And not in just the field of meteorology:
http://www.livescience.com/history/0...er_island.html

"Lipo thinks the story of Easter Island's civilization being responsible for its own demise might better reflect the psychological baggage of our own society than the archeological evidence. "

"It fits our 20th century view of us as ecological monsters," Lipo said. "There's no doubt that we do terrible things ecologically, but we're passing that on to the past, which may not have actually been the case. To stick our plight onto them is unfair."

I think many are looking at alternative energy now such as wind and nuke power, the stubbornly high oil prices have renewed worldwide interest in sustainable energy sources, such as solar, wind and biomass as well as biofuels and France is looking at a fusion plant.


Warming seas cause stronger hurricanes

Mega-storms are set to increase as the climate hots up.

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/0603...060313-12.html

Warmer ocean waters are indeed a key factor in creating more devastating hurricanes, atmospheric scientists have found. The finding confirms what many have suspected: that rising temperatures are directly linked to the upswing in hurricane intensity seen in the past few decades.

Actually, it is the rising cost of natural gas that is really driving the push for alternative energy at the moment. In the US, we have built almost nothing but gas turbines in the recent past, and their fuel costs are through the roof. Wind energy is something of a quick fix for that, as government incentives reduce the up-front capital costs as well as add a 1.8 cent/kW incentive. Plus, compared to a coal or nuclear plant, a wind farm can be developed quickly.

Recently, there has been a push for new IGCC coal plants; this is the next boom market for power generation in the US, especially if Gen III+ nuclear hits regulatory snags and natural gas prices stay high. IGCC is nice because it eliminates pretty much all emmissions except CO2--plus is 20% more efficient than pulverized coal, so CO2 is 20% reduced for the same output. Longer term, CO2 capture and storage could eliminate CO2 emissions as well (though the sites I am familiar with definately are not planning to do it any time soon).

You can kindof breakdown power generation technology in the US by how far out you need it (my personal estimates):
Immediately: Natural Gas, Wind, trace amounts of Solar PV and Biomass
By 2015: IGCC Coal
By 2020: Gen III+ Nuclear, Carbon Captured IGCC Coal
By 2040: Gen IV Nuclear
By 2050: First commercial Fusion

Other countries have better opportunities for Hydro (China in particular) taking some of the immediate and near-term load. Gen III nuclear is also a much bigger deal in Asia. France obviously leads the way on nuclear power, and thus doesn't have much need for anything else.



Why this is news I am not quite sure; Hurricanes get their energy from heat in the water, so it is rather obvious that warmer water means stronger storms in general. What is less obvious is whether the warmer water is due to greenhouse gas emissions, or even a global warming trend at all.

__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.

An apocalyptic take.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

Climate of Fear

I figured there might be some interesting feedback on this...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

This article is all politics and no science. If someone will identify the approprite thread, I will merge this with an existing thread on the politics of global warming, or perhaps it belongs in a conspiracy thread. I'm open to suggestions.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Last two posts merged in from a thread originally posted in BABBling.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

I don't know about all the poltical stuff in American society but we should keep politics out of this debate, except for the politics that impacts or muzzles science


Here is more on NASA's censorship


NASA admits Deutsch muzzled scientist
Sunday, June 11, 2006 at 9:36 pm
http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2...led-scientist/
NASA has publicly admitted that White House appointee George Deutsch inappropriately denied press interviews with global warming scientist James Hansen. NASA internally reviewed what happened with Deutsch. A letter from Brian Chase, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Legal Affairs at NASA sent a letter to Senators Joe Lieberman (D-CT) and Susan Collins (R-ME) briefly outlining the finding

We've discussed Deutsch before. It wasn't NASA doing the censoring, but the administration. And that's as close to politics as I'm willing to get. The subject's way too close already.

__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
Philip K. Dick, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."
Mark Twain

Avatar courtesy of Bunny.

The outgoing Clintonian EPA has reduced the allowable levels in drinking water below the ambient background in most of the Southwest. My firm is selling equipment to remove Arsenic to meet this new lower level limit to many municipalities. It is a total waste of money, and everyone including me who is profiting from it know that.

Since the bodies are lying all over in the gutter from Las Vegas to San Antonio from the millions of people poisoned by Arsenic in the water, its taking longer to clean the water of this hazardous substance. (sarcasm)

But as a typical bureaucracy if there is no problem to justify your continued existence, create one, and then ask for a budget increase.

Evan,

You have demonstrated the problem. Now do something about it. Join the Society for the Prevention of Albedo Reduction. We say that you alter the planet when you create conditions for absorbing more of the Solar flux.

Covering the world with soot would alters how much is re radiated; absorbing the Solar flux and piping it off at a different frequency would do it too. A solar collector either of IR energy or a PV collector absorb the flux and do not radiate as much back to Space. What doesn't get tossed back into Space must be left around to alter (i.e Warm) the planet.

Conclusion:
Beware the use of uncontrolled and unregulated absorption Solar Energy!

Similarly if you disturb Nature's attempt to achieve thermal equilibrium by interrupting or slowing the movement of gases which are seeking to bring temperatures into equilibrium you are altering the Albedo as well.

Conclusion:
Beware the use of uncontrolled and unregulated use of Wind Energy!

Here's a little of what was in the Canadian Free Press.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

__________________
I'm not a scientist, but I play one on the internet.
http://www.rrac.org

Just out. An analysis of Mann's hockeystick work. Done by 3 eminent statisticians unconnected to either Mann or M&M, and done for no remuneration.

A 90k .pdf Fact sheet
Comment #2 here is Mann's response

1.5 meg .pdf Entire report
Much more verbose and includes a social network analysis of the paleoclimate research community. Demonstrates why many other studies should not be considered independent.

What was striking to me is the clarity of their presentation. I found it to be short on weasel wording. Not math heavy.

__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open.

Within the topic but not necessarily the group, who watched the Discovery Channel 2 hour program on global warming.

I didn't sleep in a motel last night, but I did watch Discovery Channel. Am I a climate scientist now?

David Davis
Toledo, OR 97391

Thanks Bobk - very important information.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

I only saw about half of the scare show, but that was enough. The plethora of weasel wording(if, may, might, could, etc.) was astounding. That, along with the paucity of opposing views(none while I watched), made it a waste of time.

__________________
A mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open.

some more news

California hasn't gone out on a limb as the first state to adopt strict limits on the release of carbon dioxide to help combat global warming. Ever the trend-setter, the Golden State is merely getting a leg up on the rest of us.
What we'll all have to do before very long is get serious about addressing the greenhouse gases that threaten to change radically Earth's climate.
http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/p...970.xml&coll=1
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, going against fellow Republicans in the state Legislature, joined majority Democrats in casting legislation that will require that by 2020 California reduce its CO2 emissions to their 1990 levels, a cut of 25 percent.

The British Association for the Advancement of Science says the world must focus on preparing for the "hotter, drier world" that global warming will bring. Association President Frances Cairncross said politicians and environmentalists put too much emphasis on trying to prevent climate change and not enough on adapting the world to the warmer temperatures it will bring, The Times of London reported Monday.
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/To...hange_999.html
"Adaptation policies have had far less attention than mitigation, and that is a mistake," she said.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said his state will become a world leader in reducing greenhouse gas emissions because of an agreement his Republican administration negotiated with the Democratic controlled state Legislature.
http://www.wastenews.com/headlines2.html?id=1157123927
"[Assembly Bill] 32 strengthens our economy, cleans our environment and once again establishes California as the leader in environmental protection," Schwarzenegger....

Yeah, since we have already lost the fight.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

NASA data shows that Arctic perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and remains year-round, shrunk abruptly by 14 percent between 2004 and 2005. According to researchers, the loss of perennial ice in the East Arctic Ocean neared 50 percent during that time as some of the ice moved from the East Arctic to the West.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006...5_sea_ice.html
The overall decrease in winter Arctic perennial sea ice totals 280,000 square miles--an area the size of Texas. Perennial ice can be 10 or more feet thick. It was replaced by new, seasonal ice only about one to seven feet thick that is more

Well, Greelanders are very happy about it. They are experiencing an economic boom. People are talking about bringing cows in, and the last brocoli crop has broken all records. They can hardly wait for more warming.

Meanwhile, in the tropics...

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

The Vikings found Greenland at a time when it was warm enough to start a thriving colony, a few hundred years later the last of the colony were having to dig shallow graves for their dead during the summer months because the ground froze so hard in the winter. We live in an interglacial with very uncertain climate.

From CNN.com

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

why would repeated 11 year averages have any effect on long term temps? I hope that is bad reporting and not bad science.

It also says that the sun isnt responsible to any of the well recorded climate changes (mostly europe tho) over the last couple thousand years.

In my opinion, this is saying that since the sun isnt responsible for any recorded climate change, humanity is responsible for this one. What caused the others then?

I guess this is mostly bad reporting Grrrrr....... [/rant]

I finally tracked down the journal article, it is in the current issue of Nature (Abstract). I can't get the article for free, but below is the "Editor's Summary".

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Bold is mine...

Wow!! Is this ever bad science!!

There are any number of other factors that affect climate other than the brightness of the sun. To suggest that humans are responsible for increases or decreases in global temperatures simply because the sun's brightness has not changed much is utter foolishness and very very bad science!!

Well, no... The consensus until recently was that the only factor that could be responsible for most of the global warming -apart from human contributions- was solar variance. If it now turns out that solar variance is not responsible for a lot of change in the global climate recently, then it clearly implies (as the quote said) that humans are responsible for most of the warming. Good science: only two possible explanations left, one looks to be wrong, then the implication is that the other one is right.

(And now I'll have a few weeks without that annoying 'you haven't contributesd in a while' message!)

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

It has never been the consensus that solar variance was the only cause for modifications in the climate of our planet. In fact, it is well know that there are many factors that contribute to ice ages and that even if solar output had been constant throughout the history of our planet there is every reason to believe that ice ages would have come and gone over time.

That makes the conclusion of the article very bad science...

I have to agree with lurker that it is bad science. There hasnt been a major climate change recorded with modern instruments, and there hasnt been any major solar cycle anomalies recorded with modern instruments. (before anyone gets on my case that there is a change going on right now, I would point out that we are just in the beginning of a change, so it dosent count yet) There is some evidence that the little ice age was at the same time as the maunder minimum, but that would tend to mean that quick climate changes are more dependent on solar magnetic activity than on luminosity.

All this begs the question on wether it is man-made or not. This article is basically saying that the choices are man-made or solar, completely ignoring other natural cycles, such as ocean circulations that could be changing the environment. I am not saying that that is what is changing the climate, just that it is bad science to put it in terms of man-made/solar caused only.

To make the premise that much clearer, can we come up with a suitable time span of climatic data that would be relevant for climactic predictions? It surely isn't 10 years, probably not even 50 or 100 years, I think. At least a few centuries?

...anything less, and it's just garbage in/garbage out. It seems the GW crowd is insistent on using close measurements over the course of dawn to early morning in order to track a trend that suggests that winter will never arrive at the projected rate (as an example). Minute by minute in the early morning hours won't make one bit a difference on the price of tea in China, if you are trying to predict some climactic event that is to happen many months ahead.

__________________
Dude, don't be a Quaid!

Climatic changes over the modern years could also be attributed to something right before our eyes. Something obvious to me that I have read nothing about is the production of concrete. Models of climate change should include something such as this. A variant that changes per year as 5 billion cubic tons of thermal mass are added to the surface of the globe. Depending on where most of this activity is occurring climate changes could be affected locally and globally. The thermal mass of concrete in the forms of airports, highways, buildings, parking lots and sidewalks should be studied. We are hypothetically creating huge paved deserts which are in affect adding heat to the environment and changing the Earth's climate. Not to mention the runoff produced into the tributaries from all of this rainwater not being absorbed into the soils as would have normally occurred. Increasing runoff and contributing to flooding and resulting in a quicker turnabout of runoff water back into the weather cycle.