Global Cooling

[dr.placebo]

Cancun is pretty much a lost cause. To oversimplify the problem: the developed countries don't want to obey a limit that will be rendered meaningless if the developing countries have a free pass at emissions, and the developing countries don't want to have their growth limited just as they get their chance at economic parity over the next century.

If one accepts the premise of AGW (and I know that it is not universally accepted, but bear with me), then both of these positions are short-sighted, and will lead to substantial penalties imposed by a rapidly changing climate.

Let's suppose that AGW is not as much of a threat as predicted. However, Peak Oil does show up fairly soon. Then we will have a scramble to control oil at a time when prices rise quickly (increasing demand, decreasing supply). So it would seem to be in everyone's interest to cap oil use and shift to a mix of renewables and the remaining fossil fuels (mostly natural gas and coal).

But, we appear to be close to Peak Coal, so if the estimates are accurate then coal will also become too expensive to rely on. So is there enough natural gas?

Yes in the short term, but probably not by the end of the century. Despite increased US production, it looks like there is also a Peak Gas on the horizon. Ironically, this is occurring at a time when we are worried about methane emissions from the tundra and the arctic ocean (neither of which has been shown to be useful for extraction).

Nuclear would be interesting, except that the existing commercial technology relies on uranium, which is in short supply. Breeder reactors or thorium reactors might solve the fuel problem, at least for a while, but there are some barriers that probably can't be overcome quickly (the thorium option is intriguing, but can you get insurance?).

Fusion would be great, but it appears to be a constant 50 years away. We don't have 50 years.

There are sustainable alternatives, of course. Hydro is just about maxed out, but it plays a role. Solar photovoltaic is still expensive, but declining fairly quickly. Solar concentrated thermal is getting much closer to parity, and is better than fossil once a fossil peak occurs. The thermal storage allows for generation during the night, although not for extended cloudiness. Wind is bursty, but is close to parity in cost. Tidal is very reliable, but limited in power and still a bit distant in cost (opportunities do exist for improvement). Geothermal is at or better than parity in a few spots, and with technology improvements could generate base load power near parity cost.

What we don't have is political will. I personally think that we won't get it without a real crisis. I do think that global warming is compelling, but the impending fossil peak production should be reason enough to start the shift now. Peak Oil, at least, will be here before we warm up another degree C on average.

My favored option is to levy a carbon tax, and take the proceeds to move us to alternative energy as quickly as we can (I'm cautiously open on nuclear). I don't think that we have much of a grace period. I know that "tax" is a dirty word, but nothing is for free.

[can't sit still]

Dr, very good summation. There are a few other influences. To comply with Kyoto, Australia is / was attempting to convert 243 million acres of farmland to forest. This seems like a pretty stupid idea for carbon sequestration. The world does seem to be waltzing towards more food shortages. That may have had something to do with the Japanese abandonment of Kyoto.
Hubbert wrote about oil in an age of great misunderstanding of oil. Oil is abiotic and is found in places where he never imagined. You have to read up on "oil kitchen" Peak cost is very much reliant on manipulation. A LOT of oil is produced for a buck a barrel,, or so. Deep oil is an entirely different proposition though.
Peak gas gets set back every time somebody drills a well in Iran or Alaska.
Geothermal has enormous potential but, there is that tiny problem of causing earthquakes in some areas. China Lake is an interesting site.

You're right, fusion is 50 years away. It was all worked out 50 years ago. Farnsworth perfected it in 1966. It was quickly buried. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor. I have faith in the alternative accounts of what happened back then. Farnsworth was such a brilliant guy, I have no doubt that he was successful.
In any contemplation of "peak cost" of oil, one must remember that any substantial rise in cost of oil gives a much bigger toehold to alternatives. The oil cartels must balance their price desires with the realities of rapidly rising competition from alternatives.

An oil interruption would give a great boost to algae and alcohol and solar and wind. The cartel has to avoid pricing themselves out of competition. This is especially true considering that Brazil will produce every drop that they can squeeze out.

[gyre]

There is nothing in the deletion log for Fusor.

[can't sit still]

Gyre, the best info that I found is the book,,, Secrets of Cold War Technology by Jerry Vasilatos He has a great writeup about the development of the "fusor"

[dr.placebo]

Try this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor

To date, the fusor (and its descendants, like the Polywell) have produced fusion (and neutrons), but not come close to break-even on the energy. They are still a possibility for practical fusion, but there are a lot of hurdles to be overcome, so the betting is that some other approach will work first.

I actually sat in on a lecture by Bussard about the polywell, and he was amazing in his command of the subject. Sad that he has passed on.

[gyre]

I found this through the Farnsworth page.
No idea why I got a dead link before, but it was in small letters.
A quirk perhaps?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo_T._Farnsworth
http://philotfarnsworth.com/
http://philotfarnsworth.com/FusionMenu.htm
http://www.farnovision.com/

[can't sit still]

It seems that some inconvenient information has come out.
"the data on the Met Office's and CRU's own websites show that global temperatures have been flat, not for ten, but for the past 15 years."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... ecord.html
NOBODY can convince me that there is a consensus.

[geekster]

There hasn't been any warming. The current theme is "2010 will be as warm as 1998!!!!!!!!1!!!1eleventy!!!!!" which might be kinda-sorta true depending on how you work the numbers. 1998 was considerably warming than 2010 at its peak but 2010 was a more gradual, rounded pattern so an average over the 12 months currently shows 2010 in a dead heat with 1998 but temperatures are currently dropping quickly. Current global temperatures in the tropical region are below the 1979 - 2000 average.

"Global warming" has been used as a hook to get people to buy into a larger agenda. There is currently absolutely no evidence that temperatures now are unusually warm in a historical context. In fact, the Roman Warm Period about 2100 years ago was much warmer than the present. The Medieval Warm Period was somewhat warmer, this warm period really isn't as warm as either of the preceding two such periods. Generally global temperatures have been trending down for the last 2000 years with each cold period cooler than the one before.

The Little Ice Age was the coldest period in almost 14,000 years and in many ways we are still recovering from it.

France today decided to put an end to government subsidies of all large photovoltaic projects of 3kw or larger. Obama today is talking nuclear power. As Europe turns away from the socialists, we will see the wheels fall off the whole "climate change" cart. As the "global redistribution of wealth" scheme of international socialism collapses, they will have no need for the "climate change" hook they needed in order to get people to go along with it. Besides, they have pretty much accomplished what they set out to do ... they have destroyed the Western economies.

[can't sit still]

It is a fact that the Holocene has gone on for an unusually long time. There is a Russian scientist who thinks that the Holocene is winding down;
http://www.helium.com/items/1837151-why ... ew-ice-age
These speculations are nothing new. It's possible that new studies will prove one way or a other.
Visualize Burning Man on a snow-covered playa

[geekster]

It should be but right now solar insolation of the far Northern Hemisphere is actually increasing a bit. Just a bump up on the way down but for the next couple of hundred years we aren't going to see any decline in the amount of sun reaching the arctic so I imagine we are ok for a while. The cycle isn't exactly smooth and there are bumps and wiggles in the various changes in Earth's orbital dynamics.

Some more recent data on temperatures:

Global sea surface temperatures headed down, below +0.1 so less than a tenth of a degree above "normal" for the past 30 year period. (they should actually use 60 years instead of 30 to capture the entire Pacific cycle but that is a different subject)



The recent el nino is clearly visible and you can clearly see that it was not as intense as the 1998 event though it lasted for a bit longer. The spike in temperatures is "broader" but global sea surfaces are cooling rapidly.

Global surface temperature satellite data is also showing the decline after lagging sea surfaces for a bit. Again you can see that this el nino was nowhere near as intense as 1998 but again, broader so that 13-month running average might tie 1998 even though temperatures never reached as high.

[geekster]

Here is a perfect example of some of the kooks we are dealing with at Cancun. A group decided to see just exactly where these "delegates" heads are so they crafted two petitions to see if they could get attendees to sign off on them. The first petition was an outright call to "destabilize the economy of the US", and the second was to ban "dihydrogen monoxide" (H2O).

[youtube][/youtube]

[dr.placebo]

I don't get your argument, geekster. The graphs you just posted show a warming trend.

Over 95% of publishing climate scientists support the AGW theory. Essentially every national scientific organization supports it. Are you really saying that they are all dupes, frauds, and charlatans?

Let's suppose that I am wealthy enough to have unlimited medical care (and that takes more than I have and more than my insurance supports). I have a funny feeling that something is wrong, but I can't determine what it is on my own. I go to 20 doctors, and 19 of them say that I need to make changes in diet and exercise, and 1 in 20 says that going every day to McDonald's is no problem. What's the rational decision to make?

For a paper that addresses the "cooling" arguments in the 1998-2008 period, see

http://www.aussmc.org/documents/waiting ... ooling.pdf

As for the Roman Warm Period I'm skeptical. So far there is no data that indicates a protracted global increase in temperature. The most convincing data is for 26 clams in Iceland (practically the definition of a small sample size), but global data for the same technique are not yet available.

[Aiee! It burns!]

doing crazy shit in Cancun ? NO!

[can't sit still]

Dr, considering the money involved, I don't trust those who publish to be unbiased. I'm sure that you know all about grant money and publishing. How many people in academia can afford to buck the trend? If they are skeptical, what will happen to their access to data? Peer pressure and funding cuts will cause any dissenter to be ostracized.
I still believe that there are far too many unaccounted variables.
I cited papers showing huge plasma flows from Sol to Terra. Can anyone say if the energy gradients of the plasma flows are always proportional to the energy gradients of the various light bands?
Can anyone delineate perfectly the history of the solar [non] constant? The ionosphere is very highly charged. Has anyone quantified the energy transfer from the ionosphere to the lower atmosphere?
We only think that we know all the variables.

[can't sit still]

One more bit of info to confuse things;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z17VsSAZkF

[dr.placebo]

Climate science is not my field, but I know a little something about some related fields, and I have no reason to think that the behavior of scientists differs all that much from field to field.

You might think that there is a lot of money floating around, but on the individual level it sure does not seem like it. Scrambling for grants and for funding is part of the game. What is out of bounds is deliberately falsifying the data, which is cause for dismissal in my job. That does not mean that it can't happen, but it's rare.

Outright fraud, especially if well funded, does happen. It happens more in some fields than others. For example, drug trials are suspect because some companies run a bunch of trials and cherry pick the trials that look good. Each of the trials may (or may not) be conducted correctly, but given statistical variation you are bound to get at least some results that look promising. Submit those and you can have a patented drug that makes money even when it does not do as well as existing drugs. With the right marketing you can make a profit from anything that is not obviously toxic (that category takes a bit more work).

There is a particular kind of fraud based on using those with appearance of science to mask out the facts. A good example is how the tobacco industry fought a multidecade rear guard action to deny the addictive and carcinogenic properties of cigarettes. They had people who appeared to be scientists testify in defense of the safety of tobacco. The CEOs even perjured themselves in front of congress. And yet no person who looked dispassionately at the science could fail to conclude that cigarettes are a primary cause of cancer. The tobacco folks bought themselves some decades of profits, and for that I hope they fry in hell (sadly, I'm not at all confident that they will be appropriately rewarded).

The best defense we have in science is replication of results. When independent groups arrive at the same results through different means then one gains some confidence in the results. And given thousands of studies on climate science pointing in the same direction (at least, within statistical error) then I get a lot more confidence that warming is happening with the same properties as predicted by the models of greenhouse gas warming.

I simply do not find it credible that so many climate scientists are engaged in a vast conspiracy determined by funding sources. I can't prove that there is no conspiracy, any more than I can prove the nonexistence of the easter bunny, pink unicorns, or wise aliens named Yoda. I just find them highly improbable.

[geekster]

Global Warming ended in 1995 according to this (but I say it ended three years later in 1998 during that El Nino year).

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/t ... tion-index

In any case, there has been no statistically significant climate warming since 1998. That was the peak and even that was lower than the 1933 peak.

Something else interesting is this:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/12/ ... oshio.html

but what is interesting to him might not be what is interesting to me. If you look at the animated graphs in the posting, you will notice the 180 degree phase difference between water temperatures off Japan and those off the coast of California. That phase difference is the fish cycle where anchovy and sardines trade places.

During a phase shift, the food is scarce in both places as the fish scatter. That is why we have pelicans and sea lions starving during those periods, then the fish stocks ramp up again, but where it used to be anchovy, it is now sardine and vice versa.

[can't sit still]

This is a quote from the first link that sums it up VERY nicely;
"Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976 was. The climate system turned on a dime for some as yet unknown reason. "

[geekster]

Absolutely priceless:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/10/m ... missive-4/

concerning an initiative by the Mexican president to ban incandescent bulbs.

[quote]Here goes, then. Electricity accounts for 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Mexico accounts for 1% of world electricity consumption. Light-bulbs use at most 3% of that electricity. Mercury-vapor fluorescent bulbs reduce electricity consumption per candela by – at the very most – 33% compared with incandescent bulbs that one can actually read by. So, once the President’s Initiativo Grande has been put into full effect throughout Mexico, world carbon emissions will have fallen by 40% of 1% of 3% of 33%, or a dizzying 0.004%.

So far, so good. We shall generously assume that 0.004% of the entire manmade greenhouse-gas contribution since 1750 will be forestalled by the Grand Initiative. Now for the equation. The amount of CO2 concentration forestalled by, say, 2100, is in the present instance, 0.004% of the difference between the CO2 concentration predicted for that year, 836 parts per million by volume on the IPCC’s A2 emissions scenario, and the CO2 concentration of 278 ppmv which the IPCC thinks was present in 1750.

So we’re looking at 0.00004(836-278), or 0.0223 ppmv. Not a lot, really.

Now we calculate the “global warmingâ€

[dr.placebo]

So I spent some time recently with R (a free statistics package used by damn near everyone who crunches these things), and I ingested the GISS LOTI (land+ocean) temperature index (from Jan 1880 through Oct 2010) and ran some temperature trends.

Here are some linear trends, with p-values:

1970-2009: 0.0165 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.001
1975-2009: 0.0176 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.001
1980-2009: 0.0165 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.001
1990-2009: 0.0192 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.001
1995-2009: 0.0161 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.0077
1998-2009: 0.0122 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.1462
2000-2009: 0.0133 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.1764
2005-2009: -0.0230 deg C/yr, p-value < 0.3713

Note that all of these trends show warming except for 2005-2009, which shows a cooling trend. But none of the trends since 1998 have a p-value below the "magic" one of 0.05, which is where statistical confidence supposedly shows up. Personally, I don't like that cutoff, because it establishes a gold standard with a number that can be wrong one time in 20. But let's leave that rant for some other time. The real point is that fewer samples gives a less reliable result, especially if you start with a record high year like 1998 or 2005.

The year of 1976 has been mentioned as an inflection point. Yes, it kinda was, although any given year can be pretty different from any adjacent years. The temp trend from 1940-1976 was -0.0022 deg C/yr, with a p-value of 0.13. So, there was a slight cooling (a factor of 7.5 slower cooling than the 1970-2009 warming trend), but the p-value did not inspire confidence. The current best guess is that sulfate particles were masking the greenhouse gas signal from about 1940-1976 (the Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970). There were also some solar warming effects from about 1900-1975, but they mostly have a cooling effect since 1975.

As for The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (TVMOB), he's just up to his typical crap. A record low in Cancun does not outweigh the global stats. A ban by incandescent bulbs in Mexico will not cost $1.2 trillion, since that assumes 400 million broken CFL's at a cost of $3000. I've been using CFL's for years and still have not broken the first one. CFL's do save electricity, enough so that they are a net mercury win (see this link). But TVMOB just wants to rant, he evades facts frequently. See this link.

[geekster]

The problem is that natural variability is so large and we have, in fact, long cycles (60 year cycles, 150 year cycles, 1500 year cycles, and 5000 year cycles) where we have multidecadal periods of warming and cooling. So it is *always* warming or cooling.

The Little Ice Age gave up the ghost in about 1850 and we had a prolonged period of warming until about 1940 as we recovered from it. Now one must also realize that the LIA was the coldest period in over 10,000 years. It was pretty damned cold for a Holocene cold spell. It also lasted for nearly 400 years though it varied in intensity during that time.

If you consider that the oceans hold a lot more heat than the atmosphere and that they had 400 years to cool down, it doesn't seem odd that it might take them longer than 200 years to warm back up to where they were. It is real easy to cool a pot of water by placing it in a refrigerator but it is really hard to warm that pot by applying heat to the top of it. So a cold period can effectively chill the abyssal sea quite quickly while a warm period can take a much longer time to raise abyssal temperatures. This is because cold water sinks and will displace warmer waters up to the surface. Warm water doesn't want to sink. The oceans are easier to cool and harder to warm.

So even given overall stable temperatures (though varying in the normal 60 year cycle ... 30 years warming, 30 years cooling ... ish) it might take 600 or more years for the ocean to recover from 400 years of cold. Also, sea level is rising as the water warms and expands and the ocean will outgas CO2 during this period, too.

[neon tetra]

I try to be as "green" as possible. I ride my bike to do errands, I drive a hybrid, I reuse/recycle, compost, try to minimize waste, etc.

But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE fluorescent lighting. It literally hurts my eyes & gives me headaches. They are also toxic (making them & eventually breaking them), and there have been some studies that show they affect brainwaves & vitamin/mineral absorption.

[ygmir]

I try to be as "green" as possible. I ride my bike to do errands, I drive a hybrid, I reuse/recycle, compost, try to minimize waste, etc.

But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE fluorescent lighting. It literally hurts my eyes & gives me headaches. They are also toxic (making them & eventually breaking them), and there have been some studies that show they affect brainwaves & vitamin/mineral absorption.

I'd not be so sure that goes with being green............so far, to me, they're more gimmic, than helpful.

[geekster]

I try to be as "green" as possible. I ride my bike to do errands, I drive a hybrid, I reuse/recycle, compost, try to minimize waste, etc.

But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE fluorescent lighting. It literally hurts my eyes & gives me headaches. They are also toxic (making them & eventually breaking them), and there have been some studies that show they affect brainwaves & vitamin/mineral absorption.

Lightbulbs are only a tiny part of this. For example, if you completely stopped all industrial activity in the UK and eliminated all the people, basically turned the entire UK back to a completely natural state without a single human being, the reduction in CO2 output would be made up by China's increase in emissions in only 12 months (a couple of years ago that was 18 months, but today, China's CO2 emissions increase by an amount equal to the emissions of the entire UK every 12 months).

And, there is absolutely no evidence that the CO2 is hurting anything. Yet we are expected to pay literally billions of dollars? For something that isn't going to make even the smallest amount of difference?

Or it may actually be doing more damage than good.

The problem is this climate apocalypse industry and the absolutely huge bureaucracies they want to create because of it, and yet there isn't really a singe shred of evidence that there is a problem of any sort or that current climate is abnormal in any way.

It is just plain nuts.

[neon tetra]

I try to be as "green" as possible. I ride my bike to do errands, I drive a hybrid, I reuse/recycle, compost, try to minimize waste, etc.

But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE fluorescent lighting. It literally hurts my eyes & gives me headaches. They are also toxic (making them & eventually breaking them), and there have been some studies that show they affect brainwaves & vitamin/mineral absorption.

I'd not be so sure that goes with being green............so far, to me, they're more gimmic, than helpful.

That's pretty much been debunked, at least as far as Toyota hybrids go. I get close to 50 MPG, and I also don't need to change my oil more than once every 10000 miles. The brakes, engine & other components also last a lot longer than in conventional vehicles. And the issue of the battery toxicity isn't true either, as they recycle them. Once the lithium batteries are perfected, they'll be even better.

[can't sit still]

Neon, you would be ahead of the game if you changed to LEDs rather than CFL. Cutting out meat consumption is also very "green". About 78 % of water consumption is for producing meat. It takes a lot of grain and alfalfa. Much of the water used is pumped by electricity.

[neon tetra]

Let me start by saying I haven't read this entire thread yet, but I plan to shortly. I have to hit the hay early tonight though, 14+ hour day tomorrow.

My personal view on it.. climate change is occurring for various reasons. The sun's irregularities, the Milankovitch cycles, human "progress", etc.
I think industrial CO2 plays a role, as does deforestation, as do a lot of things.
Just how much? Well it's not zero as one side would have you think, and it's not 100% as the other side would have you believe.
I prefer to err on the side of caution, however, and mainly because that also = cleaner air. Big business has gotten away with polluting the planet for far too long, and I really don't feel too bad if they have to pay a bit now.
Where will the $$ go? Now that is the question, IMO.

[neon tetra]

Neon, you would be ahead of the game if you changed to LEDs rather than CFL. Cutting out meat consumption is also very "green". About 78 % of water consumption is for producing meat. It takes a lot of grain and alfalfa. Much of the water used is pumped by electricity.

I love LEDs. I use them on the bike, in all my flashlights/headlamps, and for my playa/rave/festival decor. I only have one that's a traditional screw-in type, but it's a bit too..white maybe? I think I need to experiment w/ different shades & such. Or maybe just a better bulb.

I'm also *almost* a vegetarian. I haven't consumed any land animals in almost 20 years, though I do eat an occasional free-range egg & some sushi now & then.

[ygmir]

I try to be as "green" as possible. I ride my bike to do errands, I drive a hybrid, I reuse/recycle, compost, try to minimize waste, etc.

But I absolutely HATE HATE HATE fluorescent lighting. It literally hurts my eyes & gives me headaches. They are also toxic (making them & eventually breaking them), and there have been some studies that show they affect brainwaves & vitamin/mineral absorption.

I'd not be so sure that goes with being green............so far, to me, they're more gimmic, than helpful.

That's pretty much been debunked, at least as far as Toyota hybrids go. I get close to 50 MPG, and I also don't need to change my oil more than once every 10000 miles. The brakes, engine & other components also last a lot longer than in conventional vehicles. And the issue of the battery toxicity isn't true either, as they recycle them. Once the lithium batteries are perfected, they'll be even better.

Well, ok.........I'm to lazy to do research tonight, but, I'm still not convinced the hybrids, are a total "win" over a conventional, if compared apples to apples.
But, I'm not scientist enough to argue it.

The best, thing, to me, is "do your best".......we all waste somewhere, and conserve elsewhere........just do what you can.

[geekster]

That's pretty much been debunked, at least as far as Toyota hybrids go. I get close to 50 MPG, and I also don't need to change my oil more than once every 10000 miles. The brakes, engine & other components also last a lot longer than in conventional vehicles. And the issue of the battery toxicity isn't true either, as they recycle them. Once the lithium batteries are perfected, they'll be even better.

Uh, what is debunked?

If you actually READ the link, you will see that they debunk the debunking. I get the impression that you have already decided what you want to believe and aren't interested in new information unless it comes from someone your friends like.

Also a Prius does not get 50MPG. You will get better fuel mileage from a VW Jetta TDI diesel if you have a freeway commute than you will from a Prius.

And the Altamont raptor and bat kills are based on actual counts of dead animals, they aren't opinions or models or guesses.