I must strongly disagree with what you wrote. On Dec 27, 4:22 pm, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote: > Temperatures peaked (in every record of monthly temperature anomalies) > in the big El Nino of 1998. A wider significance of this is addressed > in the Tsonis et al and Swanson and Tsonis papers referenced - a > sudden climate shift in 1998/2001. Climate seen as a nonlinear > oscillator - a complex system in chaos theory. It seems possible that > the current cool mode will persist for another decade or two - until > the next multidecadal climate shift. New and startling science I know > - but as implacably logical as the Special Theory of > Relativity.
There's another situation which may have impacted the climate of the late 1970's. It was called The Great Salinity Anomaly and was a large pool of relatively fresh water which circulated around the North Atlantic Sub Polar Gyre. About the same time, measurements indicated that the formation of bottom water in the Greenland Sea had ceased. That's like what may happen if the Thermohaline Circulation (THC) were to weaken or stop and most climate models coupled to dynamic ocean models predict that the THC will stop as the climate warms. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2344&archives=true One area in the Western Greenland Sea has exhibited changes associated with a reduction in THC in that area for the past two winters. The same pattern appears to be repeating so far this winter. Note the suggestion that the GSA was the result of increased flow of sea-ice out of the Arctic in 1967. That outflow has happened again these past few years. Only this time, it may not stop if the Arctic sea-ice melts away and opens the floodgates... > The current temperature trend is flat but any trend is masked by large > interannual variation mostly due to ENSO - making it impossible to be > definitive especially over shorter periods. Over longer periods of 50 > or more years - the trend is about 0.1 degrees centigrade/decade. > Using the period of recent warming - 1976 to 1998 - includes two > periods of large climate fluctuation - the 1976/1977 'Great Pacific > Climate Shift' and the 1998/2001 climate shift - and distorts the true > rising trend. The other reference I cited was Thompson et al - who > filtered ENSO, volcanos and 'dynamically induced variability' from the > record. Reasonable estimates of the recent trend are about 0.1 > degrees/decade. See above. The PDO may be associated with changes in the THC in the North Atlantic. > My post is a little disjointed - I started writing about scientific > uncertainty. But I think that greenhouse gas emissions need to be > reduced ASAP. The policy question is what the most effective way of > doing that is. My belief is that continued economic growth and the > technological path is the way to go. There are numbers of options for > power and transport. Cheap solar photovoltaic would be fantastic for > the developing world. Solar accumulators, high temperature nuclear > reactors, energy efficiency - literally dozens of emerging > technologies. Peak oil is a nonsense - there are many alternative > sources of carbon. Including coal gasification and liquefaction, tar > sands and shale oil - literally a thousand years of fuel supplies. > More exotic means of fuel production include high temperature > hydrolosis to create hydrogen which can then be combined with carbon > dioxide to produce liquid fuels. Peak Oil is a fact. Every oil field goes thru a period of growth then followed by decline requiring ever more effort to continue production. The sum of all the oil fields on Earth will also provide a similar production path. At some point in time, production or conventional oil will peak and begin to decline. Surely, there are other sources of hydrocarbons which can be used to make liquid fuels, but the Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI) for all these sources is less than that for the easy to get at oil we so carelessly burned. Tar Sands are a prime example, as natural gas is used to separate the dense tar from the mixture. There are no commercial operations which produce oil from oil shale, so we don't know how that might work out, but we do know the processes so far proposed use lots of energy. When the cheap energy is used up, the remaining fossil energy sources will become quite expensive to produce. That will make the products from that energy more expensive in dollar terms and that includes the renewables. Worse yet, the reserve data is subject to debate, witness the EIA's projections which look worse each year as the reality of the situation hits home. Sorry, the party is over. > It is interesting that Lomberg is wrong and a skeptic because - pretty > much as I do - he accepts that greenhouse gas emission reductions are > necessary. It shows that the issue is not scientific - science is a > threadbare justification for ever wilder claims of imminent doom. It > is economics and politics. The scientific part of AGW has just about been put to bed. Now, it;s a question for the politicians and the people to decide. > 'Limits to growth' ideas are dangerous bullshit that put many lives > and legitimate human aspirations at risk. It matters a lot because we > have already seen food riots as a result of the misallocation of > global resources. But ecosocialism is not going to happen. Most of > the world want cheaper and more abundant fuels - and cars, washing > machines and air conditioners. Limits to growth is reality. We live on a finite planet and there's no obvious cheap energy source ready to replace the oil after the Peak is seen. I'm an engineer too and have studied solar and wind systems. They can be used to produce enough energy to keep things going, but not enough to allow everybody on the planet to live like the (formally) rich Americans who were able to waste oil and other energy sources with abandon. The suburban lifestyles we think is normal may pass away. Whether we find a rational path or return to the days of the tooth and claw with the meanest knuckle draggers running the show, only time will tell. E. S. --- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change. Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
