Another historic agreement!

Source

Talks wrapped up at the climate summit in Paris with an agreement and politicians rushed to congratulate themselves - hailing the 'historic' agreement and (no doubt completely coincidentally!) emphasizing the importance of their specific roles and the actions taken by their governments... (see, for example, Prime Minister David Cameron and President Obama).

OK, so looking at criticisms of what was achieved e.g. here, here, and here, it appears that there is rather less to this agreement than meets the eye, with "the theory" outpacing "the actual." In sum, a very Obama agreement. See this blog entry looking at the trend of "Obama agreements," from Copenhagen 2009 to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, from New START to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1887, and the Honduras "Tegucigalpa/San Jose" agreement.

Speaking of Copenhagen 2009, in his address President Obama also referenced it, claiming "In 2009, we helped salvage a chaotic Copenhagen Summit and established the principle that all countries had a role to play in combating climate change." Back in 2009 I deconstructed the account of Copenhagen 2009 provided by "senior administration officials" and found it patently ridiculous and "incredibly amateurish" at best!

Random charts - global warming

 

Source: IPCC Fifth Assessment Synthesis Report (116-pg PDF)

Random charts - climate change

 

 

 

Source: Climate change, food security and small-scale producers

Logic?

Came across this article - The global warming “hiatus” - which takes climate 'skeptics' to task, as "The notion that global warming has gone on “hiatus” is the most popular and persistent myth that climate skeptics and their adherents have asserted (and asserted) in recent years..."

Two points made struck this blogger... The first that 'deniers' engage in cherry-picking to adduce a 'pause' in warming. Thus: "Skeptics choose a couple of arbitrary data points—a temperature reading from early 2000 and another from early 2010, for example—and highlight a temperature drop between them. Because 1998 was a particularly hot year, it often serves as a convenient starting point for skeptics, who point to a slowdown in warming in subsequent years.."

The second point, presumably to demonstrate that warming continues: "...  But the mercury did not actually stop rising: 17 of the last 18 years have been among the hottest on record, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center..."

Well, what of it? Using the link supplied by the article itself and plugging in a couple of different starting dates, one distant and one more recent you get the following:

 

Clearly the trend is up... However, also it is fairly clear that even if you do not cherry-pick your dates, there has been a period of relative 'hiatus' in the increases over a little more of the last decade!

OK, so perhaps there are deniers that overemphasize this relatively small period which is relatively 'flat.' However this is not what the article decries; it clearly says that the idea that there has been a 'hiatus' is a  complete myth and insinuates that anyone that thinks so is a cherry-picking climate skeptic. A little 'shrill' methinks.

Well, clearly the fact that "...17 of the last 18 years have been among the hottest on record ..." clearly proves the continued warming? Uh, no! If 17 years ago was the hottest year on record at the time, and then every subsequent year (but one cooler year) was the exact same temperature, this statement would still be true! By itself, this statement is not dispositive at all!

Note: This blogger is not arguing for or against AGW; nor if the earth continues to heat up but that it masked because the heat is being trapped in the deep ocean; or {insert multiple other arguments here}. All he is saying is that these two particular arguments  are nonsensical and a non-sequitur. In fact the writer of this screed implicitly seems to concede a 'hiatus' by including: "...It is a short fluctuation in a long-term upward trend in atmospheric temperatures..."  

Over-reacting to those who exaggerate the 'short fluctuation' by going overboard (in the opposite direction) and denying that it exists may be good politics, but is isn't good logic!

Previous blog entries related to climate:
GHG reductions - some info - Jun 5th, 2014
Random chart - economic fragility - Dec 29th, 2013
Random chart - AGW - Jun 25th, 2013
Misc update - climate change - Jun 17th, 2013
Random charts - deforestation - Jan 8th, 2012
Misc update (climate) - Jan 29th, 2011
Climate denial - Jun 5th, 2010
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

GHG reductions - some info

Source: Inventory Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions And Sinks: 1990-2012 (April 2014) 529-pg PDF

Big news recently on the environmental front, the President announced that the EPA will be promulgating rules to limit the allowable amounts of greenhouse gasses that can be emitted by power plants: So, per USA Today:

"... Taking a historic step to fight climate change, the Obama administration proposed a plan Monday that aims to slash carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants 30% by 2030 and could accelerate the nation's shift away from coal.  

The Environmental Protection Agency plan, which is President Obama's largest climate effort so far, could help the United States prod other countries like China to pledge similar emissions cuts as part of a new international treaty that's slated for negotiation next year in Paris. The controversial 645-page plan, expected to trigger legal challenges, sets different reduction targets for each state and gives them flexibility in how to achieve them. Yet it aims for a 30% national reduction of heat-trapping CO² emissions, from 2005 levels, by 2030 -- an amount that the EPA says is equal to annual emissions from powering more than half of U.S. homes....  

Thwarted by Congress' inability to pass a bill to lower carbon emissions, Obama is pushing his own approach. Last June, he asked the EPA to use its authority under the Clean Air Act to limit power plant emissions, which account for the largest share — nearly 40% — of total U.S. emissions. Coal-fired facilities could be hardest hit, because they emit more carbon than other power plants. 

The rule will not take effect for at least two more years. Obama has asked the EPA to finalize it in June 2015 and initially wanted each state to submit its plan by June 2016. The EPA proposal gives states until 2017 or, if they make joint efforts with other states, 2018..."

Predictably this has set off a major squabble in Washington and across the country... This blogger has been reading the news and trying to figure out exactly how much of a cut is being mooted. Per the news snippet above it is "a 30% reduction of emissions from existing power plants by 2030." Or is it really "a 30% national reduction by 2030"? It can hardly be both if emissions from existing power plants only account for "nearly 40%" of the national total!

Another article says: "... Obama also said the proposal will help the U.S. get closer to his goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, a commitment he made in 2009 at a climate change conference in Copenhagen..."


This set this blogger to wondering... a) How do they calculate the amount of "greenhouse gasses"?  b) Why is it that 2005 is chosen as the base year? And other things...

Well, according to the EPA: "...An emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies a country's primary anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gases is essential for addressing climate change. This inventory adheres to both (1) a comprehensive and detailed set of methodologies for estimating sources and sinks of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and (2) a common and consistent mechanism that enables Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to compare the relative contribution of different emission sources and greenhouse gases to climate change..." The following graph shows the various factors used to convert multiple greenhouse gasses into CO2 equivalents. In other words HFC-23 or trifluoromethane is over eleven thousand times as potent as carbon dioxide!

As to the choice of 2005 as the base year, this blogger is still in the dark. Perhaps it is because 2005 was (almost) the historical high point of U.S. GHG emissions. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that a President set an "ambitious" goal while making sure that 'progress' would be seen to be made during his terms in office, but while leaving the bulk of the effort to a successor!

Random chart - economic fragility?

Click to enlarge

Source: Upside down economics

Ran into this blog entry from 2007....  The chart shows "... data to summarize the sizes of various industries in the U. S. economy as of 2005..."  in an alternate format... The blog entry was discussing the economic impacts of  global warming, and posited a different way to look at the U.S. economy and thus the impacts. Per the blog entry;

"... The entire economy stands on the shoulders, as it were, of agriculture, forestry, and mining (especially the extraction of oil, gas, coal and uranium) and on the utilities that deliver the energy mined in usable form. This method for depicting the economy was suggested to me by two things. 

First, Liebig's Law of the Minimum states that an organism's growth is limited by the amount of the least available essential nutrient. In the case of world society that nutrient would be food, though many would argue that fossil fuels are the essential nutrient since so much food production depends on the use of fossil fuels and their derivatives including fertilizers and pesticides. 

Second, a piece by Dmitry Podborits argues that it is nonsense to say that the U. S. economy is less vulnerable to oil supply disruptions today than in 1970s because it produces twice as much GDP per barrel of oil. Instead, Podborits suggests, we are more vulnerable to oil supply disruptions because we have so much more GDP balanced on each barrel of oil. The same argument might be made with respect to agriculture which in the United States in 1930 employed 21.5 percent of the workforce and made up 7.7 percent of GDP. In 2000 the numbers were 1.9 percent of the workforce and 0.7 percent of GDP. We are balancing an ever larger total economy on an agricultural economy that on a relative basis is shrinking. Certainly, we are getting more efficient, but are we becoming more vulnerable?..." 

Interesting (and possibly even more relevant today)!

Random chart - AGW

Source: Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating?

Misc update - climate change

A new study Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change by a researcher at The University of Waterloo,Canada apparently demonstrates an "... almost perfect correlation between rising global surface temperatures and CFCs in the atmosphere..."; the study concludes that recent global warming has been caused by CFCs and not CO2; and apparently its model "... has superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional sunlight-driven ozone-depleting and CO2-warming models"

From the paper:

"For global climate change, in-depth analyses of the observed data clearly show that the solar effect and human-made halogenated gases played the dominant role in Earth's climate change prior to and after 1970, respectively. Remarkably, a statistical analysis gives a nearly zero correlation coefficient (R = -0.05) between corrected global surface temperature data by removing the solar effect and CO₂ concentration during 1850–1970. In striking contrast, a nearly perfect linear correlation with coefficients as high as 0.96–0.97 is found between corrected or uncorrected global surface temperature and total amount of stratospheric halogenated gases during 1970–2012. Furthermore, a new theoretical calculation on the greenhouse effect of halogenated gases shows that they (mainly CFCs) could alone result in the global surface temperature rise of ~0.6°C in 1970–2002. These results provide solid evidence that recent global warming was indeed caused by the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic halogenated gases. Thus, a slow reversal of global temperature to the 1950 value is predicted for coming 5~7 decades. It is also expected that the global sea level will continue to rise in coming 1~2 decades until the effect of the global temperature recovery dominates over that of the polar O₃ hole recovery; after that, both will drop concurrently. All the observed, analytical and theoretical results presented lead to a convincing conclusion that both the CRE mechanism and the CFC-warming mechanism not only provide new fundamental understandings of the O₃ hole and global climate change but have superior predictive capabilities, compared with the conventional models..."

So what is a layperson to make of this study? Believe it, which means believing that  global warming is/was anthropogenic but that perhaps we are not in as bad a shape as the CO2-centric approach would posit (i.e. this study indicates global temperatures will now go down rather than up as per the CO2-centric predictions...) and risk being castigated as a "denier"? Discard it?  Believe it, but argue that it represents just one factor, but still go with the "AGW is correct, is caused by carbon dioxide and global temperatures will continue to rise" outlook? Previous blog entries (links below) have wrestled with the issue of understanding the issue, this is another data point that would seem to go against the "consensus."

Previous blog entries related to climate:
Random charts - deforestation - Jan 8th, 2012
Misc update (climate) - Jan 29th, 2011
Climate denial - Jun 5th, 2010
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

Random charts - deforestation

Source: CBO: Deforestation and Greenhouse Gases

More on climate

Previous blog entries related to climate:
Misc update (climate) - Jan 29th, 2011
Climate denial - Jun 5th, 2010
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

Previous blog entries have argued that "... shoddy reporting combined with the complexity of the science made it difficult, nay, make that quasi impossible, for an informed and discerning layperson to have an independent understanding of climate science. Also that occasional reporting of additional theories and or data sometimes seemingly at odds with the consensus position, can and do muddy the waters... "

For example, the previous blog entry referenced the claim by the Indian Environment Ministry that solar activity could account for up to 40% of global warning, and that as a result it's not entirely about man-made activities and the resulting carbon cycle-related greenhouse gasses...

Now up, a study that implicates ozone depletion and the ozone "hole" as major contributors to changes in atmospheric flow and circulation (and this precipitation). "... The ozone hole is now widely believed to have been the dominant agent of atmospheric circulation changes in the Southern Hemisphere in the last half century. This means, according to Polvani and Kang, that international agreements about mitigating climate change cannot be confined to dealing with carbon alone— ozone needs to be considered, too. “This could be a real game-changer" ... a hole in the Antarctic ozone layer was discovered in the mid 1980s. Thanks to the 1989 Montreal Protocol, now signed by 196 countries, global CFC production has been phased out. As a result, scientists have observed over the past decade that ozone depletion has largely halted and they now expect it to fully reverse, and the ozone hole to close by mid-century... “While the ozone hole has been considered as a solved problem, we’re now finding it has caused a great deal of the climate change that’s been observed.” So, even though CFCs are no longer being added to the atmosphere, and the ozone layer will recover in the coming decades, the closing of the ozone hole will have a considerable impact on climate..."

The "good" in this development for climate change? That the world's phase out of CFC production pursuant to the Montreal Protocol of 1989 (which stopped the world's ozone depletion) shows that international agreements can, and have, been successful in the past!

Random charts

Source: "Promoting Energy Conservation in China: Findings from an Input‐Output Analysis of China's Energy Consumption"

---

Source: "Advancing Carbon Capture and Sequestration in China: A Global Learning Laboratory"

Random charts

Source: Methods for Remote Determination of CO2 Emissions

Misc update (climate)

Picture credit: NASA

Previous blog entries related to climate:
Climate denial - Jun 5th, 2010
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

Earlier blog entries argued that shoddy reporting combined with the complexity of the science made it difficult, nay, make that quasi impossible, for an informed and discerning layperson to have an independent understanding of climate science. Also that occasional reporting of additional theories and or data sometimes seemingly at odds with the consensus position, can and do muddy the waters... One such example is the role of solar activity...

For example, from an earlier blog entry we had : "Another example would be from this finding, Sunshine speeded 1940s Swiss glacier melt: scientists, which seems to indicate that in this specific case solar radiation at one point might have been a better explanation for melting of the glaciers in the Alps than temperature... Note: this disagrees with the thrust of the consensus position that it is carbon dioxide levels (worsened by human activity) and the associated higher temperatures that are the main reason for the loss of glaciers rather than solar radiation (natural i.e. no human intervention)."

Now, an article, 'Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study', reports that a scientific paper released by the Indian Environment Ministry says that solar activity has a much larger effect than previously thought.... "A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday. Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims. In fact, the contribution of decreasing cosmic ray activity to climate change is almost 40 per cent, argues Dr. Rao in a paper which has been accepted for publication in Current Science, the preeminent Indian science journal. The IPCC model, on the other hand, says that the contribution of carbon emissions is over 90 per cent"

So, what is one to believe? Is the IPCC focus on greenhouse gasses greatly overstated? Or is this new study too "convenient" for the Indian government ("... the “unidimensional focus” on carbon emissions by most Western countries put additional pressure on countries like India in international climate negotiations ..." and "... If human activity cannot influence such a significant cause of climate change as cosmic rays, it could change the kind of pressure put on countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions ...")?

Climate denial?

Source: Global Warming: How to approach the science

Previous blog entries related to climate:
More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

The article Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics" discusses "... What factors would distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" - who has honest questions about the HGCC consensus - from members of a Denier Movement who think a winter snowstorm means there's no net-warming of the planet? ..." and does a great job looking how each group responds to factors such as: differing notions of expertise; the presence (or lack of) humility; an understanding of 'Cui bono?'; etc.

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism is another article that relates to this subject. It "... defines denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism ..." which are: conspiracy theories, fake experts, cherry-picking, impossible expectations of what research can deliver, and misrepresentation and logical fallacies. A good article, even if it would seem to imply that these are tactics that only are deployed by the one (negative, denialist) side of the argument...

Hmm, what's a layperson to make of all this? The more he reads the more this blogger's head hurts. It’s the Sun, stupid claims that "... solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid..." (which does not coincide with the IPCC position). Aah, the pain.

Then Huge CO2 `Burps’ from Oceans May Have Contributed to End of Last Ice Age suggests that "... scientists concluded that CO2 would build up over thousands of years in the deep ocean, and then periodically be released into the atmosphere in a large “burp.” These CO2 pulses were massive, roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning since the industrial revolution..." and "... that the CO2 “burps” — coupled with the warming and cooling of the Earth driven by changes in the planet’s orbit around the sun — may have played an important role in past cycles of glaciation and deglaciation..." So, now we need to factor in planetary orbits and the possibility that the oceans will regurgitate all the carbon dioxide they have stored since the "burp" at the end of the last ice age? Presumably were this to happen this would dwarf current emissions even were the countries of the world to agree upon and implement massive cuts in emissions? What does this do to the calculus?

Next up, Global Warming: How to approach the science which appears to be very skeptical, especially about the forcings and feedbacks that are claimed to account for most warming. "A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain... The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments..."

It really doesn't help the layperson that most reporting is incredibly shoddy, and that good articles that treat the subject fairly and comprehensively are few and far between. There are a few exceptions, and two are below - Der Spiegel's 8-part account of the recent "crisis", and The Economist's observation that "... There are lots of uncertainties in climate science. But that does not mean it is fundamentally wrong."

Climate Catastrophe: A superstorm for global warming research
The science of climate change: The clouds of unknowing

Source: Global Warming: How to approach the science

Quaking in their boots

Well it seems that Israel has figured out a way to defang Iran... and to simultaneously free the world from the 'oil dictatorship' of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and other oil-producing nations! How you ask? Well, Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau has a master plan - "... in October 2009 Israeli PM Netanyahu launched a "national project" at Israel's National Economic Council to find a way to end the world's dependence on fossil fuels ..." So, Israel will develop the green technologies that will end the industrialized nations' dependence on fossil fuels, which will de-fund these regimes...

After a fit of hilarity (that really hurt) this blogger checked the date on the article and googled to find this story elsewhere. He found numerous references, none of them dated April the first! So, apparently this is "real". One wonders what Landau has been drinking....


Maybe it was something in the water, because the very next day another article suggested that a cap on carbon in the U.S. would be a good thing because the reduction in oil consumption would significantly hurt Iran by putting a crimp into its flow of petrodollars. It was accompanied by the graph below...

Wow, this really looks like a very serious reduction, assuming of course that the U.S. can (or will) actually reduce its emissions to get to the "167 case." However, the graph seems to imply much more than the reality... after a cursory glance one might infer that from 2010 to 20150 Iran's oil revenues would crater by approximately 90%. However, looking at the 'Core Scenario 167 bmt' on page 69 one sees that the price index for petroleum products in 2050 would be 1.20, or slightly higher than the price index for 2010 (at 1.15)

Using the index numbers from the MIT Assessment of U.S. Cap-and-Trade Proposals, this blogger graphed out the two cases - the baseline "reference case" if nothing is done, and the "167 case." If the assumption is made that Iran's production remains at 4.174 million barrels per day (as in the article), and that the 2010 price starts out at $83 a barrel you get the graph below:

Iran will "lose" the revenue between the two lines, or the area in red... Indeed a serious hit but no where near as drastic as is implied by the article's graph. Anyway, there are better reasons for the U.S. to cap its greenhouse gas emissions than a putative crimp in Iran's oil revenue...

Climate change and doubt

Why do many people have great difficulty believing in 'global warming'? If you listen to the convinced/converted it often seems that they attribute others' doubts to stupidity and/or a willful disbelief of the obvious... While this may be true for some small percentage, a much larger number simply are not equipped to understand the science... Climate science is incredibly complex, especially when you are talking about it on a global scale... a large number of different phenomena that have varying effects, and which interact with one another in different ways, and differently at different points in time, etc. Unfortunately the very difficulty in neatly explaining this complexity has resulted in attempts to encapsulate and/or recap the overall effect that have not been very useful. A prime example is the term 'global warming.' This 'short-hand' is hard for folks to grasp and/or believe when there is so much variation in temperatures - people see record cold snaps in many areas and have trouble squaring their observations with the notion of 'global warming'.... It doesn't help to point out to them that they have to think in terms of decades or centuries; that they have to distinguish between individual variations and the long-term trend; and so on.

OK, so 'climate change' is a better term. Changes in climate are occurring across the globe. For example, some areas are getting hotter and others colder; some are seeing increased precipitation while others are seeing an increase in droughts; the changes happening differ at the various latitudes and at different elevations; and the changes happening also differ on the surface of the oceans versus in the depths. The important issues that we need to understand, and the questions that we need to answer are re how these are connected, what the various trends are, what the longer-term trends are, and (very importantly) which of these are natural and/or cyclical versus which ones of these are caused by human activity. And if we are able to fully understand and answer these questions, the next thing to determine is what we should do about it, if anything.

The overall scientific consensus appears to be that there is an overall warming trend, and that this has been exacerbated by human activity (most importantly the use of fossil fuels)... and that unless very significant changes are made in the way we do things, this trend will reinforce itself and continue, with significant detriments to the future of mankind. While this is an overall consensus there is an argument by some re whether this is 'settled science', and even among those who do believe the consensus there are differences in emphasis and degree...

Like many others, as a lay person this blogger doesn't know the answer. He struggles with a number of issues, including:

• Given the complexities briefly touched upon above, it is extraordinarily difficult to have the time, inclination, or background to vet the science on an individual basis. As a result a large part of the argument in support for the consensus agreement is based on an appeal to authority. We are asked to take on faith that the climatologists and other scientists have studied this in sufficient detail; that they have constructed sufficiently detailed models and have taken into account all the appropriate variables; that they have the best data; that they have crunched the available data and applied their models; and that the simplifications, interactions, and assumptions built in the models work accurately to produce results that not only explain past events (something that is always much easier to do) but also can be used to accurately predict the future (something that is exponentially more difficult, as can be attested to by any economist!). At the same time one has to believe that there is a sufficient degree of rectitude and self-disinterest among the postulates of the consensus position, something that this blogger and many others may find difficult to do automatically - based primarily on a somewhat jaundiced view of the general human condition (i.e. that most people act in their self-interest), but also not helped by instances such as this or this...
• The sources of information on the topic (e.g. the press ) often purvey incorrect and/or contradictory information, leading this blogger to scratch his head re what to believe. An example here would be the spate of articles (e.g. see this) saying that the earth is in for a period of cooling, immediately followed by other articles attacking the earlier ones as an incorrect reading of the situation (e.g. see this).
  

• On a fairly regular basis, new theories and/or data points pop up that do not necessarily fit neatly with the consensus position.. A recent example would be the observations regarding the cycles with which the Bering Strait is free from or closed off by ice, see Global Ice Age Climate Patterns Influenced by Bering Strait. While the article by the NSF says "... the findings do not directly bear on current global warming ..." it also says "... "If we can improve our understanding of the forces that affected climate in the past, we can better anticipate how our climate may change in the future ..." Another example would be from this finding, Sunshine speeded 1940s Swiss glacier melt: scientists, which seems to indicate that in this specific case solar radiation at one point might have been a better explanation for melting of the glaciers in the Alps than temperature... Note: this disagrees with the thrust of the consensus position that it is carbon dioxide levels (worsened by human activity) and the associated higher temperatures that are the main reason for the loss of glaciers rather than solar radiation (natural i.e. no human intervention). Now it is true that the article also says that "... this should not lead people to conclude that the current period of global warming is not really as big of a problem for the glaciers as previously assumed ..." But how often can we accept these 'outliers' and/or exceptions and still say "it does not change the consensus"? At what point are there sufficient numbers of these that we need to admit to some doubt of the underlying models?
• The last item that this blogger will discuss is the putting forth of very specific examples of "the effects of climate change." For example, see "Angry Greenhouse Gas Victims Demand Action.' Here, proponents of the consensus theory have identified specific areas that have been adversely effected by human-induced climate change in very specific ways. So, apparently farmers in the Kericho District of Western Kenya have been adversely effected by decreased rainfall compared to twenty years ago, and the WWF somehow "knows" that their plight has been caused by human-induced climate change and puts them forward as "greenhouse gas victims." Now, this blogger has no trouble believing general propositions such as "if current trends persist then crop outputs will decrease by x percent by 2050'"and other similar predictions. But identifying current "victims"? The WWF has managed to do this with such specificity and has managed to rule out all other contributing factors? This blogger has a hard time swallowing this... And, in fact, the putting forward of such propositions to support the consensus view is something that he feels undercuts rather than enhances its likelihood of acceptance!

The bottom line: a very complex issue. This blogger is inclined to believe the consensus view, but admits to periodic doubts raised by the issues noted above, among others...

How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic
Global warming hike may be steeper: research
Global Ice Age Climate Patterns Influenced by Bering Strait
Earth could be entering global cooling for the next 30 years
Addressing "Global Cooling"
Sunshine speeded 1940s Swiss glacier melt: scientists
AGU stunner: Aircraft Vapor Trails Responsible for 15-20% of Arctic Warming
Climate Change: Angry Greenhouse Gas Victims Demand Action

Chart source: Spiegel

Previous blog entries on climate change:
Meet... Dr. Rajendra Pachauri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010
Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

Chart source: Spiegel

Random chart...

Graphics showing the 2008 world consumption per capital in tonnes of oil (above) and natural gas (tonnes oil equivalent, below). Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2009

And crude oil prices from 1861 to 2008:

Gut reactions

Cellulosic ethanol is ethanol produced from wood, grasses, and/or the (non-edible) parts of plants. As this sort of plant matter (e.g. switchgrass, etc.) is much more abundant than other current sources of ethanol such as sugar cane or corn, cellulosic ethanol could/should be an important source of fuel. However, a roadblock to the increased use of cellulosic ethanol is the fact that although abundant, the cellulose in these plants is difficultly accessible due to a rigid structure that includes lignin. As a result the plant matter has to be broken down and the cellulose 'released' and broken down to simple sugars before it can be converted to ethanol. The steps required to achieve this are difficult and costly.

Wouldn't it be great if an easier way was found to break down this biomass? Well, scientists are looking in a number of potentially fruitful directions. Termites are incredibly efficient (90%) at digesting and breaking down woody fibers, so scientists are examining and cataloging all the bacteria and enzymes present in the termite gut, looking for some that could be commercialized. Similarly, other scientists are looking at the asian longhorn beetle. These beetles are 'pests' that ravage trees, and eradication programs abound. Their guts have yielded fungi that assist with the wood fiber breakdown. Research is ongoing to see if these 'pests' can yield clues and information re how we can greatly improve the processes by which cellulosic ethanol can be produced...

Gut Reactions
Symbioses in the Termite Gut
A Gut Fueling? Termite Bowels May Provide Method for Making Biofuels
Novel fungus helps beetles to digest hard wood

Unintended consequences

The good news: following the global ban on chlorofluorocarbons stratospheric ozone levels are recovering and the ozone hole over the south pole is shrinking... The bad news: this may warm the area and accelerate the melting of the Antarctic ice cap....

Antarctic Warming Recovery of Ozone Hole May Increase