Comments Schoneveld has made

Not just La Nina, also Solar Cooling.

There is some potentially good news looming around the corner for us concerned "eco-friends". I know, we are usually a bunch of pessimists with little confidence in the good intentions of mankind when there is buck to be made. That's why we cannot imagine that those who are skeptical of the catastrophic climate change are not funded or supported by some right wing think tank or by the  Exxon-Mobiles of this world. But, in our heart we know that not all skeptical scientists, amongst them many respectable professors, could possibly be greedy disingenuous opportunists who would give up their scientific integrity for some sinister ulterior motive.

So let's, for a change, be receptive to some positivism and consider the possible effects of solar cycle 24 that just (on 4 January 2008) officially commenced. Solar cycles have a periodicity of around 11 years. The intensity of these cycles vary and some scientists believe there is a good correlation between intensity and global temperatures. For instance, the Maunder Minimum, a series of low intensity cycles some centuries ago, is being linked to the Little Ice Age. The fact that solar cycle 24 arrived almost a year later than expected could indicate that this cycle will be a less intense one, in other words it could herald the beginning of a cooler era.  

Of course, we wouldn't want the world to go through another 17th century-like cold era. Although we think that global warming is catastrophic, another Little Ice Age is not something we would be looking forward to either. We like it the way we know it. Climate change - in whatever direction - is undesirable because it would require adaptation, which would be costly. In the extreme, one could say that 6 meter of sea level rise is economically as devastating as having all the cities in Northern America and Northern Europe covered by a kilometer of ice, like was the case in the last glacial.  

So now comes the positive twist. If indeed the next solar cycles are of low intensity causing global temperatures to drop, the thing that could avert a "catastrophe" is the continuing emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. With a bit of luck the two effects cancel each other out. That would mean that it would save us the giant cost of looking for more expensive alternative energy sources right away and, more importantly, we don't have to deny the poorer nations the cheaper fossil fuels that have served us so well in the last 100 years or so. But as long as we don't know for sure whether a cooling trend is on its way, we should keep on talking and continue organizing mega-conferences with ten thousands of participants to ensure the world that we take the problem of climate change seriously.

Of course there is the remote chance that the evil climate change deniers are correct and that man-made CO2 is not causing any major global warming. After all, we know that CO2 increase is logarithmically related to temperature rise. Only the feedbacks that we have introduced in our climate models can reinforce the otherwise progressively diminishing effect of increasing CO2 concentrations.

The industry-funded deniers are already pointing out that global temperatures have stabilized or even dropped since 1998 despite a continuing increase in CO2. For them this is a demonstration of the theoretically diminishing greenhouse effect and a disproval of the feedback models of the IPCC climatologists. If the deniers are right, no global warming disaster will result from our present wasteful life style. Instead, we should prepare for a global cooling trend, at least if solar cycles are indeed becoming less intense and their effect on temperature confirmed. The good news is that the media can continue speculating about future disasters and the 2500 IPCC scientists are assured of continued governmental support in order to derive at a consensus position on global cooling. On In 2008, globe will cool down a bit -- but still be bloody hot, say researchers posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

climate refugees???

 "Scientific" conclusions of this caliber are the hallmark of alarmism and damage the reputation of the climate change science.

Fist of all,  water in a mangrove is in communication with the sea (it is situated in the tidal zone of the coastal strip). Since the melting of local glaciers has no measurable effect on sea level the submergence of these islands are unrelated to glacier melting.

Secondly, the Bengal delta is subject to isostatic crustal movement caused by increased sedimentary load, in turn causing the submergence of islands, a common geological phenomenon.

Maybe it is time to educate the readers of this blog about the concept of "relative sea level change" with the emphasis on "relative". The present-day worldwide "absolute" eustatic sea level rise of some 2 mm per year is a futile event compared to local sea level changes which are often more dramatic but unrelated to  ice melt or thermal expansion of warming ocean waters.

Locally observed changes are always the result of tectonics or isostatic movements of the earth's crust and never due to eustatics.  In contrast to the Bengal delta, Stockholm is experiencing a relative uplift of 10 mm per year due to glacial isostatic adjustments, a rebound from the disappearance of the last glacial ice load.  Also the East Pacific coastline shows a relative uplift of 1 mm per year (or an absolute vertical crustal uplift of 3 mm per year). The recent earthquake in the Saloloms, a tectonic event, has even pushed up some islands by a couple of meters.

Furthermore, progressive upward coral growth around many coral islands will be able to compensate for relative sea level rise and therefore Tuvalu or the Maldives are not necessarily doomed by the projected maximum eustatic sea level rise of 58 cm in the next century (provided humans don't damage the fringing reefs). As we all know, an atoll exists by virtue of this process.
On Climate refugees and Wi-Fi pollution posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

A skeptic scientist

Of course, by googling you can find any crazy blog or right wing nut who makes unscientific claims. When we try to debunk arguments put forward by skeptics then I mean "scientists" from the skeptics camp. Like Bob Carter, Lindzen, Gray, McIntyre and name another 100 Profs and Dr's in geology, climatology etc.On 'Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans'--Not even close ... posted 2 years, 11 months ago 31 Responses

If it was the sun indeed

Ok, now a question that burdens my environmental conscience. Let's assume that after a number of years there is irrefutable scientific proof - or scientific consensus, if you like - that global warming is not caused by humans but a natural phenomenon, should we try to interfere with nature or manipulate our climate in order to "save" humanity and those ecosystems that are now said to be in grave danger?On It's likely not the primary cause posted 3 years ago 5 Responses

Australia and Kyoto

Come on, don't be so gullible thinking that Kyoto will save the world or Australia. Kyoto is just window dressing. It has absolutely no effect on CO2 emissions without the participation of over 2 billion people in China and India with their ever-expanding industries. We need an IPCC that is not just dominated by climatologists. They have to include more scientists that have expertise in geology, geography, biology, hydrology, agriculture etc. Maybe they should also invite climatologists with a dissenting view and scientists that have studied the benefits of higher CO2 levels. After all, it cannot be just doom and gloom. In other words scientists with a less alarmist inclination so as to avoid the impression that the IPCC is a club of inbreeds. If they keep the dissenting scientists on the sideline and dismiss them as "AGW  deniers" comparable with Holocaust deniers they will never achieve credibility in wider academic circles.  This inbreed impression is strongest when you read the posts on RealClimate.org which is dominated by Mann (an IPCC darling) and his mates. If you try to make one slightly dissenting remark you will be slaughtered.On Enviros, believe it or not, protest posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

Energy storage

Of course, I agree on the issue of the birds. It was just to show that the various environmental interest groups in Australia are able to slow down the approval process.

Are you serious that you want to install all the houses (and of course all users of electricity) with batteries to bridge the periods of no wind or no sun? You really think that the electricity demand of factories and all other users can eventually be met by batteries or do you really believe that the 10 million or so inhabitants of Tokyo can be supplied through superconducting energy storage. Do you realize this is only used for emergency situations to ensure continuous electricity supply in cases of  lightning or power dips that causes voltage sags. Indeed, those conditions are ideal for the application of the SMES technology. Do you realize how much it costs to keep the superconducting state alive. You can't store the amount of energy that a nation requires in this manner. It needs a refrigiration system and a helium vessel the keep the coil in a superconducting state.

Have you got any clue what surface area has to be covered with solar panels or  windmills (of your mind) or tidal/wave capturing devises to satisfy the energy demand of 300 million people? An area covered with man-made structures on that scale will certainly effect our environment.

We need some form of base-load energy, be it fission, fusion (in 50 years time possibly, hopefully) or clean fossil fuel power generation. No renewable alternative exists I am afraid.On Enviros, believe it or not, protest posted 3 years ago 17 Responses

Solar, wind and wave power?

I suppose we are all concerned about the environment. Yet do we realize how Australia would look like if it has to generate all its electricity though renewable technology? Nobody wants nuclear power station in its backyard, but neither would they want a wind farm on the horizon. Bird lovers in Australia have protested the building of a windfarm fearing for the life of the yellow-bellied parrot. To get approval will take many years. It is a fallacy to believe that renewables can be installed in 2 or 3 years. Too much red tape.

But renewables are only feasible if the sun was shining 24 hours a day 365 days a year, or the wind has to blow there where a wind farm happens to be located. Tidal energy would destroy the local shore environment, something no true nature lover would want.

So could someone propose a renewable energy source that will provide the essential base-load power to keep my fridge cold in the night or factories running during cloudy and windstill days ? On Enviros, believe it or not, protest posted 3 years ago 17 Responses