Recent (and not-so-recent) climate change articles

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Anna
    Senior Member
    • Feb 2006
    • 728
    • CA, USA.
    • BT3100

    Recent (and not-so-recent) climate change articles

    I know some folks here are interested in the topic and I thought they might like to read the more recent activities in the area. It's really just for informative purposes because, well, I think this is an important subject to keep ourselves informed about.

    1. 3000 ocean-plying data-gathering robots show no signs of ocean warming. Ocean warming is an important factor in the catastrophic global warming scenario

    2. NASA's Aqua satellite designed to gather atmospheric data, like temperature and cloud formation, show probable cooling or no change since 2002 and no "positive feedback" on warming (positive feedback, something that almost never exists in nature, is the key reason for runaway global warming as pointed out by Al Gore, not the direct action of greenhouse gases). Key point (for me anyway) in the article:
    "... with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback..."
    3. Canadian and German solar researchers correlate global warming/cooling with solar activity.

    4. Former NASA researcher rederives equations used in global warming models and found mistakes (for example, the assumption that the atmosphere is infinitely thick is used in the present models). NASA refuses to publish his findings and he publishes elsewhere instead. Oh, and the conclusion is that there is no positive feedback mechanism in global warming. His new equations also correlate very well with the Earth's climate predictions, as well as Mars'. This should definitely be reproduced/replicated and his results should be tested by other scientists (which is what science is about anyway)

    5. Finally, if you want to see the state of NASA's GISS stations - they're the temperature recording stations around the country whose data NASA uses in its models - you might want to take a look at a grass roots project that has people around the United States documenting these stations. Many of these stations are situated near buildings and other obstructions. Some are on concrete surfaces. Some are even just a few feet away from air conditioner exhaust. A lot of these stations started when the surroundings were still rural. NASA has repeatedly said that there are no urban island effects and have actually adjusted some temperatures up because of the assumption that the readings are "too cool." (Discussion here)
    This is a funny link (to me anyway) describing a climate change conference in the '80s. I laughed out loud at the shoe throwing incident, because I can imagine it happening in some of the "somber" scientific conferences. I've also seen similar situations in some conferences I've attended (without the shoe throwing, unfortunately).


    And just for fun, here is a list of climate change headlines from the NY Times over the years (via Anthony Watt's blog, whose readers dug the stories up). The snarky comments in between are by Tim Blair.
    1923:

    Glaciers have disappeared and land once covered with field ice is bare.

    1924

    Glaciers are moving from their age-old beds, pouring greater quantities of ice into the sea than recorded history has known. Broad areas of land are sinking to new levels. A number of islands have disappeared.

    1930:

    The Alpine glaciers are in full retreat. Out of 102 glaciers observed by Professor P.L. Mercanton of the University of Lausanne and his associates more than twothirds have been found to be shrinking.

    1935:

    The great glaciers of the West, last remnants of the Ice Age on continental United States, have been retreating from their strongholds in the mountains at double time since last year.

    1947:

    A mysterious warming of the climate is slowly manifesting itself in the Arctic, engendering a “serious international problem,” Dr. Hans Ahlmann, noted Swedish geophysicist, said today.


    Of course, the same archives also yield collosal climate coldness concerns:

    1895:

    The question is again being discussed whether recent and long-continued observations do not point to the advent of a second glacial period, when the countries now basking in the fostering warmth of a tropical sun will ultimately give way to the perennial frost and snow of the polar regions.

    1961:

    Winters Since ‘40 Found Colder In Studies by Weather Bureau; Data Indicate, a Reversal of a Warming Trend That Began in 1881

    1961:

    After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.

    1975:

    Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable

    1978:

    An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.


    Thus nature, and the NYT, balances itself. The paper really should return to the Grandfather Index of climate judgment:

    1934:

    America is believed by Weather Bureau scientists to be on the verge of a change of climate, with a return to increasing rains and deeper snows and the colder Winters of grandfather’s day.

    1936:

    The recent severely cold weather, following, in the main, many mild Winters, has caused people throughout the country to ask: “Does this portend a return to the reputed cold Winters of ‘granddad’s day’ years ago?"


    Yep; all over the US, that’s exactly what people were asking. But listen to folks from the actual Granddad’s Day era and they’ll tell you the real cold was earlier still:

    1890:

    Is our climate changing? ... The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young ...


    Also, there are fewer mastodons. Last word to the ominously-named, but perfectly sensible, Mr Scarr:

    1924:

    Some People Always Think the Climate Is Changing, But Mr. Scarr Says There Is Nothing in His Records to Justify the Notion
    Last edited by Anna; 03-27-2008, 05:06 PM.
  • jackellis
    Veteran Member
    • Nov 2003
    • 2638
    • Tahoe City, CA, USA.
    • BT3100

    #2
    You're a rabble rouser Anna, that's what you are!

    There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the climate is changing. It's been warming since the last Ice Age ended some 15,000 years ago and at some point, it's going to start cooling again.

    What's at issue is mankind's influence. I say it's quite difficult to determine the impact of human activity. I also say if the conventional wisdom is wrong about human influence and we act in haste, it will lead to huge, avoidable economic disruption in the best case, and nasty wars in the worst case. I also say we are more likely to be wrong about the outcomes in either direction than we are to be right about the outcomes.

    However, there are excellent reasons for acting as if man's influence on climate change matters. First, burning coal the way we do now puts a lot of nasty stuff in the air that's bad for our health. Second, we ought to find ways to use less oil so that we're not fattening the pockets of some benevolent and some not-so-benevolent despots. There are ways to do this without using food to make fuel.

    So what say others?

    Comment

    • jseklund
      Established Member
      • Aug 2006
      • 428

      #3
      Anna,
      your scientific method has no place in this discussion.

      ....sorry, couldn't resist
      F#$@ no good piece of S#$% piece of #$@#% #@$#% #$@#$ wood! Dang. - Me woodworking

      Comment

      • Anna
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2006
        • 728
        • CA, USA.
        • BT3100

        #4
        Originally posted by jackellis
        You're a rabble rouser Anna, that's what you are!
        Why, yes, I've actually been called that before.

        First, burning coal the way we do now puts a lot of nasty stuff in the air that's bad for our health. Second, we ought to find ways to use less oil so that we're not fattening the pockets of some benevolent and some not-so-benevolent despots. There are ways to do this without using food to make fuel.

        So what say others?
        I'd say that's just common sense and does not have to have anything to do with climate change.

        Comment

        • JR
          The Full Monte
          • Feb 2004
          • 5633
          • Eugene, OR
          • BT3000

          #5
          Originally posted by Anna
          I'd say that's just common sense and does not have to have anything to do with climate change.
          Me too. I like hydrogen fuel cells, but what do I know?

          JR
          JR

          Comment

          • big tim
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2006
            • 546
            • Scarborough, Toronto,Canada
            • SawStop PCS

            #6
            I've lived long enough to be very skeptical when politicians become scientist and scientists become politicians

            Tim
            Sometimes my mind wanders. It's always come back though......sofar!

            Comment

            • jonmulzer
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2007
              • 946
              • Indianapolis, IN

              #7
              Originally posted by JR
              Me too. I like hydrogen fuel cells, but what do I know?

              JR
              The problem with hydrogen fuel cells, they require more fossil fuels poured into power plants to produce the hydrogen than would be used if you just pulled up to the gas pump. Net loss for the environment barring MASSIVE technological breakthrough or suspension of the Law of Conservation.
              "A fine beer may be judged with just one sip, but it is better to be thoroughly sure"

              Comment

              • jackellis
                Veteran Member
                • Nov 2003
                • 2638
                • Tahoe City, CA, USA.
                • BT3100

                #8
                he problem with hydrogen fuel cells, they require more fossil fuels poured into power plants to produce the hydrogen than would be used if you just pulled up to the gas pump. Net loss for the environment barring MASSIVE technological breakthrough or suspension of the Law of Conservation.
                There are a couple of ways to produce hydrogen without using fossil fuels. One is as a by-product of nuclear fission. Not a bad idea except that the public is frightened to death of nuclear power. Of course, there's still the problem of packaging hydrogen in a way that makes sense for transportation. Putting it in pressurized containers is probably not cost-effective.

                Another is by using electricity from wind, solar and other renewable energy sources to decompose water into hydrogen and oxygen. Very expensive. Also requires units of energy from the sun, wind or... to produce one unit of usable energy from hydrogen.

                The winner is likely to be petroleum-like fuels derived from algae that use carbon dioxide and sunlight.

                Comment

                • jonmulzer
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2007
                  • 946
                  • Indianapolis, IN

                  #9
                  You are right about nuclear power, that COULD be the answer. But try getting past the NIMBY mentality to get that done. Not likely. Solar, wind, hydroelectric, etc, could never get the scale that we need as a society. As you said, it takes unitS to make a unit. Efficiency for all hydrogen production is usually less than 50%.

                  And then you have the problem of horrible drivers piloting their own personal Hindenburg through rush hour traffic. The Ford Pinto disaster would have nothing on hydrogen in that department. *shudder*
                  "A fine beer may be judged with just one sip, but it is better to be thoroughly sure"

                  Comment

                  • Ed62
                    The Full Monte
                    • Oct 2006
                    • 6022
                    • NW Indiana
                    • BT3K

                    #10
                    I have no idea if mankind is part of the cause of global warming, if there is any. But I feel pretty confident that both sides can find so called experts to agree with their beliefs.

                    My personal opinion is that we might have an impact on climate change. I'd rather err on the side of caution. That doesn't mean I'll have a complete life style change right at this time, but I'll at least do some things differently than I did 10 years ago.

                    Ed
                    Do you know about kickback? Ray has a good writeup here... https://www.sawdustzone.org/articles...mare-explained

                    For a kickback demonstration video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/910584...demonstration/

                    Comment

                    • BobSch
                      • Aug 2004
                      • 4385
                      • Minneapolis, MN, USA.
                      • BT3100

                      #11
                      Originally posted by jonmulzer
                      And then you have the problem of horrible drivers piloting their own personal Hindenburg through rush hour traffic. The Ford Pinto disaster would have nothing on hydrogen in that department. *shudder*
                      Actually, hydrogen would be a safer fuel than gasoline. Look at the Hindenburg pictures closely and you'll see that the majority of the flames are above the ship (hydrogen being lighter than air) while only debris is burning on the ground. Another often-ignored fact is that 2/3 of the passengers and crew made it out alive.

                      If I've got to be in a crash, I'd rather have the fire burning on top of the car than underneath.
                      Bob

                      Bad decisions make good stories.

                      Comment

                      • jonmulzer
                        Senior Member
                        • Dec 2007
                        • 946
                        • Indianapolis, IN

                        #12
                        It was not that the majority of the flames were at the top of the Hindenburg. It was that the majority of the flames were at the top of their fuel source, which was lighter than air. In that particular case, they were one and the same. With a car they would not be, there would be a fuel tank. Put that fuel source under your a$$, and the majority of the flames would be there also.

                        The other problem with your argument, the Hindenburg had very little pressure on it. Nowhere near the 6000psi that hydrogen is normally stored at. Had that dirigible been at those pressures and ignited, those people would not have survived. It would have been a flamethrower and not a slow burn.
                        "A fine beer may be judged with just one sip, but it is better to be thoroughly sure"

                        Comment

                        • JR
                          The Full Monte
                          • Feb 2004
                          • 5633
                          • Eugene, OR
                          • BT3000

                          #13
                          It seems clear that cars are here to stay in the USA. Whatever replacement fuel source we can dream up must allow complete mobility. Hydrogen fuel cell technology fits the bill from that standpoint. It can be made at "refineries" and transported to filling stations, similar to what we're doing now.

                          Batteries are more problematic. The current thinking is that they must permanently fitted into a car, and be rechagred when necessary. If we had a steandard for a common format, a battery exchange station could provide "re-fillling" services while on longer trips.

                          As to hydrogen energy consumtion during the mfg process, since this a highly centralized method, one assumes efficiencies can be found to mitigate the supposed carbon footprint - nuclear power (as mentioned), wind farm adjacency, hydro plant adjacency, etc. Whatever method chosen, they would lessen our reliance on foreign sources of power and their political complications.

                          FWIW - California is on the path to 20% power production from renewable resources by 2010. It was announced this week that 500MW of new solar plant will be constructed, from two new ventures.

                          Venture one has roof-top solar cells on commercial buldings in a sunny area of SoCal. I think there are incentives for the building owners to cooperate.

                          Venture two is some sort of concentrated solar engergy feeding a thermal plant of some kind. Once again, located in a sunny part of the state.

                          I understand Texas is already at 20% wind-based production. Denmark, small as it is, is at over 50% wind production. Iceland, geologically advantaged, is at virtually 100% geo-thermal production. There is a trial in California using Iceland's technology.

                          The point about NIMBYs is atrivial, particularly in fruits-and-nuts California. A recently announced trial of a tidal-engergy plant in Eureka brought out the local surfer's alliance, who would be "watching this experiment very carefully" for imact on their right to recreate in their chosen manner. Criminy!

                          JR
                          JR

                          Comment

                          • Anna
                            Senior Member
                            • Feb 2006
                            • 728
                            • CA, USA.
                            • BT3100

                            #14
                            When we drove around Denmark a few years ago, I was surprised at how many farmsteads (not the big industrial ones but the small, family-sized ones) had their own windmills. These are the modern windmills with the steel impellers. I was told that most of these farms are pretty energy-independent. I don't know what kinds of incentives are given to the farmers (I think a windmill costs ~$250k), but the idea of smaller-scale energy independence seemed very appealing to me.

                            When we looked up the economics of putting in a retrofit solar roof, though, the economics just didn't make sense. Out of pocket comes to about $30k, and we make our "investment" back in 25 years or so. That is a really bad investment in any book. So there has to be a better reason for putting in a solar roof than just pure economics (like, for some, social conscience or aversion to Mid East oil). Until the economics gets straightened out, though, it will be a tough sell to get more people to exercise their non-fiduciary conscience.

                            I feel the same way about hybrids. I bought mine when gas was around $1 per gallon, at a premium of at least $3000 over a similar non-hybrid car. But to me, the lower emissions made it worth it. Now that gas is approaching $5 in some areas, hybrid technology has become a much better economic proposition.

                            (Now that I think about it, I paid almost the same amount for my car that I would pay for a solar roof. I think my social conscience needs more exercising and maybe a bit more sense.)

                            Comment

                            • jonmulzer
                              Senior Member
                              • Dec 2007
                              • 946
                              • Indianapolis, IN

                              #15
                              Did anyone watch the show called "Off the Grid"? It is done by the same guy who did the Survivorman series. He and his family set up a home in the remote parts of Canada that is completely energy independent. Completely off the grid. No power, gas or water bill. It can be done, but for most people (myself included) it would be too much of a hassle. I could probably dig up the link to watch it online if anyone is interested. It would have to wait until I am back from Michigan though.
                              "A fine beer may be judged with just one sip, but it is better to be thoroughly sure"

                              Comment

                              Working...