GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT THAT SIMPLE

By Prof. Roy Spencer. Roy W. Spencer is principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, Ala. He is also U.S. team leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA's Terra satellite

Reports on the global-warming debate have now become part of our daily diet of news. Actors, musicians, politicians, columnists and even the occasional climate scientist all weigh in on how soon planetary disaster will strike, who's to blame and what we should do about it. With claims that manmade warming is anywhere from an undeniable fact to a hoax, anyone can be excused for feeling a little bit confused.

The media is, almost by definition, most interested in extreme views on the issue, so reporting seldom reveals that broad scientific uncertainty still exists. In fact, a silent majority of scientists still think that global warming could end up falling anywhere between a real problem and a minor nuisance: They can see reasons for it going either way. Call them the global-warming moderates.

How can different scientists look at the same atmosphere and yet come to such a wide variety of conclusions? It all depends on their level of faith in our understanding of the atmosphere. We put equations into a computer that describe the basics of how we think the atmosphere works, and then we expect the computer to predict how much warming we will get when we turn up the greenhouse gas "knob." The Earth's natural "greenhouse effect" traps infrared (heat) radiation because of water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide and methane.

You have probably heard that the greenhouse effect keeps the Earth "habitably warm." So if burning of fossil fuels keeps adding more of a greenhouse gas like carbon dioxide (CO2), the Earth should keep on warming up, right? Well . . . it's not that simple. CO2 concentrations - now running at 380 parts per million (ppm), up about 40 percent in the last century - are indeed one possible explanation for our current warmth. But we also know that our climate is a nonlinear, dynamic system - which can go through sizeable gyrations all by itself.

Contrary to popular accounts, very few scientists in the world - possibly none - have a sufficiently thorough, "big picture" understanding of the climate system to be relied upon for a prediction of the magnitude of global warming. To the public, we all might seem like experts, but the vast majority of us work on only a small portion of the problem.

Here, for example, is an insight that even many climate scientists are unaware of: The one atmospheric process that has the greatest control on the Earth's climate is the one we understand the least - precipitation. Over most of the planet, water is continuously evaporating, humidifying the air to form the Earth's dominant greenhouse gas: water vapor. Climate scientists will tell you that the extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere causes a "warming tendency" at the surface, which will evaporate even more water, which will amplify the warming. This positive water vapor feedback, so the theory goes, ends up turning the relative benign direct warming effect of CO2 - only 1 degree of warming late in this century - into a much more serious problem.

But surface evaporation is not what determines how much water vapor, on average, resides in the atmosphere - precipitation systems do. These not only control the water-vapor portion of the greenhouse effect, they directly or indirectly control most of the next most important greenhouse ingredient: clouds. These systems continuously recycle the Earth's air, and so exert strong controls over the entire climate system. For instance, the rising air in precipitation systems is what causes the sinking, cloudless air over desert areas. Vast oceanic areas of stratus clouds form below a temperature inversion that is also caused by air being forced to sink by precipitation systems, usually thousands of miles away.

So, what does all this have to do with global warming? Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming. For instance, warm, tropical systems are more efficient at converting water vapor to precipitation than their cool high-latitude cousins. Hurricanes are believed to be the most efficient of all. I believe that negative feedbacks such as this are the only way to explain the relative stability of our climate.

Computerized models of our climate have had a habit of "drifting" too warm or too cold. This because they still don't contain all of the temperature-stabilizing processes that exist in nature. In fact, for the amount of solar energy available to it, our climate seems to have a "preferred" average temperature, damping out swings beyond 1 degree or so. I believe that, through various negative feedback mechanisms, the atmosphere "decides" how much of the available sunlight will be allowed in, how much greenhouse effect it will generate in response, and what the average temperature will be.

Finally, remember that phrase, "the Earth's greenhouse effect keeps the Earth habitably warm?" I'll bet you never heard the phrase that is, quantitatively, more accurate: "Weather processes keep the Earth habitably cool." Were it not for weather, the natural greenhouse effect would cause the surface of the Earth to average 140 degrees. Wonder why we never hear that fact stated?

I believe that when the stabilizing effects of precipitation systems are better understood and included into the models, predictions of global warming will be scaled back. Despite current inadequacies, climate models are still our best tools for forecasting global warming. Those tools just aren't sharp enough yet.

Source





BIOFUEL IDIOCY

Can biofuels save Europe, or the planet?

When all else fails, agree on biofuels. That has been the reassuring mantra of European Union energy policy, plagued by disagreements on unbundling over-mighty power firms, haggles over carbon trading and worries about dependence on Russian gas. But a forthcoming report from the EU's own environment agency argues that the beloved biofuels--ethanol, rapeseed biodiesel and the like--have big drawbacks.

Last week EU energy ministers endorsed a European Commission proposal that biofuels should make up a mandatory 10% of the EU's fuel consumption by 2020; the current voluntary target is 5.75% by 2012. European heads of government are likely to back that deal at a summit next month in Germany.

Despite this apparent enthusiasm, most EU members will struggle to meet even the existing target. Only Sweden and Germany fulfilled an earlier goal of 2% renewable-fuel use by 2005. The main problem is that biofuels are expensive. According to KBC Peel Hunt, a stockbroking firm in London, diesel made from rapeseed costs roughly EURO0.3 ($0.39) a litre more than the ordinary sort, despite benefiting from various agricultural subsidies. British biofuel firms are struggling to sell their output even with a tax rebate of 20p ($0.39) per litre. The government, naturally, is reluctant to erode its lucrative fuel-tax revenues by increasing the rebate.

Several countries are trying to pass on the cost of adopting biofuels to motorists. Germany, the most biofuelled nation in Europe, has replaced a tax break with a straightforward legal obligation for refiners to blend a certain proportion of biofuels into their wares. From next year, Britain will do the same, and fine firms 15p a litre if they do not meet the required level. But French firms, which are already subject to a similar policy, often find it cheaper to pay the fine than to bother with high-minded greenery.

Worse, biofuels can generate as much pollution as the fossil fuels they are replacing, depending on how they are made. If electricity from coal is used to convert wheat into ethanol, say, the benefits in terms of emissions of carbon dioxide are negligible. By the same token, if rapeseed is grown using lots of fertiliser made from natural gas, then the resulting biodiesel brings relatively little reduction in emissions or fuel imports.

Yet blenders and consumers have no means of distinguishing good biofuel from bad. Biofuels from poor but sunny countries, where crops yield much more energy and costs are lower, tend to be both cheaper and more environmentally friendly. But protectionist European farmers dislike them. The EU imposes a stiff tariff on Brazilian ethanol; its specifications for biodiesel favour expensive local rapeseed oil over cheap imported palm oil.

In any case, destructive farming practices in exporting countries sometimes do more damage to the environment than burning oil or gas. Last year a Dutch study found that draining Indonesian swamps to make way for oil-palm plantations resulted in 33 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions for each tonne of palm oil produced, by speeding up the decomposition of the peaty soil. Yet burning a tonne of palm oil instead of fossil fuel saves only three tonnes of emissions.

Faced with these findings, the Dutch government has apologised for promoting palm oil, and several Dutch firms have vowed to stop using it. Instead of trying to turn crops into fuel for transport, Europe would do better to burn them for power, says Peder Jensen, of the European Environment Agency. That would save the energy used in the conversion process. It would also generate more energy, since power plants are more efficient than car engines. On February 26th the agency will produce a report that underlines such arguments. But there is no guarantee that Europe's leaders will read it before their summit.

Source






PAYING THE PRICE FOR KYOTO: WILL GERMANY SACRIFICE ITS BIG-CAR INDUSTRY?

Germany produces some of the fastest and most luxurious cars in the world, but is that yesterday's game?

Earlier this month Germany's carmakers were hit by new emission limits proposed by the European Commission. There were howls of protest, not least from Angela Merkel, the German chancellor. So the proposed ceiling was raised a little, to 130 grams of CO2 per kilometre to be met by 2012. This still left the makers of many of the world's most prestigious cars with the most work: in the European Union only six German-made models meet the target, but 34 of those made by competitors do.

Moreover, of all the cars on sale in Germany which pump out more than 200g of CO2 per kilometre, most are German. This is not a happy state of affairs for a country that likes to lead the way on the environment. Nor does it bode well for Germany's biggest industry, which employs one in seven of the country's manufacturing workforce. Germany's carmakers should benefit from spreading their escalating costs of research and development across a greater volume of vehicles. But attempts to drive into mass markets have failed, with BMW's disastrous takeover of Britain's Rover Group and DaimlerChrysler's marriage now facing divorce.

For the time being, life still looks rosy. Volkswagen this week announced a 52% increase in operating profits for 2006. Mercedes, the car division of DaimlerChrysler, has bounced back from a couple of bad years. Sales of Porsches and BMWs seem almost insensitive to the price of petrol. The German stockmarket barely flinched at the new CO2 standards. Yet Germany's carmakers are less well-placed for the future than are other European producers, let alone the Japanese. German cars may well continue to dominate the performance parts of the luxury market-after all they are crammed with state-of-the-art technology. But buyers' tastes are changing and they have increasing qualms about the environment. This shift in the market is what has hit Chrysler's sales in America, because it is highly dependent on fuel-thirsty sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) and pick-up trucks.

FULL STORY: here






THE USUAL EUROPEAN TREND: GREECE'S CO2 EMISSIONS RISING STEEPLY

Greece is veering dangerously away from targets for greenhouse gas emissions and urgently needs to take corrective measures, European Commissioner for the environment Stavros Dimas warned the Greek Parliament's European Affairs and Environment Committees on Friday. "Carbon dioxide emissions, based on the Kyoto Protocol and Community levels, should increase by just 25% in Greece [relative to levels in 1990]. We are at 26% and if we do not take immediate and strict measures we will reach 40%," the Greek Commissioner told MPs. Stressing his grave concern about the direct and indirect repercussions of global warming and climate change, Dimas said that an international agreement for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions "was the first and urgent priority"....

Source






Australia: Greenhouse sceptics to congregate

Hard-core global warming sceptics will descend on Canberra today for the release of a book claiming environmentalism is the new religion. Former mining executive Arvi Parbo will launch Ray Evans' new publication, Nine Facts About Climate Change, at a function at Parliament House. The book claims climate change is nothing new and declares Howard Government investments in solar power and in cleaning up coal a "complete waste of taxpayers' money".

"Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States," Mr Evans says in the publication. "It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the believer, but which places no importance on telling the truth," he says. "The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."

The function is organised by the Lavoisier Group, founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and former mining executive Hugh Morgan to test claims that global warming is the result of human activity. Mr Evans is a longstanding friend and colleague of Mr Morgan and a committed activist on issues such as workplace reform through the HR Nicholls Society, which he founded with federal Treasurer Peter Costello.

Former Labor minister Peter Walsh also will attend today's function, and the group will hold a dinner to be addressed by climate-change sceptic Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor in the School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science at Auckland University. Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has organised the function on behalf of the Lavoisier Group and expects about 50 people to attend the dinner. Dr Jensen, a nuclear physicist, has said he is not convinced that human activity is responsible for global warming.

In an interview with The Age last month, Mr Evans acknowledged that last September's visit by former US vice-president Al Gore to promote his Oscar-winning global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth had helped generate a lot of publicity on climate change. But he described Mr Gore's film as "bullshit from beginning to end". [Some good Australian bluntness] "The science from the anthropology point of view has collapsed. The carbon-dioxide link is increasingly recognised as irrelevant," Mr Evans said. "But the Government's frightened. "Cabinet, from what I understand, is by and large still sceptical of climate change, but it is scared of the drought and worried about how Labor will make use of it."

Source

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

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 generally 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 Pages are here or here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

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