Not So Warm as Expected

A few days ago I was walking in downtown Minneapolis against a fierce, hot wind. It was 103 and I enjoyed it. In early June, I was still wearing my jacket back in Aberdeen. I looked at a chart today that showed something interesting. Low daily temperatures here in the Hub City are right along the average line. High temperatures are well below average. I know that that doesn't tell us what the global trends are, but its data, isn't it?

So what is happening globally? Not much. The long term global warming pretty much stalled over the last ten years, according to satellite data. Here's a chart:

That shows that the last decade has been a little warmer than previous decades but doesn't show a rise over the last decade. Just now, things are pretty much normal.

Well, you might have expected this given the downturn in the global economy. The only problem with that is that greenhouse emissions didn't decline as expected. There was a dramatic increase. From the Guardian:

The record leap in global greenhouse gas emissions last year has thrown the spotlight on the world's only concerted attempt to stem the tide of global warming – the United Nations climate negotiations.

Next week, governments will convene in Bonn, Germany, for the latest round of more than 20 years of tortuous talks, aimed at forging a binding international agreement on climate change which so far has eluded them.

I think it is entirely possible that the long term warming trend will continue. I think it possible, but very uncertain, that human activity has some measurable effect on that trend. I think it is very uncertain that these trends will be bad for human beings or the environment in general. Cold is a bigger threat to human life that heat, and CO2 is plant food.

What I am certain about is that no international agreement is going to happen that makes any difference. I am an amateur at best when it comes to "Aqua AMSU data for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes," but I know a lot about "international agreements." I also know something about the global political economy and I know that any real reduction in economic production among the developed world will merely shift production to the developing world. Good thing, that.

Policies intended to affect climate change in Europe and, I dare say, California, are likely to have devastating effects on the relevant economies. They won't slow down global warming by a day or a degree. They will sooner or later provoke a backlash that will not be friendly to the green vision.

A realistic policy would not include sentimental favorites like wind, solar, and biofuels technologies. It would invest heavily in new nuclear technologies and in shale gas production. I know enough not to expect realistic policies to emerge.

Comments

[Going Green]

I say, all the heat was generated during Hopeys days in the
Hood/Community H*ll Raising, Pelosi’s Demonizing of the Right
and the MSM Over-Heated Narrative of the GOP,as well as the
Never Ending Friction of Bush Bashing of over eight years, and
the combined heat, of all the Liberal/Progressive Proxies, that
were Brainstorming Political Attacks!
Just imagine, if all that heat, could of been captured, both from their brains, and especially, from their Non-Stop Protesting mouths,
Hell, there would of been enough heat generated to power the
entirety of North America, for at least 10 Years!!!!(Snark).

[Matthew]

Ken
You often mention shale exploration and FRACing technology as a counter to solar or wind. However, as I'm sure you know, FRACing take large amounts of water to complete. Water being a much more precious resource than oil, where do you suggest we find more water.

You also often tote the efficiency of coal over wind and solar. Though it is true that coal is very efficient, it isn't a contest of efficiency. It is about limiting the amount of greenhouse gases produced. It is true that wind and solar are still in their youth, but wouldn't you agree that more money should be spent on R&D as to improve these technologies?

[Stan Gibilisco]

By all means, let's create an economic environment that encourages private investment in wind, solar, and geothermal energy systems; that encourages new startup companies to get into the business of producing the necessary hardware; that puts enough money into private citizens' pockets so that they can afford the new systems.

[unicorn4711]

Let's assume, for a second, that GHG production by human beings doesn't affect the climate one bit. No matter what we do, the earth is going to heat up or cool down based on factors completely unrelated to us. Then, any international agreement limiting the irrelevant GHG production can be based only on it's effects apart from climate science. Making CO2 emissions more costly, as the EU has done, helps drive them to other places, where CO2 is cheaper. It's always fun to point out that moving manufacturing from developed countries like Germany to developing countries like China doesn't help the environment; if anything, the generally more lax regulatory scheme in developing countries allow for real pollutants to enter the air, water, and land during manufacturing. Under the UNPCCC, even developing countries have responsibilities to limit GHG production, though theirs are differentiated, so I think it is fair to say that even if universally adopted, any resulting climate change treaty would raise the cost of GHG emissions more sharply in the developed world than in the developing world and therefore make the use of GHG's more cost effective in the developing world.

My question, then, if climate change treaties are a scheme to help facilitate the production of goods and therefore the wealth of the world to the developing countries, why is it that countries like China fight against universal adoption whereas Germany favors it? Could it be that by making natural resources such as coal less valuable (due to additional costs incurred through their use) international climate treaties really make innovation, engineering, and intellectual property assets more valuable than they'd otherwise be? I think yes, and this is one reason why I support pushing hard for global climate treaties.I think the long-term effects of a major efforts to reduce GHGs would be great news for US firms. Our brainpower is worth more than our coal and gas.

In the EU, under cap and trade policies that make CO2 emissions more expensive, German engineers generate wealth in the energy sector through the creation of advanced technologies like solar panels or wind turbines that would otherwise be filled by bringing in raw natural resource energy from less developed countries. Then, assuming the US actually does have the capacity to develop advanced technologies in energy generation, doesn't the passage of an international climate treaty give the US advantages in areas it would otherwise be unable to compete? Don't limits on GHGs help the US compete in the energy sector? The US has several natural resources, but others have more. Countries like China will have a harder time replicating the skills of firms of IBM than they will finding equivalent stockpiles of coal to those found in the US.

Even without believing that climate change treaties would help the US more than hurt the US in terms of competitiveness, there must be some major national interest advantage to being more able to produce your energy yourself through a renewable fashion. Even if renewable independence came at the cost of some GDP percentages and efficiency, the resulting stability would have long-term policy advantages.

[Donald Pay]

"CO2 is plant food"...Congratulations, you can quote what passes for 4th grade science. Now it might help to read some real science.

[Donald Pay]

Your graph above comes from Roy Spencer, who doesn't have the best reputation in the climate sciences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: yes, if "doesn't have the best reputation in the climate sciences" means that he doesn't follow the party line. My line about CO2 being plant food contained an important point. A warmer world may be bad for us, but that doesn't mean it will be bad for the environment. Some creatures will fail and others will thrive. Sorry that I went over your head again.

[Ken Blanchard]

Unicorn: You seem to think that we ought to sign and meet the standards of global climate treaties even if they are unnecessary. That strikes me as bizarre. Investing brainpower in a useless task doesn't benefit anyone. As for renewables, they only benefit us if they benefit us, that is, produce more energy than they consume. Right now they don't. Even in the best case scenario, the ones we have now will never be more than marginal. Some, like Ethanol, do a great deal of environmental and social damage.

[Ken Blanchard]

Matthew: every power source requires the investment of resources. We will see if the water supply is a problem. Wind and solar don't reduce greenhouse gas production. They just shift it around. I am all for investment in new technologies, and I am optimistic that wind and solar can play a marginal role. Big wind farms and solar arrays are insane.

[Donald Pay]

No, KB, you when you said "CO2 is plant food" that is not the same as saying "some creatures will fail and others will thrive." And just saying "some creatures will fail and others will thrive" is trite and meaningless. Spencer's real problem is that he does really bad science.

[Stan Gibilisco]

"Could it be that by making natural resources such as coal less valuable (due to additional costs incurred through their use) international climate treaties really make innovation, engineering, and intellectual property assets more valuable than they'd otherwise be?"

I don't know, Unicorn. If we make everyone pay more to heat their homes and power-up their appliances by the means currently available, then everyone will have less money to spend on anything else -- including innovation, engineering, and intellectual property assets.

So people and companies will spend less on innovation, engineering, and intellectual property assets, and more on coal (because it will cost more); or, perhaps, they'll simply opt to freeze in the dark.

Americans have never liked the idea of being forced to do this or that or the other thing by large, powerful institutions of any kind.

[Ken Blanchard]

Donald: No, saying the one thing is not saying the other, unless you are capable of thinking it through.

[George Mason]

KB; CO2 is not just plant food it is essential to survival of plant life and all life on the planet. Green plants respire CO2 and convert it to Carbon for cell production and growth and emit O2 which keeps all animal life alive. If you increase the concentration of CO2 you will increase the growth rate of green plants which will convert the CO2 and maintain the O2 concentration in the earths atmosphere. One of natures immutable laws is that "Nature always seeks balance." That is something scientists understand and the cult of global warming seeks to ignore.

[Jimi]

Donald,

"Spencer's real problem is that he does really bad science."

Are you disputing the data used to make the temperature timeline above?

[Donald Pay]

The graph indicates an upward trend in temperature over time, so I'm not sure how anyone can purport this graph is some sort of "stalling" of global warming.

[Stan Gibilisco]

George, I can think of some exceptions to the rule "Nature always seeks balance." Or maybe I should say, an amendment: "Sometimes She fails."

One can imagine a scenario where the world got so warm, as a result of CO2 in the atmosphere, that a mass plant die-off took place, and the planet spiraled toward a Venus-like climate. I don't mean to suggest that we're in danger of any such thing, at least not yet, but ...

Water vapor constitues a less well-known but nevertheless significant greenhouse gas. As the world warms, more water vapor enters the atmosphere as a result of evaporation; this causes further warming. The trend in that case is not toward balance, but away from it.

In the long term, Nature might succeed in balancing the effects of global warming (whether human-caused or not) by increasing precipitation in the polar regions, thereby building glaciers that would ultimately expand into the temperate latitudes, as they have done numerous times in the past few hundred million years. The irony: global warming could bring about an ice age! Well, in that case, the law of balance would gain its revenge, at least. And we would no longer have to worry so much about overheating this poor old Earth of ours.

Donald, you are right, that graph does show an upward trend over the last three decades. However, one might argue that natural cycles could take place with periods far longer than that. I don't claim to know how much effect human activity has on climate change, although I suspect it does have an effect.

[Bill Fleming]

You guys might want to keep an eye on this page.
http://theconversation.edu.au/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808

[Jimi]

Stan,

"although I suspect it does have an effect."

Why? There is no scientific evidence to support that thinking?

[duggersd]

Uh-oh. It appears some other unreliable scientists such as those at NASA are predicting a cool spell.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

[Stan Gibilisco]

Jimi,

My "suspicion" is a gut feeling, a hunch, that's all. Not really scientific! Certainly not enough to make me support crippling our economy in an attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.