Saturday, June 21, 2008
Carbon dioxide and temperature diverge
Recognizing all the variability, volatility, and gumflappery in the measurement of temperature, global temperature has now been unchanged, net, for eleven years, notwithstanding the continuing rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide. How long will this have to go on before it becomes an inconvenient truth?
Of course, AGW activists will say that current temperatures are still well above the "base" period, but there is obviously a great deal of reasonable doubt around both the selection of the base period and whether the measurement of temperatures then was being done in the same way as it is today. Even if we grant the valid selection and measurement of the base period, though, what does this hiatus say about the value of the models that predict the catastrophes that are supposed to come if we do not spend all our efforts in a war on CO2?
5 Comments:
By 
Alexis, at
Sat Jun 21, 10:57:00 AM:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By 
, at
Sat Jun 21, 10:59:00 AM:
It's "fake but accurate". When you have faith, who needs data?
By Alexis, at
Sat Jun 21, 10:59:00 AM:
Don't forget about global dimming. PBS recently put on a documentary about it.
Although I am concerned about climate change, I am less concerned about global warming than I am about shifts in the sugar to starch ratio in plants due to higher CO2 levels. If we can't trust the basic properties (such as flavor) of the foods we eat, I think that would be a real problem.
I do think we need to stop CO2 emissions, and I am deeply skeptical about any "carbon sequestration" that relies upon underground storage of CO2 instead of chemical bonding. Instead, it should be possible to promote geothermal energy in old played-out mines. There is plenty of heat in the Earth; gigantic Stirling engines could be used to generate electricity from that heat.
I think one of the principal problems in energy is that the high volatility in energy prices ensures that energy corporations are averse to risk, preferring that capital outlays for research and development come from government instead of private industry. Even oil discovery has changed in the last thirty years. There was a time when oil companies hired geologists for oil exploration. Now, the big corporations expect governments and universities to do the exploration and then tell the oil business where the oil is in the Oil & Gas Journal. Local governments practically beg the majors to drill in their backyards and do what they can to ensure that the majors incur no risk at all. The days of the independent oil prospector are long gone, put out of business by $8/barrel oil twenty years ago.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Sat Jun 21, 09:17:00 PM:
The carbon-climate relationship is complicated; more complicated than we thought, apparently. Activists more interested in advocacy than science have oversold their case and now have credibility problems.
There still might be a problem, and we should continue to be cautious. But this time, let's be data-driven.
By , at
Mon Jun 23, 08:54:00 AM:
Token right wing military guy's comments.
I call bullshit. Global Warming is caused by this thing called the Sun. I realize much of the Academy hates America and is pissed the Wall crumbled but really, people...
Do you really want to wreck the American economy? I mean what kind of jobs are available for sociologists in a depression era labor market?
the Colonel
