tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post8683531447270515202..comments2024-03-29T06:38:18.116+00:00Comments on Energy Balance: Climate Change Not Caused by CO2?Professor Chris Rhodeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-47746420448439855792013-11-15T13:09:28.620+00:002013-11-15T13:09:28.620+00:00Hi Gruff,
I find it interesting that the Earth ha...Hi Gruff,<br /><br />I find it interesting that the Earth has apparently not warmed as much as the climate models predicted, which had led to some speculation that e.g. the excess heat is being stored in the deep ocean.<br /><br />So indeed,modelling climate change is very complex, as indeed is the phenomenon itself. I am in no disagreement that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere should cause the Earth to warm, which is in line with some calculations from basic physics that I have done with Dr Alexander Koewius. http://www.koewius.de/Website/Climate_Change<br /><br />However, I remain with my original contention, that the most pressing problem facing humanity is the "liquid fuels crisis" which will result from a declining supply rate of conventional crude oil.<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />ChrisProfessor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-16322359163583707342013-11-15T12:54:38.508+00:002013-11-15T12:54:38.508+00:00I'm not a climatologist and I don't get th...I'm not a climatologist and I don't get the impression that any of the posters on this site are either. So, what to do? Tempting though it is to form our own opinions on CO2 vs global warming, it seems a nonsense to attempt to do so as a hobby. The science of climate is so complex and so awash with masses of data, you have a far, far better chance of being an amateur theoretical physicist and getting to grips with general relativity, quantum theory, string theory etc etc We have no choice (if we are sensible) but to rely on the summaries and models and predictions of the professional climatologists who spend their working lives on this and have access to all the data and the computer resources and colleagues to process and understand it.<br /><br />If a climatologist has an alternative theory to AGW and has data and a model and the physical theory to make it work, they will for sure get published and listened to - that is how science works! If their theory has no data or model behind it, or is not new, there is no reason why any respectable journal would publish them, there is no reason why colleagues would waste their time on it - that is also (thank God) the way science works.<br /><br />The way to really make your name to do something new, but *crucially* with evidence/data to back it up. Otherwise the idea is worthless. Nearly all real scientists want to do something new (to be the next Einstein), rather than just follow the herd.Gruffnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-15793833168646449522008-12-19T11:06:00.000+00:002008-12-19T11:06:00.000+00:00Hi Michelle,yes, if we get it wrong and misdirect ...Hi Michelle,<BR/><BR/>yes, if we get it wrong and misdirect resources on a massive scale rather than planning to cope with a changed climate that would be a disaster! I quite agree.<BR/><BR/>There was a Danish academic who brought a book out, saying as much, some years a go and there were calls for him to be sacked etc. etc...<BR/><BR/>that's what happens when you offend the world of "science"! I believe he has been forgiven now, probably because the voice of GW is so loud that no one really hears any dissenters!<BR/><BR/>Thanks Al Gore!<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-91060316916923054542008-12-19T09:45:00.000+00:002008-12-19T09:45:00.000+00:00Hi again Chris. I am not a denier, however I am de...Hi again Chris. I am not a denier, however I am definately a sceptic (occupational requirement as well as hazard).<BR/><BR/>I am actually serious in my suggestion that evidence of higher CO2 levels does not exist in the ice core samples because the evidence melted, and therefore there is also no evidence to support my suggestion.<BR/><BR/>There is overwhelming evidence from a number of sources that polar ice has diminished in recent times. The argument, from what I have read, is by how much and over how long. Now some say that the ice is rebuilding.<BR/><BR/>The IPCC graph on page 33 of the 2001 Summary for Policymakers http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/pdf/spm.pdf is incredibly flat up until the last 50 years. This struck me as remarkable because every other graph on global warming has ups and downs over this length of time. So I wondered "why?"<BR/><BR/>Most people agree that over the past 1000 years the earth's temperature has gone up and down from time to time. There are other sources of evidence of CO2 levels during this period which show ups and downs. Why is ice core CO2 data so flat for so long?<BR/><BR/>If you agree that global temperatures have not been dead flat for 950 of the last 1000 years, you realise that at some times the temperature was higher than others. When the temperature dropped, more ice built up, when temperatures rose, the ice during that time melted a bit, or at least did not build up. <BR/><BR/>Therefore, when the world was warmer, the ice didn't build up leaving a trace of the CO2 levels which existed at that time and actually melted a little, taking away part of the layer. Next cooling period the ice built up again leaving a trace of the CO2 levels which existed at that time, next warming period the ice either melted or at least did not build up to leave a nice layer of CO2 evidence containing ice.<BR/><BR/>It doesn't matter how deep the ice core samples are taken from, that is related only to time span. What does matter is that in the time series within the ice core samples, there are gaps in time.<BR/><BR/>Evidence of higher CO2 levels (if CO2 levels are related to temperature as we are told) isn't there because it melted.<BR/><BR/>As for dangerous territory to question and reconsider, how dangerous is it if we (people of today's world) get it wrong, or don't study the other elements of the earth's climate and therefore don't take all of the different types of action that may be needed?<BR/><BR/>As for the time lag, this is making people question which causes which? Questions are good - they lead us to learning more.Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840122566217487028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-86196109865216189352008-12-18T10:28:00.000+00:002008-12-18T10:28:00.000+00:00Hi Michelle,now this is most interesting! I don't ...Hi Michelle,<BR/><BR/>now this is most interesting! I don't think the ice would have actually melted, as to go back 1000 years the cores have to be cut from some depth, but there may be another reason connected with the difference between ice-core and atmospheric sampling? If you have more details of this sceptical view, I would be very pleased to know them.<BR/><BR/>I know that they have been measuring atmospheric CO2 since about 1950, and that there is a much less fine time-scale on the ice-core data.<BR/><BR/>It seems to be dangerous territory to dispute anything about the anthropogenic CO2/global warming/climate change link though, doesn't it?! The term "denier" is used with just emphasis!<BR/><BR/>Personally, I don't think there is any doubt that the problem is complex and there is much that is not understood. The temperature-CO2 "lag" is an annoyance to the simple view and yet it may well indicate forcing mechanisms at work as climate scientists say.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-24809144946247015412008-12-18T09:42:00.000+00:002008-12-18T09:42:00.000+00:00A number of people are questioning the reliability...A number of people are questioning the reliability of ice core data. I have started studying the IPCC documents and one thing I noticed is the very flat line on the graph showing CO2 in ice core samples over the past 1000 years up until just before they started using atmospheric neasurements instead.<BR/><BR/>Could it be as simple as the ice core evidence of higher CO2 levels during those periods melted?Michellehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07840122566217487028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-69432041104815699932008-12-05T10:51:00.000+00:002008-12-05T10:51:00.000+00:00...that should read, EIOER - energy invested (e.g.......that should read, EIOER - energy invested (e.g. gas) for a not large return of tar sand oil for example.<BR/><BR/>You get somewhere near 3 barrels of tar sand oil for every 2 barrels of oil worth of energy you put in. The process also needs a lot of water and is environmentally pretty filthy.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-79796590849413618222008-12-05T10:47:00.000+00:002008-12-05T10:47:00.000+00:00I think what Richard Pike is saying is that there ...I think what Richard Pike is saying is that there is plenty of oil "down there". Now, he may well be right and I hope he is.<BR/><BR/>Whether we are close to the actual point of peak or or not matters less than how much oil can be recovered against demand for it.<BR/><BR/>Thus if a gap appears between the two either through increasing demand or falling supply or both, we are in trouble.<BR/><BR/>The CEO of Shell is quoted as saying that the gap will appear sometime between 2010 and 2015 so either way we have to use less oil, unless by some rapidly deployable technology we can get more oil out or make a lot of unconventional oil - the latter demands a very high EROEI of other resources, by the way, so I doubt it's possible.<BR/><BR/>If Dr Pike is right, we may have a bit more time left to devise a lower-energy (lower personalised transport) way of living. The oil and gas and finally coal will run short (the cheap stuff anyway) at some point and so it makes sense to cut our use of these fuels.<BR/><BR/>Nobody really knows how much petroleum there is down there and how much of it will be extractable at a reasonable rate and cost. So the jury is still out on this one.<BR/><BR/>Either way, we need to begin to power-down, and use more biomass etc., since this serves all purposes we have referred to.<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-69594613245683894882008-12-05T09:59:00.000+00:002008-12-05T09:59:00.000+00:00You won't get any argument from me that there was ...You won't get any argument from me that there was a cooler period in the Northern Hemisphere around 1300-1850, although sources seem to disagree on the actual start date. Apparently there was a cooling of around 1degC. As for there being one bridge over the Thames I suppose it depends on when you're talking about. Frost fairs were held up until 1814.<BR/><BR/>On a different note, I'd be interested in Chris' opinion on this interview with Richard Pike from the RSC. Or perhaps you've already done a post on it and I just missed it...<BR/><BR/>http://tinyurl.com/69a65dAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-11471267342568819772008-12-05T08:39:00.000+00:002008-12-05T08:39:00.000+00:00I thought this would be contentious. However my un...I thought this would be contentious. However my understanding is that the temperatures really were colder then, across Europe. Yorkshire miner makes a good point about the paintings.<BR/><BR/>Maybe that's true about aerosols in the 1970.s and so is the idea now that the air has got cleaner or that the rising CO2 has more than offset the cooling from reflected radiation by aerosols?<BR/><BR/>Anyway, as you see may point in these last two articles is what is the best course of action to take? If curbing CO2 isn't going to help because of the surface ocean layers becoming saturated with CO2, we need to deal with living in a different climate.<BR/><BR/>No one argues that the climate is and always has changed - the ice-cores show that - and if CO2 is not the cause of the periodic heating episodes throughout hi9stiry it may provide a forcer (feedback) mechanism.<BR/><BR/>My contention is that running out of cheap oil, gas and then coal is going to have a greater and more immediate impact on humanity and that is what we should aim for. Cutting the use of fossil fuels for the fact of their ultimately limited supply does at least serve the additional role of cutting CO2 emissions, whatever the veracity of various theories.<BR/><BR/>So, we save (some of) both humanity and maybe the planet too by energy efficiency, curbing oil-powered transport use etc. etc., and making as much sustainable fuel as is possible albeit on a much smaller scale than we get from oil.. if we want to grow any food that is.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>Chris.Professor Chris Rhodeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12060542089215379056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-80711515903737005932008-12-04T22:07:00.000+00:002008-12-04T22:07:00.000+00:00Anonymous, There was only one bridge over the Tham...Anonymous, <BR/>There was only one bridge over the Thames at that time and that was London Bridge. the Thames was certainly wider and the flow somewhat constricted by the no of arches but it was simple the colder winter over most of Europe, check out the Dutch painters of that time and you will see the same scenes acted out on the rivers of Holland at exactly the same time. The confinement of the flow of the Thames did not cause the Thames to freeze over it was the cold bloody weather. After that period people went back to rowing on it not roasting chestnuts at the Michalmas fair.Yorkshireminerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03364251607711042067noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19508699.post-77173758122383631562008-12-04T17:13:00.000+00:002008-12-04T17:13:00.000+00:00There a few misconceptions in this post. I'm not s...There a few misconceptions in this post. I'm not someone who knows a great deal about climate change but the IPCC has done sterling work in producing readable reports that summarise as much of the data that is available. The cooling period post-war up to the 70s is dealt with in the third and fourth assessment reports and is attributed to sulphate aerosols from industry, cutting total solar radiation reaching the earth. The people at real climate, a blog actually written by climate scientists, is really good at covering anything you ever wanted to know and goes into it in great detail citing all the papers and posting all the data you could ever want. www.realclimate.org<BR/><BR/>They've also dealt with some of your other points before such as the lag time between CO2 and temperature increases. <BR/><BR/>Interestingly part of the reason the Thames froze over during the colder period, sometimes referred to as the little ice age, rests with the bridges over the Thames at the time. Without todays engineering capabilities the bridges had significantly more piers slow the Thames to a crawl making it freezing more likely. I can remember in 86 I think that the see froze down in Kent.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com