Thanks for the link, unfortunately it requires a subscription.

[Andre]

Here is a view about the ingredients to build an hurricane.

For hurricanes to be more intense, logically those factors must be stronger. This one is interesting:

The third ingredient is that of a saturated lapse rate gradient near the center of rotation of the storm. A saturated lapse rate insures latent heat will be released at a maximum rate. Hurricanes are warm core storms. The heat hurricanes generate is from the condensation of water vapor as it convectively rises around the eye wall. The lapse rate must be unstable around the eyewall to insure rising parcels of air will continue to rise and condense water vapor.

Lapse rate is the vertical decrease of temperature with height. If that decrease is small, warming uplifting air (convecting) will cool adiabatically quicker than the lapse rate and the uplift stops. The air is stable. If the lapse rate is large, the adiabatic cooling uplifting air will remain warmer (and lighter) than the envirnoment and continue to lift up. The air is unstable.

However, increased greenhouse effect is also supposed to warm the atmosphere as it agitates the increased amount of CO2 molecules. This would reduce the lapse rate and weaken this factor for hurricane forming. Therefore it's not automatically logical that more greenhouse effect would increase the strenght of the hurricanes.

 

[mheslep]

We shouldn't (and we won't) reduce our CO2 emissions too soon. ...

Its coming down already in the US, 1.8% in 2006
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_ES.pdf, Table ES-2
-Apparently due fossil fuel price increases and reductions in US manufacturing.

 

[vanesch]

Its coming down already in the US, 1.8% in 2006
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_ES.pdf, Table ES-2
-Apparently due fossil fuel price increases and reductions in US manufacturing.

A similar decrease was observed from 2000-2001. This is within the fluctuations. The data seem compatible with a constant emission level since about 2000.

Point is, the US has an extremely bad emission profile per GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Compared to most European countries for instance, they don't do very well. So it shouldn't be difficult to improve at least a little bit there. But the biggest growth is in China:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/mar2008/2008-03-11-01.asp

The researchers' most conservative forecast predicts that by 2010, there will be an increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000. This growth from China alone would dramatically overshadow the 116 million metric tons of carbon emissions reductions pledged by all the developed countries in the Kyoto Protocol.

The protocol was never ratified in the United States, which was the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide until 2006, when China became the largest emitter.

2-5 % increase estimated per year, and observed: 11% per year...

So I think it is a safe bet that the global emissions are not going to decrease over the coming years, or even decades.

 

[Andre]

It's off topic but an immediate drastic reduction of emission is attainable by stopping heating houses electrically. It's a big big waste. I estimate that for every pound of fuel (gas oil, whatever) burned directly in your house to warm, the electrical power plant has to burn about 4 - 5 lbs. The biggest losses are the limited effectiveness of engines driving generators and the distribution through the power line net

 

[vanesch]

It's off topic but an immediate drastic reduction of emission is attainable by stopping heating houses electrically. It's a big big waste. I estimate that for every pound of fuel (gas oil, whatever) burned directly in your house to warm, the electrical power plant has to burn about 4 - 5 lbs. The biggest losses are the limited effectiveness of engines driving generators and the distribution through the power line net

Well, if the electricity comes from fossil fuel burning, of course. If it comes from a no-CO2 source (nuclear, or wind/hydro/solar/biofuel...) then it is a good idea of course. Finally, using an electrically driven heat pump is beneficial normally, even in the case of fossil fuel burning electricity, because the temperature difference of the heat cycle in the power plant is bigger than the temperature difference for the heat pump, so you should, thermodynamically win there.

But of course, in all these considerations, one has to find out how much CO2 equivalent one is gaining for what investment. Usually one considers that $ 25 is about the maximum sensible investment per ton of CO2 exhaust gained.

BTW, this was one of those optimistic stories 5 years back:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/20921/story.htm

 

[mheslep]

A similar decrease was observed from 2000-2001. This is within the fluctuations. The data seem compatible with a constant emission level since about 2000.

Perhaps, but there's a known correlation with economic growth and the US economy tanked in '01. Constant US emissions is a big change from the previous decade. DOE credits:

favorable weather conditions; higher energy prices; a decline in the carbon intensity of electric power generation that resulted from increased use of natural gas, the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel; and greater reliance on non-fossil energy sources.

for the '06 decrease.

Point is, the US has an extremely bad emission profile per GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_ratio_of_GDP_to_carbon_dioxide_emissions

Compared to most European countries for instance, they don't do very well. So it shouldn't be difficult to improve at least a little bit there.

Yes I wonder how much of that could be credited to the freezing more nuclear power in the US just when it started booming elsewhere. In any case, recently emissions per GDP are improving dramatically in the US, 10% better from '02 to '06.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
Table 2.

 

[Andre]

Not really, the same happened in most European countries except France, disdaining Chernobyl "catastrophe" groupthink. Nowadays the French are ROFL whilst exporting their excess energy to other European countries, which are desperately training to cut emissions.

Therefore in most countries here, power plants run on coal. oil and natural gas, validating the electric heating waste.

 

[vanesch]

Yes I wonder how much of that could be credited to the freezing more nuclear power in the US just when it started booming elsewhere. In any case, recently emissions per GDP are improving dramatically in the US, 10% better from '02 to '06.

I think nuclear power is stable for the moment in Europe, and probably on the decline unless (silly) recent political decisions (Germany, Belgium) to phase out nuclear power are overturned.

I guess the "improvement" of CO2 / GDP in the US is mainly due to non-industrial creation of wealth, which increases GDP, but doesn't change anything to CO2 exhaust. Although the CO2/GDP ratio is a good indicator of the relative efficiency of the economy wrt. CO2 when comparing countries of very different wealth, I think it is an indicator which has its limits, especially when looking at countries that have special wealth ressources, like Switzerland (banks) or Norway (foil!). However, notice the favorable scores by France and Sweden.

But it does make sense in comparing, say, the US to Europe or to India or to China. It gives an idea what to expect when those parts of the world will reach the standards of living in the west.

 

[mheslep]

I seem to remember that science is about falsifiability. Processing data following a hypothesis would set a prediction...

Agreed. This and the mention of other Goddard work up thread gives me chance to discuss "[url[/URL], [I]Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three Dimensional Model[/I]

There is a load of detritus surrounding a Google search on this prediction paper; perhaps some clarity has come up in depth on PF, if so sorry I looked and didn't find it, though references to Hansen himself surface often. P. Michaels has attacked the paper in a Congressional hearing; was dismissed for not citing the 'right' prediction. That is, Hansen et al offer three scenarios based on various emissions levels; scenario A over predicted 2000 temperatures by 2-3x depending on which temperature observation is selected, and scenarios B,C were fairly close. Michaels was attacked for omitting B,C. Hansen et al '88 Section 4, "Radiative Forcing in Scenarios A, B, and C" describes the assumptions:
A: "the assumed annual growth averages about [B]1.5% of current emissions[/B], so the net greenhouse forcing increases exponentially"
B: "decreasing trace gas growth rates, such that the annual increase of the greenhouse climate forcing remains approximately constant at the present level"
C: drastic reduction in GH gas growth.
with more detail given in appendix B witch list assumptions on other GH gasses as well.

Now, CO2 emissions increased [PLAIN]http://http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/TrendGHGemissions1990-2004.html" in the 14 year period '90 through '04, with an notable 5% increase of CO2 in '04. Thus Hansen et al's scenario A is indeed the correct assumption based on CO2 emissions. There are other Hansen assumptions about volcanic insertios of aerosols to retard solar forcing; they apparently included an event in B/C and not A. I have to look more at that I don't see a chance Hansen recovers scenario A from Pinatubo; appears to me Hansen must fail by a wide margin for its first ~15 years of prediction.

Hansen et al original 1988 Figure 3 predictions updated w/ current observations:
http://www.realclimate.org/00fig1.gif

 

[mheslep]

Hansen et al follow up in PNAS '98
"http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/95/8/4113?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=hansen&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT"". States here why they were wrong:

The CO2 growth rate increased rapidly until the late 1970s,
more than doubling in 15 years (Fig. 6A). But the growth rate
has been flat in the past 20 years, despite moderate continued
growth of fossil fuel use and a widespread perception, albeit
unquantified, that the rate of deforestation has also increased.
Apparently the rate of uptake by CO2 sinks, either the ocean,
or, more likely, forests and soils, has increased.

And a direct answer to Michaels in '06:
Hansen et al answer in PNAS '06
"Global Temperature Change"
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/39/14288

Real-world GHG climate forcing (17) so far has followed a
course closest to scenario B. The real world even had one large
volcanic eruption in the 1990s, Mount Pinatubo in 1991, whereas
scenario B placed a volcano in 1995.

I don't see the basis for this statement.

 

[wolram]

I have been reading this page and quite honestly i have a headache trying to sort out who is right.

http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

STILL WAITING FOR GREENHOUSE.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I have been reading this page and quite honestly i have a headache trying to sort out who is right.

http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

STILL WAITING FOR GREENHOUSE.

Same with this thread.

Both sides have very valid points the trouble is neither side is 100% sure.

Is John L. Daly André's real name.

 

[Andre]

John Daly deceased in 2004. His son is maintaining the webside. He was a great pioneer, daring to challenge believe, practically on is his own, alone, don't even think EXXON. And isn't that what science is all about? Facts and figures, not gut feeling?

 

[wolram]

It is cereal, Al Gore more important than scientists in spreading the word.

http://www.springer-sbm.com/index.php?id=291&backPID=132&L=0&tx_tnc_news=4335&cHash=da1112f39b

 

[Andre]

But there is also this.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Or http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48972".

 

[Andre]

The Onion? Is that peer reviewed or satire?

 

[mheslep]

The Onion? Is that peer reviewed or satire?

Very dry satire

Here's a very good poke by them at victim statistics.

Millions and Millions
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29456

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

The Onion? Is that peer reviewed or satire?

I'd say it is peer reviewed at least. Satire, well obviously