What global warming..??

Sun Oddly Quiet -- Hints at Next "Little Ice Age"?

Anne Minard for National Geographic News

May 4, 2009
A prolonged lull in solar activity has astrophysicists glued to their telescopes waiting to see what the sun will do next—and how Earth's climate might respond.

The sun is the least active it's been in decades and the dimmest in a hundred years. The lull is causing some scientists to recall the Little Ice Age, an unusual cold spell in Europe and North America, which lasted from about 1300 to 1850.

The coldest period of the Little Ice Age, between 1645 and 1715, has been linked to a deep dip in solar storms known as the Maunder Minimum.

During that time, access to Greenland was largely cut off by ice, and canals in Holland routinely froze solid. Glaciers in the Alps engulfed whole villages, and sea ice increased so much that no open water flowed around Iceland in the year 1695.

But researchers are on guard against their concerns about a new cold snap being misinterpreted.

"[Global warming] skeptics tend to leap forward," said Mike Lockwood, a solar terrestrial physicist at the University of Southampton in the U.K. (Get the facts about global warming.)

He and other researchers are therefore engaged in what they call "preemptive denial" of a solar minimum leading to global cooling.

Even if the current solar lull is the beginning of a prolonged quiet, the scientists say, the star's effects on climate will pale in contrast with the influence of human-made greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2).

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

An expedition team which set sail from Plymouth on a 5,000-mile carbon emission-free trip to Greenland have been rescued by an oil tanker.

Raoul Surcouf, Richard Spink and skipper Ben Stoddart sent a mayday because they feared for their safety amid winds of 68mph (109km/h).

All three are reportedly exhausted but safe on board the Overseas Yellowstone.

Mr Surcouf, 40, from Jersey, Mr Spink, 31, and Mr Stoddart, 43, from Bristol, are due to arrive in the USA on 8 May.

'Heartfelt thanks'

The team, which left Mount Batten Marina in Plymouth on 19 April in a boat named the Fleur, aimed to rely on sail, solar and man power on a 580-mile (933km/h) journey to and from the highest point of the Greenland ice cap.

The expedition was followed by up to 40 schools across the UK to promote climate change awareness.

Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.

A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat.

Ocean heat plays a crucial role in the AGW hypothesis, which maintains that climate change is dominated by human-added, well-mixed green house gasses (GHG). IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. This process results in a gradual accumulation of heat throughout the climate system, which includes the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and, most importantly, the hydrosphere. The increase in retained heat is projected to result in rising atmospheric temperatures of 2-6ºC by the year 2100.





Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.

It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.

Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.

..The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it. ..

The Thermal Mass of the Oceans

Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat. For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling. Seawater has a much higher mass than air (1030 kg/m3 vs. 1.20 kg/m3at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity). One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air. This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume.

For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.

Heat accumulating in the climate system can be determined by profiling ocean temperature, and from precise measurements of sea surface height as they relate to thermal expansion and contraction of ocean water. These measurements are now possible on a global scale with the ARGO buoy array and from satellite measurements of ocean surface heights. ARGO consists of a world-wide network of over 3000 free-drifting platforms that measure temperature and salinity in the upper 2000m of ocean. The robotic floats rise to the surface every 10 days and transmit data to a satellite which also determines their location.

Let me suggest that our conversation about how to reduce CO2 emissions must begin with a few “inconvenient” realities.

Reality 1: Worldwide demand for energy will grow by 30-50% over the next two decades – and more than double by the time you‟re my age. Simply put, America and the rest of the world will need all the energy that markets can deliver.

Reality 2: There are no near-term alternatives to oil, natural gas, and coal. Like it or not, the world runs on fossil fuels, and it will for decades to come. The U.S. government‟s own forecast shows that fossil fuels will supply about 85% of world energy demand in 2030 – roughly the same as today. Yes, someday the world may run on alternatives. But that day is still a long way off. It‟s not about will. It‟s not about who‟s in the White House. It‟s about thermodynamics and economics.

Now, I was told back in the 1970s what you‟re being told today: that wind and solar power are „alternatives‟ to fossil fuels. A more honest description would be „supplements‟. Taken together, wind and solar power today account for just one-sixth of 1% of America‟s annual energy usage. Let me repeat that statistic – one-sixth of 1%.

Here‟s a pie chart showing total U.S. primary energy demand today. I “asked” PowerPoint to show a wedge for the portion of the U.S. energy pie that comes from wind and solar. But PowerPoint won‟t make a wedge for wind and solar – just a thin line.

Over the past 30 years our government has pumped roughly $20 billion in subsidies into wind and solar power, and all we‟ve got to show for it is this thin line!
Undaunted by this, President Obama proposes to double wind and solar power consumption in this country by the end of his first term. Great – that means the line on this pie chart would become a slightly thicker line in four years. I would point out that wind and solar power doubled in just the last three years of the Bush administration. Granted, W. started from a smaller baseline, so doubling again over the next four years will be a taller order. But if President Obama‟s goal is achieved, wind and solar together will grow from one-sixth of 1% to one-third of 1% of total primary energy use – and that assumes U.S. energy consumption remains flat, which of course it will not.

6
The problems with wind and solar power become apparent when you look at their footprint. To generate electricity comparable to a 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant you‟d have to build a wind farm with at least 500 very tall windmills occupying more than 30,000 acres of land. Then there‟s solar power. I‟m holding a Denver Post article that tells the story of an 8.2 MW solar-power plant built on 82 acres in Colorado. The Post proudly hails it “America‟s most productive utility-scale solar electricity plant”. But when you account for the fact that the sun doesn‟t always shine, you‟d need over 250 of these plants, on over 20,000 acres to replace just one 1,000 MW gas-fired power plant that can be built on less than 40 acres.

The Salt Lake Tribune recently celebrated the startup of a 14 MW geothermal plant near Beaver, Utah. That‟s wonderful! But the Tribune failed to put 14 MW into perspective. Utah has over 7,000 MW of installed generating capacity, primarily coal. America has about 1,000,000 MW of installed capacity. Because U.S. demand for electricity has been growing at 1-2 % per year, on average we‟ve been adding 10-20,000 MW of new capacity every year to keep pace with growth. Around the world coal demand is booming – 200,000 MW of new coal capacity is under construction, over 30,000 MW in China alone. In fact, there are 30 coal plants under construction in the U.S. today that when complete will burn about 70 million tons of coal per year.

Barton says the average healthy adult exhales between four-tenths of a ton and seven-tenths of a ton of CO2 a year.
“So if you put 20,000 marathoners into a confined area, you could consider that a single source of pollution, and you could regulate it,” Barton says. “The key would be whether the EPA said that 20,000 people running the same route was one source or not.”

America's climate-change bill is weaker and worse than expected

AL GORE calls it “one of the most important pieces of legislation ever introduced in Congress”. Joe Barton, a Republican congressman and global-warming sceptic, says it will put the American economy in a straitjacket. For something that practically no one has read, the American Clean Energy and Security Act provokes heated debate. It would establish a cap-and-trade system for curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, thus transforming the way Americans use energy.

President Barack Obama has long argued that America should join Europe in regulating planet-cooking carbon. But he has left the details to Congress. And the negotiations to craft a bill that might actually pass have not been pretty. The most straightforward and efficient approach to reducing carbon emissions—a carbon tax—was never seriously considered. Voters do not like to hear the word “tax” unless it is followed by the word “cut”.

So Mr Obama proposed something very similar to a carbon tax, albeit slightly more cumbersome. Industries that emit carbon dioxide would have to buy permits to do so. A fixed number of permits would be auctioned each year. The permits would be tradable, so firms that found ways to emit less than they were entitled to could sell some of their permits to others. The system would motivate everyone to reduce emissions in the most cost-effective way. It would raise energy prices, which is the point, but it would also raise hundreds of billions of dollars, most of which Mr Obama planned to give back to voters. Alas, that plan looks doomed.

On May 15th Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, the Democratic point-men on climate change in the House of Representatives, unveiled a bill that would give away 85% of carbon permits for nothing, with only 15% being auctioned. The bill’s supporters say this colossal compromise was necessary to win the support of firms that generate dirty energy or use a lot of it, and to satisfy congressmen from states that mine coal or roll steel.

Giving away permits creates several problems. First, it generates no money, thereby royally messing up Mr Obama’s budget. Second, it means that the permits go not to those who value them most (as in an auction) but to those whom the government favours. Under Waxman-Markey, electricity-distributors would get the largest share, with the rest divided between energy-intensive manufacturers, carmakers, natural-gas distributors, states with renewable-energy programmes and so on. Oil firms, with only 2% of the permits, feel hard done by. But most polluters, having just been promised hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of permits for nothing, are elated. So it is not just the owners of ski resorts and businesses with negligible carbon footprints that are queuing up to praise the bill. Duke Energy, a power generator with lots of coal-fired plants, is also enthusiastic.

The grand handout to shareholders is meant to last until around 2030, by which time all permits will be auctioned. In the meantime, the bill’s supporters say that consumers will be protected from higher energy prices because the largest chunk of the free permits will go to tightly regulated electricity distributors. Regulators can simply order these firms to keep prices low. Problem solved.

Not so, says Alan Viard, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank. If electricity is cheap, Americans will buy more of it, generating more emissions than would otherwise have been the case. Other industries will accordingly have to cut their emissions more, since there are a fixed number of permits. The cost of this will be passed on to consumers. Overall, ordinary Americans will endure price hikes just as severe as they would have under Mr Obama’s plan, while receiving far less compensation. Mr Viard likens giving permits to polluters to handing the proceeds of a tobacco tax to the shareholders of Philip Morris.

Another problem with Waxman-Markey is its complexity. At 932 pages, it is half as long again as an already-bloated previous draught. It includes a dizzying array of handouts, mandates and technical standards for everything from hot-food-holding cabinets to portable spas. It allows for a huge increase in “offsets”—where a polluter pays someone else to stop polluting instead of curbing his own emissions. These are open to abuse, as Europe’s experience shows. There is little to stop foreign factories from starting to pollute just so that someone will pay them to stop.

Among environmentalists, support for the bill varies. Some denounce it for doing less to curb greenhouse gases than was once promised. It aims to cut emissions by 17% below the level in 2005 by 2020, instead of 20%. Greenpeace’s American arm says it cannot support the bill in its current state. Other greens reckon that if this is the strongest bill that can pass, the best idea is to pass it now and tighten it later.

That is the most likely outcome, though far from certain. Mr Waxman wants his bill to pass through the House energy committee this week. Republicans such as Mr Barton could slow it down by offering hundreds of amendments or forcing it to be read aloud. (Mr Waxman has hired a speed-reader, just in case.) But they probably do not have enough votes to stop it, either in committee or when it eventually comes before the full House.

The next step will be the Senate, where the minority has more power. It is hard to predict what will happen there. Republicans plan to berate the bill as both a job-destroyer and a handout to big business. Some will also argue that it will make little difference to the climate if China and India do not also curb their emissions.

The bill’s supporters retort that both countries will come on board only if America sets a good example. Time is running out before the big global climate conference in Copenhagen in December. If the United States does not have a cap-and-trade law in place by then, the chance of a global agreement will plummet. The bill may be imperfect, says Steve Tripoli of Ceres, a green business group, but having no bill at all would be unthinkable.

Meanwhile, Mr Obama continues to attack climate change from other angles. On May 19th he announced that he would impose tougher fuel-efficiency standards. Carmakers will have to produce vehicles that go eight miles farther on a gallon of petrol by 2016. Cars must eke out 39 miles (63km) per gallon, on average; light trucks must manage 30 miles. Carmakers, some of whom would be bankrupt if Mr Obama was not pumping them full of taxpayers’ money, meekly applauded. In the past an agreement such as this would have been thought impossible, the president crowed.

Mr Obama admitted that more fuel-efficient cars might cost more. But he promised that motorists would save thousands of dollars by cutting their fuel bills. In fact, they can already cut their fuel bills by buying smaller cars, but most choose not to. Mr Obama could discourage petrol use more directly and efficiently by taxing the stuff, but that would be unpopular. Ideally, politicians who want to save the planet would be honest with voters about how much this will cost. But America’s leaders do not seem to think Americans are ready for straight talk about energy.

http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13705417&fsrc=nwl