PS The Washington post article appears to show that S I Rasool used a Hansen program for calculating the effects of aerosols.... It was published in 1971.
James Hansen makes his reply here:
Shame he didn't speak up in 1971 about the "misuse" or "misapplication" of his program then. But there isn't any evidence that I've found that he actually believed, at that time, in a coming ice age.
We are looking at converting burners in a coal fired plant to burn sawdust. The wood would come from trees killed from the western pine bark beetle.
Yes it would emmit CO2, but it is renewable CO2. And would reduce the usage of coal.
We also allow net metering to encurage others to invest in solar. Besides form a utility perspective, solar somewhat follows the load.
We also use small hydro for additional renewable energy.
These are all small proportions of the total energy demand, but they make people feel good.
jmw - In one post you went from saying that we shouldn't intervene with cooling/CO2 absorbing schemes (which I agree with) to saying that is would be a bad idea to stop emitting CO2 because we're in a cooling cycle. Which is it, do you want to intervene or not? Or am I right in guessing you just like it hot?
By the way, the current cooling cycle is a 30 year cycle. Last ended in 1977 when CO2 levels were lower. That would put the previous cycle at the turn of the 20th century when C02 levels were pretty close to pre-industrial levels. I don't recall hearing about any need to warm the atmosphere to avert disaster in those decades.
rb - I think the answer to your question is both. And that underscores that fact that we have more to gain by changing energy sources than we have to lose.
Anyone else feel like these threads do nothing but go around in circles that we have already discussed? I thought that we were all in agreement that IPCC's reports were falsified by omitting data and applying unproven algorithms to adjust surface temperature readings.
As far as having more to gain than loose, I think you missed the cap and trade scheme that Sachs and others are clamoring for. Cap and trade will cost companies a ton of money and that will all be put on the backs of the consumers. How does economic collapse sound?
i don't think anyone is saying that there isn't climate change happening, wait 5 minutes and it's changed (locally and globally). the crux of the debate (slagging match) is whether it is due to human effects (and so changable back to what it "should" be) or not ('cause there are other effects/drivers that swamp the human effects). some people accept the computer models and their experts; others follow the other experts (who say the models are full of "it").
In "State of Fear" (Michael Crichton's book) it was suggested that just before every climate change conference, something dramatic was needed to boost the message, some great PR attention grabber - and here we have, suspiciously just in time for Copenhagen, the Catlin Survey results broadcast to the eager media.
Polar bears are pretty jaded as a attention grabber, not just because they are inconveniently actually growing their population but we have some animal rights activists who are calling for zoo born polar bears to be allowed to die and others asking what's the point of Pandas? if they can't hack it, let them die out....they're a pretty poor excuse for evolution.
What I can't find on the WUWT website is the added comment from an ice specialist that he wouldn't be using the Catlin data, however valuable ground based observations usually are for measuring the snow cover and helping calibrate satellite data, it seems to have disappeared.
Hmm.
Young Turk, the PDO effect is also discussed here:
Yes, 30 cycles.... so 1970 warming to around 1998 (the hottest year, and we are now around 10 years into a cooling cycle which will end in 2030 ... seems about reasonable.
So in 2030 we'll get the runaway warming claims again until 2070 when they'll admit to having been in a cooling period for a while with 2060 as the hottest recent year.
true enough, some don't care about fuel consumption ...
but some separate the two issues and disbelieve the AGW doom-sayers (the contention that the increased CO2 emission is forcing climate change) but still consider that being more efficient with fuel consumption is a good thing.
rb1957 said
"true enough, some don't care about fuel consumption ...
but some separate the two issues and disbelieve the AGW doom-sayers (the contention that the increased CO2 emission is forcing climate change) but still consider that being more efficient with fuel consumption is a good thing. "
Amongst those who claim to support the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, some "care" about the issue, just not enough to spend significant money or to brook any significant inconvenience to deal with it.
Others think that there's plenty enough reason to reduce fossil fuel consumption regardless, AND that the threat of AGW is just another justification for what we should be doing anyway.
Some feel that reducing fossil fuel consumption is "a good thing", while others feel it is necessary and urgent- and therefore worth doing something COLLECTIVELY about it.
Anybody with a brain knows that voluntary individual action on the issue is a drop in the bucket. While we're fighting market forces which support continued wasting of fossil fuel resources, total consumption will climb. You're either OK with that particular status quo, or you're not.
I'm not.
jmw: in Canada I believe there is no dispute whatsoever that Arctic ocean ice cover is disappearing. Just ask the Inuit in the Canadian north. They live there, year-round, and are routinely seeing species now that they've never seen before, as well as having their hunts disrupted by thin sea ice. So it's not just the polar bears, nor can you put too much faith in one "expedition".
Personally I see so much money and fuel being wasted trying to prove Global warming, and so quickly they throw off any other explanation. They also throw off any ideas that don't meet there goal.
It's become a religon.
Reducing the use of energy/fuel is a good thing. But don't preach to me about it if you aren't willing to walk the walk.
By the way, it apperently isen't cost effective for the bus to stop anywhere near my office, or home.
The bigest concern is the religon is creeping into our tax system.
mm ...
"Some feel that reducing fossil fuel consumption is "a good thing", while others feel it is necessary and urgent- and therefore worth doing something COLLECTIVELY about it."
humm, that's where the trouble really starts ... people saying "i know better, i know what's good for you, do this". and there're plenty of people complaining about our elected officials doing just that.
some of us have the nerve to think "no, you don't; you only think you do"
jmw: in Canada I believe there is no dispute whatsoever that Arctic ocean ice cover is disappearing. Just ask the Inuit in the Canadian north. They live there, year-round, and are routinely seeing species now that they've never seen before, as well as having their hunts disrupted by thin sea ice. So it's not just the polar bears, nor can you put too much faith in one "expedition".
There are two questions, is arctic ice disappearing more or less than corresponding periods? Most of the discussions relate to coverage not thickness.
Secondly, is it normal natural cyclic behaviour or did man cause it?
I'd say there is a dispute about what is seen and how it is interpreted.
A citation or link to an Inuit report would be nice.
There are a number of ongoing techniques for measuring the ice thickness including satellite, radar, laser interferometry and so on.
The Catlin "survey" came back with 39 data points across a shorter 450km(?) route than planned and which depended on bore holes once their radar didn't work.
There own web site admits a bias because it is easier going for the explorers to travel on new (one year) ice which is flatter easier going and preferred for camping.
One survey shouldn't be relied, I quite agree.
And one which collects so little data as this is a case in point so would you please direct your comment to the BBC, the Daily Telegraph Environment Correspondent and a few others who have taken the report and blown it up without doing a sanity check against the various other data sources.
In either case, please note that I have posted links. I am not the scientist here but an interested observer.
