Granted, SULFUR content in those aerosols has an influence. However if anything developed countries have drastically been cutting back on sulfur emissions. (5000ppm used to be the standard. Now it's down to less than 15ppm. Some places down to 5ppm in diesel) http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
However then again, unmitigated air pollution also produces large quantities of O3 and NO3.
Also I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure sulfur molecules don't last very long in the troposphere.
Where as the CO2 and NO3 produced in parallel lasts for a long time.
__
In a strange way, Chinese coal plants are actually keeping the climate cooler than it otherwise would be.
However methane is the big scary beast to look out for. But indirectly.
Main reason you have people with their hair on fire over all this isn't the gradual increase in temperature because of manmade actions.
It's because that has the potential to trigger the release of massive natural stockpiles of methane. Which would cause more warming. Then more methane stockpiles. Into a positive feedback death spiral.
**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"** Yes http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse
**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"** Yes http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse
But I guess if you want to play games with surface temperatures. HadCRU said 1998 was warmer than 2005, by the tiniest fraction. GISS said 2005 was warmer than 1998 by the tiniest fraction.
Either way, 2010 is basically tied for the hottest it's ever been this past iceage.
That's UAH. That's not ground temperature data. That's atmosphere temperature data.
1998 in particular had a rather strong El Nino that year. And aside from having a large impact on ground temperature data, it had a huge effect on atmospheric temperature.
Despite that, El Nino events only last a fews months at a time. So trying to drag them out into some decades long "trend" would be the height of naivety or malevolence.
And considering the author of that graph is trying to make it look as flat as possible, seems they are trying to be "intentionally misleading" to me.
_
Or I guess one might be talking about the slight difference between GISS and HadCRU for that year. (But that's not the case this year)
I'll believe a Republican on how much they "cherish life" After they support ending wars, socialized medicine, ending the death penalty, and further gun restrictions. Until then, you can stop kidding yourself.
Well that's not always the case. Ethanol is a horrible idea sure, however Oil receives gigantic amounts of direct and indirect subsidies as well. Namely military usage.
This is more electricity for instance, however compare Geothermal and Solar, to Coal and Nuclear http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
Actually Canada and Saudi Arabia are about the same on imports.
However the real thing to be said, is that since oil is a fungible commodity, what he really thinks he's supposed to be accomplishing. http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
Only way to cut profits from oil, is to make oil less valuable.
As for batteries, both Nickel and Lithium are nontoxic, and easily recyclable. (Not to mention, Nickel is the 5th most common element on earth. So it's not that "rare".) _
What's more, if we are going to solve anything with global warming, we would need to upgrade our grid anyways. And it takes about 20 years to shift over to a new car fleet. So we best get started ASAP.
No, the big "bugaboo" is that there just isn't enough raw material.
Here for instance is a study which gives the unrealistic assumptions of SugarCane production/conversion efficiency, for half of all available arable land. And even then, with such wildly unrealistic assumptions, the figures are still abysmally low. http://imgur.com/94nsn.png
Slashdot Mirror
Was there really any doubt that Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were full of it?
Here's a thorough debunk of their most infamous paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo#t=2m00s
i.e. The one skeptics go crazy about how in emails, how other climate scientists said it shouldn't have even been published in the first place.
Doesn't this pricing figure make the assumption that physically making a paper magazine or newspaper costs $0.00?
Also I have no idea what he's talking about with Aerosols. Since that's largely constant.
http://greyfalcon.net/lean2005.png
http://greyfalcon.net/volcanic
Granted, SULFUR content in those aerosols has an influence. However if anything developed countries have drastically been cutting back on sulfur emissions. (5000ppm used to be the standard. Now it's down to less than 15ppm. Some places down to 5ppm in diesel)
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing.png
However then again, unmitigated air pollution also produces large quantities of O3 and NO3.
Also I'd have to check, but I'm pretty sure sulfur molecules don't last very long in the troposphere.
Where as the CO2 and NO3 produced in parallel lasts for a long time.
__
In a strange way, Chinese coal plants are actually keeping the climate cooler than it otherwise would be.
Well also it's just a difference in sheer volume.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing3.png
However methane is the big scary beast to look out for. But indirectly.
Main reason you have people with their hair on fire over all this isn't the gradual increase in temperature because of manmade actions.
It's because that has the potential to trigger the release of massive natural stockpiles of methane. Which would cause more warming. Then more methane stockpiles. Into a positive feedback death spiral.
In that way, you could look at CO2 as the fuse for a "Methane Bomb".
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=methane+bomb
Strange how all those temperature records, despite very slight variations, are all in agreement.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
Almost as if there was only 1 version of reality. (Or some worldwide CONSPIRACY!!!1)
http://greyfalcon.net/ideology.png
How much data would you prefer?
How about a couple billion years?
Although at that range, everything besides CO2 and changes in Orbit don't matter.
http://greyfalcon.net/climate2
Actually
Both Climate Change and Global Warming are unique terms that have specific meanings.
To put it simply:
Cause: Global Warming
Effect: Climate Change
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
If anything, we should be talking about Global Warming more.
Because it's amazingly simple when you boil it down to it's bare constuients.
**"Is it the sun?"** Sometimes but definently not for the past half century.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar0.png
**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse
**Is the rate of warming significant?**
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html
http://greyfalcon.net/climate2
(^^ I need a better source for this comment)
**"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon3
http://greyfalcon.net/c14
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2
DONE. That's all you need to know.
With absolute certainty "manmade CO2" is the main cause global warming.
Because everyone knows that Orwellian conspiracy theories trump physics, in how we understand reality.
Actually
Both Climate Change and Global Warming are unique terms that have specific meanings.
To put it simply:
Cause: Global Warming
Effect: Climate Change
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
If anything, we should be talking about Global Warming more.
Because it's amazingly simple when you boil it down to it's bare constuients.
**"Is it the sun?"** Sometimes but definently not for the past half century.
http://greyfalcon.net/solar0.png
**"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/greenhouse
**Is the rate of warming significant?**
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bftcWQiZPPg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-to-explain-Milankovitch-cycles-to-a-hostile-Congressman-in-30-seconds.html
http://greyfalcon.net/climate2
(^^ I need a better source for this comment)
**"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"**
Yes
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon3
http://greyfalcon.net/c14
http://greyfalcon.net/carbon2
DONE. That's all you need to know.
With absolute "manmade CO2" is the main cause global warming.
For instance
Atmospheric temperature records
http://greyfalcon.net/rsstemps2.png
Surface temperature records
http://greyfalcon.net/globaltemps.png
All the temperature records compared.
http://greyfalcon.net/forcing2.png
But I guess if you want to play games with surface temperatures. HadCRU said 1998 was warmer than 2005, by the tiniest fraction. GISS said 2005 was warmer than 1998 by the tiniest fraction.
Either way, 2010 is basically tied for the hottest it's ever been this past iceage.
Would you mind cutting it out with those science-free strawman arguments?
And I know exactly where you got them from, since that volcano bit is unique to that science-free documentrary.
Cliffnotes debunk
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle3
Cross referenced list debunk
http://greyfalcon.net/climate
Line by line debunk (If you are some sort of sadist for detail)
http://greyfalcon.net/swindle
By all means.
That's UAH. That's not ground temperature data. That's atmosphere temperature data.
1998 in particular had a rather strong El Nino that year. And aside from having a large impact on ground temperature data, it had a huge effect on atmospheric temperature.
Despite that, El Nino events only last a fews months at a time. So trying to drag them out into some decades long "trend" would be the height of naivety or malevolence.
And considering the author of that graph is trying to make it look as flat as possible, seems they are trying to be "intentionally misleading" to me.
_
Or I guess one might be talking about the slight difference between GISS and HadCRU for that year. (But that's not the case this year)
Well here for instance is a bit of understanding for that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTUuckNHgc
You have to look at the global TOTAL amount of heat. Rather than just "It's cold near me, therefore it must be cold everywhere"
Incidentally, long range climate understanding can't be explained without CO2 either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5hs4KVeiAU
Not really.
Human civilizations only really started forming about 10,000 years ago.
Which is less than 1 iceage cycle.
And things weren't dramatically different over atleast the last 8 iceages.
We'd have to go back billions of years for that.
Since as is, we're already 1/3rd higher in CO2 than it's been in 8 iceage cycles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
I'll believe a Republican on how much they "cherish life"
After they support ending wars, socialized medicine, ending the death penalty, and further gun restrictions.
Until then, you can stop kidding yourself.
Furthermore, if you want to talk about narcissism:
http://imgur.com/Qe3OX.jpg
Well that's not always the case.
Ethanol is a horrible idea sure, however Oil receives gigantic amounts of direct and indirect subsidies as well.
Namely military usage.
This is more electricity for instance, however compare Geothermal and Solar, to Coal and Nuclear
http://greyfalcon.net/subs.png
Actually ethanol doesn't eat up that much crude.
But it eats up tons of natural gas.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/05/25/e85-spinning-our-wheels/
Actually Canada and Saudi Arabia are about the same on imports.
However the real thing to be said, is that since oil is a fungible commodity, what he really thinks he's supposed to be accomplishing.
http://greyfalcon.net/dilbert2.png
Only way to cut profits from oil, is to make oil less valuable.
______
Oh and incidentally, Canadian oil is environmentally kind of a disaster.
http://greyfalcon.net/tarsands.png
Also you're missing out on how Brazilians consume 6x less transportation fuel than the average American.
http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2006/05/25/e85-spinning-our-wheels/
What did Brazil do?
http://greyfalcon.net/brazil.png
Only a tiny fraction of Brazil's transportion fuel is ethanol.
You're missing out that a huge amount of their fleet is diesel, and natural gas.
And how they produce nearly as much oil domestically as Venezuela (i.e. America's second highest oil importer, higher than Saudi Arabia)
Even if it's powered by the dirtiest Coal plants available, it'd still be cleaner than conventional cars.
http://imgur.com/ODyoB.png
http://www.grist.org/article/new-study-finds-that-plug-in-hybrids-rule-in-all-possible-futures/
As for batteries, both Nickel and Lithium are nontoxic, and easily recyclable.
(Not to mention, Nickel is the 5th most common element on earth. So it's not that "rare".)
_
What's more, if we are going to solve anything with global warming, we would need to upgrade our grid anyways.
And it takes about 20 years to shift over to a new car fleet. So we best get started ASAP.
Luckily, we have options:
http://greyfalcon.net/solarenergy.png
http://greyfalcon.net/geoenergy.png
http://www.esolar.com/our_solution
http://greyfalcon.net/egs
No, the big "bugaboo" is that there just isn't enough raw material.
Here for instance is a study which gives the unrealistic assumptions of SugarCane production/conversion efficiency, for half of all available arable land. And even then, with such wildly unrealistic assumptions, the figures are still abysmally low.
http://imgur.com/94nsn.png
And of course the already serious global scarcity on Potassium and Phosphorous.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311092124.htm
And given the growing populations this planet is expected to have, it would be rather criminal to place event further scarcity on those resources.
Well the correlation could be the other way around.
People who have a higher desire to understand reality might just be more inquisitive, and be less susceptible to deception.
Not likely.
Libertarians are still, at the core of their ideology, trickle down economics fundamentalists.
The basis of their ideology is a rejection of reality.
Which also might have something to do with their rejection of econometrics.