Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 7:47 PM GMT on August 07, 2012

Share this Blog
11
+

Ledgers, Graphics, and Carvings: Models, Water, and Temperature (4)

This is a series of blogs on models, water, and temperature (see Intro). I am starting with models. In this series, I am trying to develop a way to build a foundation for nonscientists to feel comfortable about models and their use in scientific investigation. I expect to get some feedback on how to do this better from the comments. In order to keep a solid climate theme, I am going to have two sections to the entries. One section will be on models, and the other will be on a research result, new or old, that I think is of particular interest.

Doing Science with Models 1.1: In the previous entry of this series I argued that if one considered the types of models used in design and engineering, then we use models all of the time. In fact, when we build or do just about anything, we use some sort of model to get us started. I ended the previous entry with the example of building a simple picnic bench that would hold three, two-hundred-pound men. Not only do the materials need to be of sufficient strength, but the legs of the bench need to be attached in a way that they form a solid and stable foundation. If the bench wobbles and the legs spread apart, then it will be unsafe. If we have experience of some sort, we construct a model from this experience. For example, if we have built or repaired tables and benches we have some ideas of good and bad construction. If we have no direct experience then we can find or ask about plans. These plans might be a schematic, a graphic model of the bench.

For those who do not build benches, but who, say, balance their checkbooks, there are models as well. The forms in a ledger represent models that have proven usable through practice or that have become standard approaches. Information is collected and organized: the check number, the date, the payee, the amount, the purpose and the category of expenditure.

These graphic, tabular, or touchable models are common enough that we develop intuition about their use. Introductory materials to climate models often use the words “mathematical,” “numerical,” and “computational.” These words take us not only away from our intuitive notions of models, but also into subjects that many of us find difficult and obscure. However, in the past couple of decades we have seen the tabular models of checkbook balancing coded as computational products such as Quicken. Design and architecture move to tools such as Computer-assisted Design. Recently, we have seen this combination of the world of digital models and touchable products come full circle with the advent of three-dimensional printing. In three-dimensional printing, solid objects made of plastic and metal are rendered from mathematical descriptions of the objects. I will return to this idea of mathematical descriptions of objects later. The point that I would like to make now is that using computers as tools to represent the real world has in the last two decades become routine. Therefore, in and of itself, the use of computers to make numerical calculations of the real world is common. It might not be as universally intuitive to people as a ledger or a wooden design of a boat, but there is large body of experience that affirms the value of computer-based modeling.

There are a number of steps that need to be taken from here to climate models. So far, I have been talking about models that are in the spirit of a work or a structure used in testing or perfecting a final product. In climate modeling, the final product of the construction is a model. It is the purpose of that model to provide a credible representation of the climate. That representation has a number of attributes. There is the attribute of representing what we have already observed. There is also the attribute of predicting what we will observe, that is, predicting the future. Therefore, the final product of the whole process is the simulation of and the prediction of the climate.

As with many words, there is more than one definition of model in the dictionary. Another relevant definition from my print edition (third) of the American Heritage Dictionary is “A schematic description of a system, theory, or phenomenon that accounts for its known or inferred properties and may be used for further studies of its characteristics.” (American Heritage Dictionary online) This definition is directly descriptive of a climate model. But like those introductions to climate models that I referred to above, it quickly goes to words like “system” and “theory” that are not quite as intuitive as I would like. This is where I will start next time.


Interesting Research: Attribution of 2011 Extreme Weather to Climate Change - Some might recall in 2011, I wandered into the contentious subject of the attribution of climate change to humans (collected here) and talking about communicating extreme weather events in the media (Shearer and Rood). The paper I highlight in today’s blog is a compilation of efforts to understand the role of planetary warming in some of the extreme events of 2011. The paper is Explaining Extreme Events of 2011 from a Climate Perspective edited by Tom Peterson and others and published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper looks at six of the extreme events of 2011 and tries to attribute, in a variety of ways, the role played by human-caused global warming. (nice summary in New Scientist)

I want to focus on the part of the paper that discusses the extreme heat and drought in Texas in the summer of 2011. Much of that discussion is based on evaluating the effect of sea surface temperature, and specifically, the role of El Nino and La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are the names given to recurring patterns of sea surface temperature distributions in the eastern, tropical Pacific Ocean. The approach to this problem is to use models to make many simulations with sea surface temperature distributions similar to the La Nina conditions of 2011. Simulations were made for times in the 1960s and for the year 2008. The simulations provide an ensemble of many plausible outcomes, and it is possible to investigate the odds of a drought of similar extreme attributes as the 2011 drought occurring in the 1960s. The authors conclude that the warming climate made the 2011 drought 20 times more likely to occur now than in the 1960s. The authors point out that they cannot make statements about absolute probability. That is, they cannot state that in the absence of carbon dioxide increases and associated warming, that the drought would not have occurred.

This approach of using probability to discuss the impact of warming is an active area of research as well as an emerging way to communicate the relation between extreme weather and global warming. In the Washington Post, Jim Hansen has an op-ed piece that describes a paper which was released on Monday, August 6 (reference at end). In this paper Hansen revisits his metaphor that compares extreme weather in a warming climate with playing a dice game with loaded dice. That is, the dice are loaded in a way such that what used to be “extreme” will more likely occur. Going back to the Texas drought, that result mentioned in the previous paragraph says that the dice are loaded so that the extreme attributes of the 2011 drought are 20 times more likely. The takeaway message from Hansen is that we have, so far, underestimated how much the dice are loaded and that we have underestimated the probability of extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, and yes perhaps, persistent cold snaps.

r


Hansen, Early Edition, PNAS, Perception of Climate Change

Hansen, Perception of Climate Change, Public Summary

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 513 - 463

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

And here's some data on solar installation...




China will be climbing higher on that list, as will India.

eta: China's goal is to install 21GW of new solar by 2015. That would put China in second place on this list with a total of 24,093MW to Germany's current 24,678MW of installed solar.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
yoboi - You were asking about China and India and renewbles. Here's some wind data...



Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting BobWallace:


If it was the Sun wouldn't we be seeing a lot of daytime records being set and not so many nighttime highs being broken?

Then there's that troublesome differential atmospheric warming problem. How come it's not warming up above the GHG blanket?

The Sun, in some people's world, works in strange ways....


Facts, Facts, Facts

Reminds me of a well known quote, reasonably paraphrased here:

"Everyone is entitled their own opinion but not their own facts"
Member Since: May 2, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 180
Quoting Neapolitan:
Generally warmer in Miami. But it's interesting you'd pick those two cities as a case study; did you know Minneapolis is warming at a more rapid rate than Miami? If it's all about the sun, why aren't both places warming up equally? In fact, why isn't Miami warming up more quickly than Minneapolis, since it's the recipient of so much more insolation? Also, did you know that climate change theory has long predicted that warming would be greater the farther a location is from the tropics?


What time of the year is Snowlover123 talking about? In the summer it could be much warmer in Minneapolis and into the 100's while Miami would be in the high 90's. The offshore ocean temps keep Miami in check with an onshore sea breeze and it is not to frequent to see Miami in the 100's because of it..The ocean cools the surrounding air. My Tunnels would do the same thing. In the winter Minneapolis would be much cooler than Miami. It is pretty rare to see Miami in the 20's during the winter because of the same reason as I mentioned above because the offshore ocean temps tend to keep it warmer. This depends if Miami has a NNW wind or not also.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
№ 409
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:
Fellow bloggers, I will agree with Misanthrope and state that we can disagree with posts that are being made and still show respect to those that will choose to make their posts. As long as a fellow blogger remains respectful of our rights to post and remains civil in their conversations, then we equally as well should respect their right to post and be as civil towards them. A simple show of respect is always appreciated by all involved.

Put them on your ignore list, if you so choose.
Refrain from responding to them, if you so choose.

A simple show of respect to those that remain civil in their conversations should be a no brainer. When we are on a blog we are, after all, living in a glass house. Be careful of what you throw.

That is all I have to say. Heed this information, if you wish, or ignore it.

Perhaps this is a better video for the message, Misanthrope?

Respect


+1; and I rarely use the +/- buttons, and even less often would I acknowledge such in a post. Very well said.

And likewise I think a +1 for Misanthrope's post in № 410 is deserved.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Generally warmer in Miami. But it's interesting you'd pick those two cities as a case study; did you know Minneapolis is warming at a more rapid rate than Miami? If it's all about the sun, why aren't both places warming up equally? In fact, why isn't Miami warming up more quickly than Minneapolis, since it's the recipient of so much more insolation? Also, did you know that climate change theory has long predicted that warming would be greater the farther a location is from the tropics?


If it was the Sun wouldn't we be seeing a lot of daytime records being set and not so many nighttime highs being broken?

Then there's that troublesome differential atmospheric warming problem. How come it's not warming up above the GHG blanket?

The Sun, in some people's world, works in strange ways....
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting Snowlover123:


Adding blankets slows the radiation from leaving your body, so it would make you warmer, as would the Greenhouse Effect.

However, an increase in solar activity as we have seen, also has a warming impact. Tell me CB, when you are in Miami instead of Minneapolis, is it warmer or cooler?
Generally warmer in Miami. But it's interesting you'd pick those two cities as a case study; did you know Minneapolis is warming at a more rapid rate than Miami? If it's all about the sun, why aren't both places warming up equally? In fact, why isn't Miami warming up more quickly than Minneapolis, since it's the recipient of so much more insolation? Also, did you know that climate change theory has long predicted that warming would be greater the farther a location is from the tropics?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
I'm moving my addition to my previous post down since there were responses to my original post before I completed it

I did a little digging, and it appears that in certain states, and under certain conditions you might be able to get the cost of the Leaf down to about $22k. That's the least expensive I found, although it's not inconceivable that you find a case where you can get it for $20k, I guess.

I don't think it's exactly fair to represent $20k as the price most people would pay, however. A fair share of people--those with lower incomes--won't even qualify for the full $7500 federal tax credit, as explained below.

A $7,500 Federal Tax Credit? Not for Joe Sixpack


About 25% of the roughly 120,000,000 US households make enough to fully utilize the subsidies.

The purpose of the EV subsidies is to create enough manufacturing volume to bring cost down to that of ICEVs. The purpose of subsidies was not to put an EV in every garage.

To bring down selling price requires that we manufacture half a million to a million EVs each year. 25% of 120 million is 30 million. This 25% of the population likely buys new cars much more often than the other 75%. If one out of thirty buys an EV we're home free.

(And the numbers are even more favorable. Add in the rest of the world.)

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
I'm moving my addition to my previous post down since there were responses to my original post before I completed it

I did a little digging, and it appears that in certain states, and under certain conditions you might be able to get the cost of the Leaf down to about $22k. That's the least expensive I found, although it's not inconceivable that you find a case where you can get it for $20k, I guess.

I don't think it's exactly fair to represent $20k as the price most people would pay, however. A fair share of people--those with lower incomes--won't even qualify for the full $7500 federal tax credit, as explained below.

A $7,500 Federal Tax Credit? Not for Joe Sixpack
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Something interesting (at least to me) is happening in Leaf-Land. Some dealers are offering very deep discounts on their 2012 Nissan Leafs. Around $5k per, bringing the cost down well under $20k when federal, state and local subsidies are included.

Since demand seems to be good for Leafs one has to wonder why.

I've got no supporting evidence but I can hypothesize that the 2013 Leaf is likely to have a lower price and/or longer range. A more desirable vehicle, and Nissan would rather not have some customers feel burned that they paid a high price for less than they could have paid/gotten a few months later.

The 2013 GM Volt is supposed to be enjoying a 10% range increase with the same sized battery pack. The 2013 Leaf may be "interesting".
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
%u2116 471


Can you give a source for a Nissan Leaf being a $20k car?


Did I not say "about $20k"? Nope, I missed adding the "about". Sorry.

OK, Nissan Leaf MSRP $35,200.

Minus $7,500 federal subsidy $27,700.

Minus $2,500 CA subsidy $25,200.

(Additional CA local subsidies for $2k and $3k exist which brings the cost as low as $22,200.)

Minus $3,000 LA and PA subsidy $24,700.

Minus $4,000 IL and NJ subsidy $23,700.

Minus $5,000 FL, GA, HA and OR subsidy $22,700.

Minus $6,000 CO subsidy $21,700.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
№ 471
Quoting BobWallace:



[...]If so, wouldn't you like a $20k car with great performance that ran on $1/gallon gas?

If you answered "yes", then you could get a Nissan Leaf and help lead the way.
[...]


Can you give a source for a Nissan Leaf being a $20k car?

Removed additions and reposted in № 488
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


Adding blankets slows the radiation from leaving your body, so it would make you warmer, as would the Greenhouse Effect.

However, an increase in solar activity as we have seen, also has a warming impact. Tell me CB, when you are in Miami instead of Minneapolis, is it warmer or cooler?


Snowlover123 Look here:



Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Snowlover123 what happens when you place more blankets on you when you go to bed? Do you get warmer or cooler?


Adding blankets slows the radiation from leaving your body, so it would make you warmer, as would the Greenhouse Effect.

However, an increase in solar activity as we have seen, also has a warming impact. Tell me CB, when you are in Miami instead of Minneapolis, is it warmer or cooler?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
482. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


Bull. The oil companies do not control car companies.

Car companies will manufacture what people will buy.

Work your way through the math and it's clear that people will be demanding EVs and PHEVs as soon as the price drops a bit more.

The cost of driving using electricity is like finding a gas station selling for $1/gallon. And you get home deliveries.


look who lobbys the most for gm/ford.nissan,toyota etc oil companies.....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


the technolgy for cars is there but big oil controls the car companies....look at the new cat d7 dozer they make now 95% run time electric....


Bull. The oil companies do not control car companies.

Car companies will manufacture what people will buy.

Work your way through the math and it's clear that people will be demanding EVs and PHEVs as soon as the price drops a bit more.

The cost of driving using electricity is like finding a gas station selling for $1/gallon. And you get home deliveries.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Quoting yoboi:


i thought china was the largest exporter with solar panels did not know they used them that much....thought coal was there largest resource...




China is now the number one installer of wind turbines.

They have put themselves on track to install a massive amount of PV solar by 2015.

And if you followed China's 'five year plans' for wind, you'll know that they met those goals well before the five year period was up and set new, higher goals. Which they met.

The leaders of China have been very clear that they view climate change as a major danger for themselves and the world. They have built more coal plants but at the same time shut down about 1,000 inefficient coal plants.

They've also put a cap on the amount of coal that can be burned per year post 2015. That means that providers will have to look somewhere other than to coal for increased electricity production.

China pays a high price for coal and oil. While they have their own coal mines, the mines are far from where coal gets burned and the cost of shipping is high. China is moving to renewables and away from fossil fuels for both climatic and economic reasons.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
479. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


OK, but what if we got off the corn pipe?

Horses, grew up farming with them. Not our future if we have any other alternative. Speaking from adequate experience.

Cars, running on fuel that's getting more expensive. Pouring our dining room table contents into our gas tanks is not the answer, especially as we have more and more mouths to feed. And more problems growing food as the climate changes.

There's a very simple answer. Those of us who can need to shift to EVs and PHEVs now. No one should buy a gasmobile if they could use an EV or PHEV. It's just dumb to lock yourself into the oil pipeline.

With subsidies many can buy a Nissan Leaf for not much more than $20k. And save $1k a year on fuel costs plus several hundred more on maintenance.


the technolgy for cars is there but big oil controls the car companies....look at the new cat d7 dozer they make now 95% run time electric....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
478. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


largest e bike producer in the world

http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/11/electric-bik es-are-china%E2%80%99s-real-electric-vehicle-story /

a quick google search


i know they produce a lot of green energy products but they export most of it...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


cost of feed for a horse has doubled since july because of drought and corn supplies, also whats messed up the gov forces corn to be turned into ethanol making the price go even higher....bad times coming bad bad bad times....


OK, but what if we got off the corn pipe?

Horses, grew up farming with them. Not our future if we have any other alternative. Speaking from adequate experience.

Cars, running on fuel that's getting more expensive. Pouring our dining room table contents into our gas tanks is not the answer, especially as we have more and more mouths to feed. And more problems growing food as the climate changes.

There's a very simple answer. Those of us who can need to shift to EVs and PHEVs now. No one should buy a gasmobile if they could use an EV or PHEV. It's just dumb to lock yourself into the oil pipeline.

With subsidies many can buy a Nissan Leaf for not much more than $20k. And save $1k a year on fuel costs plus several hundred more on maintenance.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
476. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


If the GOP and TP wanted to stop blocking things, the dems would have solar, etc all over the place. The rpesident can simply wave his hand and do stuff. But he has tried a lot.

But look at Solindra (however it is spelled), one company goes under and the TP / GOP are saying it proves solar is the work of the devil.


i do remember the first day regan was in office, he made them take down the solar panels at the whitehouse that carter installed....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


i thought china was the largest exporter with solar panels did not know they used them that much....thought coal was there largest resource...


largest e bike producer in the world

http://www.chinasignpost.com/2011/11/electric-bik es-are-china%E2%80%99s-real-electric-vehicle-story /

a quick google search


adding the wiki link...link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
474. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


You can look to see who is leading it now.

Texas and Oklahoma. Wyoming, Kansas, and a few other states. They are installing wind turbines and starting to sell their electricity into other states.

CA and New Jersey are leading in solar installation.

Nissan, Tesla, Ford and some other car companies are building EVs. GM and Toyota are building PHEVs.

IBM has gotten into the battery business. Along with Toshiba and a bunch of other companies.

--

Let me ask you some questions.

Do you have more than one car in your household?

If so, is one always driven less than 100 miles a day?

If so, wouldn't you like a $20k car with great performance that ran on $1/gallon gas?

If you answered "yes", then you could get a Nissan Leaf and help lead the way.

--

How about this set...

Do you pay at least the US average for electricity - $0.12/kWh.

Do you live somewhere that gets at least 4.5 average solar hours per day? (Almost all the lower 48.)

Wouldn't you like to lock down your electricity bill where it is now for the next several years and then get free electricity for a few decades?

If you answered "yes", then you could install solar panels and help lead the way.


actually i generate some electricity from dirt...it's a complicated process to explain but it has been done for many yrs...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yoboi:


what party is the president??? he can do an executive order....

what party controls the senate????

what party controls the congress???

the dems could do something if they want to....

both parties could do something, so are to blame...


If the GOP and TP wanted to stop blocking things, the dems would have solar, etc all over the place. The president can not simply wave his hand and do stuff. But he has tried a lot.

But look at Solindra (however it is spelled), one company goes under and the TP / GOP are saying it proves solar is the work of the devil.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


You begin to say that, "Therefore it's the sun", is an unsubstantiated claim. When exactly the opposite can also be true. With not enough data, we can not say for sure that the sun has or has not contributed significantly to the 20th Century Warming, thus making sensitivity estimates particularly challenging, since if there is more of a natural component to the 20th Century Warming, the sensitivity to CO2 will decrease, since the increase in CO2 has caused less warming.

However, as I linked you up to several papers as examples in Post #287 that show that the Total Forcing observed over the Solar Cycle has shown to be seven or eight times greater than the forcing due to Solar Irradiance alone, so we can get a sense of the magnitude of this amplification mechanism, and the power of the Indirect Solar Forcing. We have reconstructed irradiance changes over the past 1000 years, and have come up with surprisingly different results. The sun has gotten brighter on some TSI reconstructions by 0.1%, while on some other TSI reconstructions, it has gotten brighter by up to 0.7% since the Maunder Minimum on others. (Soon et al. 1996) This represents a TSI forcing since the Maunder Minimum between 0.18-0.88 w/m^2. This is a large difference, considering the amplification mechanism may only contributed 1.2-1.4 w/m^2 to the warming, assuming a low solar brightening since the LIA, to a 6-7 w/m^2 forcing if the higher values of the brightening of the sun are to be used. As you can see, these values are highly significant when compared to the Anthropogenic Forcing, even when assuming a small solar brightening since the Maunder Minimum.

I am not sure what you mean by "how far back does the Cosmic Ray record go," we can use C-14 isotopes and Be-10 isotopes to reconstruct the Cosmic Ray Flux and Solar Activity. Shaviv and Veizer have reconstructed the Cosmic Ray Flux over the last 500 million years. (Shaviv and Veizer 2003).

Others over the last 200,000 years (Christl et. al 2004).

Over the Holocene (past 10000 years)(Dergachev et. al 2006)

And over the last 400 years (Carslaw et. al 2002).

The 15% change in the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux as I showed in several papers in post 287, leads to a Cloud Forcing of around 1.2 w/m^2, which is highly significant.

See Figure 2 of Carslaw et. al to see that GCRs have decreased significantly. Take the reconstructions FWIW though, since they have large error bars, since they are not direct measurements, but instead are a proxy series. However, the sharp trend downward in GCRs most certainly is there.

Yes, human activity has been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but no where does that mean that CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures, as I had asked for evidence that shows that CO2 is the primary driver of Global Warming in my last post to you.

So, unfortunately, you didn't answer the question.

I will reply to your other post, once I manage to squeeze the time in to do so.


Snowlover123 what happens when you place more blankets on you when you go to bed? Do you get warmer or cooler?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20219
Quoting yoboi:
bob wall you do make very good points but how do we make that transition??? who is going to lead the cause???


You can look to see who is leading it now.

Texas and Oklahoma. Wyoming, Kansas, and a few other states. They are installing wind turbines and starting to sell their electricity into other states.

CA and New Jersey are leading in solar installation.

Nissan, Tesla, Ford and some other car companies are building EVs. GM and Toyota are building PHEVs.

IBM has gotten into the battery business. Along with Toshiba and a bunch of other companies.

--

Let me ask you some questions.

Do you have more than one car in your household?

If so, is one always driven less than 100 miles a day?

If so, wouldn't you like a $20k car with great performance that ran on $1/gallon gas?

If you answered "yes", then you could get a Nissan Leaf and help lead the way.

--

How about this set...

Do you pay at least the US average for electricity - $0.12/kWh.

Do you live somewhere that gets at least 4.5 average solar hours per day? (Almost all the lower 48.)

Wouldn't you like to lock down your electricity bill where it is now for the next several years and then get free electricity for a few decades?

If you answered "yes", then you could install solar panels and help lead the way.
Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
Deleted
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
Quoting yoboi:


who is the whiner party??


The two parties I mentioned above.

By the way, apologies if I pegged you wrong.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
468. yoboi
Quoting BobWallace:


I know China (and Germany, Spain and some other countries) are leading the way.

India is not, but they are starting to move and since they generate so much of their electricity from diesel they are likely to move fast once underway.

Look for India and Bangladesh to lead in terms of percentage of population with 100% solar. All those people living off the grid have been relying on kerosene for their light. Now they are able to purchase solar systems (including batteries) which provide them light and cell phone charging and pay weekly/monthly. Those payments are less than what they were paying for kero.



i thought china was the largest exporter with solar panels did not know they used them that much....thought coal was there largest resource...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


There is less than 30 years of data to make any references as to cosmic rays, clouds and natural variations being able to account for any observed warming of the climate over the past 150 years. Therefore to say, "it's the sun", is an unsubstantiated claim. There is no way to test this theory when the data does not allow you to go back any further than a few years to test with. You certainly cannot use cosmic rays and clouds to model past climate warming/cooling events simply because there is no data to allow such modeling. One of the biggest "complaints", by the denial industry, is that models cannot duplicate past warming/cooling climates based on just CO2 concentrations. We have atmospheric CO2 levels data that dates back for thousands of years. Sun spot data goes back to around 1610? How far back does the cosmic ray data go? The reality of the situation is, if you wish to use science, is that cosmic ray/cloud associations being used to confirm a new theory of climate change is several decades off. "Delay until we have more data" is also a denial industry tactic.

As for your link to Carslaw, et al. 2002 -

"The intensity of cosmic rays varies globally by about 15% over a solar cycle because of changes in the strength of the solar wind, which carries a weak magnetic field into the heliosphere, partially shielding Earth from low-energy galactic charged particles. Although long suspected of having
some influence on atmospheric processes."


Add-
I know that you are not claiming that cosmic rays/clouds are solely responsible for the current warming, but is there any indication that the 15% variation of cosmic rays is also reflected in the warming? Should there be, say, an 8% variation in the temperature that is reflective of the 15% variation in solar energy, then would this not also show how much/little the solar influence impacts the climate?
End Add-

You say that we do know that cosmic ray activity has decreased sharply over the past 150 years. I see no such reference to this in the paper. Where did you get this information?

The story remains the same, at the end of day. No matter what theory you use to explain the current global warming, that is being observed, that will show that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. There are NO observations that show human activity is not emitting tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere. There are NO observations that show human emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere has not increased nearly every year over the previous year for the past 150 years. How do you get around these facts?

Do you still intend to respond to my post #314? There is no time limit or requirement that you do so. I only bring this up because you had previously stated that you would.



You begin to say that, "Therefore it's the sun", is an unsubstantiated claim. When exactly the opposite can also be true. With not enough data, we can not say for sure that the sun has or has not contributed significantly to the 20th Century Warming, thus making sensitivity estimates particularly challenging, since if there is more of a natural component to the 20th Century Warming, the sensitivity to CO2 will decrease, since the increase in CO2 has caused less warming.

However, as I linked you up to several papers as examples in Post #287 that show that the Total Forcing observed over the Solar Cycle has shown to be seven or eight times greater than the forcing due to Solar Irradiance alone, so we can get a sense of the magnitude of this amplification mechanism, and the power of the Indirect Solar Forcing. We have reconstructed irradiance changes over the past 1000 years, and have come up with surprisingly different results. The sun has gotten brighter on some TSI reconstructions by 0.1%, while on some other TSI reconstructions, it has gotten brighter by up to 0.7% since the Maunder Minimum on others. (Soon et al. 1996) This represents a TSI forcing since the Maunder Minimum between 0.18-0.88 w/m^2. This is a large difference, considering the amplification mechanism may only contributed 1.2-1.4 w/m^2 to the warming, assuming a low solar brightening since the LIA, to a 6-7 w/m^2 forcing if the higher values of the brightening of the sun are to be used. As you can see, these values are highly significant when compared to the Anthropogenic Forcing, even when assuming a small solar brightening since the Maunder Minimum.

I am not sure what you mean by "how far back does the Cosmic Ray record go," we can use C-14 isotopes and Be-10 isotopes to reconstruct the Cosmic Ray Flux and Solar Activity. Shaviv and Veizer have reconstructed the Cosmic Ray Flux over the last 500 million years. (Shaviv and Veizer 2003).

Others over the last 200,000 years (Christl et. al 2004).

Over the Holocene (past 10000 years)(Dergachev et. al 2006)

And over the last 400 years (Carslaw et. al 2002).

The 15% change in the Galactic Cosmic Ray Flux as I showed in several papers in post 287, leads to a Cloud Forcing of around 1.2 w/m^2, which is highly significant.

See Figure 2 of Carslaw et. al to see that GCRs have decreased significantly. Take the reconstructions FWIW though, since they have large error bars, since they are not direct measurements, but instead are a proxy series. However, the sharp trend downward in GCRs most certainly is there.

Yes, human activity has been increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, but no where does that mean that CO2 is the primary driver of temperatures, as I had asked for evidence that shows that CO2 is the primary driver of Global Warming in my last post to you.

So, unfortunately, you didn't answer the question.

I will reply to your other post, once I manage to squeeze the time in to do so.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
466. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


GOP and Teaparty are the worst thing right now in terms of finding a solution.

I am all for open source, crowd based, market solutions.

But market solutions only work when the problem is monetized. Unfortunatly, this problem will never become monetized because the atmosphere is pretty much the definition of a common good.

That means the goverment has to do the monetizing artificially. The GOP and Tea Party are sitting their butts with their heads in the sand pretending this problem doesn't exist. They are actively blocking the solutions.

So yea, at the moment, the GOP/TP is the worst problem in America.


what party is the president??? he can do an executive order....

what party controls the senate????

what party controls the congress???

the dems could do something if they want to....

both parties could do something, so are to blame...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting yoboi:


do ya think india & china is leading the way???


I know China (and Germany, Spain and some other countries) are leading the way.

India is not, but they are starting to move and since they generate so much of their electricity from diesel they are likely to move fast once underway.

Look for India and Bangladesh to lead in terms of percentage of population with 100% solar. All those people living off the grid have been relying on kerosene for their light. Now they are able to purchase solar systems (including batteries) which provide them light and cell phone charging and pay weekly/monthly. Those payments are less than what they were paying for kero.

Member Since: February 22, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1344
463. yoboi
Quoting greentortuloni:


I agree. Electric bikes are the answer.

They can be charged with a fairly small windmill or solar panel and they don't poop inside. All we need are the whiner parties to create more bike lanes on existing roads.



who is the whiner party??
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 513 - 463

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.