Replies

Were any of those simulations set up at a single point in time, based on conditions observed at that point and extrapolations from that data using assumptions similar to those being used today, then allowed to run for a century? ... I get the impression that the methodology was the opposite. On a much shorter timeline - like year by year - it looks like they took a look at all observed data and fed it into the model to get an impact assessment for the various observatios for that year. Thus impacts like Mt. Pinatubo are explained. Of course, a prediction started in 1900 would not (likely) have predicted a Mt. Pinatubo event.

I'm not sure. Clearly in order to reproduce the effect of the forcings, the forcings have to be accounted for. That's probably why they compare runs with "natural" forcings only to forcings with both natural and anthropogenic forcing.

If we knew now what those variations would be from now until 2100, we'd have some confidence that the models could provide a correlation between that future volcanic activity and future temperature, for example. ... But we don't know how those factors will vary in the future.

Solar is another question, but despite not knowing when a volcano will erupt, it could be stated with some confidence that the next century will probably have 1-3 large explosions in the Krakatoa-Pinatubo range, and that the effects of those explosions will persist 4-5 years, with most of the effect occurring in the first two years after the eruption.

But the burden of proof should be squarely on those who advocate massive economic harm to the US particularly and without corresponding impact to our competitors (i.e. Kyoto Protocol), or who advocate massive centralization of power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats (i.e. Kyoto Protocol). These data do not provide that proof.

Because my position on climate change is that it can be addressed by steps that are increasingly necessary to alter the nation's dependence on foreign oil imports (for economic and national security reasons), I'm interested in the science of climate change, and I think that the Kyoto Protocol is a useless side issue. I don't think it will ever substantially influence U.S. domestic or foreign policy -- but energy policy is very important.

One interesting note: A single volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) is reported to have had twice the effect of all man-made warming combined for that corresponding year. Perhaps the solution to global warming is to detonate a few nuclear devices in not-quite-active volcanos.

Perhaps a bit drastic, and hard to control. There was recently a suggestion by a noted scientist that if global warming must be addressed, controlled stratospheric release of sulfate aerosols could be contemplated.

I'd like to see, for example, an analysis of what hydrogen as a fuel, or nuclear power does to these data. Both can reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, but they increase water vapor (which is a worse greenhouse gas) though not on a pound-for-pound basis.

The water vapor content of the atmosphere (relative humidity) is a feedback of the climate system determined by Earth's radiative balance. Since the evaporative term from the ocean's overwhelms any anthropogenic contribution.

Thanks for the reasoned comments.

but energy policy is very important.

Absolutely. A rational energy policy would accept as a given that we need more energy every year. Else is the nightmare slide into eternal barbarism. But where does the energy come from?

That needs to consider the nature of the energy storage and transport. If right now we had a totally hydrogen-fueled transport system and someone came up with a fuel with 5 times the energy density, that was further a liquid at room temperature and pressure so storage was easy, we'd jump all over it. Cars need gasoline. On the other hand, using fuel oil for home heating or powerplants (except as a way to employ what is left over after a barrel of raw crude has produced all the gasoline it can) is just wrong.

Powerplants, unless there is a handy high-head-pressure hydro source (i.e. Hoover dam) should be nuclear. It's the safest, least polluting power source known to man, but it takes a large, permanent, immobile installation. Right now, all the 'renewable energy sources' other than water power are not cost effective. This is disguised by massive government (i.e. taxpayer) subsidies for things like wind power, but an honest look at the numbers shows they don't really work (except, again, in certain limited locations with a particular geographic advantage like very steady winds).

Natural gas is a 'natural' for distributed heating, since burning gas produces very stable heat when burned in atmospheric conditions (compensating for minor variations in feed rate as things wear - something that gasoline will not tolerate). That's not terribly volume efficient, and external combustion is not terribly safe for mobile installations (such as cars). But it works great for homes. Electrical heating of homes (except as a very occasional thing as in Southern California or Hawaii) is just too inefficient for a rational energy policy.

If we focused our energy policy on considerations like that, we would both increase our efficiency (through things like gas heating instead of electric heating for homes) and increase our available energy sources (through use of nuclear power for electricity generation, freeing up fuel oil for mobile users like cars and trucks). Special case users, like large volume trucks and transport aircraft might take advantage of hydrogen with an acceptable penalty.

However, once we get as efficient as practical - while still providing a decent standard of living - we need to identify and exploit sources of the various types of energy-producer. That means drilling for oil in ANWR, etc.

Notice how many of those options that start from an acceptance that we need a continuing supply of energy are the opposite of what would be accepted by those who most complain about no energy policy? All they want is to restrict usage, and I am personally convinced it's so they can control our lives. If, for example, the only way to get around is on public transport, then whoever controls that transport controls a major part of our lives. If, for example, we all have to live in high-density housing (so that commutes are shorter) then we wouldn't be able to 'vote with our feet' to move from suburb to suburb and thus big-city bureaucrats (a natural government constituency) control more of our lives.

Thus, while the Kyoto protocol itself may die a well-deserved death, the basic socialist attitude of using energy/pollution controls as a way to control and limit free choice is the wave of the future. It needs to be combatted in every way that we can.

Because my position on climate change is that it can be addressed by steps that are increasingly necessary to alter the nation's dependence on foreign oil imports (for economic and national security reasons), I'm interested in the science of climate change, and I think that the Kyoto Protocol is a useless side issue. I don't think it will ever substantially influence U.S. domestic or foreign policy -- but energy policy is very important.

I agree, thats why the GW issue can be turned into a Conservative cause. We should use the issue to fund a massive increase in domestic energy production, through Nuclear, solar, wind, water and Alternative Fuels. I'm afraid that conservatives may be cutting of our noses here..