News that doesn't receive the necessary attention.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Nature Editorial, "Hidden Heat:" "Some argue that recent temperature trends show that the climate problem is less urgent. One can only hope that this is so." 8/28/13

8/28/13, "Hidden heat," Nature Editorial 

"Scientists are homing in on the reasons for the current hiatus in global warming, but all must recognize that the long-term risk of warming from carbon dioxide remains high.

This week, Nature publishes a study online suggesting that a recent cooling trend in the tropical Pacific Ocean can explain the current hiatus in global warming. Authored by a pair of scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, the paper does not say why the Pacific seems to have entered a prolonged ‘La Niña’ phase, in which cooler surface waters gather in the eastern equatorial Pacific. It is also silent on where the missing heat is going. But it does suggest that this phenomenon — affecting as little as 8% of Earth’s surface — could temporarily counteract the temperature increase expected from rising greenhouse-gas emissions (Y. Kosaka and S.-P. Xie Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12534; 2013).

Previous modelling studies have linked the pause to La-Niña-like conditions that have prevailed since 1999, suggesting that heat that would otherwise go into the atmosphere is getting buried deeper in the ocean. And scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, have a study in the press indicating that decades in which global air temperature rises rapidly — including the 1980s and 1990s — are associated with warmer temperatures in the tropical Pacific, as exemplified by La Niña’s opposite effect, El Niño (G. A. Meehl et al. J. Climate http://doi.org/nkw; 2013). The Scripps researchers also confirmed that El-Niño-like conditions can boost global temperatures.

Scientists seem to be homing in on an important lever in the climate system. And none too soon. Although a prolonged hiatus in warming does not necessarily contradict prevailing theory, this one came as a surprise and has been used to discredit the climate-science community.* The story will probably not end there. Scientists know that the Sun has been in a prolonged solar minimum for several years, which means less incoming energy, and there may yet be a role for sunlight-blocking aerosols — human pollution and volcanic ash — and other factors in the hiatus. But at least a better explanation of the climate system is beginning to take shape.

All of this comes as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prepares to release the first installment of its fifth assessment report. The hiatus in warming is at the centre of an ongoing debate about ‘equilibrium climate sensitivity’, which is the amount of warming that would be expected over the long term owing to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Several papers have assessed the most recent data and conclude that the climate may not be as sensitive to greenhouse gases as was previously thought. The latest draft of the IPCC summary for policy-makers accounts for this — just. It suggests a likely climate sensitivity of 1.5–4.5 °C, compared with a range of 2–4.5 °C in the IPCC’s last assessment report.

Some argue that recent temperature trends show that the climate problem is less urgent. One can only hope that this is so, and scientists will continue to probe the matter. But policy-makers would be foolhardy to think that the danger has receded. Although scientists understand the basic physics, nobody can know how the numbers will turn out, as shown by the various temperature projections. Plenty of other lines of evidence, including palaeoclimate data and modern modelling experiments, support the higher end of these.

Ultimately, the decision over how to characterize climate sensitivity will fall to government officials who will approve — under the watchful eye of scientists — the latest IPCC documents in Stockholm next month. Whatever their decision, the underlying science has not changed."

-----------------------------------------
========================

*Comment: In the case of the United States, it's more about politicians than scientists though Nature does mention 'government officials' at the end of the article.  Decades of politicians have decided to allocate trillions of taxpayer dollars to CO2 danger since at least 1990 when climate ‘action’ was institutionalized in US government by George Bush the 1st via the U.S. Global Change Research Act of 1990.CO2 is mentioned near the end, Section 204, #4. The 1990 act bound 13 federal agencies to ‘climate' endeavors.   Also that year George Bush began emissions trading "to control environmental problems." (p. 2). Billions have been taken from US taxpayers for 'climate' via agency budget allocations, tax subsidies, diversion of US military to climate or green projects, countless federal regulations, vast sums shipped out in foreign aid for no-strings ‘climate’ endeavors.

In. Nov, 2012 Obama took 'climate action' by giving $6 billion US taxpayer dollars to the Sultan of Brunei who owns 5000+ cars and to the Pres. of Indonesia, a country so corrupt even the World Bank says crime adds 20% to costs. These are just a few of many examples.  

In the year 2012 alone, $18.5 billion was taken out of the US economy via CO2 "regulation. (chart below)" Most laws in the US now are made via regulation, not congress. Meaning most US laws are enacted without our knowledge. We have no access to the people who make the laws, don't know who they are. The handy phrase, "it's Bush's fault," actually does apply in this case though it's Bush #1. He sought to bind US taxpayers to CO2 terror before most people had ever heard of 'climate scientists.' As of 2013, USA leads the world in CO2 reduction since 2006. China's CO2 has skyrocketed and is heading higher to the point nothing any other country does to mitigate its CO2 can have much effect on the global number. As Nature says, one hopes the situation isn't as dire as once thought.
.
================================

Change in global CO2 US v China, 2005 to 2011, energy related, US EIA (US Energy Dept.), WSJ, April 2013





4/18/13, "Rise in U.S. Gas Production Fuels Unexpected Plunge in Emissions," WSJ, Russell Gold

"U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions have fallen dramatically in recent years, in large part because the country is making more electricity with natural gas instead of coal."...


==========================
.
6/10/13, 2012 US CO2 continues to drop. Chart from IEA report, China continues to rise. (Above chart is thru 2011) :



 






======================
.
1/29/13, "China Uses Nearly as Much Coal as Rest of World Combined, EIA Says," Wall St. Journal, Cassandra Sweet


================================= 

6/4/12, "Climate change stunner: USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006," Vancouver Observer, Saxifrage



"Not only that, but as my top chart shows, US CO2 emissions are falling even faster than what President Obama pledged in the global Copenhagen Accord."...Here is the biggest shocker of all: the average American’s CO2 emissions are down to levels not seen since 1964 --over half a century ago....
Coal is the number two source of CO2 for Americans. Today the average American burns an amount similar to what they did in 1955, and even less than they did in the 1940s. …It is exactly America’s historical role of biggest and dirtiest that   makes their sharp decline in CO2 pollution so noteworthy and potentially game changing at the global level.”...

-----------------------------------------------------------

News of US CO2 plunge has been described as:



===================================

A few examples of climate cash sought in 2011: 

1/11/11, "Big Money in Climate Change: Who Gives, Who Gets," Al Fin


.


 ------------------------------------------

In 2012, $18.5 billion was taken out of the economy by regulation in the name of US CO2 terror:

.$18.5 billion worth of climate regulations were issued in 2012 alone. Without congress. "The vast majority of “laws” governing the United States are not passed by Congress but are issued as regulations."

----------------------------------------- "In 2011, the US Congress passed a total of 81 new “laws” while government agencies issued 3,807 new regulations."  









 .

No comments:

Followers

Blog Archive

About Me

My photo
I'm the daughter of an Eagle Scout (fan of the Brooklyn Dodgers and Mets) and a Beauty Queen.