possible solution for global warming

[BABronco]

Scientists Develop Air "Scrubber" Capable of Sucking Up One Ton of CO2 a Day

This sounds too good to be true: a machine that can vacuum the equivalent of a ton of atmospheric carbon dioxide a day in a cost-effective way. We've seen our fair share of CO2 "sucking" devices in the past -- everything from modified plastic membranes to industrial-scale paper mill "scrubbers" -- but they've typically tended toward the expensive or unwieldy. So how does this particular device stand out?

Well, for one thing, its inventors, a team of U.S. scientists led by Columbia University's Klaus Lackner, say they'll be able to get a prototype up and running within the next 2 years. Secondly, they claim that the device, which is small enough to fit inside a shipping container, will be able to capture a ton of CO2 a day from the air -- at a fraction of the cost of similar technologies. The initial cost of the device, roughly $200,000, would be more than offset by the amount of carbon each would trap, they assert.

"Our project has reached the stage where it is quite clear we can do it. We need to start dealing with all these emissions. I'd rather have a technology that allows us to use fossil fuels without destroying the planet, because people are going to use them anyway," Lackner told The Guardian's David Adam.

He doesn't expect the device to be the be all end all solution to global warming, of course. As he acknowledges, it would take upwards of hundreds of millions of them to suck up all the planet's excess carbon emissions.

The device's great strength, he says, is its low energy consumption (and, thus, lower cost). Other air capture devices had failed to make headway in the past because they often required large amounts of energy. Lackner's machine, which traps atmospheric CO2 on ion exchange membranes, takes advantage of small changes in humidity to lower its energy use tenfold.

The question then is how to dispose of all that trapped CO2. Lackner and his colleagues have a few ideas, which they outlined in their patent application: use the gas in greenhouses to increase plant growth; or use it to grow algae, which could be used for fertilizer, food or fuel. It looks like we may finally have a serious contender for Richard Branson's $25 million prize.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/carbon-dioxide-extractor.php (http://http//www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/carbon-dioxide-extractor.php)

[Garcia Bronco]

I think I saw this in a movie once.

"It's Mega Maid Sir! She's gone from suck to blow."

[W*GS]

The problem is we're putting lots more than one ton/day into the atmosphere.

[Bob]

The problem is we're putting lots more than one ton/day into the atmosphere.

Your right, but its a start. Think of how poorly solar panels worked initially -- every year they get much better, smae thing with all tech devices, effectiveness goes up, cost goes down.

Another thing to conider is that if this device runs at some rich guys house it would erase the "damage" he did in terms of carbon emmission over a year in a few days?

I heard Green Peace came out against this machine -- so there will be some that are against it because if it was sucessful, it would NOT ONLY TAKE OUT EXSISTING CARBON, but it would TAKE AWAY the reason for more taxes??? IS this about removing something dangerous, or is it about shifting wealth?

For some (and I dont think you are one of them) but for some, they look at this issue and see $ and how they can steal it.

[Drek]

Our nation produces about a million tons of CO2 a day.

So a million $200,000 machines running constantly to get us a net zero balance.

Or a $200 Billion dollar investment, not counting energy costs, maintenance, and some method of making use of all the trapped CO2, would get us in the CO2 "black" as it where.

I do'nt really see how that is the best possible alternative, especially if they're the size of shipping containers (a million of them would take up a lot of room).

Its an interesting start, but it should be part of a much larger plan focused on reducing our energy usage and reliance on fossil fuels.

[The Lone Bolt]

Linky plz?

[Rohirrim]

Our nation produces about a million tons of CO2 a day.

So a million $200,000 machines running constantly to get us a net zero balance.

Or a $200 Billion dollar investment, not counting energy costs, maintenance, and some method of making use of all the trapped CO2, would get us in the CO2 "black" as it where.

I do'nt really see how that is the best possible alternative, especially if they're the size of shipping containers (a million of them would take up a lot of room).

Its an interesting start, but it should be part of a much larger plan focused on reducing our energy usage and reliance on fossil fuels.

What's $200 billion? 20% of what we flushed down the Iraq toilet.

[Play2win]

What's $200 billion? 20% of what we flushed down the Iraq toilet.

Yeah but, But, BUT we have cut as many entitlement programs as possible because we're "Fiscal Conservatives"...


If we don't cut all the entitlement programs, we're going to have to tax you more and more and more... no, no, no it has nothing to do with iraq

[orinjkrush]

ahem. do we really know that CO2 is THE problem?

bet we don't.

[W*GS]

ahem. do we really know that CO2 is THE problem?

bet we don't.

CO₂ is a major problem. Not the sole and only problem.

[BABronco]

Linky plz?

fixed

[BABronco]

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16822

ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE NEW CO2 SCRUBBER IDEA

Scientists at Columbia University are developing a carbon dioxide (CO2) scrubber device that removes one ton of CO2 from the air every day, says the Heartland Institute.

While some see the scrubber as an efficient and economical way to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, many environmentalists oppose the technology because it allows people to use fossil fuels and emit carbon in the first place.

According to Columbia University physicist Klaus Lackner, who is leading the research team:

* Producing a large number of CO2 scrubbers can keep to a minimum any rise in atmospheric CO2 without the economically painful elimination of inexpensive energy sources.
* This technology would allow people to use fossil fuels, which they will be using anyway, without destroying the planet.

Environmental activist groups such as Greenpeace have consistently opposed similar technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration, because they do not address what they see as the root of the problem, says the Heartland Institute.

"This is just one more piece of evidence that environmentalists aren't concerned about solving a problem," said Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis. "Every problem, as they see it, is one way to restrict people's lifestyles, and if you come up with a technological fix that can solve a problem but doesn't require sacrifice and lets us go about our business the way we were before, they're not happy about it, even if it solves the problem."



dont ask me about the date on the link

[bronco610]

What's $200 billion? 20% of what we flushed down the Iraq toilet.

Yes, lets have wars instead. They are so much more productive.:~ohyah!:

[TDmvp]

algae tubes that capture c02 looks like something that could maybe "help" ... and then you can use the algae as a fuel ... some plants have all ready installed these , seen a thing on the Hist Chan about it ... seems like it works well

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060517/060517_Module2_hmed_12p.rp350x350.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-01-10-algae-powerplants_x.htm

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24655226/

[Earendil]

ahem. do we really know that CO2 is THE problem?

bet we don't.
Maybe we don't, but I do. I cite once again the planet Venus: It's 70 miles narrower than Earth at the equator, has nearly identical composition and density, and lies in an adjacent orbit. It's also the hottest planet in the Solar System, hotter even than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, for one very simple reason: High CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere produced a run away greenhouse effect that results in seas of molten lead. We don't know much about the surface because we can't see through the CO2, and probes we send have a life expectancy of <30 minutes before they're reduced to piles of slag.

So now we both know (you're welcome.)

As far as "one ton isn't very much" that's true, but it's not like we can only build one machine. As long as it's taking out more than producing and operating it puts in, it's a net gain we could sorely use. No, it doesn't address the root of the problem, but we can still do that, and if nothing else it would buy us more time to do so. It doesn't surprise me Greenpeace is against it on that basis though, because it's long seemed they and many similar groups aren't really environmentalists at all, they're Luddites who want to turn back the clock to the Middle Ages. Whether that's a good idea is debatable, but whether it's a practical idea isn't; the developed world won't surrender its standard of living and the developing world is avidly pursuing it, so there's no going back to the way things were. Life is like that sometimes, but if you man up and face reality sometimes it just means going on to something better.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=16822
ENVIRONMENTALISTS OPPOSE NEW CO2 SCRUBBER IDEA
I can see why, it's not economically feasible, will not make a dent in CO2 reduction and promotes producing more CO2.

[Drek]

I can see why, it's not economically feasible, will not make a dent in CO2 reduction and promotes producing more CO2.

Depends on the implementation.

A coal burning power plant would produce more CO2 in a day than one of these could scrub, but as a part of the process towards legitimately clean coal technologies? Awesome.

My big fear is how legitimate the science is in an ambient air setting. Can it legitimately pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and do so in a fashion that prevents the negative effects releasing it creates in the first place?

So as it pertains to the directed pollution sources, factories and whatnot that could contain and clean the air before releasing it, this seems ideal. But as a method to retroactively undo the significant CO2 we've already put in the atmosphere? I'd need a lot of convincing before I'd believe it was a legitimate technology.

Also, $200B for this and we still depend on fossil fuels, or $1T on T. Boone Pickens' windmills and we have 20% of our national energy produced by free and clean wind power. I don't know but to me the later seems like a better use of our tax dollars.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Depends on the implementation.

A coal burning power plant would produce more CO2 in a day than one of these could scrub, but as a part of the process towards legitimately clean coal technologies? Awesome.

My big fear is how legitimate the science is in an ambient air setting. Can it legitimately pull CO2 out of the atmosphere, and do so in a fashion that prevents the negative effects releasing it creates in the first place?

So as it pertains to the directed pollution sources, factories and whatnot that could contain and clean the air before releasing it, this seems ideal. But as a method to retroactively undo the significant CO2 we've already put in the atmosphere? I'd need a lot of convincing before I'd believe it was a legitimate technology.

Also, $200B for this and we still depend on fossil fuels, or $1T on T. Boone Pickens' windmills and we have 20% of our national energy produced by free and clean wind power. I don't know but to me the later seems like a better use of our tax dollars.That's the problem, it can't be implemented to clean anything close to being called significant. If it could the world would have solved one of it's great problems.

[orinjkrush]

[QUOTE=Earendil;2017064]Maybe we don't, but I do. I cite once again the planet Venus: It's 70 miles narrower than Earth at the equator, has nearly identical composition and density, and lies in an adjacent orbit. It's also the hottest planet in the Solar System, hotter even than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, for one very simple reason: High CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere produced a run away greenhouse effect that results in seas of molten lead. We don't know much about the surface because we can't see through the CO2, and probes we send have a life expectancy of <30 minutes before they're reduced to piles of slag.

So now we both know (you're welcome.)

That's all very interplanetary of you...but read this counterargument.
PS You're welcome! :sunshine:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008

DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

[I]

That's all very interplanetary of you...but read this counterargument.
PS You're welcome! :sunshine:
That isn't a counterargument that is an energy shill spouting company line.

[orinjkrush]

That isn't a counterargument that is an energy shill spouting company line.

Glad to know you're the final authority. Could you please elucidate the scientific community? A nobel prize awaits! :thumbsup:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Glad to know you're the final authority. Could you please elucidate the scientific community? A nobel prize awaits! :thumbsup:Did you even check out who his employers are/were? And I don't have to explain (elucidate) anything to the scientific community, but your boy sure does because he isn't one of them.

[W*GS]

That's all very interplanetary of you...but read this counterargument.

Evans is full of crap.

See

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0756639956/ref=s9sims_c4_at1-rfc_p?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_r=05116JVM4NSSF9951GR5&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=320448701&pf_rd_i=507846

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Could you please elucidate the scientific community? A nobel prize awaits! :thumbsup:And I'd say you are the one that lacks knowledge and education about the scientific community when it comes to global warming...

---------------------------------------------------------------
Every six years, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a massive and influential study detailing the state of Earth's climate. (http://www.wunderground.com/education/ipcc2007.asp) Every citizen on the planet should take the 20 minutes needed to read the Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) issued in February 2007. In their fourth report since 1990, the IPCC offered its strongest language yet that Earth's climate is warming and humans are largely responsible:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns."

Earth has warmed, sea levels have begun to rise at an accelerated rate, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased substantially over the past 150 years (Figure 1). These facts are not controversial. The big change from the IPCC's last report, in 2001, is the level of confidence on if humans are to blame. In that report, human-emitted (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases were estimated to be likely responsible for Earth's temperature increase (67-90% chance), while the new report says it is very likely (greater than 90% chance).

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/ipcc2007_1850-2005.png
Figure 1. Observed changes in (a) global average surface temperature; (b) global average sea level rise from tide gauge (blue) and satellite (red) data and (c) Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April. All changes are relative to corresponding averages for the period 1961-1990. Smoothed curves represent decadal averaged values while circles show yearly values. The shaded areas are the uncertainty intervals estimated from a comprehensive analysis of known uncertainties (a and b) and from the time series (c). Image credit: FIGURE SPM-3 from the Summary of Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

<big>Predicted temperature rise</big>
The 2007 IPCC report predicts temperature rises of 1.1 - 6.4 �C (2 - 11.5 �F) by 2100. This is a wider range than the 1.4 - 5.8 �C increase given in the 2001 report. However, the 2007 report goes on to say that their best estimate for temperature rise is 1.8 - 4 �C (3.2 - 7.1 �F).

<big>Predicted sea level rise</big>
The 2007 report predicts that sea level rise by 2100 will be .6 - 1.9 feet (18 - 58 cm). An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 cm) are possible if the recent surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues. The 2001 IPCC report gave a much wider range for sea level rise: .3 - 2.9 feet (8 - 88 cm).

<big>What does the IPCC say about stronger hurricanes?</big>
The IPCC did a good job with their treatment of how global warming is affecting hurricanes. Here's their carefully worded statement on the observed changes:

There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.

Later in the report, there is a table that shows that there has likely (>66% chance) been an increase in strong hurricanes since 1970 in some regions. It isn't mentioned, but the Atlantic is the region where this increase has been most notable. Also in that table is the assertion that it is more likely than not (>50% chance) that there has been a human contribution to this trend. However, there is a footnote on the table: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."

In other words, the link between stronger hurricanes and global warming is a theory (expert judgment) and is not a conclusion of the IPCC. It is reasonable to theorize that some human contribution is responsible for the increase in strong hurricanes in the Atlantic since 1970, since this increase does correlate so well with the observed increase in sea surface temperatures. However, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, it is difficult to make a strong statement saying that global warming is responsible for stronger hurricanes, due to the high natural variability of these storms and the poor observational record: "multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity." The IPCC table is confusing, and I believe it was a mistake to assign a probability of how likely a human contribution to hurricane intensity has been. There is not enough good science to make a sound judgment, and this section of the table should have been left blank.

Finally, the IPCC projection for how climate change will affect hurricanes in the future is pretty non-controversial, since they don't attach any numbers saying how large these effects will be:

Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period.

Overall, the IPCC statements on hurricanes are very similar to those adopted by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in December, as I discussed in an earlier blog (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?tstamp=200701). The WMO report concluded, "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

<big>What does the IPCC say about stronger tornadoes?</big>
Scientists don't have good enough long-term observational records of tornadoes to tell, if climate change is affecting tornadoes, and climate models don't shed any light on the issue, either. Here's the relevant statement in the 2007 IPCC report:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms. <big>Who is the IPCC?</big> The IPCC is not a research organization, but relies upon research performed and reported by scientists from all over the world, selected to assure the representation of the members of the United Nations. Draft reports are then reviewed by experts who were not authors of the report. Then there is review by government officials involved in policy making. All told, there are more than 1000 contributing authors, and more than 2000 independent reviewers. All comments are considered in the revisions that lead to the production of the final document. The time commitment is enormous, and the result is a document which is based on the facts of observation and predictions which have been scrutinized to the highest level possible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. Their home page is at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for wunderground.com

[Earendil]

[QUOTE=Earendil;2017064]Maybe we don't, but I do. I cite once again the planet Venus: It's 70 miles narrower than Earth at the equator, has nearly identical composition and density, and lies in an adjacent orbit. It's also the hottest planet in the Solar System, hotter even than Mercury, the closest planet to the sun, for one very simple reason: High CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere produced a run away greenhouse effect that results in seas of molten lead. We don't know much about the surface because we can't see through the CO2, and probes we send have a life expectancy of <30 minutes before they're reduced to piles of slag.

So now we both know (you're welcome.)

That's all very interplanetary of you...but read this counterargument.
PS You're welcome! :sunshine:
OK, and I'll concentrate on his points and facts.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
I'm not saying carbon emissions are the only cause, or even necessarily the main cause. They are a contributing factor, however, because that increased CO2 concentrations increases heat retention is a known and well documented fact. Any research or experimentation claiming otherwise is no more plausible than research or experiments claiming perpetual motion machines, whatever the credentials of the researchers.

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again....
Let me see if I understand: When x occurs we find y as a smoking gun, and we haven't found y so therefore x hasn't occurred. If x hasn't occurred how can he claim y always occurs when it does? If there's no greenhouse effect how can he say, "The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics"? Is that based on radiosondes he took of the upper atmosphere during the periods of global warming he credits over the last million years? "If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming" Why, because you say so? It's clearly not based on studies of global warming caused by carbon emissions, because he's claiming no such warming occurred in the first place, so how can he have studied it?

The only thing we "know for sure" is that we don't know for sure what's happening on Earth and that increased CO2 concentrations result in higher planetary temperatures. The whole "scientific" debate on that revolves amounts to saying, "Yes, CO2 increases raise temperatures, yes, our CO2 emissions have been rising for centuries, yes, our planet has been warming in correlation with that, but, no, this time, for some esoteric reason, there's no connection; we are the exception to the rule." That's absurd.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
Wow, a whopping half a degree fall. Let's throw out three centuries worth of data because it's just an anomaly, and beside that we've got a whole decade worth of hard scientific data that PROVES the opposite. And yes, I'm aware of the difficulty reading global temperatures at ground level, but I'm also aware of the radiosondes NASA dropped into the worlds oceans over a decade, and the findings they announced a year or two ago: The planet is warming, and it's reflected at all levels of the ocean.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect....
Yes, it says that due to the carbon cycle it's entirely possible for a planet warmed by other means to get higher CO2 levels as a result. Of course, it's beyond dispute that higher CO2 concentrations increase temperatures, so it's a nasty feedback loop if true.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance....
"So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming" is pretty controversial, and none of the "alarmist" scientists (by which I assume he means 90% of the scientific community) agrees with it. Of course, the main problem with that point is that it's not a fact from which he draws a conclusion, it's a conclusion he seeks facts to support, claiming the conclusion to be among those facts. It's patented circular reasoning; not only is it bad science, it's bad logic.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
No rational educated person disputes higher CO2 concentrations contribute to global warming; what's in dispute is how large a role they play in the Earths warming, a warming that just happens to coincide with skyrocketing CO2 emissions since the Industrial Revolution. Coincidence is not causality, but it doesn't preclude it either.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
Anyone with ears to hear has, and I again cite Venus as exhibit A. Or a counter example in Mars; Mars is chilly but livable within a few inches of the surface, thanks to a layer of CO2 that warms said surface, but its mass is to low to retain any atmosphere more than a few feet thick and anything more than ankle high freezes.

The rest of his article deals with the political consequences to Australias two major parties if he's right and the rest of the scientific community, as well as documented and established scientific fact, are wrong. Personally, I don't give a dead rats rear about political consequences, but framing the argument in those terms seems revealing to me.

Increased CO2 concentrations may or may not be a primary cause of the past centuries of documented global warming, but a decade worth of new data can't resolve that either way. What is known with certainty based on the documented history of terrestrial planets, especially this one, is that significant CO2 increases cause significant temperature increases, and claiming anything else is ludicrous.

CO2 may or may not be the cause of our warming, but it certainly hasn't helped, and if, in fact, part of that CO2 increase is due to warming with a different cause, it is making the problem worse and should still be addressed. The only argument to date against taking corrective action is that it will cost the wealthiest nations in history (who are also the primary responsible parties if global warming has been caused by CO2 increases) money, and that's a lousy reason to demand the world continue rolling the dice until the evidence is beyond dispute. And most of the counter evidence is either smoke and mirrors, contortion of evidence in favor or carbon based warming or both. I see his Keynes quote and raise him Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."

[Spider]

Glad to know you're the final authority. Could you please elucidate the scientific community? A nobel prize awaits! :thumbsup:

W*GS is full of **** on alot of things , but not this ....... I listen to him on this issue

[Earendil]

That isn't a counterargument that is an energy shill spouting company line.
Which is pretty much what I figured because it's as predictable as the tides (though even Exxon has recently conceded carbon based warming is real.) But you can't tell the naysayers that because they refuse to believe people with a personal agenda and vested interest in being a vocal minority would cook the books to support their claims--even though that's precisely what they allege against 90% of the scientific community, most of which doesn't have a dog in this fight. It's best to respond to facts, alleged and otherwise, as facts, regardless of the source. It does mean you should do your homework to make sure something claimed as fact actually is though. ;)

[Bob]

And I'd say you are the one that lacks knowledge and education about the scientific community when it comes to global warming...

---------------------------------------------------------------
Every six years, the United Nations-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) releases a massive and influential study detailing the state of Earth's climate. (http://www.wunderground.com/education/ipcc2007.asp) Every citizen on the planet should take the 20 minutes needed to read the Summary for Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) issued in February 2007. In their fourth report since 1990, the IPCC offered its strongest language yet that Earth's climate is warming and humans are largely responsible:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global mean sea level."

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Discernible human influences now extend to other aspects of climate, including ocean warming, continental-average temperatures, temperature extremes, and wind patterns."

Earth has warmed, sea levels have begun to rise at an accelerated rate, and Northern Hemisphere snow cover has decreased substantially over the past 150 years (Figure 1). These facts are not controversial. The big change from the IPCC's last report, in 2001, is the level of confidence on if humans are to blame. In that report, human-emitted (anthropogenic) greenhouse gases were estimated to be likely responsible for Earth's temperature increase (67-90% chance), while the new report says it is very likely (greater than 90% chance).

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/2007/ipcc2007_1850-2005.png
Figure 1. Observed changes in (a) global average surface temperature; (b) global average sea level rise from tide gauge (blue) and satellite (red) data and (c) Northern Hemisphere snow cover for March-April. All changes are relative to corresponding averages for the period 1961-1990. Smoothed curves represent decadal averaged values while circles show yearly values. The shaded areas are the uncertainty intervals estimated from a comprehensive analysis of known uncertainties (a and b) and from the time series (c). Image credit: FIGURE SPM-3 from the Summary of Policy Makers (http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf) from the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/) (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report.

<big>Predicted temperature rise</big>
The 2007 IPCC report predicts temperature rises of 1.1 - 6.4 �C (2 - 11.5 �F) by 2100. This is a wider range than the 1.4 - 5.8 �C increase given in the 2001 report. However, the 2007 report goes on to say that their best estimate for temperature rise is 1.8 - 4 �C (3.2 - 7.1 �F).

<big>Predicted sea level rise</big>
The 2007 report predicts that sea level rise by 2100 will be .6 - 1.9 feet (18 - 58 cm). An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches (10 to 20 cm) are possible if the recent surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues. The 2001 IPCC report gave a much wider range for sea level rise: .3 - 2.9 feet (8 - 88 cm).

<big>What does the IPCC say about stronger hurricanes?</big>
The IPCC did a good job with their treatment of how global warming is affecting hurricanes. Here's their carefully worded statement on the observed changes:

There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures. There are also suggestions of increased intense tropical cyclone activity in some other regions where concerns over data quality are greater. Multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity. There is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.

Later in the report, there is a table that shows that there has likely (>66% chance) been an increase in strong hurricanes since 1970 in some regions. It isn't mentioned, but the Atlantic is the region where this increase has been most notable. Also in that table is the assertion that it is more likely than not (>50% chance) that there has been a human contribution to this trend. However, there is a footnote on the table: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgment rather than formal attribution studies."

In other words, the link between stronger hurricanes and global warming is a theory (expert judgment) and is not a conclusion of the IPCC. It is reasonable to theorize that some human contribution is responsible for the increase in strong hurricanes in the Atlantic since 1970, since this increase does correlate so well with the observed increase in sea surface temperatures. However, as mentioned in the earlier paragraph, it is difficult to make a strong statement saying that global warming is responsible for stronger hurricanes, due to the high natural variability of these storms and the poor observational record: "multi-decadal variability and the quality of the tropical cyclone records prior to routine satellite observations in about 1970 complicate the detection of long-term trends in tropical cyclone activity." The IPCC table is confusing, and I believe it was a mistake to assign a probability of how likely a human contribution to hurricane intensity has been. There is not enough good science to make a sound judgment, and this section of the table should have been left blank.

Finally, the IPCC projection for how climate change will affect hurricanes in the future is pretty non-controversial, since they don't attach any numbers saying how large these effects will be:

Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense, with larger peak wind speeds and more heavy precipitation associated with ongoing increases of tropical SSTs. There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones. The apparent increase in the proportion of very intense storms since 1970 in some regions is much larger than simulated by current models for that period.

Overall, the IPCC statements on hurricanes are very similar to those adopted by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in December, as I discussed in an earlier blog (http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/archive.html?tstamp=200701). The WMO report concluded, "Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

<big>What does the IPCC say about stronger tornadoes?</big>
Scientists don't have good enough long-term observational records of tornadoes to tell, if climate change is affecting tornadoes, and climate models don't shed any light on the issue, either. Here's the relevant statement in the 2007 IPCC report:

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lighting, and dust storms. <big>Who is the IPCC?</big> The IPCC is not a research organization, but relies upon research performed and reported by scientists from all over the world, selected to assure the representation of the members of the United Nations. Draft reports are then reviewed by experts who were not authors of the report. Then there is review by government officials involved in policy making. All told, there are more than 1000 contributing authors, and more than 2000 independent reviewers. All comments are considered in the revisions that lead to the production of the final document. The time commitment is enormous, and the result is a document which is based on the facts of observation and predictions which have been scrutinized to the highest level possible.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program. Their home page is at http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Dr. Jeff Masters, Chief Meteorologist for wunderground.com

Interesting that there is no mention of the southern pole -- is that because it is getting colder there and ice is actually thickening? Yup! Is there any volcanic activity under the Nortern pole that might be the reason for rising temps there? Al Gore has told us that the debate is over -- just pay higher taxes.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Interesting that there is no mention of the southern pole -- is that because it is getting colder there and ice is actually thickening? Yup! Uh, no...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
25 March 2008
Antarctic Ice Shelf Disintegration Underscores a Warming World (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080325_Wilkins.html)

This is a joint press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder; the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), based in the United Kingdom; and the Earth Dynamic System Research Center at National Cheng Kung University (NCKU) inTaiwan.

Media Relations Contacts:
Stephanie Renfrow, NSIDC: srenfrow@nsidc.org or +1 303 492-1497 (se habla Español)
Athena Dinar, BAS: amdi@bas.ac.uk or +44 (0)1223 221414
Cheng-Chien Liu, NCKU: ccliu88@mail.ncku.edu.tw or +886-6-2757575 X65422

Satellite imagery from the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder reveals that a 13,680 square kilometer (5,282 square mile) ice shelf has begun to collapse because of rapid climate change in a fast-warming region of Antarctica.

CONT.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Antarctic ice shelf breaking up in dead of winter (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25638651/)
Experts surprised that cold hasn't frozen trend, now expect quicker demise
MSNBC
updated 11:28 a.m. MT, Fri., July. 11, 2008

New satellite images show that an Antarctic ice shelf continues to disintegrate — and even more surprising is that it's happening during the Southern Hemisphere's winter.

http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/WORLD_NEWS/070703/TZ298_Global_Warming.jpg

Experts warned last March, at the end of the Antarctic summer, that the Wilkins Ice Shelf was disintegrating more quickly, but they expected that the winter cold would put the trend in a temporary deep freeze.

At 6,000 square miles in size, Wilkins "is the most recent in a long, and growing, list of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula that are responding to the rapid warming that has occurred in this area over the last 50 years," David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey said in a statement released by the European Space Agency as it revealed the satellite images late Thursday.

Story continues


Is there any volcanic activity under the Nortern pole that might be the reason for rising temps there? That may be contributing to the Artic melting.

Al Gore has told us that the debate is over -- just pay higher taxes.Ignorant but I guess you are part of the crowd that will have us continue our oil addiction until we perforate the planet into a pin cushion and suck the last drop out.