CO2 spike over - 2004 accumulation returns to 'normal' 05 April 05

At least the worse-case scenario was not true.

It would be beneficial if we knew precisely what caused this anomaly and if anyone has any ideas, then we would have an interesting discussion even if it was purely speculative.

What could have caused this spike? Anyone have any ideas?

I read that the increase in 2004 was 2 ppm (over the prvious year, which was about 2.5 ppm), but maybe that’s wrong. So the acceleration is not continuing or accelerating, but it seems 2004 - if 2.0 is correct - was slightly higher than the decadal average increase.

Of course people should not be confused and think we have solved the problem. We should be trying to make atmospheric CO2 decrease, not increase. Someone left their car running at the drive-through again.

How the pendulum swings. Thought this was an interesting read on current events…

article link http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no25/vo13no25_alarmism.htm

Hot and Cold Running Alarmism by Gary Benoit

The threat of catastrophic climatic change is nothing new. For example, the April 28, 1975 issue of Newsweek darkly warned: “There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now…. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.”

Unlike today, however, the mounting evidence that atmospheric scientists then struggled to keep up with was principally used to support a theory of global cooling, not global warming, The Newsweek article, entitled “The Cooling World,” continued: “In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant over-all loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree—a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.”

“Another Ice Age”

Newsweek patiently explained to its lay readers that scientists thought “these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” So much so, in fact, that one possible solution cited by Newsweek was to melt the arctic ice cap by “covering it with black soot.” But such a spectacular step, Newsweek acknowledged, might create a “far greater” problem than it solves. Today, of course, the concern among doomsayers is not too much ice, but too little.

Newsweek was not alone in spreading this eco-babble. Time magazine for June 24, 1974 declared: “However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades.” Not only did that supposedly alarming trend show “no indication of reversing,” but “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.” The Time article even included a map depicting the “expanding Arctic” and referenced one scientific finding that “the area of the ice and snow cover” in the Northern Hemisphere “had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971” and that this increase “has persisted ever since.” “Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic … were once totally free of any snow in the summer,” Time observed. “[N]ow they are covered year round.” How different that is from today’s alarmist headlines about disappearing glaciers!

Echoing the “cooling” rhetoric, the February 1974 issue of Fortune magazine warned that the temperature had already dropped about 2.7° F since the 1940s. That “hardly seems dramatic,” Fortune admitted, “but the effects have been substantial. Icelandic fishing fleets that learned to range northward during the warm period have now had to return to traditional waters to the south. For the first time in this century, ships making for Iceland’s ports have found navigation impeded by drifting ice.” So serious was the cooling trend that “it could bring massive tragedies for mankind.”

Authoritative Opinions

Of course, when issuing its dire predictions about global cooling the mainstream media was quick to cite various prestigious scientific authorities. One such authority widely quoted at the time was Dr. Reid Bryson, director of environmental studies at the University of Wisconsin. Bryson theorized that agricultural and industrial activities were causing an increase of dust and other particles in the atmosphere, and that these particles were increasingly preventing sunlight from reaching the earth, thereby fueling a cooling trend that, sometime after 1930, began overpowering the greenhouse effect of CO2. Fortune quoted Bryson as saying that this trend, “if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the earth—like a billion people starving. The effects are already showing up in rather drastic ways.”

Was this the uninformed gibberish of a pseudo-scientist? Not according to Fortune, which quoted another eminent scientist as noting that Bryson “is the most important figure in climatology today.” Besides, “most climatologists agree that a diminution of the sunlight as small as 1 percent would suffice to initiate a cool period and perhaps even major glaciation.” But now, the same industrialization these “experts” were blaming for part of the cooling is being blamed for part of the warming.

Another ‘70s proponent of the global cooling theory was Dr. Stephen Schneider, who spent two decades at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado before joining the faculty at Stanford University in 1992. In an article he co-authored for the July 9, 1971 issue of Science magazine, Schneider warned that “an increase by a factor of 4 in the equilibrium dust concentration in the global atmosphere, which cannot be ruled out as a possibility within the next century, could decrease the mean surface temperature by as much as 3.5° K [6.3° F]. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!” On the other hand, the warming effect of CO2 was much less significant, since, “as more CO2 is added to the atmosphere, the rate of temperature increase is proportionally less and less, and the increase eventually levels off.” “[I]f CO2 is augmented by another 10 percent in the next 30 years, the increase in the global temperature may be as small as 0.1° K [0.18° F],” Schneider calculated, and doubling CO2 would change global temperature by 0.8° K (1.4° F). Consequently, “the net result” between the sunlight-blocking dust and greenhouse CO2 “will be a cooling of Earth.”

But Schneider has now jumped from the “global cooling” bandwagon to sound the alarm about global warming, and places far more importance on the effect of CO2 on temperature. Regarding MIT scientist Richard Lindzen’s estimate that a doubling of CO2 would result in an increase of only 1° F, for instance, Schneider scoffed: “I don’t know what line from God he has.” Unfortunately, the article in the June 18, 1996 New York Times that recorded this priceless contribution to the global warming debate somehow overlooked Schneider’s 1971 predictions—as have other elements of the establishment echo chamber that cite Schneider as an expert on the global warming phenomenon.

In 1976, 13 years before he wrote his book Global Warming, Schneider endorsed Lowell Ponte’s book The Cooling, claiming that it “points out in clear language that the climatic threat could be as awesome as any we might face….” U.S. Senator Claiborne Pell (D-RI) agreed, writing in the foreword that “The Cooling could prove to be the most important and prophetic popular science book of the 1970s.”

The book warned that “the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come by the year 2000.” And it cited the southward migration of the warm-climate armadillo as just one effect of the cooling that had already taken place. Now environmentalist Vice President Al Gore and others are voicing concern about global warming causing a northward migration of the warm-climate disease malaria. What they don’t bother to mention is that the banning of DDT - not global warming - has made the resurgence of that disease all but inevitable.

Covering the Bases

Climatological “experts” who once embraced the global cooling theory have now rejected it in favor of global warming. Yet even in the context of the present debate, the spectre of global cooling can still haunt the excited imaginations of climatological chicken littles. Sometimes all it takes to provoke such speculation is a single cold snap, such as occurred in the winter of 1994. The January 31, 1994 issue of Time magazine published an article entitled “The Ice Age Cometh?” that pondered: “What ever happened to global warming? Scientists have issued apocalyptic warnings for years, claiming that gases from cars, power plants, and factories are creating a greenhouse effect that will boost the temperature dangerously…. But if last week is any indication of winters to come, it might be more to the point to start worrying about the next Ice Age instead.”

Of course, the temperature sometimes goes up and other times goes down. In an attempt to cover all the bases, Newsweek went so far as to publish a cover story in its January 22, 1996 issue blaming global warming for blizzards as well as for floods and hurricanes. “According to the boldest climatological theories, global warming will produce more extreme weather of all kinds - hot as well as cold and, especially, wet as well as dry,” claimed Newsweek. “The Blizzard of ‘96 [which had occurred while the magazine was preparing its “global warming” story] was the perfect peg to look at the issue of global warming. And so we have” - complete with a photo of blizzard conditions on the cover to complement the chilling headline “The Hot Zone.” Thus, if we are to accept this theory, man-induced “global warming” must be held accountable for whatever bad weather takes place.

Stephen Schneider once noted that “as scientists … ethically bound to the scientific method … we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.” On the other hand, “we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination,” which entails “getting loads of media coverage.” Consequently, that means “we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” This dilemma for Schneider and his fellow catastrophic climatologists is made easier by the fact that the opinion cartel has assigned their embarrassing “ice age” predictions to the memory hole.

from 1942 global temperatures did decline. These scientists were alarmist, because they can not have understood the impact of solar cycles on global temps. If you put yourself in their mindset (which is the only fair way to read history), consistently declining temps would alarm you. At a time when climatology was some way behind what it is now, it must have appeared out of the ordinary, and alarming.

But they were right, temps were in decline. Ditto today, but invertedly, temperatures are rising, but, with the benefit of superior research etc, we now know these rises to be anomalous to the last 1000 years both in magnitude and pace.

I do sometimes have to remind myself, by looking at the research, that I am not blindly following some scare story, because as you point out, the pendulum has swung, and alarm stories make good press. My only concern with the climate change story, is that it does not get enough press!

Jim, PLEASE go to this site and it might take you a few weeks or months for you to read and digest this information but Spencer Weart did us all a great service to explain the development of climate science from a historical perspective and he addresses everything you mentioned in your post in clear detail.

He has a book that may be easier to digest than his more technical essays but you should be able to handle it.

I just cannot take the time to comment on your post because I would end up rewriting most of what he wrote anyway.

Spencer Weart’s essays can put this whole thing into proper context for you and I beg you to do this because we are regressing backwards into a time when we knew much less than we know now.

The truth is that the science has matured along with weather forecasting I may add. What is being discussed currently is more accurate. The confusion in this evolving science has to do simply with the complex variability and sensitivity of how climate systems operate.

Please educate yourself further with regards to the science and its development so your posts reflect this awareness. I simply do not have the time to explain everything and I would rather we focus on the solutions to this problem instead.

However, it is still important enough for us to focus on the science since many people cherry pick information making a case based on not understanding the facts.

This leads to confusion and news reporters are not versed in science very well although are host Mark is much better than most other journalists.

It is important that we understand something about science when we post about the science. Does this make sense?

Read Spencer Weart’s essays online. It may take some time but I believe it will help you and your posts and help all of us so our discussions will be better. I hate to see us regress much more to arguing over the relevancy of old news. His site below:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Do not answer me unless you read all his essays first or read his book which may take less time because I will simply refer you back to either the book or his essays.

Have fun,

Dan

I think you joined our discussion after we had covered that topic. As others have pointed out, the science has developed a lot since 1971 & “regular” GW is no longer a scientific debate. However, there are still some loose-ends – possibilities that have not been proven at extremely high significant levels as demanded by scientists, but that laypersons concerned about the life & health of people & the planet should be cognizant of:

1. Runaway global warming (a much more drastic warming & harm to life), due to linear warming causing nature to emit further GHGs & decreased its ability to absorb. This did happen 251 million years ago, when up to 95% of life on earth died. It was triggered by volcanic activity; but now we are pulling the trigger – not exactly knowing where that bullet will land. If nature starts releasing massive GHGs due to the warming we have caused, then the matter may spiral out of our ability to control it. The CO2 spike returning to “normal” in 2004 simply indicates that we may not yet have started on a serious runaway GW path. It in no way indicates GW is not happening or that runaway GW is not in the pipeline.

2. Abrupt climate change, where the ocean current slows & cannot warm N. Europe or the U.S. NE. Non-linear, non-incremental events like that are very hard for science to predict, but that doesn’t mean they can’t happen, and laypersons should be conscious of this possibility. I also think (since the warming does not go away) that the southern regions will get a lot warming at the same time, because the current is not bringing in cooler water (but I hadn’t seen anything on that, just makes sense).

3. Global dimming, especially from SO2 & aerosols emitted during the burning of fossil fuels. This sort of creates an umbrella over regions of earth that cools the areas a bit, or doesn’t allow them to warm as much as they would with just the GHGs operating. This is perhaps masking GW, and if we simply reduce particles & SO2 from smokestacks & auto emissions, rather than reduce the burning of fossil fuels, we may get a lot more GW that we have previously estimated. So it really behooves those concerned with life on earth to do all they can (at least cost-effective measures) to reduce the burning of fossil fuels (efficiency, conservation, alternative energy). If not, we may be pushing the envelope to runaway GW and/or abrupt CC.

Just as you don’t have the time, I am not going to dispute a book. My point was we don’t know what we don’t know. GW may be something naturally occuring or may be “helped along” by man’s activities.

Scientists disagree on the causes of the warming as the article above shows… the scientists were saying it was globally cooling only 30 short years ago! Scientists also disagree on remedies (if there are any) to the warming issue.

I chuckled when I think how much mankind thinks he has control over things… The biosphere 2, totally man controlled, was an environmental and sociological disaster! It was only 3 acres large!! What makes us think we have any actual control over the earth’s climate?

and I continue this process as most of us do here. I recently purchased 3 more books, all of them suggested by people on this site. My comment about time is short term only. I will get back to Norbert’s post by tomorrow at least.

There is NOT a lot of info there in that article for me at all. For me, it is mostly nothing and I say that sincerely. It is at a level, for me, as valuable as anyone’s opinion on the street.

The website I gave you by contrast has much more relevant information and was given an independent review from another person on this site with the term “objective” attached to it. I also think it was superbly written.

So, with that said, I refer you back to that website considered “objective” and I suggest that you budget an hour of your time to just read a few essays that strike your interest and let us go from there.

Look up the information specific to the article you think is informative and I think that you will gain a valuable insight into the historical aspect provided by Dr. Weart. And then respond back, if you like, from what you learned.

Fair Enough?

Please understand that there is no insult implied and I consider you a decent person and valuable contributor.

I take the time to suggest you read these essays only because I want you to be even more valuable to Mark’s blog because your intellect and concern about GW/CC issues warrant your advancement of knowledge and understanding of the science.

Sincerely the best,

Dan

Because all reputable climate scientists have said so, including the skeptics.

if for nothing else than to save $$ on energy use… better gas mileage, Flourescent lights, etc…

I’m no scientist or pseudoscientist but simply someone who investigates. I’ve read, in terms of global warming, even the reputable scientists predict that if all countries would meet Kyoto today, the earth temps would go up for the next century…

Also, no one addressed the biosphere debacle. If man could not control 3 acres of atmosphere why do they think they have a chance controlling the atmosphere of the whole earth?

Science may say (validly so) that temps are increasing BUT predicting what will be the future is tricky business and hypothesis at best. Maybe temps will continue to rise, maybe not. Maybe it’s man made, maybe it’s not. No one knows for sure. They are trying to predict the future by looking in a rear view mirror.

But like I said, I’m doing my part with energy savings even if it is for a more selfish motive. And my next car will likely be a hybrid of some sort!

but I’m not getting a degree in climatology which is what you’d really need to get a firm grasp on the science of it. The web only gives you so much and most scientific studies are above layman’s and college educated’s heads. Those who think they have a grasp are kidding themselves. You have to know the science and the statistics behind each of the topics studied. That is why people specialize into specific fields! From what I saw, Weart seems as much involved in the social politics of climatology as with the science…

Take electrical theory for example, the best science can explain how it behaves but the why it does so is still theory. Science has harnessed electricity b/c it know’s how it behaves in certain configurations but why it does this is still a mystery.

In medicine the brain is another example of something little understood… Do we have more knowledge? Yes. But is it complete? Far, far from it…

I think the climate is the same. 30 years of better science does not give us all the answers as to what is happening or why it happens. Only 30 short years ago they were going in the opposite direction with the climate predictions and science theory….

That’s the “no regrets” solution – do all you can to reduce GHGs that save money (or do not cost) long-run. Then if GW is all a hoax, no regrets.

I also want to get a hybrid, but since we live so close to work & only drive about 2,000 – 3,000 miles a year, it’s not worth it now.

However, I heard there are plug-in hybrids coming out (& some people are converting their Prius & Honda hybrids to plug-in), where you can plug it in overnight & get 10-20 miles the next day (which would be more than enough for us). Since we get electricity from Green Mountain’s 100% wind power (paying about $1 more per month), then our car could run on 100% wind power. Of course, that would cost much more than the typical used car we buy, so we’re also waiting for some money to drop down from the sky or something, and even then it will be a tough sell to my husband.

Is there any truth in a rumour I’ve heard that the grounding of US commercial planes in the days following 9/11, resulted in a decrease in global dimming ( due to decreased vapour trails) and that there was a discenable rise in average US temperatures across many states.

JJ

I also read about that. And the following news articles claim that contrails (water vapor emitted by aircraft) block the sun more than cirrus clouds, giving them a greater cooling effect in the day, but they have a warming effect in the night, so they do reduce the temperature range.

I think scientists aren’t sure whether contrails will reduce or increase GW. However, I also read that warming temps in the night were what contributed to so many deaths in the Europe heatwave of 2003 – the body needs time to recouperate after heat stress during the day, which didn’t happen in 2003 due to hot nights.

GLOBAL DIMMING: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

http://www.moonbowmedia.com/ei/ct/climate.htm

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/07/contrails.climate/

Also see: “Contrails reduce daily temperature range” in NATURE 8/8/02

Jim, it is OK to challenge my basic assumption on this but I taught physics and I have an engineering degree so I may be able to discern Dr. Weart’s essays from that perspective much easier than you can.

From reading Dr. Weart’s online essays, I have gained more insight about why opinions changed from cooling to warming. In fact, Lynn wrote a recent post adding insight into this as well about the state of climate science since the 70s.

In my opinion, the political focus you see is much less relevant than the complexity of the climate system and the ability of it to change direction either way. Dr. Weart writes correctly that the difference between a completely frozen earth and an earth with no surface ice amounts to only a 2 percent difference of the total solar energy reaching the earth which suggests that the earth’s climate is in a delicate balance indeed.

Like our weather, there are many aspects to our climate which can be affected by seemingly minor events. With respect to ground and ice reflectance, what do you think going from an 80 percent reflective ice surface to a 5 percent reflective ocean surface has on increased warming? The answer is more energy is absorbed and this melts even more reflective ice. This creates a positive feedback loop and this, in turn, may lead to a runaway warming of the earth.

The earth’s thermal inertia is high so this process takes time even with a minor stimulus offsetting the Earth’s heat balance. Over time, this can accelerate to become a greater problem. Reduced reflectivity or albedo as it is called is a pretty powerful positive feedback mechanism and when large surface areas of the earth change in reflectance so does the earth’s heat balance change.

Do you see my point here Jim?

If it went the other way (i.e. cooling), then additional ice surface means that more solar energy is reflected back into space because more of the earth’s surfaces are coated with reflective ice and this leads to even more cooling and more reflective surface ice. This eventually can create a runaway cooling effect going in the opposite direction.

If the ice expands or retreats abnormally, it has a way of taking over things since more ice reflects more heat and less ice means more heat is absorbed. Do you see the sensitivity this has with respect to the runway effect so often cited here? It is something to be astutely observant about.

So with that said, I believe that climate scientists are much less politically motivated than some people have made them out to be.

What is the greater truth for me is that the science is constantly evolving and Dr. Weart makes a good case that it is also improving. I believe this is truly the case especially since the 70s and it seems to be incorrect to assume anything different. Even our weather forecasting has vastly improved since then.

It is best to keep in mind that there is a large range of uncertainty with the published temperature rise expected from the scientists. I suggest that this implies that the nature of this uncertainty may be understood sufficiently enough and even the low end of this scale warrants serious attention.

Now why would science attempt to overly politicize their research and results? Sure they need funding and may paint a case for that but they also have a reputation at stake and scientists certainly would strive to be correct and desire to protect their reputations. If they changed their mind in 30 years, than this may be evidence that they are actually more objective because someone who is objective will change their position once new information is presented.

Passionately stated rhetoric from scientists may just happen to be because their research points in a direction averse to our well being and this may be the truth when they express their views and not simply to acquire more employment security. Scientists would naturally tend to suggest that more study is needed. However, this happens to coincide with the actual truth with respect to the complexity of our climate system. In this case, more study would more often than not be beneficial.

With regard to solutions, I also see the potential for us to be successful as long as our influence is within certain parameters. If a runaway effect starts happening, it may be much more difficult to solve. However, it still may be possible to prevent catastrophic climate change from happening if geo-engineering ideas are utilized.

I say this only because the earth’s thermal inertia may buy us just enough time in case we have to take more desperate measures. It would always be prudent to avoid this scenario if possible; however, some ideas represent virtually no risk at all like increasing the reflectivity of our paved surfaces which amounts to 150,000 square kilometers of the ground surface in the USA alone.

This geo-engineering idea seeks to counter balance the effect of the reduced reflectance from melting ice surfaces. In other words, it works like our natural systems to restore earth’s heat balance based on the same laws of physics governing both these natural and manmade surfaces.

To further illustrate, the concrete aggregate used in our sidewalks is more reflective than common road pavement which is rather dark and absorbing of solar energy.

Increased reflectance of urban areas also reduces greenhouse gas emissions by lowering the ambient air temperature and with that we have a reduced need for air conditioning in the summer months.

Hence, the carbon dioxide emissions associated with the production of electricity from fossil fuels are further reduced during peak electric generation on hot sunny days.

An more elegant solution would be to combine various solutions together for a greater economic benefit. For example, there is an ongoing study to sequester carbon dioxide by converting certain raw materials into calcium carbonate (magnesite) which is highly reflective. See site below:

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/6c4.pdf

Magnesite could be a reflective aggregate used for road pavement. If this Arizona group is successful in discovering an economical way to sequester carbon dioxide in this way, then these ideas could merge and then we could sequester carbon dioxide into a reflective aggregate used for road pavement while having a greater benefit of both increased surface reflectance and reduced emissions.

If cooling energy is reduced from reducing urban temperatures during peak power-plant loads, and if summers get hotter then, reflective pavement may not only eliminate the need for major capital expenditures in more power-plant equipment but it also may prevent electricity blackouts such as the ones which occurred in California and in New York City?

What are the economic benefits associated with this? It means that businesses and industry are not disrupted adversely which caused an enormous economic drain to occur in California. This is where the combination of physics, engineering, and economics can interplay to create a creative solution to GW/CC problems with potential economic benefits.

In addition, the storage problem is solved in a more ecological way as well by using this sequestered product as road pavement instead of finding an open space to dump it!

So, along with understanding the science, my background is even more extensive in my ability to understand all types of technical solutions and that is why I remain so optimistic?

Scientists can study the moon and can tell you all its hidden secrets but it is applied engineering that helped to create our modern society and enabled us to personally visit the moon within the mandated timeline of one decade.

Never underestimate our innate creative potential. Albert Einstein said appropriately that imagination is much more important than mere knowledge. We do not have a climate problem in my assessment. We have a problem only of the human spirit. And with that said we can correct this problem by simply changing how we think.

Engineers have an important responsibility to engage in climate solutions but we have to be multi-disciplined and understand aspects of climate science, ecology, economics, politics, and government policy. I know engineering at least. With respect to GW/CC issues, it may require us to be more proficient in many areas and with that said there is a pleasant side benefit of a continuing and more expanded education.

I see Mark’s site as helping this process along with useful conversations between concerned citizens of other countries such as the dialogue between Americans and the British on Mark’s site.

With great problems come great opportunities and hopefully my optimistic outlook will be correct in the end for I would not be happy if we failed in our quest for a better future.

Again, we almost have to get into other fields of study outside our comfort zone. Economics and ecology have not been my strong points but I have to develop these and, Jim, your posts can often help me understand economic aspects.

In addition, Colin mentioned in a recent post aspects of agriculture and forestry from an ecological understanding which I am now benefiting from. However, my strength is still with physics and engineering but I have been able to transfer this easily enough to understand climate science as well.

We continue to learn from one another and with that said, you and I are in good company on Mark’s site and the 3 books I recently ordered have just arrived at the door as I wrote this line.

These books are “Natural Capitalism” by Paul Hakens recommended by Lynn and later by Colin Keyse, “The End of Oil” by Paul Roberts recommended by Peter Winters, and “Boiling Point” by Ross Gelspan recommended by a member of my local Sierra Club.

I have other books of interest I will order including one from the PEW Center entitled

“Climate Change: Science, Strategies, and Solutions” by Eileen Claussen.

Best Regards to you Jim,

Dan

Even the use of compact fluorescent bulbs will lower your cooling costs because they put out less heat. This extra cost savings is not a part of the calculation cited on the package.

Since cooling costs create peak conditions in the summer, this strategy alone could offset the need for more generating power plants if applied more collectively. Take one 15 watt bulb which saves 45 watts over a 60-watt incandescent bulb and then multiply that by 2 million. This is equal to 90 megawatts is it not?

And that is just from 2 million people here changing out just one bulb for the price of a couple donuts (or muffin or bagel) and a cheap cup of coffee! And yet this bulb can pay for itself in no time at all with the best economic payback I know of!

I have a friend who I calculated will saving 50 dollars a year with just 3 bulbs with only a 10 dollar investment. Granted she has these lights on a long time but what a no-brainer. Usually they pay for themselves in a year even if only used for a little more than an hour a day.

I guess this is why I think so much of this economic analysis is bogus in how much harm we are going to do to our economy by not embracing more energy efficiency and simply not being so wasteful.

I heard on the news one evening that Americans waste 100 billion dollars in viable food thrown away because of poor planning when this food can be given away or we just simply use all of what we purchase.

In regards to our oil dependent food supply, it seems that we can do much in just wasting less food. We could eat less, walk more, and not sweat as much requiring more air conditioning because of being obese.

Larger people create and retain more heat with less body surface area per volume of person. Why does anyone think that changing our lifestyle has to be so awful. Even minor health improvements could help the climate and reduce our health costs.

Dietary changes such as eating less beef can help the climate from less oil to produce the beef, and less methane belched from the cows.

There are so many angles to look at when we think outside the box so to speak.

Another bad habit with respect to air conditioning is that often people think they save energy by turning it off and opening windows instead on more mild days.

One has to be careful with this strategy since air conditioning systems remove excess moisture out of the air and this requires energy needed used to condense the water vapor (humidity) to liquid. It is not insignificant.

If the windows are opened on humid days, then the reduction in humidity would offset the saving benefits when the air conditioner is used again since so much more energy has to be used just to remove the extra humidity.

A more effective strategy would be to run the system and as the system removes humidity from the air inside, set the thermostat higher because higher temperatures are more comfortable with dehumidified air. When opening windows, be sure that it is done on days of both low humidity and mild temperature.

To reduce humidity, bath fans can be used to remove excess moisture so it does not overload the AC system with additional moisture to take out.

Just a little education I thought you and others may benefit from. In addition, planting deciduous trees in the correct spots may offer house shading on south and western orientations.

Along with eventual increased cooling benefits and reduced emissions from shading, as the tree grows, it may help sequester a little carbon dioxide from the air. Deciduous trees shed their leaves and this will allow solar energy to heat the house through the windows during winter when shade is no longer needed.

Now we could even do without air conditioning all together and use a few fans instead. Not everyone is that committed and fans require some electricity. Bottom line is that we can do better than most of us do.

FYI, we do not use central air conditioning in case anyone reading this post wondered.

These are a few ideas and there are many many more out there. Lynn has been there enough and found incredible joy as she expressed the economic benefits of taking action.

Remember that those fluorescent bulbs all contain mercury gas and we need to make sure they are disposed of properly once they are used up.

This will become more an issue as millions of these bulbs are used. Theses bulbs can be recycled. The mercury, glass, and phosphor coating can all be recycled with special equipment but the services to do this are mostly available for the commercial sector but this can change.

Best,

Dan

This is a summary of sorts on what I’ve learned and observed about global warming, and global dimming thus far. Any more enlightenment on the subject here is greatly appreciated.

Plain as day, Mark’s book layed out a ton of specific examples of global warming right now. Glaciers are melting, prairie land is turning to desert, climates are becoming more volatile and much of the world’s government is in blatent denial about the problem.

Ice caps from the north pole are being pumped full of the increasing heat from the GHG saturated atmosphere of the lower latitudes. The ice caps are melting and sending hordes of cold, low salinity/density water to the north Atlantic. The warm, dense, salty Atlantic currents which normally bring heat from the south up to northern europe and the eastern US are sinking below the ice cap water and are stalling. I’ve observed the weather in the norheast USA become very cold and snowy in the last two winters. Indirectly, through bicycle racing coverage in Europe, I’ve observed much the same over there. For example, in the Paris-Nice stage race this year some of the stages had to be shortened or re-routed due to cold and snowy conditions.

El Nino seems to be strengthening. I’ve learned recently that this is possibly due to warmer temperatures in the south Pacific. Example; the torrentially wet weather in the southwest US this winter. A tornado in Sacramento ? Also, here in Oregon it’s been exceptionally dry and warm this winter. 70 degrees on a day in February! Much of the moisture that would normally fall on us here has been dumped down in California.

I simple thought popped up when I finished reading the posts and BBC article about global dimming. For all of my life I’ve looked across the peaks of the Cascade mountains and noticed them become a darker shade of gray.

that Michael Mann et al published a few years ago.

Ross McKitrick* Department of Economics University of Guelph April 4 2005

Abstract

The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well-known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.

The rest of the article is at http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf