Tomas Martin @ 03-04-2008
Two of the major criticisms of global warming theory I’ve seen recently have been that a) 1998 was actually the hottest year on record and since then it’s been cooler and b) that solar winds and cosmic rays are driving the climate change process, not human emissions.
These are valid points and scientists have been spending a lot of time researching their impact. Lancaster University have just released a major report on the latter, concluding from 20 years of data that global temperatures have little influence from solar activity. The original hypothesis, by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, hypothesized that when the 11 year cycle of solar wind is weak, more cosmic rays make it through the earth’s atmosphere, making more clouds and cooling the earth. Correspondingly, when solar wind is strong, Svensmark’s theory expected more global warming. However, with solar winds currently near their minimum, global temperatures are still high. The Lancaster study used three different experimental methods to find little correlation between the two, contradicting Svensmark’s theory, which was heavily cited in the documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’.
Related to this discussion is the citing of 1998, the hottest year on record, as proof that global temperatures are going down. This is a compelling argument on the surface but when you look at other global weather patterns the reason for the difference in numbers becomes apparent. 1998 was incredibly hot in main part because it was in an El Nino cycle, in which the warming of the Pacific Ocean disrupts weather patterns. Today however, we are in the midst of a significantly strong La Nina event, the sister condition that dampens global temperatures. This means that whilst it will still likely be in the top ten hottest years, 2008 will not be a very hot year, due to that effect.
Both the cosmic ray and 1998 hypotheses were picked up as proof that global warming doesn’t exist. These criticisms are important because by either disproving or proving them to be right, our understanding of this science improves. When the outlying criticisms of climate change are themselves shown to be lacking, the consensus grows stronger and vice versa. Like all cutting edge science, it’s a learning process.
UPDATE: you can read the Lancaster paper here, whilst some of Svensmark’s papers are available on his website, although I can’t find any after 2001.
[via BBC Science, picture by Feuillu]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 06-02-2008
I think action is needed to prevent climate change and to mitigate against peak resources. However I don’t think we should go back to the stone age to do so. By pairing good governmental regulation with the invention and investment of smart business, important steps can be made without destroying either our livelihoods or the world.
Bad Science blog Depleted Cranium has some good posts on ten things Environmentalists rail against that is probably a waste of time and on what would be a more productive use of their protests. Things like Flaring, underground coal fires, Landfill gases and ship pollution are all things that could cut a huge chunk out of greenhouse gas emissions without denting our lives too much. Overall, we need to be encouraged to make everything we do more efficient, to give economic and social penalties to unneccessary waste. In many cases, this can often increase profits rather than losing them. There are some excellent posts on the Oil Drum related to this, especially those about Relocalization of Agriculture, The Limits of growth and an analysis of smaller cars and Jevons paradox - as cars get cheaper and more efficient, will the world just buy more and end up using just as much energy?
[via Charles Stross, image via Depleted Cranium]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 22-01-2008
Science teacher Greg Craven posted a video entitled ‘The Scariest Video you’ll ever see’ on Youtube in June 2007. The ten minute video garnered over 7000 replies including many criticisms from global warming sceptics. Craven decided to rebut these criticisms. He spent four months of his spare time researching data on the debate, ticking off each criticism that had been made. He then released “How It All Ends”, another ten minute video but this time with an ‘expansion pack’ of videos going into each of his arguments in exhaustive detail.
Interestingly, much of the content of the six-hour, 44 part series is not devoted to proving whether global warming is happening or not, or whether man is causing it or not. He looks instead at the four main outcomes: global warming exists and we do something, it exists and we don’t do something, it doesn’t exist and we do nothing or it doesn’t exist and we do something. He concluded the costs of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of doing something, so it makes sense to take action even if we don’t know whether global warming is happening or not.
A site has also started up devoted to the videos, where the forum members critique and find responses to each new criticism as it comes through on Youtube. The efforts of these people to encourage reasoned debate is heartening. Many of the arguments against combating climate change revolve around the fact that science doesn’t agree 100% with the precise outcome. Well, science never will agree, not totally, especially with oil industry-paid advocates in the mix. But even without more and more evidence leaning towards the ‘we need to do something camp’, the logical thing to do is to take action, even if it turns out we didn’t need to. There’s also a great interview with Kim Stanley Robinson at BLDGBLOG about this.
Related posts
Jeremy Eades @ 15-01-2008
So listening to Science Friday’s podcast today, one of the topics was Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute, an organization dedicated to preventing us from screwing up our planet any more than it already is. He’s come out with the latest version of his book, the 3rd edition of his book called, appropriately, “Plan B 3.0″. In it, he discusses the usual energy crisis, but he also carries it further, describing water wars, the effects of biofuels on food prices, etc. Brown also discusses some things that can be done to rectify these problems. It’s not terribly upbeat, however, as the fixes are rather more politically radical than anything we Americans have heard.
Ok, so it’s not SF, but the speculation is pretty good, and if it doesn’t motivate you to do something, it might just plant the seed for an entertaining story. Check out the book here, the first chapter or so is available free now, and the whole book will be released free later this week. Now that’s a promotional offer!
(image via EPI’s website)
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 02-01-2008
Jamais Cascio has been having some unsettling thoughts about the potential of geoengineering technologies to provide nation-states with subtle yet powerful alternatives to conventional warfare:
“Geoengineering as a military strategy would appear to offer a variety of benefits. Research can be done out in the open, taking advantage of civilian work on anti-global warming geoengineering ideas. If my argument that nuclear weapons and open-source warfare have made conventional warfare essentially obsolete is correct, climate-based warfare would offer an alternative non-nuclear weapon, one that would be out of the reach of non-state actors. And the more we learn about how human activities alter the climate — in order to alter those activities — the more options might open up for intentionally harmful manipulation.”
Yikes. How’s that for taking the edge off your new year optimism, eh? 
Still, it strengthens my theory that nation-states are a root cause of a lot of the challenges we face. Call me a hippie if you will, but isn’t it high time we got over this arbitrary geographical factionalism and realised we’re all in the same boat? [Image by Cikaga Jamie]
Related posts
Paul Raven @ 20-12-2007
BLDGBLOG has an excellent in-depth interview with Kim Stanley Robinson, in which he discusses his attempts to redefine utopias, the ideological bankruptcy of primitivism, how rational design in architecture and technology is one of the crucial keys to surmounting the problems presented by our changing environment, and much more.
A brilliant interview with a brilliant thinker … and hosted on a brilliant blog. You may think you’re not really interested in architecture, but I think an exploration of BLDGBLOG’s archive would prove you wrong. Go read. [Image from Wikipedia]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 10-12-2007
The Secretary of State for Business, John Hutton is announcing a huge sea-change in the UK’s approach towards future power plants, with a massive 25Gw of offshore wind proposed to add to an existing 8GW of planned construction. This vast increase in wind power, in addition to the wave and tidal projects being tested in the Orkney islands, could power all of the UK’s homes by 2020.
It’s interesting to see this being portrayed not only as an environment issue but as a security issue, with Hutton saying:
“I do not want in 20 years’ time to find that whether the lights go on in the morning is down to some foreign government or someone else.”
With the North Sea oil and gas fields decreasing rapidly in production, the UK is losing its resource power. By investing in new renewable technology it can continue to be an important world power. Denmark invested in wind over the last decade and now has a £2billion industry. If only more nations would have this level of foresight.
[story and picture via European Tribune]
UPDATE: As requested in the comments, here is a more up to date (and more detailed) analysis of Danish wind power and their plans up to 2030.
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 05-12-2007
The Bali talks about climate change are progressing reasonably well, with Australia the 37th country to agree to cut emissions. However, the elephant in the room is of course the US and Canada administrations, who have resisted negotiations. Although some US officials don’t want to join the protocol, others are starting to do something about it. This week Congress is discussing a revolutionary new Energy bill that really starts to look at a sustainable future.
It would repeal $21 Billion in oil subsidies to spend on alternative energies, increase minimum mpg for cars, include incentives for efficiency and new technology as well as pledging renewable electricity production to be 15% by 2020. This bill will inevitably be vetoed by President Bush, or filibustered by the Republican minority. All the same, the US Congress deserves recognition and support for thinking constructively about increasing efficiency and promoting solutions to this problem.
UPDATE: Congress has passed the bill 232-181. The bill moves to the Senate for further discussion. President Bush has pledged to veto it.
[image by Morten Mitchell Larod]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 03-12-2007
Now this is very positive. Last week there was talk of a giant ’supergrid’ connecting much of Europe to wind turbines across the continent, to take advantage of whenever the wind was blowing.
Now the Guardian reports on Desertec, the plans to put hundreds of solar concentrating plants on the North African coasts and in the Middle East. Two thirds of the estimated 100 Billion Watts would stay in the countries producing the energy, with another 30 Billion Watts (around of all of Europe’s use) being pumped via underwater cables to the EU, which would provide a chunk of the funding for the project. With the Bali talks now underway to find a new version of the Kyoto treaty, projects like this could be a major facet of reducing carbon emissions. German energy expert Gregor Czeich reckons with new higher efficiency power lines a 100% renewable powered Europe could be possible in the near future without costing much more than the current fossil fuel system.
[via the guardian, picture by TREC]
Related posts
Jeremy Eades @ 15-11-2007
I mean, really. Everyone from Phillip K. Dick to the ‘Fallout’ videogame series used nuclear war as a backdrop for stories set in the American West. Now, Mother Nature gives us new possibilities, only minus deadly radiation. Seems Yellowstone National Park is a giant caldera, essentially an old volcano cone that’s collapsed upon itself. And it’s been rising rather dramatic amounts (geologically-speaking, which is three inches per year). The largest volcano system in the world doesn’t show any signs of erupting anytime soon, as a geologist studying the caldera pleaded on Science Friday last week from NPR. For those of you looking for more exciting volcanos, Ana Krakatau, the volcano created after the largest recorded explosion in history, is at it again (pictured). Beyond the obvious immediate dangers, these volcanoes potentially have effects on the climate, both good and bad.
Related posts
Jeremy Eades @ 09-11-2007
The oceans are nature’s way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere - it’s estimated that one third of human-generated CO2 has been absorbed by the sea. But with the seas becoming more acidic, the rate of CO2 absorption is reduced. But what happens if they become more alkaline? Some Harvard researchers predict we could increase CO2 absorption by speeding up the natural release of basic solutions into the ocean, thus reducing the rate of release of CO2 in the atmosphere, helping corals and sea life affected by more acidic seas, and giving us cake.
There are some downsides, however, including localized pollution (the alkalines would be concentrated around the production plants, thus harming local sea life), price ($100 for every ton or CO2 removed), and energy - if the process were powered by coal, the net effect would be addition of CO2. Renewable energy, like geothermal, is one possibility around this, and in such a case could be more beneficial (CO2-wise) than replacing an entire coal plant.
See here for the abstract, it’s worth it just to read the title.
(article & image via Environmental Science & Technology Online)
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 24-10-2007
Climate scientists released a scary report this week saying that global warming is likely to be both ’stronger than expected and arrive earlier than expected’. Since 2000 large spikes in releases of the gas have seen the amount in the atmosphere grow much faster than expected when the Kyoto treaty was drawn up in 1990. The principle reasons for this increase include the growing economy, China’s increased use of coal and most worryingly, a decrease in the amount of absorption by the world’s natural ’sinks’.
The UK and New Zealand have both had news stories this week with ministers seeking to go back on ‘unrealistic’ Carbon emission cuts. The problem for all these countries is as the world economy is in such a delicate balance right now (and always, you could argue), to be the first one to start making the drastic changes neccessary means a massive hit to your economy and job market. 12 States including California and New York are sueing the US government for failing to do enough about the problem. All across the news, there are gloomy tales of doom if we don’t change but very little positives highlighted of changing to a less energy intensive future.
SF Writers have a huge part to play in all this. I’m not saying we should all run off and become Mundane. However, science fiction has a capacity to inspire unlike any other genre - just look at the Space Race to see the dreams of the genre in action in the real world. At the moment people understand global warming is a problem. They just don’t have an image in their head of what can replace the current state of affairs. Most of the books that deal with climate change are overwhelmingly apocalyptic, offering no respite and little hope. If we as SF writers can paint a picture of a future where we have adapted to the problems globalisation has caused us without the world ending or life becoming depressingly morbid, we can achieve something that few people are able to do. We can stop scaring people into change and start inspiring them.
[story via the new Guardian America site, image by alasam]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 17-10-2007
Ever since finding a superb Spore video by Will Wright on TED.com, I’ve been keeping an eye on the website for new videos which are released on a regular basis. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design and is an annual conference in which respected thinkers from all aspects of the world come to give fascinating speeches about their pet subjects. Only recently has the website started giving access to these speeches to anyone who didn’t attend the conference.
As well as Will Wright’s speech (and if you haven’t watched at least one presentation about the forthcoming groundbreaking game, you should), there’s a recent video by bioengineer Hod Lipson about his work on small robots which can learn and self-replicate. The website and video player is cleverly designed with an ingenious overlay on the bottom of the video telling you about the subsections of the talk, how long they go on for and what the subtopics are. Other enjoyable talks include speakers like Al Gore on global warming, Carolyn Porco on flying to Saturn with Cassini, James Kunstler’s engaging criticism of the tragedy of suburbia and Aubrey de Grey’s controversial belief that we can defeat ageing. That’s barely scratching the surface - I could spend weeks watching nothing but TED talks and not get bored. Have a browse and find the ones that engage you.
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 09-10-2007
The South of California is a very precarious economy. California boasts between the fifth and tenth biggest economy in the world if viewed as a separate entity, with Los Angeles alone being an economy comparable to all of Russia. One of the main things that makes California so competitive is its agriculture, which makes it the fifth biggest provider of food in the world.
The farms, vineyards and homes of Southern California depend on a great complex construction of dams reaching out to the surrounding states. Drought in the Colorado River is causing huge problems downstream as more people move to the west coast. The supplier, Metripolitan Water District, predicts a dry spell cutting up to 30% of supply to farmers next year, the biggest set of drought conditions since 1991. California is a paradise but the climate and supply lines it is founded on are in a delicate balance that climate change may tip into unsustainability.
[photo by Steven Pagel]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 08-10-2007
As you may know, as a writer and blogger, Peak Oil is one of the topics that fascinates me, ultimately leading to the 30,000 word fictional blog miawithoutoil I wrote earlier this year for the World Without Oil project. This editorial from the Buffalo News is a great summary of Peak Oil as it enters the public consciousness. Another good frontpage diary at Daily Kos yesterday detailed a few excellent potential strategies from the Energize America project, which emerged from Daily Kos to be a major player in alternative energy related politics.
I don’t think anyone would disagree that sooner or later the resources of the planet will run out. Finite oil was always on the case, even when I was at school. But according to some writers like Richard Heinberg, we may be very close or even just past the peak in global oil production, even if it takes a few years for the news to filter down the supply lines and alert the wide world. A former Canadian oil CEO thinks we’re pretty close too.
We are already being encouraged to cut down on fuel use by environmental campaigners and everyone concerned with global warming. Peak Oil presents a natural brake on the climate change bandwagon but in a sudden stop, things will get very unstable. By encouraging smaller cars and smaller commutes, alternative fuels and increased public transport, as well as building shops, jobs and facilities closer to home and utilising the great advantages the internet gives us with telecommuting and virtual goods, we could create a world that would ride out the shrinking resource climate without capsizing. We’d better start soon.
[photo by Boback]
Related posts
Tomas Martin @ 28-09-2007
Last week I wrote about the Northwest Passage, the ocean channel across the top of Canada connecting the Atlantic and Pacific, being free of ice for the first time in modern history. Now thanks to Nasa’s satellite imagery, you can see the ice-less water in all its scary glory. Here is the high definition image. A smaller image and article is here. It really is stunningly beautiful, despite the implications.
[via Daily Kos' excellent weekly round up of environmental posts, picture via NASA Earth Observatory]
Related posts
Jeremy Eades @ 27-09-2007
There are enough bad peat puns in the article, so I’ll spare you any in the headline here. Conventional wisdom regarding climate change dictates that as temperatures rise, the frozen lands in the north will release methane that has been locked in the ground. Methane is regarded as being 23 times stronger than carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat, so this phenomenon would likely accelerate global warming.
As bad as it may seem, it may not be quite so. A five year study done by ecologists at Michigan State University in East Lansing has found that as the frozen peatlands thaw out, they become wetter and provide fertile ground for fast-growing water plants which will suck up carbon dioxide, thus offsetting some of the methane release.
Of course, it won’t be a one-for-one tradeoff. And as the wetlands fill in, the water plants will be replaced by slower-growing dryland plants and trees. These new northern forests aren’t nearly as good at reducing global warming as the tropical ones.
So there you go. We’re still going down the tubes, just not quite as quickly as people thought before. Well, I’m off for a drink.
(via SciTech Daily Review) (image via brewbooks)
Related posts
