Comments kman has made

I need help

I'm trying to understand something so that i can explain it to others. Let's say that things change, but we only manage to make it to the low end of the UN projections by 2100.

What are the effects of the 0.74 C warming we've seen over the last century, i.e. how bad is it?

Also, how bad would a 2 C warming by 2100 be, i.e. what would be effects of it?

Some resources would be very helpful. Thanks!On A guest essay from Jan Lundberg posted 2 years, 2 months ago 16 Responses

Indeed

I'm new to the country so I dont know too much about sustainable evergy initiatives around the country. But San Diego had buses that all operated on natural gas, hence being cleaner than conventional public transport. Also, the public transportation system was amazingly punctual, like clockwork! I was really impressed, and only wish my crappy home town would move towards similar policies.On Los Angeles City Council OKs a peak-hour bus-only lane posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Re: Svensmark

Indeed, if Svensmark is right, then it would be absolutely revolutionary. However, Laut and others have found several errors in his experiment and analysis, and application to the recent temperature trends. More particularly, according to measurements of cosmic ray flux, the amount of cosmic rays reaching us hasnt increased enough or at all to cause the temperature increase.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20 ...

Furthermore, the low cloud quantity and cosmic ray flux relationship breaks down after 1990 or so. Also, there is a a 6 month lag between cosmic ray flux changes and temperature increase in the parts that they do match. While Svensmark claims that this is due calibration issues, ISCCP which does the monitoring of cosmic rays disagrees. Finally, if ionizing radiation does cause increased low cloud cover, then it should have done so during the chernobyl incident.

In short, while the cosmic ray theory is very interesting, and a few experiments suggest a relationship between cosmic ray fluz and cloud forming nuclei, the theory doesnt hold up strong enough against the accelerated warming since 1970 or so. Even the recent analysis by Solanki at the Max Plank institute (which takes into account the cosmic ray flux)doesnt hold up.On 'One hundred years is not enough'--Yes it is posted 2 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

ummm....

I care for the environment, I really do. I'd also love to see action taken to prevent the potential damage. I also appreciate the efforts of everyone doing this, but honestly, I do not think this is necessary. I've taken to street protests, etc, but i dont know if i'd fast for the climate. As someone above has said, we'd probably starve to death by the time Rush Limbaugh reaches healthy weight.

Also, even tho we are destroying nature, i dont see why we should go extinct ourselves (i'm sure that's the message that will come out of this). I mean afterall, we are a part of nature, and every living being consumes. The goal should actually be to consume less and sustainably as MarkUK said, rather than consume nothing.On September 4th event marks new phase in struggle for the planet posted 2 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

ummm....u're confused

did you forget the clean air and clear skies act in your analysis? Back in the 30s and 40s there was neither of these. In fact, that is most likely the reason for the slight cooling observed between the 30s and 70s, after which, temperatures have taken off.

There was a race between aerosols and CO2 prior to 1970. In fact (as mentioned already above twice) since CO2 warming actually has a lag time associated with the accumulation and reaching equilibrium, aerosols were winning slightly. However, once the clean air act came into effect, and industry was required to clean up its act, CO2 began having a greater effect. You can say removing one evil made the other more dominant. In fact, one of the cookier suggestions to solving GW is to have a sulfur blanket in the upper atmosphere.

As for why the 30s had higher temperatures than the 20s or 40s, look at the solar activity data.  There is indeed a good correlation with the increase in solar radiation reaching earth. However, look at the solar activity after the 70s till now...pretty much zip, nada, goose-egg (not zero, but it definitely hasnt increased as much as the temperatures have and there's no correlation watsover - if anything it seems to have gone the other way).

Finally, i bet you're under the idea that AGW is a recent hype. I suggest you look at the work of John Tyndall (from 1850), Svante Arrhenius (1896), Guy Callendar (1949) and J.S. Sawyer (1972). Sawyer in 1972 published a paper in 1972, that projected temperatures to increase by 0.6 C for a 25% increase in CO2 by 2000. And holy sh*t was he close! Temperatures did increase just over 0.5 C, and he didnt even account for Pinatubo (a future event he had no idea of at the time).

Obviously, if you choose to, you can just blind yourself to all the above explanations i've given and say that temperature measurements were fudged. Also, isnt Svensmark the one whose papers had several numerical and analytical errors which were pointed out by Laut? The same one who responded to Laut by posting an article on his site rather than refuting them in a peer reviewed journal? The same refutations that got refuted and called into question by Laut? I appreciate that Svensmark could well be the next Einstein if he's theory is right, but so far (beyond the laboratory experiment, which itself i think has issues) his theory doesnt seem to explain the recent warming trend. Finally, i still dont see how cosmic rays and solar forcing caused nighttime temperatures to rise faster.

Anyways...just my 2 cents. I suggest becoming mathematically and numerically competent first, then taking a few higher level physics and statistics classes (so you can understand how science works) and then go deeper in climatology. Energy & Environment papers dont count btw.
On The Wall Street Journal contradicts itself on global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 24 Responses