Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown

[petros]

Of course they'll continue the lie...

GE wins $1.2bn in contracts for gas-powered turbines - Economy - Business - Ahram Online

How else will everything be converted to NG on your nickle?

The deals for 19 turbines to be manufactured in Greenville, South Carolina, reflect a gradual, global shift toward using inexpensive natural gas rather than coal or oil to generate power, GE said.

 

[captain morgan]

Of course they'll continue the lie...

GE wins $1.2bn in contracts for gas-powered turbines - Economy - Business - Ahram Online

How else will everything be converted to NG on your nickle?

Nukes shouldn't be too far behind... Afterall, they are the original green (as in glowing) alternative.

 

[petros]

Nukes shouldn't be too far behind... Afterall, they are the original green (as in glowing) alternative.

Japan shut theirs down and opted for gas turbines from GE

"Natural gas is more and more
becoming a fuel of choice around the world," said Paul Browning, who heads GE's
thermal products division, the biggest within the industrial conglomerate's $28
billion power and water business.

 

[captain morgan]

Japan shut theirs down and opted for gas turbines from GE

The rebuild was far more costly on the capital side to justify nukes... That and Japan has been constructing LNG facilities and securing long-term nat gas contracts over the last years.... It's no surprise to see this as the result.

I'm just a little curious though in terms of this shiny new agreement that the US and Japan have tabled to combat climate change (insert dramatic music clip here) when their plan looks like it's perpetuating a reliance on a different form of hydrocarbon (insert sinister music clip here).

 

[petros]

It's all about the NG. It's a supply agreement, not reducing agreement.

You CAN'T reduce one type of supply without securing a new supply.

 

[captain morgan]

It's all about the NG. It's a supply agreement, not reducing agreement.

You CAN'T reduce one type of supply without securing a new supply.

.. And, NG is still an eevviiiiiiiilllllll hydrocarbon!... Hell, coal bed methane requires a lot of fracking; isn't that an anti-Gaia practice?

So much for the ruse of saving Mother Gaia

 

[petros]

Coal is too expensive, oil is more valuable for petro-chems than fuel so that only leaves the vast vast vast supply of NG for burning purposes.

 

[EagleSmack]

I'm what some would call a "Lefty" yet I never once supported the whole Global Warming crap that's been sweeping the world for the last number of years.

Global Warmongers are not what I would call Left, Right or Centre... it's not a political thing, it's just an idiotic thing based on Quack science..... and fits in line with other idiots like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherds whom base their view on emotions strived from the first thing they can find that justified their stance to be emotional.

Sorry... it was a lefty thing.

 

[mentalfloss]

This story is in line with my belief that there is warming that is caused by CO2, but the degree of warming is not as significant as predicted.

 

[EagleSmack]

So is there any word when they will stop looking for money?

 

[petros]

I can live with that. No acceptance of it being more than GHGs?

 

[mentalfloss]

I can live with that. No acceptance of it being more than GHGs?

Oh yea, mother nature definitely does her part as well.

 

[petros]

Statically we are at the climatic and climactic peak of Inter-Glacial Period #10. Whatever caused the last 9 and how we adapt to the end of 10 is the real issue we need to worry about.

The end of 10 is a 100% given and it's only a generation or two away.

 

[Zipperfish]

Downplaying (or outright omission) of strong variables related to natural forces is a big cause for skepticism and one can't be faulted for questioning the scientific method if this is the case.

Following up the aforementioned issue, we have yet to see any model that is capable of explaining the past, let alone the future. With this in mind, any claims that outcome 'A' will result when inputs 'B' increase/decrease is not believable if the models are not functional.

The big nail in the coffin on this though is when certain high-profile representatives have doctored their commentary (eg: Gore) and/or claim that 'the debate is over' when a debate was never engaged in the first place.

I think there's a problem with the climate sensitivity myself, which is calculated based on the negative and positive feedback (e.g. natural forcings). I think they're too high (that is to say, overstimates the warming). However, even given no effect from forcings, postive or negative there's still the anthrpogenic focing of the CO2. If the extra CO2 is not warming the planet, that means there is some natural forcing, some natural mitigating factor, that is counteracting it. I'm willing to entertain such a notion, but haven't really seen anyone demonstrate a good case for such a counteraction. But more importantly, does this theorized natural counteraction work no matter how much CO2 we emit? Will it continue to work at 360 ppm? At 720 ppm?

The scientists acting as advocates is a problem.

Absolutely... But the difference in the smoking vs AGW example has to do with possessing strong and complete research in which a cause/effect relationship was proven. The same simply does not exist on the AGW front

Correlation is not causation. There is no shortage of evidence showing a correlation of smoking and lung cancer. There is so much correlation, it is almost perverse not to call it "proof." But from a strictly scientific perspective, there's no absolute proof. At least that was the argument of the industry. And they were correct, although they failed to mention that the concept of "abolsute proof" doesn't have much validity in the physical sciences. Scientists, flustered by this claim, used a term familiar in the global warming world "overwhelming scientific consensus" (with about as much success as the global warming crowd). But eventually, the public relations battle was won by the proponents of the smoking-lung cancer theory, not because of some abstruse argument over "proof" but because people aren't that stupid. They can see around them the damage cigarettes cause. Ironically, now the pendulum has gone the other way, at least in my opinion, and the harm caused by smoking/second-hand smoke/third-hand smoke is probably exaggerated.

 

[darkbeaver]

It's a pretty solid argument. Calculate the mass of the atmosphere. Calculate the gigatons of carbon oxidized by humans. Calculate the resultant change in CO2 conentration in the atmosphere. Plug that into the radiative forcing equation. Voila.

Atmospheric mass is wildly variable depending on wildly variable solar input from wildly variable galactic input. And none of that is the least bit helped or hindered by anthropocentric CO2 production.

 

[petros]

Recently the sun pushed the magnetosphere in to 40km from Earth which left the ionsphere open to hardcore direct bombardment from solar radiation. Some satellites were hit hard with raw Solar EM.



When your first line of defense falls to second, atmospheric change is inevitable.

 

[Zipperfish]

Atmospheric mass is wildly variable depending on wildly variable solar input from wildly variable galactic input. And none of that is the least bit helped or hindered by anthropocentric CO2 production.

I don't think it's that widely variable.The average pressure at sea level is fairly consistent actually. It's about 14.7 lbs/sq in. That's the weight of the atmosphere over every square inch on earth. It's easy enough to calculate the the surface area of the earth, approximately. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. The radius of the Earth is about 4000 miles. Do a quick calculation, convert units and you get an atmospheric mass of of about 5 x 10^18 kg.

1 part per million of CO2 by volume in the atmosphere is equal to about 1.5 ppm by mass. Another quick calcuation shows that you can increase the concentration of CO2 by 1 ppm (volume) by adding just over 2 gigatonnes of CO2 to atmosphere. We emitted about 34 gigatonnes in 2011. Clearly that all didn't stay in the atmosphere, since that would have resulted in a concentration increase of 17 ppm CO2. As it is Co2 concentrations are increasing about 2 ppm year, I think.

Natural CO2 emissions are estimated at around 800 Gt per year, which is more-or-less balanced by the photosynthesis and ocean abosrption. But that puts anthropgenic emissions of CO2 at just over 4% of all emissions, which I think demonstartes that our impact on the atmosphere globally is, indeed, measurable.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I don't think it's that widely variable.The average pressure at sea level is fairly consistent actually. It's about 14.7 lbs/sq in. That's the weight of the atmosphere over every square inch on earth. It's easy enough to calculate the the surface area of the earth, approximately. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. The radius of the Earth is about 4000 miles. Do a quick calculation, convert units and you get an atmospheric mass of of about 5 x 10^18 kg.

1 part per million of CO2 by volume in the atmosphere is equal to about 1.5 ppm by mass. Another quick calcuation shows that you can increase the concentration of CO2 by 1 ppm (volume) by adding just over 2 gigatonnes of CO2 to atmosphere. We emitted about 34 gigatonnes in 2011. Clearly that all didn't stay in the atmosphere, since that would have resulted in a concentration increase of 17 ppm CO2. As it is Co2 concentrations are increasing about 2 ppm year, I think.

Natural CO2 emissions are estimated at around 800 Gt per year, which is more-or-less balanced by the photosynthesis and ocean abosrption. But that puts anthropgenic emissions of CO2 at just over 4% of all emissions, which I think demonstartes that our impact on the atmosphere globally is, indeed, measurable.

Applejack - don't you use your fancy mathematics - YouTube

 

[darkbeaver]

I don't think it's that widely variable.The average pressure at sea level is fairly consistent actually. It's about 14.7 lbs/sq in. That's the weight of the atmosphere over every square inch on earth. It's easy enough to calculate the the surface area of the earth, approximately. The surface area of a sphere is 4*pi*r^2. The radius of the Earth is about 4000 miles. Do a quick calculation, convert units and you get an atmospheric mass of of about 5 x 10^18 kg.

1 part per million of CO2 by volume in the atmosphere is equal to about 1.5 ppm by mass. Another quick calcuation shows that you can increase the concentration of CO2 by 1 ppm (volume) by adding just over 2 gigatonnes of CO2 to atmosphere. We emitted about 34 gigatonnes in 2011. Clearly that all didn't stay in the atmosphere, since that would have resulted in a concentration increase of 17 ppm CO2. As it is Co2 concentrations are increasing about 2 ppm year, I think.

Natural CO2 emissions are estimated at around 800 Gt per year, which is more-or-less balanced by the photosynthesis and ocean abosrption. But that puts anthropgenic emissions of CO2 at just over 4% of all emissions, which I think demonstartes that our impact on the atmosphere globally is, indeed, measurable.

Very interesting, could you link us to the 4% global emissions please. Most increased emissions are very probably natural post LIAs.

Back-to-front climate science | Louis Hissink's Crazy World
The LIA, on the other hand, was marked by famine, extreme cold and climate catastrophes of a global nature associated with increased meteoric activity. Circum-pacific civilisations were terminated, the Moas became extinct in New Zealand (and according to the Maoris from a fire in the sky), Easter Island people died out, and according to Gavin Menzies, the destruction of many of the Chinese Ming Dynasty ocean-going fleets.
The steady rise of global temperature during the last 200 years isn’t due to CO2 but due to the removal of the cause of the LIA and the slow and steady return of the earth-system back to its MWP climate state. The increase in CO2 associated with that return to climate normality, if there is such a thing, is an effect of numerically increasing, recovering biosphere of which humans are an intrinsic part. It’s the thermal tracking back to normality that is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2, not vice versa.






About Louis Hissink

Professional exploration geologist. View all posts by Louis Hissink →

 

[coldstream]

The truth is there was never any warming in the first place.. just a normal cycle of regional climate variants. There was no 'slowdown'.. there is only a never was.. of an exposed fraud... perpetrated for money and for a rampant and radical environmental philosophy and quasi 'religion' that is deeply antipathetic to the human cause.. masquerading as a pseudo science. None of this was ever based on real science..