There are good reasons not to get too worked up about public-opinion polling on issues like climate change and energy. Polls confirm, over and over, that the public opinion is malleable—so much rides on the wording of questions. And most people don’t analyze policy in their spare time, so why ask them about cap and trade? Only 24 percent of Americans could even identify cap and trade as an energy/environment policy in a May Rasmussen poll. Twenty-nine percent thought it was a Wall Street regulation.
Still, it’s hard not to be troubled by a Pew Research Center poll released today. Conducted three weeks ago among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones and landlines, the poll finds a significant drop in the number of Americans who believe global warming is happening, is human-caused, and is a serious problem.
The poll found that only 57 percent of respondents believe that “the earth is getting warmer,” compared with 71 percent in April 2008. Pew has asked similar sets of questions six times since June 2006 and has never found such a dramatic rise in skepticism.
Those who believe warming is caused by human activity (burning fossil fuels) wavered between 41 and 50 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure dropped to 36 percent.
Those who consider global warming a “very serious problem” ranged between 41 and 47 percent in the first five polls. This fall, the figure fell to 35 percent.
The shift was most pronounced among political independents. In that group, those who believe there is solid evidence for climate change fell from 75 percent in the April 2008 poll to 53 percent (that’s 22 points). Democrats who believe there is solid evidence for climate change dropped from 83 percent in the last poll to 75 percent. Republicans slipped from 49 percent to 35 percent.
Other recent polls haven’t found the rise in skepticism that Pew documents. An August Zogby poll found a majority of Americans wanted additional or continued action from Congress on climate change. A July poll from WorldPublicOpinion.org found Americans lagging other countries in demanding a climate plan, yet still asking their government to do more. For a bit of context on what scientists think, yesterday 18 leading scientific organizations sent a letter to U.S. senators reminding them of the scientific consensus that climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities, and that its effects will be severe.
There were two small (and puzzling) bits of consolation in the poll: many respondents support limiting greenhouse-gas emissions, and many want the U.S. to join an international climate-change plan.
Fifty percent of respondents favor CO2 limits and “making companies pay for their emissions, even if it may mean higher energy prices.” Thirty-nine percent say they oppose this, and 11 percent are unsure or did not answer.
Fifty-six percent of respondents think the United States “should join other countries in setting standards to address global climate change.” Some of them appear to support solutions—even ones that raise the cost of energy—to problems they do not believe in.
There are a number of possible explanations for the rise in skepticism. Although, honestly, the findings are still surprising.
- For one, it’s been a cold summer in much of the country.
- Let’s not forget about that years-long, systematic disinformation campaign to confuse the public about climate change.
- Also, the economy. This week a POLITICO poll asked respondents to rank issues of concern. Predictably, the economy came out tops. Pew’s poll didn’t ask respondents to rank their concerns, but there is an (accurate) perception that politicians can only address so many problems. Telling pollsters you’re not so concerned with the climate is a way of telling elected leaders that’s great, now fix the economy.
- A national climate plan has become more likely than ever before. As the policy implications of this become more immediate and concrete, people may decide it’s more convenient not to believe in the phenomenon. Don’t believe in the problem and you don’t have to feel guilty for not responding to it.
- Finally, the campaign against cap and trade might have the inadvertent effect of making people reject the problem along with the solution. “It’s quite possible that anti-cap-and-trade messaging has seeped into America’s unconscious mind, affecting opinion on global warming even as the public says it’s heard very little about the legislation being proposed,” Chris Good writes at the Atlantic.
None of these are especially satisfying answers. It’s not a very satisfying poll. If nothing else, it underscores the importance of using clean-energy arguments to promote an energy and climate plan.
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Skeptics claim global warming is fake after top scientists’ emails hacked at CRU
Comments
View as Flat
Jason D Scorse Posted 7:21 pm
22 Oct 2009
Permalink
hsr0601 Posted 12:48 am
23 Oct 2009
Breathing toxic chemicals in the outdoor air exposes all Americans to a lifetime cancer risk at least 10 times greater than the level considered acceptable under federal law, shows data released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Beyond, provided the average temperature is getting higher, accordingly all forms of germs, bacterias, viruses, and influenza etc are more likely to multiply.
Some skeptics say the warning against hazards of climate change is overstated, but judging from more frequent and widespread outbreaks of e. coli, salmonella, and bird, swine flu cases endangering human lives and economic recovery seriously, some prompt measures need to be taken, I guess.
Permalink
sindark Posted 7:00 am
23 Oct 2009
The basics of the situation are quite simple. No competent chemist would disagree that burning fossil fuels adds carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere. Similarly, it is simple to observe that air with more CO2 blocks more outgoing infrared radiation, warming the planet. Both of these things are explained by chemical and physical theory, and observed in practice. Admittedly, it takes more work to understand why this warming could be dangerous; still, the scientific backing for that claim is incredibly robust and based on peer-reviewed scientific work done around the world over the course of many decades.
Obviously, a lot more work needs to be done debunking climate change deniers, both by directly responding to misleading arguments and through other means. The terrifying thing here is that our actions now will have irrevocable consequences, largely beginning a few decades out, but continuing at least for thousands of years. The fact that so many people remain confused about climate – and very few support effort on the scale required to deal with it – is really bad news for future generations.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 9:32 am
23 Oct 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 10:08 pm
23 Oct 2009
An icecube in your glass of Jack Daniels seems to cool the drink by melting, but in reality the whole system (glass, drink, icecube) is getting warmer. And the icecube, which starts out as solid as a chunk of metal, becomes progressively softer and more porous until it collapses. We are closer and closer to that collapsing point of glacial and polar ice.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 7:10 am
24 Oct 2009
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 7:27 pm
24 Oct 2009
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 3:15 pm
25 Oct 2009
When you look at temperature trends over decades and centuries, there is a definite positive trend consistent with the theory for GHG forcing. August and September of this year were the second warmest on record, while solar is at it's lowest output since measurements have been taken.
Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for centuries, it's forcing though slight continues to force the trend upwards for decades as the oceans warm and the climate system comes into equilibrium. So unlike solar variability, the CO2 signal is only observable over decades not years.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:15 pm
25 Oct 2009
The notion that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries seems a bit counterintuitive, especially given the fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the result of the rate in minus the rate out which is equal the net observed difference rate. That is, the rate of rise in the CO2 levels to the current 387 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of the production rate minus the biological and other sinks which are taking up an amount which leaves that concentration in the atmosphere.
SInce we see enormous amounts of biota created each year, especially in the forests, and since much of that comes from atmospheric CO2 + water + nutrients, we must assume that the sink side of the equation is rather substantial. If it is that substantial, then how long would be required for the net difference to decline? Don't know, haven't researched the question, and have not yet done the rough calculations.
It seems that the 1000 years people refer to must be a result of half-life FIFO calculations, not a total amount remaining in the atmosphere.
As I mentioned, I have not yet done the calculations myself, but I think it would be a good idea to just do a back-of-the-envelope calculation in order to get a sense for the scale and mass of carbon in the atmosphere, and how much biota or wood that would represent.
Wiki comes in handy for such quick calculations. We know the average mass of the atmosphere is about 5 quadrillion (5x10(15)) tonnes or 1/1,200,000 the mass of Earth. According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, "The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1480 × 10(18) kg with an annual range due to water vapor of 1.2 or 1.5 × 10(15) kg depending on whether surface pressure or water vapor data are used; somewhat smaller than the previous estimate. The mean mass of water vapor is estimated as 1.27 × 10(16) kg and the dry air mass as 5.1352 ±0.0003 × 10(18) kg."
If CO2 is 387 ppm by volume, and assuming 44 gmole for CO2. The mean molecular mass of air is 28.97 g/mol. It will be interesting to see just how much CO2 as MASS is in the atmosphere and how long that would take to convert into tree mass.
Anyone want to offer up some calculated results?
An additional thought: If you look at the diagram for seasonal variation and CO2 rise as measured on Mouna Loa, it appears that the seasonal variation of CO2 is about 5 to 6 ppm. That's a significant amount and suggests that, given a fair chance, the atmospheric concentration could drop significantly in a relatively short time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg
Permalink
cervantes Posted 10:32 am
23 Oct 2009
Permalink
timeslayer Posted 2:10 pm
23 Oct 2009
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:52 am
23 Oct 2009
Face it, there'll always be a fair number of flat-earthers. It can't be helped.
Permalink
timeslayer Posted 1:14 pm
23 Oct 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:07 am
24 Oct 2009
You point out a common misunderstanding about "climate change" or "global warming" is that warming will occur everywhere. In fact, one of the key physical effects is a more dynamic, energetic atmosphere. Since the Earth's weather results from warmed equatorial air being drawn north and south by colder polar and Antarctic, greater amounts of warm air moving further north to cool will necessarily displace colder polar air south. When the cold air moves further south, we experience locations where it seems far colder than expected. That is the nature result of a more energetic atmosphere resulting from greater absorption of energy due to increases in CO2 and other trace gases.
Spot cooling due to displaced colder air should not be confused with cooling generally or worldwide. Overall, the Earth is warming, and that warming is due to a simple physical principle of molecular absorption of energy transformed into "sensible heat" - moving molecules, as opposed to energy stored in the molecular structure.
As for the ice melting comments elsewhere, I did a piece in my weekly column on February 12, 2009, the relevant portion of is set forth below. (http://www.sddt.com/commentary/ Daniel Coffey)
"Global warming: Why ice matters" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, February 12, 2009
"That said, concern is rising over accelerated melting of polar ice. One may ask, why? Here's one important reason.
The North and South poles are the Earth's air conditioners, an engine for drawing heat from the equator to the poles, cooling and mixing the atmosphere to achieve relatively moderate temperatures worldwide. These processes, and Earth's rotation inducing the Coriolis Effect, produce wind and our complex weather.
The presence of ice at the poles is important environmentally because solid ice absorbs far more heat energy than liquid water at the same temperature. A gram of solid ice can absorb roughly 80 times the heat energy of a gram of liquid water at 0° Celsius (C). This phenomenon is the direct consequence of a physical property of water known as its "heat of fusion."
Without delving too deeply into minor nuances, the heat of fusion for water is 80 calories per gram. That is the energy required to melt one gram of ice into one gram of liquid water at 0° Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit (F°)). The water melts, but its temperature remains constant.
By contrast, it requires only one calorie to raise one gram of liquid water one degree Celsius, a physical characteristic known as its "specific heat." The water warms, but remains liquid.
Taking these two principles together, one gram of 0° C ice will become one gram of liquid water by absorbing 80 calories of heat without raising its temperature, but that same amount of heat, if applied to 0° C liquid water, will raise its temperature roughly 80° C or to 176° F.
The difference in effectiveness of absorbing heat as between ice and water has important environmental implications. The amount of ice melted at the poles is an indirect measure of the amount of additional heat in the atmosphere. As the amount of polar ice shrinks, its ability to remove heat from -- cool -- the atmosphere decreases.
When there is little or no ice, then it remains for liquid water alone to cool and buffer the atmosphere, thus inviting increased atmospheric temperatures. This is a logical extension of a loss of cooling, much as when the air conditioner fails in a home. Some might debate this point, and doubts are easily raised."
Time is fleeting and environmental and nay-sayers have to get on the same page and get some sensible things done.
By the way, note that between 2008 and 2009 CO2 production from burning fossil
fuel in the US decreased 5.9% overall from 5,790 to 5,446 million metric
tons (MMT) or 344 MMT. Changes in the electricity generation mix reduced
CO2 emissions by 73 MMT (21%). Reduced petroleum use accounted for 102 MMT
(30%). Not good news: recent economic downturns accounted for 169 MMT
(49%).
That shows it can be done.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 7:52 pm
23 Oct 2009
In my view, there is a growing realization that a high price will be paid in environmental terms when we propose to shift from established coal/oil/natural gas as sources of stored chemical energy to dispersed sources like solar and wind. That necessary price has been noticed more by environmental groups and they have, ironically, become principle objectors to renewable energy projects on the theory there must be a better way or a different place or a different developer. This behavior and conduct, done enough times, has raised suspicions that the environmental community does not believe its own pronouncements.
The argument goes like this: if they don't act like its real and squabble among themselves over the BEST way to do renewable energy, then the problem must not be that pressing. I have warned on several occasions that people are acting as if they have lots of choices and time is on their side. We don't have many choices and time is not on our side. Nevertheless, we see endless bickering and games.
For example, the solar rooftop advocates have put up legal challenges and barriers to wind projects in the San Diego/mexico border area. This sends the message that its really all about who gets the work, not that the challenge is massive, dangerous and clear. Again, if it were clear that we have a problem which is irrefutable, environmentalist would set aside the petty differences and embrace a full court press instead of trying to stop specific projects based on disputes over the fine points.
In several of my weekly columns (http://www.sddt.com/commentary - Daniel Coffey) I have pointed out the folly of this approach.
Anti-wind and solar forces are amassing around the environmental approach of delaying projects using legal challenges and classic environmental community land use playbooks. There is not shortage of irony here.
(See "Beating 'opposition cudgels' into 'affirmative plow shears'" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, September 10, 2009 and
"Erect, connect, repeat: It's astounding; time is fleeting" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, June 11, 2009) Both of these and a number of other columns deal with the difficult but necessary choices which must be made and implemented.
I point out:
"Those who think San Diego is a self-sufficient island overlook, inter alia, the reality that future water supplies and vehicular transportation will require more electricity. Of necessity, San Diego will rely more on noncarbon electricity produced from a diversified portfolio of energy sources, including renewable sources connected by transmission lines. Those who say otherwise haven't objectively accessed impacts from accelerated global warming.
Consider this. Based on calculations by Cal-Tech professor Nathan Lewis, the world will need at least 10 terawatts of noncarbon-based renewable energy worldwide to get to where we need to be by 2050 -- to avoid a global warming catastrophe! That's 10,000,000 megawatts (MW) of renewable power generating capacity.
Worldwide, we currently have 120,000 MW, give or take a few, mostly from wind. That means in the next 40 years we need to create 85 times the renewable energy generating capacity we currently possess, 85 times what it took the last 30 years to accomplish. Put otherwise, each year for the next 40 years, we must recreate two times all of the renewable power production capacity created during the entire previous 30 years.
Over the past 30 years, a third of the glaciers in Montana's Glacier National Park have melted; in 20 years they will all be gone. This phenomenon is occurring worldwide.
The lyrics of The Rocky Horror Picture Show's "Time Warp" exuberantly exhort us: "It's astounding; Time is fleeting; Madness takes its toll." To those inscrutable stanzas add: "Glaciers melting; It's accelerating; Warming takes its toll."
To minimize that toll, environmentalists should urge others, including environmental groups, to support a robust power grid capable of reversing glacial loss. Time is fleeting!"
The public can view actions as speaking louder than words, so environmentalists need to act accordingly.
Dan
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 8:30 pm
23 Oct 2009
Frankly, I don't see the connection you're trying to make.
Neither party or group deny there is global warming, and in fact, both groups use the existence of global warming as a way to push the need for their ideas forward.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:36 am
24 Oct 2009
I suspect you have not been following the naysayer community closely. Take a look at the Lord Christopher Monckton and his traveling band of "climate change debunkers." They are working in conjunction with documentary film makers to cast doubt on "Big Environment" and the past lethal "mistakes" of the environmental community - referred to as "fads." Their message: current global warming is just another environmental fad.
Their slick, skilled, well funded, organized and have a message which is easy to understand: the environmentalists did it to you in the past and "climate change" is just another big mistake like all the others. They also argue that treaties will cause loss of US power in the world.
Research "Apocolypse No," "Not Evil, Just Wrong," and "Climate Chains." These film elements, taken together, are part of the big tent circus to debunk Al Gore, defeat legislation, and avoid Copenhagen.
Permalink
Chris Pratt Posted 6:59 am
24 Oct 2009
I will add to this that it is hard to trust what you hear, the media,governmnet and corporations have lied to us so many times to serve their own interests. Even groups like 350.org have a way of telling half truths. Look on their web site and see the 1979 photo of the artic and the 2007 photo. There is a huge loss of ice, but what is missing is the months that the two pictures were taken. This is very important information, one could easily assume that they are comparing winter and summer ice pack conditions.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:43 am
24 Oct 2009
We should stick to GHG climate change instead. Greater volatility in weather patterns due to the rentention of more solar energy. More severe droughts and storms, and rapid glacier, ice cap, and tundra melt.
The poll question that would help our cause is this: would you favor a shift of US government tax breaks and subsidies from fossil fuel and nuclear power to renewable energy in order to restore US manufacturing leadership and reclaim jobs exported to nations like China that are taking over the lead in the new global energy economy?
Or maybe this question too: should our economy be based on domestically produced renewable energy or should we continue to fight wars and experience boom/bust economics based on energy price volatility due to imported fossil fuels like oil and natural gas?
Forget the old "global warmning" terminology, it's not helpful. Jobs, jobs, jobs is where we have to go to win the day politically. Invoke the picture of deserted rust belt neighborhoods in cities like Detroit to fight GHG climate change.
Emphasize the cost to our GDP of losing the battle for green manufacturing, do we want to buy all the energy devices we will need from China? Solar panels, wind machines, plugin cars, smart grid devices, the latest batteries, and on ands on .. all imported from China, or do we want to become a manufacturing and exporting nation again?
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:07 pm
24 Oct 2009
As for the jobs focus, that is a key element of how we make lemonade from lemons. Most people don't know that one of the main producer of solar PV panels in the world is China. See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/solarreport/table3_12.html for the source of US imported solar panels: China (24%), Japan (43%), Germany (17%) and Mexico (10%).
Right now, for domestically installed wind power, the US is domestically producing 50% of the economic value of wind energy production equipment, primarily in the towers, blades, and nacelles. The other 50% is primarily European components which go into the turbines. The US is trying to up the percentage in component manufacture, but that takes stable policy.
AMAZINGDRX observes: "Emphasize the cost to our GDP of losing the battle for green manufacturing, do we want to buy all the energy devices we will need from China? Solar panels, wind machines, plugin cars, smart grid devices, the latest batteries, and on ands on .. all imported from China, or do we want to become a manufacturing and exporting nation again?"
RESPONSE:
In response I offer the following thoughts:
When it comes to solar PV panels, that horse has left the barn. Now the question is whether wind power will also become a Chinese bastion. The Chinese have committed to 100,000 MW of wind power in the next 9 years. That is an enormous draw.
In my San Diego Daily Transcript weekly column entitled "Erect, connect, repeat: An environmental China in 2020?" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, August 27, 2009, I offered the following thoughts.
"China recently announced it will install 100,000 to 150,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power generating capacity between now and the year 2020. The current entire worldwide installed generating capacity from wind is 120,000 MW.
While it is not entirely accurate to fix a cost for future Chinese wind turbine installations using the expense incurred by developers in the United States -- generally about $2 million per megawatt -- it does allow for some rough comparisons. Thus, Chinese investment in wind projects in the next 10 years is expected to be between $200 billion and $300 billion dollars.
One may reasonably ask why they are making such a massive investment in wind-based power generating capacity, especially given China's extensive reliance on coal for electricity.
Fundamentally, the commitment signals to the commercial world their intentions, allowing vendors to adjust, while signaling a growing awareness of the multifaceted advantages such investments will provide China.
Some might think it's primarily due to greenhouse gas induced global warming; others may think the Chinese are merely investing wisely in a cheap and abundant source of electricity. Another group might speculate it's targeted to reduce Chinese air pollution from coal-related contaminants. Common sense suggests each of these objectives, and more, lie behind such an enormous investment.
A less obvious but towering advantage is that the Chinese can quickly dominate development of wind turbine and related technology worldwide because of their massive market purchasing power. Those who seek to sell to them will necessarily cater to Chinese needs, terrain and markets.
Expertise and technology transfer to the Chinese will occur at an accelerated pace, and the same experience encountered in other heavy industries in the United States and elsewhere -- steel, machine tools, injection molds, and the like -- will similarly take place with wind turbines. They are, after all, heavy machinery.
Establishing manufacturing capacity, China has set up almost 30 companies capable of making the required equipment to widely exploit wind power. The future portends a market dominated by Chinese manufactured wind turbines capable of being sold back into all other international markets at lower cost.
Wind power is arguably cheaper long term than coal on a levelized basis and carbon credits from avoided coal fired plants are potentially valuable. Thus, China's investment in noncarbon sources of electricity holds the potential for allowing them to sell credits, produce low cost electricity to be used in other industries, and reduce global warming all in one fell swoop.
Moreover, by focusing attention on a reduction in global warming, the Chinese can develop positive public relations and benefit their customers. This is no small matter. Consider: Walmart has begun steps toward a supply chain consisting of products produced in an environmentally sustainable manner -- read Walmart president, Mike Duke's, July 16, 2009 comments. Using renewable, wind-generated electricity, the Chinese can respond. Will American vendors be able to offer the same?
Finally, when a country credibly announces it will spend money figuratively as from a fire hose, people show up with their best wares, finest minds, and exceptional talent. Put another way, everyone in the world in the supply chain for wind power technology is going to try to sell to the Chinese, focusing on their demands, needs and people because that is where the most money will be made. It's plain, common-capitalist-sense to go where the buyers are and sell to them while they're buying.
America also stands at the edge of strong wind power development, though less clearly or decisively announced. A number of companies are poised to place generating equipment east of the Rockies and throughout the Great Plains. Denver, once a mining boom town, is emerging as a center for wind power, renewable energy and natural gas. A number of the largest wind power companies are establishing offices to take advantage of this growth market. The question: will it really happen?
Unlike the Chinese approach, which is controlled, orderly, includes necessary integrative elements like transmission, and is unfettered by other considerations, American development of renewable energy has become hampered by the utterly ironic resistance of a limited number of environmental groups, litigation, a spaghetti-like array of intertwined and conflicting interests, and only modest support from government. It is not a fair commercial fight.
Subtle signs point to local barriers that may delay a robust and long-term commercially meaningful development of renewable energy in the United States through death by a thousand environmental cuts. Nothing could be sadder, but we live in a complex society capable of tying itself into a knot in search of consensus.
It's critical that American economic and employment opportunities from renewable energy be developed soon, both here and internationally. Or maybe we wait five years and buy it cheaper from the Chinese on the national credit card."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:08 pm
24 Oct 2009
There are a few things that could help us catch up and maybe even pull ahead. And they all depend on our lead in R&D and inovation. We still lead in this and you are right that invention doesn't do us a lot of good because manufacturing of cutting edge technology isn't usually done here.
We need to change that. On solar PV, we need concentrating solar furnace silicon fab and PV manufacturing. We have the scientific talent to develop these factories. They will also generate power for the grid at night as the silicon and the furnace cools, the waste heat can drive closed cycle turbines.
On agriculture, we need to develop biomass recycling to produce biogas energy with fuel cell/turbines (70% efficient) and organic fertilizer. Robotic organic agriculture that runs on solar power can then replace chemical ag.
We also need to build out a HVDC buried cable national supergrid along with electric commuter rail in tubes in the freeway medians. The power grid would be buried under the rail tubes.
Another technology we have now but haven't used is the fiber forge carbon fiber vehicle body molding technology.
We also have research on advanced lead/acid batteries that should now proceed into the nanotech carbon direction.
Concentrating solar cogeneration is another big new technology we are developing here.
We don't need to give up on this economic competition yet. Say we come in second? Will that be the end of the world? Nope. But if we simply give up manufacturing and let all these new inovations and more be manufactured elsewhere, well lets not find out what will happen.
Why not at least try to take back the lead?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:33 am
25 Oct 2009
The fees will get you! Hehehey. And intrests rate rises, masked as currency exchange rate "fluctuations". Don't get fluctuated by manipulated currency markets. What a mess.
Pay workers here 20 bucks per hour to operate advanced manufacturing facilities, instead of buying questionably quality controlled products made with decades old factory technology operated by 50 cent per hour labor, we will be way ahead in the end. invest and hire american!!
Avoid national bankruptcy. You won't like it when billionaire condiminiums replace national park campgrounds. This was attempted at the end of the Bush administration but quickly overturned. Yes, selling the national parks...to settle our debts with China...maybe 20 years from now?
Chinese state corporations are buying the Brazilian rain forest right now, to grow mono-crop GMO animal feed and biofuel crops.
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 7:08 pm
25 Oct 2009
The carbon cycle maintains an equilibrium that is naturally tied to global temperature, at least that is what the paleoclimate evidence such as ice and sediment cores reveal. During glacial epochs carbon is sequestered in the oceans and soil as the ice sheets grow. As the glaciers melt and the oceans warm it is once more released into the atmosphere further amplifying the warming during interglacial epochs. At least that is how the recent (last 2 million years) carbon/climate cycle has played out.
This process takes centuries to reach an equilibrium.
Here are a few charts to get an idea.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_Residence_Time_png
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Carbon_Stabilization_Scenarios_png
Here is a good paper by David Archer.
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/reprints/archer.2005.fate_co2.pdf
And here is a great forum to discuss Earth science.
http://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=84
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 7:51 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
SkyHunter Posted 8:00 pm
25 Oct 2009
The best way to restore the atmospheric levels is to put the carbon back in the soil. The best way to do that is through organic agriculture.
Here is a great idea, even if it is 2000 years old.
http://www.eprida.com/
Permalink
beez kpr Posted 7:29 pm
25 Oct 2009
Permalink
jack_hen Posted 3:33 am
26 Oct 2009
Regards
Modern Man
Permalink
achase Posted 12:17 pm
27 Oct 2009
http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091021a.pdf
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 5:13 pm
27 Oct 2009
It's not a "paper," but a Rotary presentation given in "Makati," presumably one of the cities and municipalities that make up Metro Manila, the greater metropolitan area of the national capital of the Philippines.
A few of the quoted conclusions at page 17 of the presentation and my thoughts in parentheses afterward:
1 "Global warming as predicted by the UN IPCC since 2001, is NOT happening. It’s NOT the truth. Rather, global cooling is upon us now." (Hmmm, pretty bold talk. )
2 "Compared to 30 years ago in 1979, the Earth is warmer by about 0.4 C. But compared to 7 years ago in 2002, the Earth is cooler now by 0.22 C." (This point seems truly odd given the graphs from 1960 onward show a rising temperature and that from one year to the next you may see rising and falling. You can just pick selected data to make any trend you want - but they do concede the temperature has risen overall.)
3 "Man-made CO2 emission is NOT the main driver of climate change or cycle (warming-cooling warming-cooling…). It is the SUN." (This is also odd since the sun is the energy source which CO2 is absorbing, hence by some reasoning its always the sun. However, the presence of additional CO2 in the atmosphere is the absorber of the energy, which would otherwise pass through and reflect outward to space, as is the necessary norm. )
4 "AGW therefore, remains a hypothesis, an untested theory. The facts presented were either discredited, or needed further tests." (The speaker of this line must have preceded the conclusion with the following: Oh, ye of little knowledge, draw near to my voice and let me tell you about science. In this bottle I hold here in my hand is the elixir of life, made from a formula passed down from generations of Snake Oil Salesmen and prestidigitators. Come, come, grow closer and listen to the story I will fill your heads with - fantastic stories made up of blazing hot math and swirling diagrams all floating in a sea of cool aqua silliness. )
ANALYSIS: (though very light at that - who has or needs time for more?)
Where to begin? This thing is so full of slickly packaged nonsense its more a matter of how much time to spend flogging BS.
There are a number of immediately obvious problems with the models, concepts and graphs presented, but one technique in particular got my attention - narrowing the focus to select a trend of choice.
Page 6 shows a graph which suggests that there is a downward line - referred to as 2002 + best fit - in the change in temperature relative to an average of the temperatures between 1979 and 1988. This is just visual trickery meant to isolate specific regions of data in order to support conclusion #2 above.
First, using a curve-fitting approach applied to a mechanism which has the kind of underlying variability and upon which addition differentiation is added seems ridiculous and intended to suggest that cooling is taking place or temperatures are declining when they are not overall. It is only an artificial artifact of the mathematical manipulation, not the real world events. The real world rise in temperature curve shows no such decline as different than what has been seen several times over the past 60 years. Quite literally, one could pick any two or three points on the graph and make some kind of line from it in order to purportedly show a trend - both up or down. The long term trend, however, is upward in a sawtooth pattern.
By selecting the average from 1979 to 1988, the authors impose a flat line segment where there is actually a rising curve followed by a flattened trend of raised temperature before another abrupt rise in temperature. This little bit of mathematical manipulations then gives rise to an entirely artificial baseline from which further departures in temperature are measured, but whose scale is diminished or flattened. Then, a line-fitting algorithm is applied to the remaining data in order derive the purported slope of the selected data curve, thus giving the false impression to the unwary that the temperature is dropping based on specifically selected data. In fact, the curve-fitting technique really has little merit so far as the data seem highly scattered and are differential in nature; in many ways your eyes tell you more than the line.
It looks like an empirical curve for which the fit is not so good. Just looking at the data scatter, I suspect R2 is far greater than would be considered a proper Least Square line fit. In Least Square analysis one usually tries to put the most relevant data points into the curve fitting equation, not remove important points in order to gain a particular result.
Moreover, the data set selected as the basis for the curve-fitting line is meaningless and arbitrary outside of trying to gain a particular curve slope. It appears done entirely for the purpose of obscuring the overall upward trend in mean global temperature which we see by examining the entire data set of which we are aware. In effect, they are averting their gaze from the larger picture in order to focus on a fragment which gives highly questionable results they wish. This is then represented to the Rotary audience as truth - when it is really distortion, not truth.
Note that there is nothing scientifically significant or meaningful about the average temperature for a particular period. It's simply a selection of years in which the mean global temperature rose and the data is excluded. One of the challenges of making an average from different regions of the world is that averages for different parts of the Earth are changing at different rates - e.g., north, equator, south.
It should also be noted that the curve of mean global temperature is a sea saw affair from year to year, but the overall trend is upward. Those who argue that cooling is occurring are looking at the last year or two and extrapolating from that data. However, we see many instances in the curve in which a year or two appear cooler and then the curve rises upward sharply, thereby increasing the overall.
Moreover, the rolling average used for mean global temperature is based on, I think, a 5 year rolling average. Hence, the smoothing of a curve which is already smoothed has little meaning. The 5 year smoothing already takes out the variation which any given year may have - either up or down. In order to more accurately evaluate the data, one would have to return to the root data, not a doubly derived data set.
Notice that most of the graphs are expressed as net differences from 1979. That is a curve shaving technique which allows the incremental differences to seem smaller, a technique which is slight of hand and not intended to accurately inform the audience.
I don't have more time to spend on this bit of magic show, but I don't see the real value of this presentation except to politically spin a less sophisticated audience.
As a last point, there is a curve which is described as a 7th degree curve fit (figure 5). What a hoot. When you get a 7th degree polynomial Least Squares fit, you're stretching. In engineering school we used to joke that with seven parameters you could graph a camel.
As a last, last point: why do these people think that the IPCC did not take into account the same stuff they claim are the climate drivers? The fact is, they do and that is part of what makes the report some difficult to fully conceptualize. You can pick on any one thing and call it the real answer, but your answer can't be better than the physics.
In one of their block diagrams at page 11, they show a stated relationship between solar and climate. That diagram reads in blocks as follows: lower magnetic field strength -- fewer sunspots --> Less Solar Wind --> More Galactic Cosmic Rays --> More Low Level Cloud Formation --> More sunlight reflected into space --> and finally, Earth Becomes Colder.
Phew, I'm glad we got the Galactic Cosmic Rays in there, especially since Galactic Cosmic rays do not originate with the sun - but see conclusion 3 above. So how do we know all this stuff and that it is causal related? And what is the scientific framework which has been used to test this string of complex, purportedly interrelated conclusions? This premise goes farther afield than global warming by a mile.
All this path of physical processes are used to oppose the measured direct knowledge we have about the solar-radiation absorbing ability of trace gases like CO2 which absorb energy and convert it into sensible heat and other stored energy in the atmosphere. We know from simple physics the process results in warming the atmosphere and driving the weather, etc. These principles are rock solid, correlative and easy to understand. What gets complicated is predicting daily weather in town X or measuring an intellectually assimilable global average which has meaning in a complex system of air flow. But that does not mean that the basic physics and chemistry are obscured and therefore not operating to warm the atmosphere. That's like saying that natural gas flames under a pot of water are not warming the water because you cannot absolutely mathematically predict the path of each molecule of water as it warms and eventually boils. Try pouring the water on your arm to test that hypothesis - funny how flesh falling from the arm alerts one to the warmth therein, and still you are challenged to follow each molecule or the event is not taking place.
The simple answer is that the Earth's average global temperature has been rising in a manner correlated with the rise in trace gases. Other effects may come into play, but the rapid warming is almost certainly due to additional GHG, and they are within our ability to control if we are smart about it.
At least that's my take on it.
Note the groups cited as sources. They are the naysayer central in the reverbiration chamber which is trying to create - tobaco style - controversy:
Suggested readings and websites:
http://wattsupwiththat.com
http://climatedepot.com
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
http://heartland.org
http://www.icecap.us
http://www.drroyspencer.com
http://www.davidarchibald.info
http://www.weatheraction.com
http://www.co2science.org
http://www.climate4you.com
Add to this list recent documentary film style presentations: "Climate Chains," "No Evil, Just Wrong" and the like, and you have the seeds of "debate" when none really exists.
Permalink
Des Emery Posted 8:27 pm
27 Oct 2009
Permalink
achase Posted 6:26 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink