Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Here in the blog we mostly write about things that we find interesting, which is the weather, mainly local and national weather events and records. I also discuss new science developments and space exploration from time-to-time. I often try to find subjects that you will find interesting or something controversial that will generate discussion. Just yesterday I brought up my crusade against Daylight Savings Time and “changing the clocks” and was glad to see someone else commenting some support.
Tony brought up anthropogenic global warming (AGW) yesterday and that almost always generates discussion. Tony mentioned how many more people are talking about AGW nowadays. This is a good thing because it tends to marginalize extreme or illogical viewpoints. When a research study/trend is more widely discussed, the logic and reason of it is more highly scrutinized.
I was reminded of this recently by a report highlighting the fact that the solar cycle does indeed affect winter time temperatures in the northern hemisphere. Changes in the strength of the sun’s cycle would seem to be a logical contributor to changes in the weather and climate here on earth, however, for many years anyone who claimed that changes in the sun could be affecting the climate and possibly contributing to some of the recent warming was derided as a kook, idiot, flat-earther, tool of big oil, and many worse names. It is nice to see that solar cycle changes are now being considered. The further study and inclusion of solar changes should help improve weather and climate forecasts in the future.
The story is similar with cosmic rays and cloud cover. When it was first suggested that changes in cosmic ray intensity could affect cloud cover and the climate on earth, the scientists behind the theory were intellectually berated by many mainstream climatologists and the media by extension. As I have detailed here in the blog, the theory slowly gained traction through experimental verification and now climatologists are actively trying to quantify the effect. Once again, this should help improve the accuracy of future climate forecasts.
Just remember that even if solar cycle changes and cosmic ray intensity have contributed some percentage to recent warming, it does not mean that humans have no effect.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
If you follow the blog, you know that one of my main (constructive) criticisms of AGW theory is the fossil fuel inputs used in the climate models. The amount of fossil fuel that is assumed to be used during the next several decades seems grossly over-estimated. Just this year the REN21 report claims that we already get 20% of our global energy from renewables. This is far, far ahead of what climate modellers expected by 2010. There is not much reason, in my opinion, to expect that renewable energy use will decline dramatically in future years, not to mention decades. There is also the issue of Peak Oil and declining population growth that do not seem to be adequately considered in model projections. The interplay between energy use, energy supply, and population growth are dynamic and self-limiting, not linear or static. James Lovelock famously claimed that the human population will be less than a billion by 2100 (because of AGW). If such a population crash did occur over the next 90 years, I GUARANTEEE humans will be causing a lot less carbon dioxide emissions and fossil fuel usage will decline (quite dramatically most likely). The theorized temperature increase would not materialize to the degree that current projections indicate.
Just based on (optimistic) renewable energy usage and the population leveling off, I ran a simulation where carbon dioxide emissions peaked 2 decades from now and declined the rest of the century. In this scenario (based on one simple model), AGW would be much less than currently theorized.
Further reading on emissions scenarios:
1. Many scenarios displayed graphically here.
2. Discussion of different scenarios. Most with high population growth and energy dominated by hydrocarbons all the way through 2100.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Getting back to population growth, I saw a great headline today: “US Birthrates Decline in Wake of Poor Economy“. As you know, I have recently been arguing against the traditional “growth” measures of economic and societal health/progress. I have seen enough urban sprawl and pollution in this country and elsewhere. Not only are declining birthrates good for the environment, paradoxically (according to mainstream economic thought) they are probably good for the “economy”. Less kids likely means less people needing food stamps, welfare, and other government support.
In other climate news, a new satellite is being proposed that could be a “gold standard” for measuring the radiation balance of the earth-atmosphere system. I think this is a good idea since there has been some controversy regarding satellite observations in the past. The proposed acronym name for the satellite is “TRUTHS”, which is not so great in my view. I understand the idea they are going for with the acronym, but it hints of an ongoing propaganda war.
Also, in an ongoing effort to improve climate models, the carbon balance of the earth continues to be studied. Recent research has suggested that nature, as a whole, probably absorbs more carbon that has been thought in the past.
Have a nice Thursday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.