Slashdot Mirror
Climate May Be Less Sensitive To CO2 Than Previously Thought
a_hanso writes "A new study suggests that the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide on temperature may be less significant than previously thought. 'The new models predict that given a doubling in CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels, the Earth's surface temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 2.6 degrees C. That is a much tighter range than suggested by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report, which suggested a rise of between 2 to 4.5 degrees C."
Confirming that anthropogenic CO2 does affect climate and proposing that the multiplier is slightly less than what others have suggested. Yawn.
Pollution is what's saving the planet from global warming.
See the Global Dimming article on Wikipedia. There was also a NOVA episode on the subject.
This is the kind of thing that tends to get the skeptics -- and those the GW proponents call "deniers" -- going.
Clearly, the process has problems; the data isn't as nailed down as many claim; the temperature rises not as predicted; the models flawed; the entire thing politicized to a notable degree. It certainly all seems worthy of paying attention to, when taken together.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Also, so does every gasoline and diesel fueled generator in the world, and that's probably a pretty hefty number.
See the thing is, if the gasoline and diesel burned in individual vehicles was instead burned in power plants, and fed to the vehicles as electricity, there would be a lot less consumption of gasoline and diesel overall, because those larger generation systems are a lot more efficient at getting power to the wheels, even given transmission line losses, charging losses, etc.
And, if the vehicles are electric, they become power-agnostic: you can "burn" anything.... oil, coal, nuclear, sunshine, hydro, congresscritters, and the cars don't have to change at all.
Ok, clearly, burning congresscritters would really be polluting, but the other stuff...
EVs make great sense. manufacturing them such that they serve us well in the roles we like to use them... we're not quite there. Soon, though, clearly.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Now this one really does require a citation
I know it's hard to live in the information age and even harder to use a calculator and even harder when big numbers are involved, but there you go. Also remember China is growing 9% a year. That adds the demand of a country the size of Australia, every year. And that's just China.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
And only if their theories successfully predict new classes of oil traps where commercial quantities of crude can be extracted at reasonable rates and costs -- and it is my understanding that they haven't done that yet. There is no practical difference between "Diffuse oil from organic sources has been concentrated over millions of years in sedimentary rock structures with specific characteristics" and "Diffuse oil formed deep in the mantle has been concentrated over millions of years in sedimentary rock structures with specific characteristics." We're not finding new volumes with the proper characteristics at anything near historic rates, or even at rates that match our current extractions.
While there is much debate about the actual figure, it has been firmly established that the amount spent on AGW research is vastly greater than the amount spent by industry fighting it. One estimate (by pro-AGW activists) a couple of years ago was that industry had spent as much as $29 million dollars on anti-AGW campaigns.
Yet Richard Branson alone has donated over $3 billion to the study of AGW.
As I say: you can debate the exact amounts, but which side is spending more -- a lot more -- is hardly in question.