Just so that we are all on the same page I would like to propose the following simple questions to those amongst who have an educated insight into global warming, in particular, to the one’s most familiar with climate models.

1. Will global warming increase or decrease rainfall?

Yes, in some areas there will be. In others, there will be a decrease. Why? Because rainfall is dependent on many factors other than temperature.

2. Will global warming increase or decrease evaporation?

Yes, in some areas. In semi-arid areas, where soil moisture etc is critically dependent on plant processes, evaporation may not be affected. Evaporation also won’t be affected in areas where average temperatures decrease, and there will be areas like that.

3. Will the average gradient between the poles and the equator slacken?

Sometimes. Sometimes not.

4. Will this impact the weather?

Maybe. Much depends on other factors. Severe local storms still occur even during the summer when there isn’t a strong equator-pole gradient.

5. Will global warming increase or decrease global average cloud coverage?

Yes and no. Cloud is also not something that is produced simply through temperature processes. There are myriad other factors that come into play. For example, if there were to be a shift in the general circulation over North America, such that the westerlies weren’t as dominant as say a northerly flow, you could well see increases in boundary layer cloud at certain times of the year and decreases in upper level moisture.

6. Should these changes be observed in a climate model?

Not necessarily. Climate models don’t model the state of the atmosphere in fine detail and many of the processes in involved in your questions are not features that can be adequately captured at the resolutions of a climate model. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t tantalizing hints in the output, much the same way that one can deduce the presense of thunderstorms in a weather prediction model even though the processes involved are taking place at scales below the effective resolution of the model.

7. Will global warming cause sea levels to rise or fall in both the long term and short term?

Yes. Sea-levels are rising, but much depends on the Antarctic ice sheets.

First of all, much of the energy in generating stations is expended as heat directly (about 60% as I recall), while in an SPS system the energy is converted much more efficiently (more like 20% waste or less as I recall). This would allow a much larger amount of useful energy for the same amount of heat load if SPS stations were used.

Secondly, although it is true that the energy from fossil fuel was absorbed from the sun at one time, it is being released much faster than it was ever absorbed from solar energy.

Thirdly, and in many respects most importantly, the net heat accumulation on the earth is going to be the integral sum of the amount of heat received from the sun minus the amount of heat radiated from the earth. The major problem with fossil fuel is NOT the amount of heat it produces directly (though that is a local problem in many places), but the amount of carbon dioxide that it produces, which tends to hold the heat better than most of the other compounds in the atmosphere; therefore fossil fuels reduce the amount of heat which can be re radiated by the earth in addition  to adding to the heat load directly.

In addition, in many places power is generated by wood or other recently living plant matter. This has the effect of decreasing the ability of the biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide, aggravating the heating problem.

Objecting to SPS because it would increase the earth’s heat load is JUST PLAIN SILLY. There are many other problems with SPS (notably the fact that it is not a tested technology, and depends on several factors which are themselves not tested technology – such as assembly of large objects in space, how to get the material there when we have no experience with doing this on that magnitude from either the earth or the moon, etc), but this is a red herring.

The wind resource maps estimate the resource in terms of wind power classes ranging from class 1 (the lowest) to class 7 (the highest). Each class represents a range of mean wind power density. Areas designated class 3 or greater are suitable for most wind turbine applications, whereas class 2 areas are marginal

Looking a little further into the book, we find that almost (at least 90% of, making a quick visual estimate) the entire state of North Dakota, for example, is either class 4 or class 5. While this area is nevertheless marginal today, owing to low local power prices, the fact is that although wind energy is a site-specific technology, there is a much broader range of available sites than for hydro.

There are vast areas in the southwest and northwest regions of the United States that have developable wind resources. Most of these areas are not tied to highly populated areas by utility transmission lines and further, they have avoided costs for electric power of $0.03 – $0.04 per kWh. If transmission lines were built to allow ‘wheeling’ the energy to high population centers, and if avoided costs slowly rise to $0.05 – $0.06 per kWh, extensive windpower development would take place.

So what do CFC gasses have to do with global warming?

CFCs absorb infra-red radiation in different bands than CO2. The atmosphere is more nearly opaque in the bands absorbed by CO2 than it is in the bands absorbed by CFCs.  That means you need lots more CO2 to produce the same net additional energy retention as you can with a smaller increase in CFCs.  In other words, a little CFC goes a long way.  Of course, as more CFCs are added to the atmosphere, such differences will lessen.

Many CFCs, in addition to destroying ozone, are also greenhouse gasses.  It’s called the old double whammy.

A number of institutions and organizations, including Sweden’s Beijer Institute, the United Nations Environment Program, the World Meteorological Organization, Worldwatch Institute, the World Resources Institute, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Sierra Club, and the Woods Hole (MA) Research Center have independently concluded in recent months that the threat of warming is real and that action to deal with it is needed now.

Among options for such action are:

• A crash effort to step up research on the greenhouse effect
• Banning chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), gases used in refrigerants which are implicated in ozone depletion as well as warming
• Boosting the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources
• A global reforestation effort (trees remove carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, from the air)
• Helping developing countries to achieve their development goals with renewable rather than fossil fuels

Everyone would benefit if Third World countries moved toward sustainable economic development based on renewable rather than nonrenewable fuels. Why build coal-fired generating plants and power lines to send electricity to rural villages that could be more cheaply served with solar energy?

Recent advances in renewable technologies could allow Third World countries to leapfrog the dirtiest stages of the industri-alization process.”

The study was an explanation of why none of the predicted sea coast flooding has occured yet.  This flooding is predicated by those who forsee global warming due to the CO2 and halogen-organics that have been added to the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution.  The geologists claim that the water added from melting ice has about the same volume as the water that has been impounded in reservoirs by dams et. al.

They claim that the impounding is slowing down, and sea coast flooding will start soon.  If we seek to continue to prevent the sea coast flooding with this technique, we have until the middle of the next century.  Most of the easily used volumes are below sea-level.  The following regions are among those that will have to be flooded:

• Caspian Sea, Russia and Iran
• Dead Sea, Israel and Jordan
• Imperial and Death Valleys, California, USA
• Quattar Depression, Egypt
• Congo River Basin and Lake Chad Basin, Zaire et. al.

Interesting set of ecological and political problems.  I hope other solutions can be found.

Carbon dioxide, once produced, stays in the atmosphere for thousands of years. It takes a long time for the atmosphere to come into equilibrium with the ocean, and even longer for dissolved CO2 to be deposited as carbonate rock. Cutting CO2 production in half will not prevent significant global warming, just delay it.

China currently produces 10% of global CO2 output. Chinese energy consumption is projected to quadruple in the next 40 years. Other lesser developed countries will also increase their CO2 output.

An EPA projection finds annual world energy consumption rising from 290 exajoules (1985) to 585 exajoules (2025). This projection assumes the western democracies substantially improve energy efficiency. In this projection, developing country annual consumption rises from 65 exajoules to 296 exajoules.

China has recently admitted its coercive birth control policy is a failure.

Fossil fuels are abundant, much more so than was commonly believed in the 70’s. Global oil reserves have jumped 30% in the last three years, and reserves/(rate of consumption) is now at more than 45 years, some of this increase is due to conservation. The production cost for oil in the mideast is very low; any attempt to replace oil with nonfossil sources of energy will just cause OPEC to cut prices (production costs at some Saudi fields are < $1 per barrel).

Global coal reserves are up 80% (!) in the last three years, to 1.1 trillion tons. This is enough carbon to increase atmospheric CO2 by about 700 ppm, almost tripling current CO2 levels. China has 610 billion tons of this reserve.

Natural gas reserves are doubling every ten years.

The upshot is that there will be a strong disincentive to switch to more expensive energy sources, such as renewables or nuclear, and more extreme forms of conservation will be uneconomical. Any country that tries to unilaterally reduce its CO2 production too much will put itself at a disadvantage in the global economy.

The best realistic hope, I think, is that warming can be delayed enough to give us time to improve alternate technologies so they can outcompete fossil fuels. Failing that, we’d better get ready to put sunshades at the earth-sun L1 point.

Global Warming Happening!

Is everyone enjoying being a prisoner of A/C this summer? How’s that electric bill to run the bugger?

Meanwhile glaciers melt worldwide, some in Europe exposing to the light of day hidden bunkers from WW v.1.0 or dead soldiers of the same genre. And of course, a 5,000 year old body was exposed the same way in 1991, old news indeed.

If you look at fossil fuel use history and CO2 level rise, you notice a pattern. The two reasonably well match. Even funnier is how the added carbon is old carbon devoid of C-14, the radioisotope. That can be expected of carbon that sat in formations for millions of years. The old carbon is your smoking gun.

So far, global warming has been by one degree F. But don’t be fooled. There is a time delay between CO2 rise and the warming, so warming will only accelerate. That means longer hotter summers, better hurricanes, better thunderstorms, etc. And of course nastier heatwaves.

And the use of A/C to defend yourself from the heat carries with it an irony. As you use it, it adds some little extra load causing more CO2 to be added to the air, worsening the global warming later. Oddly, it’s true aboard your SUV too, as it imposes a little extra load on the engine causing a little more added CO2 as it burns a little extra petrol. As millions of people use the A/C, that little bit adds up big time, both at home and aboard their SUV.

Global Warming

The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer every day: changes in our climate are real and they are underway. Now. But we can do something about it.

The evidence that human-induced global warming is real is increasingly clear and compelling.

a. Since the late 19th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1º F (0.3-0.6°Celsius).

b. Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).

c. Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.

Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s, and 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began. In addition, changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records:

a. mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

b. the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

c. the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

d. there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . . .

As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives. While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts. Among the most severe consequences of global warming are:

a. a faster rise in sea level,

b. more heat waves and droughts, resulting in more and more conflicts for water resources;

c. more extreme weather events, producing floods and property destruction; and

d. a greater potential for heat-related illnesses and deaths as well as the wider spread of infectious diseases carried by insects and rodents into areas previously free from them. If climatic trends continue unabated, global warming will threaten our health, our cities, our farms and forests, beaches and wetlands, and other natural habitats.

We can take action to reduce the threat

Fortunately, we can take action to slow global warming. Global warming results primarily from human activities that release heat-trapping gases and particles into the air. The most important causes include the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas, and oil, and deforestation. To reduce the emission of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides, we can curb our consumption of fossil fuels, use technologies that reduce the amount of emissions wherever possible, and protect the world’s forests.

We can also do things to mitigate the impacts of global warming and adapt to those most likely to occur, e.g., through careful long-term planning and other strategies that reduce our vulnerability to global warming.

Be part of the solution

Clearly, global warming is a huge problem. It will take everyone — governments, industry, communities and individuals working together to make a real difference.

We need to bring sound scientific information to policymakers and the public to educate them about global warming, its impacts, and about available practical solutions. We’re raising awareness of the need for action and working to create Congressional support for ratification of the Kyoto climate treaty.

But we don’t stop there. We’re also advocating policies that will combat global warming over the long term. Things like clean cars that run on alternative fuels, environmentally responsible renewable energy technologies, and stopping the clear-cutting of valuable forests.

These are solutions that will help to reduce global warming, and you can be part of them.

While the phenomenon of global warming is an empty worry, fundamentally unverifiable and unfalsifiable in a strict scientific sense, it is one that has been empowered with a greater meaning by those who have the motive to do so. Accordingly, and perhaps unsurprisingly, since the early 1990s its intrinsic linguistic emptiness has been filled by a mighty myth, especially in Europe. This myth asserts that current global warming is both faster and worse than at any previous time, that it is not natural, but must be caused by human hubris, and that the main culprit has to be the United States.

Global Warming

So you are saying that all of the chemicals, exhausts and pollution that man throws into the air DAILY, has NO impact whatsoever? GET REAL!

The holes in the ozone layer has to give you some clue to the affects of human hubris, which can ONLY affect the radiation levels on the earth to be changed and has proven to have done so. You only have to drive behind a bus and breathe in it’s exhaust to KNOW that it is polluting the air and how many vehicles are on the planet? You only have to go to any major city, especially Los Angeles, in the heat of August and see the BROWN air hovering above the WHOLE area. You can’t possibly with good conscience and common sense BELIEVE that global warming is a MYTH.

The evidence is RIGHT BEFORE YOUR EYES. In this past century, with the industrial age, the many factories, and the extreme numbers of vehicles giving off exhaust, has increased more than any time in the history of the planet. Sure the government has guidelines and ACCEPTABLE levels, but what are the ACCEPTABLE levels? They are measured according to how much MONEY is invested and given to the government to determine those levels, which are NOT ACCEPTABLE at all.

So, please, let`s get more philosophical about global warming. And instead of throwing yet more good money after bad by trying to halt the inexorable and the inevitable, let`s use that money more wisely to help lesser developed countries (LDCs) to grow stronger economies that will enable them to cope better with change — whether hot, wet, cold, or dry.

Sure, get the third world countries to grow in industry and vehicles to increase the levels of chemicals in the air to speed up global warming, so that all natural disasters, hurricanes, floods, tornados, heat, cold etc increase to such levels that it ends up destroying man off this planet, for man has NOT taken the responsibility of preserving their home, so they don’t DESERVE to live on it. To get rid of global warming is easy. STOP making gasoline powered cars and vehicles, STOP allowing industry to pollute the air. They have the technology but the OIL giants and GREEDY governments and corporations won’t permit it’s use or enforce pollution control.