World's climate warming faster than feared, scientists say

[lynnvinc]

My wife and I stayed at an off-the-grid house, last time we visited our son and his family out on the Big Island of Hawaii. Two miles down a dirt road with no utilities. Solar panels supplied the electricity. At night, we could not run fans and appliances were limited to low current demand items. This is a location with no shortage of sunshine, unlike northern New England where you get about 60 cloudless days a year. So forget about solar. Windmills in Holland are run by the wind.

We are in a home that is 100% alt energy (wind & solar) and has been that way since we moved to Texas – the first 11 years on 100% supplied by Green Mt. Energy, and this last year 45% on solar (from the panels we installed last Aug) and 55% on wind from the grid (supplied by Grn Mt). Now I do know the grid gets energy from all sources, but we specifically pay Grn Mt to generate our share.

I think that might be a better solution for most, rather than getting off the grid.

However, I did see a program about a family off-the-grid in Canada, where the grid was not available, out in the boondocks. They had solar and a small wind generator very high up on a pole, where the wind is more stable (it so happens that the wind tends to be blowing stronger during night and when it is not very sunny); they also had a back up generator, which they found they hardly needed to use. It can be done. I’ve heard of some folk around here who live in the boonies and are “off the grid” – they have solar, plus a generators for back up (at least they are using less fossil fuels). These folks also had the most efficient appliances, etc. People have to plan well if they want to go off-the-grid. Seems your friend did not plan well.

As to the title of this thread, it’s my understanding that the world’s climate has actually been cooling since1998.

It has not significantly warmed (or cooled) since 1998. However it has warmed over the past 50 years, and climate scientists really need several decades worth of data to make any claims about whether it is warming or cooling. Climate is complex with many factors, so they have no problem when they see shorter term ups and downs. It is the longer term trend that counts. (If one were to look at this past week’s stock market in the US, they’d be saying OMG it’s a sinking ship, better pull out of all my financial plans.)

I’ll post this image again, in case you didn’t see it earlier:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

 

[donsnow]

Good evening, gilliam,

I don’t have a weather station here, but I have made mental observations the previous two years. We’ve had weak cold fronts come in during the hot months here in Texas. It looks like it’s doing it again this year, too. I remember the little cold fronts cooling down the three digit temperature and thanking God for them.

Just thought you could have that information to factor in for North Central Texas, here.

Personally, I seriously doubt the MMGW theory. I think solar conditions have more to do with Earth’s warming and cooling than humans do. I read an article in the “Astronomy” magazine several years ago, where increased sun spots caused temperature increase on all the planets in our solar system.

God loves you,
Don

 

[ralfyman]

Pretty speculative assertions in those.

They are studies backed by multiple data sets. You may consult them for more details.

 

[ralfyman]

Seems ridiculous to quote myself. I should have added, however, that at least the first article acknowledges that a broad range of energy resources should be utilized. It even gives a nod to coal, which it should. I have been more than a little concerned about Obama’s seeming policy of “bankrupting the coal industry” as he promised to do, premised on ever-greater reliance on natural gas as a replacement; a later addition to his “no more coal” doctrine.

Well, I think we probably have a better handle on the extent of coal reserves than we do of natural gas, and while fracking seems very promising, one really questions the wisdom of shutting down coal supplies. Some of that might be difficult or impossible to put into production again. Abandoned mines flood, tunnels collapse, sometimes fires get started and nobody puts them out. Nobody seriously questions that coal reserves are sufficient to last far into the future; perhaps 100 years or more.

Focusing on a single energy source seems a great mistake to me, no matter what it is.

According to the IEA, we face two problems: peak oil and global warming. The argument is that even with all fossil fuel sources used (including coal) we will see only a 9-pct increase in production worldwide during the next two decades, and even that’s based on the assumption that the crude oil base production won’t drop.

At the same time, higher GHG emissions will, following multiple data sets studied by dozens of science organizations and now acknowledged even by other groups, from banks to insurers to military organizations to intelligence agencies to even oil companies, lead to more destruction of human life and property due to extreme weather conditions, higher sea levels, etc.

Thus, given only the issue of peak oil, economies will have to focus heavily on various energy sources, including renewable energy. This concern becomes more immediate if oil producers will not be able to go for maximum depletion rates. As it is, their capital expenditures have already doubled, and the market can barely tolerate high oil prices. The implication is that in the long run we won’t be able to use more oil, gas, natural gas, and biofuels whether we choose to or not.

Finally, what matters is not reserves but production rate. That’s because much of what is technically recoverable is not economically recoverable. That’s why even with large reserves of crude oil we are now resorting to shale oil, coal, natural gas, etc.

 

[ralfyman]

They told us 20 years ago we only had 10 years!

From what I remember, in 2006 they argued that crude oil production would not peak for several decades. In 2008, they conducted a survey of oil fields worldwide. In 2010, they released a report acknowledging that crude oil production did peak in 2005-2006.

EIA data until October 2013 shows the same.

 

[lynnvinc]

From what I remember, in 2006 they argued that crude oil production would not peak for several decades. In 2008, they conducted a survey of oil fields worldwide. In 2010, they released a report acknowledging that crude oil production did peak in 2005-2006.

EIA data until October 2013 shows the same.

I know you’re right, bec they are now going after the really hard-to-get and expensive oil.

30 more years is what they were projecting back in the mid-1970s, so they were on the dot. Just goes to show that experts sometime know what they’re doing and we should not flippantly and cavalierly dismiss everything scientists and experts have to say. At the least we need to give it some consideration, and not always defer to “blog-opinion-science,” much of it put out there by the well-funded, well-oiled AGW Skeptic Industry Disinformation Campaign.

Amory Lovins, energy efficiency engineer and founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has figured the US could reduce its energy use by 75% cost-effectively without lowering productivity (he has examples of operations in some companies that have lowered theirs 90% cost-effectively). He thinks we will transition to energy efficiency and alt energy well before the end of oil, simply because it make economic sense to do so. His famous quote – “The Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the Oil Age will not end because the world runs out of oil.”

See the Rocky Mountain Institute at rmi.org and his his co-authored book, NATURAL CAPITALISM at natcap.org, and I just came across this good lecture by him: “Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution” at neweconomy.net/publications/lectures/lovins/amory/natural-capitalism-the-next-industrial-revolution

 

[lynnvinc]

Good evening, gilliam,

I don’t have a weather station here, but I have made mental observations the previous two years. We’ve had weak cold fronts come in during the hot months here in Texas. It looks like it’s doing it again this year, too. I remember the little cold fronts cooling down the three digit temperature and thanking God for them.

This is due to shifts in weather patterns from west-to-east to north-to-south, bringing colder weather southward from the arctic – negative arctic oscillations. These are natural fluctuations that bring killing freezes every 5 to 8 years down to my area in the Rio Grande Valley, killing some of our tropical plants and harming our winter gardens.

See the image below:


Some studies suggest such neg arctic oscillations may be enhanced or made more frequent by global warming, tho this is not as “robust” as climate change science itself.

Here’s a recent summary at RealClimate:
“Rossby waves and surface weather extremes,” Stefan, 10 July 2014, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/07/rossby-waves-and-surface-weather-extremes/#more-17358

And some sources:

1. 
   *]Francis, J. A. & Vavrus, S. J. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06801 (2012).
   *]Tang, Q., Zhang, X. & Francis, J. A. Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere. Nature Clim. Change 4, 45–50 (2014).
   *]Liu, J., Curry, J. A., Wang, H., Song, M. & Horton, R. M. Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4074–4079 (2012).
   *]Petoukhov, V., Rahmstorf, S., Petri, S. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5336–5341 (2013).

 

[donsnow]

This is due to shifts in weather patterns from west-to-east to north-to-south, bringing colder weather southward from the arctic – negative arctic oscillations. These are natural fluctuations that bring killing freezes every 5 to 8 years down to my area in the Rio Grande Valley, killing some of our tropical plants and harming our winter gardens.

See the image below:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Oscillation.png/250px-Arctic_Oscillation.png
Some studies suggest such neg arctic oscillations may be enhanced or made more frequent by global warming, tho this is not as “robust” as climate change science itself.

Here’s a recent summary at RealClimate:
“Rossby waves and surface weather extremes,” Stefan, 10 July 2014, realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/07/rossby-waves-and-surface-weather-extremes/#more-17358

And some sources:

1. 
   *]Francis, J. A. & Vavrus, S. J. Evidence linking Arctic amplification to extreme weather in mid-latitudes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L06801 (2012).
   *]Tang, Q., Zhang, X. & Francis, J. A. Extreme summer weather in northern mid-latitudes linked to a vanishing cryosphere. Nature Clim. Change 4, 45–50 (2014).
   *]Liu, J., Curry, J. A., Wang, H., Song, M. & Horton, R. M. Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 4074–4079 (2012).
   *]Petoukhov, V., Rahmstorf, S., Petri, S. & Schellnhuber, H. J. Quasiresonant amplification of planetary waves and recent Northern Hemisphere weather extremes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 5336–5341 (2013).

1. 
   Good afternoon, lynnvinc,
   
   Thank you for the graphic and link. I imagine more sun spot activity causes arctic warming. I really think that meteorologists and other climate scientists would do well to consider solar conditions on Earth’s atmosphere.
   
   God loves you,
   Don

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good afternoon, lynnvinc,

Thank you for the graphic and link. I imagine more sun spot activity causes arctic warming. I really think that meteorologists and other climate scientists would do well to consider solar conditions on Earth’s atmosphere.

God loves you,
Don

Don,

That would be an easy thing for even an armchair scientists to check out. Sunspots activity has been tracked from as far back as 1750. That is, for 23 cycles of about 11 years each. The data is available for anyone online. So all you need to do correlate that data with data for arctic temperatures and/or ice coverage, which unfortunately does not go back to 1750, but it goes back at least to sunspot cycle #22, and maybe #21, and with lesser accuracy maybe back a few more cycles.

 

[donsnow]

Don,

That would be an easy thing for even an armchair scientists to check out. Sunspots activity has been tracked from as far back as 1750. That is, for 23 cycles of about 11 years each. The data is available for anyone online. So all you need to do correlate that data with data for arctic temperatures and/or ice coverage, which unfortunately does not go back to 1750, but it goes back at least to sunspot cycle #22, and maybe #21, and with lesser accuracy maybe back a few more cycles.

Good afternoon, LeafByNiggle,

You’re right. But, since it’s so easy, why don’t climate scientists factor that in? Or, are you saying that meteorologists and other climate scientists do already factor that in?

God loves you,
Don

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Good afternoon, LeafByNiggle,

You’re right. But, since it’s so easy, why don’t climate scientists factor that in? Or, are you saying that meteorologists and other climate scientists do already factor that in?

God loves you,
Don

I don’t know. Maybe. But sunspot activity is generally cyclical, with a 11 year cycle. So even if it does affect climate, the effect would also cyclical, and therefore would not interfere too much with longer term trends, like the kind being discussed here.

By the way, I first became interested in ham radio during sunspot cycle #19 (the biggest peak in recent history). What a time that was!

Edit: Prompted by your posting I did a little research and realized that sunspot activity is a good deal less cyclical than I realized, making it more possible for long term effects.

 

[donsnow]

I don’t know. Maybe. But sunspot activity is generally cyclical, with a 11 year cycle. So even if it does affect climate, the effect would also cyclical, and therefore would not interfere too much with longer term trends, like the kind being discussed here.

By the way, I first became interested in ham radio during sunspot cycle #19 (the biggest peak in recent history). What a time that was!

Edit: Prompted by your posting I did a little research and realized that sunspot activity is a good deal less cyclical than I realized, making it more possible for long term effects.

Good evening, again,

Thank you for your honesty.

I’m an amateur astronomer. Back in the '90’s, I had two telescopes: a little 60mm refractor and later I had the opportunity to buy an used 8" reflector. After I got the 8" 'scope, I cycled my little refractor to watching the sun, with two layers of mylar over the end of the scope for a sun filter. So, I learned then that all the different 11 year cycles of sun spots are not uniform. It’s just that usually the eleven year cycle had a low and high amount of sun spots, was all that stayed the same, not the amount of sun spots.

So much for cycles, heh?

Both 'scopes are long gone. The little one was stolen, no longer good for night viewing; and I sold the big one before it was stolen.

God loves you,
Don

 

[lynnvinc]

Don,

That would be an easy thing for even an armchair scientists to check out. Sunspots activity has been tracked from as far back as 1750. That is, for 23 cycles of about 11 years each. The data is available for anyone online. So all you need to do correlate that data with data for arctic temperatures and/or ice coverage, which unfortunately does not go back to 1750, but it goes back at least to sunspot cycle #22, and maybe #21, and with lesser accuracy maybe back a few more cycles.

Sunspot activity has been factored in. Greater sunspot activity goes along with increased solar irradiance (solar maxima) – with a warming impact on earth – and decreased sunspot activity goes along with decreased solar irradiance (solar minima). See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_maximum

In fact for some years while the lower atmospheric warming plateaued the sun was in a deep and prolonged minimum. While this is mainly explained by uptake of heat by the deeper ocean, the minima do contributed to the down zags in the climate chart, while the solar maxima boost the up zigs. Note, however, that the saw blade of global warming is angled upward.

The point is if there were no enhanced GHG effect to cause global warming, then when we hit this past deep solar minimum, the global average temps should have returned to pre-1970s levels but they did not.

Here is a chart that shows how temps tracked these solar minima and maxima (sunspot activity) up until about 1980, when global warming really took off in an upward direction:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

Best bet is not to underestimate the knowledge and smarts of the climate scientists. They know quite a bit, and are humble enough to say there some “known unknowns” (including some things they know about but are unable to quantify or predict well enough at this time) and some “unknown unknowns.” Let’s hope an unknown unknown is some miracle that halts global warming

 

[vz71]

Here is a chart that shows how temps tracked these solar minima and maxima (sunspot activity) up until about 1980, when global warming really took off in an upward direction:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Solar_vs_temp_500.jpg

Please explain how global temperatures were determined to tenth of a degree Celsius accuracy going back to the 1880’s.

I would argue that it cannot be done now, but I don’t need to.
Your chart references temperature readings going back to the 1880’s, and it claims that accuracy level.

 

[Hans_W]

Please explain how global temperatures were determined to tenth of a degree Celsius accuracy going back to the 1880’s.

I would argue that it cannot be done now, but I don’t need to.
Your chart references temperature readings going back to the 1880’s, and it claims that accuracy level.

Can be done with sufficient accuracy. See:

skepticalscience.com/nature-confirms-global-warming.html

 

[ralfyman]

I know you’re right, bec they are now going after the really hard-to-get and expensive oil.

30 more years is what they were projecting back in the mid-1970s, so they were on the dot. Just goes to show that experts sometime know what they’re doing and we should not flippantly and cavalierly dismiss everything scientists and experts have to say. At the least we need to give it some consideration, and not always defer to “blog-opinion-science,” much of it put out there by the well-funded, well-oiled AGW Skeptic Industry Disinformation Campaign.

Amory Lovins, energy efficiency engineer and founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has figured the US could reduce its energy use by 75% cost-effectively without lowering productivity (he has examples of operations in some companies that have lowered theirs 90% cost-effectively). He thinks we will transition to energy efficiency and alt energy well before the end of oil, simply because it make economic sense to do so. His famous quote – “The Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the Oil Age will not end because the world runs out of oil.”

See the Rocky Mountain Institute at rmi.org and his his co-authored book, NATURAL CAPITALISM at natcap.org, and I just came across this good lecture by him: “Natural Capitalism: The Next Industrial Revolution” at neweconomy.net/publications/lectures/lovins/amory/natural-capitalism-the-next-industrial-revolution

Ted Trainer gives a review of the argument here:

“Review: ‘Reinventing Fire’ by Amory Lovins”

These notes indicate that it would be far too capital costly for the US to run largely on renewable energy. Lovins’ $2.2 trillion figure would be more or less correct if a) demand could be cut to much more than 70% below the 2050 business as usual level, b) plant could run at its average annual output level all the time, as distinct from at winter average levels, and most importantly, if c) there were no lulls or big gaps in solar radiation or wind.

resilience.org/stories/2012-09-15/review-reinventing-fire-amory-lovins

 

[vz71]

Can be done with sufficient accuracy. See:

skepticalscience.com/nature-confirms-global-warming.html

Long on claim.
Short on facts.

No explanation was provided in your reference.

 

[lynnvinc]

Ted Trainer gives a review of the argument here:

“Review: ‘Reinventing Fire’ by Amory Lovins”

resilience.org/stories/2012-09-15/review-reinventing-fire-amory-lovins

Anyway, I figure if Lovins is only half right – that’s great!!!

Lovins, of course, and I assume Trainer are only using existing tech to do their estimates, but never underestimate the ingenuity of humans to come up with far greater solutions than we could have imagined. And lots of people are working on lots of solutions.

The main problem I see is how the governments are skewing the playing field in support of fossil fuels and other vested industrial interests and dampening innovations to help mitigate AGW – altho there is also some funding and incentives for those.

At any rate, we were able to lower our household GHG emissions (also guesstimating GHGs involved in our water and hot water use and in the products we’ve been buying) by about 40% below out 1990 emission (so that doesn’t count the fact that we’ve always lived close to work since the early 70s). Then we moved to Texas in 2002 and went on Green Mountain 100% wind energy. Now we have solar panels (providing 45% of our electricity – bec it saves us money) and drive mostly a Volt and mostly on that wind & solar energy. So I figure we’ve reduced at least 60% below our 1990 emissions, maybe that magical 70% you mention, and we could do a lot more if we really put our minds and heart and God’s Good Grace into it.

You need to read Lovins’s “tunneling thru” concept to really get a better idea about some of his great ideas. See natcap.org/images/other/NCchapter6.pdf

 

[Ridgerunner]

Amory Lovins, energy efficiency engineer and founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute, has figured the US could reduce its energy use by 75% cost-effectively without lowering productivity (he has examples of operations in some companies that have lowered theirs 90% cost-effectively). He thinks we will transition to energy efficiency and alt energy well before the end of oil, simply because it make economic sense to do so. His famous quote – “The Stone Age did not end because the world ran out of stones, and the Oil Age will not end because the world runs out of oil.”

Does he not think companies that could reduce energy costs by 75% or more would do so without being forced by government to do it? I expect some companies have done things to lower their energy costs, but when people say these things, I am always reminded of a thing they say in Germany: “You can make windmills with steel, but you can’t make steel with windmills.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Good evening, gilliam,

I don’t have a weather station here, but I have made mental observations the previous two years. We’ve had weak cold fronts come in during the hot months here in Texas. It looks like it’s doing it again this year, too. I remember the little cold fronts cooling down the three digit temperature and thanking God for them.

/QUOTE]

I think we’re experiencing El Nino conditions. NOAA pretty much confirms it. It happens when high surface temps shift from the western Pacific to the Eastern Pacific. That high energy then crosses into the Gulf and creates fluctuating energy that brings warm air up, alternating with cooler northern air coming down. I have been paying attention to that for years and years, and gauge my hay-buying by it. When it’s El Nino, I put off buying until it gets cheaper. When it’s La Nina I buy the very first spring cuttings even though they can be more expensive. When it’s ENSO neutral, I buy it in pieces along. It’s always predictive.

Interestingly, looking at the historic data, the greatest effect seems to be in eastern Oklahoma just west of where I am.The favorable effect diminishes gradually as you go both east and west. But Dallas is not all that far west or south of eastern Ok, and you’re in the zone that’s favorably affected by El Nino…just not as dramatically.