|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , jeff wrote: Don Klipstein wrote: With me severely snipping to edit for space When you look beyond decades: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...ure_Record.png You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels. I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70% of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing. I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane). http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/2...e-levels-2008/ among others Long term chart: http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_...mosphere.ht m I also see the periodic component, correlating well with AMO. And, I see a periodic component, largely Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. That shows up even better in the most-major other of the surface-based three of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature - namely, HadCRUt3, which goes back to 1850. I don't doubt the cyclic components. We'll see if temps are still rising at the AMO low point, and then the next cycle up will be very problematic. In Fact, Wikipedia used HadCRUt3 until only a couple years ago, then switched to GISS. HadCRUT3 global temperature, UK "Met Office" version, is available at: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3.../global/nh+sh/ Nice. I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted. But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse. BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer" lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring because you are the resident lighting expert... It's going to be gradual. It appears to me that LED technology has historically advanced at roughly 40% of the pace that computer technology did since the late 1970's. That seems to imply a $10 price point in about 7 years and widespread adoption, where CFLs are impractical in about a decade. Jeff - Don Klipstein ) |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
In article , jeff wrote in part:
Don Klipstein wrote: SNIP to here I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70% of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing. I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane). http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/2...e-levels-2008/ among others Long term chart: http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_...centration_in_ atmosphere.htm Your short term chart is a bit of news to me, but shows little more than a decade. Your long term one shows the 20th century increase too scrunched horizontally to show what happened in the last 10-15 years. For an inbetween-scale view, unfortunately endingwith 2004, there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...gas_trends.png Going up to 1780-1790 in the past year or two is disturning, unless there is reason for that bump-up to be a short term temporary one. - Don Klipstein ) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , jeff wrote in part: Don Klipstein wrote: SNIP to here I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70% of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing. I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane). http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/2...e-levels-2008/ among others Long term chart: http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_...centration_in_ atmosphere.htm Your short term chart is a bit of news to me, but shows little more than a decade. Your long term one shows the 20th century increase too scrunched horizontally to show what happened in the last 10-15 years. For an inbetween-scale view, unfortunately endingwith 2004, there is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ma...gas_trends.png Going up to 1780-1790 in the past year or two is disturning, unless there is reason for that bump-up to be a short term temporary one. Apparently, quite a surprise. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0927151132.htm However, during the scientists’ 2007 measurement of methane for northern wetland regions, including the Arctic, temperatures for the year were the warmest on record. This temperature increase coincided with the large jump in the amount of methane measured in that area. Lets hope that is not the dominant reason for the increase. There has been much discussion of whether Global Warming has a negative feedback component, ie one that mitigates against the increase. There is a huge amount of methane locked up in hydrates. And that could be a dangerous positive feedback. What troubles me is that this is warmer than the globe, and particularly the arctic has been for some time. This is uncharted territory, for whatever reasons. The insurance companies, who deal with pricing risk, are certainly concerned. I've been reading some of the related stories on Science Daily, I don't find *anything* there that is comforting. This is not a site I'm familiar. Jeff - Don Klipstein ) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
verve energy | [email protected] | Australia | 0 | September 11th 09 12:38 AM |
Energy gel cost. | someone | Techniques | 42 | July 21st 09 10:56 PM |
Green Energy Summit 2009: Clean Technology, Renewable Energy, andSustainability | Shaguf | Techniques | 0 | November 12th 08 04:45 AM |
Energy Question | [email protected] | Techniques | 10 | August 17th 08 12:45 PM |
en route energy | didds | UK | 15 | May 14th 08 04:33 PM |