spend trillions of dollars to fix a problem predicted by models whose predictions (in the words of one of the modelers) are a travesty?
Thanks for clearing that up MT! Here I was all calibrated by Carl Sagan on the terror coming real soon now with global cooling--his solution? Get rid of CO2 producing facilities to clean up the air and get more insolation to slow the inevitable cooling trend and btw avoid nuclear winter.
Then the global warming argument morphs into AGW and the news magazines withdraw their all too serious discussions of global cooling, since warming leads us to the promised land. But warming might be unproven, so let's change the discussion to climate change, kinda covering all the bases.
Good on you for bringing up low solar output--I think I'll propose a simpler theory that temperatures are set fundamentally by insolation. With water vapor acting as the greenhouse gas with contributions in the 40-70% range and CO2 contributing say 4-6% of the total, and CO2 in the +/- 380 ppm range, we can do separation of effects and see that a 10 ppm change is noise with respect to greenhouse gas effectiveness in trapping heat.
Anyone done the calc on solar production of electricity? Dark panels or Stirlings change albedo to trap heat, electrical losses are heat, I squared R losses at the load are heat--seems that solar is a heat trapping machine.
Everything at stake--I buy that. Political fraud and economic mis-allocation of scarce resources due to faulty reasoning.
Smart people leading to some result will be surprised at the "unintended consequences."
Good posts, thanks to all.
Ned
I see the general drift - article and comments - is all is good. Do nothing.
Fine, do nothing, I don't care.
You have made your bed now your children will lie in it.
You borrow trillions from your children. You use all your children's fuel. You use as much of your children's water as you can then pollute the rest. You pave over or your children's productive farmland. You cut your children's trees, exhaust their fisheries, deplete their minerals, degrade their institutions, create whole nations of your childrens' enemies ... There is no indication that you are doing anything to make your children whole in any of these or other categories. Where is the 'giving back'?
I'm not going to waste my time arguing science with numbskulls. Which world do you live on? This one? Excellent! I suppose most of you are a lot younger than I. I am old, I have no children, the only thing I will miss will be the looks of panic and despair as any or all of the things that I listed above are carried forward to their logical outcomes because you are too stupid to do anything. You should be ashamed of your cowardice.
If you are lucky your children won't boil you alive, I hope you won't be lucky.
It feels good to rant sometimes and just let it all out, exercising works too.
Some interesting points, however I am not sure what that has to do with global warming.
Fear not Steve, but also do not try to terrorize others - you fit the actual description of a terrorist - using terror for political ends.
Watch this video, it's the best piece I have ever seen on AGW:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0
This is Lord Mockton discussing the data, he won the Nobel prize when it was still legitimate. He also challenged Al Gore to a debate on AGW but Gore refused.
I highly recommend it, and would welcome an attempt by debunkers.
mock turtle you too, do your kids a favor, and expire, before you become a burden. I would've said bore, but its too late on that score. I'm more afraid of someone like you getting into a position of power, than I am of weather change.
Ooooh, boiled alive--I hate it when that happens! Seriously, you really need to get out more...
I enjoy a nice warm bath.
i understand your frustration but namecalling and insulting the other side wont help
those who deny human inducced climate change are also angry and frustrated with us
best for all concerned is argue this out as intelligently as we all can
See, dipweed, that's the difference between you and US.
AGW supporters see an ARGUMENT. Skeptics are looking for an OPEN DISCUSSION.
Being shouted down at every conference on AGW - argument.
Actively discussing the problems of AGW modeling - discussion.
FAIL!
"See, dipweed, that's the difference between you and US."
amigomouse, we are all US, even the dipweeds.
i'ma dipweed, you'ra dipweed, we're all-a dipweed.
if you make a honest attempt at initiating discussion from that foundation, you might not encounter so many arguments.
but what do i know, i'm just a dipweed.
A recent study of aperiod 33 million years ago found that a significant colling occured leading to an ice age when CO2 was 2 x the level of today in concentration. How do the models explain that. Anyone who does any sort of modelling including predicting stock prices would know how you can produce any result you want with a tweak to the assumptions.
If renewable energy makes us feel good - does it really matter what it costs?
Guilty victims always overpay for their feelings. The liberal elite's are counting on folks like you. That's how they get rich.
"liberal elites"
uh as opposed to conservative elites?
climate science from Russia? Putin???
Russia is the main non-mover for obvious iol & natural gas resource reasons and Putin has a lock on the country
Funded climate skepticism? Duh
Allowed to start threads here??
So much for this website's integrity
The difference between Russians and Americans in 2009 is that Russians have had 20 years to look behind the curtain and expose the wizard.
Americans haven't done so yet. They're being lied to and manipulated by propaganda day in and day out under the guise of "democracy".
When it comes to science and news, I trust the Russians more than the Americans in this day and age. Russians got nothing to hide. They're the worst of the worst and the world knows it. That's why you can trust them.
You should do some research before posting. Illarionov has been in opposition to Putin's regime during the last 5-6 years.
Since the attack on Yukos to be precise, after which he resigned from his position of economic advisor.
Simple study of GISS data from a 6th grader shows
no warming in rural US over the past 111 years:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_G_-SdAN04
Warming has apparently only happened around
urban "heat islands", which retain heat during
the daylight hours.
if this is only an urban phenomena please explain the record melting of the arctic and the opening of the northwest passage
60 Minutes famously broadcast an AGW pitch piece based around a Patagonian glacier which melting at an astounding tempo.
Left unsaid was that an active volcano was raining ash all over the place -- visible in the extreme discoloration now evident in the glacier.
Agitprop all the way down the line.
The Arctic Ocean is similarly beset with soot: from Chinese emitters too callous to operate the bag-house. Their recent exponential expansion has caused them to surpass America as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. And on their exponential track will be emitting twice as much as America in less than a decade. Of course, China is exempt from any limitations making any of our efforts futile.
///
Carbon dioxide is FERTILIZER. NASA has known that for decades. During research into long term space flight NASA tried to complete the food cycle with algae. Only super-elevating the carbon dioxide concentration kicked the algae into high gear.
Much more than you might think of the Green Revolution is, at the margin, the result of modestly higher partial pressures in carbon dioxide.
On the evidence it would appear that carbon dioxide levels have actually gotten too low and are thwarting the biota.
////
Within the emails of Climategate lie the programming used to establish MANN-made warming. If you were to feed flat-line inputs such as 15 C across the years you would still get a snappy hockey stick output.
Since this series is foundational to the AGW shtick one can only conclude that the entire enterprise is a hustle with the purpose of rent-seeking on a global scale.
Do not tie your emotions to this garbage scow.
I just wanted to update you, the polar ice caps have expanded for the last two years along with temperatures that are cooling.