261 replies to this topic

[The Sun]

Hi Guys.

I'm new here. I believe that humans are a significant contributing factor to Climate Change, but to ignore the natural factors that impact the energy budget would be just as silly as to ignore the human influences.

How much warming over the last 150 years is due to human sources? 30 years? How sensitive is the climate to a doubling of CO2 and how long does it take for the Earth to reach equilibrium?

[Shortpoet-GTD]

It's not just the industrial revolution that added all the toxins to the air but it's the numbers of us.
Humans have been felling trees, and burning charcoal for centuries; but there were not enough of us
doing that to make much of a difference. The oceans kept the balance.
But our oceans are becoming acidic from the emissions, and can't keep up.

Resources being used at breakneck speed, homes being built, homeowners shopping to fill their homes
with things to make it look nice-with no thought to the footprint of those items- clothing, food, water...........

I'm 64, and in just the last 20 years, I have seen a drastic change in the climate. Seasons are gone,
insects are disappearing-especially bees, our food suppliers.
Lake levels are bottoming out, storms are becoming more potent.
Winter's used to be hard to get through; bitter cold, snow, ice. It's been in the 70's here for weeks, and
it's almost December.

McKibben strives for 350. We're at 390 now and climbing.
If we push hard (and I mean the human "we") and get it back down to 350. we're still going to be in
for hardship for decades. Water and food shortages are already hitting a lot of countries.

First steps should have been taken 20 years ago, but we did nothing. We're not doing much more now.
Call me a pessimist. I'm not.
I try to stay optimistic, but I'm a realist.
China and India are cranking out new coal plants like candy, and we still are too.

That brick wall we're speeding towards is coming up fast, and someone must apply the brakes.

All I can do is my best in reducing my own consumption of coal and gasoline and "things".

[The Sun]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 21 November 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

It's not just the industrial revolution that added all the toxins to the air but it's the numbers of us.
Humans have been felling trees, and burning charcoal for centuries; but there were not enough of us
doing that to make much of a difference. The oceans kept the balance.
But our oceans are becoming acidic from the emissions, and can't keep up.

Resources being used at breakneck speed, homes being built, homeowners shopping to fill their homes
with things to make it look nice-with no thought to the footprint of those items- clothing, food, water...........

I'm 64, and in just the last 20 years, I have seen a drastic change in the climate. Seasons are gone,
insects are disappearing-especially bees, our food suppliers.
Lake levels are bottoming out, storms are becoming more potent.
Winter's used to be hard to get through; bitter cold, snow, ice. It's been in the 70's here for weeks, and
it's almost December.

McKibben strives for 350. We're at 390 now and climbing.
If we push hard (and I mean the human "we") and get it back down to 350. we're still going to be in
for hardship for decades. Water and food shortages are already hitting a lot of countries.

First steps should have been taken 20 years ago, but we did nothing. We're not doing much more now.
Call me a pessimist. I'm not.
I try to stay optimistic, but I'm a realist.
China and India are cranking out new coal plants like candy, and we still are too.

That brick wall we're speeding towards is coming up fast, and someone must apply the brakes.

All I can do is my best in reducing my own consumption of coal and gasoline and "things".

Hi ShortPoet.

The anthropogenic forcing did not become significant in the grand scheme of things until the industrial revolution.

A lot of what you've experienced can be a direct result of natural variability from pressure patterns like the AO/NAO and the AMO/PDO. These oscillations can have pretty large impacts on the weather, and can create variability in localized regions. A recent study published in Nature found that there has been little change in Global Drought, so what you are probably experiencing is likely a result of natural variability.

A lot of what you have also experienced with regard to the temperature anomalies recently is probably a result of the pressure patterns up by the poles. I am currently at a solid -4 Departure for November so far.

I also feel that there is a significant natural component to temperature increases over the last 150 years and the last 30 years.

I feel that there is too much attention on Climate and not nearly enough attention on other environmental issues like deforestation, water pollution, air pollution etc.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

A lot of what you've experienced can be a direct result of natural variability from pressure patterns like the AO/NAO and the AMO/PDO. These oscillations can have pretty large impacts on the weather, and can create variability in localized regions. A recent study published in Nature found that there has been little change in Global Drought, so what you are probably experiencing is likely a result of natural variability.

A lot of what you have also experienced with regard to the temperature anomalies recently is probably a result of the pressure patterns up by the poles. I am currently at a solid -4 Departure for November so far.

I also feel that there is a significant natural component to temperature increases over the last 150 years and the last 30 years.

I feel that there is too much attention on Climate and not nearly enough attention on other environmental issues like deforestation, water pollution, air pollution etc.

I disagree.
It's climate change and humans did it. It's not natural variations. And deforestation, water and air pollution are all
tied together. We fell trees, we cause air and water pollution.
It's all on us.
And it has caused AGW.

[The Sun]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 22 November 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

I disagree.
It's climate change and humans did it. It's not natural variations. And deforestation, water and air pollution are all
tied together. We fell trees, we cause air and water pollution.
It's all on us.
And it has caused AGW.

I think it's a combination of both natural factors and human induced factors, especially if we look at the solar activity proxy changes over the last 1000 years.

This figure from Usoskin et al. 2005 shows the correlation between solar activity and temperatures throughout the last 1000-2000 years. Note that there has been a dramatic increase in solar activity in recent times. In fact, some proxies indicate that solar activity is the highest in around 10,000 years. Since solar activity has correlated with temperatures in the past, it would make sense that solar activity has also contributed significantly to the modern warming with the recent dramatic increase in solar activity.

Like I said, it's just as silly to ignore the natural factors as it is to ignore the anthropogenic factors that impact climate.

Attached Files

•  Usoskin et al.png   83.08K   3 downloads

[The Sun]

I should state that I am openly against fossil fuels, and that we need to switch to alternate energy sources.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Ok, so let's say it is the sun's activity.
But we still need to stop decimating the rainforests of the planet-oxygen;
slow down the toxic use of chemicals that are killing our bees, (and us, btw)
and the coal plants and emissions from cars that are making our air unbreathable.
I see the biggest issue as water.
We're covered in it, sure but until we start using desalination plants (which poor countries will not be able to do) we'll
run out of fresh water.

(And also btw-welcome to the forums. I love a good discussion.)

[The Sun]

100% Agree. And thanks!

[r. zimm]

I think we can agree that no matter what the underlying cause (or causes) it is unwise to destroy natural resources. One problem though (China mentioned) is that many countries around the World have or are now hitting the same place in their economic development as North America did 50-100 years ago. Those countries say "Hey you guys used your resources to grow and prosper, why can't we do the same?"

We also did much to alleviate the damage from pollution in the 70's so not overall we do have decent water in most areas and many thousands of acres of natural wilderness being left for future generations.

The thing that scares me is the United Nation's "Agenda 21" which plans to move most of the world's population into cities and eliminate private property. Those words may not be in the documents but many feel that is the plan if you read the whole thing.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

r. zimm, on 23 November 2012 - 04:48 PM, said:

One problem though (China mentioned) is that many countries around the World have or are now hitting the same place in their economic development as North America did 50-100 years ago. Those countries say "Hey you guys used your resources to grow and prosper, why can't we do the same?"

But see, that's the problem. They are not thinking that way; they're not saying "use resources". They're clueless in
that regard. And we're not much better.

[Phil]

There is only one viable solution, make green energy cheaper than fossil.  That will make everyone want to  switch over.  As long as it's more expensive, you will be hard pressed to move China, India, or any other developing nation off the dime and it is they that will control the earth's temp not us.  We are already on the right track and moving forward, they are on the wrong track and moving forward!

I also agree it is likely a combination of natural and man made forces and it's the shear number of humans vs any one activity that is killing the environment.  That being the case, we will face warming regardless of what the US does.

Interesting you brought up agenda 21, I just found out about it and is scares the hell out of me.  Private property is a prerquisite for individual freedom and prosperity as well as quality of life.  Also, as Sandy proved, moving everyone into mega cities, is beyond foolish, it's dangerous.  Any way you look at it decentralization is key to survival, that has always been the case.  Terrorism, plagues, natural disasters, etc. all wreak havoc exponentially more in concentrated areas like cities than they do in suburbs and the countryside.  One of the reasons I'm on 10 acres!

Welcome, by the way!

[E3 wise]

I wanted to add some source information, I recently reread Michael E. Mann's The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars, it's a very good sources reference from a leader in the scientific climate change community, it details the human and environmental effects of climate change to provide an overall breakdown of all the factors of climate change.  it also provides great information on the deniers of climate change and details their inaccuracies and motivations and how that has affected governmental action in the United States since the late 1990's.  you might find it very helpful.

I use it a a source material because it provides a deep understanding across the differing factors on a long term scale that has been peer reviewed and backed up by other studies around the world.  Mann is good at demistify the science in clear, detailed and simple language. This includes solar intensity and sunspot data as well.

Like Phil I wanted to welcome you to the forum and thank you for adding to the discussion of this critical subject.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

Welcome to the forum!

I agree with others that it is a combination of factors that have contributed to climate change, but humans surely have a hand in it.  At this point, it is not constructive to lay blame.  What is important is figuring out what is causing problems and finding solutions to those problems.  It seems to me some climate change deniers do so because of this belief that you cannot find fault with humans, that all our actions are necessary for progress.  So, I think if we can take the discussion beyond "who or what did this" to "how do we correct things" it will be more helpful all around.  Though, in order to find solutions we have to figure out what is causing them in the first place.  We already have some of those answers.

[F.Tnioli]

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

Hi Guys.

I'm new here. I believe that humans are a significant contributing factor to Climate Change, but to ignore the natural factors that impact the energy budget would be just as silly as to ignore the human influences.

How much warming over the last 150 years is due to human sources? 30 years? How sensitive is the climate to a doubling of CO2 and how long does it take for the Earth to reach equilibrium?

Hi. I am new here as well, however i am anything but new to the climate change research.

I have answers for you. To the best of my present knowledge:

1. impossible to say precisely how much is due to human action, but range can definitely be given; very roughly, it is about +0.5...1.4 degrees C for last 150 years, and about 0.3...0.8 for last 30 years, for human-made global average temperature change.

Why: we do not know any much better, because we do not yet precisely know what natural change was, for both last 150 and 30 years - the sum of natural factors could well even be a negative value, considering facts that 1) Earth is reached the peak of present-day natural inter-glacial temperature maximum few thousands years ago, as evident from Vostok ice cores and benthic forams research, 2) present-day average global temperature (~14.8°C) is record high during both Holocene (last dozen thousands years roughly) and during last hundred thousands years (glacial cycle), thus it' rather difficult to expect natural factors to be doing further warming, 3) longer-term natural trend (talking about a timespan of last 3...4 millionsyears here) is very, very slow cooling - approx. -1 degree C every 600.000 years, and 4) sunspot number for last 150+ years keeps very well within 30...90, which is nothing extraordinaire - not too high, not too low (not always the case - last anomaly for sunspot number, known as maunder minimum, happened between year 1650 and 1700, when for a few decades the number was nearly zero). If natural forcing was indeed a negative value for last 150, or 30 years (or both), then of course, observed temperature increase would actually be less than man-made forcing to it - thus ranges above include values a bit higher than observed change to global average temperature.

Anyhows, what happened in recent past is this: year 2007 - average global temperature = 14.7C (NASA GISS data); decadal average for 1990s = 14.4C; for 1980s = 14.26C; for 1970s = 14.01C. That rapid change is unlikely to be due to any natural variations i know of, and all those were always times and times slower than this if we talk decadal-scale dynamics of warming; strong/multiple volcanic eruptions can do similar or even faster-pace temperature change due to natural dimming effect, however that's always cooling, not warming.

2. Doubling (to pre-industrial ~280ppm) of CO2 in the athmosphere is said to do from 2...4.5°C increase to average global temperature (IPCC 2007) to 4...8°C increase (Hansen et al 2008) - if my memory serves right (it probably does). Hansen et al estimate is substantially higher reportedly because Hansen included slow (year+) positive feedbacks into his models, while IPCC considered fast feedbacks only. Myself, i feel that Hansen's is probably about right - i'd say eventual +5...+7.5 for doubling of CO2 is what seem to be true looking at paleoclimatic record of the Earth.

3. Reaching equilibrium (to present athmospheric CO2, CH4, CFCs and nitro oxides levels) warming is delayed, and will be delayed, due to both natural mechanics involved (most notably thermal inertia of the world ocean - ~20...35 years to reach near equilibrium of surface (~50m) layer) (Wetherald, R., Stouffer, R. and Dixon, K. (2001). Committed warming and its implications for climate change. Geophysical Research Letters 28(8): doi: 10.1029/2000GL011786. issn: 0094-8276), and other man-made effects (most notably, man-made side-effect global dimming from coal plants, internal combustion engines etc, and very recently (last decade or so), suspected geo-engineering by sulfates, aluminium oxide and possibly few other substances done through dispersing those reflective particles via regular civil and military jets), most of the warming due to increased CO2 is delayed for 20...150 years. The range is so huge because man-made dimming is a very major factor even without intentional geo-engineering, and with the latter, it's likely that CO2-driven warming can be delayed for 100+ years. It can't be delayed for much more than that though, due to limited amount of fossil fuels avialable, and the fact that the more CO2 is in the athmosphere, the more spraying (of Al2O3, which is times more effective than SO2) will be needed to halt the warming.

You can see BBC "global dimming" documentary on youtube to get a basic feeling of what global dimming is. They talk 10%+ sunlight reduction (near surface) according to 2 independant methods of research, and that was back in 1980s/1990s. No small deal.

Obviously, delayed GHG-induced warming means that right now, we are in quite a trap; the global warming of ~+1°C to pre-industrial time which we have today can't and won't be the "end of the story" of global warming even if all GHG emissions could magically stop today - estimates vary substantially, but overall it seem to be that 1.5...4°C of further warming (to a total of 2.5...5C above pre-industrial) will be achieved even in this scenario (which is only realistically possible if most of mankind would cease to exist fast - read, either nuclear war, or global unprecedentally deadly and un-containable epidemy, or extremely hostile and hyper-advanced aliens' invasion of Earth, etc. World Bank recently issued a paper stating that +4°C total global warming during 21st century is inevitable minimum, and proposed measures to adapt to it.

Assuming no planetary catastrophe/WMD_war would happen, though, we are talking about at least few more decades of emitting at-or-above present levels of greenhouse gases. Throw on top of it possible methane release from clathrates in Arctic and all the permafrost of polar regions (which apparently started already in 2010 or so and now progresses fast), and the fact that methane (CH4) is 72...120 times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 during a first decade of methane release, and the fact that accumulation of methane in permafrost regions did happen during last 3 millions years steadily (due to mentioned above slow trend of -1°C every 600.000 years), and known estimates of total methane deposits in polar/arctic areas (both sea floor and land permafrosts) - which are about 1000+ gigatons of methane, with 50Gt of it being "ready for abrupt release at any time" (famous phraze from one of Shakhova et al papers), and the future becomes quite grim - even despite efforts to apply at least temporary, partial and "side-effectish" solution of geo-engineering (aluminium oxide spraying, see US patent #005003186).


P.S. If we're lucky and scientists who insist that methane release will be gradual - not abrupt, - are right, then may be, with geo-engineering, we (mankind) would manage to keep current industrial and agriculture systems functional for a couple decades more. If we (mankind) are also wise enough, this time can hopefully be enough to develop genetics, power generation and transportation technologies enough to be able to become mostly independant from natural and semi-natural bio systems - which so far we are dependant with. I mean mainly those systems: food production - most of physical and chemical processes which together create food we have today on our plates - are natural; water purification - the purification of water for most people in the world is still natural process, which will definitely fail in the future if current trends of pollution will be continued (which is likely); pharmaceutical industry - in today's healthcare systems, most medications are still based on naturally-occuring substances, extracted from various plants and animals; and power (electricity, heat) generation systems, which presently are still mainly natural-resource based (80%+ of world's power come from fossil fuels, which is practically non-renewable natural resource created by biosphere of Earth in distant past using energy of the Sun; plus, ~6% comes from uranium fission (nuclear) power, which uses naturally occuring uranium deposits for fuel - practically non-renewable, and quite limited source, prices for reactor fuel are already rising up substantially during recent years (with money inflation taken into consideration, of course)). If mankind will develop new, fully man-made or at least non-critically-dependant-on-limited-resources-and-natural-processes systems during few decades we have left before temperatures skyrocket worldwide, and if required infrastructure (much expensive and long to build) will be built in time in at least few regions of the world, then, perhaps, modern civilization, in its changed form, will manage to function beyond 21st century. Lots of people think that natural systems are to be preserved, CO2 levels reduced, biosphere kept naturally functioning. This contradicts with all the history of human civilizations, and worse, this is incompartible with combination of following fundamental facts: evolution of biosphere on Earth never dealt with rational, intelligent species before, and there are many physical/chemical processes unavailable to biosphere (due to its elementary base being organic - carbon-based, - matter, its information systems being gene-based, and other restrictions). Humans' intelligence and sapience in no way cancels very base intincts and desire humans have as mammals, - self-preservation, mating, raising kids (offsprings), prevailing other other species, and using as much of resources as possible (collectively). The latter is true to nearly all life forms known - even bacteria. Last one is the fact that technical progress of mankind - which is exactly the process which results in more and more previously-untapped (by nature) processes to be used on a large (planetary) scale by humans - this technical progress' speed is several orders of magnitude faster than speed with which natural evolution of biosphere finds ways to use new (for it) processes. It took hundreds of millions of years for "mother nature" to discover "fire" - of course, burning carbon in macroscopic amounts is not possible within living systems, as it generates areas with temperature of several hundred degrees C, effectively destroying any protein-based life. Instead, Nature burns carbon atom by atom - all oxygen-breathing species do it, including fish, reptiles, birds, mammals and us humans. Same physical process which powers our own bodies naturally, by internally burning carbon stored within our food, was discovered rationally and on macro-scale by us humans. Thing is, while it took hundreds of millions of years of evolution for nature to start doing it, - we humans started to use carbon burning (fire) mere tenths of thousands of years after we were formed as human sapiens (biologically) species; some digs indicate fire was used by our ancestors more than a hundred thousands years ago already. That's about 4 orders of magnitude - ~10000 times, - faster than what it took for mother nature to discover it. In last couple thousands years, this massive "advantage" of intelligent species was further enhanced, and very much so, by our inventions of wide cultures, writing, work specialization and other means which further discover beneficial (to our momentarily weel-being) processes which are untapped by nature. Result is, natural systems cannot adapt to the environment which is being changed by us humans more and more, faster and faster, - because biological systems have that slow, random-mutation-based mechanism of changing and apapting. Nature gets better blindly, by trial and error, without any purpose. That's why it won't be able to adapt to all the pollution, radical change of landscapes and parameters (like temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns etc) which we humans produce as a side-effect of our - very natural of course, - expansion and general well-being. Natural systems were failing when stressed enough by civilization of the past - Rapanui island, much of Greece, Egypt, Israel, some places in South America were all (relatively) densely populated by human civilizations of the past, and even today, we can see very clearly (even on satellite picture) how little of "green" - of natural biosphere, - remains in those places. Places where civilizations of the past collapsed, losing much or nearly all of their technologies, population, lifestyles and cultures. Survivors of such collapses often survived only because there were some "other" places to go. Today, it's way different. Global technological civilization can possibly ruin majority of natural eco-systems and geo-systems in the whole world - probably there won't be anywhere else to go to save ourselves. That's why i say above that not-natural, but artificial systems are needed. Some of them will be based on natural organisms, no doubt, genetics is a big hope. But environments are to be fully artificially maintained, parameters are to be artificially controlled, and designs of future life-support systems of mankind are to be very, or even completely, resistant to all possible sorts of pollution and danger which agonizing climate, biosphere and dwindling natural resources may pose to mankind. It's not a pretty picture, that future... Surrounded by hydroponics, unable to enjoy wildlife, open clean air (there will be none left), natural beaches, dependant on our machines. What sort of life this could be? Depressing, difficult, may be even cripling to many. But still, this is still hope of life for us humans for many centuries to come. This is still a possibly real way to prevent our own extinction - and the only one practically possible, too. Between death and difficult life, i chose difficult life. Because hope dies last; may be in distant future, our descendants will learn how to restore beautiful, rich, providing biosphere on Earth; for this, and for countless generations of the past who managed to survive - it's worth to try and get through the mess we are thrown at. Because i  believe it is not our fault that we are killing the nature so well - but merely an inavoidable consequence of what mother nature made us to be: smart, willing to live species who are tremendously more powerful (as of now) than any other species on Earth, having no natural predators to control our numbers nor our impact on environment. Indeed, when researcher puts some bacteria into Petri dish and see them multiply and multiply unless they all are eventually killed by their own waste products - can we say that bacteria are "guilty" of self-genocide? Sure not. They are not designed to survive in petri dish, those bacteria. Not their fault they don't. Same for humans. By evolution, as a species, we are designed to survive as hunter-gatherers, in small groups, just like chimps and gorillas did for millions of years. Not our fault we have difficulties surviving with this - some scientists call it terminal, or fatal, - mutation, called "sapiense". But we want to survive; and that very sapience is our only hope. We built sources of tremendously concentrated power - something nature didn't ever manage to do (nuclear power). We sent species - ourselves and many others, - to space. Something nature never managed to do. We build structures half a mile high, - something nature never managed to do. We can do more than nature, if we want to. We can create fully man-made life support systems for ourselves (mankind) and many other species. THe only question is, are we wise enough to do it in time. Well, we'll see.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Wow.
(No offense, but easier to read if you hit enter every once in awhile to break up the text.)  :)

[F.Tnioli]

I do. Besides, whole thing is not exactly easy itself.

[F.Tnioli]

Phil, on 28 November 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

There is only one viable solution, make green energy cheaper than fossil.  That will make everyone want to  switch over.  As long as it's more expensive, you will be hard pressed to move China, India, or any other developing nation off the dime and it is they that will control the earth's temp not us.  We are already on the right track and moving forward, they are on the wrong track and moving forward! ...

Unfortunately, renewable energy sources are physically harder to build and use than simple carbon/hydrocarbon burning (apart from traditional hydro, which though has little further potential of expansion). True costs of creating and maintaining, say, 10MW thermal-solar plant are many times higher than true costs of creating and maintaining 10 MW coal power plant. And when i say "true costs", i primarily mean required matherials, required qualification of engineers, builders and plant's regular personnel, required amount of man-hours to make a plant, and objective difficulties in ensuring reliable continuous output at nominal capacity (solar is intermittent by itself, but i also mean objective difficulties to keep thermal-solar plant doing its job at full capacity - mainly this is about all the mirrors required, their control, reflective ability and even simply physical integrity).

As a result, green sources can't be "made" cheaper than fossil fuel sources - very simply put, it's always cheaper to get something already present (coal/oil/gas) and burn it to get energy than to install complex systems to get same energy. The only real way for green sources to be cheaper is via fossil sources to become times and times more expensive. This in fact is inevitable, as fossil fuels are harder and harder to get with time, as mankind obviously taps the most accesible deposits first, and as those are being exhausted, is going for more difficult ones.

But of course, this won't do. We'd burn way - times and times! - more fossil fuels than it'd be any hopefully-not-disastrous to do if we'd wait for fossil fuels to become more pricey than green ones. By the way, much optimism about solar and wind costs, and lots of numbers around showing that "soon" the costs of those will be comparable to fossils, - are but a lure for people to buy more expensive product (inclduing large investitions to wind/solar projects; BIG money). In fact, considering not only price of creating, installing and maintaining solar/wind hardware, but also very required changes to global grid and reserve-power systems needed to make solar and/or wind being primary power source, - cost of wind/solar power would then be several times higher than present-day costs for solar power generated on local or regional levels. Why? Because unprecedentally huge storage of power would be needed to ensure continuous power supply to the world, and that is a VERY expensive affair. By the way, all the batties/accumulators of the world - every last one of them, from all tiny watch batteries all the way to huge industrial accumulators and capacitors, - all those together, fully charged, can only provide ~15 minutes of world's electricity consumption. Imagine the price of all world's batteries and accumulators, and then realize you'd need something like 200 times more of capacity to ensure that unusually cloudy and/or not-windy days/nights won't black out the world (or significant part of).

As long as we humans won't find a way for Sun to shine as much as we want in any place we want for any time we want, or wind blowing in the same manner, that is. Fat chance, eh?.. Take a look at any from-space picture of a night side of the Earth - all those lights of big cities, all automobiles going down there at this time, all factories and continuous processes (like melting steel) - consume power. Then ask yourself: how much solar power can be generated at this - night - time to power those? Zero. And winds tend to be zero or very low in night conditions, as well. Then, there are also seasonal changes, and weather patterns. See, that's how fossil fuels and hydro sources differ: they are available 24/7/365, "whenever we need", and in amounts we need (dams provide this in case of hydro power - water flow can be increased/decreased as required, within general limits of average river flows of course). One then could think that perhaps world-wide electric grid system ould solve this - but nope, it can't; amount of losses of power when transmitting over power grid is proportional to distance, but main problem is that we don't have enough matherials and manpower to construct and maintain enough functioning power lines to power up half of the planet with energy generated on the other half.

So it's a dead end. With world-wide large-scale fusion reactors and power plants (synthesis - same energy which powers the sun itself) still being at very least 40 years into the future (and that's the most _optimistic_ - shortest, - time which specialists give), we are quite forced to burn more fossils - exactly for the reason you said: it's cheapest.


Mark my words. Next 10 years, except if major planetary catastrophe (all-out nuclear war for example), - mankind will continue to increase CO2 emissions. 10-20 years afterwards (up to 2040+), CO2 emissions will either continue to rise even further, or it's possible emissions will drop somewhat, but not much, - and not because of action to prevent climate catastrophe, but because of emerging crises in many places which will halt/destroy industries and populations of some regions. End result, most likely we'll see CO2 emissions at or above present annual amount for 30+ years.


Nowadays, it's time to think about adaptation - not about prevention.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Even in the face of reality, I stay optimistic; so I disagree with you Tnioli.

[Steve Case]

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I'm new here.

That makes two of us.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

I believe that humans are a significant contributing factor to Climate Change

That puts you and me in that group of 97% that we've been hearing about.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

but to ignore the natural factors that impact the energy budget would be just as silly

That's right, how much of the warming since 1850 is due to natural factors? Good question. I don't know the answer, but I imagine that a goodly percentage of it is.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

as to ignore the human influences.

Do go on.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

How much warming over the last 150 years is due to human sources?

I give it about a third.  I do have my reasons for saying that.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

30 years?

The usual time frame quoted as defining climate.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

How sensitive is the climate to a doubling of CO2

All by itself, with no feedbacks? Dr. James Hansen says 1.2°C and he doesn't get much in the way of disagreement with most folks on that assessment.

The Sun, on 21 November 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

and how long does it take for the Earth to reach equilibrium?

Now you're getting into it.  A lot of people say the whole ocean top to bottom has to warm up.  They ignore the physics of the thermo cline. The sea surface has warmed over those 150 years, but not as much as the air temperature. The difference is about 0.25°C

[Steve Case]

Oh! I see I can get warning points.  How quaint, how can I get some?