MORE ON THE MELTING ARCTIC

Global warming has been blamed for a dramatic reduction in the Arctic ice cap. The 2005 northern summer melting of the ice cap has been the largest measured over 21 years, according to an American study. Britain's Channel 4 claimed: "By the end of the century, and possibly much earlier, the region is likely to be ice-free through the summer months - pushing temperatures not seen there for around a million years." (Channel 4 News UK, September 29, 2005). Similar reports appeared in the Australian media.

What are the facts, and what does all this mean? America's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) released a report late in September which said: "For the fourth consecutive year, NSIDC and NASA scientists using satellite data have tracked a stunning reduction in Arctic sea ice at the end of the northern summer." It added: "If current rates of decline in sea ice continue, the summertime Arctic could be completely ice-free well before the end of this century."

However, a careful examination of the report and accompanying information, gives a considerably more complex picture. There have, indeed, been four years of significantly warmer temperatures in the Arctic than previously; but if these are discounted, the previous 20 years show no clearly discernible trend. Further, history records that there have been many periods of warming and cooling of the polar regions. A prolonged cooling phase in the late 1840s, which saw no melting of the Arctic ice in summer, is now believed to be the cause of the failure of Franklin's expedition to find the Northwest passage from Europe to Asia, which resulted in the death of every man in the expedition.

The Arctic is subject to complex ocean currents, which influence both sea and atmospheric temperatures. Among the most important of these are the global thermohaline currents, which push warmer waters towards the Arctic in both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. If the Arctic Ocean is warming up, eventually the atmosphere above it will become warmer and wetter, leading to heavy snow falls which will increase the size of the ice cap. This feedback mechanism will counter the effect of solar radiation which the report suggests will cause further warming of the Arctic atmosphere.

The NSIDC web site reports that, since satellite data has been available in 1972, "Arctic ice has been decreasing at an average rate of about 3 percent per decade, while Antarctic ice has increased by about 0.8 percent per decade". If global warming has caused the decline in the Arctic ice cap, it would be expected to have caused the same effects in Antarctica. In fact, the opposite is happening. More significantly, the total ice area of Antarctica is far greater than that of the Arctic. The land mass of Antarctica is 13 million square km, and the band of sea ice surrounding it is a further 20 million square km in winter. In contrast, the Arctic ice cap area typically is less than half this, 14-16 million square km. According to the Australian Antarctic Division, the Antarctic ice sheet "holds 90 percent of the world's ice".

In the Antarctic, the increase in the ice cap points to increasing rain/snow fall. A study, published some years ago in the Journal of Climate, suggested that during the next century, the Antarctic's ice volume could grow a little, on account of global warming It suggested that increased snow falls would occur because warmer air, when saturated, carries more water vapour.

In any event, in relation to global warming, there is no scientific consensus. Critics argue that short-term climate variations are sufficiently large to mask long-term trends. Further, while computer models forecast rapidly rising global temperatures, owing largely to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, data from weather satellites and balloon instruments over the past 25 years show no warming trend. All this indicates that melting of the arctic ice cap is an extremely complex phenomenon, which cannot be attributed to one factor.

William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre in Canberra, wrote recently that the temperatures of the polar regions are mainly regulated by energy carried from the tropics towards the poles by ocean currents and wind. Without this, the poles would be much colder. He said: "A one-percent increase in the annual average transport in the Northern Hemisphere, if sustained, would transport additional energy sufficient to melt the Arctic Ocean sea ice in about seven years (and computer models cannot simulate the poleward transport of energy with such accuracy!)."

After observing that climatic trends oscillate over periods ranging from decades to centuries, he concluded: "We should not be too concerned about recent rises in temperatures over the Arctic. There will not be a runaway warming because the region is reliant upon transport of energy from the tropics to maintain its 'warmth'."

Source





NUCLEAR POWER IN SCOTLAND

Scotland at present gets a large share of its electicity from nukes but there are moves to reduce this. I recently reprinted an editorial from "The Scotsman" favouring the building of new reactors. That editorial produced some debate. I first reprint below an anti-nuke argument that points to non-nuclear alternatives for Scotland's electricity needs. I then reproduce what I think is a rather devastating reply to that from blogger Neil Craig

"The pro-nuclear lobby keeps trying to inflate the amount of nuclear power generated in Scotland, usually quoting figures between 50 and 55 per cent with Neil Craig (Letters, 22 October) quoting 55 per cent. Official figures for 2001, 2002 and 2003 are 36.8, 32 and 37.2 per cent respectively.

If the Hunterston B (1,190 MW) licence is not extended beyond 2011, it will close, but before 2010 almost 1,900 MW of additional power capacity will be available in Scotland. The modernised Peterhead gas/oil-fired power station has a further 821MW that could be made available if the east-coast grid was strengthened. A 350 MW prototype carbon-free hydrogen-fired power station at Peterhead is planned to be operational by 2009.

There will also be a further 400 MW gas-fired station at Westfield, Fife, an upgraded 120 MW gas-fired station in Fife became operational in December 2004, and an additional 120 MW hydro capacity will be available by the winter of 2008, and we now have 50 MW of biomass and waste-fuelled power plants available."

Neil Craig replies:


"The letter saying that Scotland only relies on nuclear for 37.2% of our electricity rather than the 55% I said deserves a response. The figure he gives derives from a DTI report which also says that this was artificially reduced in 2002/3 by technical problems (mainly at Torness). The figure of 55% was accepted at Holyrood. The former relates to theoretical capacity, the latter to market share of power produced. Thus, for example while there may be 50 MW capacity of bio-mass (aka wood) available, without planting many hundreds of square miles of new forest it would be impossible to utilise this continuously as nuclear can.

In any case since my letter was in response to well justified predictions of catastrophe if we lose 20% of our power to say that it may actually, on an average day, be only 37% is not reassuring.

I agree we could put in new cabling to use power from Peterhead, though the hysteresis losses in moving power make that an inefficient measure. However, with the ratification of the Kyoto treaty, it is now illegal to increase CO2 production & thus we cannot rely on increased coal & gas fired power.

His reference to a prototype hydrogen powered generator solving our problems is misplaced. Hydrogen is not a power source - hydrogen is merely a storage medium. There is no such thing as a hydrogen well. To make 350 MW from hydrogen you have to first use over 1000 MW of power to make the hydrogen from water. This actually makes some sense if you use the off peak power of a nuclear reactor. Reactors work best producing flat out continuously & have minuscule fuel costs so the marginal cost, when demand is low is very small. However this only works if we actually have the reactor in the first place.

Mr Robertson has produced serious figures to back up his letter unlike so many "renewable" supporters who think electricity just comes from sockets but the fact remains that we are facing major blackouts over the next 2 decades for purely hysterical reasons. France produces 85% of its power from nuclear, sells large amounts of it very profitably to its Luddite neighbours (including 5% of UK power keeping the south of England warm) & is doing very nicely out of it. I think that is better than having pensioners dying of hypothermia because they can't pay their fuel bills as, according to Help the Aged, happens to 24,000 pensioners in Britain every winter".




IT'S ALL OVER FOR CLIMATE ALARMISM AS POST-KYOTO REALITY SINKS IN

"The Guardian" records a changing scene where the Greenies are reduced to a few squawks of impotent protest in reponse to Tony Blair's new priorities

Environmental campaigners demanded that Tony Blair clarify his comments on global warming last night after the prime minister appeared to signal a shift away from a target-based approach to cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The prime minister said "informal mechanisms" were needed to address global warming that were likely to include an increasing focus on the private sector. At the end of the first day of a two-day conference of environment and energy ministers in London he said countries would not sacrifice economic growth for external agreements.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said: "We need to understand immediately what he means by that. His role at the moment is pivotal. He's the only world leader who's pushing climate change as an issue that has to be dealt with. So what he says is going to carry particular weight and he's basically just rewritten the history of climate change politics."

Phil Thornhill, from the Campaign Against Climate Change, said: "The idea that we're going to deal with a problem as massive as this on a voluntary basis is pure, self-serving fantasy and wishful thinking. If you have mandatory limits there will be investment in new technology. The trouble with Blair is that he says we need international agreement to move forward on climate change but it's also important to have something to agree on. If we all agreed to do nothing or next to nothing it's just as bad as having no agreement. People have agreed that we need targets. To have a treaty with no targets is like having a peace treaty where you can still fire guns."

Mr Blair has been seen as a strong supporter of the Kyoto protocol and was thought to be keen on working towards finding a successor to the treaty. In September the government was still arguing that China and India's plans did not go far enough when they gave their backing to a US plan that backs technology, not emission targets, as a solution.

As part of his support, the prime minister made tackling climate change his priority for the presidency of G8 and the EU this year, describing it as a greater threat to the world than terrorism. In May's election manifesto the government firmed up its pledge to cut carbon dioxide levels by 20% on 1990 levels by 2010, despite the fact that ministers had conceded that with current measures the UK was not going to reach its targets.

However, yesterday Mr Blair said legally binding targets to reduce pollution made people "very nervous and very worried". He said when Kyoto expires in 2012, the international community would need a more sensitive framework for tackling global warming: "People fear some external force is going to impose some internal target on you, which is going to restrict your economic growth. I think in the world after 2012 we need to find a better, more sensitive set of mechanisms to deal with this problem."

His words come in the build-up to key United Nations talks in Montreal later this month on how to combat global warming after Kyoto. They appear to be aimed at drawing the US and developing countries into the international negotiations.

Experts fear countries such as China and India, which are exempt from pollution caps under the Kyoto protocol, could derail attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Both countries say they take the threat of climate change seriously, but they are keen to use abundant coal stocks to feed the energy demands of their booming economies. China plans to build a new coal-fired power station a week and will overtake the US as the world's largest carbon dioxide emitter by 2025.

The informal meeting brings together ministers from 20 countries as a follow-up to the G8 summit earlier this year. Speaking before the meeting, the environment secretary, Margaret Beckett, said partnerships to develop new technology that would allow developing countries to burn their vast stocks of coal more cleanly were the best way to get them to cooperate in efforts to tackle climate change.

She admitted there had been "a serious divide" in recent years about whether the solution to climate change was through setting targets or developing technology. "This is clearly a false divide. Technology is essential to make the transition to a low carbon economy, and targets or goals or objectives set by country or sector or internationally have a vital role to play in driving forward that progress."

Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: "It is all very well for the government to trumpet the merits of technology in reducing carbon emissions. But we need robust, measurable targets - not just vague aspirations."

The US and the EU have had discussions with India and China on finding and transferring clean technology as an alternative way to bring emissions down. Central is the idea that carbon pollution could be stored underground, keeping it away from the atmosphere. The concept - also called carbon sequestration - has become popular with politicians, who see it as a way to carry on burning fossil fuels, and environmentalists, who view it as a way to prevent the building of new nuclear power stations. It could reduce emissions by up to 90% without restricting fossil fuel use, but experts say a viable large-scale system could be decades away.

Mr Juniper said: "There are existing technologies that we could be using now which would cut fossil fuel demand ... Climate change is threatening the lives of millions. We must see real progress on the development of sustainable energy."

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************