This is a pretty funny point noticed by Marlo Lewis at globalwarming.org. Global warming will apparently cause more rain, more drought, more tornadoes, more hurricanes, more extreme hot weather, more extreme cold weather, more snow, and less snow.
Fortunately, the only thing it apparently does not change is wind, and leaves winds everywhere at least as strong as they are now.
Rising global temperatures will not significantly affect wind energy production in the United States concludes a new study published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Early Edition.
But warmer temperatures could make wind energy somewhat more plentiful say two Indiana University (IU) Bloomington scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).
. . .
They found warmer atmospheric temperatures will do little to reduce the amount of available wind or wind consistency–essentially wind speeds for each hour of the day–in major wind corridors that principally could be used to produce wind energy.
. . .
“The models tested show that current wind patterns across the US are not expected to change significantly over the next 50 years since the predicted climate variability in this time period is still within the historical envelope of climate variability,” said Antoinette WinklerPrins, a Geography and Spatial Sciences Program director at NSF.
“The impact on future wind energy production is positive as current wind patterns are expected to stay as they are. This means that wind energy production can continue to occur in places that are currently being targeted for that production.”
Even though global warming will supposedly shift wet and dry areas, it will not shift windy areas and so therefore we should all have a green light to continue to pour taxpayer money into possibly the single dumbest source of energy we could consider.
benfromMO:
It appears Ben that you will only believe cooling. Am I correct?
So Ben, what makes you think the oceans are cooling?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v465/n7296/pdf/nature09043.pdf
Robust warming of the global upper ocean
John M. Lyman,1, 2 Simon A. Good,3 Viktor V. Gouretski,4 Masayoshi Ishii,5, 6 Gregory C. Johnson,2 Matthew D. Palmer,3 Doug M. Smith3 & Josh K. Willis7
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100519_ocean.html
The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet continuously over the 16-year study period
“We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off,” said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008.
Ben,
The conflict of interest is that their earlier research showed a similar warming…of course they are going to cherry pick things to support their earlier research, no scientist nowadays would do any less. As I told you before, if you cherry pick and ignore data that is contrary to your beliefs, yes you can always get data that supports your assumptions.
###################################################
You have a lot invested in the seeing cooling. If James Hansen shows with satelite data that there is an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, then it would stand to think that the ocean and land would also be gaining in energy content.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2005/Imbalance_20050415.pdf
97% of climate scientists agree the earth is warming. Are you saying that the earth is not warming and we’ll get an ice age after all in the next 50,000 years?
Ben,
So the only real data we have is either from ~1950 – 2003 or 2003 – today. We can not combine that data in any fashion because just like mistakes made with proxies in the past (Mike’s Nature Trick …haha) and others we just need to look at raw data and go from there…which shows cooling oceans from 2003 – today with a system I trust.
###################################################
So you have excluded all the data except that one that seems to indicate cooling. HMMMMMMMMMM.
You wouldn’t be cherry picking here would you Ben. You will only trust the data that comes to your conclusion?
RG, I cherry pick out the results from political hacks, third rate scientists and crony capitalists who have an invested interest in keeping funding going through lawsuits, terrible science, and lies in order to strangle the free enterprise system we have in this country.
I would suggest you do the same, but I have a feeling you are already heavilly invested in this, so alas its too late. I trust the actual data which shows a cooling oceans since 2003. I trust the other data (not combined) which shows no change since 1950. I do not trust the cherry picked results of Dr. Hansen for example who started in 1980 as a cherry picking expedition. And the rest of those studies which combine the data that previously showed ZERO warming and suddenly we see warming.
You trust that kind of conclusion? Well I would call that religious dogma and I will say that you have joined a cult, because only in a cult would that line of reasoning be acceptable. For science, never.
You’ve repeated the denier line well Ben. Good luck with your distrust.
Off topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10
Some catchy rhymes.
benfromMO:
You seem to not listen very well, select what you will believe and not beleive. Just a black and white kind of guy. It’s either all good or all bad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
All data is corrected for different good reasons to give the best representation they can of (in this case) the climate. Including the argo buoys.
Plus in the scientific method, all the papers I have presented have all gone through peer review. Other scientists put their name on someone else’s work. Then it is reviewed by several scientists in the field afterwards. At any point if mistakes are found, the paper is either to be corrected or withdrawn. The older the paper is in actuality, the more likely it becomes one of many foundations of truth.
I don’t understand everything I read in the science papers nor do I understand all the relevant statistics and why. But it is common practice for scientists to reference into the proven science papers as a reference to move forward into other areas to increase understanding. They also critique their own papers in what they are not covering.
Scientists get the recognition for what they find is true, the last thing they do is lie to the public so they can get more money from the government. They earn it, by doing science.
Blogs like these help to promote anti-science. Scientists are the most skeptical people on earth ferreting out the truth. Once information can no longer be falsified, it stands as the truth.
co2’s effect on the climate has reached that position. The next step is acceptance by society. Below is the acceptance by the Vatican. I suppose maybe you may want to consider being anti Catholic.
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/on-our-radar-vatican-panel-calls-for-climate-change-action/?partner=rss&emc=rss
The American military has accepted climate change as a reality. The American Navy is very concerned about sea level rise just in infrastructure alone. Admiral Titly describes what global warming is to the navy
http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/05/admiral-david-titley-us-navy-chief-oceanographer-i-used-to-be-a-climate-skeptic/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/20/us-climate-defense-idUSTRE63J4EJ20100420
Here we have earth the operator’s manual by Richard Alley. In the beginning he comes and says he is a registered republican. Our money is being well spent by scientists like Richard Alley who have earned the trust by telling the truth of climate science.
http://earththeoperatorsmanual.com/
I can go on and on with climate change making its way into the fabric of people’s thinking and behaviour. It is one of the biggest changes our society will have to make. This is a normal part of the process of people resisting the change.
RG,
Pray tell, how does CO2 exactly warm the upper oceans? The last time I looked it was the sun that warmed the oceans, and the oceans that warm the air above it? Please explain what mechanism that turns CO2 into a heat emitter.
Renewable,
I suppose I’ll never exactly know how many eyeballs read over you bs, just like you’ll never prove the effect of CO2 on our GMT. Sound like a deal?
Soooo…exactly what is the effect of removing all this energy from the earth’s weather systems?
I found it amusing that RG’s answer to This — “If we have enough gas powered plants to retire coal plants then why in the world do we need wind power?” is “Global Warming”.
Hmmm, and why prey tell should I be afraid of global warming?
The odds are very very very good that warming will have a positive impact on live not a negative impact. That is if man is even contributing that much to it at all.
The catastrophic claims are basically a small less than 5% chance that they could happen under the worst of conditions but they alone are treated as oh so important.
I mean if it is going to warm then bring it on. I have air conditioning for that.
Oh wait you want to take my air conditioning away from be because you don’t approve of it.
Again you are simply shilling for wind power because it is a Capitalist Enterprise that you are robbing the public trough with.
JP:
RG,
Pray tell, how does CO2 exactly warm the upper oceans? The last time I looked it was the sun that warmed the oceans, and the oceans that warm the air above it? Please explain what mechanism that turns CO2 into a heat emitter.
##################################################
Infrared is reradiated back to the surface of the land and ocean.
Wally:
Renewable,
I suppose I’ll never exactly know how many eyeballs read over you bs, just like you’ll never prove the effect of CO2 on our GMT. Sound like a deal?
###################################################
MOst people on here just make stuff up without showing sources. I put out my sources. If everything I put out that shows AGW is true, possibly you put on your detective’s hat and tell me where I am wrong.
Boglee:
Soooo…exactly what is the effect of removing all this energy from the earth’s weather systems?
###################################################
Do you mean the extra energy from human sourced co2?
TomT:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm
Here is a list of pos and neg aspects of agw listed at this site. If you can get over your rage, take a look.
Renewable,
You reference other people’s opinions that happen to posted to blogs. Might as well just make shit up, if that’s what you do.
RG RG… Skepticalscience ran off the cliff of sanity with regard to anything involving global warming some time ago. It isn’t even remotely a reliable source of information on the topic.
Again most of the negative things are all low probability things that are very unlikely to ever happen even if the temperatures really did run away like the AGW proponents claim. Oh sure they cite sources but I pointed out that the claims are all for very low probability events that are made to seem the only thing that could happen.
AGW requires the scare tactics to have any impact and considering that we are past several of the deadlines for bad things to happen people are getting more and more suspicious that there is nothing to the AGW claims but hot air.
So that page of claims from the pro AGW website Skepticalscience didn’t do anything to prove your claim. It is a self referencing circle.
Rg you mistake frustration as rage. As with all AGW alarmists your mind works like ( I quoted someone who thinks the way I do therefore it is a fact )
Then when questioned … oh they are qualified and you are not. If shown contrary evidence It is all “cherry picked and anomaly hunting” Just like the Cedric in other posts your faith in other people with the same belief does not make it a fact.
This is not limited to climate science maybe look into the electric universe theory and find that black holes and neutron stars do not need to be invented when empirical science shows that it is not needed but because it is not consensus and mainstream yet (It will be soon due to overwhelming evidence and accuracy in predictions)
We are not people unaware of studies and need to be guided by an obviously skilled person in the use of the # key.
WE QUESTION THE PEOPLE AND IDEALS YOU CITE AS EVIDENCE.
Maybe they should teach more debating at school and not how big is your reference page to cool off the hot heads of current belief and encourage truth not the number of links so you think you have a win.
####################
oooh all those shift threes how important does that look.
TomT:
RG RG… Skepticalscience ran off the cliff of sanity with regard to anything involving global warming some time ago. It isn’t even remotely a reliable source of information on the topic.
###################################################
That pretty much puts you in the denial camp Tom. You have decided what you will accept as good information and what’s bad information. If sound science based information that you don’t like is bad, then so be it.
###################################################
Again most of the negative things are all low probability things that are very unlikely to ever happen even if the temperatures really did run away like the AGW proponents claim. Oh sure they cite sources but I pointed out that the claims are all for very low probability events that are made to seem the only thing that could happen.
##################################################
Climate has changed already and will continue to change mostly because of co2. This is science based and has information that you will reject. Maybe a denier blog will have what you want for rebuttal. When the scientists get out in public and say that man’s emissions have overwhelmed the climate, they are ready to back it up.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/has-the-climate-changed.html
Amused:
Rg you mistake frustration as rage. As with all AGW alarmists your mind works like ( I quoted someone who thinks the way I do therefore it is a fact )
##################################################
I do shift 3’s for clarity for myself.
How valid is your argument if you proclaim denier blogs are your reality? Denier blogs are stories written for you because you see and feel a match. I’m sure I won’t make a difference in how you view your favorite denier blogs. But it is a spin to help you deal with the change that is going on in society. Your projections onto me are your projections onto the world of change that you object to. Observations are the climate is chnaging. Scientists who go through a very rigorous process for writing their papers in the scientific method are looking and working hard to understand the data they are taking in.
Wally:
Renewable,
You reference other people’s opinions that happen to posted to blogs. Might as well just make shit up, if that’s what you do.
##################################################
I have you to call me out on it if I’m going over the edge. If you are referring to Dan Pangburn, I was reading his comments on other climate discussions.
I have erased stuff before putting it up here because I thought I couldn’t back it up.
Tom T:
So that page of claims from the pro AGW website Skepticalscience didn’t do anything to prove your claim. It is a self referencing circle.
###################################################
Did you notice the positives Tom? You yourself went to the negatives and you are experiencing your world view on it. These are all observationally based with papers behind each one. Maybe Marc Morano will help you get into the conspiracy zone. All these neg scientists are just bad bad bad. There must be something wrong with every one of them. Get rid of all this information. I don’t want to see it. Those people are ridiculous
They are bright hard working people studying the different aspects of climate change.
Greenland will have longer growing seasons. Farmers in Illinois where I live will also have longer growing seasons. They will also be warmer. Some crops will decrease causing them to loose money and less food to feed other people.
I didn’t read through the full thread, so this may be a rerun:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047138.shtml
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 38, L09706, 5 PP., 2011
doi:10.1029/2011GL047138
“Evidence for a weakening of tropical surface wind extremes in response to atmospheric warming
Evidence for a weakening of tropical surface wind extremes in response to atmospheric warming
Key Points
Strong wind events decreases as climate warms in the tropics
The weakening of wind diminishes the enhencement of rainfall
Observations and models both show this weakening of the strong winds
Guillaume Gastineau
Department of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, Florida, USA
Brian J. Soden
Department of Meteorology and Physical Oceanography, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, Miami, Florida, USA ”
So it looks like wind WOULD decrease with global warming.
We may be headed for a new little ice age. In that case I suppose we can expect violent storms and wind to increase.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI4258.1
As the climate warms, changes in both
the atmospheric and ocean circulation over the tropical Pacific Ocean resemble “El Niño–like” conditions; however, the mechanisms are shown to be distinct from those of El Niño and are reproduced in both mixed layer and full ocean dynamics coupled climate models. The character of the Indian Ocean response to global warming resembles that of Indian Ocean dipole mode events. The consensus of model results presented here is also consistent with recently detected changes in sea level pressure since the mid–nineteenth century.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047138.shtml
These results add further evidence to suggest that the atmospheric circulation becomes less energetic as the climate warms. It further suggests that the enhancement of the extreme precipitation events is mainly a result of increasing atmospheric water vapor and occurs despite a weakening of the large-scale circulation, which acts to diminish the mass convergence toward the precipitating zones.
###################################################
Alan,
How do get a little ice age out of this?
RG, you have no understanding of weather do you?
“As the climate warms, changes in both
the atmospheric and ocean circulation over the tropical Pacific Ocean resemble “El Niño–like” conditions”
That is bologne. The ENSO conditions have been around longer then humans have tracked the climate to any reasonable extent. We can track evidence of it going back more then 1000 years, and as such any study that references this fact is full of it.
The models they ran for this were based on false fudge factors that have already been proven false. Just because a study comes out does not make it true. This goes especially true for studies based on computer models where the fudge factors are not fully disclosed and discussed.
There is no risk for a super el nino effect as stated here. As far as what we are going through now is a cold PDO pure and simple. That said, we can expect la nina’s to be stronger and last longer versus the warm PDO of 1976-2010 where the opposite was true. The models that basically predict super el nino’s all base their studies on the time period from approx 1950 – 2010 and as such are basing their assertions on just two phases of the PDO and are starting from the cold phase and heading into the warm phase. As such, their trend is biased chronologically and is pure hubris to say the least.
As far as the little Ice age RG, one just has to compare the sun today to the minimum’s. The Dalton is probably the first comparison to make, but until we reach the maximum, we will not know how bad it will be. Solar effects as you state are taken into consideration for GCM’s, but what GCM tracked what would happen if a Dalton Min. occurred? None….so basically all the models will have ZERO predictive capability.
You are just funny…like any warmist idiot (that is back at you for calling me a name: Denier).
If you want to call me names, just expect me to sling even more mud back at you. Facts are facts, but when you have to resort to insults instead of facts to back up your case, you just show how you can not argue the science at all.
I gave you credible proof that the oceans were not warming, and all you did was insult me. Shame on you. Don’t claim something to me that you can only back up with insults. I debunked everyone of your claims that I read, the rest I am sure are just as wrong. Try again, and this time get new talking points. The ones you use now are old, retarded and easy to debunk.
benfromMO:
I gave you credible proof that the oceans were not warming, and all you did was insult me. Shame on you. Don’t claim something to me that you can only back up with insults. I debunked everyone of your claims that I read, the rest I am sure are just as wrong. Try again, and this time get new talking points. The ones you use now are old, retarded and easy to debunk.
###################################################
You’ve got blowhard down to an art Ben. You have replied to my claims, I’ll give you that. Debunked?
You have given your opinion on the matter, but can you show somebody’s science work or if you are good enough your own science work?
I wonder if you have been drinking too much coffee. You are going a 100 mph.
I haven’t talked about super El Ninos. Where did this come from?
##################################################
That is bologne. The ENSO conditions have been around longer then humans have tracked the climate to any reasonable extent. We can track evidence of it going back more then 1000 years, and as such any study that references this fact is full of it.
###################################################
Go to the links and look at what they are talking about. Its about winds in a warming world.
###################################################
denier – definition of denier by the Free Online Dictionary …One that denies: a denier of harsh realities.
##################################################
That is not calling you a name. It describes how you view global warming. You don’t accept the reality that 97% of climate scientists say that is happening and will get warmer with all the consequences. I’m sure there is a reason that you have for why all 97% are wrong in your mind.
RG, well you like to return with even more insults, I give you credit that you at least came up with a new one. Blow-hard…oh I am so insulted to come from someone who can not even debate me on the science as to resort to using attacks more and more frequently. Wow, you are one class-act. I will give you the same insult I give to other idiots…crazy cultist.
You see, you are a crazy cultist because you insult anyone who does not believe the same as you do. And you ignore any evidence that contradicts your crazy beliefs.
As for 97% of climate scientists…Please…that was a survey of hand-picked climate scientists…and the questions were not even relevant. The question we should be asking is : “Are humans responsible for (all or a majority) of the warming we have seen?” Not some vague global warming term which means nothing. Global warming could refer to natural warming as well as opposed to AGW or even CAGW.
By the way, you should read the study you linked. They are referring to a secondary study (that they do notice) that they base their models off of a super el nino on. You see, if you read what they actually write, you can learn a lot. Is the research they did bad? I think it is only bad simply because its based off of other research that is debunked…At the time it was written, it was a sound theory, but that is what science is. We learn all the time as as some ideas are thrown in the garbage bin, we come up with new theories. That is the way science works.
You simply list off old studies that are no longer relevant and claim that they tell us something when in fact they tell us nothing and give us nothing to go on. This is why today the study is nothing but irrelevant, kind of like you are.
You are irrelevant RG. No one here listens or cares about you except me right now. The only harsh reality that is being denied is that the reality you are denying. You deny that natural variation can account for the warming we have witnessed, which since it has never been proven that the warming we have seen since ~1880 is not natural, I would hazzard to guess that this is the most likely explanation.
So answer the question…..what percent of the warming since ~1880 are humans responsible for? If you can think for yourself, I would like to see you state something that might be of value. To give you a hint, even the IPCC states that humans are not responsible for 100% of it, so don’t even say 100% unless you really are stupid.
You can always just copy the IPCC conclusions if you want. Go do your basic homework and come back. I would also like to see you state why you agree or disagree with the IPCC work. I will give you another hint to go on. Recent reasearch done by climate scientists has refined the earlier work so their answer in the past might be a little off. Go for it, have a ball. Until then, you are irrelevant since you have no understanding of this subject and just simply copy and paste things from elsewhere and then insult anyone who does not agree with you.
Like I said earlier, a crazy cultist.
You know Ben I’m not even certain if he actually believes in AGW or so desperately defends it because he makes money from AGW.
I suspect he originally believed it without thinking about it critically at all and then went and invested into it. Now he can’t gracefully back out of the position because his living is dependent on AGW being true and the government investing heavily in wind power. If the government does the unlikey but sensible thing of getting out of wind power his investments would go belly up. The he has to come and fight tooth and claw to defend it.
Pure self interest and greed are the most likely motivations.
Tom T:
Pure self interest and greed are the most likely motivations.
###########################################
What little money I have earned in renewable energy isn’t enough to make anywhere. I spend some time teaching beginning photovoltaics. Not much though. About 2 or 3 classes a year.
I believe that wealth should transfer to the reneable energy sector though. It will take about 50 to 100 years to get fossil fuels out of our system. There are people living off grid that live a pretty comfortable life doing so. If you are on a mountain with falling water at 10 gallon per minute, you can live the grid lifestyle quite comfortably.
As I read your thoughts on the blog here, all of you don’t take into account global warming when you talk energy. Carbon dioxide is going to make the lives of our future generations quite a bit more uncomfortable.
There is no definitive science that can refute global warming. Its solid. Renewable energy solves national security, jobs, pollution, and a few other things all at once. Society doesn’t turn on a dime. Its takes time to work it out in such a big fundamental change.
Well Ben:
I hear your opinion of me and the science that I have presented and you have presented nothing outside of your own views.
You are still a blow hard.
When the body of evidence for the case of global warming is as large as it is, you are living proof that it is hard for some people to digest.
If you follow the IPCC through their different presentations of evidence for global warming, they haven’t wavered. THe Pope is in on the act also. Global warming will change society forever.
That’s where you come in Ben. You are part of the change whether you like it or not. That’s why you are on here telling us your opinion.
Those goddamned environmentalists have it right this time. Hate them all you want. That’s part of the process. Even Al Gore has it right. He’s simply following the science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
The skeptic’s argument:
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a much more severe rise than anything we could produce.” (Jeff Id)
###########################################
The Science
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
###########################################
That’s the basic in a nutshell. We (humans) have dug up fossil fuels and burned them. I say there is an answer in Renewable energy to provide part of the solution and eventually it will provide all of the solution.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Infographic-97-out-of-100-climate-experts-think-humans-causing-global-warming.html
The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009). As “climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change” doesn’t really roll off the tongue, I abbreviated that down to “climate experts”.
One feature of Doran’s survey results is that while 97% of climate expert said “yes, humans are causing global warming”, only 1% said “no, we’re not”. The other 2% were unsure:
###########################################
This discussion is about social change. Militarys around the world have evaluated how Global Warming will effect security. Especially around energy. Peak oil is a big issue taking into account increasing demand around the world and global warming all at once. One exacerbates the other. Refusal to change means that we have a further insecure world in the future. Renewable energy resolves both.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant-advanced.htm
CO2 is not a pollutant
‘To suddenly label CO2 as a “pollutant” is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant.’ (Robert Balling)
###########################################
The term “air pollutant” means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.
“emissions of which, in his judgment, cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare”
In Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (in 2007),
“greenhouse gases in the atmosphere may reasonably be anticipated both to endanger public health and to endanger public welfare….The major assessments by the U.S. Global Climate Research Program (USGCRP), the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the National Research Council (NRC) serve as the primary scientific basis supporting the Administrator’s endangerment finding.”
Alternatively, the definition of “pollution” from Encyclopedia Brittanica is:
“the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.”
Thus legally in the USA, CO2 is an air pollutant which must be regulated if it may endanger publich health or welfare. And according to the encyclopedic definition, CO2 is a pollutant unless our emissions can be stored “harmlessly.”
###########################################
Above is the change that will basically shift our whole society in how we do business and energy.
TomT – he might not agree completely, but yes you are correct that he has vested interests of some type in scare mongering.
Look at the posts he makes when no one replies to him. He is a believer in any scary story, which of course we can now include peak oil as one of his beliefs. Its just not natural for people to believe that the world is going to end and its going to end in their life-times. That is not natural.
That is an out of control ego of a true believer in a cult. The mark of which is of course by people (including the pope of course) of Charles Mansen, OBL, and other serial killers who see the same kind of evil intent in mankind and see everything man does as evil.
Its not a natural or even a healthy belief set. Its self-corroding at the best as the movement will kill itself with its pure hypocracy. You can not tell people to “live off the grid” such as what RG does and not see the true hypocracy.
Its just unreal that anyone would believe this. Its a false belief set where Gaia is alive and will listen to our prayers.
That is nonsense. The planet is simply a rock that revolves around the sun. The climate of this planet has nothing to do with us, and although we might have some sort of impact, this impact means nothing in billion year long time scales where from the perspective of the planet we are just another animal waiting extinction.
The climate has been changing for billions of years without us. It will continue to change for billions of years without us as well. Our time on this planet is short. We might as well appreciate that and live it up so to speak. Nothing bad will happen in our lifetimes. That is a superstitious belief where someone wants to believe that for one they are witnessing something amazing and two that there is actually something we can do about it.
If the IPCC was even close to correct, the only thing possible is the Nazi solution. Might as well gas all sceptics (I mean deniers since some idiots get confused) and kill off all the “undesirables” while we reach what is known as the “good population level.”
Otherwise, whats the point? Environmentalists refuse to embrace nuclear power. They refuse to use hydro power like we could. They also refuse to use a number of other technologies which could solve energy crisis in any form for stupid reasons that do not even make since. Wind and solar WILL NOT cut it.
I am amazed that grown people can actually believe in something this illogical. Its more like a children’s belief set for people who never grew up. Climate change? Global warming? Climate disruption? …. just like children, they rename their movement everytime it comes under attack. Mature aren’t they?
Forgot to ask, why didn’t you answer my question RG?
How much of the warming since ~1880 are humans responsible for?
Is the answer not on sceptical science? OR is there another reason you refuse to answer such a basic question. You say we should put up expensive wind turbines, you should at least have an opinion on how much humans impact the climate since that is the only reason to use wind turbines.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/02/realclimate-gavin-schmidit-what-fraction-of-global-warming-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/
What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?
Gavin Schmidt explained:
Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been … is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff.
Re: Renewable Guy:
“Alan D McIntire:
I won’t put my faith in wind or solar power until the manufacturers of windmills and solar panels rely on wind or solar power to run the factories which make windmills and solar cells.
####################################################
Its a good way to never move forward. Using coal fire to eventually leave it, is fine with me.
May 6, 2011, 7:19 am ”
For energy to be USEFUL, we have to get more out than we put in. Building solar cells and windmills takes energy – mostly from CO2 producing sources. If the energy used in building windmills and solar cells is greater than the energy produced by solar and wind power over the lifetime of the windmill and solar collector, which it is- we’re LOSING energy- it would be a lot cheaper to cut out the middle man- solar and wind power, and use the energy eaten up in BUILDING windmills and solar cells in something more productive.
In respone to renewable guy May 13-
We would get lower wind with global warming- we’re probably not going to get more warming in the near future, we’re probably headed for cooling.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/Moerner_Science_environm_sea_level_3_11_Paper_534.pdf
If we DO get more cooling, it stands to reason that extreme winds would increase
Actually Alan, it wouldn’t matter anyway. First of all the degree to which we can modify the phenomenon is very slight at best, no matter how much we might choose to mess up the economy (in fact one could argue doing so would be entirely counter-productive, but the difference in ANY case is minuscule). In addition to the vanity of such efforts, the fact is the consequences of any plausible warming are just not substantial enough to justify doing much of anything at all, much less doing much. I find it interesting that every single catastrophic projection made by Global Warming alarmists has proven false, interesting and re-assuring.
Alan D McIntire:
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf
For an investment of 1 to 4 years-worth of
energy output, rooftop PV systems can provide
30 years or more of clean energy. However,
support structures for ground-mounted
systems, which might be more advantageous
for utility generation, would add about another
year to the payback period.
How Much CO2 and Pollution Does PV Avoid?
An average U.S. household uses 830 kWh of
electricity per month. On average, producing
1,000 kWh of electricity with solar power
reduces emissions by nearly 8 pounds of sulfur
dioxide, 5 pounds of nitrogen oxides, and more
than 1,400 pounds of carbon dioxide. During its
projected 28 years of clean energy production,
a rooftop system with a 2-year energy payback
and meeting half of a household’s electricity
use would avoid conventional electrical-plant
emissions of more than half a ton of sulfur
dioxide, one-third a ton of nitrogen oxides,
and 100 tons of carbon dioxide (see Figure 2).
PV is clearly a wise energy investment that
affords impressive environmental benefits.
#################################################
Nrel has given their references at the end of the article.
http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner
Nils-Axel Morner
Background
Morner is a retired professor from the University of Stockholm.
Publications
According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Morner has published 65+ original research papers in peer-reviewed journals, mainly in the area of paleoseismicity, in other words the study of historical earthquake activity.
Morner, James Randi and “dowsing”
Morner claims to be an expert in “dowsing,” the practice of finding water, metals, gemstones etc. through the use of a Y-shaped twig.
Energy and Environment
Boehmer-Christiansen is the editor of a journal called Energy and Environment. In a 1995 article written by Paul Thacker, Energy and Environment was described as being a journal skeptics can go to when they are rejected by the mainstream peer-reviewed science publications.
######################################################
SOOOOOOO we are going to have an ice age because Nils says a large solar minima is coming?
Nils is a scientist, but not in climatology.
Energy and Environment is like a science slum. THe worst of the worst is there.
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece
Ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true)
1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)
2) That we’d begin to see noticable changes to Earth’s climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).
3) That sea-level would start rising
4) That Earth’s Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)
5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)
6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.
7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)
8) That tropical diseases would increase
9) That food crops would be adversely affected
10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean
Renewable
I think renewable energy is desirable especially because of the situation in the middle East. I doubt that wind is a viable substitute now or ever.
I think we should use natural gas or any other source of power like clean coal or gasoline made from coal to remedy the problem. Hitler did it in 1940 or so and I am certain we could do it better and cheaper.
I live in Dallas and many days when the temperature is 110 or so the wind is dead quiet. This is fairly common because wind is caused by temperature difference not temperature itself. In fact the strongest winds we have seem to be on the coldest winter days.
The price of power has decreased greatly since the threat of cap and trade has vanished. We also found significant natural gas deposits and the combination was welcome.
Wouldn’t we need generation capacity equal to the wind generated electricity to replace the missing electricity? Some people have proposed that we just suck it up and de-industrialize but that is silly.
The generators we have are working at maximum capacity when it is that hot and if we have failed to build additional capacity we will suffer as more people need more electricity. Better living through toughness is the answer ?
Wave power would work more reliably but only by the ocean. Solar power is promising too but it isn’t ready for prime time yet and raising the price of energy with taxes or cap and trade is very damaging to the economy.
The effect of rising energy prices is to ship manufacturing to China which would actually increase world CO2 emissions and would be a brain damaged policy for any politician to implement or even propose.
In short we should develop all sources of energy but not at the expense of the existing infrastructure.
RG:
“Ten predictions made by climate scientists that have come true (or are becoming true)
1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)
2) That we’d begin to see noticable changes to Earth’s climate by around 2000 (some IPCC scientists ).
3) That sea-level would start rising
4) That Earth’s Ice would start melting rapidly (James Hanson)
5) That hurricanes would increase in intensity (this one goes back to Alfred Russel Wallace in 1900)
6) That species would start going extinct as a result of climate change.
7) That Australia would start drying out (Hadley Centre scientists)
That tropical diseases would increase
9) That food crops would be adversely affected
10) That the CO2 would begin to acidify the ocean”
1: How much is the question…you seem to state that it is responsible for 80-120%, I would hazzard to say the evidence shows it is closer to 2-10%. All we have for evidence is a correlation between CO2 increase and temperature increase. Since the CO2 reliable records only go back to ~1950, this limits our usage of this in understanding what was causing the warming prior to then. In other words, anything we state here is at best an educated guess. We do not know the answers, but the fact that we have seen the following time periods with increasing CO2 and temperatures NOT going up would stand to reason that this correlation is really meaningless:
1945-1975
1996-Today.
2:We have not seen noticeable changes. The temperature has been steady in the time period 1996-now. I no doubt have faith that you believe we are seeing the “end of days” but that does not mean it is so.
3: Sea levels have been rising for close to the last 800 years. This pace has not changed in the last 50 years. This does not bode well for this prediction. The sea level rate of change has not changed or accelerated.
4: Since sea level rise has not accelerated, it stands to reason that this is still false. unless you are claiming that 800 years of change is humanity’s fault?
5: Not been seen. Hurricanes have been roughly the same as they were when that prediction was made. I would hazzard to guess that since we have only warmed 0.7C in the last 100 years, that this is probably the reason.
6: When have species NOT gone extinct? This is a spurious correlation that makes no sense. The climate has been changing for billions of years and as a result local patterns change which causes extinction. How do you measure whether its happening faster? The simple answer: you can not. I would hazzard to guess that humanity has probably stopped many extinctions through conservation programs in the past, and this is probably keeping the numbers lower then it would be otherwise. Just a guess, kind of like the guess that increased warmth would cause more extinctions.
7: Australia just had record floods this last winter (their spring/summer). This was not supposed to happen according to those predictions.
8: Tropical diseases are more depended on disease vectors then air temperature or moisture. Malaria especially has just not been controlled as much recently due to defacto bans on the usage of DDT that were just recently relaxed.
9: CO2 is plant food. It allows plants to thrive in higher temperature ranges, along with needing less water and less nutrients. This is outright false and anyone with a basic background in biology could have stated this.
10: The oceans have not shown this to any degree. I am curious as to when we are supposed to see this?
1) That the Earth would warm as more CO2 was put into the atmosphere (Svante Arrhenius in 1893)
We do not know the answers, but the fact that we have seen the following time periods with increasing CO2 and temperatures NOT going up would stand to reason that this correlation is really meaningless:
1945-1975
1996-Today
#######################################################
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years
The list of warmest years on record is dominated by years from this millennium; each of the last 10 years (2001–2010) features as one of the 11 warmest on record. Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, less accurate reconstructions of earlier temperatures suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_Decades
An examination of the average global temperature changes by decades reveals continuing climate change.[46] Following chart is from NASA data of combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomalies.
######################################################
Well Ben,
There is a big disconnect between you and the observations of science.
In reply to item 5 of Renewable Guy’s “predictions”
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047138.shtml
Key Points
“Strong wind events decreases as climate warms in the tropics
The weakening of wind diminishes the enhencement of rainfall
Observations and models both show this weakening of the strong winds
Guillaume Gastineau”
So since the frequency of hurricanes has dropped in the last few years, the CAGW prediction is NOW fewer extreme wind events- like hurricanes, just as the increase in severe winters over the last 3 years has led to the new CAGW prediction of global warming leading to more snow-
Renewable
I live in Dallas.
You never did explain how we could depend upon wind for electricity and get through our usual 110 ° F summer heat waves with no wind.
The very fact that there is no wind is why it gets so hot. So we should build excess coal capacity to “fill in” on those days and let it sit idle for the rest of the year ?
Makes no sense to me.
Renewable
Svante Arrhenius in 1893 was wrong.
He thought there would be far more warming from CO2 than was possible without feedback.
Modern climatologists believe that CO2 warming is only 1 ° C for a doubling of CO2 estimated to occur around 2100.
The remainder is supposedly from water vapor which will amplify the non scary 1 degree by 3 or 6 or 8 depending on how much alarmists want to scare people.
The problem is that since 1955 the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has gone consistently down. Perhaps that is why the doom and gloom predictions fail time after time to happen.
Water vapor
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0147e2fc6895970b-pi
The models predicted so much warming and are so wrong they are virtually worthless.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/strandwg/CCSM3_AR4_Experiments.html
My eyeball says the AR4 model predicted .3 to .4 ° C warming from 2000 to today, which simply didn’t happen did it ? The only line which is even close is the “committed” line.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.gif
Relating to RG’s point number six, here’s an interesting news release from Nature coming from a recent research article they published: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110518/full/news.2011.301.html
Basically, this idea that extinction rates have gone up in modern times has always been somewhat controversial. After all, how do you really know a species went extinct? You’re essentially trying to prove a negative, that something is not there, which is always a hard thing to do. And now you have to prove this species is no where, which strikes me as a particularly hard negative to prove. Plus, you have issues just in our abilities to define species in the first place. And at what point is something not so much just gone extinct, but evolved into separate species. The more you think about it, the more you understand how the whole thing is just one huge cluster fuck.
This is one area that the limitations of the fossil record make it easier on researchers to determine things in the past versus present. Because they are looking at huge spans of time and only some tiny fraction of the species that have lived on the planet and can accurately be determined as a species, estimates of extinction rates are much more simplified. Though that does not mean they are any more correct. The estimates are just easier to make in the first place.
Anyway, this just highlights RGs extreme ignorance and naivete. He just throws out one hugely controversial issue, and assumes its true, probably because he at one point heard it said on the Discovery Channel in show made 20 years ago. I actually make my living doing research partially in the field of evolution, and he just threw out one of the most mindless claims that has plagued the field. There are real concerns about humans causing the extinction of species, but the actions that cause those extinction are NOT AGW. But rather, things like land use, hunting/poaching, introduction of new species, etc. A few fractions of a degree over 100 years is just not a very big deal for most species. But now, because of the trendiness of AGW in the policy makers, we’re diverting more and more resources away from real conservation research and instead researching how global warming will effect species X that lives in some small number of streams in Missouri and the like.
http://e360.yale.edu/digest/ancient_ocean_sediments_show_mass_die-offs_in_eras_of_high_co2/2949/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+YaleEnvironment360+%28Yale+Environment+360%29
17 May 2011: Ancient Ocean Sediments
Show Mass Die-Offs in Eras of High CO2
A new study of prehistoric ocean sediments from an era of high carbon dioxide concentrations shows that warm oceans with high CO2 levels and low-ocean conditions have experienced mass extinctions of marine organisms. Scientists from the UK and Australia examined ocean sediment samples off the coast
western Africa from the late Cretaceous period, 85 million years ago, an epoch of high atmospheric CO2 levels. The researchers found a significant amount of organic matter from marine organisms buried within the deoxygenated sediment layers, indicating that these organisms suffered mass die-offs as CO2 levels rose, ocean temperatures increased, and the oceans held less oxygen. Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide in Australia said the research showed that these extinctions occurred over periods of only hundreds of years or possibly less, and took place with only modest changes in CO2 and oxygen levels in the oceans. Kennedy said the results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrate that the rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels of our era pose a serious threat to marine life, as already evidenced by growing marine dead zones. “Earth’s oceans are in a much more delicate balance during greenhouse conditions than originally thought,” said Kennedy.
#######################################################
There are fossil records of massive die offs from modest co2 increase. We ignor this at our own peril.